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