Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
Suzanne
> On Aug 2, 10:33 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 2, 5:55 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 23:44:40 -0400, Gregory A Greenman wrote
> > > (in article <MPG.24dec76db2610ecb989...@news.newsguy.com>):
>
> > > > On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:47:43 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > >> J.J. O'Shea <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > > >>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:08:23 -0400, J. J. Lodder wrote
> > > >>> (in article <1j3qbwv.at0uxq11d3t...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
>
> > > >>>> J.J. O'Shea <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:46:39 -0400, J. J. Lodder wrote
> > > >>>>> (in article <1j3q6ob.7psxfs14gwz...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
>
> > > >>>>>> When it came to the crunch Von Braun chose the right side,
> > > >>>>>> that is, against Himmler and the SS. (and suffered the consequences)
> > > >>>>>> This makes nonsense of any claim that he must have been a baddie
> > > >>>>>> just because he held an SS rank.
>
> > > >>>>> I'd feel so much more confidence in your analysis if only you could point
> > > >>>>> out exactly when Churchill 'put a stop' to the bombing of Germany. Any
> > > >>>>> word as to when you might post supporting info on that?
>
> > > >>>> If time permits. Nagging doesn't help.
>
> > > >>> You will _never_ support it.
>
> > > >> Quite possible. There are always other things.
> > > >> I may come back to it. (if time permits)
>
> > > > Why not just concede the point and move on? A major reason why I
> > > > don't respect Suzanne is because she keeps arguing for positions
> > > > that have been thoroughly refuted. Andre, OTOH, made a minor
> > > > mistake in one of his posts, I corrected him and he accepted the
> > > > correction and moved on. Nothing wrong with that. We all make
> > > > mistakes.
>
> > > It seems that Lodder doesn't. At least none that he'll admit to.
>
> > > >>>> I understand you admit defeat on the issue
> > > >>>> of Von Braun being an SS officer with the power
> > > >>>> to give orders to those running Mittelwerk?
>
> > > >>> You understand incorrectly. A sturmbanfuhrer could have ordered the guards
> > > >>> to stand aside... if he had wanted to.
>
> > > >> A real one, perhaps. (but see below)
> > > >> Not a merely honorary one like Von Braun.
>
> > > > I'm no expert on this subject, but I'm thinking that if WvB saw a
> > > > guard beating a worker and he told the guard to stop, the guard
> > > > would have complied whether WvB was a real officer, an honorary
> > > > officer or just a plain civilian. I'm sure the guards knew that WvB
> > > > was a pretty important rocket scientist and that his work was the
> > > > whole reason they were there.
>
> > > Oh, yeah.
>
> > > > The more important question, as far
> > > > as I am concerned, is would it have made any difference? I suspect
> > > > that if WvB had told a guard to stop, that as soon as a higher
> > > > ranking Nazi found out, he would have shot the worker, told the
> > > > guards to ignore any pleas for mercy for workers from WvB and told
> > > > WvB to mind his own business. Further, WvB would likely have been
> > > > labeled a Jew-lover.
>
> > > Not necessarily. A little investigation would have shown that this particular
> > > Jew-lover was not only a very important person who had been with the SS-VT
> > > since 1934 but was on the (not very long) list of people that der Fuhrer
> > > himself regarded as being vital to the war effort. The word would go out to
> > > indulge him about his pets... right up until doing that got in the way of
> > > something more important. IOW, the workers would be safe, until _after_ the
> > > V-2 launch sites were overrun. At that point, well, they're pretty much all
> > > dead and von Braun had best watch his back.
>
> > > But we'll never know 'cause he didn't lift a finger.
>
> > > > Now, if I'm right, does this exonerate WvB? Well, if that's the
> > > > extent of his involvement in the mistreatment of prisoners, just
> > > > that he knew of it, even if by directly witnessing it, I think it
> > > > does. On the other hand, if he was complicit, then that's a
> > > > different matter. I don't know if he was or wasn't.
>
> > > Oh, he was complicit, alright.
>
> > There was nothing to exonerate about Dr. V.B. because
> > he was never convicted. There is also no proof at all that
> > he was ever cruel to prisoners, and there is not even any
> > proof that he didn't like Jews, either. If he was in charge
> > at all of the workers, it would make more sense that he
> > would want them taken care of well so that they could
> > produce the rockets. But I don't think he wanted to
> > produce rockets and that his reluctance to even do that
> > is what landed him in jail.
>
> > Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You _do_ know that many thousands of prisoners were worked to death
> all over the Reich? Well, of course you do but you will lie about it
> anyhow.
>
> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
Harry, don't lie about me. I've reported that Wernher Von Braun,
himself said that much. Hitler caused their deaths, just like he
did everyone that died in the concentration camps. We've seen
the piles of bodies. Hitler is the one that created the concentration
camps. Hitler is the one that ordered the people captured and put
in them. Hitler is the one who decided that the V-2 was ready to
be used as a missile, even though it still had flaws as a rocket to
lift off and go to space. Hitler is the one that in the last six
months
of the war drove everyone at an insane pace in his desparation
to not be defeated to turn out the rockets he used as missiles.
>
I want to ask you something, Harry. Have you ever heard of a war
being over and then the people that won taking cannon, or gun,
or bazooka, or machine gun, or rife, or grenade, or infrared
manufacturers and prosecuting them as war criminals? The only
difference here is that Hitler ordered the prisoners to do the work.
>
Suzanne
>
Ye Old One
people tend to leave the lies up to you.
> I've reported that Wernher Von Braun,
>himself said that much.
The word of a war criminal is not really trusted.
>Hitler caused their deaths,
He did have ultimate responsibility - but by your logic he is innocent
because he did not stand trial in a court of law.
> just like he
>did everyone that died in the concentration camps. We've seen
>the piles of bodies. Hitler is the one that created the concentration
>camps.
Well, no, but he did authorize them.
> Hitler is the one that ordered the people captured and put
>in them. Hitler is the one who decided that the V-2 was ready to
>be used as a missile,
After WvB and his team had designed it for the purpose of killing
civilians.
> even though it still had flaws as a rocket to
>lift off and go to space.
It was never designed for that.
>Hitler is the one that in the last six
>months
>of the war drove everyone at an insane pace in his desparation
>to not be defeated to turn out the rockets he used as missiles.
But he was NOT the person who actually did those things. WvB was one
of the many people who did.
>>
>I want to ask you something, Harry. Have you ever heard of a war
>being over and then the people that won taking cannon, or gun,
>or bazooka, or machine gun, or rife, or grenade, or infrared
>manufacturers and prosecuting them as war criminals?
Yes.
>The only
>difference here is that Hitler ordered the prisoners to do the work.
He was the leader. He had a hell of a lot of people who followed him
willingly - WvB was one of them.
>>
>Suzanne
>>
--
Bob.
Gregory A Greenman
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> <leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
> >lift off and go to space.=20
>
> It was never designed for that.
Actually, I believe the V-2 was the first man made object in space.
It just wasn't designed to stay there.
"Versions of the A4 [the previous name of the V-2] included the
first ballistic missile, the first projectile to reach space, and
were actively used in warfare."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_series#A4_.28V-2_rocket.29
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
richardal...@googlemail.com
I have no idea what you think you gain by droning on about Wehrner von
Braun.
He wasn't an evolutionary biologist.
He was an engineer.
He may have believed in a creator God, but then so do many
evolutionary biologists. Bearing in mind the religiosity of USAians,
you have no way of knowing if he declared any such beliefs because he
believed them, or if he did so cynically for political reasons. You
have no evidence whatsoever that he believed in a literal
interpretation of the Bible, and even if you did it would have no
bearing whatsoever on the validity of evolutionary theory.
In science, issues are resolved on the basis of evidence and argument,
not the religious beliefs (or lack of them) of scientists. It is a
measure of the lack of support for creationism that they drag religion
into what they claim to be an issue of science at the drop of a hat.
RF
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:03:38 GMT, Ye Old One wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> <leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>> > even though it [the V-2 rocket] still had flaws as a rocket to
>> >lift off and go to space.=20
>>
>> It was never designed for that.
>
>
>Actually, I believe the V-2 was the first man made object in space.
>It just wasn't designed to stay there.
Using the definition of "space" as being 62 miles then yes,
>
>"Versions of the A4 [the previous name of the V-2] included the
>first ballistic missile, the first projectile to reach space, and
>were actively used in warfare."
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_series#A4_.28V-2_rocket.29
--
Bob.
J. J. Lodder
> On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:03:38 GMT, Ye Old One wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> > <leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >
> >
> > > even though it [the V-2 rocket] still had flaws as a rocket to
> > >lift off and go to space.=20
> >
> > It was never designed for that.
>
>
> Actually, I believe the V-2 was the first man made object in space.
> It just wasn't designed to stay there.
>
> "Versions of the A4 [the previous name of the V-2] included the
> first ballistic missile, the first projectile to reach space, and
> were actively used in warfare."
With a bit more overhyping Hanna Reitsch
was the world's first astronaut,
with a suborbital V1 'rocket' test flight
to 80.000 feet.
(and speaking of true nazis:
she refused to join Von Braun's team in the USA
and felt that the only crime that any German
could be accused of was the crime of losing the war)
Jan
Andre Lieven
> Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:03:38 GMT, Ye Old One wrote:
> > > On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> > > <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> > > > even though it [the V-2 rocket] still had flaws as a rocket to
> > > >lift off and go to space.=20
>
> > > It was never designed for that.
>
> > Actually, I believe the V-2 was the first man made object in space.
> > It just wasn't designed to stay there.
>
> > "Versions of the A4 [the previous name of the V-2] included the
> > first ballistic missile, the first projectile to reach space, and
> > were actively used in warfare."
>
> With a bit more overhyping Hanna Reitsch
> was the world's first astronaut,
> with a suborbital V1 'rocket' test flight
> to 80.000 feet.
The use of the term "sub-orbital" with regard to a vehicle
that cannot break the sound barrier, and limited to an
altitude of 80,000 feet is gilding the lily, to say the least.
In which case, one should refer to the Concorde as
being "sub-orbital", it even flew faster than a V-1...
> (and speaking of true nazis:
> she refused to join Von Braun's team in the USA
> and felt that the only crime that any German
> could be accused of was the crime of losing the war)
Not very clear on the concept of a war of *aggression*,
was she ? That alone makes her judgement meaningless
and self serving.
Andre
Wombat
> Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:03:38 GMT, Ye Old One wrote:
> > > On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> > > <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> > > > even though it [the V-2 rocket] still had flaws as a rocket to
> > > >lift off and go to space.=20
>
> > > It was never designed for that.
>
> > Actually, I believe the V-2 was the first man made object in space.
> > It just wasn't designed to stay there.
>
> > "Versions of the A4 [the previous name of the V-2] included the
> > first ballistic missile, the first projectile to reach space, and
> > were actively used in warfare."
>
> With a bit more overhyping Hanna Reitsch
> was the world's first astronaut,
> with a suborbital V1 'rocket' test flight
> to 80.000 feet.
Do you have a reference for that assertion, please?
Wombat
J. J. Lodder
> On 5 Aug, 12:42, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:03:38 GMT, Ye Old One wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> > > > <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >
> > > > > even though it [the V-2 rocket] still had flaws as a rocket to
> > > > >lift off and go to space.=20
> >
> > > > It was never designed for that.
> >
> > > Actually, I believe the V-2 was the first man made object in space.
> > > It just wasn't designed to stay there.
> >
> > > "Versions of the A4 [the previous name of the V-2] included the
> > > first ballistic missile, the first projectile to reach space, and
> > > were actively used in warfare."
> >
> > With a bit more overhyping Hanna Reitsch
> > was the world's first astronaut,
> > with a suborbital V1 'rocket' test flight
> > to 80.000 feet.
>
> Do you have a reference for that assertion, please?
It surprised me greatly too,
but "hanna reitsch" suborbital
throws up many references.
While there seems little doubt
that she actually test flew a V1.
Details of that flight are hard to find.
(the manned V1 was called the Fieseler Reichenberg)
Her main contribution seems to have been
to find a way to land it safely.
(after several others got killed trying it)
Her taking it up to 80,000 feet may well be an urban legend.
Hanna Reitsch fine-tuning the V1 before operational use
seems to be a Hollywood myth to.
Jan
Andre Lieven
> Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> > On 5 Aug, 12:42, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
>
> > > > On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:03:38 GMT, Ye Old One wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> > > > > <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> > > > > > even though it [the V-2 rocket] still had flaws as a rocket to
> > > > > >lift off and go to space.=20
>
> > > > > It was never designed for that.
>
> > > > Actually, I believe the V-2 was the first man made object in space.
> > > > It just wasn't designed to stay there.
>
> > > > "Versions of the A4 [the previous name of the V-2] included the
> > > > first ballistic missile, the first projectile to reach space, and
> > > > were actively used in warfare."
>
> > > With a bit more overhyping Hanna Reitsch
> > > was the world's first astronaut,
> > > with a suborbital V1 'rocket' test flight
> > > to 80.000 feet.
>
> > Do you have a reference for that assertion, please?
>
> It surprised me greatly too,
> but "hanna reitsch" suborbital
> throws up many references.
"The Internet; where "many" is believed to be the same as
"accurate"...
> While there seems little doubt
> that she actually test flew a V1.
> Details of that flight are hard to find.
> (the manned V1 was called the Fieseler Reichenberg)
> Her main contribution seems to have been
> to find a way to land it safely.
> (after several others got killed trying it)
>
> Her taking it up to 80,000 feet may well be an urban legend.
> Hanna Reitsch fine-tuning the V1 before operational use
> seems to be a Hollywood myth to.
So, IOW, you made a claim that even you now admit was
MADE UP... ?
Got it; That tells me a lot about your credibility...
Andre
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<b73dcf98-47a8-4bf9...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
This is not a new thing for him.
>
> Got it; That tells me a lot about your credibility...
He's got credibility?
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<4b3c32c5-8b14-4a36...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>):
> On 5 Aug, 12:42, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>> Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:03:38 GMT, Ye Old One wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>>>> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>>> even though it [the V-2 rocket] still had flaws as a rocket to
>>>>> lift off and go to space.=20
>>
>>>> It was never designed for that.
>>
>>> Actually, I believe the V-2 was the first man made object in space.
>>> It just wasn't designed to stay there.
>>
>>> "Versions of the A4 [the previous name of the V-2] included the
>>> first ballistic missile, the first projectile to reach space, and
>>> were actively used in warfare."
>>
>> With a bit more overhyping Hanna Reitsch
>> was the world's first astronaut,
>> with a suborbital V1 'rocket' test flight
>> to 80.000 feet.
>
> Do you have a reference for that assertion, please?
Of course he doesn't.
Wombat
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:48:58 -0400, Wombat wrote
> (in article
Just thought I'd see. Since the SR-71 made a record altitude flight
of 85,135 feet in July 1976 I would have thought that no one, not even
our Dutch friend, could entertain for a second that a subsonic
primitive pulse jet without pressurisation could reach those
altitudes.
Wombat
J. J. Lodder
On second thought the claim may be based
on a confusion between he V1
and the Me 163 rocket plane (Komet)
which she also flew.
It is obvious that a V1 couldn't go that high.
If it could have gone higher it would have,
and it wouldn't have been intercepted by Spitfires
or shot down by radar-controlled guns.
> > While there seems little doubt
> > that she actually test flew a V1.
> > Details of that flight are hard to find.
> > (the manned V1 was called the Fieseler Reichenberg)
> > Her main contribution seems to have been
> > to find a way to land it safely.
> > (after several others got killed trying it)
> >
> > Her taking it up to 80,000 feet may well be an urban legend.
> > Hanna Reitsch fine-tuning the V1 before operational use
> > seems to be a Hollywood myth to.
>
> So, IOW, you made a claim that even you now admit was
> MADE UP... ?
What part of 'overhyping' don't you understand?
I made it clear right from the start
that I don't think the claim credible.
Jan
Wombat
The Me 163 couldn't get that high either.
Wombat
J. J. Lodder
AFAIK it isn't known how high the Me 163 could have gone.
Pilots were supposed to level off at about 10 km.
(there was no pressure cabin)
At that point the plane was still in a steep climb,
with a lot of fuel left,
and it could no doubt have gone much higher.
No one seems to have been foolish enough to try.
I've seen no record of Hanna's three powered flights
with it, beyond there having been three.
Jan
Wombat
How much fuel was left? Just enough for several passes at the bombers
as designed.
With no pressure cabin, how much higher could it have gone with a
functioning pilot. Do you really like that pain in your foot?
Instead of making unsupported assertions, why not try (for the first
time) to back up your wet dreams.
Thinking of wet, the remains of one of HMS Victoria's sister ships was
found just up river from the Thames Barrier. The baulks of timber
were massive.
Wombat
J. J. Lodder
Early models had 7.5 minutes burn time,
later improved to 12.
Since it took only 3 minutes to go up
(climb at about 60 m/s)
that left about 9 minutes of powered flight
while shooting at bombers.
OTOH continuing the climb for another 9 minutes,
followed by ballistic flight,
would have taken it -much- higher.
> With no pressure cabin, how much higher could it have gone with a
> functioning pilot. Do you really like that pain in your foot?
Operational ceiling is given as 12 km.
Without pressure cabin a pilot going higher
could only hope to recover conciousness in time
for a safe landing.
(assuming the plane to have been stable by itself in the meantime)
Not even Hanna was that foolhardy.
> Instead of making unsupported assertions, why not try (for the first
> time) to back up your wet dreams.
I found a possible source for the confusion.
The Me 163C prototype (which did have a pressure cabin)
was renamed to Me 263 V1
It didn't get beyond gliding tests though,
and never achieved powered flight.
The Me 263 V2 remained a mock-up only.
> Thinking of wet, the remains of one of HMS Victoria's sister ships was
> found just up river from the Thames Barrier. The baulks of timber
> were massive.
Of course, she must have been a wooden ship
with structural iron reinforcements.
We'll see.
Will she be salvaged?
Jan
harry k
Care to put that last paragraph into something resembling English?
Hitler may have ordered it but the people using the slave labor were
the ones complicit in working them to death on starvation rations.
That includes your St. WvB. He was a war criminal and all you
handwaving and outright lies will not change that.
Hawrry K
J. J. Lodder
> On Aug 5, 6:42 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:03:38 GMT, Ye Old One wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> > > > <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >
> > > > > even though it [the V-2 rocket] still had flaws as a rocket to
> > > > >lift off and go to space.=20
> >
> > > > It was never designed for that.
> >
> > > Actually, I believe the V-2 was the first man made object in space.
> > > It just wasn't designed to stay there.
> >
> > > "Versions of the A4 [the previous name of the V-2] included the
> > > first ballistic missile, the first projectile to reach space, and
> > > were actively used in warfare."
> >
> > With a bit more overhyping Hanna Reitsch
> > was the world's first astronaut,
> > with a suborbital V1 'rocket' test flight
> > to 80.000 feet.
>
> The use of the term "sub-orbital" with regard to a vehicle
> that cannot break the sound barrier, and limited to an
> altitude of 80,000 feet is gilding the lily, to say the least.
There may be a confusion here with the Messerschmidt rocket planes.
Anyway, I just like to know where the myth came from.
> In which case, one should refer to the Concorde as
> being "sub-orbital", it even flew faster than a V-1...
I agree that air-breathers cannot be sub orbital.
> > (and speaking of true nazis:
> > she refused to join Von Braun's team in the USA
> > and felt that the only crime that any German
> > could be accused of was the crime of losing the war)
>
> Not very clear on the concept of a war of *aggression*,
> was she ? That alone makes her judgement meaningless
> and self serving.
A bad case of 'right or wrong, my country',
a mentality which is of course completely unknown
in other parts of the world.
Jan
Suzanne
> On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:03:38 GMT, Ye Old One wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> > <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> > > even though it [the V-2 rocket] still had flaws as a rocket to
> > >lift off and go to space.=20
>
> > It was never designed for that.
>
> Actually, I believe the V-2 was the first man made object in space.
> It just wasn't designed to stay there.
>
> "Versions of the A4 [the previous name of the V-2] included the
> first ballistic missile, the first projectile to reach space, and
> were actively used in warfare."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_series#A4_.28V-2_rocket.29
>
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
Having been designed, from the outset, as a ballistic missile to
deliver a one ton warhead to civilian targets.
--
Bob.
Suzanne
takes a side and another person defends the
opposite side. And people choose to defend
which ever side they wish.
>
> He wasn't an evolutionary biologist.
> He was an engineer.
>
biologist. And yes, he sure was an engineer,
and had a degree in mechanical engineer to
show for it. He also was a scientist, according
to the school curriculum, as they had made
rocket engineers be a form of science, since
there is a great deal of experimentation that
has to go on in that field. He had a double
degree and his Ph.D. was in Physics which is
a science, and which he also used in his work.
He was also had the National Science Medal
conferred upon him.
>
> He may have believed in a creator God, but then so do many
> evolutionary biologists.
>
in his life.
>
> Bearing in mind the religiosity of USAians,
> you have no way of knowing if he declared any such beliefs because he
> believed them, or if he did so cynically for political reasons.
>
Jesus' death on the cross as the payment for his
sins, and he said that he felt that a great burden
had been lifted from him. An engineer had asked
him if he wanted to receive Christ as his Savior,
and he led him in a prayer to do that. The engineer
had experienced this, himself, prior to this. After
this, he was seen reading the Bible by workers. If
a rocket would go up, he would pray that it would
have success. He then gave his personal testimony
at churches in America about how he had received
Christ and was now trusting in him with his life, and
for his salvation to go to heaven when he died. He
also told people that they should read the Bible and
accept the words in it as coming from the Lord. He
said that people should accept the Bible on faith,
and that it is from the Lord to help them.
>
> You
> have no evidence whatsoever that he believed in a literal
> interpretation of the Bible, and even if you did it would have no
> bearing whatsoever on the validity of evolutionary theory.
>
Bible and accepts it on faith. He did not seem to be a
fan of evolution, but he was of science and he said that
people should continue with science, but some of the
things in evolution, he felt were very wrong. His idea that
he told to people is that people should have both science
and the Bible, that there is a place for each.
>
> In science, issues are resolved on the basis of evidence and argument,
> not the religious beliefs (or lack of them) of scientists. It is a
> measure of the lack of support for creationism that they drag religion
> into what they claim to be an issue of science at the drop of a hat.
>
we were not talking about religion, but about the
nazis, Von Braun, the V-2, the forced laborers,
the concentration camps, what constitutes a
war criminal, the war crimes tribunals, whether
or not the V-2 is a weapon or a space rocket, or
both, the fact that London was bombed, NASA
and the space program, where the first field
center of NASA was, etc. You've brought up
these subjects that I have addressed in this
post. If you read what Talk Origins talks about,
religion is one of those things. Many people
see science and religion as overlapping one
another. Bringing up any kind of religious
subject has nothing to do with your idea that
creationism is not popular. It is popular, and it
is a subject that likely would be discussed
along side of evolution.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
Andre, I have some information for you about
NASA if you remember that we were discussing.
Do you remember that we were discussing that
Marshall Space Flight Center was called on the
MSFC website, "the first field center" of NASA?
I was thinking it might have something to do
with it's having civilians brought into it? Well, I
researched it and found out that is what seems
to be the reason. Remember that I had said that
it was forming during the first two years and you
had spoken about Langley and others being
added immediately after it was voted on by
Congress to come into existence and called
NASA? You were reasoning that Langley
already was a field center and that it was older,
(which you were correct about) than Marshall Space Flight Center,
which it was of course, since MSFC
was not set up until 1960, two years after NASA
was voted on to come into existence. But here's
the information that will explain why Marshall is considered to be the
first field center of NASA:
>
First, let me tell you one thing. Kruschev and
Eisenhower were both at a point where the
realized how awful it would be if we each had
rockets, in the case that one of us made a
mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
had later gotten to this point where he realized
the terrible things they possessed. Both of
these leaders were military leaders and that
helped them to see that peaceful coexistence
was what they needed to have with regard to
the ownership of rockets. Now, I'll continue...
>
In 1958, Eisenhower organized NASA to be
formed and as a civilian agency. It passed in
Congress and the reorganization began.
---------------------------------
(Statement about NASA's policy and purpose:)
"Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America,
we hereby declare that it is the policy of the
United States that activities in space should be
devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind. The
Congress further declares that space activity shall be directed by a
civilian agency, and
shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to
the expansion of human knowledge."
(End of NASA statement)
-------------------------------
To insure that NASA was controlled by civilians,
Eisenhower moved funding for all manned space
programs from the military to NASA. In time,
there was a plan to set up the Redstone Arsenal
and the Huntsville Arsenal in the state of Alabama,
to become the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
Wernher Von Braun and his German scientist team
had already been at that location for some time,
working for the Army, and they seemed to want to
stay with the Army. At first V.B. refused the
position, but Eisenhower made it plain to him that
if he remained with the Army, he and the team
would probably all be split up from each other.
Rather than see them all split up, Von Braun
accepted the offer to be the head of MSFC and
the team reamed with him as well, of course. They
then transferred from military to civilian right away,
and Eisenhower got his wish, and his reorganization
of NASA was completed when the former
Redstone Arsenal became the brand new civilian
agency called NASA Marshall Space Flight Center,
whereupon it became the first civilian field center.
>
This is also mentioned in a documentary that is on
the History Channel this month called "Sputnik Mania."
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
That has to be a first.
>it might have something to do
>with it's having civilians brought into it? Well, I
>researched it and found out that is what seems
>to be the reason.
Nope. Nothing to do with it at all.
> Remember that I had said that
>it was forming during the first two years and you
>had spoken about Langley and others being
>added immediately after it was voted on by
>Congress to come into existence and called
>NASA? You were reasoning that Langley
>already was a field center and that it was older,
That is the fact.
You do spout some rubbish.
The reality is that the MSFC was the first new field centre set up
after the transfer of the NACA to NASA. It in no way changed the
status of existing field centres at places like Langley.
The NACA was not a military organization though many of its facilities
were military. WvB became a member of the Special Committee on Space
Technology which the NACA formed in late 1957. This committee's role
was given the mandate to coordinate various branches of the Federal
government, private companies as well as universities within the
United States with NACA's objectives and also harness their expertise
in order to develop a space program. In many ways this is seen as the
real birth of NASA.
The Airforce and Navy facilities involved in rocket research were
transferred to the new NASA from day one. However, because of the
complexity of the Huntsville set up and blocking moves by the Army,
who always considered rockets to be their domain, it took nearly two
years to reorganize the Army's facilities into the MSFC which was then
handed to NASA. Most, but not all, of the Army's rocket research
workers were passed to NASA at the same time.
>>
>This is also mentioned in a documentary that is on
>the History Channel this month called "Sputnik Mania."
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
It would work far better if you stopped lying and started learning.
>>
>> He wasn't an evolutionary biologist.
>> He was an engineer.
>>
>Absolutely right, he was not an evolutionary
>biologist. And yes, he sure was an engineer,
>and had a degree in mechanical engineer to
>show for it. He also was a scientist,
Your error was corrected a long time ago.
>according
>to the school curriculum, as they had made
>rocket engineers be a form of science, since
>there is a great deal of experimentation that
>has to go on in that field. He had a double
>degree and his Ph.D. was in Physics which is
>a science, and which he also used in his work.
>He was also had the National Science Medal
>conferred upon him.
>>
>> He may have believed in a creator God, but then so do many
>> evolutionary biologists.
>>
>He was not always a Christian.
Liar!
> That came later
>in his life.
>>
>> Bearing in mind the religiosity of USAians,
>> you have no way of knowing if he declared any such beliefs because he
>> believed them, or if he did so cynically for political reasons.
>>
>I do have a way of knowing. He literally accepted
>Jesus' death on the cross as the payment for his
>sins, and he said that he felt that a great burden
>had been lifted from him. An engineer had asked
>him if he wanted to receive Christ as his Savior,
>and he led him in a prayer to do that. The engineer
>had experienced this, himself, prior to this. After
>this, he was seen reading the Bible by workers. If
>a rocket would go up, he would pray that it would
>have success. He then gave his personal testimony
>at churches in America about how he had received
>Christ and was now trusting in him with his life, and
>for his salvation to go to heaven when he died. He
>also told people that they should read the Bible and
>accept the words in it as coming from the Lord. He
>said that people should accept the Bible on faith,
>and that it is from the Lord to help them.
From your description (if true) it looks like he had a mental
breakdown.
>>
>> You
>> have no evidence whatsoever that he believed in a literal
>> interpretation of the Bible, and even if you did it would have no
>> bearing whatsoever on the validity of evolutionary theory.
>>
>Yes, he has written things saying that he believes the
>Bible and accepts it on faith. He did not seem to be a
>fan of evolution, but he was of science and he said that
>people should continue with science, but some of the
>things in evolution, he felt were very wrong. His idea that
>he told to people is that people should have both science
>and the Bible, that there is a place for each.
Yes there is, science in the present and the bible in the dark ages.
>>
>> In science, issues are resolved on the basis of evidence and argument,
>> not the religious beliefs (or lack of them) of scientists. It is a
>> measure of the lack of support for creationism that they drag religion
>> into what they claim to be an issue of science at the drop of a hat.
>>
>Well, in these posts that you are responding to,
>we were not talking about religion, but about the
>nazis, Von Braun, the V-2, the forced laborers,
>the concentration camps, what constitutes a
>war criminal, the war crimes tribunals, whether
>or not the V-2 is a weapon or a space rocket, or
>both, the fact that London was bombed, NASA
>and the space program, where the first field
>center of NASA was, etc. You've brought up
>these subjects that I have addressed in this
>post. If you read what Talk Origins talks about,
>religion is one of those things. Many people
>see science and religion as overlapping one
>another. Bringing up any kind of religious
>subject has nothing to do with your idea that
>creationism is not popular. It is popular, and it
>is a subject that likely would be discussed
>along side of evolution.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:30:11 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
civilian agency, not a military agency, and to show that
is true, I included excerpts from the National Aeronautics
and Space administrations's act of 1958 as proof.
carrying out of that act.
Suzanne
up watching the Perseid Meteor display last night
(and tonight) that we could not see because of a
cloud cover?
>
>
> >> He wasn't an evolutionary biologist.
> >> He was an engineer.
>
> >Absolutely right, he was not an evolutionary
> >biologist. And yes, he sure was an engineer,
> >and had a degree in mechanical engineer to
> >show for it. He also was a scientist,
>
> Your error was corrected a long time ago.
>
double degree...that he had a Master's degree
in Mechanical Englneering, and a Ph.D. degree
in Physics, and that he was both an engineer,
as well as being a scientist.
>
>
> >according
> >to the school curriculum, as they had made
> >rocket engineers be a form of science, since
> >there is a great deal of experimentation that
> >has to go on in that field. He had a double
> >degree and his Ph.D. was in Physics which is
> >a science, and which he also used in his work.
> >He was also had the National Science Medal
> >conferred upon him.
>
> >> He may have believed in a creator God, but then so do many
> >> evolutionary biologists.
>
> >He was not always a Christian.
>
> Liar!
>
---------------------------------
In 1962, an engineer led Dr. von Braun to Christ using a Gideon Bible.
Upon praying to repent of sin and receive Christ, the eminent rocket
scientist confessed that he felt like a great burden had been lifted
off him. He became a fervent Christian, and prayed for the success of
his launches. As Apollo 11 lifted off the pad, he was found reciting
the Lord's Prayer. Never pushy about his faith, he spoke openly about
it when asked. In 1972, he wrote to the California school board to
argue for inclusion of non-evolutionary views in science classes.
Popular magazine articles by von Braun discussed science's dependence
on Christian faith.
>
http://www.icr.org/articles/print/3770/
---------------------------------
>
> > That came later
> >in his life.
>
> >> Bearing in mind the religiosity of USAians,
> >> you have no way of knowing if he declared any such beliefs because he
> >> believed them, or if he did so cynically for political reasons.
>
> >I do have a way of knowing. He literally accepted
> >Jesus' death on the cross as the payment for his
> >sins, and he said that he felt that a great burden
> >had been lifted from him. An engineer had asked
> >him if he wanted to receive Christ as his Savior,
> >and he led him in a prayer to do that. The engineer
> >had experienced this, himself, prior to this. After
> >this, he was seen reading the Bible by workers. If
> >a rocket would go up, he would pray that it would
> >have success. He then gave his personal testimony
> >at churches in America about how he had received
> >Christ and was now trusting in him with his life, and
> >for his salvation to go to heaven when he died. He
> >also told people that they should read the Bible and
> >accept the words in it as coming from the Lord. He
> >said that people should accept the Bible on faith,
> >and that it is from the Lord to help them.
>
> From your description (if true) it looks like he had a mental
> breakdown.
>
had a heart meltdown...
I promise you it is true, that did become a
Christian later. When I met him before this
happened, I asked him if he had given his life
to Christ and he was astonished that I cared. I will
never, ever forget his reply. He said,
"Young woman...No one has ever, ever cared,
not in my whole life, whether I stayed out of Hell!"
(He called me "young woman" because it is an
exact translation of the way that an older
person would address a younger woman in
the German language as "Maedchen," which
he would have been accostomed to using.)
>
Well, I cared a great deal, but it was the Lord's
prompting me in my heart, saying that he
wanted me to ask him the question that caused
me to do that, because I was also at that age
very shy of speaking, especially to such a famous
person, and asking him a bold question. You may
not understand this, Bob, but the Holy Spirit was
prompting all this and he was seeking WVB to
trust him as his savior and Lord. Simultaneously
when I spoke to him, the Lord was working in his
heart. The whole thing was the Lord, not me, in
other words. I didn't ask him to do this, but he
promised me that he was considering what I had
asked him, very seriously, and that he was going
to get a Bible and read what it says about "this
Jesus that you love so much," he said. He added
"I will keep this promise and you remember this,
because I never make a promise that I do not
intend to keep." I'm sure I'm not the only person
that cared about him accepting the Lord, and
there were probably many others who prayed
for him, especially probably in his own family,
but it's through an inner experience that a person
can know that the Lord is seeking them, and
through this they know that he is real.
>
> >> You
> >> have no evidence whatsoever that he believed in a literal
> >> interpretation of the Bible, and even if you did it would have no
> >> bearing whatsoever on the validity of evolutionary theory.
>
> >Yes, he has written things saying that he believes the
> >Bible and accepts it on faith. He did not seem to be a
> >fan of evolution, but he was of science and he said that
> >people should continue with science, but some of the
> >things in evolution, he felt were very wrong. His idea that
> >he told to people is that people should have both science
> >and the Bible, that there is a place for each.
>
>
Andre Lieven
All meaningless twaddle, none of which mitigates against
your record of willful LIES about MSFC being "NASA's
first field center", which it WASN'T, and about your claim
that VB was the "head of NASA", which he WASN'T.
Further, my knowledge about the space program and it's
actual history is so far PAST TV documentaries, that your
claim of that as a source is laughable.
But, since YOU are laughable, it is at least... consistent.
Oh, and Russian chap's name is spelled Khrushchev. Duh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev
Andre
TomS
<1ce11c17-de93-4070...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andre
Lieven stated..."
>
>On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
[...snip...]
>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
>> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
>> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
>> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
[...snip...]
How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
Ye Old One
No, it hasn't.
>NASA was set up to be a
>civilian agency, not a military agency,
Same as its predecessor, the NACA.
What you spout is rubbish.
>>
>> The reality is that the MSFC was the first new field centre set up
>> after the transfer of the NACA to NASA. It in no way changed the
>> status of existing field centres at places like Langley.
>>
>> The NACA was not a military organization though many of its facilities
>> were military. WvB became a member of the Special Committee on Space
>> Technology which the NACA formed in late 1957. This committee's role
>> was given the mandate to coordinate various branches of the Federal
>> government, private companies as well as universities within the
>> United States with NACA's objectives and also harness their expertise
>> in order to develop a space program. In many ways this is seen as the
>> real birth of NASA.
>>
>> The Airforce and Navy facilities involved in rocket research were
>> transferred to the new NASA from day one. However, because of the
>> complexity of the Huntsville set up and blocking moves by the Army,
>> who always considered rockets to be their domain, it took nearly two
>> years to reorganize the Army's facilities into the MSFC which was then
>> handed to NASA. Most, but not all, of the Army's rocket research
>> workers were passed to NASA at the same time.
>>
>> >This is also mentioned in a documentary that is on
>> >the History Channel this month called "Sputnik Mania."
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>"On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
><1ce11c17-de93-4070...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andre
>Lieven stated..."
>>
>>On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
>[...snip...]
>>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
>>> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
>>> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
>>> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>[...snip...]
>
>How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
>the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
>Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>
>How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
I doubt you would get anyone backing her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
--
Bob.
alextangent
> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
I'll raise you a rocket scientist and another feeble excuse from
Suzanne about not actually being there but seeing it on TV. Which she
couldn't have; it wasn't recorded. Incidentally, the quote "We will
bury you!" and the shoe banging incident were two events separated by
4 years and several thousand miles. Ah, the wonders of a creationist
mind.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 12, 3:23 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:32:31 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 5, 3:33 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>> ><richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Aug 5, 12:16 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Aug 3, 11:15 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
[snip]
>>
>> >> I have no idea what you think you gain by droning on about Wehrner von
>> >> Braun.
>>
>> >Droning on? This is called a debate. One person
>> >takes a side and another person defends the
>> >opposite side. And people choose to defend
>> >which ever side they wish.
>>
>> It would work far better if you stopped lying and started learning.
>>
>Don't you ever sleep over in England?
Oh yes, and very well. Could be because I have a clean conscience
because I don't constantly lie.
>Or were you
>up watching the Perseid Meteor display last night
>(and tonight) that we could not see because of a
>cloud cover?
There you go again, trying to change the subject.
>>
>>
>> >> He wasn't an evolutionary biologist.
>> >> He was an engineer.
>>
>> >Absolutely right, he was not an evolutionary
>> >biologist. And yes, he sure was an engineer,
>> >and had a degree in mechanical engineer to
>> >show for it. He also was a scientist,
>>
>> Your error was corrected a long time ago.
>>
>I did not make an error, Bob,
Liar!
> I said that he had a
>double degree...that he had a Master's degree
>in Mechanical Englneering, and a Ph.D. degree
>in Physics, and that he was both an engineer,
>as well as being a scientist.
No, he was NOT a scientist. He was a rocket engineer. Your error was
corrected many times. To continue your claim shows your dishonesty.
>>
>>
>> >according
>> >to the school curriculum, as they had made
>> >rocket engineers be a form of science, since
>> >there is a great deal of experimentation that
>> >has to go on in that field. He had a double
>> >degree and his Ph.D. was in Physics which is
>> >a science, and which he also used in his work.
>> >He was also had the National Science Medal
>> >conferred upon him.
>>
>> >> He may have believed in a creator God, but then so do many
>> >> evolutionary biologists.
>>
>> >He was not always a Christian.
>>
>> Liar!
>>
>No, Bob, I am not lying. Here is the account:
He was born and raised a christian.
Wow! What pumped his blood after that?
>I promise you it is true, that did become a
>Christian later.
He was, as far as records show, a christian all his life. He was born
to Lutheran parents, raised Lutheran and confirmed Lutheran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_(Lutheran_Church).
> When I met him before this
>happened, I asked him if he had given his life
>to Christ and he was astonished that I cared.
You really are a lying arsehole.
> I will
>never, ever forget his reply. He said,
>"Young woman...No one has ever, ever cared,
>not in my whole life, whether I stayed out of Hell!"
>(He called me "young woman" because it is an
>exact translation of the way that an older
>person would address a younger woman in
>the German language as "Maedchen," which
>he would have been accostomed to using.)
>>
>Well, I cared a great deal, but it was the Lord's
>prompting me in my heart,
Again the blood pump thing - you are a moron.
>saying that he
>wanted me to ask him the question that caused
>me to do that, because I was also at that age
>very shy of speaking, especially to such a famous
>person, and asking him a bold question. You may
>not understand this, Bob, but the Holy Spirit was
>prompting all this and he was seeking WVB to
>trust him as his savior and Lord.
Totally harpic.
>Simultaneously
>when I spoke to him, the Lord was working in his
>heart.
Hearts pump blood - it is not good talking to them. Couples with that
a fictional character doesn't talk - except to nutters.
[snip more abject stupidity.]
--
Bob.
Andre Lieven
> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> Lieven stated..."
>
> >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> [...snip...]
>
> How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
Not me...
> Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
No, since the statement and the shoe incident happened about
4 years apart.
12 Oct 1960 for the shoe incident:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
18 Nov 1956 for the "we will bury you" statement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you
Once again, Suzanne maintains a perfect record of being
WRONG on matters of fact.
> How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
I'd go with Out and Out Lies for $500, Alex...
Andre
harry k
Wanna bet that she will insist she is right?...or at least refuse to
admit she is wrong...cancel that last, of course she will.
Harry K
Suzanne
> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> Lieven stated..."
>
>
>
> >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> [...snip...]
>
> How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
the UN. We all saw it on TV.
>
> Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>
> How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>
1960 - At the United Nations, Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev went
ballistic, taking off his shoe and pounding it on his desk! The UN
Assembly President, Frederick Boland, was so irritated that he split
his gavel trying to reestablish order.
www.440.com/twtd/archives/oct12.html - 15k
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
>
The man speaking was a delegate from the Philippines,
by the name of Lorenzo Sumulong. You can read the
account in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Sumulong#Faceoff_with_Khruschev
>
I looked for a video for you to see the event, which
you know would have to have been made from a
kinescope recording, probably, and many of those
have dissolved over time. But I can show you the
photo of him raising the shoe over his head and
yelling in a speech. It is the first photo, and that is
not him speaking, that is someone else speaking
while you see the first photo of Khruschev. Then
the other voice you hear is a translator who is
translating some words of Khruschev's. The shoe
that he is holding up looks like a loafer sort of
shoe in this photo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xv7z5h7yBQ
If this link does not open up for you, go to you tube
and type in "Khruschev Speech in the UN" without
quotes and you will get it with this exact title. The
photo, by the way, appears to be blurry a little
where the shoe is, like he is moving it.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:05:51 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
> >NASA was set up to be a
> >civilian agency, not a military agency,
>
> Same as its predecessor, the NACA.
>
"To insure that NASA was controlled by civilians,
Eisenhower moved funding for all manned space
programs from the military to NASA."
couple of exceptions and that would be things such
as if we had to suddenly go to war. This civilian
part was not complete until Marshall was set up.
It is the first field center run by civilians.
>
Suzanne
>
>
>
>
> >> The reality is that the MSFC was the first new field centre set up
> >> after the transfer of the NACA to NASA. It in no way changed the
> >> status of existing field centres at places like Langley.
>
> >> The NACA was not a military organization though many of its facilities
> >> were military. WvB became a member of the Special Committee on Space
> >> Technology which the NACA formed in late 1957. This committee's role
> >> was given the mandate to coordinate various branches of the Federal
> >> government, private companies as well as universities within the
> >> United States with NACA's objectives and also harness their expertise
> >> in order to develop a space program. In many ways this is seen as the
> >> real birth of NASA.
>
> >> The Airforce and Navy facilities involved in rocket research were
> >> transferred to the new NASA from day one. However, because of the
> >> complexity of the Huntsville set up and blocking moves by the Army,
> >> who always considered rockets to be their domain, it took nearly two
> >> years to reorganize the Army's facilities into the MSFC which was then
> >> handed to NASA. Most, but not all, of the Army's rocket research
> >> workers were passed to NASA at the same time.
>
> >> >This is also mentioned in a documentary that is on
> >> >the History Channel this month called "Sputnik Mania."
>
> >Suzanne
>
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ye Old One
You really are hard work to educate.
>This is what made it very different. There were a
>couple of exceptions and that would be things such
>as if we had to suddenly go to war. This civilian
>part was not complete until Marshall was set up.
The MSFC had nothing to do with completeness or lack of.
>It is the first field center run by civilians.
No it wasn't. Its only claim to fame, and that is a somewhat
artificial one, is that it was the first new centre set up after the
formation of NASA.
No, I wish you didn't keep spouting so much rubbish.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 12, 2:28 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
>> <1ce11c17-de93-4070-b2b6-75d177535...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andre
>> Lieven stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>>
>> [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
>> >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
>> >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
>> >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>>
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
>> the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>>
>I said I saw it when it happened, but I was not at
>the UN. We all saw it on TV.
Well, no, it wasn't. TV did not broadcast live from the General
Assembly of the UN.
You may have seen it later, but you lie when you claim you saw it as
it happened.
>>
>> Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>>
>> How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>>
>It happened, Tom:
>1960 - At the United Nations, Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev went
>ballistic, taking off his shoe and pounding it on his desk! The UN
>Assembly President, Frederick Boland, was so irritated that he split
>his gavel trying to reestablish order.
>www.440.com/twtd/archives/oct12.html - 15k
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
>>
>The man speaking was a delegate from the Philippines,
>by the name of Lorenzo Sumulong. You can read the
>account in Wikipedia:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Sumulong#Faceoff_with_Khruschev
>>
>I looked for a video for you to see the event, which
>you know would have to have been made from a
>kinescope recording, probably, and many of those
>have dissolved over time.
What the hell are you talking about you moron?
> But I can show you the
>photo of him raising the shoe over his head and
>yelling in a speech. It is the first photo, and that is
>not him speaking, that is someone else speaking
>while you see the first photo of Khruschev. Then
>the other voice you hear is a translator who is
>translating some words of Khruschev's.
You do manage to get everything wrong.
> The shoe
>that he is holding up looks like a loafer sort of
>shoe in this photo.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xv7z5h7yBQ
>If this link does not open up for you, go to you tube
>and type in "Khruschev Speech in the UN" without
>quotes and you will get it with this exact title. The
>photo, by the way, appears to be blurry a little
>where the shoe is, like he is moving it.
I do hope you will now educate yourself on what really happened.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> Lieven stated..."
>
>
>
> >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> [...snip...]
>
> How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
> Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>
> How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>
while talking, and I can't be sure if they are the same
incident, since he put his shoe in his right hand and
waved it at the person he was speaking to just like
when he waved his hand without the shoe. He was
photographed with a shoe on the table, and he
also was photographed raising his arm high with
a shoe in it at a lecturn. Nevertheless, I did see
both things. He also pounded the table with both
of his fists, as did also the people with him from
Russia. I don't want to tell you wrong. I will ask
my mother. If she remembers it, she'll probably
remember the details, what they were all wearing
and how many children each person had, where
they are from and what they had for lunch that day,
what kind of car they each drove, and what kind
of tires they had. : )
>
Tom, be nice.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
Oh be quiet you big bag of wind. You said it never
happened at all. Now all of a sudden you are an
authority.
>
Suzanne
alextangent
I did? Where?
You're showing your true colours. Puce.
Suzanne
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:58:22 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
degree. I think he thinks he never used it in his work.
>
> >> >according
> >> >to the school curriculum, as they had made
> >> >rocket engineers be a form of science, since
> >> >there is a great deal of experimentation that
> >> >has to go on in that field. He had a double
> >> >degree and his Ph.D. was in Physics which is
> >> >a science, and which he also used in his work.
> >> >He was also had the National Science Medal
> >> >conferred upon him.
>
> >> >> He may have believed in a creator God, but then so do many
> >> >> evolutionary biologists.
>
> >> >He was not always a Christian.
>
> >> Liar!
>
> >No, Bob, I am not lying. Here is the account:
>
> He was born and raised a christian.
>
Christian. You can't be born a baby that is
already a Christian. It's a decision that you
have to make, according to the Bible,
brilliance.
membership in a church! You become a Christian
if you put your trust in Jesus Christ. A church
didn't get up on the cross and die for you.
>
> > When I met him before this
> >happened, I asked him if he had given his life
> >to Christ and he was astonished that I cared.
>
> You really are a lying arsehole.
>
>
>
Suzanne
alextangent
Nice is better than truthful? Since when did lying become a standard
part of the christian armoury?
Suzanne, you're a bucket of half digested information topped off with
a pile of bible claptrap. Finding it difficult to digest, you feel
obliged to vomit it up here as "da troof, I tells yer. Ask me mammy!".
Sheesh. Godbotting seems to do this to everyone I've met so far, both
in life and on the intertubes.
alextangent
> On Aug 12, 4:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
<snipped>
>
> > You really are a lying arsehole.
>
> Bob, you think everyone lies to you.
>
> Suzanne
You do. With monotonous regularity.
Suzanne
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 12, 2:28 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >> <1ce11c17-de93-4070-b2b6-75d177535...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andre
> >> Lieven stated..."
>
> >> >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> >> [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> >> >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> >> >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> >> >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> >> [...snip...]
>
> >> How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> >> the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
> >I said I saw it when it happened, but I was not at
> >the UN. We all saw it on TV.
