Fraud in Gagarin's Flight Record Claims -- FAI Doesn't Care

[Jim Oberg]

This topic came up in an earlier discussion, so here is a
section of my book, 'Star-Crossed Orbits', that tries
to put it into perspective:

As the Soviet Union racked up one "space first" after another in the 1960s,
it also executed the bureaucratic duty of registering many of these firsts.
The world body responsible for all flight records was the International
Aviation Federation (FAI in French) in Paris. Registrations with the FAI
were in the form of bound large-format descriptions of the events for which
the claims were being made, with appropriate official signatures. One of the
most frequent signers for the Soviet claims was Ivan Borisenko, titled
"sports commissar".



Just why he had been chosen I could never figure out. Maybe he owned the
stop watch. In any case, a few decades after the Soviet-era glory came the
post-Soviet cold and hunger. Struggling on with an inadequate pension,
Borisenko produced his own personal archive of two dozen space records claim
folders and offered them for sale in the West.



It was this set of handsomely-bound documents that I was inspecting and
authenticating for my host and paying client, Kaller's America Gallery in
New York City. We would catalog each one, and I would read it over in
Russian to note the accuracy of its claims. One thing I noted about the
claims was the almost universal insistence that the launch site of these
"space firsts", Baykonur, was located at precisely 47:22:00 north, 65:29:00
east. Ever since the first American U-2 spy plane flew over Russia in 1956,
the launch pad has been known to be at 45:55:00 north and 63:20:00 east.



Foreign observers had always suspected that the error was deliberate,
presumably to get the next U-2 spy planes to stray off course. Finally, in
an incredibly rich collection of Russian space memoirs published in New York
the same year as the auction, two former Soviet officials independently
described how the falsehood originated. It was just as we suspected, but
it's the real inside story.



Vladimir Yastrebov, an expert in spacecraft tracking, wrote about his exact
role in the deception: "I was personally involved in naming the Tyura-Tam
launch site 'Baikonur' so as to disguise its true location. A few days after
Gagarin's flight, my management sent me to one of the central
administrations of the Ministry of Defense to meet with Col. Kerim A.
Kerimov. Together with a senior officer from his section called Alexei
Maximov, I was asked to draw up the records of Gagarin's flight in terms of
range and altitude for registration with the International Aviation
Federation in Paris. Preparing the document was easy enough, but we
encountered a major hurdle when deciding how to identify the site from which
the Vostok launch vehicle had lifted off. Since we were not allowed for
security reasons to name Tyura-Tam, we studied the map and chose a
ballistically plausible down-range alternative in the form of a small Kazakh
settlement called Baikonur. And that is what the cosmodrome has been called
ever since."



Reading further in the same book, "Roads to Space", I found that Alexandr
(not Alexei) Maximov, an official of the Ministry of Defense responsible for
space activities, had also contributed a memoir. He told much the same
story, but slightly garbled with regard to the dates and organizations: "So
where did the name Baikonur come from?" he wrote. "In accordance with an
international treaty, we had to register our Aug. 21 [1957] ICBM launch with
the United Nations, indicating the date, time, and place of launch."



"Since there were no spy satellites in orbit yet, nobody knew where the test
range was situated, and we were not keen to divulge that information for
security reasons. We therefore decided to indicate a site whose existence
the Americans could verify. With their radars they were able to track the
flight of our rocket and, by working backward, calculate the approximate
location of the launch site. So we decided to give the Telegraph Agency of
the Soviet Union and the United Nations the name of a place situated some
250 kilometers away from Tyura-Tam. That place happened to be called
Baikonur -- and ostensibly that is where we have been launching from ever
since."



Yastrebov's account is more accurate since the Baikonur story was associated
with the first manned flight aboard 'Vostok' and with the 1961 FAI
registration, not with the earlier missile test. But Maximov's account is
essentially corroborative regarding the motivation and the action itself.



So the official claims contained intentional falsehoods. I'd always presumed
that the FAI has prohibitions and penalties for submitting knowingly false
claims, and there can be no argument that this data was submitted in full
knowledge that it was false. Nobody expected the Soviet Union to tell the
truth, so we all became accustomed to swallowing lies. In recent years,
however, Russia has wanted to become a normal country, to behave by
internationally-accepted norms, and to earn the trust of the world. Could
standards be applied retroactively?



Sure enough, I found the FAI "Sporting Code" on the Internet. It has an
entire section on "Complaints", and section 5.2 is entitled "Penalties and
Disqualifications". Subsection 5.2.2.3 defines "Unsporting Behavior" this
way: "Cheating or unsporting behavior, including deliberate attempts to
deceive or mislead officials, falsification of documents, or repeated
serious infringements of rules should, as a guide, result in
disqualification from the sporting event."



There was no need to withdraw the Russian flight records, since they really
had performed the feats described. But I was hopeful that the false
information could at least be expunged from the archives of the world body.
I figured that the best way to do that was to have some official just ask
the Russians to file a letter of amendment to the original claims.



It wasn't as easy as all that, I discovered. I located the U.S. association
affiliated with the FAI, the "National Aeronautic Association" in Arlington,
Virginia, and I proposed to them that the Russians be asked to correct the
false information on their original records claims.



On November 21, 1997, association official Art Greenfield (the secretary of
the "Contests and Records Board") wrote back to me to politely explain why
that wasn't going to happen. "I understand that you believe the Russians
falsified the coordinates of the launch site of those flights in the record
dossiers," he began, adding that since they don't have those dossiers on
file at their office, they had no way of confirming this.



"Perhaps the Russians did attempt to mislead us about the takeoff location
for reasons of national security," he conceded. However, since the actual
flights are not in doubt, "we see no compelling reason to confront our
Russian counterparts with allegations of wrongdoing dating back to the Cold
War era." He concluded that these days both Russians and Americans "are
actively involved" with work that "promotes public understanding and
awareness of the importance of space flight," and furthermore, "We hope that
this cooperative effort will continue for as long as we explore space."



Max Bishop, the FAI Secretary General in Paris, concurred. "No space records
depend on the precise location of the launch site," he pointed out quite
correctly. "Therefore modifying the coordinates of Baikonur will in no way
affect any FAI-approved performance. We do not intend to take any action."

[Mary Pegg]

Jim Oberg wrote:

> This topic came up in an earlier discussion, so here is a
> section of my book, 'Star-Crossed Orbits', that tries
> to put it into perspective:

<snip>

Interesting, but surely a bigger obstacle to the FAI recognising
the claims is that Gagarin bailed out, and therefore did not
complete the flight?

[Thomas Lee Elifritz]

Mary Pegg wrote:

> Jim Oberg wrote:
>
>
>>This topic came up in an earlier discussion, so here is a
>>section of my book, 'Star-Crossed Orbits', that tries
>>to put it into perspective:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Interesting, but surely a bigger obstacle to the FAI recognising
> the claims is that Gagarin bailed out, and therefore did not
> complete the flight?

Anything to get the butt ****ing dumb American public off the glaring
NASA and administration technical incompetence ball, eh, Mary?

That's fine with me, go ahead, give it your best shot. Make my day.

Punk.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

[Vladimir Makarenko]

Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.

VM.

Jim Oberg wrote:
>
> This topic came up in an earlier discussion, so here is a
> section of my book, 'Star-Crossed Orbits', that tries
> to put it into perspective:
>
> As the Soviet Union racked up one "space first" after another in the 1960s,
> it also executed the bureaucratic duty of registering many of these firsts.
> The world body responsible for all flight records was the International
> Aviation Federation (FAI in French) in Paris. Registrations with the FAI
> were in the form of bound large-format descriptions of the events for which
> the claims were being made, with appropriate official signatures. One of the
> most frequent signers for the Soviet claims was Ivan Borisenko, titled
> "sports commissar".
>
> Just why he had been chosen I could never figure out. Maybe he owned the
> stop watch. In any case, a few decades after the Soviet-era glory came the
> post-Soviet cold and hunger. Struggling on with an inadequate pension,
> Borisenko produced his own personal archive of two dozen space records claim
> folders and offered them for sale in the West.
>
> It was this set of handsomely-bound documents that I was inspecting and
> authenticating for my host and paying client, Kaller's America Gallery in
> New York City. We would catalog each one, and I would read it over in
> Russian to note the accuracy of its claims. One thing I noted about the
> claims was the almost universal insistence that the launch site of these
> "space firsts", Baykonur, was located at precisely 47:22:00 north, 65:29:00
> east. Ever since the first American U-2 spy plane flew over Russia in 1956,
> the launch pad has been known to be at 45:55:00 north and 63:20:00 east.
>
> Foreign observers had always suspected that the error was deliberate,
> presumably to get the next U-2 spy planes to stray off course. Finally, in
> an incredibly rich collection of Russian space memoirs published in New York
> the same year as the auction, two former Soviet officials independently
> described how the falsehood originated. It was just as we suspected, but
> it's the real inside story.
>
> Vladimir Yastrebov, an expert in spacecraft tracking, wrote about his exact
> role in the deception: "I was personally involved in naming the Tyura-Tam
> launch site 'Baikonur' so as to disguise its true location. A few days after
> Gagarin's flight, my management sent me to one of the central
> administrations of the Ministry of Defense to meet with Col. Kerim A.
> Kerimov. Together with a senior officer from his section called Alexei
> Maximov, I was asked to draw up the records of Gagarin's flight in terms of
> range and altitude for registration with the International Aviation
> Federation in Paris. Preparing the document was easy enough, but we
> encountered a major hurdle when deciding how to identify the site from which
> the Vostok launch vehicle had lifted off. Since we were not allowed for
> security reasons to name Tyura-Tam, we studied the map and chose a
> ballistically plausible down-range alternative in the form of a small Kazakh
> settlement called Baikonur. And that is what the cosmodrome has been called
> ever since."
>
> Reading further in the same book, "Roads to Space", I found that Alexandr
> (not Alexei) Maximov, an official of the Ministry of Defense responsible for
> space activities, had also contributed a memoir. He told much the same
> story, but slightly garbled with regard to the dates and organizations: "So
> where did the name Baikonur come from?" he wrote. "In accordance with an
> international treaty, we had to register our Aug. 21 [1957] ICBM launch with
> the United Nations, indicating the date, time, and place of launch."
>
> "Since there were no spy satellites in orbit yet, nobody knew where the test
> range was situated, and we were not keen to divulge that information for
> security reasons. We therefore decided to indicate a site whose existence
> the Americans could verify. With their radars they were able to track the
> flight of our rocket and, by working backward, calculate the approximate
> location of the launch site. So we decided to give the Telegraph Agency of
> the Soviet Union and the United Nations the name of a place situated some
> 250 kilometers away from Tyura-Tam. That place happened to be called
> Baikonur -- and ostensibly that is where we have been launching from ever
> since."
>
> Yastrebov's account is more accurate since the Baikonur story was associated
> with the first manned flight aboard 'Vostok' and with the 1961 FAI
> registration, not with the earlier missile test. But Maximov's account is
> essentially corroborative regarding the motivation and the action itself.
>
> So the official claims contained intentional falsehoods. I'd always presumed
> that the FAI has prohibitions and penalties for submitting knowingly false
> claims, and there can be no argument that this data was submitted in full
> knowledge that it was false. Nobody expected the Soviet Union to tell the
> truth, so we all became accustomed to swallowing lies. In recent years,
> however, Russia has wanted to become a normal country, to behave by
> internationally-accepted norms, and to earn the trust of the world. Could
> standards be applied retroactively?
>
> Sure enough, I found the FAI "Sporting Code" on the Internet. It has an
> entire section on "Complaints", and section 5.2 is entitled "Penalties and
> Disqualifications". Subsection 5.2.2.3 defines "Unsporting Behavior" this
> way: "Cheating or unsporting behavior, including deliberate attempts to
> deceive or mislead officials, falsification of documents, or repeated
> serious infringements of rules should, as a guide, result in
> disqualification from the sporting event."
>
> There was no need to withdraw the Russian flight records, since they really
> had performed the feats described. But I was hopeful that the false
> information could at least be expunged from the archives of the world body.
> I figured that the best way to do that was to have some official just ask
> the Russians to file a letter of amendment to the original claims.
>
> It wasn't as easy as all that, I discovered. I located the U.S. association
> affiliated with the FAI, the "National Aeronautic Association" in Arlington,
> Virginia, and I proposed to them that the Russians be asked to correct the
> false information on their original records claims.
>
> On November 21, 1997, association official Art Greenfield (the secretary of
> the "Contests and Records Board") wrote back to me to politely explain why
> that wasn't going to happen. "I understand that you believe the Russians
> falsified the coordinates of the launch site of those flights in the record
> dossiers," he began, adding that since they don't have those dossiers on
> file at their office, they had no way of confirming this.
>
> "Perhaps the Russians did attempt to mislead us about the takeoff location
> for reasons of national security," he conceded. However, since the actual
> flights are not in doubt, "we see no compelling reason to confront our
> Russian counterparts with allegations of wrongdoing dating back to the Cold
> War era." He concluded that these days both Russians and Americans "are
> actively involved" with work that "promotes public understanding and
> awareness of the importance of space flight," and furthermore, "We hope that
> this cooperative effort will continue for as long as we explore space."
>
> Max Bishop, the FAI Secretary General in Paris, concurred. "No space records
> depend on the precise location of the launch site," he pointed out quite
> correctly. "Therefore modifying the coordinates of Baikonur will in no way
> affect any FAI-approved performance. We do not intend to take any action."

[Jim Oberg]

"Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote
> Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
> terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
> Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.

You have trouble with English, malchik?

It's great the Soviets were first in space -- it was the only
practical method of goosing the US gummint to spend
tens of billions of dollars in response.

It's NOT great that people are so tolerant of
Soviet lies -- that's L-I-E-S -- about their
space achievements. If I were a Russian, and
somebody said, "Yeah, we know the Russians
lie about stuff but we have to get used to it, they're
only Russians, after all, they can't help themselves,"
I'd be insulted. But that's only me.

Maybe you're proud of getting away with so many lies?

All I hoped to do was add an asterisk to the Soviet-era
records documentation that some information in them
was later found to be false.

[Thomas Lee Elifritz]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote
>
>>Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
>>terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
>>Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
>
>
> You have trouble with English, malchik?
>
> It's great the Soviets were first in space -- it was the only
> practical method of goosing the US gummint to spend
> tens of billions of dollars in response.
>
> It's NOT great that people are so tolerant of
> Soviet lies -- that's L-I-E-S -- about their
> space achievements. If I were a Russian, and
> somebody said, "Yeah, we know the Russians
> lie about stuff but we have to get used to it, they're
> only Russians, after all, they can't help themselves,"
> I'd be insulted. But that's only me.

No, I'm insulted by George W. Bush and his cronies lies,
and I am particularly insulted by NASA and NOAA lies.
>
> Maybe you're proud of getting away with so many lies?

No, we're ashamed of our goverment and our agencies, and we damn well
intend to do something about it.
>
> All I hoped to do was add an asterisk to the Soviet-era
> records documentation that some information in them
> was later found to be false.

As in weapons of mass destruction?

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

[Mary Pegg]

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

> Mary Pegg wrote:
>
>> Interesting, but surely a bigger obstacle to the FAI recognising
>> the claims is that Gagarin bailed out, and therefore did not
>> complete the flight?
>
> Anything to get the butt ****ing dumb American public off the glaring
> NASA and administration technical incompetence ball, eh, Mary?
>
> That's fine with me, go ahead, give it your best shot. Make my day.

<sigh>

My point is that if the FAI don't care about the bailing out, they certainly
won't care that the launch location is a couple of degrees out.

Gagarin will be remembered long after the FAI has been consigned to history.

What your point is exactly, FIIK.

[Irwin Fletcher]

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" > wrote:

> As in weapons of mass destruction?


Hey Thomas,

Why don't you ask the Kurds about those weapons of mass destruction?

Or are all those dead in shallow graves liars too? Perhaps they all just
died simultaneously of heart attacks, and the Republican Guard was just
gracious enough to arrange for their burial.

[Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov]

"Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote in message
...
>
> Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
> terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
> Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
>
> VM.
>

So now they are last in space.

Don't feel bad though, lots of Euros are sitting around talking about the
good ol' days. Think about all the Spaniards that are dreaming of the days
when they were beating up defenseless indigenous peoples in the Americas. I
could go on but you get the picture.

[Vladimir Makarenko]

Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:
>
> "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
> > terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
> > Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
> >
> > VM.
> >
>
> So now they are last in space.

Last or the last?

>
> Don't feel bad though, lots of Euros are sitting around talking about the
> good ol' days. Think about all the Spaniards that are dreaming of the days
> when they were beating up defenseless indigenous peoples in the Americas. I
> could go on but you get the picture.

I don't think much about the space techs anyway. However in my wild
guess what Russians are really thinking today is how much to charge the
world for their exclusive ability to fly and launch spaceships.
Make the math if you are capable.

VM.

[Brian Thorn]

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:59:18 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
> wrote:


>But whatever number of commas you will change in these records, add or
>subtract a couple degrees, it will never change the fact that Soviets
>did not lie about their achievements: they were first in space.

If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
lie about them in 1961?

