|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 10:57:52 GMT -4
Well that's the cover story. Truth is patton was flaming mad because Eisenhower was determined to give Berlin and Eastern Europe to the Commies. This was because Eisenhower was allied with them.
I posted the lend lease inventory on another thread will repost here if you like. OK gata go have a good weekend
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 10:50:43 GMT -4
Cool 3 pages and the purported OP hasn't posted anything. First time I have seen replies first. lol getting their retaliation in first
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 10:49:42 GMT -4
Growing up, we thought that if the Russians bombed the U.S., they would come from over the Arctic and some could land on us. Right out of 1984. Fear of a remote enemy to bind a population. But not as 'to the letter' as how 'Osama Bin Ladin' became the new 'Emmanuel Goldstein'
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 10:46:41 GMT -4
Sounds like an interesting game PeterB. [Peeks out of secret gamers closet] Sure is. One of those never-enough-time-and-resources-to-do-what-I-need-to-do games. Same for me. I was glued to the newspapers and TV news, seemingly from about August to November 1989, watching as events slowly escalated, from day to day fearing a crackdown. In the back of my mind was what had happened in Beijing back in June. In my case it was my Year 11 English teacher, in 1983. He was Polish, and had left Poland with his family only a year or two earlier, leaving behind all their possessions except the family silver. He told us a few stories about what it was like living in a "workers' paradise". Oh absolutely. It was hell on the Commie side of the pincer movement. Many eminent authors have written from bitter experience.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 10:40:19 GMT -4
I for one really wish the cold war was faked, because then we'd have nuclear power all over and this global warming thing wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue. What? Are you arguing that nuclear power is causing global warming? Even the most rabid pro-warmists admit that nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gasses. Are you arguing that the Cold War caused global warming? And if it were faked then they wouldn't have built as many real tanks, planes, etc. that emit greenhouse gasses? Or are you trying to say something entirely different? www.mysanantonio.com/livinggreensa/Old_Farmers_Almanac_Global_cooling_to_continue_102496594.html?showFullArticle=ySea ice at the Southern Hemisphere is increasing Al Gore is a carbon billionaire. He was in the Club of Rome along with such luminaries as Henry Kissinger when they came up with this idea en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 10:33:17 GMT -4
Sounds like an interesting game PeterB. [Peeks out of secret gamers closet] One of the most spine tingling events for me was the fall of the Berlin Wall, an event I was sure would never happen in my lifetime. After all the years of posturing and threats, it seemed unreal to see it happen in front of your own eyes. I was glued to the news. And before Rodin claims it was fake, my sister was there. She lives in Germany. She even has a piece of the actual wall. She is even friends with some people who came over the wall, or under, or through. I have met them. Some of them have family who didn't get out, and are missing. So don't give me that bogus "fake cold war" claim. And while we are at it, here is a question for you, is there any conspiracy theory which you DON'T believe? Regarding the pretend Fall of the Berlin Wall video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2307456730142665916&hl=en#Bezmenov was employed at a level where people still thought Communist and Capitalist societies were in opposition. He saw the US as being infiltrated from the USSR. What he did not know perhaps was who was really behind the Russian Revolution of 1917. Very important to determine this. Turns out it is the same crowd who were behind the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 10:26:30 GMT -4
Rodin said at reply #298 of the Apollo jump proves hoax by rodin thread: Let's do that. I have a boardgame here called Twilight Struggle. It's a two player game about the Cold War, published by GMT Games. If you have the slightest interest in boardgames and the Cold War, I highly recommend it. It's not only a cracker of a game, it even includes the Space Race! Now although it's a boardgame, game play itself is driven by the play of cards. The cards represent events which actually took place during the period 1945 to 1989. I'm going to list a portion of them, and if Rodin returns to the board, I'd like him to consider how to explain these events except in the context of a real geopolitical struggle between the USA and the USSR. Here's another interesting card game from the 20th C etc www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1753.cfm
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 10:20:10 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 10:16:01 GMT -4
Provide us evidence it didn't first. The incontrovertible evidence that it did has been discussed ad nauseam. I am down with that. This Moon Rock thread was set up as a stumbling block i was supposed to fall over. I do rather enjoy dodging the bullets though. Next week I will try to make progress on the 'Jump' thread, and am willing to give anyone who needs it a history lesson on the Cold War thread
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 10:12:17 GMT -4
And if the projectile is made of the same substance as the target? And if you provide evidence that it's possible even in theory to produce such projectiles, that the age of the pits produced would be indistinguishable from the real thing, and that it really happened rather than you fantasising? Put a charge on particles of rock possibly in glass bead form Accelerate with an EM rail gun/particle accelerator type device To give correct date? Dope with isotopes. Indistinguishable from the real thing? This IS the 'real thing'. Who knows what a Lunar rock REALLY looks like close up if Apollo was hoaxed?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 10:07:25 GMT -4
Apollo stands on many pillars - show one is false and the whole edifice comes down. Not at all. Show one is false (first time for everything) and all you have done is prove that one thing false. Prove one thing undeniably produced from the moon (want a list?) and you have proved that they were on the moon. Yes give me a list
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 10:04:09 GMT -4
To quote you: no. The fact you refuse to accept that the cumulative errors in your method invalidate your result is no concern of ours. WIP And if the projectile is made of the same substance as the target?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 9:59:35 GMT -4
If it were up to me, "could be faked" would be an automatic fail. You are not correct. Apollo stands on many pillars - show one is false and the whole edifice comes down. I would not choose to base the case for the prosecution on the Moon Rock evidence because I cannot verify it for myself. I choose to analyse what evidence IS available to me - video and still images mainly. On that evidence I would base my case. All I can be expected to do with Moon Rocks is give a plausible method for faking them. This I have already done actually. Perhaps as I look more at Apollo it will hit me exactly HOW the Moon rocks were made, that would be a bonus. If you want to derail my interest in investigating Apollo I suggest finding some aspect I CANNOT offer a plausible explanation for. There are actually one or two pieces of Apollo footage that fall into that category and I will have to address these.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 9:50:27 GMT -4
I produce evidence other aspects of Apollo were faked.No, you repeatedly demonstrate that you have absolutely no working knowledge of the sciences and techniques that pertain to your claims. Further, you set the bar so low for yourself that you believe you only have to show that something could be fake, not whether it actually is or not. You must produce evidence Moon Rocks could not be to the extent I cannot reasonably argue otherwiseNo, you don't get to set the burden of proof as far away from you as possible. We have in hand samples that are universally accepted as samples of the Moon collected in situ. We have a completely credible and unbroken chain of evidence describing how those samples were collected. You on the other hand are trying to offer an affirmative rebuttal to that claim. An affirmative rebuttal carries a burden of proof. It is neither our responsibility nor logically possible to preclude every affirmative hypothesis you can conceive, even the purely hypothetical ones that rely on exotic premises you can't even begin to substantiate. You clearly have absolutely no clue what it takes to prove something outside of your little conspiracy-haunted world. If I am the no-hoper you claim why bother debating me? If we are allowed to we can discuss this 'conspiracy haunted' world all you like - maybe over on the Cold War thread
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 9:40:51 GMT -4
I produce evidence other aspects of Apollo were faked. Really? When did you do that? Also, can you address my point about chemical alteration of the putative artificially produced zap pits? I have done both already 1) The jump analysis shows deviation from parabola in free flight. Now that was evidence and is being challenged as it should be. I intend to undertake further similar analyses when time permits 2) CO2 would not leave a trace but a better suggestion of mine was simply use ground down meteorite/rock material itself as the impacting particles
|
|