>
> Well, no, it wasn't. TV did not broadcast live from the General
> Assembly of the UN.
>
>
> You may have seen it later, but you lie when you claim you saw it as
> it happened.
>
>
> >> Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>
> >> How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>
> >It happened, Tom:
> >1960 - At the United Nations, Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev went
> >ballistic, taking off his shoe and pounding it on his desk! The UN
> >Assembly President, Frederick Boland, was so irritated that he split
> >his gavel trying to reestablish order.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
>
> >The man speaking was a delegate from the Philippines,
> >by the name of Lorenzo Sumulong. You can read the
> >account in Wikipedia:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Sumulong#Faceoff_with_Khruschev
>
> >I looked for a video for you to see the event, which
> >you know would have to have been made from a
> >kinescope recording, probably, and many of those
> >have dissolved over time.
>
> What the hell are you talking about you moron?
>
this post what you don't know.
>
> > But I can show you the
> >photo of him raising the shoe over his head and
> >yelling in a speech. It is the first photo, and that is
> >not him speaking, that is someone else speaking
> >while you see the first photo of Khruschev. Then
> >the other voice you hear is a translator who is
> >translating some words of Khruschev's.
>
> You do manage to get everything wrong.
>
> > The shoe
> >that he is holding up looks like a loafer sort of
> >shoe in this photo.
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xv7z5h7yBQ
> >If this link does not open up for you, go to you tube
> >and type in "Khruschev Speech in the UN" without
> >quotes and you will get it with this exact title. The
> >photo, by the way, appears to be blurry a little
> >where the shoe is, like he is moving it.
>
> I do hope you will now educate yourself on what really happened.
>
that in the 50's an 60's that we didn't have live
TV? I think it's you that needs an education.
>
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
I'm kidding you, Alex. I just thought I'd
get you going before you said anything
at all. No, of course you didn't say
anything yet.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
you a few posts back.
>
Suzanne
Burkhard
>>
> You can't get anything straight. Do you really think
> that in the 50's an 60's that we didn't have live
> TV? I think it's you that needs an education.
>>
> Suzanne
>
There was life TV in the 50's and 60's. But not everything that happened
was transmitted life. As far as I know, this event wasn't - which is why
historians debate whether it actually happened, and eyewitnesses
disagree about it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/26/opinion/26iht-edtaubman_ed3_.html
No film footage was found. Doesn't mean that there wasn't any, nor tat
it wasn't transmitted, but if it had been, there would be no need to ask
people who were actually there.
Suzanne
saw them on TV, but I probably am not right
that it was in only one incident. If you all prove
that is two separate incidences, then that's fine
with me. I do remember his right hand thrashing
both times, though, when he was angry, and
I also remember him pounding his fist on the
table more than once.
>
These were televised live and everyone saw it
as it was happening.
>
>
Suzanne
TomS
<b0bb820f-a354-4af0...@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Suzanne
stated..."
>
>On Aug 13, 1:55=A0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 12, 2:28=A0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
>ndre
>> >> Lieven stated..."
>>
>> >> >On Aug 12, 2:30=3DA0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>> >the other voice you hear is a translator who is
>> >translating some words of Khruschev's.
>>
>> You do manage to get everything wrong.
>>
>> > The shoe
>> >that he is holding up looks like a loafer sort of
>> >shoe in this photo.
>> >If this link does not open up for you, go to you tube
>> >and type in "Khruschev Speech in the UN" without
>> >quotes and you will get it with this exact title. The
>> >photo, by the way, appears to be blurry a little
>> >where the shoe is, like he is moving it.
>>
>> I do hope you will now educate yourself on what really happened.
>>
>You can't get anything straight. Do you really think
>that in the 50's an 60's that we didn't have live
>TV? I think it's you that needs an education.
>>
>>
>Suzanne
>
This is an example of why people get irritated when trying to
discuss something with Suzanne.
alextangent
You are only covering up for your own embarassment; you don't care
about me, only you and that voice in your head. Your exaggeration and
inflation of your importance and your accuracy as a witness and
interpreter of the scientific and historical record is only exceeded
by your stupidity in thinking that I require or need an apology.
Be gone, gollum. Take your black coated bible and its festering
cesspool of lies with you.
Ye Old One
Now look here you lying shit bag. Your exact words were:-
[quote]
...a few years earlier, Kruschev had said at the UN "We will bury
you," while shaking his shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!)
[end quote]
Message-ID:
<f621f7c2-5cfc-4b1e...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
Do you deny you made that claim?
Well, first off his name was Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, that would
have been an easy thing for you to check. Second, as others have
pointed out, the phrase "we will bury you" was made on the 18th
November 1956 while the shoe banging event was 12th October 1960.
Finally, nobody, least of all a two-bit lying arsewipe like you, "saw
that as it happened" unless they were present in the main hall of the
General Assembly of the UN in New York.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
No it was not.
>and everyone saw it
>as it was happening.
No they did not.
>>
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
alextangent
> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
Discussion is not an option. Suzanne is so out of touch that finding
points to reflect on in her distorting mirror that have the same
coordinates in reality is impossible.
I mean, look at this latest crazyness. I'm with YOO on this one; I
call "liar!" because getting S to recognise that she's imagining large
chunks of her life isn't possible. The fact that the roots of this
problem are caused by her addiction to religion doesn't seem to have
crossed what's left of her mind either. Either that, or she hits the
bottle.
There. Got that off my chest.
Ye Old One
>On Aug 12, 2:28 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
>> <1ce11c17-de93-4070-b2b6-75d177535...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andre
>> Lieven stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>>
>> [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
>> >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
>> >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
>> >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>>
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
>> the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>>
>I said I saw it when it happened, but I was not at
>the UN. We all saw it on TV.
On the news, maybe. Live, certainly not.
[snip more stupidity.]
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
No, you are not.
>but I probably am not right
>that it was in only one incident. If you all prove
>that is two separate incidences, then that's fine
>with me. I do remember his right hand thrashing
>both times, though, when he was angry, and
>I also remember him pounding his fist on the
>table more than once.
>>
>These were televised live and everyone saw it
>as it was happening.
No, wrong as usual.
>>
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
TomS
<ecb337f6-d51d-4081...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, alextangent
stated..."
>
>On Aug 13, 11:38=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
>nne
>> stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 13, 1:55=3DA0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >> >> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
>, A=3D
>> >ndre
>> >> >> Lieven stated..."
>>
>> >> >> >On Aug 12, 2:30=3D3DA0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>> >> >the other voice you hear is a translator who is
>> >> >translating some words of Khruschev's.
>>
>> >> You do manage to get everything wrong.
>>
>> >> > The shoe
>> >> >that he is holding up looks like a loafer sort of
>> >> >shoe in this photo.
>> >> >If this link does not open up for you, go to you tube
>> >> >and type in "Khruschev Speech in the UN" without
>> >> >quotes and you will get it with this exact title. The
>> >> >photo, by the way, appears to be blurry a little
>> >> >where the shoe is, like he is moving it.
>>
>> >> I do hope you will now educate yourself on what really happened.
>>
>> >You can't get anything straight. Do you really think
>> >that in the 50's an 60's that we didn't have live
>> >TV? I think it's you that needs an education.
>>
>> >Suzanne
>>
>> This is an example of why people get irritated when trying to
>> discuss something with Suzanne.
>>
>> --
>> ---Tom S.
>."
>> Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
>> DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
>
>Discussion is not an option. Suzanne is so out of touch that finding
>points to reflect on in her distorting mirror that have the same
>coordinates in reality is impossible.
>
>I mean, look at this latest crazyness. I'm with YOO on this one; I
>call "liar!" because getting S to recognise that she's imagining large
>chunks of her life isn't possible. The fact that the roots of this
>problem are caused by her addiction to religion doesn't seem to have
>crossed what's left of her mind either. Either that, or she hits the
>bottle.
>
>There. Got that off my chest.
>
I can imagine someone getting away with this kind of behavior for
decades before the 'net. Can you imagine talking to her about
anything in the 1970s, when she couldn't be confronted with a
permanent record of what had just been said? That was a viable
tactic in the 1970s, but it doesn't work any more.
I admit that I am gloating, for I have had so many experiences
with people who used that tactic. I am glad to see it exposed.
Ye Old One
Nobody has ever claimed he didn't. However, he was throughout his
working life, an engineer.
> I think he thinks he never used it in his work.
>>
>> >> >according
>> >> >to the school curriculum, as they had made
>> >> >rocket engineers be a form of science, since
>> >> >there is a great deal of experimentation that
>> >> >has to go on in that field. He had a double
>> >> >degree and his Ph.D. was in Physics which is
>> >> >a science, and which he also used in his work.
>> >> >He was also had the National Science Medal
>> >> >conferred upon him.
>>
>> >> >> He may have believed in a creator God, but then so do many
>> >> >> evolutionary biologists.
>>
>> >> >He was not always a Christian.
>>
>> >> Liar!
>>
>> >No, Bob, I am not lying. Here is the account:
>>
>> He was born and raised a christian.
>>
>Silly, you are ignorant of how to become a
>Christian.
No, you are just very selective about your definition - one that is
not shared by the majority of christians.
> You can't be born a baby that is
>already a Christian.
Of course you can.
> It's a decision that you
>have to make, according to the Bible,
>brilliance.
The vast majority of christians totally disagree with you.
Duh!
>You become a Christian
>if you put your trust in Jesus Christ. A church
>didn't get up on the cross and die for you.
Nor did JC, except in fiction.
>>
>> > When I met him before this
>> >happened, I asked him if he had given his life
>> >to Christ and he was astonished that I cared.
>>
>> You really are a lying arsehole.
>>
>>
>Bob, you think everyone lies to you.
Far from it. Most people are very honest. However, you and a lot of
other creationists are very dishonest.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
alextangent
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not even then. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-carlson/protesters-use-your-shoes_b_174708.html.
It's only one data point, but an extensive google search reveals that
a lot of people have looked for -- and failed to find -- even an
adequate still photo of the event, far short of a film or TV event.
<quote>
Khrushchev ruled the Soviet Union for a decade and nearly touched off
a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But ask most Americans
about him and what they remember is the banging of the shoe. The
incident is so famous that many people swear they saw it on TV.
Actually, the shoe-banging was never captured by any camera, although
there is a photo of the shoe sitting on Khrushchev's desk after he
stopped pounding it.
"In each of my lectures, they ask about the shoe," Sergei Khrushchev
-- Nikita's son, who now teaches at Brown University -- told me when I
interviewed him for K Blows Top, my forthcoming book on Khrushchev's
misadventures in America. "I say, 'Please raise your hand if you saw
it' and many people raise their hands. They really think they saw it."
</quote>
Ye Old One
Typical, try to change the subject rather than face up to reality.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
Damn. Noone took me up on that bet. Of course, knowing you, it was a
sucker bet anyhow.
"Wanna bet that she will insist she is right?...or at least refuse to
admit she is wrong...cancel that last, of course she will".
Harry K
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why, just this once, can you not simply say "I was mistaken, I thought
I remembered seeing it live". It won't kill you and would restore at
least a smidgeon of reputation. Your memory has let you done
constantly, you should learn not to trust it when it is proven wrong.
I admit that had I been asked if I saw it live, I would have said yes
until I recalled that I was out of the country with no TV at the time.
Harry K
harry k
> On Aug 12, 4:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>
<snip>
>
> > > I said that he had a
> > >double degree...that he had a Master's degree
> > >in Mechanical Englneering, and a Ph.D. degree
> > >in Physics, and that he was both an engineer,
> > >as well as being a scientist.
>
> > No, he was NOT a scientist. He was a rocket engineer. Your error was
> > corrected many times. To continue your claim shows your dishonesty.
>
> Little YOO can't get by the fact that he had a Physics
> degree. I think he thinks he never used it in his work.
>
>
<snip>
Everyone knows he had two degrees by now. How many he had and what
they were in is immaterial. What counts is 'What did he do' - answer
- he worked as an engineer, not a scientist.
That is the point that you refuse to see.
Harry K
John S. Wilkins
My guess is she'll claim that it actually was televised in her town
alone. So she saw it, but nobody else did.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
alextangent
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
That'll be the town that theology built; Nazareth. It never existed.
Andre Lieven
Well, I cheated... I read through to the end of the postings up
to right now, so I saw quite clearly Suzanne's insane insistences
that she is right, and the facts be damned.
Though, since that is what she always does, none of that was a
surprise...
Andre
Suzanne
> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
people get mad at Bob, Ye Ole YOO. It could also
mean that if most people in here agree with you, then
you probably ran off many others.
>
Suzanne
alextangent
Tell us another story, Miss Mitty. I can't wait.
Ye Old One
Who is getting mad at me?
Whereas everyone seems to be getting mad at you.
> It could also
>mean that if most people in here agree with you, then
>you probably ran off many others.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Klaus Hellnick
I thought the "We will bury you" quote was a mistranslation. I seem to
recall that the context was a conversation about which economic system
would collapse first and Khrushchev's words were better translated as
"We will attend your funeral.".
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Aug 13, 9:57�am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 12, 2:28�pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
>> > <1ce11c17-de93-4070-b2b6-75d177535...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andre
>> > Lieven stated..."
>>
>> > >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>>
>> > [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
>> > >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
>> > >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
>> > >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>>
>> > [...snip...]
>>
>> > How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
>> > the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>>
>> > Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>>
>> > How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>>
>> I saw both of these, but he always waved his hand
>> while talking, and I can't be sure if they are the same
>> incident, since he put his shoe in his right hand and
>> waved it at the person he was speaking to just like
>> when he waved his hand without the shoe. He was
>> photographed with a shoe on the table, and he
>> also was photographed raising his arm high with
>> a shoe in it at a lecturn. Nevertheless, I did see
>> both things. He also pounded the table with both
>> of his fists, as did also the people with him from
>> Russia. �I don't want to tell you wrong. I will ask
>> my mother. If she remembers it, she'll probably
>> remember the details, what they were all wearing
>> and how many children each person had, where
>> they are from and what they had for lunch that day,
>> what kind of car they each drove, and what kind
>> of tires they had. : )
>>
>> Tom, be nice.
>>
>> Suzanne
>
>Nice is better than truthful? Since when did lying become a standard
>part of the christian armoury?
Since some Christians took up arms against reality.
>
>Suzanne, you're a bucket of half digested information topped off with
>a pile of bible claptrap. Finding it difficult to digest, you feel
>obliged to vomit it up here as "da troof, I tells yer. Ask me mammy!".
>Sheesh. Godbotting seems to do this to everyone I've met so far, both
>in life and on the intertubes.
Free Lunch
<khel...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in talk.origins:
Which is one meaning of 'we will bury you' in English.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Though I'm guessing the sense was more like "we'll piss on your grave."
alextangent
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:34:14 -0700 (PDT), alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com>
Alms to arms. How sad.
>
>
>
> >Suzanne, you're a bucket of half digested information topped off with
> >a pile of bible claptrap. Finding it difficult to digest, you feel
> >obliged to vomit it up here as "da troof, I tells yer. Ask me mammy!".
> >Sheesh. Godbotting seems to do this to everyone I've met so far, both
> >in life and on the intertubes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ralph Page
<leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 12, 3:48 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:05:51 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 12, 3:13 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:30:11 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Aug 5, 9:15 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> >> >> On Aug 5, 6:42 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:03:38 GMT, Ye Old One wrote:
>> >> >> > > > On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> >> >> > > > <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
<snipping>
>>
>> >NASA was set up to be a
>> >civilian agency, not a military agency,
>>
>> Same as its predecessor, the NACA.
>>
>No, you did not listen very well.
> "To insure that NASA was controlled by civilians,
> Eisenhower moved funding for all manned space
> programs from the military to NASA."
>This is what made it very different. There were a
>couple of exceptions and that would be things such
>as if we had to suddenly go to war. This civilian
>part was not complete until Marshall was set up.
>It is the first field center run by civilians.
What in the text you cited indicates that the NACA employees at the
various sites that were intact when NACA became NASA in 1958 were
actually not performing work for NASA until MSFC became part of NASA
in '60?
I couldn't find anything.
Further, NASA reports pre-1960 activities on their website:
http://www.nasa.gov/50th/timeline.html
They note that on Oct 7 1958 NASA announced Project Mercury.
The Mercury astronauts Corp. were 'unveiled' on April 9, 1959.
I'd say that's pretty good evidence that NASA was quite active and
functional prior to MSFC admittance, don't you think?
Since you modified your claim that WVB was the head of NASA, to a
claim that NASA was basically just holding the occasional
administrative meeting etc. until MSFC was incorporated and thus WVB
was the 'head of NASA' since nothing really happened prior to that is
not consistent with the facts we get from NASA.
BTW, as 'Head of NASA' who do you think WVB reported to? Do you think
he somehow bypassed the NASA administrator? (just asking, I have no
idea)
<more snips>
josephus
I was not there and did not see it live, but I did see a film clip of
him shouting and pounding his table with a shoe. he was speaking
Russian. there was NO TRANSLATION. and it was on one of the major news
programs. MR. K was always NEWS.
josephus
--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter,
"Everybody is ignorant but on different subjects"
--Will Rogers
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
its what you know that aint so.
--josh billings.
josephus
English to Russian and Russian back to English.
the input was "The spirit was willing but the flesh is weak."
the return translation was "the wine was good but the meat was bad."
the similarities of language founder on idioms.
Ye Old One
Russian is not the easiest of languages to translate. According to
Wikipedia the real translation of what he said should have been
"Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will dig you
in".
In 1963 Khrushchev himself remarked in his speech in Yugoslavia, "I
once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of
course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will
bury you," [4] a reference to the Marxist saying, "The proletariat is
the undertaker of capitalism"; a popular articulation of the
materialist conception of history as the inevitable progression of
class struggle towards communism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you
If only Suzanne would learn to check things before posting she would
not end up looking quite so stupid.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Actually, no you didn't. Sadly it is a false memory.
> he was speaking
>Russian. there was NO TRANSLATION. and it was on one of the major news
>programs. MR. K was always NEWS.
>
>josephus
This is an interesting list from
http://www.filmarchivesonline.com/fun.shtml - see item 7.
[quote]
Did We Say 'Any'?
Our slogan may read "Any Shot, Any Time, Any Way," but occasionally
even we get stopped in our diligent research tracks by news footage
inquiries that are a little, well, far fetched. Herewith, we present
--
FILM Archives' Top 10 Most Requested Shots
That Simply Don't Exist!
10. From the world of heavyweight boxing: Cassius Clay versus Mohammed
Ali (he is one and the same sports personality).
9. Civil War footage (there were no film cameras in 1865; the first
movie cameras appeared around 1898).
8. Audiences wearing 3D glasses in 1950s movie theaters (to the best
of our knowledge only still photos of this scene exist).
7. An angry (former Soviet Premier) Nikita Khrushchev at a United
Nations conference in the early 1960s slamming his shoe on the desk in
front of him to make his point (the actual footage shows him banging
his fist—the cameras may not have captured the shoe slam, if indeed
there was one.)
6. Footage of Abraham Lincoln's assassination (see number 9).
5. Eliot Ness arresting Al Capone (Ness never arrested Capone).
4. 1912 Titanic disaster footage in the North Atlantic (there are only
re-creations).
3. Workers constructing the Brooklyn Bridge (that was in the late
1800s—before motion picture cameras came on the scene).
2. Any 20th Century U.S. President appearing with his mistress in the
same shot, such as JFK and Marilyn Monroe (it never happened--except
for Clinton with Lewinsky).
1. Real UFOs landing (trust us—there are neither ships from other
worlds nor little green men anywhere in the news archives).
[end quote]
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:53:46 -0700 (PDT), in article
> stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 13, 11:38=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >> <b0bb820f-a354-4af0-9423-b5afd5099...@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Suza=
> >nne
> >> stated..."
>
> >> >On Aug 13, 1:55=3DA0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Aug 12, 2:28=3DA0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
>
> >points to reflect on in her distorting mirror that have the same
> >coordinates in reality is impossible.
>
> >I mean, look at this latest crazyness. I'm with YOO on this one; I
> >call "liar!" because getting S to recognise that she's imagining large
> >chunks of her life isn't possible. The fact that the roots of this
> >problem are caused by her addiction to religion doesn't seem to have
> >crossed what's left of her mind either. Either that, or she hits the
> >bottle.
>
Andre, in his gentle way (like a Sherman tank),
is the one that pointed out that I must have
confused the time when Khruschev banged
his shoe with the time that he said "We will bury
you." I believe that he is correct about that.
But both times N.K. waved his right arm very
actively, with and without the shoe in his hand.
When he pounded his shoe, or appeared to,
When he said "We will bury you," many thought
he was threatening the West. But it was explained
later that he meant it economically, that the
Capitalists in the West would be overtaken by
the success of the Communists. Anyone listening
to his speech might've discerned this because he
added the words "Your children will be Communists."
>
> >There. Got that off my chest.
>
> I can imagine someone getting away with this kind of behavior for
> decades before the 'net. Can you imagine talking to her about
> anything in the 1970s, when she couldn't be confronted with a
> permanent record of what had just been said? That was a viable
> tactic in the 1970s, but it doesn't work any more.
>
> I admit that I am gloating, for I have had so many experiences
> with people who used that tactic. I am glad to see it exposed.
>
are lying about me hitting any kind of bottle. I
gave up the bottle when I was a baby, and with
it I gave up whining, but I see that not everyone
has. You all are acting very silly and immature.
>
Suzanne
>
alextangent
You are now weaving yet another fairy tale, Miss Mitty; the quote was
(possibly apocryphal) from 1959 as Benson advised Khrushchev on US
agriculture. "Your children will live under communism." Benson claimed
he replied "On the contrary, my grandchildren will live in freedom as
I hope that all people will."
Or perhaps you are referring to this video of Barry Goldwater's in a
1964 election ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwJHg9UBNPE, where
Kruschev is shown with subtitles. I am no Russian expert, but what
Kruschev says and the subtitles do not appear to match, although the
subtitles match what you say ("We will bury you. Your children will be
Communists.") Goldwater was famous for the stump speech that included
the lines "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me
remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no
virtue." Mistranslating what Kruschev said for effect would have been
the least of his worries.
Here's what someone who was actually at the UN -- and was responsible
for translations -- says;
http://web.archive.org/web/20050307190332/http://article.gmane.org/gmane.culture.studies.literature.slavic/2220
<quote>
If I may add a little oil to troubled waters - or fuel to the fire.
I was Chief of the English Interpretation Section of the U.N. in New
York from 1980 to 1994, and have previously had occasion to attempt to
track down chapter and verse in connection with the Khrushchev shoe-
banging episode. It was a little like trying to locate the other end
of a rainbow; no one but a leprechaun ever found a crock of gold
there.
1) Not only was Khrushchev never given the floor on that occasion,
but delegations' desks were not equipped with microphones at that
time. Hence, whatever Russian words he may have uttered to accompany
his percussive tantrum are lost to history - although not to
impressionistic second - and third-hand reconstructions - and for the
reasons given above, neither should nor could have been interpreted
into English, or any of the other U.N.official languages for that
matter.
2) This point is corroborated by the response of Harold Macmillan, the
U.K. Prime Minister at the time, who was noisily interrupted twice by
Khrushchev on another occasion during the same 1960 Session of the
General
Assembly. At the time of the interruption Macmillan was speaking from
the rostrum of the G.A. and was in possession of the floor and the
only live microphone in the hall. After the second outburst,
Macmillan turned towards the President of the Assembly, Ambassador
Bolan of Ireland and said: "I should like that to be translated if he
wants to say anything." Clearly, it had not been.
Macmillan had been deploring the failure of the Paris summit
meeting of the "Big Four" which had been aborted owing to
Khrushchev's walk-out in protest at the lack of an official apology
from President Eisenhower for the U -2 incident. The official Soviet
version of Khrushchev's first attempt at heckling which was issued
the following day was: "Don't send your spy planes to our country!
Don't send your U-2s!"
3) On another occasion at the same Session when Khrushchev was
formally in possession of the floor and the microphone, he did indeed
call the Philippine Ambassador inter alia a "kholui" and a
"stavlennik". An older
colleague who had been responsible for the Russian -English
interpretation at that meeting told me that he had said "jerk" for
"kholui" and "stooge" 'for "stavlennik". Khrushchev may or may not
have also used "lakei" in the same tirade.
4) The source of the apocryphal notion that it was on one of these
occasions at the 1960 U.N. General Assembly that Khrushchev used the
expression " Ya pokazhy vam kuzkinu mat, " may have been his own
memoirs
where he writes that he took a Philippine delegate severely to task,
telling him, in an English version, "You'd better watch out, or we'll
show you Kuzma's mother!" . His memories of what he said and did on
various occasions have not always proved entirely reliable.
5) For purposes of simultaneous interpretation - as distinct from
literary or other kinds of translation - discretion is always the
better part of valour and it is always advisable not put to fine a
point on utterances which are liable to give offence, something which,
in any case, is not always an easy thing to recognise in the heat of
battle! Whatever the etymology or origin of the expression, it seems
to have come to mean the verbal equivalent of shaking one's fist and
the somewhat open-ended "We'll show you!" would do the trick without
over-committing the hapless interpreter.
The endless medieval disputations about "my vas pokhoronim" [we shall
bury you] also seem to lose sight of the fact that on the notorious
occasion[s] when it was uttered, the interpreter's English version was
the product of simultaneous interpretation and not of pondered
translation. The implication is that the interpreter should have said
something different or "better". "We will bury you" is not at all a
bad rendering of the original. The unwary interpreter who strays too
far from the literal in the course of heated debate is in something of
a "lose-lose badly" situation. If he or she says "bury" for
"pokhoronim", Monday morning translators may tell him/her loftily that
it should have been "outlive" or "survive". If he/she says "outlive"
or "survive" and another participant in the meeting then reacts to the
Soviet/Russian delegate's remark, the original Russian speaker may
hear through the reverse, English to Russian, interpretation that he
is understood
to have said "perezhit," or "vyzhit," when in fact he said
"pokhoronit" and he will then, not entirely unresasonably, pillory
the unfortunate interpreter for "not knowing how to translate a simple
Russian word like
'pokhoronit' ". The complexities are endless.
Like politics, simultaneous interpretation is the art of the possible,
often in trying and even well-nigh impossible circumstances. To the
extent that translation is an art rather than a science, there is
practically no translation of a word, expression or phrase than cannot
be second-guessed, even when it has been pondered in tranquillity. As
any practitioner of the art can tell you, a rough-hewn, lame, halting
or even deficient translation can in context be a heroic feat of
simultaneous interpretation.
Stephen Pearl
</quote>
>
> > >There. Got that off my chest.
>
> > I can imagine someone getting away with this kind of behavior for
> > decades before the 'net. Can you imagine talking to her about
> > anything in the 1970s, when she couldn't be confronted with a
> > permanent record of what had just been said? That was a viable
> > tactic in the 1970s, but it doesn't work any more.
>
> > I admit that I am gloating, for I have had so many experiences
> > with people who used that tactic. I am glad to see it exposed.
>
> Your imagination is working overtime, and you
> are lying about me hitting any kind of bottle. I
> gave up the bottle when I was a baby, and with
> it I gave up whining, but I see that not everyone
> has. You all are acting very silly and immature.
Take the beam out of your eye before complaining of the mote in mine.
Perhaps we can now let this subject die, and return to our normal
programming.
Suzanne
>
What is this Miss Mitty? As in Walter Mitty?
TaPokita-TaPokita-TaPokita? (In move--Danny Kaye)
>
Yes, I'd be happy to tell you another one. Some of
the ones in here were saying that the Seniors who
say that the UN was not televised in Khruschev's day,
and that their memories must be therefore faulty. I
know that many of you were born after that time, so
here is a verification that not only did we have
the UN General Assembly televised, but it was a
"live" transmission:
------------
"In the late 1940s, CBS offered imaginative and historic live
television coverage of the proceedings United Nations General Assembly
(1949). This journalist tour-de-force was under the direction of
Edmund A. Chester, who was appointed to the post of Director for News,
Special Events and Sports at CBS Television in 1948. The broadcast
clearly underscored CBS's long term commitment to excellence in
broadcast journalism in the post World War II era."
-----------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_network
(See section entitled, "The Television Years,
Expansion and Growth," third paragraph down
for where the above is written.)
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:54:00 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
Suzanne
TomS
<678ca771-40ea-464d...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Suzanne
stated..."
[...snip...]
>Yes, I'd be happy to tell you another one. Some of
>the ones in here were saying that the Seniors who
>say that the UN was not televised in Khruschev's day,
>and that their memories must be therefore faulty. I
>know that many of you were born after that time, so
>here is a verification that not only did we have
>the UN General Assembly televised, but it was a
>"live" transmission:
Who is there saying that the UN was not televised in Khrushchev's
day?
TomS
<678ca771-40ea-464d...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Suzanne
stated..."
[...snip...]
>the ones in here were saying that the Seniors who
>say that the UN was not televised in Khruschev's day,
>and that their memories must be therefore faulty. I
>know that many of you were born after that time, so
>here is a verification that not only did we have
>the UN General Assembly televised, but it was a
>"live" transmission:
TomS
<c6f02fb5-2952-40c0...@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Suzanne
stated..."
>
>On Aug 13, 7:12=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:53:46 -0700 (PDT), in article
>tangent
>> stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 13, 11:38=3DA0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
>uza=3D
>> >nne
>> >> stated..."
>>
>> >> >On Aug 13, 1:55=3D3DA0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> >> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
I did not say anything about you hitting the bottle.
alextangent
<sigh>
For the last time, you did not see Khruschev on TV banging his shoe in
1960. It was not transmitted live (why would it be?) and he did not
have the podium with the only microphone when the reported shoe-
banging event took place. *No-one is claiming that the UN was not
televised in Khruschev's day. It's a false memory, but I think in your
case it's not age related. You would be quite happy to claim you had
spoken to Khruschev about his lack of religion, taken bible study
classes with Roosevelt, and translated Russian to English at the UN
during the period in question if it advanced your lunatic cause.
alextangent
> "On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:53:15 -0700 (PDT), in article
I speculated she might. A little unfair of me, but I'm beginning to
wonder what it is that's driving her to claim as true the patently
untrue.
Ye Old One
You only "believe" he is correct???
[snip more stupidity.]
--
Bob.
josephus
I was 14 in 1960 and I did see a news thing on TV I would not have
seen it any other way. I cant tell you what he was saying nor can I
tell you what he was doing. but it was k. shouting and red faced and
there was a shoe on the table. So I suspect this was afterward. I had
a professor that explained to me Russian Histrionics and other
stupidities. they are stupid like a fox.
Ye Old One
Oh dear, how can you manage to misread so many things.
>------------
>"In the late 1940s, CBS offered imaginative and historic live
>television coverage of the proceedings United Nations General Assembly
>(1949).
Question 1) From where were these broadcasts made?
Question 2. When did they stop?
> This journalist tour-de-force was under the direction of
>Edmund A. Chester, who was appointed to the post of Director for News,
>Special Events and Sports at CBS Television in 1948. The broadcast
>clearly underscored CBS's long term commitment to excellence in
>broadcast journalism in the post World War II era."
>-----------
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_network
>(See section entitled, "The Television Years,
>Expansion and Growth," third paragraph down
>for where the above is written.)
>>
>Suzanne
Maybe one day you will learn to check facts.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
NashtOff is a tosser, though many good tossers will now rise up in
protest at the comparison. He is a sad little troll that turns up for
periods to crap in talk.origins. He us as scientifically ignorant as
you - and that really is saying something.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
alextangent
> On Aug 12, 2:28 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > Lieven stated..."
>
> > >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> > [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> > >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> > >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> > >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> > [...snip...]
>
> > How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> > the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
> I said I saw it when it happened, but I was not at
> the UN. We all saw it on TV.
>
>
> > How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>
> It happened, Tom:
> 1960 - At the United Nations, Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev went
> ballistic, taking off his shoe and pounding it on his desk! The UN
> Assembly President, Frederick Boland, was so irritated that he split
>
> The man speaking was a delegate from the Philippines,
> by the name of Lorenzo Sumulong. You can read the
> account in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Sumulong#Faceoff_with_Khruschev
>
> I looked for a video for you to see the event, which
> you know would have to have been made from a
> kinescope recording, probably, and many of those
> photo of him raising the shoe over his head and
> yelling in a speech. It is the first photo, and that is
> not him speaking, that is someone else speaking
> the other voice you hear is a translator who is
> that he is holding up looks like a loafer sort of
> If this link does not open up for you, go to you tube
> and type in "Khruschev Speech in the UN" without
> quotes and you will get it with this exact title. The
> photo, by the way, appears to be blurry a little
> where the shoe is, like he is moving it.
>
The shoe photo is a photoshopped fake.
Compare this; http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/khrushchev_shoe1.jpg
with this: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_b0FYjmYr_CM/R4qJ2fiyqfI/AAAAAAAAATM/7ZYC0o6Jzs4/s320/Kruschev.jpg
Desertphile
wrote:
> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> <1ce11c17-de93-4070...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andre
> Lieven stated..."
> >
> >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> [...snip...]
> >> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
> [...snip...]
> How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
> Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>
> How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
Occult-befuddled nutcases often "see" things in their imaginations
after the hear about the events: there's a diagnostic code and a
phrase for the illness but damned it I can recall what it is.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 4:19 pm, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 12, 8:28 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > <1ce11c17-de93-4070-b2b6-75d177535...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andre
> > > Lieven stated..."
> >
> > > >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
> >
> > > [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> > > >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> > > >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> > > >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
> >
> > > [...snip...]
> >
> > > How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> > > the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
> >
> > > Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
> >
> > > How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
> > I'll raise you a rocket scientist and another feeble excuse from
> > Suzanne about not actually being there but seeing it on TV. Which she
> > couldn't have; it wasn't recorded. Incidentally, the quote "We will
> > bury you!" and the shoe banging incident were two events separated by
> > 4 years and several thousand miles. Ah, the wonders of a creationist
> > mind.- Hide quoted text -
> Oh be quiet you big bag of wind. You said it never
> happened at all. Now all of a sudden you are an
> authority.
He just caught you lying again, and that's the best you can do:
attack the person who revealed your lie. How very Christian of
you.
Louann Miller
news:n4nb85ds74a3lql74...@4ax.com:
>> Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>>
>> How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>
> Occult-befuddled nutcases often "see" things in their imaginations
> after the hear about the events: there's a diagnostic code and a
> phrase for the illness but damned it I can recall what it is.
"Conflate" is a term, not particularly an insulting one, for the human
brain's habit of summarizing related memories as if they happened
together when they didn't. Normal people do this all the time too.
I think there was a study where the same functionally normal people were
asked the same question at an interval of years -- "what were you doing
when [major historical event] happened?" Everyone had clear, vivid
memories but some of them changed to different clear, vivid memories over
the years.
Burkhard
> Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote innews:n4nb85ds74a3lql74...@4ax.com:
One of the most famous studies in this respect was the "Disney study"
by Pickrell and Loftus. People wee shown a "fake advert" featuring
Bugs Bunny and Disneyland. A significant number later claimed to have
seen Bugs Bunny when they had been visiting Disneyland as children,
including memories that they shook his hand etc - but Bugs is of
course a Warner character.
http://www.unisci.com/stories/20012/0613011.htm
Ronald Reagan once told about something that happened to him as a
paratrooper in WW2 when their plane was hit and his captain heroically
stayed with a wounded soldier. Turned out that this was from a movie,
"on a wing and a prayer".
With the Shoe event, similar things are at play: people have seen
later thee type of photoshopped picture, and also cameo reenactments
in films, and build this into their memory.
Most relevant for this thread is research done by the
interdisciplinary centre for Memory research in Bielefeld. They look
in particular at wartime memories. For instance, many survivors of the
Dresden bombing tell stories of being shot at by low flying aircraft -
physically impossible ue to the thermals, and also no recorded by
either side. A false but very deeply believed false memory, and people
got very angry when challenged by the researchers on this, giving more
and more details of the remembered events.
The lead researcher in this project also wrote another very
interesting paper for the purpose of this thread:
Harald Welzer: The collatoral damage of enlightenment: How
grandchildren understand the history of national socialist crimes and
their grandfather's Past. In: Laurel Cohen-Pfister & Dagmar Wienroeder-
Skinner (eds.). Victims and Perpetrators 1933-1945.. Berlin, New York:
Walter de Gruyte
He showed how children and grandchildren of Nazis had false memories,
often of events that actually happened before their birth, that showed
the actions of their parents/grandparents in a much better light than
they had been - e.g. events of opposition against the Nazi regime (I
_remember_ him challenging the SS guard)These are genuinely held
memories. Welzer explains them on the one hand by verbal accounts they
have been given as little children, stories etc. But also an attempt
of the brain to resolve the cognitive dissonance between "the person
they know" (kind and sweet grandpa) and the information they get
about the past that challenges this picture. No intentional deception,
the brain does this all on its own - lesson:eyewitnesses, even when
recounting their own past (Reagan) ar5e unreliable, go with the
documentary evidence when in doubt.
Gregory A Greenman
> On Aug 14, 10:57=A0am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 4:22=A0pm, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 13, 9:54=A0pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Aug 13, 5:38=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
> , Suzanne
> > > > > stated..."
> >
> > > > > >On Aug 13, 1:55=3DA0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> > > > > >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> > > > > >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> >> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> s.com>, A=3D
> > > > > >ndre
> > > > > >> >> Lieven stated..."
> >
> > > > > >> >> >On Aug 12, 2:30=3D3DA0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
> >
> > > > > >> >> [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> > > > > >> >> >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> > > > > >> >> >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> > > > > >> >> >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
> >
> > > > > >> >> [...snip...]
> >
> > > > > >> >> How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> > > > > >> >> the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
> >
> > > > > >> >I said I saw it when it happened, but I was not at
> > > > > >> >the UN. We all saw it on TV.
> >
> > > > > >> Well, no, it wasn't. TV did not broadcast live from the General
> > > > > >> Assembly of the UN.
> >
> > > > > >Yes it did, Bob.
> >
> t as
> > > > > >> it happened.
> >
> > > > > >No, Bob.
> >
> > > > > >> >> Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
> >
> > > > > >> >> How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
> >
> > > > > >> >It happened, Tom:
> ent
> > > > > >> >ballistic, taking off his shoe and pounding it on his desk! The=
> UN
> > > > > >> >Assembly President, Frederick Boland, was so irritated that he =
> split
> > > > > >> >his gavel trying to reestablish order.
> > > > > >> >www.440.com/twtd/archives/oct12.html-15k
> > > > > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
> >
> > > > > >> >The man speaking was a delegate from the Philippines,
> > > > > >> >by the name of Lorenzo Sumulong. You can read the
> > > > > >> >account in Wikipedia:
> schev
> >
> > > > > >> >I looked for a video for you to see the event, which
> > > > > >> >you know would have to have been made from a
> > > > > >> >kinescope recording, probably, and many of those
> > > > > >> >have dissolved over time.
> >
> > > > > >> What the hell are you talking about you moron?
> >
> > > > > >You would not know. You've shown already in
> > > > > >this post what you don't know.
> >
> > > > > >> > But I can show you the
> > > > > >> >photo of him raising the shoe over his head and
> > > > > >> >yelling in a speech. It is the first photo, and that is
> > > > > >> >not him speaking, that is someone else speaking
> > > > > >> >the other voice you hear is a translator who is
> > > > > >> >translating some words of Khruschev's.
> >
> > > > > >> You do manage to get everything wrong.
> >
> > > > > >> > The shoe
> > > > > >> >that he is holding up looks like a loafer sort of
> > > > > >> >shoe in this photo.
> > (See section entitled, "The Television Years,
> > Expansion and Growth," third paragraph down
> > for where the above is written.)
> >
> > Suzanne
>
> <sigh>
>
> For the last time, you did not see Khruschev on TV banging his shoe in
> 1960. It was not transmitted live (why would it be?) and he did not
> have the podium with the only microphone when the reported shoe-
> banging event took place. *No-one is claiming that the UN was not
> televised in Khruschev's day. It's a false memory, but I think in your
> case it's not age related. You would be quite happy to claim you had
> spoken to Khruschev about his lack of religion, taken bible study
> classes with Roosevelt, and translated Russian to English at the UN
> during the period in question if it advanced your lunatic cause.
Actually, I think this is pretty interesting. It's probably the way
many new religions start.
Random Guy: Hey, I hear that Jesus guy walked on water!
Suzanne Like Ancient Person: Yeah, I saw that!
Crowd: Wow, it must be true then!
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
TomS
<Vv-dncCOrLrMdRjX...@giganews.com>, Louann Miller stated..."
>
>Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in
>news:n4nb85ds74a3lql74...@4ax.com:
>
>>> Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>>>
>>> How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>>
>> Occult-befuddled nutcases often "see" things in their imaginations
>> after the hear about the events: there's a diagnostic code and a
>> phrase for the illness but damned it I can recall what it is.
>
>"Conflate" is a term, not particularly an insulting one, for the human
>brain's habit of summarizing related memories as if they happened
>together when they didn't. Normal people do this all the time too.
>
>I think there was a study where the same functionally normal people were
>asked the same question at an interval of years -- "what were you doing
>when [major historical event] happened?" Everyone had clear, vivid
>memories but some of them changed to different clear, vivid memories over
>the years.
>
One reason that I was alerted to this "memory" of seeing K. pounding
his shoe is that I had the same memory myself, and then was corrected.
(Or, at least, I have a memory of being corrected. :)) Apparently, a lot
of people think that they saw, on television, K. pounding his shoe.
This is especially relevant to t.o, because of the common complaint
from creationists that there were no eye-witnesses to events of the
distant past, as if eye-witness reports were the most reliable, when
they are often quite unreliable.
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
Louann Miller
948c30...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> Ronald Reagan once told about something that happened to him as a
> paratrooper in WW2 when their plane was hit and his captain heroically
> stayed with a wounded soldier. Turned out that this was from a movie,
> "on a wing and a prayer"
In retrospect, I'd thought that was an early symptom of Alzheimer's. But
surely Reagan was still together enough to recall that he hadn't BEEN a
paratrooper, or anything but a PR guy, during the war. So probably just a
creative speechwriter's metaphor that barely qualifies as a lie.
John McKendry
From "Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars, and the End of the
Cold War", by Frances Fitzgerald, at Google Books,
(the URL should be one line -)
http://books.google.com/books?id=nv2v0fCAONwC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&
dq=reagan+movie+%22medal+of+honor%22&source=bl&ots=BKXgqk5bgA&
sig=WYnCA2NYnpaHKVJmok_uQe2PmKc&hl=en&ei=BuGGStn_EZKJtgfzmNTnDA&sa=X
&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=reagan%20movie%20%
22medal%20of%20honor%22&f=false
(page 22)
<quote>
Speaking to the Congressional Medal of Honor Society in December 1983,
he <Reagan> told a World War II story of a B-17 captain whose plane
had been hit and who was unable to drag his wounded young ball-turret
gunner out of the turret; instead of parachuting to safety with the rest
of his crew, the captain took the frightened boy's hand and said, "Never
mind, son, we'll ride it down together." Reagan concluded by telling the
society that the captain had been posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.
But no such person existed: the story came from the 1946 movie 'A Wing
and a Prayer'.
</quote>
(page 58)
<quote>
In his speeches Reagan told countless stories of individual heroism
and, occasionally, villainy, some of them from the movies, some of them
apocryphal. In the 1980s commentators politely assumed that he believed
these stories to be true - and possibly he did by then, But in the
fifties he narrated movie plots as true stories not long after the
movies came out. For example, he used the story about the heroic B-17
captain from the 1946 movie 'A Wing and a Prayer' in a commencement
address he made in 1952. Since he had an excellent memory, it is
reasonable to assume that he knew the story was a fiction but just
did not care - accuracy being unimportant where moral certainty and
the Truth were concerned.
</quote>
I'm not sure Fitzgerald has that last part exactly right, but there
was certainly something wrong with Reagan's attitude toward actual
facts; it was as if he just didn't grasp the concept at all.
John
Suzanne
> "On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:57:26 -0700 (PDT), in article
> <678ca771-40ea-464d-b10d-9225eee24...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Suzanne
> stated..."
> [...snip...]>Yes, I'd be happy to tell you another one. Some of
> >the ones in here were saying that the Seniors who
> >say that the UN was not televised in Khruschev's day,
> >and that their memories must be therefore faulty. I
> >know that many of you were born after that time, so
> >here is a verification that not only did we have
> >the UN General Assembly televised, but it was a
> >"live" transmission:
>
> [...snip...]
>
> Who is there saying that the UN was not televised in Khrushchev's
> day?
>
Ye Old Roberto
Suzanne
>
Ye Old One
Liar!
You really do need to take reading comprehension lessons.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Lying arsehole!
It was NOT televised live in the 1960s nor does ANY television exist
of the shoe banging incident.
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> "On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:53:15 -0700 (PDT), in article
> <c6f02fb5-2952-40c0-b857-d7af661e2...@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Suzanne
> stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 13, 7:12=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:53:46 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >> <ecb337f6-d51d-4081-a4e4-d5ffeec94...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, alex=
> >tangent
> >> stated..."
>
> >> >On Aug 13, 11:38=3DA0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> >> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >> >> <b0bb820f-a354-4af0-9423-b5afd5099...@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, S=
> >uza=3D
> >> >nne
> >> >> stated..."
>
> >> >> >On Aug 13, 1:55=3D3DA0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> >> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >On Aug 12, 2:28=3D3DA0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
>
> >> >Discussion is not an option. Suzanne is so out of touch that finding
> >> >points to reflect on in her distorting mirror that have the same
> >> >coordinates in reality is impossible.
>
> >> >I mean, look at this latest crazyness. I'm with YOO on this one; I
> >> >call "liar!" because getting S to recognise that she's imagining large
> >> >chunks of her life isn't possible. The fact that the roots of this
> >> >problem are caused by her addiction to religion doesn't seem to have
> >> >crossed what's left of her mind either. Either that, or she hits the
> >> >bottle.
>
> >First of all, let's give credit where credit is due.
> >Andre, in his gentle way (like a Sherman tank),
> >is the one that pointed out that I must have
> >confused the time when Khruschev banged
> >his shoe with the time that he said "We will bury
> >you." I believe that he is correct about that.
> >But both times N.K. waved his right arm very
> >actively, with and without the shoe in his hand.
> >When he pounded his shoe, or appeared to,
> >When he said "We will bury you," many thought
> >he was threatening the West. But it was explained
> >later that he meant it economically, that the
> >Capitalists in the West would be overtaken by
> >the success of the Communists. Anyone listening
> >to his speech might've discerned this because he
> >added the words "Your children will be Communists."
>
> >> >There. Got that off my chest.
>
> >> I can imagine someone getting away with this kind of behavior for
> >> decades before the 'net. Can you imagine talking to her about
> >> anything in the 1970s, when she couldn't be confronted with a
> >> permanent record of what had just been said? That was a viable
> >> tactic in the 1970s, but it doesn't work any more.
>
> >> I admit that I am gloating, for I have had so many experiences
> >> with people who used that tactic. I am glad to see it exposed.
>
> >Your imagination is working overtime, and you
> >are lying about me hitting any kind of bottle. I
> >gave up the bottle when I was a baby, and with
> >it I gave up whining, but I see that not everyone
> >has. You all are acting very silly and immature.
>
> >Suzanne
>
> I did not say anything about you hitting the bottle.
>
You are absolutely correct, Tom, it was not you
that said:
"......Either that, or she hits the
bottle."
Thank you for the correction. You were right and
I was wrong. I apologize.
>
Suzanne
J. J. Lodder
Another false memory somewhere.
http://www.imdb.com/
lists no such title for approx. 1946.
> (page 58)
> <quote>
> In his speeches Reagan told countless stories of individual heroism
> and, occasionally, villainy, some of them from the movies, some of them
> apocryphal. In the 1980s commentators politely assumed that he believed
> these stories to be true - and possibly he did by then, But in the
> fifties he narrated movie plots as true stories not long after the
> movies came out. For example, he used the story about the heroic B-17
> captain from the 1946 movie 'A Wing and a Prayer' in a commencement
> address he made in 1952. Since he had an excellent memory, it is
> reasonable to assume that he knew the story was a fiction but just
> did not care - accuracy being unimportant where moral certainty and
> the Truth were concerned.
> </quote>
>
> I'm not sure Fitzgerald has that last part exactly right, but there
> was certainly something wrong with Reagan's attitude toward actual
> facts; it was as if he just didn't grasp the concept at all.
What do you expect? He was primarily an actor,
Jan
Burkhard
1944, directed by Henry Hathaway and written by Jerome Cady (who was
Oscar nominated for it in 45)
alextangent
What a dreadful propensity you have for making stuff up, Miss Mitty.
You managed to generate this false memory between Aug 11 and Aug 15.