Brian

[[email protected]]

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
> Mary Pegg wrote:
>
> > Jim Oberg wrote:
> >
> >
> >>This topic came up in an earlier discussion, so here is a
> >>section of my book, 'Star-Crossed Orbits', that tries
> >>to put it into perspective:
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Interesting, but surely a bigger obstacle to the FAI recognising
> > the claims is that Gagarin bailed out, and therefore did not
> > complete the flight?
>
> Anything to get the butt ****ing dumb American public off the glaring
> NASA and administration technical incompetence ball, eh, Mary?
>
> That's fine with me, go ahead, give it your best shot. Make my day.
>
> Punk.
>

Thomas, I don't think you realize the inmportance of such things. As it
stands, USA id just 1 Guinness world records ahead of the next
competitiors: Germans. As the Germans plan 2 new world records planned
in hte next month: one for eating the most sourkraut while singing
"Deutschland, Deutschland, Ueber Alles!" and the other one for writing
the most anti-Serb articles in a period of one week. USA has just one
planned: the record number of foreign journalists tortured by being
made to eat the most number of huamburgers.

If USA is to keep its coveted World leadership in the Guinnnes race,
Soviet primacy in space travel have to be taken away and given to our
good old Ameircan Wernher Von Braun. No, wait! Wernher and his team
were also Germans!

Unfortunately, after the death of Wernher Von Braun and his Nazi SS
team, their blueprints for space travel have been lost because NASA
doesn't have any transaltors from German.

But USA still holds the most important space travel record for the
greatest number of astronauts taken to space by the Russian Zoyuz
craft.

Moreover, I hear NASA is deadlocked with China and India in a race to
be the first country other than Russia to be able to send a craft into
space and be able to return it wihtout any major explosions. I hear
NASA is planning to spend many $billions on this noble task. Although
this can be solved much more cheaply by hiring a German translator...

[[email protected]]

Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:
> "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
> > terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
> > Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
> >
> > VM.
> >
>
> So now they are last in space.
>

Ironic, isn't it? When the Rusisans first went into Space, we all
thought that just 10 years later, at least 10 ohter coutries would be
in Space.

And surely, just a few years later the USA was the second country in
Space.

But then things went weird. Now, 45 years later, not only no other
country has joined these two, but one of these two - USA - lost all of
its knowledge as how to safely return spacecraft to Earth.

So, now Russia is once again the only Space country. The last one in
space, as you put it so well. And if some American astronauts want to
see what the Earth looks like from the ooutside, NASA has to beg Rusisa
to take them there on hteir Soyuz craft.

What Nazi SS secret died with Von Braun's death? Can't we somehow
recover it? Does NASA have any German translators?

Moreover, for almost 10 years, all Russian space and nuclear secrets
were open to the CIA. How come CIA did such a lousy job putting them to
use? Is the problem the same as with Von Braun's legacy: no Russian
translators?

[Rusty]

wrote:
> Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
> > Mary Pegg wrote:
> >
> > > Jim Oberg wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>This topic came up in an earlier discussion, so here is a
> > >>section of my book, 'Star-Crossed Orbits', that tries
> > >>to put it into perspective:
> > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Interesting, but surely a bigger obstacle to the FAI recognising
> > > the claims is that Gagarin bailed out, and therefore did not
> > > complete the flight?
> >
> > Anything to get the butt ****ing dumb American public off the glaring
> > NASA and administration technical incompetence ball, eh, Mary?
> >
> > That's fine with me, go ahead, give it your best shot. Make my day.
> >
> > Punk.
> >
>
> Thomas, I don't think you realize the inmportance of such things. As it
> stands, USA id just 1 Guinness world records ahead of the next
> competitiors: Germans. As the Germans plan 2 new world records planned
> in hte next month: one for eating the most sourkraut while singing
> "Deutschland, Deutschland, Ueber Alles!" and the other one for writing
> the most anti-Serb articles in a period of one week. USA has just one
> planned: the record number of foreign journalists tortured by being
> made to eat the most number of huamburgers.
>
> If USA is to keep its coveted World leadership in the Guinnnes race,
> Soviet primacy in space travel have to be taken away and given to our
> good old Ameircan Wernher Von Braun. No, wait! Wernher and his team
> were also Germans!
>

"Vonce da rockets go up, who cares vere dey come down!
Dat's not my department!", says Wernher Von Braun.

;-)

Rusty

[Vladimir Makarenko]

Brian Thorn wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:59:18 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>But whatever number of commas you will change in these records, add or
>>subtract a couple degrees, it will never change the fact that Soviets
>>did not lie about their achievements: they were first in space.
>
>
> If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
> lie about them in 1961?
>

You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
They said more than enough. All that crap that they "lied" is just
another loser whining.

And btw, - recently US Airforce took out of US National Archives
thousands of documents including those dated by fifties. So what lies
from mid XX cent. is necessary to protect today hiding the truth?

VM.

> Brian

[Sander Vesik]

Irwin Fletcher wrote:
> "Thomas Lee Elifritz" > wrote:
>
> > As in weapons of mass destruction?
>
>
> Hey Thomas,
>
> Why don't you ask the Kurds about those weapons of mass destruction?
>
> Or are all those dead in shallow graves liars too? Perhaps they all just
> died simultaneously of heart attacks, and the Republican Guard was just
> gracious enough to arrange for their burial.

The Kurds would probably tel lhim that they are disgusted that the US
sold Saddam chemical weapon agents and components which were then used
on Kurds...

[Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov]

"Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote in message
. ..
> Brian Thorn wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:59:18 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>But whatever number of commas you will change in these records, add or
>>>subtract a couple degrees, it will never change the fact that Soviets
>>>did not lie about their achievements: they were first in space.
>>
>>
>> If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
>> lie about them in 1961?
>>
>
> You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
> had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
> They said more than enough. All that crap that they "lied" is just another
> loser whining.
>

Soviets lied about all sorts of minor details...like their vast military
industrial complex that was created for the sole purpose of researching and
manufacturing chemical and biological weapons.

They lied about the Katyn massacre. They lied about the gulag system.

The entire Soviet Union was nothing but lies.

The entire solar system is littered with Soviet space junk, failed missions
that they "forgot" to mention.

> And btw, - recently US Airforce took out of US National Archives thousands
> of documents including those dated by fifties. So what lies from mid XX
> cent. is necessary to protect today hiding the truth?
>
> VM.
>
>> Brian

[Thomas Lee Elifritz]

Mary Pegg wrote:

>>>Interesting, but surely a bigger obstacle to the FAI recognising
>>>the claims is that Gagarin bailed out, and therefore did not
>>>complete the flight?
>>
>>Anything to get the butt ****ing dumb American public off the glaring
>>NASA and administration technical incompetence ball, eh, Mary?
>>
>>That's fine with me, go ahead, give it your best shot. Make my day.
>
>
> <sigh>
>
> My point is that if the FAI don't care about the bailing out, they certainly
> won't care that the launch location is a couple of degrees out.
>
> Gagarin will be remembered long after the FAI has been consigned to history.
>
> What your point is exactly, FIIK.

That's a good point.

My point? What's the FAI and why should I care?

I don't see how they are going to stop me from launching a rocket from
the Bahamas using Russian engines.

Jim Oberg is an obvious Bush, Griffin and NASA apologist, er ...
propagandist. I often wonder if he gets paid to post here.
Really, lately, it's been one dumb thing to another with him.

The NASA art thing was really bad, but this is beyond the pale.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

[Thomas Lee Elifritz]

Irwin Fletcher wrote:

>>As in weapons of mass destruction?
>
>
>
> Hey Thomas,
>
> Why don't you ask the Kurds about those weapons of mass destruction?
>
> Or are all those dead in shallow graves liars too? Perhaps they all just
> died simultaneously of heart attacks, and the Republican Guard was just
> gracious enough to arrange for their burial.

Saddam was a petty dictator, there are many just as bad or worse.

I'm too busy trying to figure out why Bush isn't doing SQUAT for Darfur.

Airfields, a massive embassy compound, Bush never had any intention of
handing over IRAQ to the IRAQIES, it always was about conquest there.

IRAN, Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, it's all the oil end game. That's why
they're so ****ed off about Mexico and Venezuala. You just don't get it.

The trouble is, they're so ****ing incompetent and dumb, they screwed it
up just like every other thing they've touched. VSE/ESAS in particular.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

[Jim Oberg]

"Sander Vesik" > wrote
> The Kurds would probably tel lhim that they are disgusted that the US
> sold Saddam chemical weapon agents and components which were then used
> on Kurds...


Since we didn't, I doubt they would --
can't you guys break the chain of telling lies to each other?

[Thomas Lee Elifritz]

Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:

> So now they are last in space.

They are unarguably first in manned space right now.

They were first then, and they are first now.

Any argument you make against that is totally unfounded and revisionist.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

[Brian Thorn]

On 19 Apr 2006 15:26:34 -0700, wrote:

>> So now they are last in space.

>Ironic, isn't it?

No, just uninformed.

>When the Rusisans first went into Space, we all
>thought that just 10 years later, at least 10 ohter coutries would be
>in Space.
>
>And surely, just a few years later the USA was the second country in
>Space.

Years?

Sputnik 1 (USSR): October 4, 1957
Explorer 1 (USA): January 31, 1958

Vostok 1 (Gagarin): April 12, 1961
Freedom 7 (Shepard): May 5, 1961 (suborbital)
Friendship 7 (Glenn): February 20, 1962

>But then things went weird. Now, 45 years later, not only no other
>country has joined these two, but one of these two -

Er, pay no attention to China's Shenzhou 5 and Shenzhou 6...

>USA - lost all of
>its knowledge as how to safely return spacecraft to Earth.

Funny, they just did so on August 9, 2005.

Brian

[Thomas Lee Elifritz]

Brian Thorn wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:59:18 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>But whatever number of commas you will change in these records, add or
>>subtract a couple degrees, it will never change the fact that Soviets
>>did not lie about their achievements: they were first in space.
>
>
> If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
> lie about them in 1961?

Because he just stated that the details are unimportant.

You are the ones asking, not us. Jeez.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

[Thomas Lee Elifritz]

wrote:
> Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
>
>>Mary Pegg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jim Oberg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>This topic came up in an earlier discussion, so here is a
>>>>section of my book, 'Star-Crossed Orbits', that tries
>>>>to put it into perspective:
>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>Interesting, but surely a bigger obstacle to the FAI recognising
>>>the claims is that Gagarin bailed out, and therefore did not
>>>complete the flight?
>>
>>Anything to get the butt ****ing dumb American public off the glaring
>>NASA and administration technical incompetence ball, eh, Mary?
>>
>>That's fine with me, go ahead, give it your best shot. Make my day.
>>
>>Punk.
>>
>
>
> Thomas, I don't think you realize the inmportance of such things. As it
> stands, USA id just 1 Guinness world records ahead of the next
> competitiors: Germans. As the Germans plan 2 new world records planned
> in hte next month: one for eating the most sourkraut while singing
> "Deutschland, Deutschland, Ueber Alles!" and the other one for writing
> the most anti-Serb articles in a period of one week. USA has just one
> planned: the record number of foreign journalists tortured by being
> made to eat the most number of huamburgers.
>
> If USA is to keep its coveted World leadership in the Guinnnes race,
> Soviet primacy in space travel have to be taken away and given to our
> good old Ameircan Wernher Von Braun. No, wait! Wernher and his team
> were also Germans!
>
> Unfortunately, after the death of Wernher Von Braun and his Nazi SS
> team, their blueprints for space travel have been lost because NASA
> doesn't have any transaltors from German.
>
> But USA still holds the most important space travel record for the
> greatest number of astronauts taken to space by the Russian Zoyuz
> craft.
>
> Moreover, I hear NASA is deadlocked with China and India in a race to
> be the first country other than Russia to be able to send a craft into
> space and be able to return it wihtout any major explosions. I hear
> NASA is planning to spend many $billions on this noble task. Although
> this can be solved much more cheaply by hiring a German translator...

That's why we post here on sci.space.policy, we are just spilling over
because of the cross posting. What we want is for the US, Russia, China
and India, and every other third world country to participate in the
development of space, cooperatively and independently. It is good for
education, good for diplomacy, good for the populations, and good for
technology, and hopefully, if it's done right, good for the environment.

It sure beats the hell out of a nightmarish descent into global food,
water, oil and resource wars, weaponization, and nuclear armageddon.


http://cosmic.lifeform.org

[Brian Thorn]

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:25:15 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
> wrote:

>> If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
>> lie about them in 1961?

>You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
>had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?

Well, that the spacecraft wasn't safe for the cosmonaut to land in...
that's a pretty important detail. Nevermind that, per the aviation
rules of the time (which the Soviets publicly supported) bailing out
of an aircraft or spacecraft negated the flight.

>They said more than enough. All that crap that they "lied" is just
>another loser whining.

Nonsense. The only one whining around here is you. The rest of us have
acknowledged that Gagarin was heroic and the first man to travel in
space.

>And btw, - recently US Airforce took out of US National Archives
>thousands of documents including those dated by fifties.

Reference?

Brian

[Jorge R. Frank]

Brian Thorn > wrote in
:

> On 19 Apr 2006 15:26:34 -0700, wrote:
>
>>USA - lost all of
>>its knowledge as how to safely return spacecraft to Earth.
>
> Funny, they just did so on August 9, 2005.

And under a broader definition of "they", three times in 2004 as well.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Ten Cuidado]

"Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:
> >
> > "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
> > > terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
> > > Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
> > >
> > > VM.
> > >
> >
> > So now they are last in space.
>
> Last or the last?
>
> >
> > Don't feel bad though, lots of Euros are sitting around talking about
the
> > good ol' days. Think about all the Spaniards that are dreaming of the
days
> > when they were beating up defenseless indigenous peoples in the
Americas. I
> > could go on but you get the picture.
>
> I don't think much about the space techs anyway. However in my wild
> guess what Russians are really thinking today is how much to charge the
> world for their exclusive ability to fly and launch spaceships.
> Make the math if you are capable.
>
> VM.


Malchik, you're a sorry excuse for a man. Your bias is obvious. You need
to grow up.

[Rand Simberg]

Sander Vesik wrote:

>>Why don't you ask the Kurds about those weapons of mass destruction?
>>
>>Or are all those dead in shallow graves liars too? Perhaps they all just
>>died simultaneously of heart attacks, and the Republican Guard was just
>>gracious enough to arrange for their burial.
>
>
> The Kurds would probably tel lhim that they are disgusted that the US
> sold Saddam chemical weapon agents and components which were then used
> on Kurds...

Actually, Iraqi Kurdistan is one of the friendliest places to Americans
on the planet about now.

[Thomas Lee Elifritz]

Brian Thorn wrote:

>>USA - lost all of
>>its knowledge as how to safely return spacecraft to Earth.
>
>
> Funny, they just did so on August 9, 2005.

After almost losing it again on launch. They can't even solve a simple
insulation problem. It's a fundamental problem in need of a solution.

And now they want to trade in those spaceplanes,
for an armored capsule on top of an SRB.

That's NASA progress!

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

[Thomas Lee Elifritz]

Sander Vesik wrote:

>>>As in weapons of mass destruction?
>>
>>
>>Hey Thomas,
>>
>>Why don't you ask the Kurds about those weapons of mass destruction?
>>
>>Or are all those dead in shallow graves liars too? Perhaps they all just
>>died simultaneously of heart attacks, and the Republican Guard was just
>>gracious enough to arrange for their burial.
>
>
> The Kurds would probably tel lhim that they are disgusted that the US
> sold Saddam chemical weapon agents and components which were then used
> on Kurds...

I've heard they are pretty disgusted with the US still, as we speak.

Saddam was a petty dictator, the only reason he was able to amass a
large army is that he had lots of oil and help from weapons producers.

Who are these weapons producers, and why aren't they building hydrogen
powered SSTOs and RLVs, I ask.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

[[email protected]]

Brian Thorn wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2006 15:26:34 -0700, wrote:
> >Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:
>
> >> So now they are last in space.
>
> >Ironic, isn't it?
>
> No, just uninformed.
>
> >When the Rusisans first went into Space, we all
> >thought that just 10 years later, at least 10 ohter coutries would be
> >in Space.
> >
> >And surely, just a few years later the USA was the second country in
> >Space.
>
> Years?
>
> Sputnik 1 (USSR): October 4, 1957
> Explorer 1 (USA): January 31, 1958
>
> Vostok 1 (Gagarin): April 12, 1961
> Freedom 7 (Shepard): May 5, 1961 (suborbital)
> Friendship 7 (Glenn): February 20, 1962
>
> >But then things went weird. Now, 45 years later, not only no other
> >country has joined these two, but one of these two -
>
> Er, pay no attention to China's Shenzhou 5 and Shenzhou 6...
>

True. But I was replying to that idiot Brookski (aka Ivan Ivanovich)
who tried to make fun of Rusisans because they are the "last in
space". As you have pointed out, Russians aren't the last ones left in
space. Chinese arer there too. And someday even Americans may re-join
them. In terms of manned craft.

But I really don't think it's wise to spend US taxpayer money on
traveling in space when there are so many countries still to be
invaded here on Earht: Belarus, Iran, Venezuella, Peru, Syria, Cuba,
North Korea, Uzbekistan. The US government and the
military-indutstrial complex can easily steal at least $10 trillion
more in taxpayer money here on Earth before we have to go back into
space.

BTW, here is a wild idea as to why USA can no longer fly safe manned
craft into space after Von Braun's death. NASA no longer wants to rely
exclusively on foreign scientists and engineers. But with the way we
educate our children these days, our high school graduates can barely
add two fractions, while our gifted children are forced to rot in
classes with mental retards (and those are just the teachers). Thus,
fewer and fewer US high school graduates are capable of being
scientists and engineers. Thus, unless NASA follows the high tech
indistry's example amd limits the number of US engineers to no more
than, say, 1% - NASA is doomed.

Of course, another solution would be to improve elementary and
secondary education and to even give parents choice, but that can't be
done because this would be discriminatory, as gifted students would
learn more than very special children (children with IQs below 80). No
concientious liberal would ever agree to that.

>
> >USA - lost all of
> >its knowledge as how to safely return spacecraft to Earth.
>
> Funny, they just did so on August 9, 2005.
>

I was talking about manned craft.

[Scott Hedrick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> But then things went weird. Now, 45 years later, not only no other
> country has joined these two

The Chinese would disagree.

And *they* managed to land inside their Soviet-designed spaceship, the first
time.

[Jorge R. Frank]

wrote in news:1145502902.681683.321610
@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:

> Brian Thorn wrote:
>> On 19 Apr 2006 15:26:34 -0700, wrote:
>> >Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:
>>
>> >USA - lost all of
>> >its knowledge as how to safely return spacecraft to Earth.
>>
>> Funny, they just did so on August 9, 2005.
>
> I was talking about manned craft.

So was Brian. Eileen Collins and Wendy Lawrence may not be men, but the
rest of the STS-114 crew would likely object to your statement.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Jim Davis]

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

> My point? What's the FAI and why should I care?
>
> I don't see how they are going to stop me from launching a
> rocket from the Bahamas using Russian engines.

I somehow doubt anyone sees this as an insuperable problem. :-)

Jim Davis

[Vladimir Makarenko]

Brian Thorn wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:25:15 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
>>>lie about them in 1961?
>
>
>>You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
>>had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
>
>
> Well, that the spacecraft wasn't safe for the cosmonaut to land in...
> that's a pretty important detail. Nevermind that, per the aviation
> rules of the time (which the Soviets publicly supported) bailing out
> of an aircraft or spacecraft negated the flight.

Not really when Soviet shot down U2 and the pilot bailed out - that fact
didn't negate the spy flight which of course was against international
rules which the US in the time publicly supported.

>
>
>>They said more than enough. All that crap that they "lied" is just
>>another loser whining.
>
>
> Nonsense. The only one whining around here is you. The rest of us have
> acknowledged that Gagarin was heroic and the first man to travel in
> space.

Switch from "I" to "we" is always very symptomatic. It doesn't work
though. Better try to cut your crap.

>
>
>>And btw, - recently US Airforce took out of US National Archives
>>thousands of documents including those dated by fifties.
>
>
> Reference?

E.g. NYT of 04/19/2006 - i.e. today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/opinion/19weds4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Now read and continue to bitch how Soviets won space race.

VM.


>
> Brian

[Vladimir Makarenko]

Ten Cuidado wrote:

> "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:
>>
>>>"Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
>>>>terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
>>>>Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
>>>>
>>>>VM.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So now they are last in space.
>>
>>Last or the last?
>>
>>
>>>Don't feel bad though, lots of Euros are sitting around talking about
>
> the
>
>>>good ol' days. Think about all the Spaniards that are dreaming of the
>
> days
>
>>>when they were beating up defenseless indigenous peoples in the
>
> Americas. I
>
>>>could go on but you get the picture.
>>
>>I don't think much about the space techs anyway. However in my wild
>>guess what Russians are really thinking today is how much to charge the
>>world for their exclusive ability to fly and launch spaceships.
>>Make the math if you are capable.
>>
>>VM.
>
>
>
> Malchik,

Doesn't matter what a big mouth you have it'll not accomodate my "malchik".
Get lost, pervert.

VM.

you're a sorry excuse for a man. Your bias is obvious. You need
> to grow up.
>
>
>
>

[Vladimir Makarenko]

Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:

> "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Brian Thorn wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:59:18 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>But whatever number of commas you will change in these records, add or
>>>>subtract a couple degrees, it will never change the fact that Soviets
>>>>did not lie about their achievements: they were first in space.
>>>
>>>
>>>If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
>>>lie about them in 1961?
>>>
>>
>>You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
>>had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
>>They said more than enough. All that crap that they "lied" is just another
>>loser whining.
>>
>
>
> Soviets lied about all sorts of minor details...like their vast military
> industrial complex that was created for the sole purpose of researching and
> manufacturing chemical and biological weapons.
>
> They lied about the Katyn massacre. They lied about the gulag system.
>
> The entire Soviet Union was nothing but lies.
>
> The entire solar system is littered with Soviet space junk, failed missions
> that they "forgot" to mention.

Now stop hysterics, get preparationH and go to visit your buddy Bill
O'Reilly. You will need the both looking for WMD.

VM.



>
>
>>And btw, - recently US Airforce took out of US National Archives thousands
>>of documents including those dated by fifties. So what lies from mid XX
>>cent. is necessary to protect today hiding the truth?
>>
>>VM.
>>
>>
>>>Brian
>
>
>

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Vladimir Makarenko wrote:
>
> Jim Oberg wrote:
>
>>"Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote
>>
>>>Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
>>>terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
>>>Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
>>
>>You have trouble with English, malchik?
>>
>>It's great the Soviets were first in space -- it was the only
>>practical method of goosing the US gummint to spend
>>tens of billions of dollars in response.
>>
>>It's NOT great that people are so tolerant of
>>Soviet lies -- that's L-I-E-S -- about their
>>space achievements.
>
>
> Man, you really have a problem. You want to change a couple of records
> in whatever book - go ahead. You are not seriously thinking that I care?
> But whatever number of commas you will change in these records, add or
> subtract a couple degrees, it will never change the fact that Soviets
> did not lie about their achievements: they were first in space. If you
> so upset that Gagarin bailed out while landing or left some garbage on
> the orbit - well, who gives a damn except you? - go change the archives
> records or whatever, just don't be such a drama queen.
> Boring.
>
> VM.
Well, you know Vladi, a little lie here, and another one there, and
perhaps a whopper in some other reference book, or perhaps a page
deleted from an encyclopedia, or a figure skillfully erased from
a photograph, AND PRETTY SOON YOU WILL HAVE REWRITTEN HISTORY.

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

wrote:

> So, now Russia is once again the only Space country. The last one in
> space, as you put it so well. And if some American astronauts want to
> see what the Earth looks like from the ooutside, NASA has to beg Rusisa
> to take them there on hteir Soyuz craft.
>
> What Nazi SS secret died with Von Braun's death? Can't we somehow
> recover it? Does NASA have any German translators?
>
> Moreover, for almost 10 years, all Russian space and nuclear secrets
> were open to the CIA. How come CIA did such a lousy job putting them to
> use? Is the problem the same as with Von Braun's legacy: no Russian
> translators?
>
But surely NASA can hire you and/or Makarenko for peanuts to translate
the russian and MTRP to translate the german into some semblance of
American english :) :-p

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:

> Soviets lied about all sorts of minor details...like their vast military
> industrial complex that was created for the sole purpose of researching and
> manufacturing chemical and biological weapons.

True. Lies minor and major . But lying is not an exclusively russian trait.
>
> They lied about the Katyn massacre. They lied about the gulag system.

True
>
> The entire Soviet Union was nothing but lies.

That's being too absolutist.
>
> The entire solar system is littered with Soviet space junk,
> failed missions that they "forgot" to mention.
>
Well not that much space junk. Failed launches that become space junk
are very visible. Failures on the ground like the N1 explosion don't
create space junk. But yours is a needlessly vindictive accusation.
After all there's no requirement to report failed missions.
It's just that one shouldn't deny them in order to make oneself look
better.

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Vladimir Makarenko wrote:

> Doesn't matter what a big mouth you have it'll not accomodate my "malchik".
> Get lost, pervert.
>
> VM.
>
Oh what a suggestion Vladi :)
I'd say that certainly the perversion here is all yours.
You should be ashamed making such an invitation.

[[email protected]]

Vladimir Makarenko wrote:
> Brian Thorn wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:59:18 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>But whatever number of commas you will change in these records, add or
> >>subtract a couple degrees, it will never change the fact that Soviets
> >>did not lie about their achievements: they were first in space.
> >
> >
> > If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
> > lie about them in 1961?
> >
>
> You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
> had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
> They said more than enough. All that crap that they "lied" is just
> another loser whining.
>

Actually more to the point, is that the Soviets played the same game,
and bitched to anyone who would listen about the LEAST little mistake
or typo-goof anyone else made- while DELIBERATELY lying themselves.
This is called 'hypocracy'. (Look it up.) The US conducted their
program in pretty much openess (granted, there were some secrets in
certain areas, NO ONE is denying that), but the Soviets were completely
behind the curtain. Because they only announced successful results,
anyone trying to do the same thing got wrong information- such as
success rates for different types of vehicles, ballistic results, etc.
Jim can tell you better what exactly was screwed up because of that,
but I do know the US spent a hell of a lot of time, effort, and money
reflying several planetary missions because the Soviets lied about
their successes. Their claims that Venera 4 transmitted from the
Venusian surface affected Venus probes' results for years. They failed
to announce failed launches, leading to all sorts of wild speculations,
including a potential highning of tensions during the Cuban Missile
Crisis when debris from a failed launch was detected coming over the
DEW line.
And complaints about current malfeisence is about as relevant as
mentioning Watergate in a discussion of how President Lincoln made his
political decisions.

[Volker Hetzer]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote
>> Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
>> terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
>> Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
>
> You have trouble with English, malchik?
>
> It's great the Soviets were first in space -- it was the only
> practical method of goosing the US gummint to spend
> tens of billions of dollars in response.
>
> It's NOT great that people are so tolerant of
> Soviet lies -- that's L-I-E-S -- about their
> space achievements.
They didn't lie about their space achievements, just about
the launch site. Which is firmly fastened to earth and not
in space at all. Really, who cares?

> If I were a Russian, and
> somebody said, "Yeah, we know the Russians
> lie about stuff but we have to get used to it, they're
> only Russians, after all, they can't help themselves,"
> I'd be insulted. But that's only me.
So your government never fed false information to the enemy?
Or your allies, fwiw?

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

[captain.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...

> But then things went weird. Now, 45 years later, not only no other
> country has joined these two, but one of these two -

china has.

[captain.]

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" > wrote in message
...

>
> That's why we post here on sci.space.policy, we are just spilling over
> because of the cross posting. What we want is for the US, Russia, China
> and India, and every other third world country to participate in the
> development of space, cooperatively and independently. It is good for
> education, good for diplomacy, good for the populations, and good for
> technology, and hopefully, if it's done right, good for the environment.
>
> It sure beats the hell out of a nightmarish descent into global food,
> water, oil and resource wars, weaponization, and nuclear armageddon.
>
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org


can't argue with that.

[Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov]

"captain." > wrote in message
news:5nI1g.3221$fL.2927@edtnps90...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>> But then things went weird. Now, 45 years later, not only no other
>> country has joined these two, but one of these two -
>
> china has.
>

Boring. It may be a big event for China, but not for the world.

[Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov]

"Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote in message
. ..
> Brian Thorn wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:25:15 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
>>>>lie about them in 1961?
>>
>>
>>>You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
>>>had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
>>
>>
>> Well, that the spacecraft wasn't safe for the cosmonaut to land in...
>> that's a pretty important detail. Nevermind that, per the aviation
>> rules of the time (which the Soviets publicly supported) bailing out
>> of an aircraft or spacecraft negated the flight.
>
> Not really when Soviet shot down U2 and the pilot bailed out - that fact
> didn't negate the spy flight which of course was against international
> rules which the US in the time publicly supported.
>

....and it doesn't negate the Soviets from going into the "stupid idiots"
record book when they had to fire 14 SAMs to get the U2 and they also shot
down one of their own chase MIGs in the process.

[Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov]

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
. ..
> Vladimir Makarenko wrote:
>
>> Doesn't matter what a big mouth you have it'll not accomodate my
>> "malchik".
>> Get lost, pervert.
>>
>> VM.
>>
> Oh what a suggestion Vladi :)
> I'd say that certainly the perversion here is all yours.
> You should be ashamed making such an invitation.
>

He does it all the time but his mom keeps saying "no".

[Mary Pegg]

[soc.trollski removed]

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

> wrote in news:1145502902.681683.321610
> @v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I was talking about manned craft.
>
> So was Brian. Eileen Collins and Wendy Lawrence may not be men, but the
> rest of the STS-114 crew would likely object to your statement.

Get thee to a dictionary. "Manned" is not gender specific.

[Mary Pegg]

wrote:

> This is called 'hypocracy'. (Look it up.)

"a government characterized by hypocrisy" - is that what you meant?

[Jorge R. Frank]

Mary Pegg > wrote in news:jjK1g.62430
:

> [soc.trollski removed]
>
> Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>
>> wrote in news:1145502902.681683.321610
>> @v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> I was talking about manned craft.
>>
>> So was Brian. Eileen Collins and Wendy Lawrence may not be men, but the
>> rest of the STS-114 crew would likely object to your statement.
>
> Get thee to a dictionary. "Manned" is not gender specific.

Get bent. It was a joke.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Jim Oberg]

> wrote
> Actually more to the point, is that the Soviets played the same game,
> and bitched to anyone who would listen about the LEAST little mistake
> or typo-goof anyone else made- while DELIBERATELY lying themselves.

Example: they complained to the FAI that White's EVA, and all subsequent
USA spacewalks, shouldn't be counted as 'REAL' EVAs because the
astronauts were on umbilical lines from their spacecraft. Amazingly,
the frenchies found some 'nads and told the soviet rep to stuff it.

[Jim Oberg]

"Volker Hetzer" > wrote
> They didn't lie about their space achievements, just about
> the launch site. Which is firmly fastened to earth and not
> in space at all. Really, who cares?

Aside from the fact that they DID lie about some aspects of their
space achievements, the question of the launch site was actually the
subject of the subsequent passages in my book. Here they are:

[I]t is reasonable to question the importance of a 1961 fraud in 2001.
That is, is there anybody out there who doesn't already know that the
official Soviet location for the cosmodrome is false? Why bother with an
official correction?



A compelling reason is that the original deception persists through sheer
informational inertia. Even a cursory survey of existing cartographic
products shows this. For example, recent world globes from Replogle (such as
the WORLD HORIZON "Livingston Illuminated" globe) and a World News Map
published by "U.S. News and World Report" show the town of Baykonur in its
correct location . But I would argue that nobody looks up Baykonur out of
interest in obscure coal-mining towns (in population and genuine importance
it's much too minor a spot to earn its own place on these maps), but only
out of a desire to find out where the famous cosmodrome of the same name is
located. If so, they are misled, since it is the "false Baykonur".



So I play this game whenever I visit book stores, and you can play too.
Check out the latest world atlases to see if they have the cosmodrome at the
correct location on the Syr Darya River just east of the Aral Sea, or if
they label "Baykonur" where the original and utterly unimportant town still
is. Hammond's "New Century World Atlas" (1997) has the false location, as
does "Webster's Concise World Atlas" (1998). So does Rand McNally's "Classic
World Atlas" (1996). The French mapmaker Gabelli issued a map of Asia in
1994, and it showed the false Baikonur.



Even more explicitly, the 1994 Oxford Encyclopedic World Atlas has a special
updated section on the new post-Soviet geography, and its feature on
Kazakhstan specifies the Baykonur Cosmodrome as one of the most important
features of that new country. But the Baykonur shown on the actual map is
the deceptive one. And in the Oxford Dictionary of the World (Oxford
University Press, 1996, editor David Mauro), the definition of "Baikonur" on
page 63 is "a coal-mining town in Kazakhstan, n.e. of the Aral Sea. Nearby
is the Baikonur Cosmodrome". Neither the Oxford atlas, nor the other
misleading products mentioned earlier, show anything at all near the Syr
Darya River where the cosmodrome and its support city of Leninsk are
actually situated.



Some did get it right, such as 'National Geographic'. Some listed the old
"Baikonur" but also had correctly-located entries such as "Space Launching
Centre" or "Leninsk" (the city where the space workers live). But they
obviously didn't rely on official FAI documents for their information.



Without making too big a deal out of a minor historical falsification, I've
always figured that continued toleration of such deception is an insult to
modern Russia. Isn't it just a condescending way of saying, "We know
Russians are liars, so why bother to expect them to tell the truth?" If I
were a Russian, I would deeply resent such bigotry.



This isn't just ancient space history. The same attitude has persisted all
the way into the current day. Throughout this book, we shall see many cases
in which American officials talk themselves into tolerating Russian
deception since, after all, "they're only Russians" and we need to get used
to it. The lamentable consequences of this attitude will soon be all too
apparent in subsequent chapters.



See http://www.jamesoberg.com/orbits.html for more info on the book.

[Mary Pegg]

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

>>>> I was talking about manned craft.
>>>
>>> So was Brian. Eileen Collins and Wendy Lawrence may not be men, but the
>>> rest of the STS-114 crew would likely object to your statement.
>>
>> Get thee to a dictionary. "Manned" is not gender specific.
>
> Get bent. It was a joke.

Shoulda known, I guess.

[[email protected]]

Yuri Gagarin first man into space and orbiting the Planet.
all that other stuff just get freaking over it.