That has to be a world record.
alextangent
> John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:01:55 -0500, Louann Miller wrote:
>
> > > 948c3056c...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> lists no such title for approx. 1946.
>
>
>
>
>
> > (page 58)
> > <quote>
> > In his speeches Reagan told countless stories of individual heroism
> > and, occasionally, villainy, some of them from the movies, some of them
> > apocryphal. In the 1980s commentators politely assumed that he believed
> > these stories to be true - and possibly he did by then, But in the
> > fifties he narrated movie plots as true stories not long after the
> > movies came out. For example, he used the story about the heroic B-17
> > captain from the 1946 movie 'A Wing and a Prayer' in a commencement
> > address he made in 1952. Since he had an excellent memory, it is
> > reasonable to assume that he knew the story was a fiction but just
> > did not care - accuracy being unimportant where moral certainty and
> > the Truth were concerned.
> > </quote>
>
> > I'm not sure Fitzgerald has that last part exactly right, but there
> > was certainly something wrong with Reagan's attitude toward actual
> > facts; it was as if he just didn't grasp the concept at all.
>
> What do you expect? He was primarily an actor,
>
> Jan
It seems a poor excuse to me. Acting is not lying.
Suzanne
> On Aug 14, 10:57 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 4:22 pm, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 13, 9:54 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 13, 5:38 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > > > stated..."
>
> > > > > >On Aug 13, 1:55=A0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> > > > > >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> > > > > >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> > > > > >> >> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > > > >ndre
> > > > > >> >> Lieven stated..."
>
> > > > > >> >> >On Aug 12, 2:30=3DA0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> > > > > >> >> [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> > > > > >> >> >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> > > > > >> >> >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> > > > > >> >> >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> > > > > >> >> [...snip...]
>
> > > > > >> >> How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> > > > > >> >> the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
> > > > > >> >I said I saw it when it happened, but I was not at
> > > > > >> >the UN. We all saw it on TV.
>
> > > > > >> Well, no, it wasn't. TV did not broadcast live from the General
> > > > > >> Assembly of the UN.
>
> > > > > >Yes it did, Bob.
>
> > > > > >> You may have seen it later, but you lie when you claim you saw it as
> > > > > >> it happened.
>
> > > > > >No, Bob.
>
> > > > > >> >> Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>
> > > > > >> >> How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>
> > > > > >> >1960 - At the United Nations, Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev went
> > > > > >> >ballistic, taking off his shoe and pounding it on his desk! The UN
> > > > > >> >Assembly President, Frederick Boland, was so irritated that he split
> > > > > >> >his gavel trying to reestablish order.
> > > > > >> >www.440.com/twtd/archives/oct12.html-15k
> > > > > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
>
> > > > > >> >The man speaking was a delegate from the Philippines,
> > > > > >> >by the name of Lorenzo Sumulong. You can read the
> > > > > >> >account in Wikipedia:
> > > > > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Sumulong#Faceoff_with_Khruschev
>
> > > > > >> >I looked for a video for you to see the event, which
> > > > > >> >you know would have to have been made from a
> > > > > >> >kinescope recording, probably, and many of those
> > > > > >> >have dissolved over time.
>
> > > > > >> What the hell are you talking about you moron?
>
> > > > > >You would not know. You've shown already in
> > > > > >this post what you don't know.
>
> > > > > >> > But I can show you the
> > > > > >> >photo of him raising the shoe over his head and
> > > > > >> >yelling in a speech. It is the first photo, and that is
> > > > > >> >not him speaking, that is someone else speaking
> > > > > >> >while you see the first photo of Khruschev. =A0Then
> > > > > >> >the other voice you hear is a translator who is
> > > > > >> >translating some words of Khruschev's.
>
> > > > > >> You do manage to get everything wrong.
>
> > > > > >> > The shoe
> > > > > >> >that he is holding up looks like a loafer sort of
> > > > > >> >shoe in this photo.
> > > > > >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8Xv7z5h7yBQ
> > > > > >> >If this link does not open up for you, go to you tube
> > > > > >> >and type in "Khruschev Speech in the UN" without
> > > > > >> >quotes and you will get it with this exact title. The
> > > > > >> >photo, by the way, appears to be blurry a little
> > > > > >> >where the shoe is, like he is moving it.
>
> > > > > >> I do hope you will now educate yourself on what really happened.
>
> > > > > >You can't get anything straight. Do you really think
> > > > > >that in the 50's an 60's that we didn't have live
> > > > > >TV? I think it's you that needs an education.
>
> > > > > >Suzanne
>
> > > > > This is an example of why people get irritated when trying to
> > > > > discuss something with Suzanne.
>
> > > > Well, Tom, it actually looks more like the reason that
> > > > people get mad at Bob, Ye Ole YOO. It could also
> > > > mean that if most people in here agree with you, then
> > > > you probably ran off many others.
>
> > > > Suzanne
>
> > > Tell us another story, Miss Mitty. I can't wait.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > What is this Miss Mitty? As in Walter Mitty?
> > TaPokita-TaPokita-TaPokita? (In move--Danny Kaye)
>
> > Yes, I'd be happy to tell you another one. Some of
> > the ones in here were saying that the Seniors who
> > say that the UN was not televised in Khruschev's day,
> > and that their memories must be therefore faulty. I
> > know that many of you were born after that time, so
> > here is a verification that not only did we have
> > the UN General Assembly televised, but it was a
> > "live" transmission:
> > "In the late 1940s, CBS offered imaginative and historic live
> > television coverage of the proceedings United Nations General Assembly
> > (1949). This journalist tour-de-force was under the direction of
> > Edmund A. Chester, who was appointed to the post of Director for News,
> > Special Events and Sports at CBS Television in 1948. The broadcast
> > clearly underscored CBS's long term commitment to excellence in
> > broadcast journalism in the post World War II era."
> > -----------
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_network
> > (See section entitled, "The Television Years,
> > Expansion and Growth," third paragraph down
> > for where the above is written.)
>
> > Suzanne
>
> <sigh>
>
> For the last time, you did not see Khruschev on TV banging his shoe in
> 1960.
>
What I just said was not about the details about
Khruschev, I was veritying for Y.O.O., who had
claimed that someone was lying if they said that
the UN was televised, that it was indeed televised.
Others also did not think that it was, and the fact
that it was, they could not find. So I provided the
proof by showing them the archived answer from
CBS which carried the transmission "live" from
the UN.
>
> It was not transmitted live (why would it be?)
>
Yes it was! That's what I was showing. And why
would you ask why it would be? It was a phenominal
thing to see.
>
According to CBS TV archives, it has been televised
"live" since 1949.
>
> and he did not
> have the podium with the only microphone when the reported shoe-
> banging event took place.
>
Now, wait. You have missed something. I said in
another post that Andre could be right that there
were two incidents that people may be rolling into
one event in their minds. So we are not talking
about whether he banged his shoe at the same
time that he said "we will bury you." We are talking
about just seeing Khruschev's actions, period, from
the UN, and it's being televised. Whether he did
those things at the same time or not, he did do
both of those things.
>
The individual microphone and earphones at the
seats of the delegates at the table, had a different
set of translators than the ones that were needed
when a delegate wanted to address everyone at
the General Assembly meeting of the UN. If the
chair recognized a delegate, then he usually would
go to the podium (lecturn) so that the translation to
the listening audiences all over the world (each in
their native tongues) could be spoken to in their
own country's language feed transmission. It was
like watching Pentecost happen, but with translators
and microphones.
>
>
> *No-one is claiming that the UN was not
> televised in Khruschev's day.
>
Yes, several have claimed this.
>
> It's a false memory,
>
No. A false memory is something that
never happened. I was telling about two
things that did happen. Khruschev did
hold a shoe in his hand, and wave it, and
possibly bang it, and he also did say
"We will bury you."
>
> but I think in your
> case it's not age related.
>
Well, gee, thanks for that much. (chuckle)
>
>You would be quite happy to claim you had
> spoken to Khruschev about his lack of religion, taken bible study
> classes with Roosevelt, and translated Russian to English at the UN
> during the period in question if it advanced your lunatic cause.
>
Now you are making fun of me for saying that
I spoke to V.B. about what he believed. That
was the truth. If you don't accept it, that's your
loss. The point was that salvation is the work
of the Holy Spirit, who can speak to people
through his followers. This is shown through
a lot of verses, among them being this one:
------------
Mark 13:11:
"But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up,
take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak,
neither do ye premeditate; but whatsoever shall
be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is
not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost."
>
President Roosevelt had died some years
before Khruschev was the leader in Russia.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:53:15 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:53:46 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >> stated..."
>
> >> >On Aug 13, 11:38=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> >> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >> >nne
> >> >> stated..."
>
> >> >> >On Aug 13, 1:55=3DA0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> >> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
>
> >> >points to reflect on in her distorting mirror that have the same
> >> >coordinates in reality is impossible.
>
> >> >I mean, look at this latest crazyness. I'm with YOO on this one; I
> >> >call "liar!" because getting S to recognise that she's imagining large
> >> >chunks of her life isn't possible. The fact that the roots of this
> >> >problem are caused by her addiction to religion doesn't seem to have
> >> >crossed what's left of her mind either. Either that, or she hits the
> >> >bottle.
>
> >First of all, let's give credit where credit is due.
> >Andre, in his gentle way (like a Sherman tank),
> >is the one that pointed out that I must have
> >confused the time when Khruschev banged
> >his shoe with the time that he said "We will bury
> >you." I believe that he is correct about that.
>
>
Now what's wrong with saying that I believe
Andre could be correct, pray tell? Will you
find fault now with that?
>
Suzanne
Walter Bushell
John McKendry <jlas...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
> the Truth were concerned.It
> </quote>
>
> I'm not sure Fitzgerald has that last part exactly right, but there
> was certainly something wrong with Reagan's attitude toward actual
> facts; it was as if he just didn't grasp the concept at all.
>
> John
It took a long time in human history for the concept of raw fact to
become important. The Gospel writers seem not to have had the concept,
for example.
Suzanne
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:48:41 -0500, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> On Aug 13, 12:59 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >>> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >>>>> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >>>>> Lieven stated..."
> >>>>>> On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
> >>>>> [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> >>>>>>> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> >>>>>>> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> >>>>>>> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
> >>>>> [...snip...]
> >>>>> How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> >>>>> the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
> >>>> I said I saw it when it happened, but I was not at
> >>>> the UN. We all saw it on TV.
>
> >>> [snip more stupidity.]
>
> >>> --
> >>> Bob.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> Not even then.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-carlson/protesters-use-your-shoes....
> >> It's only one data point, but an extensive google search reveals that
> >> a lot of people have looked for -- and failed to find -- even an
> >> adequate still photo of the event, far short of a film or TV event.
>
> >> <quote>
>
> >> Khrushchev ruled the Soviet Union for a decade and nearly touched off
> >> a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But ask most Americans
> >> about him and what they remember is the banging of the shoe. The
> >> incident is so famous that many people swear they saw it on TV.
> >> Actually, the shoe-banging was never captured by any camera, although
> >> there is a photo of the shoe sitting on Khrushchev's desk after he
> >> stopped pounding it.
>
> >> "In each of my lectures, they ask about the shoe," Sergei Khrushchev
> >> -- Nikita's son, who now teaches at Brown University -- told me when I
> >> interviewed him for K Blows Top, my forthcoming book on Khrushchev's
> >> misadventures in America. "I say, 'Please raise your hand if you saw
> >> it' and many people raise their hands. They really think they saw it."
>
> >> </quote>
>
> >I was not there and did not see it live, but I did see a film clip of
> >him shouting and pounding his table with a shoe.
>
> Actually, no you didn't. Sadly it is a false memory.
>
> > he was speaking
> >Russian. there was NO TRANSLATION. and it was on one of the major news
> >programs. MR. K was always NEWS.
>
> >josephus
>
> This is an interesting list fromhttp://www.filmarchivesonline.com/fun.shtml- see item 7.
>
> [quote]
>
> Did We Say 'Any'?
>
> Our slogan may read "Any Shot, Any Time, Any Way," but occasionally
> even we get stopped in our diligent research tracks by news footage
> inquiries that are a little, well, far fetched. Herewith, we present
>
> --
>
> FILM Archives' Top 10 Most Requested Shots
> That Simply Don't Exist!
>
> 10. From the world of heavyweight boxing: Cassius Clay versus Mohammed
> Ali (he is one and the same sports personality).
>
> 9. Civil War footage (there were no film cameras in 1865; the first
> movie cameras appeared around 1898).
>
> 8. Audiences wearing 3D glasses in 1950s movie theaters (to the best
> of our knowledge only still photos of this scene exist).
>
> 7. An angry (former Soviet Premier) Nikita Khrushchev at a United
> Nations conference in the early 1960s slamming his shoe on the desk in
> front of him to make his point (the actual footage shows him banging
> his fist—the cameras may not have captured the shoe slam, if indeed
> there was one.)
>
> 6. Footage of Abraham Lincoln's assassination (see number 9).
>
> 5. Eliot Ness arresting Al Capone (Ness never arrested Capone).
>
> 4. 1912 Titanic disaster footage in the North Atlantic (there are only
> re-creations).
>
> 3. Workers constructing the Brooklyn Bridge (that was in the late
> 1800s—before motion picture cameras came on the scene).
>
> 2. Any 20th Century U.S. President appearing with his mistress in the
> same shot, such as JFK and Marilyn Monroe (it never happened--except
> for Clinton with Lewinsky).
>
> 1. Real UFOs landing (trust us—there are neither ships from other
> worlds nor little green men anywhere in the news archives).
>
> [end quote]
>
> --
> Bob.- Hide quoted text -
>
Josephus, don't pay any attention to Bob.
>
Suzanne
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because there is physical _proof_ that it happened as he said. there
is no "belief" involved.
Harry K
Suzanne
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:58:30 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne> >On Aug 13, 4:32 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:54:00 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> >> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >> >> stated..."
>
> >> >> >On Aug 13, 1:55=A0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> >> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >> >> >ndre
> >> >> >> >> Lieven stated..."
>
> >> >> >> >> >On Aug 12, 2:30=3DA0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> >> >> >> >> [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> >> >> >> >> >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> >> >> >> >> >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> >> >> >> >> >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> >> >> >> >> [...snip...]
>
> >> >> >> >> How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> >> >> >> >> the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
> >> >> >> >I said I saw it when it happened, but I was not at
> >> >> >> >the UN. We all saw it on TV.
>
>
> >> Whereas everyone seems to be getting mad at you.
>
> >> > It could also
> >> >mean that if most people in here agree with you, then
> >> >you probably ran off many others.
>
>
> NashtOff is a tosser, though many good tossers will now rise up in
> protest at the comparison. He is a sad little troll that turns up for
> periods to crap in talk.origins. He us as scientifically ignorant as
> you - and that really is saying something.
>
Well, hello, Mr. Innocence.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
Because when you are dealing with facts there is no belief involved.
Facts do not require you to believe in them, you just accept them or
look stupid by trying to deny them.
You now accept he is correct and that you were wrong.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Your stupidity is showing again.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Nobody claimed that the UN was not televised sometimes. Very rarely,
when some special event was going on, it even made the news.
> that it was indeed televised.
>Others also did not think that it was, and the fact
>that it was, they could not find. So I provided the
>proof by showing them the archived answer from
>CBS which carried the transmission "live" from
>the UN.
CBS claims (incorrectly by the way) that they were the first to do a
few live transmissions from the UN general assembly. Of course, the
BBC did it at least three years earlier but then most people seem to
forget that the UN first started its meetings in London.
However, during the 50s, 60s and even well into the 70s, there was no
permanent TV presence in the UN. There was certainly NO live
transmission of Khrushchev's shoe banging and in fact there was not
even a TV or film camera present for that event so there is no
recording either.
>>
>> It was not transmitted live (why would it be?)
>>
>Yes it was!
Liar!
> That's what I was showing. And why
>would you ask why it would be? It was a phenominal
>thing to see.
>>
>According to CBS TV archives, it has been televised
>"live" since 1949.
Liar!
>>
>> and he did not
>> have the podium with the only microphone when the reported shoe-
>> banging event took place.
>>
>Now, wait. You have missed something. I said in
>another post that Andre could be right that there
>were two incidents that people may be rolling into
>one event in their minds. So we are not talking
>about whether he banged his shoe at the same
>time that he said "we will bury you." We are talking
>about just seeing Khruschev's actions, period, from
>the UN, and it's being televised. Whether he did
>those things at the same time or not, he did do
>both of those things.
Well, yes, he did bang his shoe during a UN meeting. No television or
film camera was present at the time, nor indeed does a still camera
picture exist of the event.
>>
>The individual microphone and earphones at the
>seats of the delegates at the table, had a different
>set of translators than the ones that were needed
>when a delegate wanted to address everyone at
>the General Assembly meeting of the UN. If the
>chair recognized a delegate, then he usually would
>go to the podium (lecturn) so that the translation to
>the listening audiences all over the world (each in
>their native tongues) could be spoken to in their
>own country's language feed transmission.
You really are an ignorant arsehole.
>It was
>like watching Pentecost happen, but with translators
>and microphones.
>>
>>
>> *No-one is claiming that the UN was not
>> televised in Khruschev's day.
>>
>Yes, several have claimed this.
Liar!
>>
>> It's a false memory,
>>
>No. A false memory is something that
>never happened.
Correct. Your false memory is that you watched it live on TV.
> I was telling about two
>things that did happen. Khruschev did
>hold a shoe in his hand, and wave it, and
>possibly bang it,
But no cameras, TV, film or still, recorded it. You did not see it
happen live on TV as you claimed, you did not even see it recorded and
shown on the news.
> and he also did say
>"We will bury you."
That is a mistranslation of what he said, years earlier and thousands
of miles from the UN.
>>
>> but I think in your
>> case it's not age related.
>>
>Well, gee, thanks for that much. (chuckle)
>>
>>You would be quite happy to claim you had
>> spoken to Khruschev about his lack of religion, taken bible study
>> classes with Roosevelt, and translated Russian to English at the UN
>> during the period in question if it advanced your lunatic cause.
>>
>Now you are making fun of me for saying that
>I spoke to V.B. about what he believed. That
>was the truth. If you don't accept it, that's your
>loss.
No, it isn't.
> The point was that salvation is the work
>of the Holy Spirit, who can speak to people
>through his followers. This is shown through
>a lot of verses, among them being this one:
>------------
>Mark 13:11:
>"But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up,
>take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak,
>neither do ye premeditate; but whatsoever shall
>be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is
>not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost."
>>
>President Roosevelt had died some years
>before Khruschev was the leader in Russia.
So what?
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
But does list it for 1944.
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> "On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:57:26 -0700 (PDT), in article
> <678ca771-40ea-464d-b10d-9225eee24...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Suzanne
> stated..."
> >the ones in here were saying that the Seniors who
> >say that the UN was not televised in Khruschev's day,
> >and that their memories must be therefore faulty. I
> >know that many of you were born after that time, so
> >here is a verification that not only did we have
> >the UN General Assembly televised, but it was a
> >"live" transmission:
>
>
> Who is there saying that the UN was not televised in Khrushchev's
> day?
>
Bob, Ye Old One, seemed to be of that opinion.
>
Suzanne
rmacfarl
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:3jef855if7sff1c4f...@4ax.com...
This story always reminds me of an interview I saw about 20 years
ago with a smiling-faced girl of about 15 dressed in the battle
fatigues of the Tamil Tigers. She told the story of another
Tiger, from memory also a young girl, who when wounded and out of
ammunition pulled the pin from a grenade and lay on it, until a
Sri Lankan soldier turned her body over and was of course killed
by the exploding grenade. The thing I find almost as bizarre as
the concept that someone could distort and twist a young mind
with such evil propaganda, is that no one apparently thought to
ask: just who did they think was the witness to verify this
barbaric fiction? ...
Suzanne
> On Aug 13, 6:48 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 2:28 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > Lieven stated..."
>
> > > >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> > > [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> > > >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> > > >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> > > >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> > > [...snip...]
>
> > > How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> > > the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
> > I said I saw it when it happened, but I was not at
> > the UN. We all saw it on TV.
>
>
> > > How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>
> > It happened, Tom:
> > 1960 - At the United Nations, Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev went
> > ballistic, taking off his shoe and pounding it on his desk! The UN
> > Assembly President, Frederick Boland, was so irritated that he split
>
> > The man speaking was a delegate from the Philippines,
> > by the name of Lorenzo Sumulong. You can read the
> > account in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Sumulong#Faceoff_with_Khruschev
>
> > I looked for a video for you to see the event, which
> > you know would have to have been made from a
> > kinescope recording, probably, and many of those
> > photo of him raising the shoe over his head and
> > yelling in a speech. It is the first photo, and that is
> > not him speaking, that is someone else speaking
> > the other voice you hear is a translator who is
> > that he is holding up looks like a loafer sort of
> > If this link does not open up for you, go to you tube
> > and type in "Khruschev Speech in the UN" without
> > quotes and you will get it with this exact title. The
> > photo, by the way, appears to be blurry a little
> > where the shoe is, like he is moving it.
>
>
> The shoe photo is a photoshopped fake.
>
> Compare this;http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/khr...
>
> with this:http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_b0FYjmYr_CM/R4qJ2fiyqfI/AAAAAAAAATM/7ZYC0o6...- Hide quoted text -
>
Yes, it looks that way to me, too, from the comparison
with the other photo which you have provided. I'm basing
this on what is underneath his left hand (the one on the
papers) because the left hand is resting on a lot of
papers in one photo and significantly less in the other
photo. Thank you for your comparison photo, and I
do agree with you about the one where he is holding up
the shoe appearing to be a doctored up photo.
>
I still remember him banging on the table with his shoe,
though. I'm sorry if that disappoints you.
>
Suzanne
>
>
J. J. Lodder
One with that title, yes.
But have you read the synopsis?
it's about a carrier touring the Pacific,
so it is unlikely to have a B-17 in it.
The year makes heroically going down unlikely too:
during the war Americans wanted to see their heros come home,
Jan
Suzanne
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:19:53 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
say that I believe "in" him being correct,
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
my relatives use to look at soap operas on TV,
and I would hear them talking about them. I'd
ask about this one that he died, and that one that
had died in the story. They would then tell me
that the writers had them come back to life, and
they would have explained the earlier departure
away so they could bring that actor back to the
story line. You sound like you can write yourself
out of anything that you've previously said and
come out smelling like a rose.
>
Suzanne
>
J. J. Lodder
> On 14 Aug, 23:42, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote innews:n4nb85ds74a3lql74
nm6o99ib...@4ax.com:
> >
> > >> Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
> >
> > >> How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
> >
> > > Occult-befuddled nutcases often "see" things in their imaginations
> > > after the hear about the events: there's a diagnostic code and a
> > > phrase for the illness but damned it I can recall what it is.
> >
> > "Conflate" is a term, not particularly an insulting one, for the human
> > brain's habit of summarizing related memories as if they happened
> > together when they didn't. Normal people do this all the time too.
> >
> > I think there was a study where the same functionally normal people were
> > asked the same question at an interval of years -- "what were you doing
> > when [major historical event] happened?" Everyone had clear, vivid
> > memories but some of them changed to different clear, vivid memories over
> > the years.
>
> One of the most famous studies in this respect was the "Disney study"
> by Pickrell and Loftus. People wee shown a "fake advert" featuring
> Bugs Bunny and Disneyland. A significant number later claimed to have
> seen Bugs Bunny when they had been visiting Disneyland as children,
> including memories that they shook his hand etc - but Bugs is of
> course a Warner character.
> http://www.unisci.com/stories/20012/0613011.htm
>
> Ronald Reagan once told about something that happened to him as a
> paratrooper in WW2 when their plane was hit and his captain heroically
> stayed with a wounded soldier. Turned out that this was from a movie,
> "on a wing and a prayer".
>
> With the Shoe event, similar things are at play: people have seen
> later thee type of photoshopped picture, and also cameo reenactments
> in films, and build this into their memory.
>
> Most relevant for this thread is research done by the
> interdisciplinary centre for Memory research in Bielefeld. They look
> in particular at wartime memories. For instance, many survivors of the
> Dresden bombing tell stories of being shot at by low flying aircraft -
> physically impossible ue to the thermals, and also no recorded by
> either side. A false but very deeply believed false memory, and people
> got very angry when challenged by the researchers on this, giving more
> and more details of the remembered events.
OTOH it is quite possible that strafing
(by American Mustang escort fighters)
has occurred on the roads just outside Dresden.
Wiki gives
===
According to an RAF webpage on the history of RAF Bomber Command,
"part of the American Mustang-fighter escort was ordered to strafe
traffic on the roads around Dresden to increase the chaos and disruption
to the important transportation network in the region."[61] Historian
Gotz Berganger asserted in Dresden Im Luftkrieg (1977) that tales of
civilians being strafed by the Mustangs were untrue.[62] However,
British historian Alexander McKee in Dresden 1945 (1982) quotes
eyewitnesses (Gerhard Kuhnemund, Annemarie Waehmann etc.) who state that
strafing did occur.[63] Taylor in Dresden, (2004) basing most of his
analysis on the work of Berganger and Helmut Schnatz, concludes that no
strafing took place, although some stray bullets from an aerial dog
fight may have hit the ground and been mistaken for strafing by those in
the vicinity.[64]
===
In general, the fighter escort was often under orders
to use their unused ammo on anything they might think useful.
(airfields, all forms of transport)
Lots of gun camera footage of it survives.
Strafing in the bombed area is very unlikely indeed.
No sane pilot would risk flying in all that perturbed air.
Jan
Ye Old One
That we will ever see any honesty from a brain dead moron like you.
Maybe.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
You do not believe in facts, you accept them. Belief isn't an option.
belief
n noun
1 an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one
without proof. Øa firmly held opinion or conviction. Øa religious
conviction.
2 (belief in) trust or confidence in.
PHRASES
beyond belief astonishing; incredible.
ORIGIN
Middle English: alteration of Old English geleafa; cf.
believe.
Now, since you have been given proof, you have been shown the facts,
belief is not the right word. You believe in your fictional deity, you
accept of acknowledge facts - there is a real difference.
--
Bob.
alextangent
> On Aug 14, 9:09 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 6:48 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 12, 2:28 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > > <1ce11c17-de93-4070-b2b6-75d177535...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andre
> > > > Lieven stated..."
>
> > > > >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> > > > [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> > > > >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> > > > >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> > > > >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> > > > [...snip...]
>
> > > > How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> > > > the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
> > > I said I saw it when it happened, but I was not at
> > > the UN. We all saw it on TV.
>
> > > > Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>
> > > > How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>
> > > It happened, Tom:
> > > 1960 - At the United Nations, Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev went
> > > ballistic, taking off his shoe and pounding it on his desk! The UN
> > > Assembly President, Frederick Boland, was so irritated that he split
>
> > > The man speaking was a delegate from the Philippines,
> > > by the name of Lorenzo Sumulong. You can read the
> > > account in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Sumulong#Faceoff_with_Khruschev
>
> > > I looked for a video for you to see the event, which
> > > you know would have to have been made from a
> > > kinescope recording, probably, and many of those
> > > have dissolved over time. But I can show you the
> > > photo of him raising the shoe over his head and
> > > yelling in a speech. It is the first photo, and that is
> > > not him speaking, that is someone else speaking
> > > while you see the first photo of Khruschev. Then
> > > the other voice you hear is a translator who is
> > > translating some words of Khruschev's. The shoe
> > > that he is holding up looks like a loafer sort of
> > > shoe in this photo.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xv7z5h7yBQ
> > > If this link does not open up for you, go to you tube
> > > and type in "Khruschev Speech in the UN" without
> > > quotes and you will get it with this exact title. The
> > > photo, by the way, appears to be blurry a little
> > > where the shoe is, like he is moving it.
>
> > > Suzanne
>
> > The shoe photo is a photoshopped fake.
>
> > Compare this;http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/khr...
>
>
> Yes, it looks that way to me, too, from the comparison
> with the other photo which you have provided. I'm basing
> this on what is underneath his left hand (the one on the
> papers) because the left hand is resting on a lot of
> papers in one photo and significantly less in the other
> photo. Thank you for your comparison photo, and I
> do agree with you about the one where he is holding up
> the shoe appearing to be a doctored up photo.
Progress! A small step, but a significant one, because what you're
agreeing to is that the evidence suggests the photo is doctored. And
that there's no other evidence of the shoe banging taking place at the
podium; in fact, the reverse.
>
> I still remember him banging on the table with his shoe,
> though. I'm sorry if that disappoints you.
>
And then you spoil it all.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Liar!
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
alextangent
Where did he say that? It should be easy to find in this set of posts.
Go to it.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
No, you just think you remember it, Since we know it is an invention
and that you cannot be remembering reality you are a fool to continue
with your claim.
>>
>Suzanne
>>
>>
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Unlike you I do not work with fiction - I prefer reality.
Unlike you I try to check my facts before posting. Because you don't
you keep making a fool of yourself as you have in this case.
The facts are:-
1) Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, former General Secretary of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union, never said "We will bury you."
2) The expression frequently mistranslated into English as "We will
bury you!" was made in Moscow on November 18th 1956. The real
translation, in context, was "Whether you like it or not, history is
on our side. We will dig you in" and actually referred to communism
taking over from capitalism.
3) The shoe banging incidence took place during the 902nd Plenary
Meeting of the UN General Assembly held in New York on 12 October
1960. That is four years and many thousands of miles away.
4) Neither incidence/speech/event was recorded on film or TV.
5) Neither incidence/speech/event was transmitted live on television
by any channel anywhere in the world.
Your memory, as is so often the case, is faulty.
--
Bob.
alextangent
That is not what he said. The event you refer to wasn't televised. It
didn't even happen as you "remembered" it.
> Others also did not think that it was, and the fact
> that it was, they could not find. So I provided the
> proof by showing them the archived answer from
> CBS which carried the transmission "live" from
> the UN.
It did not carry that event live from the UN. The event as you
describe it didn't happen.
>
> > It was not transmitted live (why would it be?)
>
> Yes it was! That's what I was showing. And why
> would you ask why it would be? It was a phenominal
> thing to see.
The evidence indicates otherwise. In fact, you (and others who have
done some basic research on your behalf) have demonstrated that the
event you claim to have seen *never happened* and was *not televised
live*.
You are just making stuff up again. In the 1960s, there were no
microphones at each delegate's table.
>
> > *No-one is claiming that the UN was not
> > televised in Khruschev's day.
>
> Yes, several have claimed this.
Who?
>
> > It's a false memory,
>
> No. A false memory is something that
> never happened. I was telling about two
> things that did happen. Khruschev did
> hold a shoe in his hand, and wave it, and
> possibly bang it, and he also did say
> "We will bury you."
You saw and heard neither event.
>
> > but I think in your
> > case it's not age related.
>
> Well, gee, thanks for that much. (chuckle)
>
> >You would be quite happy to claim you had
> > spoken to Khruschev about his lack of religion, taken bible study
> > classes with Roosevelt, and translated Russian to English at the UN
> > during the period in question if it advanced your lunatic cause.
>
> Now you are making fun of me for saying that
> I spoke to V.B. about what he believed. That
> was the truth. If you don't accept it, that's your
> loss. The point was that salvation is the work
> of the Holy Spirit, who can speak to people
> through his followers. This is shown through
> a lot of verses, among them being this one:
> ------------
> Mark 13:11:
> "But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up,
> take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak,
> neither do ye premeditate; but whatsoever shall
> be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is
> not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost."
Does that include dribbling lies over usenet?
>
> President Roosevelt had died some years
> before Khruschev was the leader in Russia.
Good spot. You'll get the hang of this fact stuff one day.
alextangent
And you're a couple of slates short of a full roof.
Ye Old One
Yes, I've heard a lot of stories like that over the years. Some of
them may have held up to a CSI style in-depth investigation, but of
course that was not available.
--
Bob.
John McKendry
Fair enough about the B-17 part. Snopes has this -
http://www.snopes.com/glurge/military/ridedown.asp :
<quote>
We can verify that the tale was incorporated into the 1944 film Wing
and a Prayer, although with some substantial differences from the way
it was later told:
- The setting is a torpedo-bombing run made against Japanese ships in
the Pacific by carrier-based planes, not a bombing raid launched
against German land targets from an airfield in England.
- The gunner is unable to bail out of the damaged plane because he has
suffered an injury to his legs, not because he is trapped in a stuck
turret.
- The payoff line is not "We'll ride her down together," but rather
"We'll take this ride together."
</quote>
The argument that Americans wouldn't have wanted to see Americans
dying in a 1944 movie would have been pretty good if you had turned
out to be right, I guess.
John
harry k
> On Aug 14, 9:09 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 6:48 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 12, 2:28 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > > <1ce11c17-de93-4070-b2b6-75d177535...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andre
> > > > Lieven stated..."
>
> > > > >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> > > > [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> > > > >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> > > > >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> > > > >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> > > > [...snip...]
>
> > > > How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> > > > the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
> > > I said I saw it when it happened, but I was not at
> > > the UN. We all saw it on TV.
>
> > > > Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>
> > > > How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>
> > > It happened, Tom:
> > > 1960 - At the United Nations, Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev went
> > > ballistic, taking off his shoe and pounding it on his desk! The UN
> > > Assembly President, Frederick Boland, was so irritated that he split
>
> > > The man speaking was a delegate from the Philippines,
> > > by the name of Lorenzo Sumulong. You can read the
> > > account in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Sumulong#Faceoff_with_Khruschev
>
> > > I looked for a video for you to see the event, which
> > > you know would have to have been made from a
> > > kinescope recording, probably, and many of those
> > > have dissolved over time. But I can show you the
> > > photo of him raising the shoe over his head and
> > > yelling in a speech. It is the first photo, and that is
> > > not him speaking, that is someone else speaking
> > > while you see the first photo of Khruschev. Then
> > > the other voice you hear is a translator who is
> > > translating some words of Khruschev's. The shoe
> > > that he is holding up looks like a loafer sort of
> > > shoe in this photo.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xv7z5h7yBQ
> > > If this link does not open up for you, go to you tube
> > > and type in "Khruschev Speech in the UN" without
> > > quotes and you will get it with this exact title. The
> > > photo, by the way, appears to be blurry a little
> > > where the shoe is, like he is moving it.
>
> > > Suzanne
>
> > The shoe photo is a photoshopped fake.
>
> > Compare this;http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/khr...
>
>
> Yes, it looks that way to me, too, from the comparison
> with the other photo which you have provided. I'm basing
> this on what is underneath his left hand (the one on the
> papers) because the left hand is resting on a lot of
> papers in one photo and significantly less in the other
> photo. Thank you for your comparison photo, and I
> do agree with you about the one where he is holding up
> the shoe appearing to be a doctored up photo.
>
> I still remember him banging on the table with his shoe,
> though. I'm sorry if that disappoints you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What disappoints us is your refusal to admit that your 'memory' is
false. With all the evidence that has been provided, a normal person
would have admitted she was in error several days ago.
Harry K
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you understood the posts you would see that he has maintained that
_those particular events_ that you falsely remember were televised. In
that he is correct and the evidence has been shown to you. He has not
claimed that some sessions were not telivised.
Harry K
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
Read my lips _slooowwwlllly_ . Belief does not enter into the
existance of facts. You 'accept' facts, you 'believe' (in your case)
in all sorts of weird, non-factual things.
Harry K
harry k
> On Aug 16, 2:44 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> > <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> > >On Aug 14, 6:20 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> > >> On Aug 14, 10:57 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> > But no cameras, TV, film or still, recorded it. You did not see it
> > happen live on TV as you claimed, you did not even see it recorded and
> > shown on the news.
>
> > > and he also did say
> > >"We will bury you."
>
> > That is a mistranslation of what he said, years earlier and thousands
> > of miles from the UN.
>
> > >> but I think in your
> > >> case it's not age related.
>
> > >Well, gee, thanks for that much. (chuckle)
>
> > >>You would be quite
>
> You are still in denial.
>
> Suzanne
In light of all the evidence that those events were _not_ televised,
how can you still insist that you saw it? I just have to visit your
universe sometime to see just what color that sky is.
Harry K
Andre Lieven
> On Aug 15, 4:19 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 14, 8:16 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:53:46 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > >> <ecb337f6-d51d-4081-a4e4-d5ffeec94...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, alextangent
> > > >> stated..."
>
> > > >> >On Aug 13, 11:38=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > >> >> <b0bb820f-a354-4af0-9423-b5afd5099...@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > >> >> >> >> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
>
> > > >> >Discussion is not an option. Suzanne is so out of touch that finding
> > > >> >points to reflect on in her distorting mirror that have the same
> > > >> >coordinates in reality is impossible.
>
> > > >> >I mean, look at this latest crazyness. I'm with YOO on this one; I
> > > >> >call "liar!" because getting S to recognise that she's imagining large
> > > >> >chunks of her life isn't possible. The fact that the roots of this
> > > >> >problem are caused by her addiction to religion doesn't seem to have
> > > >> >crossed what's left of her mind either. Either that, or she hits the
> > > >> >bottle.
>
> > > >First of all, let's give credit where credit is due.
> > > >Andre, in his gentle way (like a Sherman tank),
> > > >is the one that pointed out that I must have
> > > >confused the time when Khruschev banged
> > > >his shoe with the time that he said "We will bury
> > > >you." I believe that he is correct about that.
>
> > > You only "believe" he is correct???
>
> > Now what's wrong with saying that I believe
> > Andre could be correct, pray tell? Will you
> > find fault now with that?
>
>
> Because there is physical _proof_ that it happened as he said. there
> is no "belief" involved.
Indeed. But, due to the willful godbotist lobotomy that Suzanne has
given herself, she seems to be unable to notice that facts TRUMP
"beliefs".
That's reason #241 of why she is a demented loon. Self made.
Andre
Ye Old One
Only a couple?
--
Bob.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<09c40701-e911-45ee...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>):
I suspect purple with magenta highlights.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<7d24b701-99a2-43bd...@c34g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):
> You are still in denial.
Oh, my.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <h9of859rla6o7cd85...@4ax.com>):
Perhaps her Nazi hero was present at the UNGA and came back and told her what
happened.
Ye Old One
<try.n...@but.see.sig> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 06:52:28 -0400, Ye Old One wrote
>(in article <h9of859rla6o7cd85...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 02:25:11 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> <leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
[snip]
That could explain things, but I think a better explanation is that
her gods spoke to her, and told her that she had to post her lies here
on TO in order to keep all us "nasty" evolutionists occupied :)
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> "On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:42:25 -0500, in article
> <Vv-dncCOrLrMdRjXnZ2dnUVZ_oRi4...@giganews.com>, Louann Miller stated..."
>
>
> >Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote in
> >news:n4nb85ds74a3lql74...@4ax.com:
>
> >>> Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>
> >>> How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>
> >> after the hear about the events: there's a diagnostic code and a
> >> phrase for the illness but damned it I can recall what it is.
>
> >"Conflate" is a term, not particularly an insulting one, for the human
> >brain's habit of summarizing related memories as if they happened
> >together when they didn't. Normal people do this all the time too.
>
> >I think there was a study where the same functionally normal people were
> >asked the same question at an interval of years -- "what were you doing
> >when [major historical event] happened?" Everyone had clear, vivid
> >memories but some of them changed to different clear, vivid memories over
> >the years.
>
> his shoe is that I had the same memory myself, and then was corrected.
> (Or, at least, I have a memory of being corrected. :)) Apparently, a lot
> of people think that they saw, on television, K. pounding his shoe.
>
You can read a list of the ten top things that people
think happen that didn't happen and get a large draw
of people that are wrong, of course. But...you also
can have a tremendous amount of people, far more
than would be on a top ten list, that think that a thing
really did happen that *really did* happen. There's a
whole lot of a whole lot of people that say they do
remember Khruschev banged his shoe on the table.
All I'm telling you, Tom, is that if there is no proof
that anyone can find of it, that still doesn't mean that
it didn't happen.
>
> This is especially relevant to t.o, because of the common complaint
> from creationists that there were no eye-witnesses to events of the
> distant past, as if eye-witness reports were the most reliable, when
> they are often quite unreliable.
>
I don't know about what some Creationists do, but I
think most would have it in mind to show that the
person's whole belief system is not based solely on
evidence, but that underneath it all could be a primise
that is not accurate. That, in turn, would produce a
way of thinking that is like a shirt that gets misbuttoned
at the very onset of buttoning the shirt.
>
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:03:46 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 12, 3:48 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:05:51 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >On Aug 12, 3:13 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:30:11 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Aug 5, 9:15 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Aug 5, 6:42 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > > On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:03:38 GMT, Ye Old One wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> >> >> > > > <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > > > > even though it [the V-2 rocket] still had flaws as a rocket to
> >> >> >> > > > >lift off and go to space.=20
>
> >> >> >> > > > It was never designed for that.
>
> >> >> >> > > Actually, I believe the V-2 was the first man made object in space.
> >> >> >> > > It just wasn't designed to stay there.
>
> >> >> >> > > "Versions of the A4 [the previous name of the V-2] included the
> >> >> >> > > first ballistic missile, the first projectile to reach space, and
> >> >> >> > > were actively used in warfare."
>
> >> >> >> > With a bit more overhyping Hanna Reitsch
> >> >> >> > was the world's first astronaut,
> >> >> >> > with a suborbital V1 'rocket' test flight
> >> >> >> > to 80.000 feet.
>
> >> >> >> The use of the term "sub-orbital" with regard to a vehicle
> >> >> >> that cannot break the sound barrier, and limited to an
> >> >> >> altitude of 80,000 feet is gilding the lily, to say the least.
>
> >> >> >> In which case, one should refer to the Concorde as
> >> >> >> being "sub-orbital", it even flew faster than a V-1...
>
> >> >> >> > (and speaking of true nazis:
> >> >> >> > she refused to join Von Braun's team in the USA
> >> >> >> > and felt that the only crime that any German
> >> >> >> > could be accused of was the crime of losing the war)
>
> >> >> >> Not very clear on the concept of a war of *aggression*,
> >> >> >> was she ? That alone makes her judgement meaningless
> >> >> >> and self serving.
>
> >> >> >> Andre- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> >Andre, I have some information for you about
> >> >> >NASA if you remember that we were discussing.
> >> >> >Do you remember that we were discussing that
> >> >> >Marshall Space Flight Center was called on the
> >> >> >MSFC website, "the first field center" of NASA?
> >> >> >I was thinking
>
> >> >> That has to be a first.
>
> >> >> >it might have something to do
> >> >> >with it's having civilians brought into it? Well, I
> >> >> >researched it and found out that is what seems
> >> >> >to be the reason.
>
> >> >> Nope. Nothing to do with it at all.
>
> >> >It has everything to do with it.
>
> >> No, it hasn't.
>
> >Yes it does.
>
> >> >NASA was set up to be a
> >> >civilian agency, not a military agency,
>
> >> Same as its predecessor, the NACA.
>
> >No, you did not listen very well.
> > "To insure that NASA was controlled by civilians,
> > Eisenhower moved funding for all manned space
> > programs from the military to NASA."
>
> You really are hard work to educate.
>
> >This is what made it very different. There were a
> >couple of exceptions and that would be things such
> >as if we had to suddenly go to war. This civilian
> >part was not complete until Marshall was set up.
>
> The MSFC had nothing to do with completeness or lack of.
>
> >It is the first field center run by civilians.
>
> No it wasn't. Its only claim to fame, and that is a somewhat
> artificial one, is that it was the first new centre set up after the
> formation of NASA.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >and to show that
> >> >is true, I included excerpts from the National
> >> > Aeronautics
> >> >and Space administrations's act of 1958 as proof.
>
> >> >> > Remember that I had said that
> >> >> >it was forming during the first two years and you
> >> >> >had spoken about Langley and others being
> >> >> >added immediately after it was voted on by
> >> >> >Congress to come into existence and called
> >> >> >NASA? You were reasoning that Langley
> >> >> >already was a field center and that it was older,
>
> >> >> That is the fact.
>
> >> >> >(which you were correct about) than Marshall Space Flight Center,
> >> >> >which it was of course, since MSFC
> >> >> >was not set up until 1960, two years after NASA
> >> >> >was voted on to come into existence. But here's
> >> >> >the information that will explain why Marshall is considered to be the
> >> >> >first field center of NASA:
>
> >> >> >First, let me tell you one thing. Kruschev and
> >> >> >Eisenhower were both at a point where the
> >> >> >realized how awful it would be if we each had
> >> >> >rockets, in the case that one of us made a
> >> >> >mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> >> >> >though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> >> >> >at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> >> >> >shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
> >> >> >the terrible things they possessed. Both of
> >> >> >these leaders were military leaders and that
> >> >> >helped them to see that peaceful coexistence
> >> >> >was what they needed to have with regard to
> >> >> >the ownership of rockets. Now, I'll continue...
>
> >> >> >In 1958, Eisenhower organized NASA to be
> >> >> >formed and as a civilian agency. It passed in
> >> >> >Congress and the reorganization began.
> >> >> >---------------------------------
> >> >> >(Statement about NASA's policy and purpose:)
> >> >> > "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
> >> >> >Representatives of the United States of America,
> >> >> >we hereby declare that it is the policy of the
> >> >> >United States that activities in space should be
> >> >> >devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind. The
> >> >> >Congress further declares that space activity shall be directed by a
> >> >> >civilian agency, and
> >> >> >shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to
> >> >> >the expansion of human knowledge."
> >> >> >(End of NASA statement)
> >> >> >-------------------------------
> >> >> >To insure that NASA was controlled by civilians,
> >> >> >Eisenhower moved funding for all manned space
> >> >> >programs from the military to NASA. In time,
> >> >> >there was a plan to set up the Redstone Arsenal
> >> >> >and the Huntsville Arsenal in the state of Alabama,
> >> >> >to become the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
> >> >> >Wernher Von Braun and his German scientist team
> >> >> >had already been at that location for some time,
> >> >> >working for the Army, and they seemed to want to
> >> >> >stay with the Army. At first V.B. refused the
> >> >> >position, but Eisenhower made it plain to him that
> >> >> >if he remained with the Army, he and the team
> >> >> >would probably all be split up from each other.
> >> >> >Rather than see them all split up, Von Braun
> >> >> >accepted the offer to be the head of MSFC and
> >> >> >the team reamed with him as well, of course. They
> >> >> >then transferred from military to civilian right away,
> >> >> >and Eisenhower got his wish, and his reorganization
> >> >> >of NASA was completed when the former
> >> >> >Redstone Arsenal became the brand new civilian
> >> >> >agency called NASA Marshall Space Flight Center,
> >> >> >whereupon it became the first civilian field center.
>
> >> >> You do spout some rubbish.
>
> >> >An act of Congress is not rubbish, and neither is the
> >> >carrying out of that act.
>
> >> What you spout is rubbish.
>
> >You wish.
>
> No, I wish you didn't keep spouting so much rubbish.
>
The website homepage of the Marshall Space Flight Center says that it
is the first field center. You are not
going to convince anyone that they are wrong and
you are right.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>The website homepage of the Marshall Space Flight Center says that it
>is the first field center. You are not
>going to convince anyone that they are wrong and
>you are right.
>>
>Suzanne
You, and they, have been proven wrong. Learn to live with reality.
NASA inherited three major centres from the NACA. They existed as NASA
centres for nearly two years before the MSFC became part of NASA.
Those are the facts that neither you, nor the MSFC, can deny. You
can't change history and history proves you wrong.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
They are ALL, every single one of them, WRONG.
>All I'm telling you, Tom, is that if there is no proof
>that anyone can find of it, that still doesn't mean that
>it didn't happen.
It was not televised live, it was not even televised as a recording.
We know this because it is a matter of record. There were no TV
cameras there. There were no film cameras there. Even the
photographers missed the event.
Those are the facts. Learn to live with them.
>>
>> This is especially relevant to t.o, because of the common complaint
>> from creationists that there were no eye-witnesses to events of the
>> distant past, as if eye-witness reports were the most reliable, when
>> they are often quite unreliable.
>>
>I don't know about what some Creationists do, but I
>think most would have it in mind to show that the
>person's whole belief system is not based solely on
>evidence, but that underneath it all could be a primise
>that is not accurate. That, in turn, would produce a
>way of thinking that is like a shirt that gets misbuttoned
>at the very onset of buttoning the shirt.
Creationism has zero evidence to support it.
Evolution has a mountain of evidence to support it.
Evolution is science.
Creationism is superstitious nonsense.
>>
>Suzanne
>>
--
Bob.
Rich McBane
<snip>>
> The website homepage of the Marshall Space Flight Center says that it
> is the first field center. You are not
> going to convince anyone that they are wrong and
> you are right.