Peace

http://www.2000ah.blogspot.com

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:

> "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote
>
>>Brian Thorn wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:25:15 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
>>>>>lie about them in 1961?
>>>
>>>>You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
>>>>had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
>>>
>>>Well, that the spacecraft wasn't safe for the cosmonaut to land in...
>>>that's a pretty important detail. Nevermind that, per the aviation
>>>rules of the time (which the Soviets publicly supported) bailing out
>>>of an aircraft or spacecraft negated the flight.
>>
>>Not really when Soviet shot down U2 and the pilot bailed out - that fact
>>didn't negate the spy flight which of course was against international
>>rules which the US in the time publicly supported.
>>
> ...and it doesn't negate the Soviets from going into the "stupid idiots"
> record book when they had to fire 14 SAMs to get the U2 and they also shot
> down one of their own chase MIGs in the process.
>
>
Yeah, But they got it! And your statement is such obvious sour grapes
that it's comical.
Do you blame Gary Powers for letting himself and his plane be captured?

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Jim Oberg wrote:

> > wrote
>
>>Actually more to the point, is that the Soviets played the same game,
>>and bitched to anyone who would listen about the LEAST little mistake
>>or typo-goof anyone else made- while DELIBERATELY lying themselves.
>
>
> Example: they complained to the FAI that White's EVA, and all subsequent
> USA spacewalks, shouldn't be counted as 'REAL' EVAs because the
> astronauts were on umbilical lines from their spacecraft. Amazingly,
> the frenchies found some 'nads and told the soviet rep to stuff it.
>
>
Does, did, the FAI even have a definition for an EVA at the time
of White's and other's subsequent spacewalks?

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Jim Oberg wrote:

> "Volker Hetzer" > wrote
>
>>They didn't lie about their space achievements, just about
>>the launch site. Which is firmly fastened to earth and not
>>in space at all. Really, who cares?
>
>
> Aside from the fact that they DID lie about some aspects of their
> space achievements, the question of the launch site was actually the
> subject of the subsequent passages in my book. Here they are:
>
All right, Yes the Russians lied. And the question of the launch site
is the subject of umpteed subsequent passages in your book. :)
>
> See http://www.jamesoberg.com/orbits.html for more info on the book.
>
But I see nothing wrong with Atlases showing the correct location
for the town of Baikonur, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T ANNOTATE IT AS THE
SITE OF THE SPACE PORT! and do properly annotate Tyura-Tam as the
site of the space port, and Leninsk as the site of the place where
the support people live.
You certainly don't want them to rename Tyura-Tam as Baikonur.

Also by the way, I was looking at a fairly large scale soviet map of
Ukraine with a recent immigrant friend, and he pointed out several
places where the locations of some military bases were shown at
false locations. So apparently it was a more common ruse.
>
>
>
>

[Vladimir Makarenko]

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote:
>
> Vladimir Makarenko wrote:
> >
> > Jim Oberg wrote:
> >
> >>"Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote
> >>
> >>>Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
> >>>terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
> >>>Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
> >>
> >>You have trouble with English, malchik?
> >>
> >>It's great the Soviets were first in space -- it was the only
> >>practical method of goosing the US gummint to spend
> >>tens of billions of dollars in response.
> >>
> >>It's NOT great that people are so tolerant of
> >>Soviet lies -- that's L-I-E-S -- about their
> >>space achievements.
> >
> >
> > Man, you really have a problem. You want to change a couple of records
> > in whatever book - go ahead. You are not seriously thinking that I care?
> > But whatever number of commas you will change in these records, add or
> > subtract a couple degrees, it will never change the fact that Soviets
> > did not lie about their achievements: they were first in space. If you
> > so upset that Gagarin bailed out while landing or left some garbage on
> > the orbit - well, who gives a damn except you? - go change the archives
> > records or whatever, just don't be such a drama queen.
> > Boring.
> >
> > VM.
> Well, you know Vladi, a little lie here, and another one there, and
> perhaps a whopper in some other reference book, or perhaps a page
> deleted from an encyclopedia, or a figure skillfully erased from
> a photograph, AND PRETTY SOON YOU WILL HAVE REWRITTEN HISTORY.

This is exactly what this guy is trying to do. Where from his agenda
comes - paranoia or tabloid money - I don't give a damn. But he
demonstrated over years a pattern of behavior which is very simple -
everything Soviets have done in space race either sucks or very bad.
Read **** he was writing few years ago here and there that "Mir" station
is a major danger to the world, while not letting a single word about
gambling of the "Shuttle" program. This is the real history: "Mir" was
designed and built so robust that it withstood major accidents including
collision and continued to function properly twice as long as it was
initially supposed. "Shuttle" - you know what kind of "gem" this junk
turned out to be. Waste of human lives and money. So do not tell me
about "rewritten" history - when such guys are trying write it there is
no need to rewrite, whatever Ministry of Truth will review it.

VM.

[Thomas Lee Elifritz]

Jim Davis wrote:
> Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
>
>
>>My point? What's the FAI and why should I care?
>>
>>I don't see how they are going to stop me from launching a
>>rocket from the Bahamas using Russian engines.
>
>
> I somehow doubt anyone sees this as an insuperable problem. :-)

Which is why they are busy claiming absolute authority.

You would think these people have better things to do than examine old
space law treaties in minute detail, unless they ARE worried about it.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

[Vladimir Makarenko]

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote:
>
> Vladimir Makarenko wrote:
>
> > Doesn't matter what a big mouth you have it'll not accomodate my "malchik".
> > Get lost, pervert.
> >
> > VM.
> >
> Oh what a suggestion Vladi :)
> I'd say that certainly the perversion here is all yours.

Really? You see Rostyk, if somebody starts to talk to me trailer park
trash about "little boy", the person will get reply in the same
language.

> You should be ashamed making such an invitation.

My invitation to him was simple - "get lost".

VM.

[Eric Chomko]

Jim Oberg ) wrote:

: "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote
: > Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
: > terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
: > Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.

: You have trouble with English, malchik?

: It's great the Soviets were first in space -- it was the only
: practical method of goosing the US gummint to spend
: tens of billions of dollars in response.

: It's NOT great that people are so tolerant of
: Soviet lies -- that's L-I-E-S -- about their
: space achievements. If I were a Russian, and
: somebody said, "Yeah, we know the Russians
: lie about stuff but we have to get used to it, they're
: only Russians, after all, they can't help themselves,"
: I'd be insulted. But that's only me.

: Maybe you're proud of getting away with so many lies?

: All I hoped to do was add an asterisk to the Soviet-era
: records documentation that some information in them
: was later found to be false.


You should rather try and find the killers of JFK. What I don't understand
is how we got the Russians touting, "Lee Harvey Oswald lone nut". Yes, the
US has managed to have the Russians telling US lies. Now THAT is a trick!

Eric

[Eric Chomko]

wrote:

: Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
: > Mary Pegg wrote:
: >
: > > Jim Oberg wrote:
: > >
: > >
: > >>This topic came up in an earlier discussion, so here is a
: > >>section of my book, 'Star-Crossed Orbits', that tries
: > >>to put it into perspective:
: > >
: > >
: > > <snip>
: > >
: > > Interesting, but surely a bigger obstacle to the FAI recognising
: > > the claims is that Gagarin bailed out, and therefore did not
: > > complete the flight?
: >
: > Anything to get the butt ****ing dumb American public off the glaring
: > NASA and administration technical incompetence ball, eh, Mary?
: >
: > That's fine with me, go ahead, give it your best shot. Make my day.
: >
: > Punk.
: >

: Thomas, I don't think you realize the inmportance of such things. As it
: stands, USA id just 1 Guinness world records ahead of the next
: competitiors: Germans. As the Germans plan 2 new world records planned
: in hte next month: one for eating the most sourkraut while singing
: "Deutschland, Deutschland, Ueber Alles!" and the other one for writing
: the most anti-Serb articles in a period of one week. USA has just one
: planned: the record number of foreign journalists tortured by being
: made to eat the most number of huamburgers.

: If USA is to keep its coveted World leadership in the Guinnnes race,
: Soviet primacy in space travel have to be taken away and given to our
: good old Ameircan Wernher Von Braun. No, wait! Wernher and his team
: were also Germans!

: Unfortunately, after the death of Wernher Von Braun and his Nazi SS
: team, their blueprints for space travel have been lost because NASA
: doesn't have any transaltors from German.

: But USA still holds the most important space travel record for the
: greatest number of astronauts taken to space by the Russian Zoyuz
: craft.

: Moreover, I hear NASA is deadlocked with China and India in a race to
: be the first country other than Russia to be able to send a craft into
: space and be able to return it wihtout any major explosions. I hear
: NASA is planning to spend many $billions on this noble task. Although
: this can be solved much more cheaply by hiring a German translator...

Ich bin ein Berliner!

Where do I sign up?

[Vladimir Makarenko]

Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:
>
> "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Brian Thorn wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:25:15 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
> >>>>lie about them in 1961?
> >>
> >>
> >>>You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
> >>>had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, that the spacecraft wasn't safe for the cosmonaut to land in...
> >> that's a pretty important detail. Nevermind that, per the aviation
> >> rules of the time (which the Soviets publicly supported) bailing out
> >> of an aircraft or spacecraft negated the flight.
> >
> > Not really when Soviet shot down U2 and the pilot bailed out - that fact
> > didn't negate the spy flight which of course was against international
> > rules which the US in the time publicly supported.
> >
>
> ...and it doesn't negate the Soviets from going into the "stupid idiots"
> record book when they had to fire 14 SAMs to get the U2 and they also shot
> down one of their own chase MIGs in the process.

Have you got "preparation H" ? How date with Bill O'Reily went?

VM.

[Eric Chomko]

wrote:
: Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:
: > "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote in message
: > ...
: > >
: > > Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
: > > terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
: > > Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
: > >
: > > VM.
: > >
: >
: > So now they are last in space.
: >

: Ironic, isn't it? When the Rusisans first went into Space, we all
: thought that just 10 years later, at least 10 ohter coutries would be
: in Space.

: And surely, just a few years later the USA was the second country in
: Space.

: But then things went weird. Now, 45 years later, not only no other
: country has joined these two, but one of these two - USA - lost all of
: its knowledge as how to safely return spacecraft to Earth.

HAving a brief hiatus of shuttle flights doesn't mean we've forgotten.

: So, now Russia is once again the only Space country. The last one in
: space, as you put it so well. And if some American astronauts want to
: see what the Earth looks like from the ooutside, NASA has to beg Rusisa
: to take them there on hteir Soyuz craft.

Ha, but the US space memorabilia still outsells the Russia space stuff two
to one on eBay. So there!

: What Nazi SS secret died with Von Braun's death? Can't we somehow
: recover it? Does NASA have any German translators?

: Moreover, for almost 10 years, all Russian space and nuclear secrets
: were open to the CIA. How come CIA did such a lousy job putting them to
: use? Is the problem the same as with Von Braun's legacy: no Russian
: translators?

No, but in both cases its money.

Eric

[Vladimir Makarenko]

Jim Oberg wrote:
>

crap cut...

>
> See http://www.jamesoberg.com/orbits.html for more info on the book.

So - it is all about selling the book, hah?

VM.

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Vladimir Makarenko wrote:

>
> "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote:
>
>>Vladimir Makarenko wrote:
>>
>>>Jim Oberg wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
>>>>>terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
>>>>>Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
>>>>
>>>>You have trouble with English, malchik?
>>>>
>>>>It's great the Soviets were first in space -- it was the only
>>>>practical method of goosing the US gummint to spend
>>>>tens of billions of dollars in response.
>>>>
>>>>It's NOT great that people are so tolerant of
>>>>Soviet lies -- that's L-I-E-S -- about their
>>>>space achievements.
>>>
>>>
>>> Man, you really have a problem. You want to change a couple of records
>>>in whatever book - go ahead. You are not seriously thinking that I care?
>>> But whatever number of commas you will change in these records, add or
>>>subtract a couple degrees, it will never change the fact that Soviets
>>>did not lie about their achievements: they were first in space. If you
>>>so upset that Gagarin bailed out while landing or left some garbage on
>>>the orbit - well, who gives a damn except you? - go change the archives
>>>records or whatever, just don't be such a drama queen.
>>>Boring.
>>>
>>>VM.
>>
>>Well, you know Vladi, a little lie here, and another one there, and
>>perhaps a whopper in some other reference book, or perhaps a page
>>deleted from an encyclopedia, or a figure skillfully erased from
>>a photograph, AND PRETTY SOON YOU WILL HAVE REWRITTEN HISTORY.
>
>
> This is exactly what this guy is trying to do. Where from his agenda
> comes - paranoia or tabloid money - I don't give a damn. But he
> demonstrated over years a pattern of behavior which is very simple -
> everything Soviets have done in space race either sucks or very bad.
> Read **** he was writing few years ago here and there that "Mir" station
> is a major danger to the world, while not letting a single word about
> gambling of the "Shuttle" program. This is the real history: "Mir" was
> designed and built so robust that it withstood major accidents including
> collision and continued to function properly twice as long as it was
> initially supposed. "Shuttle" - you know what kind of "gem" this junk
> turned out to be. Waste of human lives and money. So do not tell me
> about "rewritten" history - when such guys are trying write it there is
> no need to rewrite, whatever Ministry of Truth will review it.
>
> VM.
Value judgements that you don't agree with is different from
intentional misstatement of facts (i.e. lies).

[Eric Chomko]

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: Sander Vesik wrote:

: >>Why don't you ask the Kurds about those weapons of mass destruction?
: >>
: >>Or are all those dead in shallow graves liars too? Perhaps they all just
: >>died simultaneously of heart attacks, and the Republican Guard was just
: >>gracious enough to arrange for their burial.
: >
: >
: > The Kurds would probably tel lhim that they are disgusted that the US
: > sold Saddam chemical weapon agents and components which were then used
: > on Kurds...

: Actually, Iraqi Kurdistan is one of the friendliest places to Americans
: on the planet about now.

And you'll prove it by going there right now?

[Eric Chomko]

Thomas Lee Elifritz ) wrote:
: Sander Vesik wrote:

: >>>As in weapons of mass destruction?
: >>
: >>
: >>Hey Thomas,
: >>
: >>Why don't you ask the Kurds about those weapons of mass destruction?
: >>
: >>Or are all those dead in shallow graves liars too? Perhaps they all just
: >>died simultaneously of heart attacks, and the Republican Guard was just
: >>gracious enough to arrange for their burial.
: >
: >
: > The Kurds would probably tel lhim that they are disgusted that the US
: > sold Saddam chemical weapon agents and components which were then used
: > on Kurds...

: I've heard they are pretty disgusted with the US still, as we speak.

: Saddam was a petty dictator, the only reason he was able to amass a
: large army is that he had lots of oil and help from weapons producers.

: Who are these weapons producers, and why aren't they building hydrogen
: powered SSTOs and RLVs, I ask.

More money in surface to surface and air to surfce missiles right now.

Eric

: http://cosmic.lifeform.org

[Eric Chomko]

Vladimir Makarenko ) wrote:
: Brian Thorn wrote:
: > On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:25:15 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
: > > wrote:
: >
: >
: >>>If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
: >>>lie about them in 1961?
: >
: >
: >>You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
: >>had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
: >
: >
: > Well, that the spacecraft wasn't safe for the cosmonaut to land in...
: > that's a pretty important detail. Nevermind that, per the aviation
: > rules of the time (which the Soviets publicly supported) bailing out
: > of an aircraft or spacecraft negated the flight.

: Not really when Soviet shot down U2 and the pilot bailed out - that fact
: didn't negate the spy flight which of course was against international
: rules which the US in the time publicly supported.

I spoke with a guy that felt that Powers should have went down with his
plane. Said guy's father worked for the CIA at the time.

I also know Powers' son, runs a Cold War history museum, who was born
after the incident and obviously disagree with guy number 1 (CIA man's
son).

: >>They said more than enough. All that crap that they "lied" is just
: >>another loser whining.
: >
: >
: > Nonsense. The only one whining around here is you. The rest of us have
: > acknowledged that Gagarin was heroic and the first man to travel in
: > space.

: Switch from "I" to "we" is always very symptomatic. It doesn't work
: though. Better try to cut your crap.

: >
: >
: >>And btw, - recently US Airforce took out of US National Archives
: >>thousands of documents including those dated by fifties.
: >
: >
: > Reference?

: E.g. NYT of 04/19/2006 - i.e. today:

: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/opinion/19weds4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

: Now read and continue to bitch how Soviets won space race.

Won? By never leaving LEO in a manned spacecraft?

Eric

: VM.


: >
: > Brian

[Herb Schaltegger]

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:39:48 -0500, Vladimir Makarenko wrote
(in article >):

>> ...and it doesn't negate the Soviets from going into the "stupid idiots"
>> record book when they had to fire 14 SAMs to get the U2 and they also shot
>> down one of their own chase MIGs in the process.
>
> Have you got "preparation H" ? How date with Bill O'Reily went?
>
> VM.

Gah, what a freaking apologist. Screw off you pseudo-Soviet troll.

<PLONK>

--
Herb

"Everything is controlled by a small evil group to which,
unfortunately, no one we know belongs."
~Anonymous

[Eric Chomko]

Mary Pegg ) wrote:
: wrote:

: > This is called 'hypocracy'. (Look it up.)

: "a government characterized by hypocrisy" - is that what you meant?

I was going to do that. You did it more elegantly than I would have. :)
It was the "look it up" part that got my attention, as the poster
obviously hadn't. But I digress...

Eric

[Eric Chomko]

Jim Oberg ) wrote:
: "Volker Hetzer" > wrote
: > They didn't lie about their space achievements, just about
: > the launch site. Which is firmly fastened to earth and not
: > in space at all. Really, who cares?

: Aside from the fact that they DID lie about some aspects of their
: space achievements, the question of the launch site was actually the
: subject of the subsequent passages in my book. Here they are:

: [I]t is reasonable to question the importance of a 1961 fraud in 2001.
: That is, is there anybody out there who doesn't already know that the
: official Soviet location for the cosmodrome is false? Why bother with an
: official correction?



: A compelling reason is that the original deception persists through sheer
: informational inertia. Even a cursory survey of existing cartographic
: products shows this. For example, recent world globes from Replogle (such as
: the WORLD HORIZON "Livingston Illuminated" globe) and a World News Map
: published by "U.S. News and World Report" show the town of Baykonur in its
: correct location . But I would argue that nobody looks up Baykonur out of
: interest in obscure coal-mining towns (in population and genuine importance
: it's much too minor a spot to earn its own place on these maps), but only
: out of a desire to find out where the famous cosmodrome of the same name is
: located. If so, they are misled, since it is the "false Baykonur".



: So I play this game whenever I visit book stores, and you can play too.

Funny I do that with American history books that discuss the JFK
assassination. Official line, 'Oswald lone nut' or the truth,
'conspiracy'.

Eric

: Check out the latest world atlases to see if they have the cosmodrome at the
: correct location on the Syr Darya River just east of the Aral Sea, or if
: they label "Baykonur" where the original and utterly unimportant town still
: is. Hammond's "New Century World Atlas" (1997) has the false location, as
: does "Webster's Concise World Atlas" (1998). So does Rand McNally's "Classic
: World Atlas" (1996). The French mapmaker Gabelli issued a map of Asia in
: 1994, and it showed the false Baikonur.



: Even more explicitly, the 1994 Oxford Encyclopedic World Atlas has a special
: updated section on the new post-Soviet geography, and its feature on
: Kazakhstan specifies the Baykonur Cosmodrome as one of the most important
: features of that new country. But the Baykonur shown on the actual map is
: the deceptive one. And in the Oxford Dictionary of the World (Oxford
: University Press, 1996, editor David Mauro), the definition of "Baikonur" on
: page 63 is "a coal-mining town in Kazakhstan, n.e. of the Aral Sea. Nearby
: is the Baikonur Cosmodrome". Neither the Oxford atlas, nor the other
: misleading products mentioned earlier, show anything at all near the Syr
: Darya River where the cosmodrome and its support city of Leninsk are
: actually situated.



: Some did get it right, such as 'National Geographic'. Some listed the old
: "Baikonur" but also had correctly-located entries such as "Space Launching
: Centre" or "Leninsk" (the city where the space workers live). But they
: obviously didn't rely on official FAI documents for their information.



: Without making too big a deal out of a minor historical falsification, I've
: always figured that continued toleration of such deception is an insult to
: modern Russia. Isn't it just a condescending way of saying, "We know
: Russians are liars, so why bother to expect them to tell the truth?" If I
: were a Russian, I would deeply resent such bigotry.



: This isn't just ancient space history. The same attitude has persisted all
: the way into the current day. Throughout this book, we shall see many cases
: in which American officials talk themselves into tolerating Russian
: deception since, after all, "they're only Russians" and we need to get used
: to it. The lamentable consequences of this attitude will soon be all too
: apparent in subsequent chapters.



: See http://www.jamesoberg.com/orbits.html for more info on the book.

[Eric Chomko]

Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj ) wrote:
: Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:

: > "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote
: >
: >>Brian Thorn wrote:
: >>
: >>>On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:25:15 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
: > wrote:
: >>>
: >>>>>If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
: >>>>>lie about them in 1961?
: >>>
: >>>>You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
: >>>>had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
: >>>
: >>>Well, that the spacecraft wasn't safe for the cosmonaut to land in...
: >>>that's a pretty important detail. Nevermind that, per the aviation
: >>>rules of the time (which the Soviets publicly supported) bailing out
: >>>of an aircraft or spacecraft negated the flight.
: >>
: >>Not really when Soviet shot down U2 and the pilot bailed out - that fact
: >>didn't negate the spy flight which of course was against international
: >>rules which the US in the time publicly supported.
: >>
: > ...and it doesn't negate the Soviets from going into the "stupid idiots"
: > record book when they had to fire 14 SAMs to get the U2 and they also shot
: > down one of their own chase MIGs in the process.
: >
: >
: Yeah, But they got it! And your statement is such obvious sour grapes
: that it's comical.
: Do you blame Gary Powers for letting himself and his plane be captured?

As stated in an earlier post, some felt he should have gone down with the
plane.

Eric

[[email protected]]

Rule # 337: Do not trust your own proof-reading late at night when you
need to catch a housemate before he leaves in ten minutes. I knew that
looked wrong when I typed it, but when I changed it, THAT didn't look
right either. And spell-checkers are the work of Satan, you know. In
direct answer to Mary; although the Soviets were EXACTLY that (a
government ...) and much more so than is usual for modern governments,
I think what I said fits my point a bit better.
Jim's comment about the EVAs reminds me of a point that I think he has
raised before- that the Soviets' claim that they had NO problems with
Leonov's EVA let NASA planners to believe that EVAs would be a
cakewalk, and ended up spending several missions learning what the
Soviets already knew.
And once again, if the situation was reversed and it had been the
Americans who lied about the launch site or Shepherd had bailed out of
his capsule, the Soviets would have been the FIRST to point out the
violation and demand that the record not be allowed.

[Jim Oberg]

"Eric Chomko" > wrote
> Funny I do that with American history books that discuss the JFK
> assassination. Official line, 'Oswald lone nut' or the truth,
> 'conspiracy'.

wrong newsgroup, post this over at
alt.drooling.whackos, please.

[Jim Oberg]

"Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote
> Really? You see Rostyk, if somebody starts to talk to me trailer park
> trash about "little boy", the person will get reply in the same language.

If 'malchik' is your idea of 'trash talk', you've led a very protected life,
and I am not the one to violate it -- so I apologize, starik.

[Vladimir Makarenko]

Eric Chomko wrote:
>
> Vladimir Makarenko ) wrote:
> : Brian Thorn wrote:
> : > On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:25:15 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
> : > > wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : >>>If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
> : >>>lie about them in 1961?
> : >
> : >
> : >>You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
> : >>had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
> : >
> : >
> : > Well, that the spacecraft wasn't safe for the cosmonaut to land in...
> : > that's a pretty important detail. Nevermind that, per the aviation
> : > rules of the time (which the Soviets publicly supported) bailing out
> : > of an aircraft or spacecraft negated the flight.
>
> : Not really when Soviet shot down U2 and the pilot bailed out - that fact
> : didn't negate the spy flight which of course was against international
> : rules which the US in the time publicly supported.
>
> I spoke with a guy that felt that Powers should have went down with his
> plane. Said guy's father worked for the CIA at the time.
>
> I also know Powers' son, runs a Cold War history museum, who was born
> after the incident and obviously disagree with guy number 1 (CIA man's
> son).
>
> : >>They said more than enough. All that crap that they "lied" is just
> : >>another loser whining.
> : >
> : >
> : > Nonsense. The only one whining around here is you. The rest of us have
> : > acknowledged that Gagarin was heroic and the first man to travel in
> : > space.
>
> : Switch from "I" to "we" is always very symptomatic. It doesn't work
> : though. Better try to cut your crap.
>
> : >
> : >
> : >>And btw, - recently US Airforce took out of US National Archives
> : >>thousands of documents including those dated by fifties.
> : >
> : >
> : > Reference?
>
> : E.g. NYT of 04/19/2006 - i.e. today:
>
> : http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/opinion/19weds4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
>
> : Now read and continue to bitch how Soviets won space race.
>
> Won? By never leaving LEO in a manned spacecraft?

Ask him - I never claimed that; the guy insists that Soviets did and
whines about that.

Who is LEO?

VM.

>
> Eric
>
> : VM.
>
> : >
> : > Brian

[Jim Oberg]

You really ought to look at my book -- I discuss the big US-Russian problem
as both sides talking past each other towards each one's misinterpretations
of the other's realities. Because that may be going on here, on a small
scale --
each of us angry at what we have come to THINK is the other's point of view.

I'm beginning to suspect that I pegged you wrong, and I would certainly
argue that you've pegged ME wrong, and I beg an opportunity to
attempt to change what I think is an unjust characterization.




"Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote

> "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote:
>> Well, you know Vladi, a little lie here, and another one there, and
>> perhaps a whopper in some other reference book, or perhaps a page
>> deleted from an encyclopedia, or a figure skillfully erased from
>> a photograph, AND PRETTY SOON YOU WILL HAVE REWRITTEN HISTORY.
>
> This is exactly what this guy is trying to do. Where from his agenda
> comes - paranoia or tabloid money - I don't give a damn. But he
> demonstrated over years a pattern of behavior which is very simple -
> everything Soviets have done in space race either sucks or very bad.
> Read **** he was writing few years ago here and there that "Mir" station
> is a major danger to the world, while not letting a single word about
> gambling of the "Shuttle" program. This is the real history: "Mir" was
> designed and built so robust that it withstood major accidents including
> collision and continued to function properly twice as long as it was
> initially supposed. "Shuttle" - you know what kind of "gem" this junk
> turned out to be. Waste of human lives and money. So do not tell me
> about "rewritten" history - when such guys are trying write it there is
> no need to rewrite, whatever Ministry of Truth will review it.
>
> VM.

[[email protected]]

Eric Chomko wrote:
> wrote:
>
> : Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
> : > Mary Pegg wrote:
> : >
> : > > Jim Oberg wrote:
> : > >
> : > >
> : > >>This topic came up in an earlier discussion, so here is a
> : > >>section of my book, 'Star-Crossed Orbits', that tries
> : > >>to put it into perspective:
> : > >
> : > >
> : > > <snip>
> : > >
> : > > Interesting, but surely a bigger obstacle to the FAI recognising
> : > > the claims is that Gagarin bailed out, and therefore did not
> : > > complete the flight?
> : >
> : > Anything to get the butt ****ing dumb American public off the glaring
> : > NASA and administration technical incompetence ball, eh, Mary?
> : >
> : > That's fine with me, go ahead, give it your best shot. Make my day.
> : >
> : > Punk.
> : >
>
> : Thomas, I don't think you realize the inmportance of such things. As it
> : stands, USA id just 1 Guinness world records ahead of the next
> : competitiors: Germans. As the Germans plan 2 new world records planned
> : in hte next month: one for eating the most sourkraut while singing
> : "Deutschland, Deutschland, Ueber Alles!" and the other one for writing
> : the most anti-Serb articles in a period of one week. USA has just one
> : planned: the record number of foreign journalists tortured by being
> : made to eat the most number of huamburgers.
>
> : If USA is to keep its coveted World leadership in the Guinnnes race,
> : Soviet primacy in space travel have to be taken away and given to our
> : good old Ameircan Wernher Von Braun. No, wait! Wernher and his team
> : were also Germans!
>
> : Unfortunately, after the death of Wernher Von Braun and his Nazi SS
> : team, their blueprints for space travel have been lost because NASA
> : doesn't have any transaltors from German.
>
> : But USA still holds the most important space travel record for the
> : greatest number of astronauts taken to space by the Russian Zoyuz
> : craft.
>
> : Moreover, I hear NASA is deadlocked with China and India in a race to
> : be the first country other than Russia to be able to send a craft into
> : space and be able to return it wihtout any major explosions. I hear
> : NASA is planning to spend many $billions on this noble task. Although
> : this can be solved much more cheaply by hiring a German translator...
>
> Ich bin ein Berliner!
>
> Where do I sign up?
>

I am not sure. I can tell you where to sign up if you were not a
Berliner but, say, a Frankfurter, a Wiener or a Hamburger though... :-)


We'll even allow you to hire an assistant. A hamburger helper, so to
speak.

Cheers!

[[email protected]]

Eric Chomko wrote:
> Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj ) wrote:
> : Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:
>
> : > "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote
> : >
> : >>Brian Thorn wrote:
> : >>
> : >>>On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:25:15 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
> : > wrote:
> : >>>
> : >>>>>If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
> : >>>>>lie about them in 1961?
> : >>>
> : >>>>You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
> : >>>>had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
> : >>>
> : >>>Well, that the spacecraft wasn't safe for the cosmonaut to land in...
> : >>>that's a pretty important detail. Nevermind that, per the aviation
> : >>>rules of the time (which the Soviets publicly supported) bailing out
> : >>>of an aircraft or spacecraft negated the flight.
> : >>
> : >>Not really when Soviet shot down U2 and the pilot bailed out - that fact
> : >>didn't negate the spy flight which of course was against international
> : >>rules which the US in the time publicly supported.
> : >>
> : > ...and it doesn't negate the Soviets from going into the "stupid idiots"
> : > record book when they had to fire 14 SAMs to get the U2 and they also shot
> : > down one of their own chase MIGs in the process.
> : >
> : >
> : Yeah, But they got it! And your statement is such obvious sour grapes
> : that it's comical.
> : Do you blame Gary Powers for letting himself and his plane be captured?
>
> As stated in an earlier post, some felt he should have gone down with the
> plane.
>

Some Americans just don't realize the honor and pleasure of committing
suicide in order to keep their deceitful bosses from getting exposed as
such. Not enough Japanese- or German-style discipline here. Not enough
true patriotism. Not the kind of people you can successfully rape Iraq,
Iran, Venezuella and Belarus with. The future is bleak...

[[email protected]]

LEO: Low Earth Orbit

[[email protected]]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> "Volker Hetzer" > wrote
> > They didn't lie about their space achievements, just about
> > the launch site. Which is firmly fastened to earth and not
> > in space at all. Really, who cares?
>
> Aside from the fact that they DID lie about some aspects of their
> space achievements, the question of the launch site was actually the
> subject of the subsequent passages in my book. Here they are:
>
> [I]t is reasonable to question the importance of a 1961 fraud in 2001.
> That is, is there anybody out there who doesn't already know that the
> official Soviet location for the cosmodrome is false? Why bother with an
> official correction?
>
> A compelling reason is that the original deception persists through sheer
> informational inertia. Even a cursory survey of existing cartographic
> products shows this. For example, recent world globes from Replogle (such as
> the WORLD HORIZON "Livingston Illuminated" globe) and a World News Map
> published by "U.S. News and World Report" show the town of Baykonur in its
> correct location . But I would argue that nobody looks up Baykonur out of
> interest in obscure coal-mining towns (in population and genuine importance
> it's much too minor a spot to earn its own place on these maps), but only
> out of a desire to find out where the famous cosmodrome of the same name is
> located. If so, they are misled, since it is the "false Baykonur".
>
> So I play this game whenever I visit book stores, and you can play too.
> Check out the latest world atlases to see if they have the cosmodrome at the
> correct location on the Syr Darya River just east of the Aral Sea, or if
> they label "Baykonur" where the original and utterly unimportant town still
> is. Hammond's "New Century World Atlas" (1997) has the false location, as
> does "Webster's Concise World Atlas" (1998). So does Rand McNally's "Classic
> World Atlas" (1996). The French mapmaker Gabelli issued a map of Asia in
> 1994, and it showed the false Baikonur.
>
> Even more explicitly, the 1994 Oxford Encyclopedic World Atlas has a special
> updated section on the new post-Soviet geography, and its feature on
> Kazakhstan specifies the Baykonur Cosmodrome as one of the most important
> features of that new country. But the Baykonur shown on the actual map is
> the deceptive one. And in the Oxford Dictionary of the World (Oxford
> University Press, 1996, editor David Mauro), the definition of "Baikonur" on
> page 63 is "a coal-mining town in Kazakhstan, n.e. of the Aral Sea. Nearby
> is the Baikonur Cosmodrome". Neither the Oxford atlas, nor the other
> misleading products mentioned earlier, show anything at all near the Syr
> Darya River where the cosmodrome and its support city of Leninsk are
> actually situated.
>
> Some did get it right, such as 'National Geographic'. Some listed the old
> "Baikonur" but also had correctly-located entries such as "Space Launching
> Centre" or "Leninsk" (the city where the space workers live). But they
> obviously didn't rely on official FAI documents for their information.
>
>
>
> Without making too big a deal out of a minor historical falsification, I've
> always figured that continued toleration of such deception is an insult to
> modern Russia. Isn't it just a condescending way of saying, "We know
> Russians are liars, so why bother to expect them to tell the truth?" If I
> were a Russian, I would deeply resent such bigotry.
>
> This isn't just ancient space history. The same attitude has persisted all
> the way into the current day. Throughout this book, we shall see many cases
> in which American officials talk themselves into tolerating Russian
> deception since, after all, "they're only Russians" and we need to get used
> to it. The lamentable consequences of this attitude will soon be all too
> apparent in subsequent chapters.

>
> See http://www.jamesoberg.com/orbits.html for more info on the book.
>

Jim, I am not sure if you are capable of understanding what human
beings write to you, but I will try.

Yes, of course, the Soviets did everything possible and impossible to
hide their military installations from the enemies. So did Americans,
but the Soviets were especially preoccupied with that. To the point
that Soviet people were told not to take their local street maps
literarily when driving, because the Soviets maps purposefully twisted
those maps in order to "confuse foreign invaders".

With Baikonur, in particular, such efforts were particularly elaborate
because Baykonur was the flagman of Soviet rocket- and thus
missile-building. Every Soviet child knew that its location was
completely secret from them and that its position on maps was purely
symbolic.