>
> Suzanne
The problem is that you have been equating "first field center" with
being the first facility of NASA. In fact at one point you claimed
that initially Marshall was NASA. The NASA site clearly says that
there were other facilities prior to Marshall in 1960 but those were
designated as Research Centers. So it appears that you should ask
NASA what a Field Center is and how it differs from a Research Center
and whether a field center is more significant than a research center.
I can't speak for NASA but at my old company we had research centers
and field centers. The research centers were typically Labs often in
heavily populated cities where a lot of the science was done along
with prototypes and small scale models. The field centers were where
a lot lab work was scaled up to full size equipment and tested.
Field centers were often used to test things that couldn't be tested
in the lab. Sometimes because if things went wrong, they blew up, we
didn't want to destroy the lab or a city block. The Field center was
out in the boonies and had places designed to contain things that went
wrong.
So I have no trouble believing that Marshall was the first field
center, just not the first NASA facility and probably no where near
the significance that you are trying to attach to it.
Richard McBane
Klaus Hellnick
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:34:19 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:07:50 -0500, Klaus Hellnick
>> <khel...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>> Ye Old One wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne>>>>> On Aug 12, 4:19 pm, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 12, 8:28 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
>>>>>>> Lieven stated..."
>>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>>>>>>>>> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
>>>>>>>>> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
>>>>>>>>> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>>>>>>> How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
>>>>>>> the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>>>>>>> How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>>>>>>> ---Tom S.
>>>>>>> "...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
>>>>>>> Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
>>>>>>> DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
>>>>>> I'll raise you a rocket scientist and another feeble excuse from
>>>>>> Suzanne about not actually being there but seeing it on TV. Which she
>>>>>> couldn't have; it wasn't recorded. Incidentally, the quote "We will
>>>>>> bury you!" and the shoe banging incident were two events separated by
>>>>>> 4 years and several thousand miles. Ah, the wonders of a creationist
>>>>>> mind.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>
>>>>> Oh be quiet you big bag of wind. You said it never
>>>>> happened at all. Now all of a sudden you are an
>>>>> authority.
>>>>> Suzanne
>>>> Now look here you lying shit bag. Your exact words were:-
>>>>
>>>> [quote]
>>>> ...a few years earlier, Kruschev had said at the UN "We will bury
>>>> you," while shaking his shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!)
>>>>
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>> <f621f7c2-5cfc-4b1e...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
>>>>
>>>> Do you deny you made that claim?
>>>>
>>>> Well, first off his name was Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, that would
>>>> have been an easy thing for you to check. Second, as others have
>>>> pointed out, the phrase "we will bury you" was made on the 18th
>>>> November 1956 while the shoe banging event was 12th October 1960.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, nobody, least of all a two-bit lying arsewipe like you, "saw
>>>> that as it happened" unless they were present in the main hall of the
>>>> General Assembly of the UN in New York.
>>>>
>>> I thought the "We will bury you" quote was a mistranslation. I seem to
>>> recall that the context was a conversation about which economic system
>>> would collapse first and Khrushchev's words were better translated as
>>> "We will attend your funeral.".
>> Which is one meaning of 'we will bury you' in English.
>
> Though I'm guessing the sense was more like "we'll piss on your grave."
>
Yes, that is my understanding. However, the way it was translated made
it sound like a direct threat.
Suzanne
> On Aug 13, 1:57 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 2:28 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > <1ce11c17-de93-4070-b2b6-75d177535...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andre
> > > Lieven stated..."
>
> > > >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> > > [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> > > >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> > > >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> > > >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> > > [...snip...]
>
> > > How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> > > the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
> > > Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>
> > > How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>
> > while talking, and I can't be sure if they are the same
> > incident, since he put his shoe in his right hand and
> > waved it at the person he was speaking to just like
> > when he waved his hand without the shoe. He was
> > photographed with a shoe on the table, and he
> > also was photographed raising his arm high with
> > a shoe in it at a lecturn. Nevertheless, I did see
> > both things. He also pounded the table with both
> > of his fists, as did also the people with him from
> > Russia. I don't want to tell you wrong. I will ask
> > my mother. If she remembers it, she'll probably
> > remember the details, what they were all wearing
> > and how many children each person had, where
> > they are from and what they had for lunch that day,
> > what kind of car they each drove, and what kind
> > of tires they had. : )
>
> > Tom, be nice.
>
> > Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> I remembered seeing it live". It won't kill you and would restore at
> least a smidgeon of reputation.
>
Your memory has let you done
> constantly, you should learn not to trust it when it is proven wrong.
>
> I admit that had I been asked if I saw it live, I would have said yes
> until I recalled that I was out of the country with no TV at the time.
>
That's interesting and very amusing the way you put
it. There are people that do make compromises in
order that they be accepted by a certain crowd. I've
been there and done that and can remember. I don't
feel good about making compromises just so that
people will like me. I think it cheats them in the long
run if I do that, and that it also cheats me as well.
>
Harry, the shoe banging incident was broadcast *live*
on TV during the UN General Assembly. So far no
one has been able to locate a video made from the event, but the CBS
archives tells that they had *live* broadcasts of the UN (Gen.
Assembly) since 1949.
>
I believed that Khruschev did both at the same time,
the shoe banging and saying "We will bury you." Andre
pointed out that I was wrong and that it was two
separate incidents, 4 years apart, and I accept that
I could be wrong about them being together, and what
information Andre presented sounds right to me.
(two websites in wikipedia indicating the two separate
occasions). Wikipedia, though, is made on the concept
that two heads are better than one at remembering
things, and even that more than two heads are even
better than one, if they can be verified, of course. It
has made corrections; it is always open to the influence
of someone that can show a need for having it edited.
It tells that Khruschev said the "we will bury you" speech
at a Yugoslavian embassy in Moscow, and it also tells
that he made that speech in Yugoslavia, in another place in
Wikipedia.
Alex contributed that two photos, one with Khruschev's right fist up
in the air, and the other with same exact photo, but with a shoe in
his fisted hand (looks like a house slipper), and he says that the one
with the shoe is a fake. I'm not a photo expert, but I believe he is
correct because of the difference with the left hand in each photo
being on different amounts of notes. I agree it's faked. There are
some videos in you tube dot com showing what his left hand is resting
on during that speech, and you can see that the photo without him
holding up the shoe is the correct one, based again on the amount of
papers (notes) that his left hand is resting upon in both the still
two photos and also on the videos. But he is supposed to have made
three speeches on tha day, or in close proximity to one another at the
same session, but on a different day. But in the videos he is wearing
the same medium toned
suit (black and white photo) and light tie. In some videos
he is seen at the right end of a table, and in other videos he is seen
on the left end of a table, and the
videos are not flopped, because it is *his* right hand
that he raises in both of them. I also, personally, never
put a date on either event that we are speaking of,
so I am going by what Andre says that the dates are.
>
My basic memory of the shoe banging incident is
that it happened when he was sitting at the tables,
and not at the lecturn. According to wikipedia via
Andre's contribution, that occasion would be 1960.
By the way, in one photo, what is on top of the
stand that is within the framework of the speakers'
platform, the lecturn is askew to the framework,
with the edges of it not perpendicular or parallel
to the side frameworks. In one photo at least, the
top of the lecturn where the notes are, there is a
reflection, as though it were some kind of glass,
or even tile. If it were glass, it would not be likely
that anyone would pound on it with a shoe anyway.
I am not saying that it is glass, only that in one
photo, it looks like a slight reflection is present.
You can see these later things I mention in the
two photos that Alex provided that are alike
except for a shoe being in Khruschev's hand in
one of them. When looking at a faked photo,
of course, it helps also to have an idea of where
a shadow should fall, and in that case it's helpful
to figure out where the light source is coming
from by looking at other shadows in the photos.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Aug 13, 2:27 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 12, 4:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > > > I said that he had a
> > > >double degree...that he had a Master's degree
> > > >in Mechanical Englneering, and a Ph.D. degree
> > > >in Physics, and that he was both an engineer,
> > > >as well as being a scientist.
>
> > > No, he was NOT a scientist. He was a rocket engineer. Your error was
> > > corrected many times. To continue your claim shows your dishonesty.
>
> > Little YOO can't get by the fact that he had a Physics
> > degree. I think he thinks he never used it in his work.
>
> <snip>
>
> Everyone knows he had two degrees by now. How many he had and what
> they were in is immaterial. What counts is 'What did he do' - answer
> - he worked as an engineer, not a scientist.
>
> That is the point that you refuse to see.
>
> Harry K
>
If you don't mind me saying this Harry, my opinion is
that he did use physics in what he did because the
lecture that I went to that I have told people about,
had to do with how the three stage rockets would be
fueled. His lecture was on the half life of Uranium
235 in the cyclotron, and how there would be some
isotopes that remain after a certain process, and
they would be both radioactive and stable so that
they would be usable in order to provide the big
payload needed to get the rocket off the ground
and to have the thrust that it needed to propel it
into outer space. You see, a rocket can't just be
filled up with fuel and then take off, like an airplane
does. It has to have a process, I believe, where
some of the fuel is actually continually being made
as it is in the process of lifting off and pushing
towards outer space. The U-235 provided that way.
I believe this is why the field of physics considers
that being a being a rocket engineer is a special
science, and not just one of engineering. This is
why Von Braun was awarded our National Science
Award. You see, if a rocket was just filled up with
enough liquid fuel only that was required to lift it
and propel it all the way to outer space, it would
be too heavy to lift off the ground, unless there
was a way where fuel could be continually being
made until it got to outer space.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Aug 13, 12:22 am, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 5:13 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 12, 3:28 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > > <1ce11c17-de93-4070-b2b6-75d177535...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andre
> > > > Lieven stated..."
>
> > > > >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> > > > [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> > > > >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> > > > >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> > > > >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> > > > [...snip...]
>
> > > > How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> > > > the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
>
> > > > Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>
> > > 4 years apart.
>
> > > 12 Oct 1960 for the shoe incident:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
>
> > > 18 Nov 1956 for the "we will bury you" statement:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you
>
> > > Once again, Suzanne maintains a perfect record of being
> > > WRONG on matters of fact.
>
> > > > How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>
>
> > > Andre
>
> > Wanna bet that she will insist she is right?...or at least refuse to
> > admit she is wrong...cancel that last, of course she will.
>
> Well, I cheated... I read through to the end of the postings up
> to right now, so I saw quite clearly Suzanne's insane insistences
> that she is right, and the facts be damned.
>
> Though, since that is what she always does, none of that was a
> surprise...
>
> Andre- Hide quoted text -
>
many people had blue eyes in a Ronald Reagan movie.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
If you were not here then we would probably be attempting to educate
another brain dead poorly educated creationist.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> Ye Old One wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> > <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> On Aug 12, 4:19 pm, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >>>> <1ce11c17-de93-4070-b2b6-75d177535...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andre
> >>>> Lieven stated..."
> >>>>> On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
> >>>> [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> >>>>>> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> >>>>>> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> >>>>>> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
> >>>> [...snip...]
> >>>> How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> >>>> the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
> >>>> ---Tom S.
> >>>> "...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
> >>>> Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
> >>>> DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
> >>> I'll raise you a rocket scientist and another feeble excuse from
> >>> Suzanne about not actually being there but seeing it on TV. Which she
> >>> couldn't have; it wasn't recorded. Incidentally, the quote "We will
> >>> bury you!" and the shoe banging incident were two events separated by
> >>> 4 years and several thousand miles. Ah, the wonders of a creationist
> >>> mind.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> Oh be quiet you big bag of wind. You said it never
> >> happened at all. Now all of a sudden you are an
> >> authority.
> >> Suzanne
>
> > Now look here you lying shit bag. Your exact words were:-
>
> > [quote]
> > you," while shaking his shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!)
>
> > Message-ID:
> > <f621f7c2-5cfc-4b1e-bcee-9580a2530...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
>
> > Do you deny you made that claim?
>
> > Well, first off his name was Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, that would
> > have been an easy thing for you to check. Second, as others have
> > pointed out, the phrase "we will bury you" was made on the 18th
> > November 1956 while the shoe banging event was 12th October 1960.
>
> > Finally, nobody, least of all a two-bit lying arsewipe like you, "saw
> > that as it happened" unless they were present in the main hall of the
> > General Assembly of the UN in New York.
>
> I thought the "We will bury you" quote was a mistranslation. I seem to
> recall that the context was a conversation about which economic system
> would collapse first and Khrushchev's words were better translated as
>
I think that his meaning was that he believed that
Communism would outlive Capitalism, and that
what you just said serves that meaning exactly.
We will bury you is more of a literal kind of
translation because his actual words were that
they would "dig (us) in." He realized later after
the reaction to his words that what he had said
was stronger in connotation than what he had
intended it to mean and corrected the notion,
saying that he didn't mean that they would
actually bury us literally. I think he was meaning
that he did not intend it as a threat, which is the
way some took it, but that he meant it as his
belief that Communism would still be there
when the last people who were Capitalists died
off or no longer existed.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
I think you are lying about that.
>and how there would be some
>isotopes that remain after a certain process, and
>they would be both radioactive and stable so that
>they would be usable in order to provide the big
>payload needed to get the rocket off the ground
>and to have the thrust that it needed to propel it
>into outer space. You see, a rocket can't just be
>filled up with fuel and then take off, like an airplane
>does. It has to have a process, I believe, where
>some of the fuel is actually continually being made
>as it is in the process of lifting off and pushing
>towards outer space. The U-235 provided that way.
Liar!
>I believe this is why the field of physics considers
>that being a being a rocket engineer is a special
>science, and not just one of engineering. This is
>why Von Braun was awarded our National Science
>Award. You see, if a rocket was just filled up with
>enough liquid fuel only that was required to lift it
>and propel it all the way to outer space, it would
>be too heavy to lift off the ground, unless there
>was a way where fuel could be continually being
>made until it got to outer space.
Idiot!
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
For the last time - NO IT WAS NOT.
It could not have been, there were no TV cameras present at the time.
You could not have even seen it on the evening news because there were
no film cameras running at the time. You cannot even have seen a still
photograph of the event because none exist.
>So far no
>one has been able to locate a video made from the event, but the CBS
>archives tells that they had *live* broadcasts of the UN (Gen.
>Assembly) since 1949.
Nononononono. They made their first live broadcast from the UN in the
late 40s. The made many since. But they are rare, used to cover
special events that are planned in advance.
>>
>I believed that Khruschev did both at the same time,
>the shoe banging and saying "We will bury you." Andre
>pointed out that I was wrong and that it was two
>separate incidents, 4 years apart, and I accept that
>I could be wrong about them being together, and what
>information Andre presented sounds right to me.
>(two websites in wikipedia indicating the two separate
>occasions). Wikipedia, though, is made on the concept
>that two heads are better than one at remembering
>things, and even that more than two heads are even
>better than one, if they can be verified, of course. It
>has made corrections; it is always open to the influence
>of someone that can show a need for having it edited.
>It tells that Khruschev said the "we will bury you" speech
>at a Yugoslavian embassy in Moscow,
He we have another example of your abject stupidity - you fail to
verify your facts again. His speech took place at the Polish embassy
in Moscow.
> and it also tells
>that he made that speech in Yugoslavia, in another place in
>Wikipedia.
Liar!
>
[snip more stupidity that is irrelevant to the issue.]
>>
>Suzanne
You cano0t have seen the shoe banging incident on TV. We know that
because there were no TV cameras present at the time. You could not
have even seen it on the evening news because there were no film
cameras running at the time. You cannot even have seen a still
photograph of the event because none exist.
Face facts - you memory failed you.
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:34:19 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:07:50 -0500, Klaus Hellnick
>
> >>Ye Old One wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >>> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >>>> On Aug 12, 4:19 pm, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >>>>>> <1ce11c17-de93-4070-b2b6-75d177535...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andre
> >>>>>> Lieven stated..."
> >>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
> >>>>>> [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> >>>>>>>> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> >>>>>>>> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> >>>>>>>> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
> >>>>>> [...snip...]
> >>>>>> How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> >>>>>> the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
> >>>>>> Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
> >>>>>> How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
> >>>>>> ---Tom S.
> >>>>>> "...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
> >>>>>> Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
> >>>>>> DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
> >>>>> I'll raise you a rocket scientist and another feeble excuse from
> >>>>> Suzanne about not actually being there but seeing it on TV. Which she
> >>>>> couldn't have; it wasn't recorded. Incidentally, the quote "We will
> >>>>> bury you!" and the shoe banging incident were two events separated by
> >>>>> 4 years and several thousand miles. Ah, the wonders of a creationist
> >>>>> mind.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> Oh be quiet you big bag of wind. You said it never
> >>>> happened at all. Now all of a sudden you are an
> >>>> authority.
> >>>> Suzanne
>
> >>> Now look here you lying shit bag. Your exact words were:-
>
> >>> [quote]
> >>> you," while shaking his shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!)
>
> >>> Message-ID:
> >>> <f621f7c2-5cfc-4b1e-bcee-9580a2530...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
>
> >>> Do you deny you made that claim?
>
> >>> Well, first off his name was Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, that would
> >>> have been an easy thing for you to check. Second, as others have
> >>> pointed out, the phrase "we will bury you" was made on the 18th
> >>> November 1956 while the shoe banging event was 12th October 1960.
>
> >>> Finally, nobody, least of all a two-bit lying arsewipe like you, "saw
> >>> that as it happened" unless they were present in the main hall of the
> >>> General Assembly of the UN in New York.
>
> >>I thought the "We will bury you" quote was a mistranslation. I seem to
> >>recall that the context was a conversation about which economic system
> >>would collapse first and Khrushchev's words were better translated as
>
> >Which is one meaning of 'we will bury you' in English.
>
>
You probably have the best answer yet.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 04:20:45 -0700 (PDT), alextangent wrote:
> > On Aug 14, 10:57=A0am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 13, 4:22=A0pm, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 13, 9:54=A0pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 13, 5:38=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > , Suzanne
> > > > > > stated..."
>
> > > > > > >On Aug 13, 1:55=3DA0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> > > > > > >> >> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > s.com>, A=3D
> > > > > > >ndre
> > > > > > >> >> Lieven stated..."
>
> > > > > > >> >> >On Aug 12, 2:30=3D3DA0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> > > > > > >> >> [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> > > > > > >> >> >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> > > > > > >> >> >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> > > > > > >> >> >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> > > > > > >> >> [...snip...]
>
> > > > > > >> >> How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> > > > > > >> >> the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
> > > > > > >> >the UN. We all saw it on TV.
>
> > > > > > >> Well, no, it wasn't. TV did not broadcast live from the General
> > > > > > >> Assembly of the UN.
>
> > > > > > >Yes it did, Bob.
>
> > t as
> > > > > > >> it happened.
>
> > > > > > >No, Bob.
>
>
> > > > > > >> >> How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>
> > > > > > >> >1960 - At the United Nations, Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev w=
> > ent
> > > > > > >> >ballistic, taking off his shoe and pounding it on his desk! The=
> > UN
> > > > > > >> >Assembly President, Frederick Boland, was so irritated that he =
> > split
> > > > > > >> >his gavel trying to reestablish order.
> > > > > > >> >www.440.com/twtd/archives/oct12.html-15k
> > > > > > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
>
> > > > > > >> >The man speaking was a delegate from the Philippines,
> > > > > > >> >by the name of Lorenzo Sumulong. You can read the
> > > > > > >> >account in Wikipedia:
> > schev
>
> > > > > > >> >I looked for a video for you to see the event, which
> > > > > > >> >you know would have to have been made from a
> > > > > > >> >kinescope recording, probably, and many of those
> > > > > > >> >have dissolved over time.
>
> > > > > > >> What the hell are you talking about you moron?
>
> > > > > > >You would not know. You've shown already in
> > > > > > >this post what you don't know.
>
> > > > > > >> > But I can show you the
> > > > > > >> >photo of him raising the shoe over his head and
> > > > > > >> >yelling in a speech. It is the first photo, and that is
> > > > > > >> >not him speaking, that is someone else speaking
> > > > > > >> >the other voice you hear is a translator who is
> > > > > > >> >translating some words of Khruschev's.
>
> > > > > > >> You do manage to get everything wrong.
>
> > > > > > >> > The shoe
> > > > > > >> >that he is holding up looks like a loafer sort of
> > > > > > >> >shoe in this photo.
> > > (See section entitled, "The Television Years,
> > > Expansion and Growth," third paragraph down
> > > for where the above is written.)
>
> > > Suzanne
>
> > <sigh>
>
> > For the last time, you did not see Khruschev on TV banging his shoe in
> > have the podium with the only microphone when the reported shoe-
> > televised in Khruschev's day. It's a false memory, but I think in your
> > case it's not age related. You would be quite happy to claim you had
> > spoken to Khruschev about his lack of religion, taken bible study
> > classes with Roosevelt, and translated Russian to English at the UN
> > during the period in question if it advanced your lunatic cause.
>
> Actually, I think this is pretty interesting. It's probably the way
> many new religions start.
>
> Random Guy: Hey, I hear that Jesus guy walked on water!
>
> Suzanne Like Ancient Person: Yeah, I saw that!
>
> Crowd: Wow, it must be true then!
>
This could happen this way, but about Jesus, you know Paul
was not a Christian when Jesus was living his life on earth.
He refers to the hundreds who were eyewitnesses as to who
Jesus was in passages that he has written. But there are many
extra-biblical sources that speak of Jesus being a real person,
about whom these events are real. You might be interested
in this website
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Is_There_Evidence_for_Jesus_Outside_the_Bible
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
You are mixing fiction with reality.
>He refers to the hundreds who were eyewitnesses as to who
>Jesus was in passages that he has written. But there are many
>extra-biblical sources that speak of Jesus being a real person,
No, there are not.
>about whom these events are real. You might be interested
>in this website
>http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Is_There_Evidence_for_Jesus_Outside_the_Bible
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> In article <7eo762F2gcvq...@mid.individual.net>,
> John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:01:55 -0500, Louann Miller wrote:
>
> > > Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in news:db868862-9e73-49f1-b2bd-
> > > 948c3056c...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > >> Ronald Reagan once told about something that happened to him as a
> > >> paratrooper in WW2 when their plane was hit and his captain heroically
> > >> stayed with a wounded soldier. Turned out that this was from a movie,
> > >> "on a wing and a prayer"
>
> > > In retrospect, I'd thought that was an early symptom of Alzheimer's. But
> > > surely Reagan was still together enough to recall that he hadn't BEEN a
> > > paratrooper, or anything but a PR guy, during the war. So probably just
> > > a creative speechwriter's metaphor that barely qualifies as a lie.
>
> > From "Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars, and the End of the
> > Cold War", by Frances Fitzgerald, at Google Books,
> > (the URL should be one line -)
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=nv2v0fCAONwC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&
> > dq=reagan+movie+%22medal+of+honor%22&source=bl&ots=BKXgqk5bgA&
> > sig=WYnCA2NYnpaHKVJmok_uQe2PmKc&hl=en&ei=BuGGStn_EZKJtgfzmNTnDA&sa=X
> > &oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=reagan%20movie%20%
> > 22medal%20of%20honor%22&f=false
>
> > (page 22)
> > <quote>
> > Speaking to the Congressional Medal of Honor Society in December 1983,
> > he <Reagan> told a World War II story of a B-17 captain whose plane
> > had been hit and who was unable to drag his wounded young ball-turret
> > gunner out of the turret; instead of parachuting to safety with the rest
> > of his crew, the captain took the frightened boy's hand and said, "Never
> > mind, son, we'll ride it down together." Reagan concluded by telling the
> > society that the captain had been posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.
> > But no such person existed: the story came from the 1946 movie 'A Wing
> > and a Prayer'.
> > </quote>
>
> > (page 58)
> > <quote>
> > In his speeches Reagan told countless stories of individual heroism
> > and, occasionally, villainy, some of them from the movies, some of them
> > apocryphal. In the 1980s commentators politely assumed that he believed
> > these stories to be true - and possibly he did by then, But in the
> > fifties he narrated movie plots as true stories not long after the
> > movies came out. For example, he used the story about the heroic B-17
> > captain from the 1946 movie 'A Wing and a Prayer' in a commencement
> > address he made in 1952. Since he had an excellent memory, it is
> > reasonable to assume that he knew the story was a fiction but just
> > did not care - accuracy being unimportant where moral certainty and
> > the Truth were concerned.It
> > </quote>
>
> > I'm not sure Fitzgerald has that last part exactly right, but there
> > was certainly something wrong with Reagan's attitude toward actual
> > facts; it was as if he just didn't grasp the concept at all.
>
> > John
>
> It took a long time in human history for the concept of raw fact to
> become important. The Gospel writers seem not to have had the concept,
> for example.- Hide quoted text -
>
The gospel writers had hundreds of people that they
spoke to that were eyewitness accounts, so they didn't
have just raw facts, they had hundreds of testimonies
to go by. Jesus was seen by hundreds after he was
resurrected. Extra-biblical accounts testify to the
events that took place.
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Is_There_Evidence_for_Jesus_Outside_the_Bible
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:19:53 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> >> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:53:46 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >> >> <ecb337f6-d51d-4081-a4e4-d5ffeec94...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, alextangent
> >> >> stated..."
>
> >> >> >> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >> >> >nne
> >> >> >> stated..."
>
> >> >> >> >On Aug 13, 1:55=3DA0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> >> >> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >On Aug 12, 2:28=3DA0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
>
> >> >> >points to reflect on in her distorting mirror that have the same
> >> >> >coordinates in reality is impossible.
>
> >> >> >I mean, look at this latest crazyness. I'm with YOO on this one; I
> >> >> >call "liar!" because getting S to recognise that she's imagining large
> >> >> >chunks of her life isn't possible. The fact that the roots of this
> >> >> >problem are caused by her addiction to religion doesn't seem to have
> >> >> >crossed what's left of her mind either. Either that, or she hits the
> >> >> >bottle.
>
> >> >First of all, let's give credit where credit is due.
> >> >Andre, in his gentle way (like a Sherman tank),
> >> >is the one that pointed out that I must have
> >> >confused the time when Khruschev banged
> >> >his shoe with the time that he said "We will bury
> >> >you." I believe that he is correct about that.
>
> >> You only "believe" he is correct???
>
> >Now what's wrong with saying that I believe
> >Andre could be correct, pray tell? Will you
> >find fault now with that?
>
> Facts do not require you to believe in them, you just accept them or
> look stupid by trying to deny them.
>
> You now accept he is correct and that you were wrong.
>
> >Suzanne
>
> --
>
The problem with you is that you don't get
straight what someone has said to you,
before you attack them. You are a bully.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne> >On Aug 14, 6:20 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 14, 10:57 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Aug 13, 4:22 pm, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Aug 13, 9:54 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > On Aug 13, 5:38 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >> > > > > stated..."
>
> >> > > > > >On Aug 13, 1:55=A0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> > > > > >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> > > > > >> >> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >> > > > > >ndre
> >> > > > > >> >> Lieven stated..."
>
> >> > > > > >> >> >On Aug 12, 2:30=3DA0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> >> > > > > >> >> [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> >> > > > > >> >> >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> >> > > > > >> >> >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> >> > > > > >> >> >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> >> > > > > >> >> [...snip...]
>
> >> > > > > >> >> How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> >> > > > > >> >> the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
> >> > > > > >> >I said I saw it when it happened, but I was not at
> >> > > > > >> >the UN. We all saw it on TV.
>
> >> > > > > >> Well, no, it wasn't. TV did not broadcast live from the General
> >> > > > > >> Assembly of the UN.
>
> >> > > > > >Yes it did, Bob.
>
> >> > > > > >> it happened.
>
> >> > > > > >No, Bob.
>
> >> > > > > >> >> Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>
> >> > > > > >> >> How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>
> >> > > > > >> >It happened, Tom:
> >> > > > > >> >ballistic, taking off his shoe and pounding it on his desk! The UN
> >> > > > > >> >Assembly President, Frederick Boland, was so irritated that he split
> >> > > > > >> >his gavel trying to reestablish order.
> >> > > > > >> >www.440.com/twtd/archives/oct12.html-15k
> >> > > > > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
>
> >> > > > > >> >The man speaking was a delegate from the Philippines,
> >> > > > > >> >by the name of Lorenzo Sumulong. You can read the
> >> > > > > >> >account in Wikipedia:
>
> >> > > > > >> >I looked for a video for you to see the event, which
> >> > > > > >> >you know would have to have been made from a
> >> > > > > >> >kinescope recording, probably, and many of those
> >> > > > > >> >have dissolved over time.
>
> >> > > > > >> What the hell are you talking about you moron?
>
> >> > > > > >You would not know. You've shown already in
> >> > > > > >this post what you don't know.
>
> >> > > > > >> > But I can show you the
> >> > > > > >> >photo of him raising the shoe over his head and
> >> > > > > >> >yelling in a speech. It is the first photo, and that is
> >> > > > > >> >not him speaking, that is someone else speaking
> >> > > > > >> >the other voice you hear is a translator who is
> >> > > > > >> >translating some words of Khruschev's.
>
> >> > > > > >> You do manage to get everything wrong.
>
> >> > > > > >> > The shoe
> >> > > > > >> >that he is holding up looks like a loafer sort of
> >> > > > > >> >shoe in this photo.
> >> > (See section entitled, "The Television Years,
> >> > Expansion and Growth," third paragraph down
> >> > for where the above is written.)
>
> >> > Suzanne
>
> >> <sigh>
>
> >> For the last time, you did not see Khruschev on TV banging his shoe in
> >> 1960.
>
> >Khruschev, I was veritying for Y.O.O., who had
> >claimed that someone was lying if they said that
> >the UN was televised,
>
> Nobody claimed that the UN was not televised sometimes. Very rarely,
> when some special event was going on, it even made the news.
>
> > that it was indeed televised.
> >Others also did not think that it was, and the fact
> >that it was, they could not find. So I provided the
> >proof by showing them the archived answer from
> >CBS which carried the transmission "live" from
> >the UN.
>
> CBS claims (incorrectly by the way) that they were the first to do a
> few live transmissions from the UN general assembly. Of course, the
> BBC did it at least three years earlier but then most people seem to
> forget that the UN first started its meetings in London.
>
> However, during the 50s, 60s and even well into the 70s, there was no
> permanent TV presence in the UN. There was certainly NO live
> transmission of Khrushchev's shoe banging and in fact there was not
> even a TV or film camera present for that event so there is no
> recording either.
>
>
>
>
>
> Liar!
>
> > That's what I was showing. And why
> >would you ask why it would be? It was a phenominal
> >thing to see.
>
> >According to CBS TV archives, it has been televised
> >"live" since 1949.
>
> Liar!
>
>
>
> >> have the podium with the only microphone when the reported shoe-
> >> banging event took place.
>
> >> televised in Khruschev's day.
>
>
> Liar!
>
>
>
>
> >never happened.
>
> Correct. Your false memory is that you watched it live on TV.
>
> > I was telling about two
> >things that did happen. Khruschev did
> >hold a shoe in his hand, and wave it, and
> >possibly bang it,
>
> But no cameras, TV, film or still, recorded it. You did not see it
> happen live on TV as you claimed, you did not even see it recorded and
> shown on the news.
>
my mother and a lot of other people, and we all
discussed it. Why are you making such a huge issue
out of it?
>
>
> > and he also did say
> >"We will bury you."
>
> of miles from the UN.
>
being a literal translation since in the Russian
language he used the words "dig (you) in,"
which means a funeral, and therefore burying
someone. But the connotation of it meant
that he believed Communism would still be
there when the last Capitalist had died or
no longer existed.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Aug 16, 9:28 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 14, 9:09 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 13, 6:48 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 12, 2:28 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > > > Lieven stated..."
>
> > > > > >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> > > > > [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> > > > > >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> > > > > >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> > > > > >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> > > > > [...snip...]
>
> > > > > How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> > > > > the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
> > > > I said I saw it when it happened, but I was not at
> > > > the UN. We all saw it on TV.
>
>
> > > > > How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>
> > > > It happened, Tom:
> > > > 1960 - At the United Nations, Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev went
> > > > ballistic, taking off his shoe and pounding it on his desk! The UN
> > > > Assembly President, Frederick Boland, was so irritated that he split
>
> > > > The man speaking was a delegate from the Philippines,
> > > > by the name of Lorenzo Sumulong. You can read the
> > > > account in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Sumulong#Faceoff_with_Khruschev
>
> > > > I looked for a video for you to see the event, which
> > > > you know would have to have been made from a
> > > > kinescope recording, probably, and many of those
> > > > photo of him raising the shoe over his head and
> > > > yelling in a speech. It is the first photo, and that is
> > > > not him speaking, that is someone else speaking
> > > > the other voice you hear is a translator who is
> > > > that he is holding up looks like a loafer sort of
> > > > If this link does not open up for you, go to you tube
> > > > and type in "Khruschev Speech in the UN" without
> > > > quotes and you will get it with this exact title. The
> > > > photo, by the way, appears to be blurry a little
> > > > where the shoe is, like he is moving it.
>
>
> > > The shoe photo is a photoshopped fake.
>
> > > Compare this;http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/khr...
>
> > > with this:http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_b0FYjmYr_CM/R4qJ2fiyqfI/AAAAAAAAATM/7ZYC0o6...quoted text -
>
> > Yes, it looks that way to me, too, from the comparison
> > with the other photo which you have provided. I'm basing
> > this on what is underneath his left hand (the one on the
> > papers) because the left hand is resting on a lot of
> > papers in one photo and significantly less in the other
> > photo. Thank you for your comparison photo, and I
> > do agree with you about the one where he is holding up
> > the shoe appearing to be a doctored up photo.
>
> Progress! A small step, but a significant one, because what you're
> agreeing to is that the evidence suggests the photo is doctored. And
> that there's no other evidence of the shoe banging taking place at the
> podium; in fact, the reverse.
>
>
>
> > I still remember him banging on the table with his shoe,
> > though. I'm sorry if that disappoints you.
>
> And then you spoil it all.- Hide quoted text -
>
Yes, Alex, I'm sorry but I could not resist. : )
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 02:03:44 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne> >I said that I believe that he is correct. I did not
> >say that I believe "in" him being correct,
>
> >Suzanne
>
> You do not believe in facts, you accept them. Belief isn't an option.
>
I will try to tell you again. I did not say that I
believed "in" Andre, I said that I believe Andre.
I do not believe "in" facts, I believe facts. When
a person IN ENGLISH which is what I speak
says "I believe that the sun came up," they
ARE meaning that they believe "the fact" that
the sun came up. Now, if you don't like that,
Bob, get over it. Stop twisting my words.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
> [quote]
> you," while shaking his shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!)
>
> Message-ID:
> <f621f7c2-5cfc-4b1e-bcee-9580a2530...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
>
> Do you deny you made that claim?
>
that Andre is probably right about it being
two separate incidents, and that I have said
I am probably wrong about them happening
at the same time? Do you think you could
be a little less trigger happy with your
replies to people? And do you think that you
could treat them in a better way than you do?
>>
> Well, first off his name was Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, that would
>
that I did was type a little too fast and left out
the "h" after the "K" in his name.
>
> have been an easy thing for you to check. Second, as others have
> pointed out, the phrase "we will bury you" was made on the 18th
> November 1956 while the shoe banging event was 12th October 1960.
>
>
> Finally, nobody, least of all a two-bit lying arsewipe like you, "saw
> General Assembly of the UN in New York.
>
The shoe banging incident was seen on TV by
many, and it was the talk of the neighborhoods.
That's all that I can tell you. I'm sorry but I don't
know the date to tell you, and yes I do know
what Wikipedia says.
>
Suzanne
TomS
<78745c41-8576-466b...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Suzanne
stated..."
>
>On Aug 15, 5:14=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:42:25 -0500, in article
>> <Vv-dncCOrLrMdRjXnZ2dnUVZ_oRi4...@giganews.com>, Louann Miller stated..."
>>
>>
>> >Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote in
>> >news:n4nb85ds74a3lql74...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >>> Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>>
>> >>> How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>>
>> >> Occult-befuddled nutcases often "see" things in their imaginations
>> >> after the hear about the events: there's a diagnostic code and a
>> >> phrase for the illness but damned it I can recall what it is.
>>
>> >"Conflate" is a term, not particularly an insulting one, for the human
>> >brain's habit of summarizing related memories as if they happened
>> >together when they didn't. Normal people do this all the time too.
>>
>> >I think there was a study where the same functionally normal people were
>> >asked the same question at an interval of years -- "what were you doing
>> >when [major historical event] happened?" Everyone had clear, vivid
>r
>> >the years.
>>
>> One reason that I was alerted to this "memory" of seeing K. pounding
>> his shoe is that I had the same memory myself, and then was corrected.
>> (Or, at least, I have a memory of being corrected. :)) Apparently, a lot
>> of people think that they saw, on television, K. pounding his shoe.
>>
>You can read a list of the ten top things that people
>think happen that didn't happen and get a large draw
>of people that are wrong, of course. But...you also
>can have a tremendous amount of people, far more
>than would be on a top ten list, that think that a thing
>really did happen that *really did* happen. There's a
>whole lot of a whole lot of people that say they do
>remember Khruschev banged his shoe on the table.
>All I'm telling you, Tom, is that if there is no proof
>that anyone can find of it, that still doesn't mean that
>it didn't happen.
And there you go again.
Did I suggest that K. did not pound his shoe on the table?
Is there anyone here who says that if it isn't on live TV, then it
doesn't happen?
Let me suggest that, if one wants to communicate with others, then
one ought to take the trouble not to impute to others what they did
not say.
>>
>> This is especially relevant to t.o, because of the common complaint
>> from creationists that there were no eye-witnesses to events of the
>> distant past, as if eye-witness reports were the most reliable, when
>> they are often quite unreliable.
>>
>I don't know about what some Creationists do, but I
>think most would have it in mind to show that the
>person's whole belief system is not based solely on
>evidence, but that underneath it all could be a primise
>that is not accurate. That, in turn, would produce a
>way of thinking that is like a shirt that gets misbuttoned
>at the very onset of buttoning the shirt.
>>
>Suzanne
>>
>
And you are not one to be lecturing us on unquestioned premises.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 13, 6:50 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>> Now look here you lying shit bag. Your exact words were:-
>>
>> [quote]
>> ...a few years earlier, Kruschev had said at the UN "We will bury
>> you," while shaking his shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!)
>> [end quote]
>>
>> Message-ID:
>> <f621f7c2-5cfc-4b1e-bcee-9580a2530...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> Do you deny you made that claim?
>>
>Is it possible that you don't know that I said
>that Andre is probably right about it being
>two separate incidents,
You have said that now, you had not said that then.
> and that I have said
>I am probably wrong about them happening
>at the same time? Do you think you could
>be a little less trigger happy with your
>replies to people?
With you, no. You constant and consistent lying must not go
unchallenged. Try thinking before posting.
> And do you think that you
>could treat them in a better way than you do?
>>>
>> Well, first off his name was Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, that would
>>
>I think that comment is not necessary since all
>that I did was type a little too fast and left out
>the "h" after the "K" in his name.
And, of course, you were too lazy to check it.
>>
>> have been an easy thing for you to check. Second, as others have
>> pointed out, the phrase "we will bury you" was made on the 18th
>> November 1956 while the shoe banging event was 12th October 1960.
>>
>Go read all the posts.
Done. You are still wrong.
>>
>> Finally, nobody, least of all a two-bit lying arsewipe like you, "saw
>> that as it happened" unless they were present in the main hall of the
>> General Assembly of the UN in New York.
>>
>The shoe banging incident was seen on TV by
>many,
No it was not.
> and it was the talk of the neighborhoods.
Liar!
>That's all that I can tell you. I'm sorry but I don't
>know the date to tell you, and yes I do know
>what Wikipedia says.
And we all know that YOU are, as usual, WRONG.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 16, 5:34 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 02:03:44 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I said that I believe that he is correct. I did not
>> >say that I believe "in" him being correct,
>>
>> >Suzanne
>>
>> You do not believe in facts, you accept them. Belief isn't an option.
>>
>I will try to tell you again. I did not say that I
>believed "in" Andre, I said that I believe Andre.
>I do not believe "in" facts, I believe facts. When
>a person IN ENGLISH which is what I speak
We sometimes wonder if it is your first language.
>says "I believe that the sun came up," they
>ARE meaning that they believe "the fact" that
>the sun came up. Now, if you don't like that,
>Bob, get over it. Stop twisting my words.
>>
>Suzanne
Your words, after being given the facts, were "I believe that he is
correct about that."
Do you accept that the facts show you were wrong?
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Unlike you I do read with a reasonable degree of comprehension.
>before you attack them. You are a bully.
I cannot help it is you have been so stupid in making claims that has
been proven false.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
You, Suzanne, are a bare faced unmitigated liar. You have been shown,
by many different people, that this is a FALSE memory you have. You
did not watch it live on TV, nobody did, in fact nobody could. It was
not televised live, it was not recorded by TV or film and shown later,
it was not even photographed.
> So did
>my mother and a lot of other people, and we all
>discussed it. Why are you making such a huge issue
>out of it?
Because it is another example of your stupidity. The sort of stupidity
that may well have been shared by early christians who gullibly accept
the fairy stories they were fed.
>>
>>
>> > and he also did say
>> >"We will bury you."
>>
>> That is a mistranslation of what he said, years earlier and thousands
>> of miles from the UN.
>>
>It was not a mistranslation
Yes it was.
>it was close to
>being a literal translation since in the Russian
>language he used the words "dig (you) in,"
>which means a funeral,
No it does not.
> and therefore burying
>someone. But the connotation of it meant
>that he believed Communism would still be
>there when the last Capitalist had died or
>no longer existed.
He thought, wrongly, that capitalism would fall. But his speech was in
Russia, four years earlier, was not televised or recorded and did not
involve any shoe banging whatsoever.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
You have show just how unreliable that is.
> Jesus was seen by hundreds after he was
>resurrected. Extra-biblical accounts testify to the
>events that took place.
No, they don't.
Andre Lieven
> many people had blue eyes in a Ronald Reagan movie.
No one else is responsible for your *delusions*. Nor do your delusions
have any bearing on the FACTS of the issues in discussion, about which
you remain 100% WRONG.
That truth is all on YOU.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Aug 13, 6:50 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> > <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> > Now look here you lying shit bag. Your exact words were:-
>
> > [quote]
> > ...a few years earlier, Kruschev had said at the UN "We will bury
> > you," while shaking his shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!)
> > [end quote]
>
> > Message-ID:
> > <f621f7c2-5cfc-4b1e-bcee-9580a2530...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
>
> > Do you deny you made that claim?
>
> Is it possible that you don't know that I said
> that Andre is probably right about it being
> two separate incidents,
Your repeated use of the weasel-word "probably" is
your pitiful attempt to avoid having to admit, honestly,
that I WAS RIGHT and that YOU WERE WRONG.
> and that I have said
> I am probably wrong about them happening
> at the same time? Do you think you could
> be a little less trigger happy with your
> replies to people? And do you think that you
> could treat them in a better way than you do?
<Massive Fundy Loon Projection>
Until you stop with your repeated LIES, you are in NO
position to try to lecture at other people.
> > Well, first off his name was Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, that would
>
> I think that comment is not necessary since all
> that I did was type a little too fast and left out
> the "h" after the "K" in his name.
That was YOUR error; Own it.
> > have been an easy thing for you to check. Second, as others have
> > pointed out, the phrase "we will bury you" was made on the 18th
> > November 1956 while the shoe banging event was 12th October 1960.
>
> Go read all the posts.
I have; You remain WRONG on the FACTS.
> > Finally, nobody, least of all a two-bit lying arsewipe like you, "saw
> > that as it happened" unless they were present in the main hall of the
> > General Assembly of the UN in New York.
>
> The shoe banging incident was seen on TV by many,
LIE !
> and it was the talk of the neighborhoods.
> That's all that I can tell you. I'm sorry but I don't
> know the date to tell you, and yes I do know
> what Wikipedia says.
Thus, you LIE and you remain UN-able to provide actual
EVIDENCE that might support your LIES.
You are wonderful proof that religion = IMmorality.
Andre
Suzanne
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:27:24 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
>
> >Little YOO can't get by the fact that he had a Physics
> >degree.
>
> working life, an engineer.
>
Bob, rocket engineering is incorporated into the field of physics as a
special case. You need to argue with the universities if you don't
agree with this, not with me.
>
>
> > I think he thinks he never used it in his work.
>
> >> >> >to the school curriculum, as they had made
> >> >> >rocket engineers be a form of science, since
> >> >> >there is a great deal of experimentation that
> >> >> >has to go on in that field. He had a double
> >> >> >degree and his Ph.D. was in Physics which is
> >> >> >a science, and which he also used in his work.
> >> >> >He was also had the National Science Medal
> >> >> >conferred upon him.
>
> >> >> >> He may have believed in a creator God, but then so do many
> >> >> >> evolutionary biologists.
>
> >> >> >He was not always a Christian.
>
> >> >> Liar!
>
> >> >No, Bob, I am not lying. Here is the account:
>
> >> He was born and raised a christian.
>
> >Silly, you are ignorant of how to become a
> >Christian.
>
> No, you are just very selective about your definition - one that is
> not shared by the majority of christians.
>
Sorry, Bob, but the primary authority on Christianity
is Jesus. He said to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born
again." Nicodemus questioned him about what he
meant by what he was saying by replying, "Can a
man enter again into his mother's womb?" Jesus
essentially said that in order to become a Christian
a spiritual thing has to take place within a person,
and it is something they basically have to do
themselves in the form of a decision. Here's the
story from a modern version, the NKJV...
John 3:1-21:
1 After dark one evening, a Jewish religious leader named Nicodemus,
a Pharisee, 2 came to speak with Jesus. "Teacher," he said, "we all
know that God has sent you to teach us. Your miraculous signs are
proof enough that God is with you." 3 Jesus replied, "I assure you,
unless you are born again, you can never see the Kingdom of God." 4
"What do you mean?" exclaimed Nicodemus. "How can an old man go back
into his mother's womb and be born again?" 5 Jesus replied, "The truth
is, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water
and the Spirit. 6 Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy
Spirit gives new life from heaven. 7 So don't be surprised at my
statement that you must be born again. 8 Just as you can hear the wind
but can't tell where it comes from or where it is going, so you can't
explain how people are born of the Spirit." 9 "What do you mean?"
Nicodemus asked. 10 Jesus replied, "You are a respected Jewish
teacher, and yet you don't understand these things? 11 I assure you, I
am telling you what we know and have seen, and yet you won't believe
us. 12 But if you don't even believe me when I tell you about things
that happen here on earth, how can you possibly believe if I tell you
what is going on in heaven? 13 For only I, the Son of Man, have come
to earth and will return to heaven again. 14 And as Moses lifted up
the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so I, the Son of Man,
must be lifted up on a pole, 15. so that everyone who believes in me
will have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world that he gave
his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but
have eternal life. 17 God did not send his Son into the world to
condemn it, but to save it. 18 "There is no judgment awaiting those
who trust him. But those who do not trust him have already been judged
for not believing in the only Son of God. 19 Their judgment is based
on this fact: The light from heaven came into the world, but they
loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil.
20 They hate the light because they want to sin in the darkness. They
stay away from the light for fear their sins will be exposed and they
will be punished. 21 But those who do what is right come to the light
gladly, so everyone can see that they are doing what God wants."
>
> > You can't be born a baby that is
> >already a Christian.
>
> Of course you can.
>
Jesus above says not. It's a decision that people
have to make themselves. No one can do it for
you.
>
> > It's a decision that you
> >have to make, according to the Bible,
> >brilliance.
>
> The vast majority of christians totally disagree with you.
>
Bob, I was not giving you my opinion, I was telling
you what Christ said. He is the final authority over
what his own body of believers should believe in
order to be one of his.
>
> >> >---------------------------------
> >> >In 1962, an engineer led Dr. von Braun to Christ using a Gideon Bible.
> >> >Upon praying to repent of sin and receive Christ, the eminent rocket
> >> >scientist confessed that he felt like a great burden had been lifted
> >> >off him. He became a fervent Christian, and prayed for the success of
> >> >his launches. As Apollo 11 lifted off the pad, he was found reciting
> >> >the Lord's Prayer. Never pushy about his faith, he spoke openly about
> >> >it when asked. In 1972, he wrote to the California school board to
> >> >argue for inclusion of non-evolutionary views in science classes.
> >> >Popular magazine articles by von Braun discussed science's dependence
> >> >on Christian faith.
>
> >> >http://www.icr.org/articles/print/3770/
> >> >---------------------------------
>
> >> >> > That came later
> >> >> >in his life.
>
> >> >> >> Bearing in mind the religiosity of USAians,
> >> >> >> you have no way of knowing if he declared any such beliefs because he
> >> >> >> believed them, or if he did so cynically for political reasons.