But why do you insist on calling such traditional military as "fraud",
"historical falsification", "lying", etc? Did USA publicize the
location of its secret nuclear labs like that in Los Alamos? If they
did - was the person, who did such stupidity, court-martialed for
treason?

You claim to have written a book on your perception of the Soviet space
program. My neighbor's grandma also wrote such a book. You two should
compare notes.

But before you publish your books, you should familiarize yourselves
with some basics. For example, watch a very interesting recent Russian
series of documentaries that details all kinds of things about the
early Soviet space program. It has a big chapter on the way Khrushchev
tried to deceive the CIA with Baikonur's location. As I recall, he even
went so far that in order to hide the great mass of trains and people
going to Baikonur, he declared a national program of "tselina",
pretending that all those trains were going to new agricultural lands.

You and the grandma should watch these Russian documentaries and read
Russian historical books on this subject, and then just copy them and
publish them under your own names. This may be dishonest but at least
the publishers won't laugh in your face at the ignorance and stupidity
of your own current books.

Nor do I understand such your sentences as "The same attitude has
persisted all the way into the current day. Throughout this book, we
shall see many cases in which American officials talk themselves into
tolerating Russian deception". What do you mean by "tolerating
deception"? CIA was deceiving KGB. KGB was deceiving CIA. CIA knew
that KGB was deceiving them. KGB knew that CIA was deceiving them. CIA
knew that KGB knew that CIA was deceiving them. KGB knew that CIA knew
that KGB knew that CIA was deceiving them, etc.

What does "tolerating" have to do with this? That's what all
intelligence agencies do to each other: deceive each other and see
through the other guy's deception.

You should go to Wikipedia to read up some basic materials on KGB and
CIA.

All these intelligence game aren't frauds or lies. They are legitimate
military intelligence tactics.

Lies are something completely different. Lies is not when you deceive
your enemy spies and your enemy military. Lies are when you deceive
your own civilians and civilians from other countries.

BTW, the Soviets were good at that too, but such lying virtually
stopped with the coming to power of a great man named Gorbachev in
1985-86 and with Russia later becoming a capitalist democracy in 1992.

This is not to say that being a capitalist democracy guarantees a
country from becoming a notorious liar, despised by the whole World.

But what does Russia have to do with this? You wrote:

>
>Throughout this book, we shall see many cases
> in which American officials talk themselves into tolerating Russian
> deception since, after all, "they're only Russians" and we need to get used
> to it.
>

Saying that "American officials tolerate Russian deception" is like
saying that "Hitler tolerated Russian mistreatment of Jews in 1940s".
Russians didn't mistreat Jews in 1940s. Hitler did.

Same here. Russian officials never tell any obvious lies. It is USA
that has made lying and fraud such a paramount component of their
foreign policy. Sure, Goebbels and Soviets did lie a lot, but it really
took the American media and politicians to tell lies that are so
obvious.

At first, the US media and government felt that they were committing
fraud and lies just trying to compete against their enemies; Nazis and
Soviets. But after those two ideologies disappeared, US propaganda
machine lost all the challenge and became so obvious that it makes the
rest of the World shake with laughter.

At first, US government was just doing what Goebbels had taught them.
For example, Hitler started the notorious Reichstag fire in order to
blame Communists and Socialists for it and use this as a pretext to ban
rival parties and democratic elections. Next, he started WWII by
dressing some German soldiers in Polish uniforms, killing them, and
then calling journalists to show them how "Poland had attacked Germany
first".

Similarly, USA faked a second Tonkin attack in order to fool the
American public into approving the Viet Nam war, which later devastated
the very foundations of American society.

Similar kind of lies were used to invade Grenada and especially Panama,
whose legitimate president had to be removed and kidnapped in order to
prevent him from going public on the CIA role in the international drug
trading business.

New heights of deception were reached 1990s, when USA and Germany set
their eyes on destroying and re-balkanizing the Balkans, whose unity
under Marshal Tito posed a geopolitical threat. The
"divide-and-conquer" principles mandated that Yugoslavia simply has to
be partitioned into tiny principalities, all hating and fighting each
other, ripe for USA control and occupation. A campaign of
misinformation was launched all over the West, in which the Serbs were
portrayed as sole perpetrators, while Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians
were innocent victims. Numerous fake "slaughters" and "market
explosions" were planted and blamed on Serbs. Every time some 200
Bosnians lost their homes, this was blared on the front pages of all
Western newspapers, while the most horrible genocide in the modern
Balkan history - the ethnic cleansing against 400,000 Serb civilians in
Krajina, Croatia - was purposefully and willfully not reported by
Western media.

Things got even worse in Kosovo, where the genocidal Islamic extremists
form KLA were portrayed as "innocent victims" of Yugoslav police. CIA
went so far as to stage the notorious Racak "massacre", in which KLA
and CIA gathered fighters, slain in the fighting between KLA and the
government forces, into one place and declared that these were
"innocent civilians executed on that spot by Serb genocidists". Afraid
that the international commission would quickly expose this fraud, USA
hurried up, declared Serbs guilty of a massacre without a trial, and
used Racak as a pretext to commit a naked aggression against
Yugoslavia, China and against the international law.

After the Serbs surrendered, NATO took control over Kosovo, leading to
genocide against 200,000 ethnic Serbs and 100,000 Gypsies at the hands
of KLA. Again, this horrible genocide was virtually unreported for a
long time, despite the cries of desperation coming form the
international Gypsy and Serb community, who were being treated by
KLA/NATO almost as brutally as the German Nazi treated them during the
Gypsy Holocaust of WWII.

And this wasn't military deception tactics like the ones the Soviets
used to confuse the CIA as to the real location f Baikonur. These were
lies and fraud aimed at deceiving America's and Europe's own public.

But at least there was some level of ingenuity to these frauds in
Clinton times. At least the public didn't know the truth and couldn't
always see that it was being lied to. With the coming of Bush, it
decided that it's OK if the listener knows that he is being lied to.
>From a sophisticated propaganda and disinformation machine, USA has
turned into a cheap compulsive liar that takes pride in the fact that
all of its listeners saw the lies.

Goebbels said that the bigger and more outrageous the lie is, the more
the public will believe it. But even Goebbels didn't expect the extent
to which the US government took this Nazi idea. The notorious speech,
that the US Secretary Powell was forced by his bosses to make at the UN
in order to "justify' the aggression against Iraq, is a perfect
document for study by the scholars of American government lies.

Since you like to write books on subjects that you know nothing about,
it may be a good idea for you to count the number of lies in that
speech and to publish a book to list and explain all of them. For
example, how many obvious lies are contained in that speech? More than
1,000? More than 10,000?

And I am not talking about the subtle lies like those about WMDs. I am
talking about the eye-popping eyes about the "Saddam-Al Qaeda"
connection. The lies that made the 3 billion or so people, listening to
that speech, exclaim again and again: 'Did he REALLY say that?!!!!!"

I don't have time to discuss that speech in its entirety (as I said,
you should write a book) but here is a re-post of my older article
discussing just one millionth part of the of the amazing impudent lies
contained in that masterpiece of a speech. Here is that article:

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/3e406323399a42a7?dmode=source

From:
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.islam,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture. spain,soc.culture.italian,soc.culture.russian
Subject: Re: How the WMD's were moved out of Iraq
Date: 17 Mar 2006 16:28:47 -0800

thereactionary wrote:
> wrote:
> > thereactionary wrote:
> Again you are a liar. Saddam murdered over 300,000 of his own people.
Didn't most of these 300,000 alleged and (yet-unproven!) murders happen

during the Iraq-Iran war, in which the USA was the staunch supporter
and sponsor of Saddam and cheered all his actions? As in ((from now
on, I am just quoting the first results that my google search
produces):

/////////////////////////////////
http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,1265520,00.html
"The estimate of 300,000 Iraqis killed by the Ba'athists also includes
deaths for which the western powers arguably bear some responsibility.
According to the US state department, most of the graves discovered to
date correspond to five major atrocities committed by the Saddam
Hussein regime: the 1983 attack against Kurds of the Barzani tribe; the

1988 Anfal campaign against the Kurds, for which estimates of the
numbers killed vary from 50,000 to 180,000; chemical attacks against
Kurdish villages from 1986 to 1988; ... Saddam's brutal attacks on the
Kurds in the 1980s occurred as part of the Iran-Iraq war, during which
the Reagan administration supported and armed his regime. When that war

ended in 1988 Saddam sought to consolidate his rule at home; in the
Anfal campaign he sent forces to quell the Kurdish uprising in the
north (supported by the Iranians), again with US consent."
/////////////////////////////////

So, another US puppet is being a genocidist. What else is new?
That's how USA operates: it creates and sponsors genocidal monsters all

over the World and then gets really surprised and upset when these
monsters turn against their own creator. Doesn't anybody in the US
government know the story of Dr. Frankenstein?

Even Bin Laden himself was originally created, trained and funded by
the CIA for the purpose of terrorizing and murdering Russians in
Afghanistan. As in:

/////////////////////////////////
http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp
BIN LADEN'S BEGINNINGS
As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia
to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow's invasion in
1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as the MAK
which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the

Afghan war.
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify is that the MAK was
nurtured by Pakistan's state security services, the Inter-Services
Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA's primary conduit for conducting
the covert war against Moscow's occupation.
Yet the CIA ... found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans
were easier to "read" than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the
Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency
reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So
bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt,
Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the
Middle East, became the "reliable" partners of the CIA in its war
against Moscow...
Most of these Afghan vets turned up later behind violent Islamic
movements around the world...
/////////////////////////////////

In the 1990s and 2000s, after USA fell out of love with Saddam, Al
Qaeda, which has been Saddam's worst enemy, was welcomed into lands
that USA had wrestled from Saddam. For example, when USA effectively
liberated Northern Iraq (Kurdistan) from Saddam after the first Iraq
war and made it a no-fly zone for Saddam (so called "Northern No-Fly
Zone"), Al Qaeda was immediately invited by Kurds to establish
terrorist bases and chemical plants there in Ansar al-Islam. For
example:

/////////////////////////////////
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:y0ccYjhqVLYJ:www.back-to-iraq.com...

February 10, 2003
I went stumbling around Iraqi Kurdistan, the northern part of Iraq
outside Saddam's direct control....
The Ansar al-Islam enclave, according to Salih and American
intelligence officials, soon became the base of operations of an Al
Qaeda subgroup called Jund al-Shams... Jund al-Shams is controlled by a

man named Mussa'ab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi is believed by European
intelligence agencies to be Al Qaeda's main specialist in chemical and
biological terrorism...
American intelligence officials believe that Zarqawi was also among an
unknown number of Al Qaeda terrorists who have sought refuge in the
Ansar al-Islam over the past seventeen months.
/////////////////////////////////

and

/////////////////////////////////
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm
Profile: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
Kurdish connection
Zarqawi ... is believed to have fled to Iraq in 2001... US officials
argue that it was at al-Qaeda's behest that he moved to Iraq and
established links with Ansar al-Islam - a group of Kurdish Islamists
from the north of the country. He is thought to have remained with them

for a while - feeling at home in mountainous northern Iraq.
/////////////////////////////////

The American planes patrolled the Kurd airspace day and night in order
to protect their Kurd and Al Qaeda friends from their enemy Saddam.
>From the other side, Saddam other deadly enemy, Iranian ayatollahs,
were also helping Zarqawi. See: Americans, Zarqawi and Iranian bigots
found something in common: their hatred for Saddam.
Everywhere US goes, it brings its Al Qaeda friends along. Even long
after the 9-11 terror, USA's puppet regime of Pres. Shevardnadze in the

Rep. of Georgia arranged for Al Qaeda to bring huge amounts of a deadly

WMD (a potent poison called "ricin") into Georgia in order to poison
Russian civilians. Only when the Al Qaeda men were caught smuggling
ricin into France and England (to terrorize the Russian Embassy, as was

later discovered) did USA realise that Al Qaeda had double-crossed them

once again. As in:

/////////////////////////////////
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901030120-40...

as
The al-Qaeda camps in Georgia's Pankisi Valley - which until a
Georgian security crackdown last year was a lawless haven of
guerrillas, drug dealers and kidnappers - specialize, says Jacquard,
in training recruits in the use of explosives and in basic chemical
terror, including the poisoning of water and food supplies... Material
evidence collected during the Romainville raids leaves little doubt
that the cell was planning an attack, French sources say. Subsequent
testimony indicated that the plot was to target the Russian Embassy in
Paris - to punish Russia for its poor treatment of the Chechens.
/////////////////////////////////

The most amazing thing is that USA then went to the UN and tried to
blame Saddam for the Al Qaeda camps and WMD plants in Georgia and
Kurdistan! That was the centerpiece of Powell's notorious UN speech
made to justify the invasion of Iraq. As in:

/////////////////////////////////
http://www.stuffiveheard.com/archives/speeches/
UN Speech by Secretary of State Colin Powell
February 05, 2003
"But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially
much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist
network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and
modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network

headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama
bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants.
When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped
establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this
camp is located in northeastern Iraq. You see a picture of this camp.
The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other
poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch--image a
pinch of salt--less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in
your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure. Death
comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is

fatal.
Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in
northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq.
As my colleagues around this table and as the citizens they represent
in Europe know, Zarqawi's terrorism is not confined to the Middle East.

Zarqawi and his network have plotted terrorist actions against
countries, including France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia.

We also know that Zarqawi's colleagues have been active in the Pankisi
Gorge, Georgia and in Chechnya, Russia. The plotting to which they are
linked is not mere chatter. Members of Zarqawi's network say their goal

was to kill Russians with toxins. "
/////////////////////////////////

And why does Powell blame Saddam and not his own buddies Kurds and
Georgians for sponsoring Zarqawi? Here is the only concrete and
semi-verifiable "damning evidence" against Saddam:

/////////////////////////////////
http://www.stuffiveheard.com/archives/speeches/
"Zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of north
east Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment,
staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to
fight another day."
/////////////////////////////////

This monster Zarqawi has been living and working for years with
America's best friends Kurds in 'northeast Iraq", but because he
stayed in a Baghdad hospital for 2 months in order to receive medical
treatment (because Kurd extremists don't have too many doctors),
Powell blames Saddam and not Kurds or Georgians! And instead of
invading and bombing fellow Georgia and Kurdistan, USA invaded Saddam's

part of Iraq! Just because Iraqi doctors upheld their oath and
allegedly gave medical treatment to Al Zarqawi!
Powell even dares to say: "We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring

Zarqawi and his subordinates."

Formally, this is indeed true. Indeed "Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and
his subordinates". But not Saddam's Iraq. Kurdish part of Iraq, Mr.
Secretary! You own best friends and allies!
Why do you think we are too stupid to notice?

/////////////////////////////////
http://www.stuffiveheard.com/archives/speeches/
"Iraqi officials protest that they are not aware of the whereabouts of
Zarqawi or of any of his associates. Again, these protests are not
credible. We know of Zarqawi's activities in Baghdad. I described them
earlier."
/////////////////////////////////

The only Zarqawi activity in Baghdad that you have described to us, Mr.

Secretary, was how he received medical treatment in Baghdad for two
months. So indeed, while Zarqawi was in some hospital, some Iraqi
doctors were aware of his whereabouts at that time. But he has long
since recovered and returned to Kurdistan. How can Saddam know
Zarqawi's whereabouts in Kurdistan, Mr. Powell? Only you and your Kurd
friends know exactly where Zarqawi is. Give CIA a call and ask them
where exactly they send the food, clothes and the chemicals for
Zarqawi's ricin manufacturing plant in Ansar al-Islam, Kurdistan.
Reader may ask: "there must have been more evidence in Powell's speech
than that about Saddam's and Al Qaeda' sinister plot to terrorize the
World? Oh sure there was. For example:

/////////////////////////////////
http://www.stuffiveheard.com/archives/speeches/
Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in
Sudan, an Al Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an

understanding that Al Qaida would no longer support activities against
Baghdad.
/////////////////////////////////

Yes, friends, Baghdad and Al Qaeda were so in love with each other that

Al Qaida used to conduct terrorist activities against Baghdad. That's
how much they were in love!
And then Saddam convinced Al Qaeda to no longer terrorize Baghdad. How
dare he!!!!! The fact that Al Qaeda and Baghdad reached a cease-fire
agreement and Al Qaeda stopped terrorizing Baghdad proves that Al Qaeda

and Baghdad have always been best friends and allies.

/////////////////////////////////
http://www.stuffiveheard.com/archives/speeches/
Some believe, some claim these contacts do not amount to much. They say

Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and Al Qaida's religious tyranny do
not mix. I am not comforted by this thought.
/////////////////////////////////

Tell us, honorable US Secretary of State, Sir, what thoughts ARE you
"comforted by"? Thoughts that your boss has just asked you to
impudently lie in the most widely seen, read, and listened speech in
World history? Aren't you ashamed of this Goebbels-like demagoguery and

prevarication? Of course you are! Rumor has it that you later resigned
specifically because you had been forced by our fearless and honorable
leader Dick "I usually don't shoot while drunk" Cheney into
making a lying cheating a**hole of yourself in front of 6 billion
people all over the World.
In fact, embarrassed by this impudent lying about Al Qaeda and Baghdad
"ricin connection", the right-wing establishment later had to invent
the story that, even though Zarqawi was indeed living and busily
working among America's allies in Kurdistan and Georgia, Powell had
also lied about the existence of ricin itself. Here is what the famous

right-wing Jamestown Foundation now says about this lying:

/////////////////////////////////
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369023
"In the buildup to the Iraqi war in early 2003, dozens of North
Africans (mainly Algerians) were arrested in Britain, France and Spain
on charges of preparing ricin and other chemical weapons. Colin Powell
and others trumpeted the arrests as proof of the threat posed by the
Zarqawi-Chechen-Pankisi ricin network (which had now been expanded to
include the Ansar al-Islam of Kurdish northern Iraq).
French and British security officials were astounded by Powell's
insistence on February 12, 2003, that "the ricin that is bouncing
around Europe now originated in Iraq." With the Iraq invasion only
weeks away, the source of the ricin threat moved from Georgia to Iraq.
/////////////////////////////////

Even the most right-wing zealots make fun of Powell's speech. Yes,
fiends, let's rejoice in the honor and respect for America that our
Government evokes in people all over the World with such impudent and
obvious lies!
Amazing impudence. Amazing belief that average people are so dumb that
they will swallow any insult to human logic that the US government
shoves down their open throats.
Google has produced some 90,000 results for my searches on this
subject. Do you think I have been biasedly quoting only the mainstream
and the right wing? Here is one from the left wing:

/////////////////////////////////
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=A1333_0_1_0_C
Northern Iraq was Zarqawi's stomping ground pre-invasion, as his gang,
which has close ties to Ansar al-Islam, was based in the Northern
No-Fly zone. Both Ansar al-Islam and Zarqawi flourished in northern
Iraq where they were protected from Saddam Hussein's regime by the US
and Britain.
/////////////////////////////////

And more from mainstream:

/////////////////////////////////
USA TODAY, February 6, 2003
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Colin Powell put Ansar and its base
here at the heart of the White House's case that al-Qaeda and Saddam
are connected. He said the link runs through Abu Musab Zarqawi, a bin
Laden lieutenant whom U.S. officials say Saddam is harboring. Zarqawi's

"network" is testing ricin and other poisons at an Ansarcamp here,
Powell said... The group's stronghold is in a hard-to-reach area along
the border with Iran in a pocket that, until 2001, was overseen by a
fledgling Kurdish administration... Powell acknowledged that Ansar's
base is in a part of Iraq that has been outside Saddam's control since
a Kurdish uprising in 1991.
/////////////////////////////////

Yes, Powell did sort of mention that Zarqawi's operations was out of
Saddam's control. But then he decided to blame Saddam for it anyway.
And he used this argument as "the heart of the White House's case that
al-Qaeda and Saddam are connected"!

Why? Because, according to Powell, he is "not comforted by" the fact
that Saddam has nothing to do with Zarqawi.

You see, truth doesn't comfort American leaders. Truth doesn't allow
them to do what Exxon wants them to do. Lies, libel, slander,
falsifications - that's what comforts them.

Impudent lies is what comforts American politicians and allows them to
get re-elected with the campaign contributions from Exxon and Lockheed,

which in turn steal this money from the average American taxpayers to
the tune of $250 billion just for Iraq alone. And thousands of
American boys are dying in the faraway god-forsaken hellhole called
"Iraq", where the entire population consists of Al Qaeda-loving
genocidal Shiites and Kurds, and Saddam-loving genocidal Sunnis!
And the TV-boob idiots believe that all this lying and dying and $250
billion waste is done not for the sake of making an extra $billion or
two for Exxon, but for only one purpose: to "bring love, tolerance,
brotherhood, peace, truth, honor, democracy and freedom to the Iraqi
people", who love them oh so much.

Fine. I can believe that Iraqis love truth more than you and your
bosses do, Mr. Powell. Pathological liars love truth more than you do.
But peace, brotherhood, tolerance and democracy?! The Iraqis love love
(pun intended), peace, brotherhood, and tolerance so much that they
will commit mutual genocide and fratricide in their name at the drop of

the hat.

Let me finish this Festival of Lies and Laughs by giving you a
hilarious Freudian example of what idiots our Government takes American

voters and taxpayers for. Here is what our Attorney General told the
American people last month (with a straight face!), when asked by
people's representatives why the Administration is so fond of illegal
spying on its own people:

/////////////////////////////////
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=1609248
US Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, testifying to Senate:
" I, I gave in my opening statement, Senator, examples where President
Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt
have all authorized electronic surveillance of an enemy on a far
broader scale."
/////////////////////////////////

Ain't it coll?

I wonder how "Honest Abe" Lincoln and George "I cannot tell a lie"
Washington would react if they heard what our Attorney General said
about them; and how fast they were spinning in their graves during
Powell's speech. I bet our modern government officials send Washington,

Jefferson and Lincoln spinning so fast, that we can tie electric
generators to them and solve all our energy problems.

And you call Russians "liars" for hiding the actual locations of their
top-secret instalations?! Wow....

[[email protected]]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> "Sander Vesik" > wrote
> > The Kurds would probably tel lhim that they are disgusted that the US
> > sold Saddam chemical weapon agents and components which were then used
> > on Kurds...
>
>
> Since we didn't, I doubt they would --
>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,1265520,00.html

"The estimate of 300,000 Iraqis killed by the Ba'athists also includes
deaths for which the western powers arguably bear some responsibility.
According to the US state department, most of the graves discovered to
date correspond to five major atrocities committed by the Saddam
Hussein regime: the 1983 attack against Kurds of the Barzani tribe; the

1988 Anfal campaign against the Kurds, for which estimates of the
numbers killed vary from 50,000 to 180,000; chemical attacks against
Kurdish villages from 1986 to 1988; ... Saddam's brutal attacks on the
Kurds in the 1980s occurred as part of the Iran-Iraq war, during which
the Reagan administration supported and armed his regime. When that war

ended in 1988 Saddam sought to consolidate his rule at home; in the
Anfal campaign he sent forces to quell the Kurdish uprising in the
north (supported by the Iranians), again with US consent."

>
> can't you guys break the chain of telling lies to each other?
>

[Scott Hedrick]

"Volker Hetzer" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Oberg wrote:
>> "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote
>>> Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
>>> terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
>>> Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
>>
>> You have trouble with English, malchik?
>>
>> It's great the Soviets were first in space -- it was the only
>> practical method of goosing the US gummint to spend
>> tens of billions of dollars in response.
>>
>> It's NOT great that people are so tolerant of
>> Soviet lies -- that's L-I-E-S -- about their
>> space achievements.
> They didn't lie about their space achievements, just about
> the launch site

Also the method of landing, which was *specifically* forbidden under the
rules.

*That* is the point- the Soviets knowingly *did not* follow the rules, which
*required* that Gagarin land *inside the spaceship*. He did not. Thus, under
the rules, he is not the first man to orbit the earth.

I'm not particularly interested in changing the record, because what he did
was daring enough. Nevertheless, anyone interested in the truth should be
willing to accept the *fact* that Gagarin cheated.

[Scott Hedrick]

"Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov" > wrote in
message ...
>
> "captain." > wrote in message
> news:5nI1g.3221$fL.2927@edtnps90...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>> But then things went weird. Now, 45 years later, not only no other
>>> country has joined these two, but one of these two -
>>
>> china has.
>>
>
> Boring. It may be a big event for China, but not for the world.

What, is lying inbred to Russians? Why not simply accept that "vkarlamov"
was wrong?

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ask him - I never claimed that; the guy insists that Soviets did and
> whines about that.
>
> Who is LEO?

You know, before makin as ass of yourself in sci.space.history, you might
want to learn a few of the terms involved.

I'll give you a hint, LEO is not a who.


>
> VM.
>
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > : VM.
> >
> > : >
> > : > Brian

[[email protected]]

DK wrote:
> In article . com>, wrote:
> >Jim Oberg wrote:
> >> "Volker Hetzer" > wrote
> >> > They didn't lie about their space achievements, just about
> >> > the launch site. Which is firmly fastened to earth and not
> >> > in space at all. Really, who cares?
> >>
> >> Aside from the fact that they DID lie about some aspects of their
> >> space achievements, the question of the launch site was actually the
> >> subject of the subsequent passages in my book. Here they are:
> >>
> >> [I]t is reasonable to question the importance of a 1961 fraud in 2001.
> >> That is, is there anybody out there who doesn't already know that the
> >> official Soviet location for the cosmodrome is false? Why bother with an
> >> official correction?
> >>
> >> A compelling reason is that the original deception persists through sheer
> >> informational inertia. Even a cursory survey of existing cartographic
> >> products shows this. For example, recent world globes from Replogle (such as
> >> the WORLD HORIZON "Livingston Illuminated" globe) and a World News Map
> >> published by "U.S. News and World Report" show the town of Baykonur in its
> >> correct location . But I would argue that nobody looks up Baykonur out of
> >> interest in obscure coal-mining towns (in population and genuine importance
> >> it's much too minor a spot to earn its own place on these maps), but only
> >> out of a desire to find out where the famous cosmodrome of the same name is
> >> located. If so, they are misled, since it is the "false Baykonur".
> >>
> >> So I play this game whenever I visit book stores, and you can play too.
> >> Check out the latest world atlases to see if they have the cosmodrome at the
> >> correct location on the Syr Darya River just east of the Aral Sea, or if
> >> they label "Baykonur" where the original and utterly unimportant town still
> >> is. Hammond's "New Century World Atlas" (1997) has the false location, as
> >> does "Webster's Concise World Atlas" (1998). So does Rand McNally's "Classic
> >> World Atlas" (1996). The French mapmaker Gabelli issued a map of Asia in
> >> 1994, and it showed the false Baikonur.
> >>
> >> Even more explicitly, the 1994 Oxford Encyclopedic World Atlas has a special
> >> updated section on the new post-Soviet geography, and its feature on
> >> Kazakhstan specifies the Baykonur Cosmodrome as one of the most important
> >> features of that new country. But the Baykonur shown on the actual map is
> >> the deceptive one. And in the Oxford Dictionary of the World (Oxford
> >> University Press, 1996, editor David Mauro), the definition of "Baikonur" on
> >> page 63 is "a coal-mining town in Kazakhstan, n.e. of the Aral Sea. Nearby
> >> is the Baikonur Cosmodrome". Neither the Oxford atlas, nor the other
> >> misleading products mentioned earlier, show anything at all near the Syr
> >> Darya River where the cosmodrome and its support city of Leninsk are
> >> actually situated.
> >>
> >> Some did get it right, such as 'National Geographic'. Some listed the old
> >> "Baikonur" but also had correctly-located entries such as "Space Launching
> >> Centre" or "Leninsk" (the city where the space workers live). But they
> >> obviously didn't rely on official FAI documents for their information.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Without making too big a deal out of a minor historical falsification, I've
> >> always figured that continued toleration of such deception is an insult to
> >> modern Russia. Isn't it just a condescending way of saying, "We know
> >> Russians are liars, so why bother to expect them to tell the truth?" If I
> >> were a Russian, I would deeply resent such bigotry.
> >>
> >> This isn't just ancient space history. The same attitude has persisted all
> >> the way into the current day. Throughout this book, we shall see many cases
> >> in which American officials talk themselves into tolerating Russian
> >> deception since, after all, "they're only Russians" and we need to get used
> >> to it. The lamentable consequences of this attitude will soon be all too
> >> apparent in subsequent chapters.
> >
> >>
> >> See http://www.jamesoberg.com/orbits.html for more info on the book.
> >>
> >
> >Jim, I am not sure if you are capable of understanding what human
> >beings write to you, but I will try.
>
> Oberg is a professional russophobe. He's a failed engeneer who made
> career out of lying about Russian space program. He has no intention to
> understand you and every intention to distort things any way possible
> in order to present anything Russian in negative light. You are wasting
> your time.
>

Really? Can't be! I would have never guessed! :-)

Is he related to Brookski by any chance?

But Brookski and Jim are making a valid point: the Soviets have lied on
many occasions:

They willfully misinformed the US Air Force as to the actual location
of the Baikonur rocket cemter and the number of nuclear bombs that the
US Air Force needed to drop on it in order to destroy it.

They repeatedly lied to Hitler as to the location of Stalin's bunker,
making our German friends waste precious resources bombing the wrong
place.

This proves that Russians are liars. You can never trust them when they
tell you where to bomb them. This is infuriating and intolerable.

Isn't it part of the UN Human Rights Charter that all countries must
reveal to the US government the exact places for US military to invade
and/or to bomb?

[[email protected]]

Scott Hedrick wrote:
> "Volker Hetzer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jim Oberg wrote:
> >> "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote
> >>> Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
> >>> terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
> >>> Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
> >>
> >> You have trouble with English, malchik?
> >>
> >> It's great the Soviets were first in space -- it was the only
> >> practical method of goosing the US gummint to spend
> >> tens of billions of dollars in response.
> >>
> >> It's NOT great that people are so tolerant of
> >> Soviet lies -- that's L-I-E-S -- about their
> >> space achievements.
> > They didn't lie about their space achievements, just about
> > the launch site
>
> Also the method of landing, which was *specifically* forbidden under the
> rules.
>
> *That* is the point- the Soviets knowingly *did not* follow the rules, which
> *required* that Gagarin land *inside the spaceship*. He did not. Thus, under
> the rules, he is not the first man to orbit the earth.
>
> I'm not particularly interested in changing the record, because what he did
> was daring enough. Nevertheless, anyone interested in the truth should be
> willing to accept the *fact* that Gagarin cheated.
>

Could you please remind us the record categories that existed at the
time of Gagarin's flight?

For example, how exactly was "orbiting the earth defined" in the FAI
and Guinness record books in their 1960 or 1961 editions? And how was
the *inside the spaceship* concept defined in those books?

I know it will come as a shock to you, but rockets dropped all their
engines early in their flight. Thus, it was impossible for rockets to
land in the same shape that they took off in. So, how much of the
original spacecraft did FAI or Guinness require to land with the
cosmonaut? At least a thousand pounds? At least ten pounds? I am sure
that between Gagarin himself, his spacesuit and his parachute, he had
at least 1000 pounds of the original spaceship content with him when he
landed. Was this not enough to for the FAI recordbook? Should he have
taken his grammaphone and his lazyboy chair with him?

Or is the problem that a spacesuit and a parachute weren't enough for
FAI? Did they require that another container, to be called "a capsule",
had to go over the spacesuit in order for the landing to qualify as an
"orbit"? But I was told that Gagarin had a double-lined spacesuit, so
that the outer lining can be called "a capsule". That makes it kosher,
doesn't it? :-)

Sarcasm apart, I am 99% sure that there was no such FAI requirement
concerning the landed poundage or the number of layers needed to break
the "orbit the earth" record, and that you guys just invented all this
crap out of your severe inferiority complex towards Russian science.
What's the freudian term for it? "Korolev envy" or "Gagarin envy"?

[Jim Oberg]

> wrote
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,1265520,00.html

Right, we know how even-handed they are.

US arms supplies to Iraq were single-digits percentagewise and
did not involve chemicals. Not taking action to stop atrocities
is hardly tantamount to approval and encouragement -- heck,
when we DID take actions three years ago to stop Saddam's
atrocities (saving hundreds of thousands of lives -- far fewer
have died, thanks to the war), we get dinged for THAT too.

It's fun to watch twisters find justification to whine about
either/or choices where ready-made condemnations will fit
BOTH possible choices, viz., Darfur (where it really IS about
oil, but Chinese and French owned oil).

[[email protected]]

Volker Hetzer wrote:
> Jim Oberg wrote:
> > "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote
>
> >> Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
> >> terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
> >> Get over it. Go buy yourself a video game or something.
> >
> > You have trouble with English, malchik?
> >
> > It's great the Soviets were first in space -- it was the only
> > practical method of goosing the US gummint to spend
> > tens of billions of dollars in response.
> >
> > It's NOT great that people are so tolerant of
> > Soviet lies -- that's L-I-E-S -- about their
> > space achievements.
>
> They didn't lie about their space achievements, just about
> the launch site. Which is firmly fastened to earth and not
> in space at all. Really, who cares?
>

Lots of people do! How could the US Air Force hit this launch site if
the Russians lied to them about its location? This made it much more
difficult for the US to compete against the Russian space program.

Russians just don't play by the American book. Most Russian scientists
even refused to wear simple glow-in-the-dark suits with bull's eye
targets drawn on them. Such sneaky liars!

[[email protected]]

Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:
> "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
> > terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
> > Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
> >
> > VM.
> >
>
> So now they are last in space.
>
> Don't feel bad though, lots of Euros are sitting around talking about the
> good ol' days. Think about all the Spaniards that are dreaming of the days
> when they were beating up defenseless indigenous peoples in the Americas. I
> could go on but you get the picture.
>

I am with you on this, Brookski. Americans just don't get the respect
or credit they deserve!

First, the Soviets claim that the first man in space was a Russian!

Now hte Spanish claim that their primacy in the extermination of the
"defenseless indigenous peoples in the Americas".

OK<, maybe the first man in space was indeed a Russian, but those
Spaniards are just liars! Good old USA holds all the Guinness records
in the area of the extermination of the "defenseless indigenous
peoples in the Americas"! I read as many as 12 million native Americans
died in the US-made genocide. That means, that the US succeeded in
exterminating at least 95% of al Native Americans on US terrirtory,
whereas those hapless Spanairds have extemninated less than 50% of
theirs. US rules!

[Jim Oberg]

> wrote
lots of stuff -- most beyond the range of
space-interest groups.

But deception about Baykonur isn't the issue,
the Soviets don't have anything to regret in
trying to mask its location, as with Los Alamos --
the objection is with providing falsified information
to international groups, for proving a claim to
a world record that nobody had any intent of denying them.