>
> >> >> >I do have a way of knowing. He literally accepted
> >> >> >Jesus' death on the cross as the payment for his
> >> >> >sins, and he said that he felt that a great burden
> >> >> >had been lifted from him. An engineer had asked
> >> >> >him if he wanted to receive Christ as his Savior,
> >> >> >and he led him in a prayer to do that. The engineer
> >> >> >had experienced this, himself, prior to this. After
> >> >> >this, he was seen reading the Bible by workers. If
> >> >> >a rocket would go up, he would pray that it would
> >> >> >have success. He then gave his personal testimony
> >> >> >at churches in America about how he had received
> >> >> >Christ and was now trusting in him with his life, and
> >> >> >for his salvation to go to heaven when he died. He
> >> >> >also told people that they should read the Bible and
> >> >> >accept the words in it as coming from the Lord. He
> >> >> >said that people should accept the Bible on faith,
> >> >> >and that it is from the Lord to help them.
>
> >> >> From your description (if true) it looks like he had a mental
> >> >> breakdown.
>
> >> >He didn't have a mental breakdown, Bob, he
> >> >had a heart meltdown...
>
> >> Wow! What pumped his blood after that?
>
> >> >I promise you it is true, that did become a
> >> >Christian later.
>
> >> He was, as far as records show, a christian all his life. He was born
> >> to Lutheran parents, raised Lutheran and confirmed Lutheranhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_(Lutheran_Church).
>
> >Bob, you don't become a Christian because of
> >membership in a church!
>
> Duh!
>
> >You become a Christian
> >if you put your trust in Jesus Christ. A church
> >didn't get up on the cross and die for you.
>
> Nor did JC, except in fiction.
>
Yes he did, Bob. It's not fiction.
>
>
> >> > When I met him before this
> >> >happened, I asked him if he had given his life
> >> >to Christ and he was astonished that I cared.
>
> >> You really are a lying arsehole.
>
> >Bob, you think everyone lies to you.
>
> Far from it. Most people are very honest. However, you and a lot of
> other creationists are very dishonest.
>
Where are all these creationists that you claim
are so dishonest with you? I don't see them.
You must've run them off. Where are all the
teletubbies?
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 12, 11:22 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 12, 5:13 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 12, 3:28 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > > > > <1ce11c17-de93-4070-b2b6-75d177535...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
> > > > > > >, Andre Lieven stated..."
>
> > > > > > >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> > > > > > [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> > > > > > >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
>
> > > > > > [...snip...]
>
> > > > > > How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> > > > > > the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
> > > > > Not me...
>
> > > > > > Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>
> > > > > No, since the statement and the shoe incident happened about
> > > > > 4 years apart.
>
> > > > > 12 Oct 1960 for the shoe incident:
>
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
>
> > > > > 18 Nov 1956 for the "we will bury you" statement:
>
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you
>
> > > > > Once again, Suzanne maintains a perfect record of being
> > > > > WRONG on matters of fact.
>
> > > > > > How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>
> > > > > I'd go with Out and Out Lies for $500, Alex...
>
> > > > > Andre
>
> > > > Wanna bet that she will insist she is right?...or at least refuse to
> > > > admit she is wrong...cancel that last, of course she will.
>
> > > saw them on TV, but I probably am not right
> > > that it was in only one incident. If you all prove
> > > that is two separate incidences, then that's fine
> > > with me. I do remember his right hand thrashing
> > > both times, though, when he was angry, and
> > > I also remember him pounding his fist on the
> > > table more than once.
>
> > > These were televised live and everyone saw it
> > > as it was happening.
>
> > > Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > sucker bet anyhow.
>
> > "Wanna bet that she will insist she is right?...or at least refuse to
> > admit she is wrong...cancel that last, of course she will".
>
> alone. So she saw it, but nobody else did.
>
Bless your heart! You were trying. Yeah, sure.
And the camera link up was only to my house,
right? I always knew my brother was really good
with electronics, but I didn't have any idea he
was that good!
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
Now either your stupidity is showing again, or your dishonesty. Which
is it?
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 13, 7:13 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:27:24 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>> >On Aug 12, 4:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Little YOO can't get by the fact that he had a Physics
>> >degree.
>>
>> Nobody has ever claimed he didn't. However, he was throughout his
>> working life, an engineer.
>>
>Bob, rocket engineering is incorporated into the field of physics as a
>special case.
Rocket engineering is engineering on rockets.
>You need to argue with the universities if you don't
>agree with this, not with me.
Universities do not need to be argued with, they are already in touch
with reality - unlike you.
>>
>>
>> > I think he thinks he never used it in his work.
>>
>> >> >> >according
>> >> >> >to the school curriculum, as they had made
>> >> >> >rocket engineers be a form of science, since
>> >> >> >there is a great deal of experimentation that
>> >> >> >has to go on in that field. He had a double
>> >> >> >degree and his Ph.D. was in Physics which is
>> >> >> >a science, and which he also used in his work.
>> >> >> >He was also had the National Science Medal
>> >> >> >conferred upon him.
>>
>> >> >> >> He may have believed in a creator God, but then so do many
>> >> >> >> evolutionary biologists.
>>
>> >> >> >He was not always a Christian.
>>
>> >> >> Liar!
>>
>> >> >No, Bob, I am not lying. Here is the account:
>>
>> >> He was born and raised a christian.
>>
>> >Silly, you are ignorant of how to become a
>> >Christian.
>>
>> No, you are just very selective about your definition - one that is
>> not shared by the majority of christians.
>>
>Sorry, Bob, but the primary authority on Christianity
>is Jesus. He said to Nicodemus,
No, his authors, living long after the time, wrote that.
[snip much stupidity.]
>>
>> > You can't be born a baby that is
>> >already a Christian.
>>
>> Of course you can.
>>
>Jesus above says not.
Just about all churches in the world disagree with you.
>It's a decision that people
>have to make themselves. No one can do it for
>you.
>>
>> > It's a decision that you
>> >have to make, according to the Bible,
>> >brilliance.
>>
>> The vast majority of christians totally disagree with you.
>>
>Bob, I was not giving you my opinion,
Yes you are. One that is not shared by the majority of christians.
>I was telling
>you what Christ said.
No, you are repeating words written much later about a character that
is fictional.
Liar!
>>
>>
>> >> > When I met him before this
>> >> >happened, I asked him if he had given his life
>> >> >to Christ and he was astonished that I cared.
>>
>> >> You really are a lying arsehole.
>>
>> >Bob, you think everyone lies to you.
>>
>> Far from it. Most people are very honest. However, you and a lot of
>> other creationists are very dishonest.
>>
>Where are all these creationists that you claim
>are so dishonest with you?
Well, there are quite a few here. You and Dishonest Ray are the worst,
bud Mudbrain, Spincronic and NashtOff are close behind.
> I don't see them.
>You must've run them off. Where are all the
>teletubbies?
Inside your head - along with the mythical live TV of the show banging
incident.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Suzanne
You are seeing me through Ye Old Eyeballs.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
what Christ taught. Univerities, whether you like it or not,
recognize rocket engineering as being a science, and in
a special category in physics. And I did not ask you *who*
are the other Christians that you say you have had trouble
with, I asked you *where* they are, meaning that you have
run them off.
>
Suzanne
harry k
> On Aug 13, 8:44 am, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 1:57 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 12, 2:28 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > > <1ce11c17-de93-4070-b2b6-75d177535...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andre
> > > > Lieven stated..."
>
> > > > >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> > > > [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> > > > >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> > > > >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> > > > >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> > > > [...snip...]
>
> > > > How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> > > > the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
>
>
> > > while talking, and I can't be sure if they are the same
> > > incident, since he put his shoe in his right hand and
> > > waved it at the person he was speaking to just like
> > > when he waved his hand without the shoe. He was
> > > photographed with a shoe on the table, and he
> > > also was photographed raising his arm high with
> > > a shoe in it at a lecturn. Nevertheless, I did see
> > > both things. He also pounded the table with both
> > > of his fists, as did also the people with him from
> > > Russia. I don't want to tell you wrong. I will ask
> > > my mother. If she remembers it, she'll probably
> > > remember the details, what they were all wearing
> > > and how many children each person had, where
> > > they are from and what they had for lunch that day,
> > > what kind of car they each drove, and what kind
> > > of tires they had. : )
>
> > > Tom, be nice.
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > I remembered seeing it live". It won't kill you and would restore at
> > least a smidgeon of reputation.
>
> Your memory has let you done> constantly, you should learn not to trust it when it is proven wrong.
>
> > I admit that had I been asked if I saw it live, I would have said yes
> > until I recalled that I was out of the country with no TV at the time.
>
> That's interesting and very amusing the way you put
> it. There are people that do make compromises in
> order that they be accepted by a certain crowd. I've
> been there and done that and can remember. I don't
> feel good about making compromises just so that
> people will like me. I think it cheats them in the long
> run if I do that, and that it also cheats me as well.
>
Would you care to explain just what in the H E doulbe toothpicks you
are on about now? Where is there anything in my post about makine
compromises, trying to fit in or anything else you are babbling
about? I was in the military at the time stationed overseas.
> Harry, the shoe banging incident was broadcast *live*
> on TV during the UN General Assembly. So far no
> one has been able to locate a video made from the event,
BECAUSE THERE WAS NONE. How many times does proof need tso be shoved
in your face?
>but the CBS
> archives tells that they had *live* broadcasts of
the UN (Gen.
> Assembly) since 1949.
>
Yes, they apparently did. FOR OCCASIONAL, SPECIAL events. How in the
H E double toothpicks you get that they broadcast every session is
beyond belief. The session you "remember" falsely was NOT broadcast.
<snip continued lies>
Yes, you are lying. At first you weren't as you thought your memory
was correct. It has been proven to you repeatedly and ad nauseum that
it is a false memory. To continue to insist on it is outright lies.
Harry K
harry k
> On Aug 13, 8:51 am, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 2:27 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 12, 4:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > I said that he had a
> > > > >double degree...that he had a Master's degree
> > > > >in Mechanical Englneering, and a Ph.D. degree
> > > > >in Physics, and that he was both an engineer,
> > > > >as well as being a scientist.
>
> > > > No, he was NOT a scientist. He was a rocket engineer. Your error was
> > > > corrected many times. To continue your claim shows your dishonesty.
>
> > > Little YOO can't get by the fact that he had a Physics
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Everyone knows he had two degrees by now. How many he had and what
> > they were in is immaterial. What counts is 'What did he do' - answer
> > - he worked as an engineer, not a scientist.
>
> > That is the point that you refuse to see.
>
> > Harry K
>
> If you don't mind me saying this Harry, my opinion is
> that he did use physics in what he did because the
> lecture that I went to that I have told people about,
> had to do with how the three stage rockets would be
> fueled. His lecture was on the half life of Uranium
> 235 in the cyclotron, and how there would be some
> isotopes that remain after a certain process, and
> they would be both radioactive and stable so that
> they would be usable in order to provide the big
> payload needed to get the rocket off the ground
> and to have the thrust that it needed to propel it
> into outer space. You see, a rocket can't just be
> filled up with fuel and then take off, like an airplane
> does. It has to have a process, I believe, where
> some of the fuel is actually continually being made
> as it is in the process of lifting off and pushing
> towards outer space. The U-235 provided that way.
> I believe this is why the field of physics considers
> that being a being a rocket engineer is a special
> science, and not just one of engineering. This is
> why Von Braun was awarded our National Science
> Award. You see, if a rocket was just filled up with
> enough liquid fuel only that was required to lift it
> and propel it all the way to outer space, it would
> be too heavy to lift off the ground, unless there
> was a way where fuel could be continually being
> made until it got to outer space.
>
> Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Boggles!!!! I would not have belived that if I hadn't seen it. Your
understanding of rocket science is beyond pathetic.
Harry K
harry k
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:56:26 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne> >On Aug 13, 10:58 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> On Aug 13, 12:22 am, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Aug 12, 5:13 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
> >> > > > "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >> > > > <1ce11c17-de93-4070-b2b6-75d177535...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andre
> >> > > > Lieven stated..."
>
> >> > > > >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> >> > > > [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> >> > > > >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> >> > > > >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> >> > > > >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> >> > > > [...snip...]
>
> >> > > > How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> >> > > > the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
>
> >> > > > Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>
> >> > > 4 years apart.
>
> >> > > 12 Oct 1960 for the shoe incident:
>
> >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
>
> >> > > 18 Nov 1956 for the "we will bury you" statement:
>
> >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you
>
> >> > > Once again, Suzanne maintains a perfect record of being
> >> > > WRONG on matters of fact.
>
>
>
> >> > > Andre
>
> >> > Wanna bet that she will insist she is right?...or at least refuse to
> >> > admit she is wrong...cancel that last, of course she will.
>
> >> to right now, so I saw quite clearly Suzanne's insane insistences
> >> that she is right, and the facts be damned.
>
> >> Though, since that is what she always does, none of that was a
> >> surprise...
>
>
> >If I was not here, Andre, you all would probably be talking about how
> >many people had blue eyes in a Ronald Reagan movie.
>
> another brain dead poorly educated creationist.
>
> >Suzanne
>
> --
> Bob.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Horrible thought that there could be two such mentalities.
Harry K
Andre Lieven
lies:
<Massive Loon Projection>
> Christian churches believe what Christ taught.
No proof ever offered ? Special pleading factless fiction
always fails.
> Univerities, whether you like it or not,
> recognize rocket engineering as being a science, and in
> a special category in physics.
No proof ever offered ? Special pleading factless fiction
always fails.
> And I did not ask you *who*
> are the other Christians that you say you have had trouble
> with, I asked you *where* they are, meaning that you have
> run them off.
Good ! Running off Liars For (made up) christ is a Good Thing !
Andre
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is not a grammar flame, everyone uses it wrong these days, but it
grates on my ears to hear that construction. The correct version is
"If I _were_ not here..." The subjunctive mood. It must have dropped
out of HS English classes years ago.
Just an OT observation.
Harry K
Ye Old One
You are the one exhibiting the stupidity and/or dishonesty.
You are the one constantly lying. In this thread you have lied about
WvB, NASA and TV broadcasts that never happened. No wonder people
treat you with contempt.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
And yet we see them so often. McClueless, Dishonest Ray, NashtOff,
Spincronic, Madman, Gabriel, Tapestry/Great Dayne and so many others.
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:19:53 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> >> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:53:46 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >> >> <ecb337f6-d51d-4081-a4e4-d5ffeec94...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, alextangent
> >> >> stated..."
>
> >> >> >> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >> >> >nne
> >> >> >> stated..."
>
> >> >> >> >On Aug 13, 1:55=3DA0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> >> >> >> >> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
>
> >> >> >points to reflect on in her distorting mirror that have the same
> >> >> >coordinates in reality is impossible.
>
> >> >> >I mean, look at this latest crazyness. I'm with YOO on this one; I
> >> >> >call "liar!" because getting S to recognise that she's imagining large
> >> >> >chunks of her life isn't possible. The fact that the roots of this
> >> >> >problem are caused by her addiction to religion doesn't seem to have
> >> >> >crossed what's left of her mind either. Either that, or she hits the
> >> >> >bottle.
>
> >> >First of all, let's give credit where credit is due.
> >> >Andre, in his gentle way (like a Sherman tank),
> >> >is the one that pointed out that I must have
> >> >confused the time when Khruschev banged
> >> >his shoe with the time that he said "We will bury
> >> >you." I believe that he is correct about that.
>
> >> You only "believe" he is correct???
>
> >Now what's wrong with saying that I believe
> >Andre could be correct, pray tell? Will you
> >find fault now with that?
>
> Because when you are dealing with facts there is no belief involved.
>
in order to accept them.
>
> Facts do not require you to believe in them, you just accept them or
> look stupid by trying to deny them.
>
could be misleading. I had other reasons in addition
to his facts to believe that the two events could be
separate dates.
>
> You now accept he is correct and that you were wrong.
>
that I think that I could be wrong about?
>
Also, I don't think that you mean that you accept facts.
I think you mean to say that you accept evidence.
For example. Suppose that you knew nothing about
electricity and how it works, and you wanted me to
explain to you why the light comes on overhead. Then
I tell you wrong, but nevertheless you see what you
think is evidence. I tell you, incorrectly, that the light
comes on because the switch has a string on it that
goes to the light on the ceiling, but inside of the
roof where you can't see it, and it turns on a switch
on the light above. You see the light come on when
I throw the switch, so you easily could assume that
some false information is real. You can have false
information that appears to be real.
>
Now, suppose that after you believe the wrong
information, someone comes along and says to you,
"Well, they were trying to tell you what they thought,
but actually they did not tell you really how electricity
works. Then they explain it the correct way. Now you
have two ways having been told to you that you have
to choose from. So you choose one of them. When
you do that, you have believed one of them. What
you think is true is something that you have chosen
to believe. So, you did not go by just facts, or even
evidence. You went by what you believed to be true.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Your answers are just denials.
Liar!
>Christian churches believe
>what Christ taught.
A fictional character cannot teach. What you mean is that churches
believe what their founders wanted them to believe.
There are many different religions that call themselves christian. The
biggest, the Roman Catholics, recognize as christian any person who is
born of a catholic parent or someone baptized by a catholic. The
Anglican faith also recognizes the same criteria but does allow people
to quite in later life (the catholics count you forever).
> Univerities, whether you like it or not,
>recognize rocket engineering as being a science, and in
>a special category in physics.
Hardly. Most rocket engineering involves metallurgy and chemistry.
> And I did not ask you *who*
>are the other Christians that you say you have had trouble
>with, I asked you *where* they are, meaning that you have
>run them off.
Well, a few, like McClueless, did end up running away "tail between
legs".
Of course, I can't take the full credit, lots of other people put a
lot of effort in as well.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Wayyyyyyyy beyond pathetic. She makes so many errors in such a short
post it is amazing.
Added to which I can find not record of WvB giving such a lecture, nor
can I see why he would. The half life of Uranium 235 in a cyclotron is
exactly the same as its half life anywhere else. And why he would even
raise the concept of a cyclotron is beyond me.
I think it is just another one of her lies. If she ever attended a
lecture by him, and I doubtful on that, it was one on rockets. There
may have been a mention that, one day, he hoped nuclear powered
rockets could be made, but that is about all.
>
>Harry K
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> On Aug 16, 9:06 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 14, 6:01 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > "On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:57:26 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > <678ca771-40ea-464d-b10d-9225eee24...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Suzanne
> > > stated..."
> > > [...snip...]>Yes, I'd be happy to tell you another one. Some of
> > > >the ones in here were saying that the Seniors who
> > > >say that the UN was not televised in Khruschev's day,
> > > >and that their memories must be therefore faulty. I
> > > >know that many of you were born after that time, so
> > > >here is a verification that not only did we have
> > > >the UN General Assembly televised, but it was a
> > > >"live" transmission:
>
>
> > > Who is there saying that the UN was not televised in Khrushchev's
> > > day?
>
> > Bob, Ye Old One, seemed to be of that opinion.
>
> > Suzanne
>
> Where did he say that? It should be easy to find in this set of posts.
> Go to it.- Hide quoted text -
>
Wed. 12 August 2009:
"TV did not broadcast live from the General
Assembly of the UN"
>
If he meant something else by it, I can't read his
mind.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Aug 16, 12:10 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 14, 6:20 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 14, 10:57 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 13, 4:22 pm, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 13, 9:54 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 13, 5:38 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > > > > > stated..."
>
> > > > > > > >On Aug 13, 1:55=A0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
> > > > > > > >> >On Aug 12, 2:28=A0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > > > > > >ndre
> > > > > > > >> >> Lieven stated..."
>
> > > > > > > >> >> >On Aug 12, 2:30=3DA0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> > > > > > > >> >> [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> > > > > > > >> >> >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> > > > > > > >> >> >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> > > > > > > >> >> >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> > > > > > > >> >> [...snip...]
>
> > > > > > > >> >> How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> > > > > > > >> >> the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
> > > > > > > >> >the UN. We all saw it on TV.
>
> > > > > > > >> Well, no, it wasn't. TV did not broadcast live from the General
> > > > > > > >> Assembly of the UN.
>
> > > > > > > >Yes it did, Bob.
>
> > > > > > > >> You may have seen it later, but you lie when you claim you saw it as
> > > > > > > >> it happened.
>
> > > > > > > >No, Bob.
>
>
>
> > > > the ones in here were saying that the Seniors who
> > > > say that the UN was not televised in Khruschev's day,
> > > > and that their memories must be therefore faulty. I
> > > > know that many of you were born after that time, so
> > > > here is a verification that not only did we have
> > > > the UN General Assembly televised, but it was a
> > > > "live" transmission:
> > > > "In the late 1940s, CBS offered imaginative and historic live
> > > > television coverage of the proceedings United Nations General Assembly
> > > > (1949). This journalist tour-de-force was under the direction of
> > > > Edmund A. Chester, who was appointed to the post of Director for News,
> > > > Special Events and Sports at CBS Television in 1948. The broadcast
> > > > clearly underscored CBS's long term commitment to excellence in
> > > > broadcast journalism in the post World War II era."
> > > > -----------
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_network
> > > > (See section entitled, "The Television Years,
> > > > Expansion and Growth," third paragraph down
> > > > for where the above is written.)
>
> > > > Suzanne
>
> > > <sigh>
>
> > > For the last time, you did not see Khruschev on TV banging his shoe in
> > > 1960.
>
> > What I just said was not about the details about
> > Khruschev, I was veritying for Y.O.O., who had
> > claimed that someone was lying if they said that
>
> That is not what he said. The event you refer to wasn't televised. It
> didn't even happen as you "remembered" it.
>
> > Others also did not think that it was, and the fact
> > that it was, they could not find. So I provided the
> > proof by showing them the archived answer from
> > CBS which carried the transmission "live" from
> > the UN.
>
> describe it didn't happen.
>
>
>
> > > It was not transmitted live (why would it be?)
>
> > would you ask why it would be? It was a phenominal
> > thing to see.
>
> done some basic research on your behalf) have demonstrated that the
> event you claim to have seen *never happened* and was *not televised
> live*.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > According to CBS TV archives, it has been televised
> > "live" since 1949.
>
> > > have the podium with the only microphone when the reported shoe-
> > > banging event took place.
>
> > Now, wait. You have missed something. I said in
> > another post that Andre could be right that there
> > were two incidents that people may be rolling into
> > one event in their minds. So we are not talking
> > about whether he banged his shoe at the same
> > time that he said "we will bury you." We are talking
> > about just seeing Khruschev's actions, period, from
> > the UN, and it's being televised. Whether he did
> > those things at the same time or not, he did do
> > both of those things.
>
> > seats of the delegates at the table, had a different
> > set of translators than the ones that were needed
> > when a delegate wanted to address everyone at
> > the General Assembly meeting of the UN. If the
> > chair recognized a delegate, then he usually would
> > go to the podium (lecturn) so that the translation to
> > the listening audiences all over the world (each in
> > their native tongues) could be spoken to in their
> > like watching Pentecost happen, but with translators
> > and microphones.
>
> microphones at each delegate's table.
>
>
>
> > > *No-one is claiming that the UN was not
> > > televised in Khruschev's day.
>
> > Yes, several have claimed this.
>
>
>
>
> > > It's a false memory,
>
> > No. A false memory is something that
> > things that did happen. Khruschev did
> > hold a shoe in his hand, and wave it, and
> > "We will bury you."
>
> You saw and heard neither event.
>
That's simply not true. Your not finding any
evidence of it is not any kind of proof.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
No, facts are true, there is no belief involved.
>>
>> Facts do not require you to believe in them, you just accept them or
>> look stupid by trying to deny them.
>>
>No, I don't just blindly accept facts because the facts
>could be misleading.
Facts are facts.
> I had other reasons in addition
>to his facts to believe that the two events could be
>separate dates.
Oh? But you were so sure - after all you had SEEN it with your own
eyes.
>>
>> You now accept he is correct and that you were wrong.
>>
>What do you think that I accept and what do you think
>that I think that I could be wrong about?
You were wrong in saying that Khrushchev said "we will bury you", live
on TV, while banging his shoe on the table.
Neither event, separated by four years and many thousands of miles,
was seen by anyone not in the rooms at the time.
>>
>Also, I don't think that you mean that you accept facts.
>I think you mean to say that you accept evidence.
Facts are evidence.
>For example. Suppose that you knew nothing about
>electricity and how it works, and you wanted me to
>explain to you why the light comes on overhead. Then
>I tell you wrong, but nevertheless you see what you
>think is evidence. I tell you, incorrectly, that the light
>comes on because the switch has a string on it that
>goes to the light on the ceiling, but inside of the
>roof where you can't see it, and it turns on a switch
>on the light above. You see the light come on when
>I throw the switch, so you easily could assume that
>some false information is real. You can have false
>information that appears to be real.
You have given no facts there, Added to which such switches do exist,
usually to isolate you from very high voltages - although usually
switching is done with solenoids.
>>
>Now, suppose that after you believe the wrong
>information, someone comes along and says to you,
>"Well, they were trying to tell you what they thought,
>but actually they did not tell you really how electricity
>works. Then they explain it the correct way. Now you
>have two ways having been told to you that you have
>to choose from. So you choose one of them. When
>you do that, you have believed one of them. What
>you think is true is something that you have chosen
>to believe. So, you did not go by just facts, or even
>evidence. You went by what you believed to be true.
I would not do that, I would investigate the facts. You, on the other
hand, always reject facts in favour of lies.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Correct, they did not broadcast live from the GA of the UN at the time
you claim. You lied.
>>
>If he meant something else by it, I can't read his
>mind.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 16, 5:52 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 16, 12:10 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
[snip]
>>
>> > No. A false memory is something that
>> > never happened. I was telling about two
>> > things that did happen. Khruschev did
>> > hold a shoe in his hand, and wave it, and
>> > possibly bang it, and he also did say
>> > "We will bury you."
>>
>> You saw and heard neither event.
>>
>That's simply not true.
Liar!
> Your not finding any
>evidence of it is not any kind of proof.
Proof has been shown to you that neither event was broadcast - ever.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> On Aug 16, 12:10 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Aug 14, 10:57 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 13, 4:22 pm, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 13, 9:54 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 13, 5:38 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > > > > > stated..."
>
> > > > > > > >On Aug 13, 1:55=A0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
> > > > > > > >> >On Aug 12, 2:28=A0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > > the ones in here were saying that the Seniors who
> > > > say that the UN was not televised in Khruschev's day,
> > > > and that their memories must be therefore faulty. I
> > > > know that many of you were born after that time, so
> > > > here is a verification that not only did we have
> > > > the UN General Assembly televised, but it was a
> > > > "live" transmission:
*live." I am giving proof and you are saying that you have
evidence that it was not broadcast. You have not provided
evidence that it was not broadcast, except to say that it
wasn't broadcast. You say that people looked it up in my
behalf, and they have nothing to show for it. Then you tell
me to believe the "evidence." The absence of evidence, is
not evidence. I've given more evidence that it happened,
than you guys have given.
>
> > > It was not transmitted live (why would it be?)
>
> > Yes it was! That's what I was showing. And why
> > would you ask why it would be? It was a phenominal
> > thing to see.
>
> The evidence indicates otherwise. In fact, you (and others who have
> done some basic research on your behalf) have demonstrated that the
> event you claim to have seen *never happened* and was *not televised
> live*.
>
This is the same kind of reasoning that came about
of late, that says that George Washington really
didn't chop down the cherry tree because they can
find no evidence that he did."
>
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Aug 16, 1:28 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 14, 9:09 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 13, 6:48 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 12, 2:28 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > > > Lieven stated..."
>
> > > > > >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> > > > > [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> > > > > >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
> > > > > >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
> > > > > >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>
> > > > > [...snip...]
>
> > > > > How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> > > > > the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
> > > > I said I saw it when it happened, but I was not at
> > > > the UN. We all saw it on TV.
>
>
> > > > > How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>
> > > > It happened, Tom:
> > > > 1960 - At the United Nations, Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev went
> > > > ballistic, taking off his shoe and pounding it on his desk! The UN
> > > > Assembly President, Frederick Boland, was so irritated that he split
>
> > > > The man speaking was a delegate from the Philippines,
> > > > by the name of Lorenzo Sumulong. You can read the
> > > > account in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Sumulong#Faceoff_with_Khruschev
>
> > > > I looked for a video for you to see the event, which
> > > > you know would have to have been made from a
> > > > kinescope recording, probably, and many of those
> > > > photo of him raising the shoe over his head and
> > > > yelling in a speech. It is the first photo, and that is
> > > > not him speaking, that is someone else speaking
> > > > the other voice you hear is a translator who is
> > > > that he is holding up looks like a loafer sort of
> > > > If this link does not open up for you, go to you tube
> > > > and type in "Khruschev Speech in the UN" without
> > > > quotes and you will get it with this exact title. The
> > > > photo, by the way, appears to be blurry a little
> > > > where the shoe is, like he is moving it.
>
>
> > > The shoe photo is a photoshopped fake.
>
> > > Compare this;http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/khr...
>
> > > with this:http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_b0FYjmYr_CM/R4qJ2fiyqfI/AAAAAAAAATM/7ZYC0o6...quoted text -
>
> > Yes, it looks that way to me, too, from the comparison
> > with the other photo which you have provided. I'm basing
> > this on what is underneath his left hand (the one on the
> > papers) because the left hand is resting on a lot of
> > papers in one photo and significantly less in the other
> > photo. Thank you for your comparison photo, and I
> > do agree with you about the one where he is holding up
> > the shoe appearing to be a doctored up photo.
>
> > I still remember him banging on the table with his shoe,
> > though. I'm sorry if that disappoints you.
>
> > Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> false. With all the evidence that has been provided, a normal person
> would have admitted she was in error several days ago.
>
Well, Harry. Do you want me to lie to you and say
that I no longer believe what I remember about
seeing Khruschev banging his shoe on the table?
You say that you want the truth. That is the truth.
And there has been no evidence provided to me.
The lack of evidence, is not evidence.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Aug 16, 1:06 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 14, 6:01 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > "On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:57:26 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > <678ca771-40ea-464d-b10d-9225eee24...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Suzanne
> > > stated..."
> > > >the ones in here were saying that the Seniors who
> > > >say that the UN was not televised in Khruschev's day,
> > > >and that their memories must be therefore faulty. I
> > > >know that many of you were born after that time, so
> > > >here is a verification that not only did we have
> > > >the UN General Assembly televised, but it was a
> > > >"live" transmission:
>
>
> > > Who is there saying that the UN was not televised in Khrushchev's
> > > day?
>
> > Bob, Ye Old One, seemed to be of that opinion.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> _those particular events_ that you falsely remember were televised. In
> that he is correct and the evidence has been shown to you. He has not
> claimed that some sessions were not telivised.
>
> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
Harry, reading between the words that I am supposedly
a fool and a moron and all the things he throws at me,
I see hostility and a person that is not interested in the
truth at all. Seems to be making it up as he goes along.
He started with it not even being recorded, then went
to it's being that it was not broadcast *live* then when
shown the proof, suddenly it turns into intermittent
broadcasts, and then partial broadcasts, and then the
claim that this event could not have possibly been one
of the transmissions. He does not give proof of any of
his claims, concerning the UN events.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Aug 16, 2:06 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 16, 2:44 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> > > <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> > > >On Aug 14, 6:20 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Aug 14, 10:57 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > But no cameras, TV, film or still, recorded it. You did not see it
> > > happen live on TV as you claimed, you did not even see it recorded and
> > > shown on the news.
>
> > > > and he also did say
> > > >"We will bury you."
>
> > > of miles from the UN.
>
> > > >> but I think in your
> > > >> case it's not age related.
>
> > > >Well, gee, thanks for that much. (chuckle)
>
> > > >>You would be quite
>
> > You are still in denial.
>
> > Suzanne
>
> In light of all the evidence that those events were _not_ televised,
> how can you still insist that you saw it? I just have to visit your
> universe sometime to see just what color that sky is.
>
> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
No one has prevented anything. It's like the story of
the Emperor's New Clothes. The absence of evidence,
is not evidence. On the other hand, you have some
evidence that it was telecast and done so *live*
according to the CBS archives that say that it was
broadcast *live* since 1949, and you have tons of
people that also say they saw it live.
>
>
>
Suzanne
heekster
She is most probably thinking of this 1964 Goldwater political ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwJHg9UBNPE
Very similar content.
It was broadcast ad nauseam.
Ralph Page
<leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 13, 8:44 am, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 13, 1:57 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 12, 2:28 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
>> > > <1ce11c17-de93-4070-b2b6-75d177535...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andre
>> > > Lieven stated..."
>>
>> > > >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>>
[...snip...]
>That's interesting and very amusing the way you put
>it. There are people that do make compromises in
>order that they be accepted by a certain crowd. I've
>been there and done that and can remember. I don't
>feel good about making compromises just so that
>people will like me. I think it cheats them in the long
>run if I do that, and that it also cheats me as well.
>>
>Harry, the shoe banging incident was broadcast *live*
>on TV during the UN General Assembly. So far no
>one has been able to locate a video made from the event, but the CBS
>archives tells that they had *live* broadcasts of the UN (Gen.
>Assembly) since 1949.
Do you have a link to that?
More importantly, does the archive indicate that the shoe banging
incident was televised? Nobody disputes that _ some_ UN meetings were
broadcast.
<snippity snip>
-Ralph Page
remove pants to reply by email
harry k
You are mostly correct that _he_ hasn't. Too bad that numerous others
_have_ proved dthat those particular sessions were not broadcast.
I repeat that a FEW sessions were televised live back then but only a
few. The ones under discussion weren't. That proof has been shown to
you _repeatedly_ but you continue spewing outright lies about it.
Harry K
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
If hyou have proof that _every_ session was broadcast live back then,
posst it and the discussion ends.
Harry K
harry k
>
> > > Yes, it looks that way to me, too, from the comparison
> > > with the other photo which you have provided. I'm basing
> > > this on what is underneath his left hand (the one on the
> > > papers) because the left hand is resting on a lot of
> > > papers in one photo and significantly less in the other
> > > photo. Thank you for your comparison photo, and I
> > > do agree with you about the one where he is holding up
> > > the shoe appearing to be a doctored up photo.
>
> > > I still remember him banging on the table with his shoe,
> > > though. I'm sorry if that disappoints you.
>
> > > Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > What disappoints us is your refusal to admit that your 'memory' is
> > false. With all the evidence that has been provided, a normal person
> > would have admitted she was in error several days ago.
>
> Well, Harry. Do you want me to lie to you and say
> that I no longer believe what I remember about
> seeing Khruschev banging his shoe on the table?
> You say that you want the truth. That is the truth.
> And there has been no evidence provided to me.
> The lack of evidence, is not evidence.
>
> Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Look in the mirror and repeat that to yourself. You have shown no
proof that they were tv'd. Your memory (that has been shown to be
false many times over the years) is not proof.
Harry K
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
1. "Using physics" is engineering, not science.
2. There has never been a rocket launched that used U235 (or any
radioactive) source as part of the fuel process. The only rockets
ever launched AFAIK that carried radioactive subsances were ones with
atomic warheads (and I don't know if any of them were acturally
launched) plus one that had some sort of electrict generator powered
by atomics (?Helios?). A wold wide uproar went on about it before it
was launched.
3. From the first rocket launched until today _every_ rocket launched
has carried it's full fuel load. NONE is manufactured in flight.
Harry K
Suzanne
> On Aug 16, 12:11 am, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 15, 4:19 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 14, 8:16 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:53:15 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> > > > >> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:53:46 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > > >> <ecb337f6-d51d-4081-a4e4-d5ffeec94...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, alextangent
> > > > >> stated..."
>
> > > > >> >> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > > >> >> <b0bb820f-a354-4af0-9423-b5afd5099...@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > >> >> Suzanne stated..."
>
> > > > >> >> >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
> > > > >> >> >> >On Aug 12, 2:28=3DA0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
>
> > > > >> >points to reflect on in her distorting mirror that have the same
> > > > >> >coordinates in reality is impossible.
>
> > > > >> >I mean, look at this latest crazyness. I'm with YOO on this one; I
> > > > >> >call "liar!" because getting S to recognise that she's imagining large
> > > > >> >chunks of her life isn't possible. The fact that the roots of this
> > > > >> >problem are caused by her addiction to religion doesn't seem to have
> > > > >> >crossed what's left of her mind either. Either that, or she hits the
> > > > >> >bottle.
>
> > > > >First of all, let's give credit where credit is due.
> > > > >Andre, in his gentle way (like a Sherman tank),
> > > > >is the one that pointed out that I must have
> > > > >confused the time when Khruschev banged
> > > > >his shoe with the time that he said "We will bury
> > > > >you." I believe that he is correct about that.
>
> > > > You only "believe" he is correct???
>
> > > Now what's wrong with saying that I believe
> > > Andre could be correct, pray tell? Will you
> > > find fault now with that?
>
>
> > Because there is physical _proof_ that it happened as he said. there
> > is no "belief" involved.
>
> Indeed. But, due to the willful godbotist lobotomy that Suzanne has
> given herself, she seems to be unable to notice that facts TRUMP
> "beliefs".
>
> That's reason #241 of why she is a demented loon. Self made.
>
What is this world coming to if someone thinks that you
are crazy because you remember something that they
can't verify with a video? Everything isn't on a video.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 06:52:28 -0400, Ye Old One wrote
> (in article <h9of859rla6o7cd85uhdokp81vtqkpa...@4ax.com>):
>
> > On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 02:25:11 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne> >> On Aug 16, 2:44 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne> > 5) Neither incidence/speech/event was transmitted live on television
> > by any channel anywhere in the world.
>
No proof of that. CBS archives says they began
telecasts of the UN *live* since 1949. Thousands
of people say that they do remember seeing this.
You can't find proof of it, therefore it doesn't
exist to you.
>
> > Your memory, as is so often the case, is faulty.
>
You can't go be someone else, and try on their
memories and then say, "Yes, she does (or does
not) remember this."
>
Suzanne
Chris
Sheesh. It was a slightly roundabout way for Suzanne to admit she was
mistaken. No offense Suzanne but you are a bit of a loon, but on this,
you admitted your error, so people should cut you some slack.
Chris
Suzanne
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:27:59 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne> >On Aug 16, 5:34 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 02:03:44 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne> >> >I said that I believe that he is correct. I did not
> >> >say that I believe "in" him being correct,
>
> >> >Suzanne
>
> >> You do not believe in facts, you accept them. Belief isn't an option.
>
> >I will try to tell you again. I did not say that I
> >believed "in" Andre, I said that I believe Andre.
> >I do not believe "in" facts, I believe facts. When
> >a person IN ENGLISH which is what I speak
>
> We sometimes wonder if it is your first language.
>
> >says "I believe that the sun came up," they
> >ARE meaning that they believe "the fact" that
> >the sun came up. Now, if you don't like that,
> >Bob, get over it. Stop twisting my words.
>
> >Suzanne
>
> Your words, after being given the facts, were "I believe that he is
> correct about that."
>
> Do you accept that the facts show you were wrong?
>
I have said "I believe he is correct about that."
And I said "I believe I may have been wrong."
>
If you can't process that, then bless your heart.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:09:55 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne> >On Aug 16, 2:22 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:19:53 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> >> >> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:53:46 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >> >> >> <ecb337f6-d51d-4081-a4e4-d5ffeec94...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, alextangent
> >> >> >> stated..."
>
> >> >> >> >On Aug 13, 11:38=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:55:52 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >> >> >> >nne
> >> >> >> >> stated..."
>
> >> >> >> >> >On Aug 13, 1:55=3DA0am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
>
> >> >> >> >Discussion is not an option. Suzanne is so out of touch that finding
> >> >> >> >points to reflect on in her distorting mirror that have the same
> >> >> >> >coordinates in reality is impossible.
>
> >> >> >> >I mean, look at this latest crazyness. I'm with YOO on this one; I
> >> >> >> >call "liar!" because getting S to recognise that she's imagining large
> >> >> >> >chunks of her life isn't possible. The fact that the roots of this
> >> >> >> >problem are caused by her addiction to religion doesn't seem to have
> >> >> >> >crossed what's left of her mind either. Either that, or she hits the
> >> >> >> >bottle.
>
> >> >> >First of all, let's give credit where credit is due.
> >> >> >Andre, in his gentle way (like a Sherman tank),
> >> >> >is the one that pointed out that I must have
> >> >> >confused the time when Khruschev banged
> >> >> >his shoe with the time that he said "We will bury
> >> >> >you." I believe that he is correct about that.
>
> >> >> You only "believe" he is correct???
>
> >> >Now what's wrong with saying that I believe
> >> >Andre could be correct, pray tell? Will you
> >> >find fault now with that?
>
> >> Facts do not require you to believe in them, you just accept them or
> >> look stupid by trying to deny them.
>
>
>
> >> --
> >> Bob.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >straight what someone has said to you,
>
> Unlike you I do read with a reasonable degree of comprehension.
>
>
> >before you attack them. You are a bully.
>
> I cannot help it is you have been so stupid in making claims that has
> been proven false.
>
>
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
> On Aug 17, 4:49 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> lied and lied:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 6:50 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne> > > Now look here you lying shit bag. Your exact words were:-
>
> > > [quote]
> > > ...a few years earlier, Kruschev had said at the UN "We will bury
> > > you," while shaking his shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!)
>
> > > Message-ID:
> > > <f621f7c2-5cfc-4b1e-bcee-9580a2530...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
>
> > > Do you deny you made that claim?
>
> > Is it possible that you don't know that I said
> > that Andre is probably right about it being
> > two separate incidents,
>
> Your repeated use of the weasel-word "probably" is
> your pitiful attempt to avoid having to admit, honestly,
> that I WAS RIGHT and that YOU WERE WRONG.
>
> > and that I have said
> > I am probably wrong about them happening
> > at the same time? Do you think you could
> > be a little less trigger happy with your
> > replies to people? And do you think that you
> > could treat them in a better way than you do?
>
> <Massive Fundy Loon Projection>
>
> Until you stop with your repeated LIES, you are in NO
> position to try to lecture at other people.
>
> > > Well, first off his name was Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, that would
>
> > I think that comment is not necessary since all
> > that I did was type a little too fast and left out
> > the "h" after the "K" in his name.
>
> That was YOUR error; Own it.
>
> > > have been an easy thing for you to check. Second, as others have
> > > pointed out, the phrase "we will bury you" was made on the 18th
> > > November 1956 while the shoe banging event was 12th October 1960.
>
> > Go read all the posts.
>
> I have; You remain WRONG on the FACTS.
>
> > > Finally, nobody, least of all a two-bit lying arsewipe like you, "saw
> > > that as it happened" unless they were present in the main hall of the
> > > General Assembly of the UN in New York.
>
> > The shoe banging incident was seen on TV by many,
>
> LIE !
>
> > and it was the talk of the neighborhoods.
> > That's all that I can tell you. I'm sorry but I don't
> > know the date to tell you, and yes I do know
> > what Wikipedia says.
>
> Thus, you LIE and you remain UN-able to provide actual
> EVIDENCE that might support your LIES.
>
> You are wonderful proof that religion = IMmorality.
>
Andre, you have provided some evidence.
I appreciate that. I haven't discarded it and
I will remember it. There has to be more
proof, though that there was no televised
edition of the UN when Khruschev pounded
his shoe, since so many people say that they
saw it happen, including me. Dont' let it upset
you, and hang on to what you think is right.
It's all right if someone doesn't agree with you,
it's not the end of the world. Sometimes people
will just have to agree to disagree.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:41:46 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne> >On Aug 17, 2:57 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:50:18 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> >> harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > On Aug 12, 11:22 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > On Aug 12, 5:13 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > > On Aug 12, 3:28 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > > > "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
> >> >> > > > > > >, Andre Lieven stated..."
>
> >> >> > > > > > >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>
> >> >> > > > > > [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
> >> >> > > > > > >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
>
> >> >> > > > > > [...snip...]
>
> >> >> > > > > > How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
> >> >> > > > > > the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>
>
> >> >> > > > > > Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>
> >> >> > > > > 4 years apart.
>
> >> >> > > > > 12 Oct 1960 for the shoe incident:
>
> >> >> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
>
> >> >> > > > > 18 Nov 1956 for the "we will bury you" statement:
>
> >> >> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you
>
> >> >> > > > > Once again, Suzanne maintains a perfect record of being
> >> >> > > > > WRONG on matters of fact.
>
>
>
> >> >> > > > > Andre
>
> >> >> > > > Wanna bet that she will insist she is right?...or at least refuse to
> >> >> > > > admit she is wrong...cancel that last, of course she will.
>
> >> >> > > saw them on TV, but I probably am not right
> >> >> > > that it was in only one incident. If you all prove
> >> >> > > that is two separate incidences, then that's fine
> >> >> > > with me. I do remember his right hand thrashing
> >> >> > > both times, though, when he was angry, and
> >> >> > > I also remember him pounding his fist on the
> >> >> > > table more than once.
>
> >> >> > > These were televised live and everyone saw it
> >> >> > > as it was happening.
>
> >> >> > > Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> > sucker bet anyhow.
>
> >> >> > "Wanna bet that she will insist she is right?...or at least refuse to
> >> >> > admit she is wrong...cancel that last, of course she will".
>
> >> >> alone. So she saw it, but nobody else did.
>
> >> >Bless your heart! You were trying. Yeah, sure.
> >> >And the camera link up was only to my house,
> >> >right? I always knew my brother was really good
> >> >with electronics, but I didn't have any idea he
> >> >was that good!
>
> >> Now either your stupidity is showing again, or your dishonesty. Which
> >> is it?
>
> >It depends entirely upon what eyes are seeing me.
> >You are seeing me through Ye Old Eyeballs.
>
> >Suzanne
>
> You are the one exhibiting the stupidity and/or dishonesty.
>
> You are the one constantly lying. In this thread you have lied about
> WvB, NASA and TV broadcasts that never happened. No wonder people
> treat you with contempt.
>
I have not been lying to you. I can't believe that anyone
could be as negative as you are.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
It is not a case of what he "thinks" is right. You have been given the
FACTS. There was no television transmission, live or recorded - end of
story.
>It's all right if someone doesn't agree with you,
>it's not the end of the world. Sometimes people
>will just have to agree to disagree.
Only, in a case like this, if you are very, VERY stupid.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Yes you are. You made a mistake, it was corrected by several people
and the facts were explained to you. If you now continue to claim what
you did then it is called lying.
> I can't believe that anyone
>could be as negative as you are.
I find it very hard to credit that someone can be as big a liar as
you.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Both the events are famous. Neither was filmed. Neither was ever
televised. Those are the facts.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
No, you accept the facts. You now accept you were wrong to claim you
had seen the events on television.
>>
>If you can't process that, then bless your heart.
My heart pumps blood, the last thing it needs is blessing by the likes
of you.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
At last - a post from Suzanne without a single lie in it. Wow!
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Your claims/lies have been proven false.
Stop lying to try and cover up your past lies.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:57:00 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:50:22 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>><leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 16, 5:52 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 16, 12:10 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>> > No. A false memory is something that
>>>> > never happened. I was telling about two
>>>> > things that did happen. Khruschev did
>>>> > hold a shoe in his hand, and wave it, and
>>>> > possibly bang it, and he also did say
>>>> > "We will bury you."
>>>>
>>>> You saw and heard neither event.
>>>>
>>>That's simply not true.
>>
>>Liar!
>>
>>> Your not finding any
>>>evidence of it is not any kind of proof.
>>
>>Proof has been shown to you that neither event was broadcast - ever.
>>>>
>>>Suzanne
>
>She is most probably thinking of this 1964 Goldwater political ad.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwJHg9UBNPE
>
>Very similar content.
>It was broadcast ad nauseam.
More likely this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztYwQhKrTJQ
Or, just possibly, this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCm13K4Mq50&
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
No, it says that they did broadcast live in 1949.
I've also asked you to tell me where from and exactly what was
broadcast.
>I am giving proof and you are saying that you have
>evidence that it was not broadcast. You have not provided
>evidence that it was not broadcast,
Liar!
> except to say that it
>wasn't broadcast. You say that people looked it up in my
>behalf, and they have nothing to show for it. Then you tell
>me to believe the "evidence." The absence of evidence, is
>not evidence. I've given more evidence that it happened,
>than you guys have given.
You have been given the facts. There was no broadcast.
>>
>> > > It was not transmitted live (why would it be?)
>>
>> > Yes it was! That's what I was showing. And why
>> > would you ask why it would be? It was a phenominal
>> > thing to see.
>>
>> The evidence indicates otherwise. In fact, you (and others who have
>> done some basic research on your behalf) have demonstrated that the
>> event you claim to have seen *never happened* and was *not televised
>> live*.
>>
>But the absence of evidence is not evidence.
>This is the same kind of reasoning that came about
>of late, that says that George Washington really
>didn't chop down the cherry tree because they can
>find no evidence that he did."
You have been shown websites by experts that say no film was taken of
either event.
>>
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Yes there is and you have been given it.
>No one has prevented anything. It's like the story of
>the Emperor's New Clothes. The absence of evidence,
>is not evidence. On the other hand, you have some
>evidence that it was telecast and done so *live*
>according to the CBS archives
There is nothing in the CBS archives to indicate that so stop lying.
> that say that it was
>broadcast *live* since 1949,
Liar!
> and you have tons of
>people that also say they saw it live.
Like you, they are all in error.
>>
>>
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 16, 12:51 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 06:52:28 -0400, Ye Old One wrote
>> (in article <h9of859rla6o7cd85uhdokp81vtqkpa...@4ax.com>):
>>
>> > On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 02:25:11 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> > <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >> On Aug 16, 2:44 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> >>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> >>> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>> > 5) Neither incidence/speech/event was transmitted live on television
>> > by any channel anywhere in the world.
>>
>No proof of that. CBS archives says they began
>telecasts of the UN *live* since 1949.
From where? How often?
> Thousands
>of people say that they do remember seeing this.
They are wrong.
>You can't find proof of it, therefore it doesn't
>exist to you.
Better, we have found proof that it was NOT televised.
>>
>> > Your memory, as is so often the case, is faulty.
>>
>You can't go be someone else, and try on their
>memories and then say, "Yes, she does (or does
>not) remember this."
We can draw conclusions - based on all of you posts over a long period
of time. You were wrong, on several counts. Live with it, accept
reality.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 16, 10:14 am, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 16, 1:28 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 14, 9:09 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Aug 13, 6:48 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Aug 12, 2:28 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > "On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT), in article
>> > > > > <1ce11c17-de93-4070-b2b6-75d177535...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andre
>> > > > > Lieven stated..."
>>
>> > > > > >On Aug 12, 2:30=A0am, Suzanne <Ins...@Liar.Nut> oozed:
>>
>> > > > > [...snip...]>> mistake and sent one up accidentally. Even
>> > > > > >> though a few years earlier, Kruschev had said
>> > > > > >> at the UN "We will bury you," while shaking his
>> > > > > >> shoe (I actually saw that as it happened!) he
>>
>> > > > > [...snip...]
>>
>> > > > > How many people believe that Suzanne was actually present at
>> > > > > the UN for the famous "Shoe-banging incident"?
>>
>> > > > I said I saw it when it happened, but I was not at
>> > > > the UN. We all saw it on TV.
>>
>> > > > > Did Khrushchev say "We will bury you" while shaking his shoe?
>>
>> > > > > How many people would put money on this being a false memory?
>>
>> > > > It happened, Tom:
>> > > > 1960 - At the United Nations, Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev went
>> > > > ballistic, taking off his shoe and pounding it on his desk! The UN
>> > > > Assembly President, Frederick Boland, was so irritated that he split
>> > > > his gavel trying to reestablish order.www.440.com/twtd/archives/oct12.html-15khttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>>
>> > > > The man speaking was a delegate from the Philippines,
>> > > > by the name of Lorenzo Sumulong. You can read the
>> > > > account in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Sumulong#Faceoff_with_Khruschev
>>
>> > > > I looked for a video for you to see the event, which
>> > > > you know would have to have been made from a
>> > > > kinescope recording, probably, and many of those
>> > > > have dissolved over time. But I can show you the
>> > > > photo of him raising the shoe over his head and
>> > > > yelling in a speech. It is the first photo, and that is
>> > > > not him speaking, that is someone else speaking
>> > > > while you see the first photo of Khruschev. Then
>> > > > the other voice you hear is a translator who is
>> > > > translating some words of Khruschev's. The shoe
>> > > > that he is holding up looks like a loafer sort of
>> > > > shoe in this photo.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xv7z5h7yBQ
>> > > > If this link does not open up for you, go to you tube
>> > > > and type in "Khruschev Speech in the UN" without
>> > > > quotes and you will get it with this exact title. The
>> > > > photo, by the way, appears to be blurry a little
>> > > > where the shoe is, like he is moving it.
>>
>> > > > Suzanne
>>
>> > > The shoe photo is a photoshopped fake.
>>
>> > > Compare this;http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/khr...
>>
>> > > with this:http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_b0FYjmYr_CM/R4qJ2fiyqfI/AAAAAAAAATM/7ZYC0o6...quoted text -
>>
>> > Yes, it looks that way to me, too, from the comparison
>> > with the other photo which you have provided. I'm basing
>> > this on what is underneath his left hand (the one on the
>> > papers) because the left hand is resting on a lot of
>> > papers in one photo and significantly less in the other
>> > photo. Thank you for your comparison photo, and I
>> > do agree with you about the one where he is holding up
>> > the shoe appearing to be a doctored up photo.
>>
>> > I still remember him banging on the table with his shoe,
>> > though. I'm sorry if that disappoints you.
>>
>> > Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> What disappoints us is your refusal to admit that your 'memory' is
>> false. With all the evidence that has been provided, a normal person
>> would have admitted she was in error several days ago.
>>
>Well, Harry. Do you want me to lie to you and say
>that I no longer believe what I remember about
>seeing Khruschev banging his shoe on the table?
>You say that you want the truth. That is the truth.
But you now know that the truth disagrees with your memory.
>And there has been no evidence provided to me.
Liar!
>The lack of evidence, is not evidence.
Your lack of honesty is evidence.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Andre Lieven
Fact based, and that's a Good Thing. It prevents LIES.
> Everything isn't on a video.
This addresses nothing anyone else ever said...
Andre
Suzanne
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:29:50 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:24:10 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
>
> >If you can't process that, then bless your heart.
>
> My heart pumps blood, the last thing it needs is blessing by the likes
> of you.
>
The LACK of evidence does not constitute evidence.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:57:00 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:50:22 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> - Show quoted text -
>
about the film of Khruschev that is sandwiched
in between the children saying the pledge?
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
The facts are that neither event was filmed and shown on TV, live or
otherwise.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Burkhard
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:57:00 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:50:22 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne>>> On Aug 16, 5:52 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 16, 12:10 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>> [snip]
>>>>> No. A false memory is something that
>>>>> never happened. I was telling about two
>>>>> things that did happen. Khruschev did
>>>>> hold a shoe in his hand, and wave it, and
>>>>> "We will bury you."
>>>> You saw and heard neither event.
>>>>
>>> That's simply not true.
>> Liar!
>>
>>> Your not finding any
>>> evidence of it is not any kind of proof.
>> Proof has been shown to you that neither event was broadcast - ever.
>>> Suzanne
>
> She is most probably thinking of this 1964 Goldwater political ad.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwJHg9UBNPE
>
> Very similar content.
> It was broadcast ad nauseam.
>
Ok, my Russian is close to non-existent,and someone who speaks the
language should have a look at it, but he seems to be speaking about
Nazis in the Ukraine?
Ye Old One
Liar!
>The LACK of evidence does not constitute evidence.
The evidence, plain for everyone to see, is that you are a very
pathetic liar. You have to live with that shame.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
heekster
wrote:
Sounds like stock film footage.
Except for profanity, my Russian is non-existent.
heekster
I believe that was a different tantrum of the petulant Nikita.
>
>Or, just possibly, this one
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCm13K4Mq50&
Looks like a loser from Loxley.
;)
heekster
From
http://www.un.org/av/unfamily/radio.html#
"From 1950 to 1959, UN Radio broadcast for more than six hours daily
in 33 languages with some 100 countries and territories rebroadcasting
its programmes on a regular basis.
During the period of 1960 to 1979, UN Radio programmes consisted of: -
shortwave transmissions of the proceedings of meetings at UN
Headquarters for rebroadcast or monitoring by national organizations;
- shortwave broadcasting of news bulletins in the six official
languages; and - provision of news bulletins, news summaries, features
and documentary programmes in 33 languages to 162 countries and
territories. For shortwave broadcasts of proceedings and of news
summaries, UN Radio utilized transmitters leased from France,
Switzerland, Italy and the United States. In 1963, facilities were
obtained on transmitters with considerably greater power and
effectiveness in reaching Africa, Europe, Latin America, the Middle
East and parts of South East Asia."
If the film exists, it would likely be found here:
http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/archives.html
The UN, curiously, makes no claim to live tv broadcast in 1960. Their
primary broad cast medium seems to have been radio, and more recently
webcasts.
Perhaps you should contact them, and show them the error of their
godless ways.
harry k
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:17:56 +0100, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'd give it a shot but I'm on dial up, 21 year of AF "interpreter" but
only military terminology.
Harry K
Ye Old One
Oh it was, he was well known for them :)
>
>>
>>Or, just possibly, this one
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCm13K4Mq50&
>
>Looks like a loser from Loxley.
>;)
--
Bob.
J. J. Lodder
> >Little YOO can't get by the fact that he had a Physics
> >degree.
>
> Nobody has ever claimed he didn't. However, he was throughout his
> working life, an engineer.
The title page (and a sample page)
of von Braun's Dr. phil. (aka PhD) thesis can be seen at
<http://www.bonhams.com/cgi-bin/public.sh/pubweb/publicSite.r?sContinent
=EUR&screen=lotdetailsNoFlash&iSaleItemNo=3761796&iSaleNo=15425#>
The line between engineering and physics is a vague one.
Your insistence that Von Braun should be called an engineer
throughhout his working life is meaningless.
BTW, his thesis turned out to be worth $33.000 at auction.
Very few physicist will do better than that.
Usually an old thesis isn't worth the paper it is printed upon,
Jan
Suzanne
> On Aug 16, 11:48 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 8:51 am, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 13, 2:27 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 12, 4:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > I said that he had a
> > > > > >double degree...that he had a Master's degree
> > > > > >in Mechanical Englneering, and a Ph.D. degree
> > > > > >in Physics, and that he was both an engineer,
> > > > > >as well as being a scientist.
>
> > > > > No, he was NOT a scientist. He was a rocket engineer. Your error was
> > > > > corrected many times. To continue your claim shows your dishonesty.
>
> > > > Little YOO can't get by the fact that he had a Physics
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > Everyone knows he had two degrees by now. How many he had and what
> > > they were in is immaterial. What counts is 'What did he do' - answer
> > > - he worked as an engineer, not a scientist.
>
> > > That is the point that you refuse to see.
>
> > > Harry K
>
> > If you don't mind me saying this Harry, my opinion is
> > that he did use physics in what he did because the
> > lecture that I went to that I have told people about,
> > had to do with how the three stage rockets would be
> > fueled. His lecture was on the half life of Uranium
> > 235 in the cyclotron, and how there would be some
> > isotopes that remain after a certain process, and
> > they would be both radioactive and stable so that
> > they would be usable in order to provide the big
> > payload needed to get the rocket off the ground
> > and to have the thrust that it needed to propel it
> > into outer space. You see, a rocket can't just be
> > filled up with fuel and then take off, like an airplane
> > does. It has to have a process, I believe, where
> > some of the fuel is actually continually being made
> > as it is in the process of lifting off and pushing
> > towards outer space. The U-235 provided that way.
> > I believe this is why the field of physics considers
> > that being a being a rocket engineer is a special
> > science, and not just one of engineering. This is
> > why Von Braun was awarded our National Science
> > Award. You see, if a rocket was just filled up with
> > enough liquid fuel only that was required to lift it
> > and propel it all the way to outer space, it would
> > be too heavy to lift off the ground, unless there
> > was a way where fuel could be continually being
> > made until it got to outer space.
>
> > Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> 2. There has never been a rocket launched that used U235 (or any
> radioactive) source as part of the fuel process. The only rockets
> ever launched AFAIK that carried radioactive subsances were ones with
> atomic warheads (and I don't know if any of them were acturally
> launched) plus one that had some sort of electrict generator powered
> by atomics (?Helios?). A wold wide uproar went on about it before it
> was launched.
>
> 3. From the first rocket launched until today _every_ rocket launched
> has carried it's full fuel load. NONE is manufactured in flight.
>
This was before Marshall, I think...
Harry, I'm doing well to remember this much
because I didn't know higher kinds of physics
and this kind was really, really advanced. I did
know about the cyclotron, though and how it
works. The class was mostly about the action
in the cyclotron, but we did speak briefly about
theories of big rocket travel. He wanted to get
a rocket to the moon, but it was a long way off.
This was like in the late '50's, Harry. Sputnik
had been put into orbit in about 57, and the
year was about, I think, close to '59. I don't
remember if we had put up out first satellite
yet, but I think that was in '58. I don't know if
the University would have a record of it, but
if I can figure out who to call, I was thinking
about doing that because I'm curious about
it, too, and want to know more about the
class. Somebody is bound to have taken
notes, if I could just find out who. I'll let you
know.
>
Here's something he wrote about his idea of science...
and I'm including it because of the cyclotron...
"It is as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge
the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the
universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the
advances of science. And there is certainly no scientific reason why
God cannot retain the same relevance in our modern world that He held
before we began probing His creation with telescope, cyclotron and
space vehicles.WERNHER VON BRAUN - Creation: Nature's Designs and
Designer "
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
Lodder) enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>> >Little YOO can't get by the fact that he had a Physics
>> >degree.
>>
>> Nobody has ever claimed he didn't. However, he was throughout his
>> working life, an engineer.
>
>The title page (and a sample page)
>of von Braun's Dr. phil. (aka PhD) thesis can be seen at
><http://www.bonhams.com/cgi-bin/public.sh/pubweb/publicSite.r?sContinent
>=EUR&screen=lotdetailsNoFlash&iSaleItemNo=3761796&iSaleNo=15425#>
>
>The line between engineering and physics is a vague one.
But the line between a scientist and an engineer is much clearer.
>Your insistence that Von Braun should be called an engineer
>throughhout his working life is meaningless.
No, it is a fact.
>
>BTW, his thesis turned out to be worth $33.000 at auction.
>Very few physicist will do better than that.
True, but then very few physicists wrote their thesis with Nazi
funding and then went on to be war criminals.
>Usually an old thesis isn't worth the paper it is printed upon,
>
>Jan
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
The more you expand on this "class" the more I'm convinced you are
lying. Why would one of the world's leading rocket engineers lecture
school kids about something so far out of his area of expertise as to
be laughable.
--
Bob.
TomS
<t3ln85lt8gc5i2vq7...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One stated..."
>
>On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 02:01:19 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
><leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>> On Aug 16, 11:48=A0pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Aug 13, 8:51=A0am, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > On Aug 13, 2:27=A0am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > > On Aug 12, 4:41=A0pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > <snip>
>>>
>>> > > > > > I said that he had a
>>> > > > > >double degree...that he had a Master's degree
>>> > > > > >in Mechanical Englneering, and a Ph.D. degree
>>> > > > > >in Physics, and that he was both an engineer,
>>> > > > > >as well as being a scientist.
>>>
>error was
>>> > > > > corrected many times. To continue your claim shows your =
>dishonesty.
>>>
>>> > > > Little YOO can't get by the fact that he had a Physics
>>> > > > degree. I think he thinks he never used it in his work.
>>>
>>> > > <snip>
>>>
>what
>>> > > they were in is immaterial. =A0What counts is 'What did he do' - =
>>>
>>> 2. =A0There has never been a rocket launched that used U235 (or any
>>> radioactive) source as part of the fuel process. =A0The only rockets
>>> ever launched AFAIK that carried radioactive subsances were ones with
>>> atomic warheads (and I don't know if any of them were acturally
>>> launched) plus one that had some sort of electrict generator powered
>it
>>> was launched.
>>>
>>> 3. =A0From the first rocket launched until today _every_ rocket =
>launched
>>> has carried it's full fuel load. =A0NONE is manufactured in flight.
>>>
>>This was before Marshall, I think...
>>Harry, I'm doing well to remember this much
>>because I didn't know higher kinds of physics
>>and this kind was really, really advanced. I did
>>know about the cyclotron, though and how it
>>works. The class was mostly about the action
>>in the cyclotron,
>
>The more you expand on this "class" the more I'm convinced you are
>lying. Why would one of the world's leading rocket engineers lecture
>school kids about something so far out of his area of expertise as to
>be laughable.
>
>
>Bob.
>
It sounds like the lecture wasn't by Doctor Wernher von Braun, but by
Professor Irwin Corey.
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
J. J. Lodder
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:59:39 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >Little YOO can't get by the fact that he had a Physics
> >> >degree.
> >>
> >> Nobody has ever claimed he didn't. However, he was throughout his
> >> working life, an engineer.
> >
> >The title page (and a sample page)
> >of von Braun's Dr. phil. (aka PhD) thesis can be seen at
> ><http://www.bonhams.com/cgi-bin/public.sh/pubweb/publicSite.r?sContinent
> >=EUR&screen=lotdetailsNoFlash&iSaleItemNo=3761796&iSaleNo=15425#>
> >
> >The line between engineering and physics is a vague one.
>
> But the line between a scientist and an engineer is much clearer.
And still arbitrary in many cases.
Things start out as science, and become engineering
when most of the probems have been solved.
> >Your insistence that Von Braun should be called an engineer
> >throughhout his working life is meaningless.
>
> No, it is a fact.
Your problem is that you don't know the difference
between 'my opinion is' and 'is a fact'.
> >BTW, his thesis turned out to be worth $33.000 at auction.
> >Very few physicist will do better than that.
>
> True, but then very few physicists wrote their thesis with Nazi
> funding
After the nazis took over Germany
most science there can be said to be nazi-funded.
> and then went on to be war criminals.
Your opinion again.
For contrast you may note that
not even all participants at the Wannsee conference
turned out to have been war criminals.
(by post-war trial)
Jan
Burkhard
> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:59:39 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder) enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Little YOO can't get by the fact that he had a Physics
>>>>> degree.
>>>> Nobody has ever claimed he didn't. However, he was throughout
>>>> his working life, an engineer.
>>> The title page (and a sample page) of von Braun's Dr. phil. (aka
>>> PhD) thesis can be seen at
>>> <http://www.bonhams.com/cgi-bin/public.sh/pubweb/publicSite.r?sContinent
>>>
>>> =EUR&screen=lotdetailsNoFlash&iSaleItemNo=3761796&iSaleNo=15425#>
>>>
>>>
>>> The line between engineering and physics is a vague one.
>> But the line between a scientist and an engineer is much clearer.
>
> And still arbitrary in many cases. Things start out as science, and
> become engineering when most of the probems have been solved.
>
with that characterisation.
"The School of engineering "Engineering has a long history at The
University of Edinburgh since the formation of the Regius Chair in 1868,
spanning over 130 years of RESEARCH and development." The school, was
awarded a 5* (highest level of international excellence) in the research
assessment exercise.
The relevant funding body for high quality research is the EPSRC, the
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
From the Royal Academy Of Engineering's mission statement, my highlights.
As Britain’s national academy for engineering, we bring together the
country’s most eminent engineers from all disciplines to promote
excellence in the SCIENCE, art and practice of engineering.
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:59:39 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> Lodder) enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Little YOO can't get by the fact that he had a Physics
> >>>>> degree.
> >>>> Nobody has ever claimed he didn't. However, he was throughout
> >>>> his working life, an engineer.
> >>> The title page (and a sample page) of von Braun's Dr. phil. (aka
> >>> PhD) thesis can be seen at
> >>> <http://www.bonhams.com/cgi-bin/public.sh/pubweb/publicSite.r?sContinent
> >>>
> >>> =EUR&screen=lotdetailsNoFlash&iSaleItemNo=3761796&iSaleNo=15425#>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The line between engineering and physics is a vague one.
> >> But the line between a scientist and an engineer is much clearer.
> >
> > And still arbitrary in many cases. Things start out as science, and
> > become engineering when most of the probems have been solved.
> >
> My colleagues in the College for Science and Engineering would disagree
> with that characterisation.
So would I.
It was merely a reaction o a stupidity of YOO.
(who always mistakes his opinions for facts)
For some strange reason he seems to insist
that Von Braun's pre-1934 efforts
to get a liquid fuel rocket to work at all
cannot be called science.
> "The School of engineering "Engineering has a long history at The
> University of Edinburgh since the formation of the Regius Chair in 1868,
> spanning over 130 years of RESEARCH and development." The school, was
> awarded a 5* (highest level of international excellence) in the research
> assessment exercise.
There are many technical universities on the continent
with a similar tradition of scientific excellence.
(Delft, Ecole Polytechnique, ETH Zurich, for example)
Edinburgh (and Leyden) long held a special position,
as the universities where the new sciences
and their practical applications could be taught.
(the rest remaining locked in their medieval traditions)
Why, a certain A. Einstein may be said to have been an engineer.
He graduated from the ETH in Zurich,
and did his most important work
while being employed as an engineer,
in a certain patent office, [1]
Jan
[1] He was the best patant examiner they ever had,
according to his boss there.
Burkhard
It is indeed a rather pointless discussion, made vaguely interesting
only by the "role reversal" that seems to have taken place. It was the
Christian doctrine of the Middle Ages that had kicked engineering and
mechanics out of the artes liberales. One (arguably wrong) etymology for
the word for mechanics (engineering by another name) at that time,
proposed by Ugo di San Vittore, was from "moechus", "adulterer" - while
a proper scientists tries to describe the truth of creation ad majorem
gloriam dei and for the love of truth itself, technical oriented
engineers and mechanics only tell nature they love her to get her into
bed, bending her to human ends and sully her, and we cannot have that
type of hubris, can we?
It was the Renaissance that rediscovered the "scientia de ingeniis" as a
legitimate if subordinated (scientia mediea) science, mainly as a
result of the discovery of the pseudo-Aristotelian "Mechanical
problems". Like many newcomers, they tried initially their hardest to
be seen even more non-applied than the other disciplines, but by the
time Galileo held the chair of mathematics at Padua, teaching and
researching into the making of instruments (his script on Meccaniche
dell istrumento) and machine building (Delle Machine)were firmly part
of the science curriculum and research.
The rest of Europe needed of course a bit longer to catch up - a very
good overview of the debate is W. R. Laird
The Scope of Renaissance Mechanics, Osiris, 2nd Series, Vol. 2, (1986),
pp. 43-68
So it really should be Suzanne arguing that Braun was an adulterer who
tried to force nature to his will in order to kill people, while YOO
should argue that this is religious superstition, hostility to the idea
that we can use our intellect to improve life without praying for it,
and that it is irrelevant for the truth of a theory what use, if any, it
has. But then, debates on TO do not necessarily adhere to logic, do they?
The distinction between science and engineering is enduring, and we
still use both terms as a juxtaposition, but in real life it lost its
meaning at around 1500.
heekster
wrote:
Just my opinion.
Engineering is applied science.
I'm a physicist, but since SDI's GBFEL was scrubbed, and the
Waxahatchie SSC was de-funded, I've made my living as an engineer.
Ilas
news:ef8e81f7-6f78-4708...@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> This was before Marshall, I think...
> Harry, I'm doing well to remember this much
> because I didn't know higher kinds of physics
> and this kind was really, really advanced. I did
> know about the cyclotron, though and how it
> works. The class was mostly about the action
> in the cyclotron, but we did speak briefly about
> theories of big rocket travel. He wanted to get
> a rocket to the moon, but it was a long way off.
> This was like in the late '50's, Harry. Sputnik
> had been put into orbit in about 57, and the
> year was about, I think, close to '59. I don't
> remember if we had put up out first satellite
> yet, but I think that was in '58. I don't know if
> the University would have a record of it, but
> if I can figure out who to call, I was thinking
> about doing that because I'm curious about
> it, too, and want to know more about the
> class.
Me too. If Von Braun thought "...if a rocket was just filled up with enough
liquid fuel only that was required to lift it and propel it all the way to
outer space, it would be too heavy to lift off the ground, unless there was
a way where fuel could be continually being made until it got to outer
space", then you seem to have uncovered hitherto unknown branch of rocket
science.
J. J. Lodder
J. J. Lodder
> On Aug 13, 8:51 am, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 2:27 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 12, 4:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > I said that he had a
> > > > >double degree...that he had a Master's degree
> > > > >in Mechanical Englneering, and a Ph.D. degree
> > > > >in Physics, and that he was both an engineer,
> > > > >as well as being a scientist.
> >
> > > > No, he was NOT a scientist. He was a rocket engineer. Your error was
> > > > corrected many times. To continue your claim shows your dishonesty.
> >
> > > Little YOO can't get by the fact that he had a Physics
> > > degree. I think he thinks he never used it in his work.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Everyone knows he had two degrees by now. How many he had and what
> > they were in is immaterial. What counts is 'What did he do' - answer
> > - he worked as an engineer, not a scientist.
> >
> > That is the point that you refuse to see.
> >
> > Harry K
> >
> If you don't mind me saying this Harry, my opinion is
> that he did use physics in what he did because the
> lecture that I went to that I have told people about,
> had to do with how the three stage rockets would be
> fueled. His lecture was on the half life of Uranium
> 235 in the cyclotron, and how there would be some
> isotopes that remain after a certain process, and
> they would be both radioactive and stable so that
> they would be usable in order to provide the big
> payload needed to get the rocket off the ground
> and to have the thrust that it needed to propel it
> into outer space. You see, a rocket can't just be
> filled up with fuel and then take off, like an airplane
> does. It has to have a process, I believe, where
> some of the fuel is actually continually being made
> as it is in the process of lifting off and pushing
> towards outer space. The U-235 provided that way.
> I believe this is why the field of physics considers
> that being a being a rocket engineer is a special
> science, and not just one of engineering. This is
> why Von Braun was awarded our National Science
> Award. You see, if a rocket was just filled up with
> enough liquid fuel only that was required to lift it
> and propel it all the way to outer space, it would
> be too heavy to lift off the ground, unless there
> was a way where fuel could be continually being
> made until it got to outer space.
Where did you pick up this (no doubt completely garbled)
load of nonsense?
Jan
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Nope, just hitherto unplumbed depths to her stupidity.
--
Bob.
Ilas
news:1j4qx4q.df...@de-ster.xs4all.nl:
> Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
>> Me too. If Von Braun thought "...if a rocket was just filled up with
>> enough liquid fuel only that was required to lift it and propel it
>> all the way to outer space, it would be too heavy to lift off the
>> ground, unless there was a way where fuel could be continually being
>> made until it got to outer space", then you seem to have uncovered
>> hitherto unknown branch of rocket science.
>
> Just send up a tanker rocket along with it,
You could do, but then you'd need to send an even bigger tanker rocket to
refuel the tanker rocket. And then...
TomS
<5i8q85tbdqh8kqbjm...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One stated..."
>
>On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:43:59 GMT, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com>
>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>
>>> This was before Marshall, I think...
>>> Harry, I'm doing well to remember this much
>>> because I didn't know higher kinds of physics
>>> and this kind was really, really advanced. I did
>>> know about the cyclotron, though and how it
>>> works. The class was mostly about the action
>>> in the cyclotron, but we did speak briefly about
>>> theories of big rocket travel. He wanted to get
>>> a rocket to the moon, but it was a long way off.
>>> This was like in the late '50's, Harry. Sputnik
>>> had been put into orbit in about 57, and the
>>> year was about, I think, close to '59. I don't
>>> remember if we had put up out first satellite
>>> yet, but I think that was in '58. I don't know if
>>> the University would have a record of it, but
>>> if I can figure out who to call, I was thinking
>>> about doing that because I'm curious about
>>> it, too, and want to know more about the
>>
>>Me too. If Von Braun thought "...if a rocket was just filled up with =
>enough=20
>>liquid fuel only that was required to lift it and propel it all the way =
>to=20
>>outer space, it would be too heavy to lift off the ground, unless there =
>was=20
>>a way where fuel could be continually being made until it got to outer=20
>>space", then you seem to have uncovered hitherto unknown branch of =
>rocket=20
>>science.
>
>Nope, just hitherto unplumbed depths to her stupidity.
>
>Bob.
>
This is a cautionary tale for anyone who thinks that he can give
a talk on a technical subject to a general audience.
Think of this summary, when you feel satisfied that you have managed
to convey some information to the audience.
J. J. Lodder
No, Just one or two will do.
(the tanker needn't be burdened with additional payoad)
It isn't too different from an attached pusher.
(like the shuttle has)
Except that it is so much easier to transfer momentum than fuel,
Jan
Ilas
> Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
>
>> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in
>> news:1j4qx4q.df...@de-ster.xs4all.nl:
>>
>> > Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Me too. If Von Braun thought "...if a rocket was just filled up
>> >> with enough liquid fuel only that was required to lift it and
>> >> propel it all the way to outer space, it would be too heavy to
>> >> lift off the ground, unless there was a way where fuel could be
>> >> continually being made until it got to outer space", then you seem
>> >> to have uncovered hitherto unknown branch of rocket science.
>> >
>> > Just send up a tanker rocket along with it,
>>
>> You could do, but then you'd need to send an even bigger tanker
>> rocket to refuel the tanker rocket. And then...
>
> No, Just one or two will do.
I preferred mine. Tankers all the way down.
J. J. Lodder
Suzanne
not and if I repeat this several times, it's because I
can't see my posts. But your idea about the tankers
going along is just how they solved the problem with
the "too heavy" load of rocket with all the liquid fuel
in it. You are right, it took just a couple of tankers,
and they attached them, and called them the stage
separations. That's just exactly what those are all
about.
Suzanne
Ye Old One
You are SOOOOOOOOO ignorant.
--
Bob.
Ilas
news:d0175dfc-7a76-4df6...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
> Jan, I don't know if my other posts went through our
> not and if I repeat this several times, it's because I
> can't see my posts. But your idea about the tankers
> going along is just how they solved the problem with
> the "too heavy" load of rocket with all the liquid fuel
> in it. You are right, it took just a couple of tankers,
> and they attached them, and called them the stage
> separations. That's just exactly what those are all
> about.
So did they discover the "way where fuel could be continually being made
until it got to outer space" that you say von Braun was talking about?
Something to do with U235 if I recall.
Suzanne
cyclotron. We only briefly talked about rockets.
I'm not sure if it was fuel continually being made
after the rocket took off or energy continually
being made. I thought fuel, because we didn't
know any other way then. But now It think it may
have had to do with something else. They did
not have just one design in mind, but several.
I have read that they even thought about an all
electric rocket in order to save money because
fuel is so expensive. The way they solved the
problem was with the staged rocket. Just like
you all were talking about sending several
tankers alongside of the rocket for refueling,
they simply attached those loads and called
them the stages. When they performed their
task, as you know they separated, lightening
the load of the rocket, after providing the
mighty thrust a rocket would need. I have
read that long ago, WVB had that design in
mind to consider. He even had designs, I guess
you know, for a space station, probes to Mars
and other planets, and also the manned flights to
the moon, and even to Mars.
>
The other thing that I wondered about, concerning
the cyclotron, is that the way it works, relates to the
anti-gravity plasma that some think can provide a
ionic hyperdrive propulsion. Do you know about
that? It's a fascinating subject. A man in Germany
who died in 2001, might have figured this out. First,
if you know how a cyclotron works, there are a
couple of electrodes they form that are shaped like
a "D" that are attached, or are fixed near the poles
of an electromagnet. Between the poles of the
magnet they place a substance that is capable of
producing sub-atomic particles/ions. This is all
enclosed in a vacuum. When they introduce an
alternating in a way that is perpendicular to the
plain of the magnet, the substance starts
producing the particles that are smaller than an
atom. If it is a positive current, the annode will
attract the particles and they will set up around
the annode (the plus pole) and they will begin
spinning in a circular pattern since the paths of
the particles begin curving, thus spiraling around
the annode. If they reverse the current to the
negative, they will be attracted to the cathode
side of the magnet. Depending upon the current,
either negative or positive ions are generated, of course. The
particles are attracted to each pole
electrostatically. A huge amount of energy is
generated, and depending upon the speed of
the sub-atomic particles, the energy can
greatly increase. OK...now that's the cycotron.
In an anti-gravity machine, it is believed that
the plasma contains many electrodes, not just
two as the ones in the cyclotron. The plasma
is in a reservoir at the bottom of a craft and
they somehow get them to spin (by electromagnet),
in a horizontal plain, like if you spun a lariat over
head or like the upper blades of a helicopter.
Something about the particles changes with the
strength or speed or both of the spin, and theory
says that the particles turn into or generate
gravity.
Now, you might wonder, why would you want the
object that you want to fly have an increase of
gravity? Well, if the gravity that is produced is
somehow tranferred above the vehicle, it will want
to "fall upwards" if the gravity produced is stronger
than the earth's gravity. Now, don't laugh at me,
because this is my idea as to why this works, but
if you can produce the gravity to be always above
the craft and equidistant from the craft while flying,
It would be like taking a long stick with a carrot on
it that you dangle in front of a horse to get him
to keep going the direction you want him to go in,
which of course he can never catch up to.
The theory is that if you can control this direction,
(if this works), you could get to the moon fast. Not
in three days as we did in the manned trip, but in a
matter of hours, instead. Now, all of this was not
in that class and was not even hinted at. But the
man that believed that he understood this, that
died in 2001, was contacted, so an article says,
by the teacher of the class. The man was a physicist
from Germany named Burkhard Heim. As you can
see, he was very private about his theory...
http://www.damninteresting.com/prepare-for-ludicrous-speed
It doesn't sound like he would have shared it with
VB, since he had become an American. But this man
was not the only person working on that theory of
anti-gravity, but it sounds like he really had a handle
on what Einstein wanted to get resolved. Just last
year a young man had an invention on a very small
scale that was supposed to be a thing that could
utilize anti-gravity, and NASA took a great interest
in it. I think it's really, really an interesting subject.
Suzanne
raven1
<leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I have read that they even thought about an all
>electric rocket in order to save money because
>fuel is so expensive.
What would produce the electricity?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <u9g2955s7b5vfhbtk...@4ax.com>):
Stop asking her logical questions, she can't answer them.
Oh, and Suzy, dearest... examples of 'all electric' rockets include
mass-drivers and ion motors. Perhaps you might elaborate on which
'all-electric' rocket you mean, and how you intend to launch it from the
Earth. Hint: 'all electric' rockets are extremely efficient and have good to
very, very, VERY good specific impulses, but are low thrust... Chemical
rockets are inefficient, have poor specific impulses, but can have high
thrust. Thrust is of low importance in orbit, but of very high importance for
something on the ground as if you don't have sufficient thrust to overcome
gravity and get off the ground in the first place you'll never make it to
orbit. The only rocket which I know of which would actually work and which
combines high thrust with high specific impulse is Freeman Dyson's Project
Orion: build a really, really, REALLY big ship, put a really, really, REALLY
thick steel plate aft, coat the aft surface of the plate with a thick layer
of carbon, mount the plate on really, really, REALLY good shock absorbers,
and throw a nuke behind the plate. Boom. Ship moves, hopefully all in one
piece. Throw more nukes aft as necessary to get the required delta-vee to get
where you want to go. Dyson built a prototype, using chemical explosives (for
some reason no-one would let him borrow a few nukes) and flew it; the
prototype, and film of it flying, is in the Smithsonian. A full-size Orion
would have been able to land several thousand tons of cargo on the Moon at
one shot...
The very best electric rocket would be a continuous thermonuclear plasma
rocket: a fusion reactor which was open at one end and threw star-hot plasma
out the back, controlled by electric and magnetic fields, combining the best
features of nuclear pulse systems and electric systems: high thrust and high
specific impulse. (and high stay away from the back end of the rocket if you
know what's good for you; as EE Smith, Robert Heinlein, and Larry Niven have
noted, high-end driving jets are _weapons_.) Given that no-one has got a
plain old fusion power reactor working yet, I'd say that working CTP rockets
are some distance out in the future.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Louann Miller
news:u9g2955s7b5vfhbtk...@4ax.com:
I'm trying to think of a way of pointing out this profound failure to grasp
how the universe works which will not be seen by Suzanne as a feelings-
hurting personal attack. I got nothing.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <lI6dnRTi9arh_AzX...@giganews.com>):
Suzy quite clearly does not understand very much about electricity, electric
power generation, rockets, Newton's laws of motion, or, indeed, anything at
all to do with physics, chemistry, biology, mechanics, statics, dynamics,
electromagnetic field theory, thermodynamics... it's an extensive list. (She
doesn't know much about history, geography, politics, and psychology either;
that's an entirely different very long list.)
I find it amazing that someone who has allegedly lived so long knows so
little about so much.
TomS
<lI6dnRTi9arh_AzX...@giganews.com>, Louann Miller stated..."
I wonder whether this was an attempt to get out of a bad situation by
making a joke of the whole thing?
el cid
> > > On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> > <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>I have read that they even thought about an all
> >>electric rocket in order to save money because
> >>fuel is so expensive.
> I'm trying to think of a way of pointing out this profound failure to grasp
> how the universe works which will not be seen by Suzanne as a feelings-
> hurting personal attack. I got nothing.
Indeed, I suppose she's not shopped for extension cords lately,
very long, very light, very heavy gauge cords. They ain't cheap
either.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <261046291.000...@drn.newsguy.com>):
> "On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 10:34:20 -0500, in article
> <lI6dnRTi9arh_AzX...@giganews.com>, Louann Miller stated..."
>>
>> raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in
>> news:u9g2955s7b5vfhbtk...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>>> <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have read that they even thought about an all
>>>> electric rocket in order to save money because
>>>> fuel is so expensive.
>>>
>>> What would produce the electricity?
>>
>> I'm trying to think of a way of pointing out this profound failure to grasp
>> how the universe works which will not be seen by Suzanne as a feelings-
>> hurting personal attack. I got nothing.
>>
>
> I wonder whether this was an attempt to get out of a bad situation by
> making a joke of the whole thing?
>
>
>
If so, it didn't work.
Ye Old One
Oh dear, could they not find a power lead long enough to reach orbit?
> The way they solved the
>problem was with the staged rocket. Just like
>you all were talking about sending several
>tankers alongside of the rocket for refueling,
>they simply attached those loads and called
>them the stages.
You do talk a lot of rubbish.
>When they performed their
>task, as you know they separated, lightening
>the load of the rocket, after providing the
>mighty thrust a rocket would need. I have
>read that long ago, WVB had that design in
>mind to consider. He even had designs, I guess
>you know, for a space station, probes to Mars
>and other planets, and also the manned flights to
>the moon, and even to Mars.
>>
>The other thing that I wondered about, concerning
>the cyclotron, is that the way it works, relates to the
>anti-gravity plasma that some think can provide a
>ionic hyperdrive propulsion.
We all know you talk utter rubbish, but that last bit really wins
prizes for abject ignorance.
No it isn't. You are, without doubt, the most profoundly ignorant
person I've ever come across.
First off, look up what an ION is.
Then actually look up what a cyclotron is and what is does.
Finally, please explain how a cyclotron can ever generate energy.
>
>In an anti-gravity machine, it is believed that
>the plasma contains many electrodes, not just
>two as the ones in the cyclotron. The plasma
>is in a reservoir at the bottom of a craft and
>they somehow get them to spin (by electromagnet),
>in a horizontal plain, like if you spun a lariat over
>head or like the upper blades of a helicopter.
>Something about the particles changes with the
>strength or speed or both of the spin, and theory
>says that the particles turn into or generate
>gravity.
Please, PLEASE, for your own sake stop taking whatever hallucinogenic
drugs you must be taking.
>
>Now, you might wonder, why would you want the
>object that you want to fly have an increase of
>gravity? Well, if the gravity that is produced is
>somehow tranferred above the vehicle, it will want
>to "fall upwards" if the gravity produced is stronger
>than the earth's gravity.
Oh....My...GAWD!!!!!
It could be, if you were not so ignorant.
>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <0l3395prtd2scm04g...@4ax.com>):
>> Now, you might wonder, why would you want the
>> object that you want to fly have an increase of
>> gravity? Well, if the gravity that is produced is
>> somehow tranferred above the vehicle, it will want
>> to "fall upwards" if the gravity produced is stronger
>> than the earth's gravity.
>
> Oh....My...GAWD!!!!!
You've got to stop reading her stuff, you'll give yourself major medical
problems.
J. J. Lodder
She fails the ultimate test though:
she doesn't know that she knows so little,
Jan
Ye Old One
It will never, ever, even in the worst possible scenario, be a match
for her mental problems.
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
> >I have read that they even thought about an all
> >electric rocket in order to save money because
> >fuel is so expensive.
>
> What would produce the electricity?
>
and an electric type of a rocket, so I don't know
which one you are referring to, or both perhaps.
When I was talking about the cyclotron, I left out
the word "current" after the word "alternating." >
The article that I read about only touched on the
idea that he thought of an electric powered rocket,
but did not tell the plan or say how it might be
formed or if they even knew how it worked.
But a cyclotron is capable of producing millions
of volts. The faster it spins the ions, the greater
the volts become, and eventually they can escape
the cyclotron and be aimed at any target. The
problem with a cyclotron, which is a partical
separator, is that it has to be big to produce that
kind of power. But somone invented what they call
"the 88" cyclotron" (you can find it online), but the
problem with that smaller one is that it is not
capable of producing enough volts to power a
rocket, I don't think. I got the impression with an
anti-gravity machine, which some might want to
call a flying saucer, the chamber itself with the
plasma in it with the electrodes in it, act as a sort
of cyclotron, generating either it's own electricity,
or it's gravity, if that is what it does, or even both.
Remember though that the very physicist that
seems to have figured the anti-gravity ability out,
is the same one that sustained terrible injuries.
I think this kind of thing should only be experimented
with in a laboratory and only under conditions where
extreme caution is taken. Physicists have a great
ability to let a formula be the first experimentation.
They can make those formulas almost talk.
>
Suzanne
Earle Jones
raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
*
They once tested the electric rocket, which costs about ten million
dollars. One million for the rocket and nine million for the extension
cord.
earle
*
Earle Jones
<ededc329-39ba-40e4...@34g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*
Suzanne: Reading the above, I am trying to decide whether you are
telling us a big joke, are on some kind of dope, or just painfully
ignorant of science.
What comes to mind are the words of Pope:
"A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing; Drink deep, or taste not
the Pierian Spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
--Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744)
As I understand it, the "Pierian Spring" is the fountain of knowledge.
earle
*
Earle Jones
<74e05278-93e6-4261...@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*
If I were you, I would stick to interpretations of the Bible.
earle
*
John S. Wilkins
They got that down to eight million for batteries, but you need to put
the batteries in orbit first, because the rocket can't lift them.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
John S. Wilkins
I think she's either home schooled, or she was never taught any science
at school in the days when girls were expected to major in home
economics. All her science knowledge has been given to her by the
credulous and the religious. She is so blind to her own ignorance she
has no filters for bullshit whatsoever.
>
> What comes to mind are the words of Pope:
>
> "A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing; Drink deep, or taste not
> the Pierian Spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
> And drinking largely sobers us again."
>
> --Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744)
>
> As I understand it, the "Pierian Spring" is the fountain of knowledge.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierian_Spring - IOW, yes.
Mike Painter
Had they come to me and found out about my electric car idea they would have
saved a lot of money. Damn, those cords can get tangled and who knew they
would do that to a pedestrian.
Mike Painter
<snip>
>
> *
> Suzanne: Reading the above, I am trying to decide whether you are
> telling us a big joke, are on some kind of dope, or just painfully
> ignorant of science.
>
She is perfectly serious and saying she is ignorant of science implies she
might be able to learn.
Here is another of her explanations explaining what light is:
"These are all really the same thing, a stream
of photons that move at certain frequencies,
producing waves of energy, identifiable by
the speed at which they are moving. Your
ears "hear" the light when it is at a certain
level of speed in it's wave formed lengths.
Wehn it is faster, you see the light."
You probably were unaware that frequency is a speed and that light has a
"level of speed" down *and* can be heard.
She is also an expert on archeology.
"I don't know what others think, but I can tell you that
I feel an inner confirmation that it is the truth, so I
don't need outside archaeological evidence to prove to
me that it is true."
Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:47:30 -0500
Some people don't need no stinkin' badges, Suzanne needs no stinkin'
education.
Suzanne
> Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article <u9g2955s7b5vfhbtkl1m9t19drc3o6s...@4ax.com>,
> > raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> > > <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >I have read that they even thought about an all
> > > >electric rocket in order to save money because
> > > >fuel is so expensive.
>
> > > What would produce the electricity?
>
> > *
> > They once tested the electric rocket, which costs about ten million
> > dollars. One million for the rocket and nine million for the extension
> > cord.
>
> They got that down to eight million for batteries, but you need to put
> the batteries in orbit first, because the rocket can't lift them.
>
that an all electric rocket would need eight million
batteries. That would be a low estimate.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > Suzanne: Reading the above, I am trying to decide whether you are
> > telling us a big joke, are on some kind of dope, or just painfully
> > ignorant of science.
>
> I think she's either home schooled, or she was never taught any science
> at school in the days when girls were expected to major in home
> economics. All her science knowledge has been given to her by the
> credulous and the religious. She is so blind to her own ignorance she
> has no filters for bullshit whatsoever.
>
from someone so well educated as you, too.
I hereby declare that the last two posts from you
contain a salt and battery.
>
Suzanne
John S. Wilkins
Suzanne, the term "bullshit" has a general meaning now to mean, well,
bullshit. It's no longer thought of as "salty". See this
http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html
If Princeton use it in a title, then it's part of ordinary discourse.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 23, 8:17 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>>
>> <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >I have read that they even thought about an all
>> >electric rocket in order to save money because
>> >fuel is so expensive.
>>
>> What would produce the electricity?
>>
>I mentioned an anti-gravity machine/space craft(?),
>and an electric type of a rocket, so I don't know
>which one you are referring to, or both perhaps.
>When I was talking about the cyclotron, I left out
>the word "current" after the word "alternating." >
>The article that I read about only touched on the
>idea that he thought of an electric powered rocket,
>but did not tell the plan or say how it might be
>formed or if they even knew how it worked.
>But a cyclotron is capable of producing millions
>of volts.
Nonononononono! Your ignorance is very deep rooted.
>The faster it spins the ions, the greater
>the volts become, and eventually they can escape
>the cyclotron and be aimed at any target.
The energy is being put IN to the particles.
> The
>problem with a cyclotron, which is a partical
>separator, is that it has to be big to produce that
>kind of power. But somone invented what they call
>"the 88" cyclotron" (you can find it online), but the
>problem with that smaller one is that it is not
>capable of producing enough volts to power a
>rocket, I don't think.
A cyclotron cannot produce power you fool.
> I got the impression with an
>anti-gravity machine, which some might want to
>call a flying saucer, the chamber itself with the
>plasma in it with the electrodes in it, act as a sort
>of cyclotron, generating either it's own electricity,
>or it's gravity, if that is what it does, or even both.
Now I can see why you accept the stupidity of the bible - you are
prepared to accept any stupidity you read.
>Remember though that the very physicist that
>seems to have figured the anti-gravity ability out,
>is the same one that sustained terrible injuries.
>I think this kind of thing should only be experimented
>with in a laboratory and only under conditions where
>extreme caution is taken. Physicists have a great
>ability to let a formula be the first experimentation.
>They can make those formulas almost talk.
WTF are you talking about?
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> Earle Jones wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > *
> > Suzanne: Reading the above, I am trying to decide whether you are
> > telling us a big joke, are on some kind of dope, or just painfully
> > ignorant of science.
>
> She is perfectly serious and saying she is ignorant of science implies she
> might be able to learn.
>
> Here is another of her explanations explaining what light is:
>
> "These are all really the same thing, a stream
> of photons that move at certain frequencies,
> producing waves of energy, identifiable by
> the speed at which they are moving. Your
> ears "hear" the light when it is at a certain
> level of speed in it's wave formed lengths.
> Wehn it is faster, you see the light."
>
> You probably were unaware that frequency is a speed and that light has a
> "level of speed" down *and* can be heard.
>
spectrum of electromagnetic radiations (EMR).
Each thing in it (Xrays, gamma rays, etc.) travels
at the speed of light, but in addition, each has a frequency as well,
and that is the number of
complete oscillations per second.
>
You are also interjecting your own sense of
mischief when you comment such as you did
about the presence of the word "hear," that is
within the sentence. That was meant to be a
sort of joke concerning what had been said,
and this has been explained to you several
times before, that it was put in quotes to notify
the reader that it is not referring to the actual
audible sound of something.
>
> She is also an expert on archeology.
> "I don't know what others think, but I can tell you that
> I feel an inner confirmation that it is the truth, so I
> don't need outside archaeological evidence to prove to
> me that it is true."
> Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:47:30 -0500
>
That was not my philosphy about archaeology.
This answered someone's claim that a
Christian needed tangible proof that the Bible
is true. I was explaining that the Holy Spirit,
which indwells a believer can give an inner
confirmation.
>
> Some people don't need no stinkin' badges, Suzanne > needs no stinkin'
> education.
>
>
Suzanne
J. J. Lodder
> On Aug 22, 4:02 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
> > Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:d0175dfc-7a76-4df6-9260-2d5f8419
a2...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
This is positively Joycean.
Do you always talk in these free flows of association
without coherent content?
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> Earle Jones wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > *
> > Suzanne: Reading the above, I am trying to decide whether you are
> > telling us a big joke, are on some kind of dope, or just painfully
> > ignorant of science.
> >
>
> She is perfectly serious and saying she is ignorant of science implies she
> might be able to learn.
>
> Here is another of her explanations explaining what light is:
>
> "These are all really the same thing, a stream
> of photons that move at certain frequencies,
> producing waves of energy, identifiable by
> the speed at which they are moving. Your
> ears "hear" the light when it is at a certain
> level of speed in it's wave formed lengths.
> Wehn it is faster, you see the light."
>
> You probably were unaware that frequency is a speed and that light has a
> "level of speed" down *and* can be heard.
Molly Bloom is much to be preferred,
Jan
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 24, 12:06 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > *
> > > > Suzanne: Reading the above, I am trying to decide whether you are
> > > > telling us a big joke, are on some kind of dope, or just painfully
> > > > ignorant of science.
> > >
> > > I think she's either home schooled, or she was never taught any science
> > > at school in the days when girls were expected to major in home
> > > economics. All her science knowledge has been given to her by the
> > > credulous and the religious. She is so blind to her own ignorance she
> > > has no filters for bullshit whatsoever.
> > >
> > Now that's not funny. Such salty language coming
> > from someone so well educated as you, too.
> > I hereby declare that the last two posts from you
> > contain a salt and battery.
> > >
>
> Suzanne, the term "bullshit" has a general meaning now to mean, well,
> bullshit. It's no longer thought of as "salty". See this
>
> http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html
>
> If Princeton use it in a title, then it's part of ordinary discourse.
The term is derived from the Protestant reaction to Papal Bulls.
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
Unfortunaterly, the human brain is only capable of a little learning,
but knowledge is a necessary tool for survival as human beings. Thus, we
get into trouble all over our heads.
Walter Bushell
<01fb3dad-8fdd-41d5...@f37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And you are not telling the truth here either.
> That was not my philosphy about archaeology.
> This answered someone's claim that a
> Christian needed tangible proof that the Bible
> is true. I was explaining that the Holy Spirit,
> which indwells a believer can give an inner
> confirmation.
> >
Perhaps. And the same confirmation is given to those who study the
_Bhagavad Gita_, or the _Koran_. But in each religion there seem to be
many claimants to deep knowledge, who by all external apprances have
none.
Louann Miller
news:2lf495d8119q9sjrs...@4ax.com:
>>Remember though that the very physicist that
>>seems to have figured the anti-gravity ability out,
>>is the same one that sustained terrible injuries.
>>I think this kind of thing should only be experimented
>>with in a laboratory and only under conditions where
>>extreme caution is taken. Physicists have a great
>>ability to let a formula be the first experimentation.
>>They can make those formulas almost talk.
>
> WTF are you talking about?
Suzanne does not acknowledge "knowing what I'm talking about" as a
precondition for giving us her opinion and defending it to the death.
Walter Bushell
Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
Has anyone tried transmission of power by microwave?
But, the problem is that one needs reaction mass and we are already at
the limits given by materials in the rocket engines themselves.
But with microwaves, theoretically we can convert the mass to energy and
the rocket converts the energy to reaction mass.
el cid
> In article <1j4yoo4.1vu6qo71yuau3uN%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
> j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > Suzanne, the term "bullshit" has a general meaning now to mean, well,
> > bullshit. It's no longer thought of as "salty". See this
>
> >http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html
>
> > If Princeton use it in a title, then it's part of ordinary discourse.
>
> The term is derived from the Protestant reaction to Papal Bulls.
I thought the protestant reaction to Papal Bulls resulted
in Papal steers.
Walter Bushell
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
But she has a direct connect to Dog and hence worldly knowledge is an
elephant and immaterial.
Walter Bushell
<282f4cf5-a810-4a37...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
el cid <elcid...@gmail.com> wrote:
The Roman Catholic would say bum steers.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Oh way past death - she will defend thing after they have turned to
dust.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>In article <earle.jones-2135...@news.giganews.com>,
> Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <u9g2955s7b5vfhbtk...@4ax.com>,
>> raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> > <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >I have read that they even thought about an all
>> > >electric rocket in order to save money because
>> > >fuel is so expensive.
>> >
>> > What would produce the electricity?
>>
>> *
>> They once tested the electric rocket, which costs about ten million
>> dollars. One million for the rocket and nine million for the extension
>> cord.
>>
>> earle
>> *
>
>Has anyone tried transmission of power by microwave?
Yes, and by laser. The problem is focus.
>
>But, the problem is that one needs reaction mass and we are already at
>the limits given by materials in the rocket engines themselves.
>
>But with microwaves, theoretically we can convert the mass to energy and
>the rocket converts the energy to reaction mass.
With a great deal of loss.
--
Bob.
Mike Lyle
Altar boys, too, quite possibly. But I regret the debasement of the word
"bullshit". If it's simply going to be a synonym of "nonsense", it's
little more than a decorative waste of breath. The beauty of proper
bullshit is that the user _knows_ it's nonsense: hence the Anglo-Saxon
proverb "Bullshit baffles brains" (I've translated it into the familiar
modern form: but the original is found as graffiti on a wall excavated
at King Alfred's headquarters). The connoisseur's version, however, is
found in armies, where not only the perpetrator but also the _victim_
knows it's nonsense, but all the official boxes can be ticked.
--
Mike.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Suzanne
<leil...@hotmail.com>:
>On Aug 23, 8:17 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>>
>> <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >I have read that they even thought about an all
>> >electric rocket in order to save money because
>> >fuel is so expensive.
>>
>> What would produce the electricity?
>>
>I mentioned an anti-gravity machine/space craft(?),
>and an electric type of a rocket, so I don't know
>which one you are referring to, or both perhaps.
>When I was talking about the cyclotron, I left out
>the word "current" after the word "alternating." >
>The article that I read about only touched on the
>idea that he thought of an electric powered rocket,
>but did not tell the plan or say how it might be
>formed or if they even knew how it worked.
>But a cyclotron is capable of producing millions
>of volts. The faster it spins the ions, the greater
>the volts become, and eventually they can escape
>the cyclotron and be aimed at any target. The
>problem with a cyclotron, which is a partical
>separator, is that it has to be big to produce that
>kind of power. But somone invented what they call
>"the 88" cyclotron" (you can find it online), but the
>problem with that smaller one is that it is not
>capable of producing enough volts to power a
>rocket, I don't think. I got the impression with an
>anti-gravity machine, which some might want to
>call a flying saucer, the chamber itself with the
>plasma in it with the electrodes in it, act as a sort
>of cyclotron, generating either it's own electricity,
>or it's gravity, if that is what it does, or even both.
>Remember though that the very physicist that
>seems to have figured the anti-gravity ability out,
>is the same one that sustained terrible injuries.
>I think this kind of thing should only be experimented
>with in a laboratory and only under conditions where
>extreme caution is taken. Physicists have a great
>ability to let a formula be the first experimentation.
>They can make those formulas almost talk.
Oy...
Suzanne, please take this as a gentle suggestion, *not* a
personal attack. Please, *please*, PLEASE refrain from
posting anything of a technical nature, or requiring that
you understand technical and/or scientific issues.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Mike Painter
It was not meant to be funny but it is true.
Conversely your attempt at humor is not funny.
(Or perhaps it shows that you are aware of your lack of knowledge.)
You have, on occasion, quote mined from sites claiming that the writere
believed what you claimed. When the conclusions that the author actually
drew were quoted, you denied them.
Mike Painter
It is correct and that was a direct quote.
Here is the gibberish in context with the rest of it.
" Science tells us that light is a vast category in
which are things such as gamma rays, cosmic rays,
Xrays, and all those things that make up the
electromagnetic spectrum. Collectively they are
all called EMR. This is radiation energy that
travels and as it goes, it expands. These include
visible light, as well as invisible. It includes
microwaves, and even radio waves. These are all
really the same thing, a stream of photons that
move at certain frequencies, producing waves
of energy, identifiable by the speed at which
they are moving. Your ears "hear" the light
when it is at a certain level of speed in it's
wave formed lengths. Wehn it is faster, you
see the light. If you get a sunburn, which is
ultraviolet light, you feel the light. You can
heat up a cup of coffee in the microwave and
you can feel the heat that it generated."
>>
> You are also interjecting your own sense of
> mischief when you comment such as you did
> about the presence of the word "hear," that is
> within the sentence. That was meant to be a
> sort of joke concerning what had been said,
> and this has been explained to you several
> times before, that it was put in quotes to notify
> the reader that it is not referring to the actual
> audible sound of something.
A claim you made repeatedly well after you posted it. Again, had it been the
only bit of stupidity in what you wrote that might be an excuse.
In context with the rest it clearly means what it says.
>>
>> She is also an expert on archeology.
>> "I don't know what others think, but I can tell you that
>> I feel an inner confirmation that it is the truth, so I
>> don't need outside archaeological evidence to prove to
>> me that it is true."
>> Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:47:30 -0500
>>
> And you are not telling the truth here either.
> That was not my philosphy about archaeology.
> This answered someone's claim that a
> Christian needed tangible proof that the Bible
> is true. I was explaining that the Holy Spirit,
> which indwells a believer can give an inner
> confirmation.
That is a direct quote from you. If it is not true then you are the one who
lied about it.
Did you also lie about your conversations with god?
Suzanne
> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote innews:2lf495d8119q9sjrs...@4ax.com:
Also, I was adding that sometimes it's safer to work things out on
paper first, as when you are dealing with unexpected results, like
Heim encountered in his youth. Reason being is that many youth
look at science newsgroups for in formation, in order to make
reports, and also for what they would like to invent and try at home
on their own. Many of them are interested in experiments and they
read what others write. Some of them get ideas for science fairs,
etc.
>
Suzanne
>
>
Suzanne
alextangent
Heim wasn't at home, he was in a laboratory (surprise!), and he wasn't
dicking about with spiffy anti gravity machines either when he blew
himself up. Perhaps he should have written this equation down on paper
first;
explosives laboratory + mishandled chemicals = huge explosion.
Wikipedia: During World War II, Heim was recruited as a soldier in the
air force. However, a previous essay about explosives led to his
working briefly in a chemical laboratory as an explosives technician,
instead. An explosion in the laboratory caused by the mishandling of
unstable compounds left him with debilitating handicaps.
You, on the other hand, couldn't blow yourself up if you tried.
Suzanne
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 20:34:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Suzanne
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 24, 9:37 am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote innews:2lf495d8119q9sjrs...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >>Remember though that the very physicist that
>> >>seems to have figured the anti-gravity ability out,
>> >>is the same one that sustained terrible injuries.
>> >>I think this kind of thing should only be experimented
>> >>with in a laboratory and only under conditions where
>> >>extreme caution is taken. Physicists have a great
>> >>ability to let a formula be the first experimentation.
>> >>They can make those formulas almost talk.
>>
>> > WTF are you talking about?
>>
>> Suzanne does not acknowledge "knowing what I'm talking about" as a
>> precondition for giving us her opinion and defending it to the death.
>>
>I was saying "Don't try this at home," in the first part of the above.
Oh I agree. Nobody should try making high explosives at home.
But I agree with Louann, you do not consider that you should know what
you are talking about before posting is a good idea.
>Also, I was adding that sometimes it's safer to work things out on
>paper first, as when you are dealing with unexpected results, like
>Heim encountered in his youth.
What he encountered was not unexpected. Many people suffered the same
fate as a result of carelessness.
>Reason being is that many youth
>look at science newsgroups for in formation, in order to make
>reports, and also for what they would like to invent and try at home
>on their own. Many of them are interested in experiments and they
>read what others write. Some of them get ideas for science fairs,
>etc.
You do talk a lot of rubbish.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
One hell of a lot more intelligent than you will ever be.
But then, so are most people. Even by comparison to other creationists
you set new records for stupidity and ignorance.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
J. J. Lodder
Chris
Don't try what? Getting electricity from my home cyclotron?
Chris
alextangent
By your standards, a world renowned expert in several subjects. It's
advice well worth taking, otherwise you'll end up in science hell. Not
a nice place. It's inside a cyclotron while buffing up Werner von
Braun's nozzles with U235, while listening to ray reciting the Gospel
Accorfing To Gene Scott .
J. J. Lodder
J. J. Lodder
> On Aug 24, 9:26 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 24, 9:37 am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote innews:2lf495d8119q9sjrsb70dfabc3evf0h
j...@4ax.com:
> >
> > > >>Remember though that the very physicist that
> > > >>seems to have figured the anti-gravity ability out,
> > > >>is the same one that sustained terrible injuries.
> > > >>I think this kind of thing should only be experimented
> > > >>with in a laboratory and only under conditions where
> > > >>extreme caution is taken. Physicists have a great
> > > >>ability to let a formula be the first experimentation.
> > > >>They can make those formulas almost talk.
> >
> > > > WTF are you talking about?
> >
> > > Suzanne does not acknowledge "knowing what I'm talking about" as a
> > > precondition for giving us her opinion and defending it to the death.
> >
> > I was saying "Don't try this at home," in the first part of the above.
> > Also, I was adding that sometimes it's safer to work things out on
> > paper first, as when you are dealing with unexpected results, like
> > Heim encountered in his youth. Reason being is that many youth
> > look at science newsgroups for in formation, in order to make
> > reports, and also for what they would like to invent and try at home
> > on their own. Many of them are interested in experiments and they
> > read what others write. Some of them get ideas for science fairs,
> > etc.
> >
> > Suzanne
>
> Don't try what? Getting electricity from my home cyclotron?
Of course I will.
They sold it to me on the promise
that it will turn into a fusion reactor
thirty years hence.
Have I been duped?
Jan
Earle Jones
<26ec6d38-fa79-4682...@o32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
alextangent <bl...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> On Aug 25, 7:41 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 24, 4:20 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
[...]
> > > Suzanne, please take this as a gentle suggestion, *not* a
> > > personal attack. Please, *please*, PLEASE refrain from
> > > posting anything of a technical nature, or requiring that
> > > you understand technical and/or scientific issues.
> > > --
> >
> > > Bob C.
> >
> > ~^(*_*)^~ hello....and you are....?
> >
> > Suzanne
>
> By your standards, a world renowned expert in several subjects. It's
> advice well worth taking, otherwise you'll end up in science hell. Not
> a nice place. It's inside a cyclotron while buffing up Werner von
> Braun's nozzles with U235, while listening to ray reciting the Gospel
> Accorfing To Gene Scott.
*
Now that's funny!
earle
*
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by alextangent
<bl...@rivadpm.com>:
>...buffing up Werner von
>Braun's nozzles with U235...
*That's* a mental picture I could have done without...
;-)
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Suzanne
>~^(*_*)^~ hello....and you are....?
Yes I are. And this post of yours is an improvement; thanks.
Walter Bushell
Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >Has anyone tried transmission of power by microwave?
>
> Yes, and by laser. The problem is focus.
> >
> >But, the problem is that one needs reaction mass and we are already at
> >the limits given by materials in the rocket engines themselves.
> >
> >But with microwaves, theoretically we can convert the mass to energy and
> >the rocket converts the energy to reaction mass.
>
> With a great deal of loss.
Details, details. A simple matter of engineering.
Mike Painter
> On Aug 24, 4:20 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> Oy...
>>
>> Suzanne, please take this as a gentle suggestion, *not* a
>> personal attack. Please, *please*, PLEASE refrain from
>> posting anything of a technical nature, or requiring that
>> you understand technical and/or scientific issues.
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
> ~^(*_*)^~ hello....and you are....?
>>
> Suzanne
Almost anyone with a basic knowledge of science or engineering might write
this.
No, I take that back. Most of us tried to explain things to you the firsxt
time we read your "science" gibberish.
Perhaps he is a bit wiser.
Mike Painter
>>
>> Don't try what? Getting electricity from my home cyclotron?
>
> Of course I will.
> They sold it to me on the promise
> that it will turn into a fusion reactor
> thirty years hence.
>
> Have I been duped?
>
the cash is in th bank.)
Suzanne
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:26:36 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 24, 9:37 am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote innews:2lf495d8119q9sjrs...@4ax.com:
>
> >> >>Remember though that the very physicist that
> >> >>seems to have figured the anti-gravity ability out,
> >> >>is the same one that sustained terrible injuries.
> >> >>I think this kind of thing should only be experimented
> >> >>with in a laboratory and only under conditions where
> >> >>extreme caution is taken. Physicists have a great
> >> >>ability to let a formula be the first experimentation.
> >> >>They can make those formulas almost talk.
>
> >> > WTF are you talking about?
>
> >> Suzanne does not acknowledge "knowing what I'm talking about" as a
> >> precondition for giving us her opinion and defending it to the death.
>
> >I was saying "Don't try this at home," in the first part of the above.
>
> Oh I agree. Nobody should try making high explosives at home.
>
> But I agree with Louann, you do not consider that you should know what
> you are talking about before posting is a good idea.
>
you are criticizing. For example, you did not seem to
understand what a cyclotron is, yet you criticized what had
been said about one.
>
> >Also, I was adding that sometimes it's safer to work things out on
> >paper first, as when you are dealing with unexpected results, like
> >Heim encountered in his youth.
>
> What he encountered was not unexpected. Many people suffered the same
> fate as a result of carelessness.
>
add a note of caution. Your comment is that what he got was
not unexpected. That's pretty cold. I don't really care if you
think that someone should not add a note of caution. A few
people in this world will listen to that advice, although some
will not. It's still worth saying.
>
> >Reason being is that many youth
> >look at science newsgroups for in formation, in order to make
> >reports, and also for what they would like to invent and try at home
> >on their own. Many of them are interested in experiments and they
> >read what others write. Some of them get ideas for science fairs,
> >etc.
>
> You do talk a lot of rubbish.
>
me this. I also don't really care if you think that what I
said is rubbish.
>
Suzanne
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<6cdf8a0e-dceb-4fc0...@a13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>):
> Bob, what I've seen from you is that you don't know what
> you are criticizing. For example, you did not seem to
> understand what a cyclotron is, yet you criticized what had
> been said about one.
I don't think that you know what a cyclotron is. I really don't.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Suzanne
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:41:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Suzanne
>
Suzanne
J. J. Lodder
Even then.
I don't think that the conversion is microwave energy into mass
(real mass, particles, not just the mass equivalent of heat)
has ever been demonstrated,
Jan
heekster
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:18:50 -0400, Suzanne wrote
>(in article
><6cdf8a0e-dceb-4fc0...@a13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> Bob, what I've seen from you is that you don't know what
>> you are criticizing. For example, you did not seem to
>> understand what a cyclotron is, yet you criticized what had
>> been said about one.
>
>I don't think that you know what a cyclotron is. I really don't.
Astonishingly, it is hard to believe that anyone could remain
willfully ignorant, given the ease and availability of search engines
today.
Suzanne
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:18:50 -0400, Suzanne wrote
> (in article
>
> > Bob, what I've seen from you is that you don't know what
> > you are criticizing. For example, you did not seem to
> > understand what a cyclotron is, yet you criticized what had
> > been said about one.
>
> I don't think that you know what a cyclotron is. I really don't.
>
but it's kind of you to admit it.
>
The cyclotron has already been briefly explained in
what I had written.
>
A cyclotron is sometimes called a particle separatir,
but often is called a particle accelerator. .It has
two D shaped electrodes fixed near the poles of an electromagnet, and
these are all fixed in a vacuum.
There is a substance placed between the poles, which
is, or contains, or will produce subatomic particles. The
ions that were produced by the current cause these
to become charged, and they start being attracted
electrostically to the pole, and because of the fixed
pattern that they have to travel in, they will form a
spiral pattern as they move, since their paths will
have become curved. Eventually this flow of charged
particles can go so fast and then jump to external
(or near the perimeter) particles which in turn can
be aimed at targets. Millions and millions of volts
are produced. If you want a more detailed
explanation, perhaps Boikat will supply it for you.
I've noticed on the Internet that some of the
Universities produce a whole separate paper to
explain the cyclotron, but in their primary paper,
they treat it even more briefly than I have here.
So, if you don't any of you like what I've written,
that's just tough. This is not written to a bunch
of quantum physicists, it's just written to the
average reader so that he can get an idea of
what a cyclotron is.
>
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:29:59 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>
> >On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:18:50 -0400, Suzanne wrote
> >(in article
>
> >> Bob, what I've seen from you is that you don't know what
> >> you are criticizing. For example, you did not seem to
> >> understand what a cyclotron is, yet you criticized what had
> >> been said about one.
>
> >I don't think that you know what a cyclotron is. I really don't.
>
> Astonishingly, it is hard to believe that anyone could remain
> willfully ignorant, given the ease and availability of search engines
> today.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron
>
their article and their diagram is very nice.
>
Suzanne
Earle Jones
<035e3bd7-9496-4873...@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*
Suzanne: Your problem is this: The "average reader" to whom you
address your description is probably much more knowledgeable about
cyclotrons than you are.
Why don't you just say: "Check Wikipedia 'Cyclotron' for a very good
explanation."
A cyclotron is a particle accelerator. It speeds up charged particles.
That's all -- no more, no less. It was developed by Ernest Lawrence
(and others) at Berkeley a long time ago. It doesn't make 'volts',
which is a term like 'force', 'energy', and a few others, I don't think
you understand.
The cyclotron has all sorts of uses, but 'anti-gravity' is not one of
them.
And why are you attempting to discuss cyclotrons in the first place?
Why don't you stick to your Bible interpretations, which is where it
appears that you have spent some time studying.
Lesson one: Learn before you teach.
earle
*
Earle Jones
<aafbb181-d6ad-4cc7...@s13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*
It is good to know that you approve of the Wikipedia article on
cyclotrons. The physicist(s) who wrote it will be pleased.
earle
*
Suzanne
> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > *
> > > > Suzanne: Reading the above, I am trying to decide whether you are
> > > > telling us a big joke, are on some kind of dope, or just painfully
> > > > ignorant of science.
>
> > > I think she's either home schooled, or she was never taught any science
> > > at school in the days when girls were expected to major in home
> > > economics. All her science knowledge has been given to her by the
> > > credulous and the religious. She is so blind to her own ignorance she
> > > has no filters for bullshit whatsoever.
>
> > Now that's not funny. Such salty language coming
> > from someone so well educated as you, too.
> > I hereby declare that the last two posts from you
> > contain a salt and battery.
>
> Suzanne, the term "bullshit" has a general meaning now to mean, well,
> bullshit. It's no longer thought of as "salty". See this
>
> http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html
>
> If Princeton use it in a title, then it's part of ordinary discourse.
>
The word is in the dictionary...
According to Webster's, the usage of the word
"bullshit" is said by them to be "usually vulgar."
That puts it in the realm of being what is often
called "salty" langauge. However, if you didn't
like my pun, then may your opinion be ex-salted.
>
Suzanne
John S. Wilkins
Two things:
1. Dictionaries are not arbiters of taste, but maps of what was there in
the language around 20-100 years ago.
2. I've seen better puns...
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Suzanne
>
> >>Remember though that the very physicist that
> >>seems to have figured the anti-gravity ability out,
> >>is the same one that sustained terrible injuries.
> >>I think this kind of thing should only be experimented
> >>with in a laboratory and only under conditions where
> >>extreme caution is taken. Physicists have a great
> >>ability to let a formula be the first experimentation.
> >>They can make those formulas almost talk.
>
>
> Suzanne does not acknowledge "knowing what I'm talking about" as a
> precondition for giving us her opinion and defending it to the death.
>
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> Suzanne wrote:
> > On Aug 24, 12:12 am, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Earle Jones wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> *
> >>> Suzanne: Reading the above, I am trying to decide whether you are
> >>> telling us a big joke, are on some kind of dope, or just painfully
> >>> ignorant of science.
>
> >> implies she might be able to learn.
>
> >> Here is another of her explanations explaining what light is:
>
> >> "These are all really the same thing, a stream
> >> of photons that move at certain frequencies,
> >> producing waves of energy, identifiable by
> >> the speed at which they are moving. Your
> >> ears "hear" the light when it is at a certain
> >> level of speed in it's wave formed lengths.
> >> Wehn it is faster, you see the light."
>
> >> You probably were unaware that frequency is a speed and that light
> >> has a "level of speed" down *and* can be heard.
>
> > This is not correct. This was about the entire
> > spectrum of electromagnetic radiations (EMR).
> > Each thing in it (Xrays, gamma rays, etc.) travels
> > at the speed of light, but in addition, each has a frequency as well,
> > and that is the number of
> > complete oscillations per second.
>
> It is correct and that was a direct quote.
> Here is the gibberish in context with the rest of it.
>
> " Science tells us that light is a vast category in
> which are things such as gamma rays, cosmic rays,
> Xrays, and all those things that make up the
> electromagnetic spectrum. Collectively they are
> all called EMR. This is radiation energy that
> travels and as it goes, it expands. These include
> visible light, as well as invisible. It includes
> microwaves, and even radio waves. These are all
> really the same thing, a stream of photons that
> move at certain frequencies, producing waves
> of energy, identifiable by the speed at which
> they are moving. Your ears "hear" the light
> when it is at a certain level of speed in it's
> wave formed lengths. Wehn it is faster, you
> see the light. If you get a sunburn, which is
> ultraviolet light, you feel the light. You can
> heat up a cup of coffee in the microwave and
> you can feel the heat that it generated."
>
Mike, this is not gibberish, this is the
ElectroMagnetic Radiation Spectrum. It is streams
of photons which travel at the speed of light, and
which are grouped by the frequencies that they
possess. Some of it you can't see, and some you
can see. You an see colors, but you can't see the
two colors called infrared and ultraviolet, but you
can see what they do. You also can't see Xrays,
cosmic rays, gamma rays, but they can be
detected. You can't hear radio waves, but you
can hear the radio receivers that use the energy
and frequencies of the radio waves. You can't see
an XRay, but you can see a picture of your bones
from what a machine can use of it's frequencies.
These are all the same thing: photons which travel
at the speed of light.
>
> > You are also interjecting your own sense of
> > mischief when you comment such as you did
> > about the presence of the word "hear," that is
> > within the sentence. That was meant to be a
> > sort of joke concerning what had been said,
> > and this has been explained to you several
> > times before, that it was put in quotes to notify
> > the reader that it is not referring to the actual
> > audible sound of something.
>
> A claim you made repeatedly well after you posted it. Again, had it been the
> only bit of stupidity in what you wrote that might be an excuse.
> In context with the rest it clearly means what it says.
>
Mike, I've explained this to you several times,
but I didn't have to. I wanted to be kind to you.
You don't seem to have understood.
>
>
> >> She is also an expert on archeology.
> >> "I don't know what others think, but I can tell you that
> >> I feel an inner confirmation that it is the truth, so I
> >> don't need outside archaeological evidence to prove to
> >> me that it is true."
> >> Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:47:30 -0500
>
> > And you are not telling the truth here either.
> > That was not my philosphy about archaeology.
> > This answered someone's claim that a
> > Christian needed tangible proof that the Bible
> > is true. I was explaining that the Holy Spirit,
> > which indwells a believer can give an inner
> > confirmation.
>
> That is a direct quote from you. If it is not true then you are the one who
> lied about it.
> Did you also lie about your conversations with god?
>
What is not true is your understanding, after someone
explains it to you. I've shown you above what this is
about.
>
The Bible says that Jesus says "My sheep hear
my voice." That's quite true, and it is scriptural.
This is possible because of the indwelling of the
Holy Spirit, which the Lord Jesus gives as a gift to
those who put their trust in him for salvation.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Aug 25, 2:26 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > paper first, as when you are dealing with unexpected results, like
> > look at science newsgroups for in formation, in order to make
> > reports, and also for what they would like to invent and try at home
> > on their own. Many of them are interested in experiments and they
> > read what others write. Some of them get ideas for science fairs,
> > etc.
>
>
> Heim wasn't at home, he was in a laboratory (surprise!), and he wasn't
> dicking about with spiffy anti gravity machines either when he blew
> himself up. Perhaps he should have written this equation down on paper
> first;
>
> explosives laboratory + mishandled chemicals = huge explosion.
>
> Wikipedia: During World War II, Heim was recruited as a soldier in the
> air force. However, a previous essay about explosives led to his
> working briefly in a chemical laboratory as an explosives technician,
> instead. An explosion in the laboratory caused by the mishandling of
> unstable compounds left him with debilitating handicaps.
>
>
Well, I'm sure glad of that because I would not want to
do that anyway. I said that Heim did this as a youth.
He was only 19 when this happened. "Don't try this at
home," referred to anyone reading this that is a young
person who would like to experiment on his own. It was
just a word of caution.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:41:54 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> >seems to have figured the anti-gravity ability out,
> >> >is the same one that sustained terrible injuries.
> >> >I think this kind of thing should only be experimented
> >> >with in a laboratory and only under conditions where
> >> >extreme caution is taken. Physicists have a great
> >> >ability to let a formula be the first experimentation.
> >> >They can make those formulas almost talk.
>
>
> >> Suzanne, please take this as a gentle suggestion, *not* a
> >> personal attack. Please, *please*, PLEASE refrain from
> >> posting anything of a technical nature, or requiring that
> >> you understand technical and/or scientific issues.
>
> >> Bob C.
>
> >~^(*_*)^~ hello....and you are....?
>
>
> But then, so are most people. Even by comparison to other creationists
> you set new records for stupidity and ignorance.
>
> >Suzanne
>
I know who (((((((((Boikat))))))))) is and have had
many conversations with him in posts, and yes he
is very smart technically. The caterpillar in Disney's
Alice and Wonderland said, with his hooka, and
in puffs of smoke....
"Who....R....U?" The caterpillar eluded her questions.
>
Suzanne
J. J. Lodder
> On Aug 26, 2:29 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:18:50 -0400, Suzanne wrote
> > (in article
> > <6cdf8a0e-dceb-4fc0-a936-d9a5eecdf...@a13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>):
> >
> > > Bob, what I've seen from you is that you don't know what
> > > you are criticizing. For example, you did not seem to
> > > understand what a cyclotron is, yet you criticized what had
> > > been said about one.
> >
> > I don't think that you know what a cyclotron is. I really don't.
> >
> I know that you don't really know what a cyclotron is,
> but it's kind of you to admit it.
> >
> The cyclotron has already been briefly explained in
> what I had written.
> >
> A cyclotron is sometimes called a particle separatir,
> but often is called a particle accelerator. .It has
> two D shaped electrodes fixed near the poles of an electromagnet, and
> these are all fixed in a vacuum.
If only I could fix a thing in a vacuum too.
> There is a substance placed between the poles, which
> is, or contains, or will produce subatomic particles. The
> ions that were produced by the current cause these
> to become charged, and they start being attracted
> electrostically to the pole, and because of the fixed
> pattern that they have to travel in, they will form a
> spiral pattern as they move, since their paths will
> have become curved. Eventually this flow of charged
> particles can go so fast and then jump to external
> (or near the perimeter) particles which in turn can
> be aimed at targets. Millions and millions of volts
> are produced. If you want a more detailed
> explanation, perhaps Boikat will supply it for you.
> I've noticed on the Internet that some of the
> Universities produce a whole separate paper to
> explain the cyclotron, but in their primary paper,
> they treat it even more briefly than I have here.
> So, if you don't any of you like what I've written,
> that's just tough. This is not written to a bunch
> of quantum physicists, it's just written to the
> average reader so that he can get an idea of
> what a cyclotron is.
The average reader has a much better chance of understanding it
without reading your explanation first.
Jan
Suzanne
> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Suzanne: Your problem is this: The "average reader" to whom you
> address your description is probably much more knowledgeable about
> cyclotrons than you are.
>
> Why don't you just say: "Check Wikipedia 'Cyclotron' for a very good
> explanation."
>
In this case I was wanting to convey what a certain
class was about, so it was necessary to include
an explanation of the cyclotron.
>
> A cyclotron is a particle accelerator. It speeds up charged particles.
> That's all -- no more, no less. It was developed by Ernest Lawrence
> (and others) at Berkeley a long time ago. It doesn't make 'volts',
>
"A circular particle accelerator in which charged
subatomic particles generated at a central source
are accelerated spirally outward in a plane
perpendicular to a fixed magnet field by an alternating
electric field. A cyclotron is capable of generating
particle energies between a few million and several
tens of millions of electron volts."
http://www.answers.com/topic/cyclotron
>
> which is a term like 'force', 'energy', and a few others, I don't think
> you understand.
>
are.
>
> The cyclotron has all sorts of uses, but 'anti-gravity' is not one of
> them.
>
name of Burkhard Heim had a theory which is now
well-known, that a "plasma" can be injected into a
reservoir in a space craft that is in a fluid which is a
conductor of electricity, and by whirling many electrodes, particles
can be accelerated to the point that gravity is produced. This idea
seems to be akin to the action that can take place in a cyclotron.
This is a
theory.
>
> And why are you attempting to discuss cyclotrons in the first place?
>
originally entered. Many years ago at the University
of Texas, in Austin, Texas, I had attended a guest
lecture class about the cyclotron, which was taught
by a guest lecturer which we were fortunate to have,
which was Dr. Wernher Von Braun of NASA. He
entitled the class as "Uranium 235 in the Cyclotron."
This was in about 1959.
>
> Why don't you stick to your Bible interpretations, which is where it
> appears that you have spent some time studying.
>
The subject just came up. I have studied some
other subjects during my lifetime, and physics
is one of those. I am not a physicist, but the
field of quantum mechanics is fascinating to me.
>
> Lesson one: Learn before you teach.
>
>
> earle
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Two things:
>
> 1. Dictionaries are not arbiters of taste, but maps of what was there in
> the language around 20-100 years ago.
>
if you are wondering about that. It is the new
2006 update of the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary, Eleventh Edition
>
> 2. I've seen better puns...
>
>
Suzanne
Eric Rowley
>> I've noticed on the Internet that some of the
>> Universities produce a whole separate paper to
>> explain the cyclotron, but in their primary paper,
>> they treat it even more briefly than I have here.
>> So, if you don't any of you like what I've written,
>> that's just tough. This is not written to a bunch
>> of quantum physicists, it's just written to the
>> average reader so that he can get an idea of
>> what a cyclotron is.
>> >
>> >
>> Suzanne
> *
> Suzanne: Your problem is this: The "average reader" to whom you
> address your description is probably much more knowledgeable about
> cyclotrons than you are.
>
> Why don't you just say: "Check Wikipedia 'Cyclotron' for a very
> good explanation."
>
> A cyclotron is a particle accelerator. It speeds up charged
> particles.
> That's all -- no more, no less. It was developed by Ernest
> Lawrence (and others) at Berkeley a long time ago. It doesn't
> make 'volts',
Well, it does "make" electron volts,
and since volts are "made out of" electrons anyway,
"electron volts" is obviously redundant. ;-)
So in her own private universe she´s right and you're
all just nitpicking as usual. ;-)
> which is a term like 'force', 'energy', and a few others, I don't
> think you understand.
> The cyclotron has all sorts of uses, but 'anti-gravity' is not one
> of them.
> And why are you attempting to discuss cyclotrons in the first
> place?
> Why don't you stick to your Bible interpretations, which is where
> it appears that you have spent some time studying.
> Lesson one: Learn before you teach.
> earle
> *
Eric
John S. Wilkins
> On Aug 27, 12:12 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Two things:
> >
> > 1. Dictionaries are not arbiters of taste, but maps of what was there in
> > the language around 20-100 years ago.
> >
> Well, the one that I was using was pretty up-to-date,
> if you are wondering about that. It is the new
> 2006 update of the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
> Dictionary, Eleventh Edition
And therefore reports what was considered vulgar from around 1980 or
earlier (probably much earlier, as the term itself hasn't changed its
meaning, so the entry probably hasn't been revised in recent editions).
Understand that a dictionary is an entree into a language or usage, not
a current prescription. Even if you checked the online OED, you'd find
something written many years ago.
I did, by the way, and the OED cites 1969 as its latest examples. An
update mentions "bullshitter" for 1988.
> >
> > 2. I've seen better puns...
> >
> That's not surprising.
> >
> Suzanne
J. J. Lodder
It came with a non-disclosure agreement.
However, my suspicious aroused,
I opened the accompanying sealed 30-year letter.
It says that the thirty year period
starts upon opening it,
Jan
Eric Rowley
> Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 26, 2:29 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig>
wrote:
>> > On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:18:50 -0400, Suzanne wrote
>> > (in article
>> > <6cdf8a0e-dceb-4fc0-a936-d9a5eecdf...
> @a13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>):
>> >
>> > > Bob, what I've seen from you is that you don't know what
>> > > you are criticizing. For example, you did not seem to
>> > > understand what a cyclotron is, yet you criticized what had
>> > > been said about one.
>> >
>> > I don't think that you know what a cyclotron is. I really
>> > don't.
>> >
>> I know that you don't really know what a cyclotron is,
>> but it's kind of you to admit it.
>> >
>> The cyclotron has already been briefly explained in
>> what I had written.
>> >
>> A cyclotron is sometimes called a particle separatir,
>> but often is called a particle accelerator. .It has
>> two D shaped electrodes fixed near the poles of an
>> electromagnet, and these are all fixed in a vacuum.
> If only I could fix a thing in a vacuum too.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Russian-Soviet-Cosmonaut-Soyuz-Spacesuit-
Sokol-K_W0QQitemZ370247551457QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_
2?hash=item56347949e1&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14
;-)
Eric
Ye Old One
Look MORON, he was not EXPERIMENTING, he was mixing explosives.
Your ability to misread/misunderstand things is renowned, there is no
need to keep providing examples.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 25, 3:02 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:26:36 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 24, 9:37 am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote innews:2lf495d8119q9sjrs...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >> >>Remember though that the very physicist that
>> >> >>seems to have figured the anti-gravity ability out,
>> >> >>is the same one that sustained terrible injuries.
>> >> >>I think this kind of thing should only be experimented
>> >> >>with in a laboratory and only under conditions where
>> >> >>extreme caution is taken. Physicists have a great
>> >> >>ability to let a formula be the first experimentation.
>> >> >>They can make those formulas almost talk.
>>
>> >> > WTF are you talking about?
>>
>> >> Suzanne does not acknowledge "knowing what I'm talking about" as a
>> >> precondition for giving us her opinion and defending it to the death.
>>
>> >I was saying "Don't try this at home," in the first part of the above.
>>
>> Oh I agree. Nobody should try making high explosives at home.
>>
>> But I agree with Louann, you do not consider that you should know what
>> you are talking about before posting is a good idea.
>>
>Bob, what I've seen from you is that you don't know what
>you are criticizing.
Liar!
> For example, you did not seem to
>understand what a cyclotron is, yet you criticized what had
>been said about one.
Because YOU do not understand what a cyclotron is.
>>
>> >Also, I was adding that sometimes it's safer to work things out on
>> >paper first, as when you are dealing with unexpected results, like
>> >Heim encountered in his youth.
>>
>> What he encountered was not unexpected. Many people suffered the same
>> fate as a result of carelessness.
>>
>What in the world are you criticizing here? I felt that I should
>add a note of caution. Your comment is that what he got was
>not unexpected. That's pretty cold.
In what way?
>I don't really care if you
>think that someone should not add a note of caution.
There was no need for one.
> A few
>people in this world will listen to that advice, although some
>will not. It's still worth saying.
No it isn't.
>>
>> >Reason being is that many youth
>> >look at science newsgroups for in formation, in order to make
>> >reports, and also for what they would like to invent and try at home
>> >on their own. Many of them are interested in experiments and they
>> >read what others write. Some of them get ideas for science fairs,
>> >etc.
>>
>> You do talk a lot of rubbish.
>>
>Nope. I'm a mom,
I really do pity your kids - growing up with such an ignorant fool for
a mother must have been very hard on them.
>and I've spoken with kids that have told
>me this. I also don't really care if you think that what I
>said is rubbish.
I think nearly all of what you say is rubbish, that seems to be the
view of most of the TO regulars. You are a fool. You are extremely
ignorant and you regularly fail to check even basic facts.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Looking at pictures does not help you - you need to not only READ the
article but also comprehend it. Your ideas about a cyclotron are wrong
- VERY wrong.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 26, 2:29 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:18:50 -0400, Suzanne wrote
>> (in article
>> <6cdf8a0e-dceb-4fc0-a936-d9a5eecdf...@a13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>> > Bob, what I've seen from you is that you don't know what
>> > you are criticizing. For example, you did not seem to
>> > understand what a cyclotron is, yet you criticized what had
>> > been said about one.
>>
>> I don't think that you know what a cyclotron is. I really don't.
>>
>I know that you don't really know what a cyclotron is,
>but it's kind of you to admit it.
Again you exhibit your inability to read.
>>
>The cyclotron has already been briefly explained in
>what I had written.
No, you didn't even get close.
>>
>A cyclotron is sometimes called a particle separatir,
>but often is called a particle accelerator. .It has
>two D shaped electrodes fixed near the poles of an electromagnet, and
>these are all fixed in a vacuum.
>There is a substance placed between the poles, which
>is, or contains, or will produce subatomic particles. The
>ions that were produced by the current cause these
>to become charged, and they start being attracted
>electrostically to the pole, and because of the fixed
>pattern that they have to travel in, they will form a
>spiral pattern as they move, since their paths will
>have become curved. Eventually this flow of charged
>particles can go so fast and then jump to external
>(or near the perimeter) particles which in turn can
>be aimed at targets. Millions and millions of volts
>are produced.
No they are not you ignorant fool.
>If you want a more detailed
>explanation, perhaps Boikat will supply it for you.
>I've noticed on the Internet that some of the
>Universities produce a whole separate paper to
>explain the cyclotron, but in their primary paper,
>they treat it even more briefly than I have here.
>So, if you don't any of you like what I've written,
>that's just tough. This is not written to a bunch
>of quantum physicists, it's just written to the
>average reader so that he can get an idea of
>what a cyclotron is.
I pity the poor reader who gets mislead by your stupidity.
>>
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Is it really possible for you to get any more stupid than you are. I
think not.
--
Bob.
josephus
> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:34:20 -0400, Louann Miller wrote
>> (in article <lI6dnRTi9arh_AzX...@giganews.com>):
>>
>>> raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in
>>> news:u9g2955s7b5vfhbtk...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>>>> <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have read that they even thought about an all
>>>>> electric rocket in order to save money because
>>>>> fuel is so expensive.
>>>> What would produce the electricity?
>>> how the universe works which will not be seen by Suzanne as a feelings-
>>> hurting personal attack. I got nothing.
>>>
>> Suzy quite clearly does not understand very much about electricity, electric
>> power generation, rockets, Newton's laws of motion, or, indeed, anything at
>> all to do with physics, chemistry, biology, mechanics, statics, dynamics,
>> electromagnetic field theory, thermodynamics... it's an extensive list. (She
>> doesn't know much about history, geography, politics, and psychology either;
>> that's an entirely different very long list.)
>>
>> I find it amazing that someone who has allegedly lived so long knows so
>> little about so much.
>
> She fails the ultimate test though:
> she doesn't know that she knows so little,
>
> Jan
>
she must have known a lot at birth. but as she aged she learned less and
less about everything until she knows nothing about everything.
is it possible she was taught (at) by the man? the knowledge bounced
off her mental state. so she is garbling the stuff he might have said
like engineering F = mA and other cryptic things like that.
josephus
--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter,
"Everybody is ignorant but on different subjects"
--Will Rogers
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
its what you know that aint so.
--josh billings.
TomS
<earle.jones-72EA...@news.giganews.com>, Earle Jones stated..."
[...snip...]
>Why don't you stick to your Bible interpretations, which is where it=20
>appears that you have spent some time studying.
Oh, please, no. Spare us more of that.
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> Suzy quite clearly does not understand very much about electricity,
> >> electric power generation, rockets, Newton's laws of motion, or,
> >> indeed, anything at all to do with physics, chemistry, biology,
> >> mechanics, statics, dynamics, electromagnetic field theory,
> >> thermodynamics... it's an extensive list. (She doesn't know much about
> >> history, geography, politics, and psychology either; that's an entirely
> >> different very long list.)
> >>
> >> I find it amazing that someone who has allegedly lived so long knows so
> >> little about so much.
> >
> > She fails the ultimate test though:
> > she doesn't know that she knows so little,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> she must have known a lot at birth. but as she aged she learned less and
> less about everything until she knows nothing about everything.
We discussed this before.
Is it a case of acquired stupidity,
or is she a natural talent?
Or perhaps both?
Jan
alextangent
> On Aug 26, 11:10 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:> In article
> > <035e3bd7-9496-4873-83cd-c774e0b77...@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> > Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Suzanne: Your problem is this: The "average reader" to whom you
> > address your description is probably much more knowledgeable about
> > cyclotrons than you are.
>
> > Why don't you just say: "Check Wikipedia 'Cyclotron' for a very good
> > explanation."
>
> That's a nice idea. I might use that sometime.
> In this case I was wanting to convey what a certain
> class was about, so it was necessary to include
> an explanation of the cyclotron.
>
> > A cyclotron is a particle accelerator. It speeds up charged particles.
> > That's all -- no more, no less. It was developed by Ernest Lawrence
> > (and others) at Berkeley a long time ago. It doesn't make 'volts',
>
> This is not correct, Earle. Volts can be generated....
Suzanne, these electron volts are not what you think they are. They
are not electrons travelling down a copper wire; they are subatomic
particles (commonly protons) that are accelerated to very high speeds.
This gives them energy of momentum, which is measured in electron
volts, an equivalent that is used so that physicists can talk about
energies in a common unit. You can't power hair driers with them.
> "A circular particle accelerator in which charged
> subatomic particles generated at a central source
> are accelerated spirally outward in a plane
> perpendicular to a fixed magnet field by an alternating
> electric field. A cyclotron is capable of generating
> particle energies between a few million and several
> tens of millions of electron volts."http://www.answers.com/topic/cyclotron
>
> > which is a term like 'force', 'energy', and a few others, I don't think
> > you understand.
>
> I have an idea that I do understand what those things
> are.
Nope. You're way out of play.
>
> > The cyclotron has all sorts of uses, but 'anti-gravity' is not one of
> > them.
>
> No, you've misunderstood something. A man by the
> name of Burkhard Heim had a theory which is now
> well-known, that a "plasma" can be injected into a
> reservoir in a space craft that is in a fluid which is a
> conductor of electricity, and by whirling many electrodes, particles
> can be accelerated to the point that gravity is produced. This idea
> seems to be akin to the action that can take place in a cyclotron.
> This is a
> theory.
Whirling electrodes Batman! Like "the theory that is mine; dinosaurs
are thin at both ends and fat in the middle", you are increasingly
Monty Pythonesque on this subject.
>
> > And why are you attempting to discuss cyclotrons in the first place?
>
> It would help if you had read the posts that were
> originally entered. Many years ago at the University
> of Texas, in Austin, Texas, I had attended a guest
> lecture class about the cyclotron, which was taught
> by a guest lecturer which we were fortunate to have,
> which was Dr. Wernher Von Braun of NASA. He
> entitled the class as "Uranium 235 in the Cyclotron."
> This was in about 1959.
I think my bullshit detector just went off again. Why, oh why, would
U235 be in a cyclotron? I really can't work this one out; U235 is a
producre of neutrons, which (being electrically neutral) wouldn't be
affected by a cyclotron. Unless you were to fire protons at U235;
would that cause fission? I don't think so; U235 has an electron shell
that would deflect even moderately high energy protons, and there
aren't the right number of neutrons in the collision to get the right
partial products.
We'll have to look for lecture notes now, which (of course!) won't
exist.
>
> > Why don't you stick to your Bible interpretations, which is where it
> > appears that you have spent some time studying.
>
> Thank you for that acknowledgement. Earle.
> The subject just came up. I have studied some
> other subjects during my lifetime, and physics
> is one of those. I am not a physicist, but the
> field of quantum mechanics is fascinating to me.
And misunderstood by you, as you don't even have a smattering of basic
non-quantum physics to ground it on.
>
> > Lesson one: Learn before you teach.
>
> Very good advice.
Or post.
>
> > earle
>
> Suzanne
alextangent
The original and now this are unadulterated gibberish. I love this
bit; "photons which travel at the speed of light". Fantastic. And (as
you've been told before) cosmic rays are not photons.
>
> > > You are also interjecting your own sense of
> > > mischief when you comment such as you did
> > > about the presence of the word "hear," that is
> > > within the sentence. That was meant to be a
> > > sort of joke concerning what had been said,
> > > and this has been explained to you several
> > > times before, that it was put in quotes to notify
> > > the reader that it is not referring to the actual
> > > audible sound of something.
>
> > A claim you made repeatedly well after you posted it. Again, had it been the
> > only bit of stupidity in what you wrote that might be an excuse.
> > In context with the rest it clearly means what it says.
>
> Mike, I've explained this to you several times,
> but I didn't have to. I wanted to be kind to you.
> You don't seem to have understood.
Phut. Look in the mirror.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> She is also an expert on archeology.
> > >> "I don't know what others think, but I can tell you that
> > >> I feel an inner confirmation that it is the truth, so I
> > >> don't need outside archaeological evidence to prove to
> > >> me that it is true."
> > >> Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:47:30 -0500
>
> > > And you are not telling the truth here either.
> > > That was not my philosphy about archaeology.
> > > This answered someone's claim that a
> > > Christian needed tangible proof that the Bible
> > > is true. I was explaining that the Holy Spirit,
> > > which indwells a believer can give an inner
> > > confirmation.
>
> > That is a direct quote from you. If it is not true then you are the one who
> > lied about it.
> > Did you also lie about your conversations with god?
>
> What is not true is your understanding, after someone
> explains it to you. I've shown you above what this is
> about.
>
> The Bible says that Jesus says "My sheep hear
> my voice." That's quite true, and it is scriptural.
> This is possible because of the indwelling of the
> Holy Spirit, which the Lord Jesus gives as a gift to
> those who put their trust in him for salvation.
I'd rather an ingrowing toenail.
Louann Miller
news:1llb951i8luee18rm...@4ax.com:
>>I don't think that you know what a cyclotron is. I really don't.
>
> Astonishingly, it is hard to believe that anyone could remain
> willfully ignorant, given the ease and availability of search engines
> today.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron
But first you have to be open to the idea that an outside source, e.g. a
reference book, provides information that is _objectively better_ than
letting the first words that occur to you fall from your lips and then
defending those statements to the death.
Psychologists call this 'reality testing.' Theologians call it the
cardinal virtue of humility.
J. J. Lodder
That's because Suzy is incapable of confusing ony two subjects.
She also mixed in a mistaken reference to the cyclotrons (aka calutrons)
that were used for isoptope separation to obtain the U235
for the first fission bomb.
Jan
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 26, 11:10 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <035e3bd7-9496-4873-83cd-c774e0b77...@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Suzanne: Your problem is this: The "average reader" to whom you
>> address your description is probably much more knowledgeable about
>> cyclotrons than you are.
>>
>> Why don't you just say: "Check Wikipedia 'Cyclotron' for a very good
>> explanation."
>>
>That's a nice idea. I might use that sometime.
>In this case I was wanting to convey what a certain
>class was about, so it was necessary to include
>an explanation of the cyclotron.
But the explanation you gave was wrong, so it was worse than giving
none at all.
>>
>> A cyclotron is a particle accelerator. It speeds up charged particles.
>> That's all -- no more, no less. It was developed by Ernest Lawrence
>> (and others) at Berkeley a long time ago. It doesn't make 'volts',
>>
>This is not correct,
Yes it is.
> Earle. Volts can be generated....
>"A circular particle accelerator in which charged
>subatomic particles generated at a central source
>are accelerated spirally outward in a plane
>perpendicular to a fixed magnet field by an alternating
>electric field. A cyclotron is capable of generating
>particle energies between a few million and several
>tens of millions of electron volts."
>http://www.answers.com/topic/cyclotron
Ah! Again your ignorance shows. Energy levels of an accelerated
particle are measured in "electron volts" see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_volts.
It is, in the case of a cyclotron, a measure of the energy imparted to
the particles by the magnetic field. You have to put that energy IN to
the cyclotron, they are VERY power hungry devices. The do not, by any
stretch of the imagination, generate power.
>>
>> which is a term like 'force', 'energy', and a few others, I don't think
>> you understand.
>>
>I have an idea that I do understand what those things
>are.
No, you clearly demonstrate you do not.
>>
>> The cyclotron has all sorts of uses, but 'anti-gravity' is not one of
>> them.
>>
>No, you've misunderstood something. A man by the
>name of Burkhard Heim had a theory which is now
>well-known, that a "plasma" can be injected into a
>reservoir in a space craft that is in a fluid which is a
>conductor of electricity, and by whirling many electrodes, particles
>can be accelerated to the point that gravity is produced. This idea
>seems to be akin to the action that can take place in a cyclotron.
>This is a
>theory.
A daft one and one that has nothing whatsoever to do with a cyclotron.
>>
>> And why are you attempting to discuss cyclotrons in the first place?
>>
>It would help if you had read the posts that were
>originally entered. Many years ago at the University
>of Texas, in Austin, Texas, I had attended a guest
>lecture class about the cyclotron, which was taught
>by a guest lecturer which we were fortunate to have,
>which was Dr. Wernher Von Braun of NASA. He
>entitled the class as "Uranium 235 in the Cyclotron."
>This was in about 1959.
I call liar on this for the reasons I've often stated.
>>
>> Why don't you stick to your Bible interpretations, which is where it
>> appears that you have spent some time studying.
>>
>Thank you for that acknowledgement. Earle.
>The subject just came up. I have studied some
>other subjects during my lifetime, and physics
>is one of those.
Then why are you so profoundly ignorant on the subject?
> I am not a physicist, but the
>field of quantum mechanics is fascinating to me.
>>
>> Lesson one: Learn before you teach.
>>
>Very good advice.
Take it.
>>
>> earle
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
alextangent
O good spot! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calutron. So that's what
she's been banging on about... Why WvB would have talked on it in 1959
in the context of space travel is beyond me. Perhaps it was someone
else and not WvB?
Burkhard
Seems like a glorious mix up of some sound science with some of the more
outlandish conspiracy theories.
Remember that Suzanne wrote:
> I don't think. I got the impression with an
> >> >anti-gravity machine, which some might want to
> >> >call a flying saucer, the chamber itself with the
> >> >plasma in it with the electrodes in it, act as a sort
> >> >of cyclotron, generating either it's own electricity,
> >> >or it's gravity, if that is what it does, or even both.
Now, Braun did discuss _artificial_ gravity in the context of a possible
manned space station. He contributes some issues to the popular science
"Man Will Conquer Space Soon!" series (with comics), and discusses how
artificial gravity can be generated in a space station. He suggested
using rotational forces for this (and Suzanne talks about "spin"
somewhere else in the post)This is of course all quite sound, and has
nothing at all to do with either propulsion in general or anti-gravity
in particular.
If we then make the giant jump from artificial gravity to anti-gravity
(well, both are a-gravity, so easily to mix up ;o)) we come to the
weirdos. Enter the stage Richard C. Hoagland, well known UFO "researcher
and all round nutcase. Now it gets really funny. According to him, von
Braun's desire to reach outer space was driven by his membership in the
inner circle of the occult Nazi movement: they wanted to reach Mars
because the Ur-Aryans hail from this planet. After 45, Braun remained
true to his Nazi ideology and when Explorer 1 behaved unlike predicted
, covered the amazing discovery of anti-gravity.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm
And yes, Burkhard Heim, whom Suzanne also mentioned is also in this mess
somewhere. As is Maurice Allais (yes, the economist)who "discovered"
the existence of anti-gravity and was helped by von Braun in covering it
up - Allais of course being a supporter of the far right National Front
(which is actually true - the "science" however was dealt with pretty
soon after he published his ideas here: R. S. Shankland, S. W. McCuskey,
F. C. Leone, and G. Kuerti, "New analysis of the interferometric
observations of Dayton C. Miller", Rev. Mod. Phys. 27, 167–178 (1955))
Of course, von Braun is the bad guy in these theories, which makes it
even funnier that Suzanne fell for it, probably vaguely remembering the
old comics and then coming across some Hoagland - inspired nonsense
about anti-gravity and how a Nazi infiltrated Nasa (notice the
similarity!!!!) has been using it for decades.
Mike Painter
that you really did not understznd things at the start and refuse, more
probably *can't* learn what was wrong.
So are you now claiming that Jesus told you that the person who wrote the
article did not know what he was talking about and told you what parts to
quote?
Which leads *again* to the always unanswered question.
Why, especially in matters that dirrectly involve matters of faith, does
this Jesus always tell people different things?
Either you are the only one who god talks to or this thing with the
compassion of a spider lies to at least all but one of you.
What makes you so special?
J. J. Lodder
> If we then make the giant jump from artificial gravity to anti-gravity
> (well, both are a-gravity, so easily to mix up ;o))
After all, SciAm has had an anti-gravity column for many years,
Jan
Ye Old One
Most of what you write is gibberish.
> this is the
>ElectroMagnetic Radiation Spectrum.
Of which light is a part.
>It is streams
>of photons which travel at the speed of light, and
>which are grouped by the frequencies that they
>possess. Some of it you can't see, and some you
>can see. You an see colors, but you can't see the
>two colors called infrared and ultraviolet, but you
>can see what they do. You also can't see Xrays,
>cosmic rays, gamma rays, but they can be
>detected. You can't hear radio waves, but you
>can hear the radio receivers that use the energy
>and frequencies of the radio waves. You can't see
>an XRay, but you can see a picture of your bones
>from what a machine can use of it's frequencies.
>These are all the same thing: photons which travel
>at the speed of light.
Getting better, certainly far less gibberish than your earlier
attempt.
>>
>> > You are also interjecting your own sense of
>> > mischief when you comment such as you did
>> > about the presence of the word "hear," that is
>> > within the sentence. That was meant to be a
>> > sort of joke concerning what had been said,
>> > and this has been explained to you several
>> > times before, that it was put in quotes to notify
>> > the reader that it is not referring to the actual
>> > audible sound of something.
>>
>> A claim you made repeatedly well after you posted it. Again, had it been the
>> only bit of stupidity in what you wrote that might be an excuse.
>> In context with the rest it clearly means what it says.
>>
>Mike, I've explained this to you several times,
>but I didn't have to. I wanted to be kind to you.
>You don't seem to have understood.
Look. You keep posting stupidity, people try to educate you but
usually you refuse to take the lesson.
>>
>>
>> >> She is also an expert on archeology.
>> >> "I don't know what others think, but I can tell you that
>> >> I feel an inner confirmation that it is the truth, so I
>> >> don't need outside archaeological evidence to prove to
>> >> me that it is true."
>> >> Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:47:30 -0500
>>
>> > And you are not telling the truth here either.
>> > That was not my philosphy about archaeology.
>> > This answered someone's claim that a
>> > Christian needed tangible proof that the Bible
>> > is true. I was explaining that the Holy Spirit,
>> > which indwells a believer can give an inner
>> > confirmation.
>>
>> That is a direct quote from you. If it is not true then you are the one who
>> lied about it.
>> Did you also lie about your conversations with god?
>>
>What is not true is your understanding, after someone
>explains it to you. I've shown you above what this is
>about.
You got it wrong, you still got it wrong long after people tried to
teach you. You are now almost getting it right, one lesson almost
learnt - 16,348 to go.
>>
>The Bible says that Jesus says "My sheep hear
>my voice." That's quite true, and it is scriptural.
>This is possible because of the indwelling of the
>Holy Spirit, which the Lord Jesus gives as a gift to
>those who put their trust in him for salvation.
Back to talking stupidity again - you really do need to put that crap
book of fairy tales where it belongs - in the bin.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Mike Painter
<snip>
>>
> No, you've misunderstood something. A man by the
> name of Burkhard Heim had a theory which is now
> well-known, that a "plasma" can be injected into a
> reservoir in a space craft that is in a fluid which is a
> conductor of electricity, and by whirling many electrodes, particles
> can be accelerated to the point that gravity is produced. This idea
> seems to be akin to the action that can take place in a cyclotron.
> This is a
> theory.
Of course perhaps I am wrong and Wikipedia is surpressing this information.
Perhaps Suzanne will give us teh secret link (unless it's a messsage from
the swiss cheeze ghost.) that will tell about this storage of plasma that
she talks about.
She should also review the use of quote marks unless the "plasma" he
rrefers to is not really plasma.
>>
>> And why are you attempting to discuss cyclotrons in the first place?
>>
> It would help if you had read the posts that were
> originally entered. Many years ago at the University
> of Texas, in Austin, Texas, I had attended a guest
> lecture class about the cyclotron, which was taught
> by a guest lecturer which we were fortunate to have,
> which was Dr. Wernher Von Braun of NASA. He
> entitled the class as "Uranium 235 in the Cyclotron."
> This was in about 1959.
>>
>> Why don't you stick to your Bible interpretations, which is where it
>> appears that you have spent some time studying.
>>
> Thank you for that acknowledgement. Earle.
> The subject just came up. I have studied some
> other subjects during my lifetime, and physics
> is one of those. I am not a physicist, but the
> field of quantum mechanics is fascinating to me.
>>
>> Lesson one: Learn before you teach.
>>
> Very good advice.
But never followed by you.
>>
>> earle
>>
> Suzanne
Mike Painter
<snip>
>
> I really do pity your kids - growing up with such an ignorant fool for
> a mother must have been very hard on them.
That reminds me of the joke about the boy who at 16 who thought his parents
were idiots and at 20 wondered how they had learned so much in a short time.
Suzannes kids were right at 16.
Suzanne
> From: Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net>
>
Suzanne
J. J. Lodder
"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand
to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at
how much the old man had learned in seven years." (Mark Twain, ascribed)
However, the quote may not be authentic,
Jan
Suzanne
> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 12:12 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Two things:
>
> > > 1. Dictionaries are not arbiters of taste, but maps of what was there in
> > > the language around 20-100 years ago.
>
> > Well, the one that I was using was pretty up-to-date,
> > if you are wondering about that. It is the new
> > 2006 update of the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
> > Dictionary, Eleventh Edition
>
> And therefore reports what was considered vulgar from around 1980 or
> earlier (probably much earlier, as the term itself hasn't changed its
> meaning, so the entry probably hasn't been revised in recent editions).
>
> Understand that a dictionary is an entree into a language or usage, not
> a current prescription. Even if you checked the online OED, you'd find
> something written many years ago.
>
> I did, by the way, and the OED cites 1969 as its latest examples. An
> update mentions "bullshitter" for 1988.
>
>
>
> > > 2. I've seen better puns...
>
> > That's not surprising.
>
the
winner of this debate. I can't imagine
teaching this to a little child though, or
using it in polite converstation.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
I said that the line "Dont try this at home" refers
to any young person reading this post.
>
>
Suzanne
alextangent
Perhaps this is what you're worried about?
A Cautionary Christmas Tale
The is the tale of Bernhard Heim,
Whose parents weren't on speaking terms;
So when he wrote to Santa Claus
It was in duplicate because
One went to dad, and one to mum,
Both asked for some plutonium.
So of went father, and off went mother,
Without consulting one another,
And purchased two lumps of largish size
Intending them to be a surprise.
They met in Berhard's stocking and
Laid level ten square miles of land.
Take from this tale of nuclear fission
Not to mix science with superstition.
Ye Old One
I don't. You do. Your reading comprehension is so bad I really don't
know how you function in life.
>I said that the line "Dont try this at home" refers
>to any young person reading this post.
Moron - they CAN'T try it at home. He couldn't try it at home. Even
you couldn't try it at home.
>>
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>From: Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net>
>
>>> I've noticed on the Internet that some of the
>>> Universities produce a whole separate paper to
>>> explain the cyclotron, but in their primary paper,
>>> they treat it even more briefly than I have here.
>>> So, if you don't any of you like what I've written,
>>> that's just tough. This is not written to a bunch
>>> of quantum physicists, it's just written to the
>>> average reader so that he can get an idea of
>>> what a cyclotron is.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Suzanne
>
>> *
>> Suzanne: Your problem is this: The "average reader" to whom you
>> address your description is probably much more knowledgeable about
>> cyclotrons than you are.
>>
>> Why don't you just say: "Check Wikipedia 'Cyclotron' for a very
>> good explanation."
>>
>> A cyclotron is a particle accelerator. It speeds up charged
>> particles.
>> That's all -- no more, no less. It was developed by Ernest
>> Lawrence (and others) at Berkeley a long time ago. It doesn't
>> make 'volts',
>
>Well, it does "make" electron volts,
No, it doesn't.
It accelerates particles raising, their energy levels.
>and since volts are "made out of" electrons anyway,
Electron volts are not the same as volts of electricity.
>"electron volts" is obviously redundant. ;-)
Nope.
>
>So in her own private universe she´s right and you're
>all just nitpicking as usual. ;-)
Ah! I see, you were ridiculing her :)
>
>> which is a term like 'force', 'energy', and a few others, I don't
>> think you understand.
>
>> The cyclotron has all sorts of uses, but 'anti-gravity' is not one
>> of them.
>
>> And why are you attempting to discuss cyclotrons in the first
>> place?
>
>> Why don't you stick to your Bible interpretations, which is where
>> it appears that you have spent some time studying.
>
>> Lesson one: Learn before you teach.
>
>> earle
>> *
>
>Eric
She gives such good feed lines :)
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:18:50 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne> >On Aug 25, 3:02 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:26:36 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >On Aug 24, 9:37 am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com
>
> >> >> precondition for giving us her opinion and defending it to the death.
>
> >> >I was saying "Don't try this at home," in the first part of the above.
>
>
> >> But I agree with Louann, you do not consider that you should know what
> >> you are talking about before posting is a good idea.
>
> >Bob, what I've seen from you is that you don't know what
> >you are criticizing.
>
>
It's not a lie.
>
> > For example, you did not seem to
> >understand what a cyclotron is, yet you criticized what had
> >been said about one.
>
>
Baloney.
>
> >> >Also, I was adding that sometimes it's safer to work things out on
> >> >paper first, as when you are dealing with unexpected results, like
> >> >Heim encountered in his youth.
>
> >> fate as a result of carelessness.
>
> >What in the world are you criticizing here? I felt that I should
> >add a note of caution. Your comment is that what he got was
> >not unexpected. That's pretty cold.
>
> In what way?
>
You said "What he encountered was not
unexpected. Many people suffered the same
fate as a result of carelessness."
It's like saying "He got what's coming to him," meaning
that he should have expected as much.
>
>
> >I don't really care if you
> >think that someone should not add a note of caution.
>
> There was no need for one.
>
That's not your call.
>
> > A few
> >people in this world will listen to that advice, although some
> >will not. It's still worth saying.
>
> No it isn't.
>
This is spin.
>
>
> >> >Reason being is that many youth
> >> >look at science newsgroups for in formation, in order to make
> >> >reports, and also for what they would like to invent and try at home
> >> >on their own. Many of them are interested in experiments and they
> >> >read what others write. Some of them get ideas for science fairs,
> >> >etc.
>
>
> >Nope. I'm a mom,
>
> I really do pity your kids - growing up with such an ignorant fool for
> a mother must have been very hard on them.
>
>
> >and I've spoken with kids that have told
> >me this. I also don't really care if you think that what I
> >said is rubbish.
>
> I think nearly all of what you say is rubbish, that seems to be the
> view of most of the TO regulars. You are a fool. You are extremely
> ignorant and you regularly fail to check even basic facts.
>
Spin with obnoxious talk. If you are trying out for the most
obnoxious poster of the year, I will vote for you.
>
And you are Spindlechronic
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
When I was 14 I knew my father was an idiot. Nothing whatsoever
happened to change that view over the following 36 years he lived.
My mother, on the other hand, still amazes me quite often :)
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:18:43 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 26, 7:49 pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:29:59 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>
> >> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> >On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:18:50 -0400, Suzanne wrote
> >> >(in article
> >> ><6cdf8a0e-dceb-4fc0-a936-d9a5eecdf...@a13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >> >> Bob, what I've seen from you is that you don't know what
> >> >> understand what a cyclotron is, yet you criticized what had
> >> >> been said about one.
>
>
> >> Astonishingly, it is hard to believe that anyone could remain
> >> willfully ignorant, given the ease and availability of search engines
> >> today.
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron
>
> >their article and their diagram is very nice.
>
> >Suzanne
>
> Looking at pictures does not help you - you need to not only READ the
> article but also comprehend it. Your ideas about a cyclotron are wrong
> - VERY wrong.
>
They are not my ideas. They are not wrong.
>
Suzanne
Earle Jones
<44db1798-7ab1-4b10...@w6g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>,
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 26, 11:10 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article
[...]
> > Why don't you stick to your Bible interpretations, which is where it
> > appears that you have spent some time studying.
> >
> Thank you for that acknowledgement. Earle.
> The subject just came up. I have studied some
> other subjects during my lifetime, and physics
> is one of those. I am not a physicist, but the
> field of quantum mechanics is fascinating to me.
> >
> > Lesson one: Learn before you teach.
> >
> Very good advice.
> >
> Suzanne
*
Now that you have shared your expertise on cyclotrons, please let us
know your opinion on Sen. Ted Kennedy's glioma and the contraindications
for surgery.
earle
*
Earle Jones
n...@no.invalid (Eric Rowley) wrote:
> From: Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net>
>
> >> I've noticed on the Internet that some of the
> >> Universities produce a whole separate paper to
> >> explain the cyclotron, but in their primary paper,
> >> they treat it even more briefly than I have here.
> >> So, if you don't any of you like what I've written,
> >> that's just tough. This is not written to a bunch
> >> of quantum physicists, it's just written to the
> >> average reader so that he can get an idea of
> >> what a cyclotron is.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Suzanne
>
> > *
> > Suzanne: Your problem is this: The "average reader" to whom you
> > address your description is probably much more knowledgeable about
> > cyclotrons than you are.
> >
> > Why don't you just say: "Check Wikipedia 'Cyclotron' for a very
> > good explanation."
> >
> > A cyclotron is a particle accelerator. It speeds up charged
> > particles.
> > That's all -- no more, no less. It was developed by Ernest
> > Lawrence (and others) at Berkeley a long time ago. It doesn't
> > make 'volts',
>
> Well, it does "make" electron volts,
> and since volts are "made out of" electrons anyway,
> "electron volts" is obviously redundant. ;-)
*
Suzanne (and Eric):
This just in: An 'electron volt' is a unit of energy.
earle
*
Suzanne
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:39:40 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:18:50 -0400, Suzanne wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <6cdf8a0e-dceb-4fc0-a936-d9a5eecdf...@a13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >> > Bob, what I've seen from you is that you don't know what
> >> > you are criticizing. For example, you did not seem to
> >> > understand what a cyclotron is, yet you criticized what had
> >> > been said about one.
>
> >> I don't think that you know what a cyclotron is. I really don't.
>
> >but it's kind of you to admit it.
>
> Again you exhibit your inability to read.
>
And this is where you are slow. I understood the
way that he meant it. I don't need an explanation
from you. You are slow to catch on to the reply.
>
> >The cyclotron has already been briefly explained in
> >what I had written.
>
> No, you didn't even get close.
>
Spin.
>
> >A cyclotron is sometimes called a particle separatir,
> >but often is called a particle accelerator. .It has
> >two D shaped electrodes fixed near the poles of an electromagnet, and
> >these are all fixed in a vacuum.
> >There is a substance placed between the poles, which
> >is, or contains, or will produce subatomic particles. The
> >ions that were produced by the current cause these
> >to become charged, and they start being attracted
> >electrostically to the pole, and because of the fixed
> >pattern that they have to travel in, they will form a
> >spiral pattern as they move, since their paths will
> >have become curved. Eventually this flow of charged
> >particles can go so fast and then jump to external
> >(or near the perimeter) particles which in turn can
> >be aimed at targets. Millions and millions of volts
> >are produced.
>
> No they are not you ignorant fool.
>
No, that's not wrong.
>
> >If you want a more detailed
> >explanation, perhaps Boikat will supply it for you.
> >I've noticed on the Internet that some of the
> >Universities produce a whole separate paper to
> >explain the cyclotron, but in their primary paper,
> >they treat it even more briefly than I have here.
> >So, if you don't any of you like what I've written,
> >that's just tough. This is not written to a bunch
> >of quantum physicists, it's just written to the
> >average reader so that he can get an idea of
> >what a cyclotron is.
>
>
They aren't getting mislead by me. But some
are getting mislead by you.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> "On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:10:11 -0700, in article
> <earle.jones-72EAB6.21101026082...@news.giganews.com>, Earle Jones stated..."
> [...snip...]>Why don't you stick to your Bible interpretations, which is where it=20
> >appears that you have spent some time studying.
>
>
> Oh, please, no. Spare us more of that.
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
>
Thanks Tom! You just gave me a terrific idea.
Now I know how to deal with this negative crowd.
Mmmmmmwwwaahahahahahahahahahahaaaa
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
but only know about one basic kind, and that
was only the one that I mentioned.
>
I don't know anything about Sen. Ted Kennedy's
illness, but did you know that he passed away
two nights ago?
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> In article <WinLMSG.4a9648ba.2698.6...@news.abc.se>,
You've lightened my day. : )
>
Suzanne
Klaus Hellnick
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have read that they even thought about an all
>> electric rocket in order to save money because
>> fuel is so expensive.
>
> What would produce the electricity?
>
For someone who claims to have studied physics, she sure seems to have
trouble with the basics.
Klaus Hellnick
> On Aug 23, 8:17 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>>
>>> I have read that they even thought about an all
>>> electric rocket in order to save money because
>>> fuel is so expensive.
>> What would produce the electricity?
>>
> and an electric type of a rocket, so I don't know
> which one you are referring to, or both perhaps.
If you had reading comprehension, you would see that these posts were
referring to your nonsensical claim about an "electric rocket". Only 2
electric powered rockets (spacecraft with ion engines)have been made.
They are both unmanned craft. Deep Space 1 was test bed that included an
ion engine; Dawn is a probe to explore the asteroid belt, with 3 ion
engines. The ion engines have to run for YEARS to build up enough
velocity to reach the asteroid belt.
> When I was talking about the cyclotron, I left out
> the word "current" after the word "alternating." >
You cyclotron comments were gibberish, and it is unlikely Von Braun ever
gave a lecture on their operation, as they have nothing to do with
rocket propulsion, which was his field of expertise.
> The article that I read about only touched on the
> idea that he thought of an electric powered rocket,
> but did not tell the plan or say how it might be
> formed or if they even knew how it worked.
The only practical electric rockets in the foreseeable future are ion
engines, and they are very low thrust and only work in space. The only
other thing even remotely similar to an "electric rocket" that Von Braun
would have discussed would be electric mass drivers flinging objects off
the surface of the moon.
> But a cyclotron is capable of producing millions
> of volts. The faster it spins the ions, the greater
> the volts become, and eventually they can escape
> the cyclotron and be aimed at any target. The
> problem with a cyclotron, which is a partical
> separator, is that it has to be big to produce that
> kind of power. But somone invented what they call
> "the 88" cyclotron" (you can find it online), but the
> problem with that smaller one is that it is not
> capable of producing enough volts to power a
> rocket, I don't think. I got the impression with an
This seems to be a very garbled description of a ion engine, like a 10
year old might describe it, after skimming a Popular Science article.
> anti-gravity machine, which some might want to
> call a flying saucer, the chamber itself with the
> plasma in it with the electrodes in it, act as a sort
> of cyclotron, generating either it's own electricity,
> or it's gravity, if that is what it does, or even both.
> Remember though that the very physicist that
> seems to have figured the anti-gravity ability out,
> is the same one that sustained terrible injuries.
This is nonsense. Perhaps you are using some weird definition of
"anti-gravity". Most people use the term to mean that the force exerted
by gravity is somehow directly reduced. You are simply talking about
countering the effects of gravity with other forces. By that definition,
a conventional rocket, airplane, or even a crane, would be an
anti-gravity device.
> I think this kind of thing should only be experimented
> with in a laboratory and only under conditions where
> extreme caution is taken. Physicists have a great
> ability to let a formula be the first experimentation.
> They can make those formulas almost talk.
> Suzanne
>
Suzanne, please try to learn something about what you are talking about.
The last 3 sentences were gibberish.
Klaus
Klaus Hellnick
> On Aug 25, 2:26 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 9:37 am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote innews:2lf495d8119q9sjrs...@4ax.com:
>>>>> Remember though that the very physicist that
>>>>> seems to have figured the anti-gravity ability out,
>>>>> is the same one that sustained terrible injuries.
>>>>> with in a laboratory and only under conditions where
>>>>> extreme caution is taken. Physicists have a great
>>>>> ability to let a formula be the first experimentation.
>>>>> They can make those formulas almost talk.
>>> precondition for giving us her opinion and defending it to the death.
>> I was saying "Don't try this at home," in the first part of the above.
>> paper first, as when you are dealing with unexpected results, like
>> look at science newsgroups for in formation, in order to make
>> reports, and also for what they would like to invent and try at home
>> on their own. Many of them are interested in experiments and they
>> read what others write. Some of them get ideas for science fairs,
>> etc.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Heim wasn't at home, he was in a laboratory (surprise!), and he wasn't
> dicking about with spiffy anti gravity machines either when he blew
> himself up. Perhaps he should have written this equation down on paper
> first;
>
> explosives laboratory + mishandled chemicals = huge explosion.
>
> Wikipedia: During World War II, Heim was recruited as a soldier in the
> air force. However, a previous essay about explosives led to his
> working briefly in a chemical laboratory as an explosives technician,
> instead. An explosion in the laboratory caused by the mishandling of
> unstable compounds left him with debilitating handicaps.
>
> You, on the other hand, couldn't blow yourself up if you tried.
>
One of our metallurgists had given a technician a large jar of PICRIC
ACID to mix a small batch of an etching solution. He was not given an
MSDS or any special instructions. I was shocked when I noticed what he
was working with. I quickly briefed him, obtained an MSDS, and reported
the metallurgist. This was the same guy who had previously stored acids
and cyanide compounds in THE SAME CABINET!
heekster
Yes, it is wrong. What it produces is Kinetic energy of motion, which
is measured in units of one million electron volts, 1 Mev, and this
energy is transferred to the charged particles. Millions and
millions of volts are not produced.
Sorry, Suzanne, but you literally do not understand what you are
talking about. Your description above contains false causalities,
inaccurate descriptions, and a definite lack of understanding of
electromagnetic field theory and subatomic physics.
Interesting that you consider the truth obnoxious.
<snip>
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
They are so garbled and incorrect that to call them "wrong" is giving
them praise.
Harry K
Walter Bushell
Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> This just in: An 'electron volt' is a unit of energy.
Or equivalently mass. I have a friend who thinks ideas are concrete. I
am thinking of asking him, "How to measure the mass (or energy) of an
idea."
Walter Bushell
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:10:11 -0700, in article
> <earle.jones-72EA...@news.giganews.com>, Earle Jones stated..."
> [...snip...]
> >Why don't you stick to your Bible interpretations, which is where it=20
> >appears that you have spent some time studying.
> [...snip...]
>
> Oh, please, no. Spare us more of that.
You do know that reading this group is a big waste of time and energy,
and is not in any sense mandatory. I would, in fact recommend against
it, but as I have not that would be hypocritical of me.
Walter Bushell
Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> One hell of a lot more intelligent than you will ever be.
>
> But then, so are most people. Even by comparison to other creationists
> you set new records for stupidity and ignorance.
"Trilobites are cambrian mammals."
It's a hard contest.
Walter Bushell
Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:46:15 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> <leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On Aug 25, 3:04�am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:41:54 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >On Aug 24, 4:20�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 20:34:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Suzanne
> >> >> <leila...@hotmail.com>:
> >>
> >> >> >On Aug 23, 8:17�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >>
> >> >> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >I have read that they even thought about an all
> >> >> >> >electric rocket in order to save money because
> >> >> >> >fuel is so expensive.
> >>
> >> >> >> What would produce the electricity?
> >>
> >> >> >I mentioned an anti-gravity machine/space craft(?),
> >> >> >and an electric type of a rocket, so I don't know
> >> >> >which one you are referring to, or both perhaps.
> >> >> >When I was talking about the cyclotron, I left out
> >> >> >the word "current" after the word "alternating." >
> >> >> >The article that I read about only touched on the
> >> >> >idea that he thought of an electric powered rocket,
> >> >> >but did not tell the plan or say how it might be
> >> >> >formed or if they even knew how it worked.
> >> >> >But a cyclotron is capable of producing millions
> >> >> >of volts. The faster it spins the ions, the greater
> >> >> >the volts become, and eventually they can escape
> >> >> >the cyclotron and be aimed at any target. The
> >> >> >problem with a cyclotron, which is a partical
> >> >> >separator, is that it has to be big to produce that
> >> >> >kind of power. But somone invented what they call
> >> >> >"the 88" cyclotron" (you can find it online), but the
> >> >> >problem with that smaller one is that it is not
> >> >> >capable of producing enough volts to power a
> >> >> >rocket, I don't think. I got the impression with an
> >> >> >anti-gravity machine, which some might want to
> >> >> >call a flying saucer, the chamber itself with the
> >> >> >plasma in it with the electrodes in it, act as a sort
> >> >> >of cyclotron, generating either it's own electricity,
> >> >> >or it's gravity, if that is what it does, or even both.
> >> >> >Remember though that the very physicist that
> >> >> >seems to have figured the anti-gravity ability out,
> >> >> >is the same one that sustained terrible injuries.
> >> >> >I think this kind of thing should only be experimented
> >> >> >with in a laboratory and only under conditions where
> >> >> >extreme caution is taken. Physicists have a great
> >> >> >ability to let a formula be the first experimentation.
> >> >> >They can make those formulas almost talk.
> >>
> >> >> Oy...
> >>
> >> >> Suzanne, please take this as a gentle suggestion, *not* a
> >> >> personal attack. Please, *please*, PLEASE refrain from
> >> >> posting anything of a technical nature, or requiring that
> >> >> you understand technical and/or scientific issues.
> >> >> --
> >>
> >> >> Bob C.
> >>
> >> >~^(*_*)^~ hello....and you are....?
> >>
> >> One hell of a lot more intelligent than you will ever be.
> >>
> >> But then, so are most people. Even by comparison to other creationists
> >> you set new records for stupidity and ignorance.
> >>
> >> >Suzanne
> >>
> >I know who (((((((((Boikat))))))))) is and have had
> >many conversations with him in posts, and yes he
> >is very smart technically. The caterpillar in Disney's
> >Alice and Wonderland said, with his hooka, and
> >in puffs of smoke....
> >"Who....R....U?" The caterpillar eluded her questions.
> >>
> >Suzanne
>
> Is it really possible for you to get any more stupid than you are. I
> think not.
And Bob disappears in a cloud of logic.
She can frame sentences and type, so yes, she could be far more stupid.
As a parrot, or even a bonobo, she would be a genius of her species.
Walter Bushell
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <kfe595leofa2us72f...@4ax.com>,
> > Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >Has anyone tried transmission of power by microwave?
> > >
> > > Yes, and by laser. The problem is focus.
> > > >
> > > >But, the problem is that one needs reaction mass and we are already at
> > > >the limits given by materials in the rocket engines themselves.
> > > >
> > > >But with microwaves, theoretically we can convert the mass to energy and
> > > >the rocket converts the energy to reaction mass.
> > >
> > > With a great deal of loss.
> >
> > Details, details. A simple matter of engineering.
>
> Even then.
> I don't think that the conversion is microwave energy into mass
> (real mass, particles, not just the mass equivalent of heat)
> has ever been demonstrated,
>
> Jan
Or 100% conversion of mass to energy. But IIUC, there are no theoretical
obstacles. Easier by far than FTL.
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> 2. I've seen better puns...
You've made better (wurst?) puns. Nearly all IIRC. OTGH perhaps "I've
seen better" is an idiom meaning that the pun on a scale of 1-10 is a
minus 5 or such.
Suzanne
electron volts.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp31cy.html - 11k
http://www.answers.com/topic/cyclotron
>
Suzanne
John S. Wilkins
Why do you think that all concrete properties must have a unique mass or
energy? Do you think that all physical things must weight the same?
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Suzanne
>
What I wrote was clear and easy to understand, and
it was not "garbled."
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> In article <earle.jones-2A492D.16375527082...@news.giganews.com>,
> Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > This just in: An 'electron volt' is a unit of energy.
>
> Or equivalently mass. I have a friend who thinks ideas are concrete. I
> am thinking of asking him, "How to measure the mass (or energy) of an
> idea."
>
concrete? Could he mean something different
than the way that it sounds?
>
Suzanne
John S. Wilkins
Actually he could. In metaphysics, an abstract idea or entity os one
that is not bounded by space and time. A concrete one is one that is. It
need not have mass or energy as such, but it will of course be a state
of something that does.
J. J. Lodder
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:01:59 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> <leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On Aug 27, 4:29 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> Your ability to misread/misunderstand things is renowned, there is no
> >> need to keep providing examples.
> >>
> >How can *you* misconstrue so many things?
>
> I don't. You do. Your reading comprehension is so bad I really don't
> know how you function in life.
To comprehend what you read
you need some well organized background knowledge.
Lacking that nothing will ever make sense.
Suzy doesn't even have an organized understanding of the bible,
and that's still the best part of it afaics.
As for getting by, why not?
20% of the Americans are functional analphabetics,
and they also get by.
Jan
Ye Old One
Oh yes they are. Nobody else is that daft.
> They are not wrong.
Yes, like all your ideas, they are completely wrong because you do not
understand even the basics of what you are writing about.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Wrong. As usual.
>it was not "garbled."
Wrong again.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
We know that, your ignorance on the subject is so profound you must
have worked very hard to perfect it.
>but only know about one basic kind, and that
>was only the one that I mentioned.
The point is that you don't "know" about even one kind.
>>
>I don't know anything about Sen. Ted Kennedy's
>illness, but did you know that he passed away
>two nights ago?
No - he died.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Yes it is - totally wrong. But then 90&+ of everything you post is
totally wrong.
>>
>> >If you want a more detailed
>> >explanation, perhaps Boikat will supply it for you.
>> >I've noticed on the Internet that some of the
>> >Universities produce a whole separate paper to
>> >explain the cyclotron, but in their primary paper,
>> >they treat it even more briefly than I have here.
>> >So, if you don't any of you like what I've written,
>> >that's just tough. This is not written to a bunch
>> >of quantum physicists, it's just written to the
>> >average reader so that he can get an idea of
>> >what a cyclotron is.
>>
>> I pity the poor reader who gets mislead by your stupidity.
>>
>They aren't getting mislead by me.
True, because most people know how ignorant you are.
> But some
>are getting mislead by you.
Liar!
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
No he is not.
> Cyclotrons can produce millions of
>electron volts.
>www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp31cy.html - 11k
Badly written, but anyone understanding the subject will get the idea.
>http://www.answers.com/topic/cyclotron
Better.
>>
>Suzanne
So, when are you going to start producing a large part of the world's
energy needs with cyclotrons?
Your ignorance would be funny if it wasn't for that fact you try to
push it on others.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 27, 4:34 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:18:50 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 25, 3:02 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:26:36 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Aug 24, 9:37 am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com
>>
>> >> >> Suzanne does not acknowledge "knowing what I'm talking about" as a
>> >> >> precondition for giving us her opinion and defending it to the death.
>>
>> >> >I was saying "Don't try this at home," in the first part of the above.
>>
>> >> Oh I agree. Nobody should try making high explosives at home.
>>
>> >> But I agree with Louann, you do not consider that you should know what
>> >> you are talking about before posting is a good idea.
>>
>> >Bob, what I've seen from you is that you don't know what
>> >you are criticizing.
>>
>> Liar!
>>
>It's not a lie.
Yes it is.
>>
>> > For example, you did not seem to
>> >understand what a cyclotron is, yet you criticized what had
>> >been said about one.
>>
>> Because YOU do not understand what a cyclotron is.
>>
>Baloney.
I know the truth hurts you, I know you try to hide from it. But the
basic fact is - you are ignorant.
>>
>> >> >Also, I was adding that sometimes it's safer to work things out on
>> >> >paper first, as when you are dealing with unexpected results, like
>> >> >Heim encountered in his youth.
>>
>> >> What he encountered was not unexpected. Many people suffered the same
>> >> fate as a result of carelessness.
>>
>> >What in the world are you criticizing here? I felt that I should
>> >add a note of caution. Your comment is that what he got was
>> >not unexpected. That's pretty cold.
>>
>> In what way?
>>
>You said "What he encountered was not
>unexpected. Many people suffered the same
>fate as a result of carelessness."
>It's like saying "He got what's coming to him," meaning
>that he should have expected as much.
Well, he should. It wasn't new science.
>>
>>
>> >I don't really care if you
>> >think that someone should not add a note of caution.
>>
>> There was no need for one.
>>
>That's not your call.
I made it.
>>
>> > A few
>> >people in this world will listen to that advice, although some
>> >will not. It's still worth saying.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>>
>This is spin.
Wrong, as usual.
>>
>>
>> >> >Reason being is that many youth
>> >> >look at science newsgroups for in formation, in order to make
>> >> >reports, and also for what they would like to invent and try at home
>> >> >on their own. Many of them are interested in experiments and they
>> >> >read what others write. Some of them get ideas for science fairs,
>> >> >etc.
>>
>> >> You do talk a lot of rubbish.
>>
>> >Nope. I'm a mom,
>>
>> I really do pity your kids - growing up with such an ignorant fool for
>> a mother must have been very hard on them.
>>
>This is spin with a twist.
Wrong again.
>>
>> >and I've spoken with kids that have told
>> >me this. I also don't really care if you think that what I
>> >said is rubbish.
>>
>> I think nearly all of what you say is rubbish, that seems to be the
>> view of most of the TO regulars. You are a fool. You are extremely
>> ignorant and you regularly fail to check even basic facts.
>>
>Spin with obnoxious talk.
The truth hurts you.
> If you are trying out for the most
>obnoxious poster of the year, I will vote for you.
For the most "ignorant arsehole of the year" you would win hands down.
>>
>And you are Spindlechronic
You are harpic.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
J. J. Lodder
No. Just put up a solar energy satellite,
beam the output to earth using microwaves,
and feed the power received to a cyclotron,
separate the anti-matter produced,
store it, and use it as rocket fuel
for a photon drive.
Trivial excercise, really,
Jan
Mike Painter
<snip>
>>>>> be aimed at targets. Millions and millions of volts
>>>>> are produced.
>>
>>>> No they are not you ignorant fool.
>>
>>> No, that's not wrong.
>>
>> Yes, it is wrong. What it produces is Kinetic energy of motion, which
>> is measured in units of one million electron volts, 1 Mev, and this
>> energy is transferred to the charged particles. Millions and
>> millions of volts are not produced.
>>
>> Sorry, Suzanne, but you literally do not understand what you are
>> talking about. Your description above contains false causalities,
>> inaccurate descriptions, and a definite lack of understanding of
>> electromagnetic field theory and subatomic physics.
>>
>> Interesting that you consider the truth obnoxious.
>>
> You are wrong. Cyclotrons can produce millions of
> electron volts.
> www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp31cy.html - 11k
> http://www.answers.com/topic/cyclotron
>>
It has been carefully and fully pointed out that "volts" and "electron
volts" are not teh same thing.
Hubris.
harry k
Well, in my understanding "garbled" means that it has some facts that
have been confused. Your explanations of cyclotrons is so garbled
that it has no relation whatsoever to reality. I only have a very
limited laymans acquaintance with the subject but even I know that you
are totally wrong.
BTW: Vold and Eletron Volt are two different things. You might try
re-reading some of the explanations that have been provided you. At
least that _might_ clear up some of your confusion...not that I have
any hopes of that happening.
Harry K
Mike Painter
>>
>> They are so garbled and incorrect that to call them "wrong" is giving
>> them praise.
>>
>> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>>
> What I wrote was clear and easy to understand, and
> it was not "garbled."
>>
> Suzanne
The only clear and easy to understand part of what you wrote is your
stupidity and inability to admit error.
Walter Bushell
<43bbb70b-4a16-471b...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
harry k <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I believe the expression is "not even wrong".
J. J. Lodder
No, that would be a mistake.
Suzanne ist ganz falsch on almost everything,
Jan
--
"Es ist sogar nicht Falsch!" (Wolfgang Pauli)
Burkhard
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > They are so garbled and incorrect that to call them "wrong" is giving
> > > them praise.
>
> > > Harry K
>
> > I believe the expression is "not even wrong".
>
> No, that would be a mistake.
> Suzanne ist ganz falsch on almost everything,
>
> Jan
>
> --
> "Es ist sogar nicht Falsch!" (Wolfgang Pauli)
sorry ;o) "Es ist nicht einmal falsch." Your version doesn't work in
German
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <earle.jones-2A49...@news.giganews.com>,
> > Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > This just in: An 'electron volt' is a unit of energy.
> >
> > Or equivalently mass. I have a friend who thinks ideas are concrete. I
> > am thinking of asking him, "How to measure the mass (or energy) of an
> > idea."
>
> Why do you think that all concrete properties must have a unique mass or
> energy? Do you think that all physical things must weight the same?
The must have mass or energy to be physical.
J. J. Lodder
Klaus Hellnick
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:18:00 -0700 (PDT), harry k
> <turnk...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>> On Aug 16, 11:48 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 13, 8:51 am, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Aug 13, 2:27 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 12, 4:41 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> I said that he had a
>>>>>>> double degree...that he had a Master's degree
>>>>>>> in Mechanical Englneering, and a Ph.D. degree
>>>>>>> in Physics, and that he was both an engineer,
>>>>>>> as well as being a scientist.
>>>>>> No, he was NOT a scientist. He was a rocket engineer. Your error was
>>>>>> corrected many times. To continue your claim shows your dishonesty.
>>>>> Little YOO can't get by the fact that he had a Physics
>>>>> degree. I think he thinks he never used it in his work.
>>>> <snip>
>>>> Everyone knows he had two degrees by now. How many he had and what
>>>> they were in is immaterial. What counts is 'What did he do' - answer
>>>> - he worked as an engineer, not a scientist.
>>>> That is the point that you refuse to see.
>>>> Harry K
>>> If you don't mind me saying this Harry, my opinion is
>>> that he did use physics in what he did because the
>>> lecture that I went to that I have told people about,
>>> had to do with how the three stage rockets would be
>>> fueled. His lecture was on the half life of Uranium
>>> 235 in the cyclotron, and how there would be some
>>> isotopes that remain after a certain process, and
>>> they would be both radioactive and stable so that
>>> they would be usable in order to provide the big
>>> payload needed to get the rocket off the ground
>>> and to have the thrust that it needed to propel it
>>> into outer space. You see, a rocket can't just be
>>> filled up with fuel and then take off, like an airplane
>>> does. It has to have a process, I believe, where
>>> some of the fuel is actually continually being made
>>> as it is in the process of lifting off and pushing
>>> towards outer space. The U-235 provided that way.
>>> I believe this is why the field of physics considers
>>> that being a being a rocket engineer is a special
>>> science, and not just one of engineering. This is
>>> why Von Braun was awarded our National Science
>>> Award. You see, if a rocket was just filled up with
>>> enough liquid fuel only that was required to lift it
>>> and propel it all the way to outer space, it would
>>> be too heavy to lift off the ground, unless there
>>> was a way where fuel could be continually being
>>> made until it got to outer space.
>>>
>>> Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> understanding of rocket science is beyond pathetic.
>
> Wayyyyyyyy beyond pathetic. She makes so many errors in such a short
> post it is amazing.
>
> Added to which I can find not record of WvB giving such a lecture, nor
> can I see why he would. The half life of Uranium 235 in a cyclotron is
> exactly the same as its half life anywhere else. And why he would even
> raise the concept of a cyclotron is beyond me.
>
> I think it is just another one of her lies. If she ever attended a
> lecture by him, and I doubtful on that, it was one on rockets. There
> may have been a mention that, one day, he hoped nuclear powered
> rockets could be made, but that is about all.
>> Harry K
I think she simply mashes fragments of memories of different events
together, then interprets what she thinks she remembers to make her
point. Then she gets indignant when people prove her claimed "memories"
are impossible.
I know that memories can be merged, yet still seem clear and authentic.
For example, there was a nice tune from the soundtrack of the
Mechwarrior 2 computer game that I really liked. I thought I remembered
it clearly. However, when I recently found my old game disc a extracted
the audio files, I discovered that the tune I remembered was not
actually there. I had merged parts of two different tunes in my memory.
Klaus Hellnick
>
> 2. There has never been a rocket launched that used U235 (or any
> radioactive) source as part of the fuel process. The only rockets
> ever launched AFAIK that carried radioactive subsances were ones with
> atomic warheads (and I don't know if any of them were acturally
> launched) plus one that had some sort of electrict generator powered
> by atomics (?Helios?). A wold wide uproar went on about it before it
> was launched.
Many satellites and probes used radioisotope generators and some, like
Dawn, use then to power ion engines. I think your garbled reference to
an "uproar" was the Galileo probe to Jupiter.
Klaus
>
> 3. From the first rocket launched until today _every_ rocket launched
> has carried it's full fuel load. NONE is manufactured in flight.
>
> Harry K
>