Lying also helped in international propaganda campaigns, such
as 'peace in space' and the 'anti Star Wars' gimmicks -- all
the while, it was the Soviets alone who had an orbital
killer satellite, an orbital thermonuclear bomb delivery system,
a manned space station armed with a heavy cannon for
attacking approaching US satellites, a prototype 'laser battle station'
named Polyus-Skif for space-to-space combat -- all denied, all
covered up, all kept from the consciousness of marching morons
in the West who trusted the USSR never to build such weapons
because they promised not to.

That's what makes fibs about Baykonur and the Vostok flight fade
into insignificance.

And another think life tells us is that the most shrieky accusations
of 'liar-liar' are often from people who plan to lie, and if ever caught,
make the excuse it's only rejoinder to their 'true' accusations.

What we've gotten here are convoluted excuses that have evolved
from, first, 'nobody lied, it's essentially true,' to 'facts were changed to
preserve a bigger truth', to 'we had every right to lie,' and finally
to 'everybody lies and YOU do it worse.' Very well maneuvered, too.

As to Iraq and al Qaeda, "no-connection-no-sirree-bob!',
don't put all your anti-Bush eggs in that rotten basket,
the range of interrelationships is getting better
defined and documented every day....

[Jim Oberg]

"DK" > wrote
> Oberg is a professional russophobe. He's a failed engeneer who made
> career out of lying about Russian space program. He has no intention to
> understand you and every intention to distort things any way possible
> in order to present anything Russian in negative light. You are wasting
> your time.

Easy to say, hiding behind fake name and email address,
and far from the first such accusation. It's a badge of honor.

[Jim Oberg]

> wrote
> They willfully misinformed the US Air Force as to the actual location
> of the Baikonur rocket cemter and the number of nuclear bombs that the
> US Air Force needed to drop on it in order to destroy it.

Attempted silliness doesn't become you. The USAF always knew
where Tyura-Tam was, they just took awhile figuring out how to
spell it. Plesetsk, too. Sorry the original theme isn't worthy of you.

[Vladimir Makarenko]

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
> "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Ask him - I never claimed that; the guy insists that Soviets did and
>>whines about that.
>>
>>Who is LEO?
>
>
> You know, before makin as ass of yourself in sci.space.history, you might
> want to learn a few of the terms involved.

Well, definitely in that case the honor of being an asshole belongs to
those like you becuase this thread was crossposted to
soc.culture.russian from sci.space.history. If you think that all
Russians were born with imprinted dictionary of space tech in their
brains - you watched too many cheap sci fi shows.

>
> I'll give you a hint, LEO is not a who.
>

It was already explained, without cheap posing as Big Brain by giving
lousy hint.
Take it back, try to sell on flea market.

VM.

VM.


>
>
>>VM.
>>
>>
>>>Eric
>>>
>>>: VM.
>>>
>>>: >
>>>: > Brian
>
>
>

[Jim Oberg]

Top Russian political commentator on fraud in Gagarin story -- gosh, let's
go assassinate HIS character now <grin!>....


The 108 minutes that changed the world -- 11:56 | 11/ 04/
2006



MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Kislyakov.)


http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060411/45546067.html



It was because of ideology that he was to wake up as a national hero, the
first man in space -- and be labeled as a space liar for the rest of his
life.



Soviet ideologists could not dream of going into space. They hardly knew
what a space rocket was. But what they claimed to know well enough was that
a picture of a parachute touchdown was derogatory for what they termed as
the Great Soviet Space Breakthrough. And they immediately closed down all
information relating to Gagarin's landing, ordering him to lie that he had
landed inside the capsule.



The truth came out in 1964, as the Soviet media reported that the three-man
Voskhod crew was the first mission ever to return inside the capsule. The
rest of the world caught on to this, turning the
how-did-you-land-Mr.-Gagarin question into an Earth's first cosmonaut's
worst nightmare.

[Jim Oberg]

"DK" > wrote
> Oberg ...has ...every intention to distort things any way possible
> in order to present anything Russian in negative light.

Counterexamples puncture your fantasy balloon:

Tribute to Yuri Gagarin: http://www.astronautix.com/articles/celrsary.htm

Baykonur visit (1989): http://www.jamesoberg.com/baikonur.html

Bogus 'Secret Soviet Space Casualties':
http://www.jamesoberg.com/phantoms.html

Soyuz launch: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12042803/

Secret Rocket Sparked Famous Soviet UFO:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1430/is_n3_v17/ai_15986890

First Space Wedding: http://www.msnbc.com/news/950579.asp?0cv=TA01

And http://www.jamesoberg.com/08092004spacewed_rus.html

Russian tourist trip around the moon: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6558855/

And http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8700874/#050726a

Converting military missiles to peaceful launchers:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/satan_launch_041221.html

Baykonur gets its first church: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10729300/

Russia helps NASA plan for Mars:
http://www.jamesoberg.com/02012000russianmars_mar.html

[Jim Oberg]

> wrote
> Sarcasm apart, I am 99% sure that there was no such FAI requirement
> concerning the landed poundage or the number of layers needed to break
> the "orbit the earth" record, and that you guys just invented all this
> crap out of your severe inferiority complex towards Russian science.
> What's the freudian term for it? "Korolev envy" or "Gagarin envy"?

Thanks for the amateur brainwashing. But read Kislyakov's
'cosmonaut day' Novosti story posted nearby, and you'll see he
makes no bones about Gagarin being ordered to lie. He's man
enough to live through it. Be inspired by his example.

The existence of the explicit FAI wording isn't in doubt. You only
make yourself look more delusional by substituting your 'sureness'
for documentary evidence. Try to keep that impulse in better check.

As for our inferiority complex towards Russian science, can we
enforce a Russian-level male life expectancy on you, or do we have
to put up with you as long as average non-Russians manage to survive
without the benefit of Russian science.

[Rand Simberg]

Eric Chomko wrote:

> : > The Kurds would probably tel lhim that they are disgusted that the US
> : > sold Saddam chemical weapon agents and components which were then used
> : > on Kurds...
>
> : Actually, Iraqi Kurdistan is one of the friendliest places to Americans
> : on the planet about now.
>
> And you'll prove it by going there right now?

No. But not because it's dangerous.

[[email protected]]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote
> > Really? You see Rostyk, if somebody starts to talk to me trailer park
> > trash about "little boy", the person will get reply in the same language.
>
> If 'malchik' is your idea of 'trash talk', you've led a very protected life,
> and I am not the one to violate it -- so I apologize, starik.
>

Settle down, boy.

[[email protected]]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> > wrote
> lots of stuff -- most beyond the range of
> space-interest groups.
>
> But deception about Baykonur isn't the issue,
> the Soviets don't have anything to regret in
> trying to mask its location, as with Los Alamos --
> the objection is with providing falsified information
> to international groups, for proving a claim to
> a world record that nobody had any intent of denying them.
>

How does hiding the actual location of its launch site constitute
falsifying information for purposes of determining world records?

>
> Lying also helped in international propaganda campaigns, such
> as 'peace in space' and the 'anti Star Wars' gimmicks -- all
> the while, it was the Soviets alone who had an orbital
> killer satellite, an orbital thermonuclear bomb delivery system,
> a manned space station armed with a heavy cannon
>

Heavy cannon? Interesting term.... Hasn't been used much since the 17th
century. Do they also have catapults and bows and arrows on htat space
station?


>
> for attacking approaching US satellites
>

..... plus of a can of pepper spray for attacking approaching US
astronauts....


>
> a prototype 'laser battle station'
> named Polyus-Skif for space-to-space combat -- all denied, all
> covered up, all kept from the consciousness of marching morons
> in the West who trusted the USSR never to build such weapons
> because they promised not to.
>

Promised to whom? Show me the exact UN speech or official disarmamnet
agreement in which the Soviet leaders promised "never to build such
weapons". How "never" was this "never"? Not in 1000 years? Not in
1000000000000000 years? You really expect anybody to beleive your lies?
Show us the exact texts of these promises and the names of the
signatories of these promises.

>
> And another think life tells us is that the most shrieky accusations
> of 'liar-liar' are often from people who plan to lie, and if ever caught,
> make the excuse it's only rejoinder to their 'true' accusations.
>

Aha. Is that why you have started this shrieky 'liar-liar' campaign
against Soviets?

Thanks for admitting this. That's exactly what I thought. So, tell us
more. What exactly do you plan to lie about?

And given that the Soviets have not been around for 15 years, why are
you so worked up about their "lies"? How about German Nazis and
Genghis-Khan Monglos? What kind of lies did they tell and how are you
going to use them to justify the current US government lies?

Did Genghis-Khan also lie to the Guinnes Book about his world records?
Maybe he lied that he had slaughtered more than 200,000 people in one
day in Kiev in year 1203, whereas the actual number was only 180,000?
What a liar! That certainly justifies the lies that Powell told to the
UN just 800 years later.

How about ancient Assyrians? They must have told some lies too. And
ancient Greks too! Let's bring it out into the open and expose these
liars! shows what kind of liars we, honest Americans, live next to.

[[email protected]]

I don't know the exact wording for specific space achievements by the
FAI in the 60s, but the requirement to remain with the craft for a
record to count was due to a lot of barnstormers/stuntpilots who
crashed their planes and then tried to claim records. Suppose the
record is 2 miles doing something. The pilot bails out at a mile and
3/4ths, but the plane lasts far enough to surpass the 2 miles. Does he
make a new record? (The World Wars probably had something to do with
it, also.)

And may I inform you that very few people in the West had even HEARD of
Korolev until Jim Oberg started writing his articles in the early '70s.
I certainly hadn't, and I was as much of a space buff then as it was
possible to be in my part of the country (NW). Jim's articles were one
of the major reasons I got interested in the Soviet program. Have you
even read any of Jim's books? Rusiophobe? Jim just didn't put up with
the Soviet Government's nonsense, unlike a lot of other media people in
the West.

[[email protected]]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> >
> As to Iraq and al Qaeda, "no-connection-no-sirree-bob!',
> don't put all your anti-Bush eggs in that rotten basket,
> the range of interrelationships is getting better
> defined and documented every day....
>

Look, I have no doubt that you guys will be able to manufacture some
evidence about the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection any millenium now.

But what the cavity in your cranium missses is the ability for logical,
temporal and spacial reasoning.

If you tell the UN in 2003 that you have personally seem Zarqawi and
Saddam kiss each other in Berlin in sept 2002, and it turns out that
Saddam has never been in Berlin, and if in year 2010 it turns out that
Zarqawi and Saddam did actually kiss each other in Manila in July 1993
- then your story about you seeing them kiss each other in Berlin in
sept 2002 is still an intentional lie and you are a liar.

Similarly, no matter what evidence you manufacture, it still will not
negate the fact that Powell lied, for example, about Zarqawi' Kurdish
ricin plant being located in Saddam-controlled part of Iraq, whereas it
was actually located in the US-controlled part.

Powell's speech was a mathematically provable lie on the day it was
made and will remain a lie, as long as the basic laws of mathematical
logic stay the same.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> I don't know the exact wording for specific space achievements by the
> FAI in the 60s, but the requirement to remain with the craft for a
> record to count was due to a lot of barnstormers/stuntpilots who
> crashed their planes and then tried to claim records. Suppose the
> record is 2 miles doing something. The pilot bails out at a mile and
> 3/4ths, but the plane lasts far enough to surpass the 2 miles. Does he
> make a new record? (The World Wars probably had something to do with
> it, also.)
>
> And may I inform you that very few people in the West had even HEARD of
> Korolev until Jim Oberg started writing his articles in the early '70s.
> I certainly hadn't, and I was as much of a space buff then as it was
> possible to be in my part of the country (NW).
>

Whatever. If you didn't know about Korolev, then you didn't know
anything about space exploration. It's like claiming to know about
realtivity theory and not knowing the name of Einstein?

So, what you tell us that after more than 10 years of mass hysteria
about the "sputink" and about the Soviet space threat and all that, and
after the whole Americna education was changed in orderr to counter the
Soviet space advantage - you, Ameircans, didn't even know the name of
the man in charge of the Soviet space program? Not even "expets" like
you? Then you must be the most ignorant, stupidpeople on earth,
brainwashed by the most outrageous madia in the World.


>
> Jim's articles were one
> of the major reasons I got interested in the Soviet program. Have you
> even read any of Jim's books? Rusiophobe? Jim just didn't put up with
> the Soviet Government's nonsense, unlike a lot of other media people in
> the West.
>

What kind of "Soviet Government's nonsense" did "a lot of other media
people in the West" put up with, if they didn't even know the name of
the father of the Soviet space program - Korolev? Acording to your own,
admission the Wrstern media didn't listen to anything at all that the
Soviets told them. Not even the name of Korolev himself! How could they
listen to the Soviet "propaganda" and not pick up the name "Korolev"
that populated each sentence of this "propaganda"?

And speaking of Jim's articles, here is hte first article of his that
my google search has found:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=24632

Activism
Jim Oberg: 'We must now demand that they step down'
Contributed by JWO on Monday, January 30 @ 09:55:56 EST
This article has been read 1671 times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Oberg

Today, along with so many of my friends and neighbors, I am terribly
ashamed of my country. Daily revelations about the actions of my
government expose unspeakable things being done in my name. The America
I grew up loving, I must admit, has become the purveyor of terrible
horrors against the world and our own citizens, and this regime is
steadily depriving we, the people, of our constitutional rights, our
freedoms and our democratic process.

How did it happen that my country has become a torturer, and even a
defender publicly of our right to use torture in our 'defense'? Why has
my country come to claim it our right to preemptively and illegally
invade and occupy other countries, even one that was no imminent
threat, killing thousands of innocents in the process? When did my
country become unwilling to respond swiftly with our aid and compassion
when disaster strikes its own citizens, as we saw in horror when
Katrina struck with such fury? What has brought my country to establish
a network of secret prisons around the world, where unknown numbers may
be held without charge and with no way to monitor their treatment? How
is it we can allow our government to unlawfully spy upon any citizen
without a warrant, and to then boldly claim their unlimited authority
to do anything they deem necessary to 'protect' us. Who authorizes
these crimes and who carries them out when I never, ever would provide
my assent for these horrific actions to be done in my name?

Across America, millions of us are now beginning to awaken to the
tragedy that has befallen our beloved country, a travesty brought upon
us by an illegitimate, unaccountable regime that has stolen elections
and then arrogantly claims a mandate to rule us with absolute disdain
for all dissent against their criminal agenda. Moving inexorably
towards the establishment of a fascist theocracy that will rule us for
generations, they enact daily a program that enriches the few at the
expense of most in the world, and place their cronies in positions of
power in every institution established to protect us from corporate and
governmental abuses. Their global domination project drains our
treasury, weakens our military and undermines our ability to meet even
the basic needs of our citizens, while putting future generations into
unimaginable debt. We are being taken over a cliff to our material and
moral doom by this regime, and many of us are simply not going to take
it any longer. It is time to act.

This Tuesday, George Bush delivers his State of the Union address, and
all across America, a new movement for change, the World Can't Wait:
Drive out the Bush Regime, will gather many thousand of citizens to
proclaim that we in actual fact face a terrible state of emergency in
this country, and loudly demand that they STEP DOWN. We will then, in
towns and cities all across the country, drown out his speech with
noise of all kinds, music and bells and car horns and our angry voices,
calling on everyone to wake up to the danger we all face, and the
possibility of creating a new direction for our country. This regime
clearly does not represent the majority of Americans. It is time for us
all to get out of our homes, out from behind our TV and computer
screens, make ourselves visible in our unity, and demand that they stop
this madness that has overtaken our country.

We must say loudly and with determination that it is time for them to
STEP DOWN, and to take their failed and criminal agenda with them. We
must all now come to the streets in our millions to show them that
their attempt to steal our democracy has failed, and that we, the
people, are now demanding that our government again stand with us in
responding to the real priorities we must face together. We are
entering a challenging period ahead, with oil running out and the
impact of our environmental abuse about to crash down upon us. The
world can't wait for this regime to continue to destroy our country and
our chance for a future that will permit us to responsibly face these
crises together.

This Tuesday night, 8:00 PM to 9:30 PM EST, in towns and cities
everywhere, I ask you to join with me, with your friends and your
neighbors, and come to the streets wherever you are as Bush offers us
more of their failed and destructive agenda, and show your
determination to fight against this whole direction they seek for our
future. They are counting on our apathy and despair to keep us in our
place. Let your noisy protest alert the nation to the great danger we
face if we stand aside and allow them an uncontested pathway to more of
their unacceptable actions. Then, this Saturday at 11:00 AM, join in
marching with us around the White House and delivering the message of
the people of America: BUSH, STEP DOWN, AND TAKE YOUR PROGRAM WITH YOU!

Jim Oberg is a retired Engineer who lives in Wilsonville, OR, with his
wife and two cats, and is volunteering with the World Can't Wait
movement to help mobilize the response to the terrible abuses of this
regime. He can be reached at .

[[email protected]]

Jim Oberg wrote:
>
>
> As to Iraq and al Qaeda, "no-connection-no-sirree-bob!',
> don't put all your anti-Bush eggs in that rotten basket,
> the range of interrelationships is getting better
> defined and documented every day....
>

Oh Jim, you are such a sweety. Did you also write this:

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=24632
Activism
Jim Oberg: 'We must now demand that they step down'
Contributed by JWO on Monday, January 30 @ 09:55:56 EST
This article has been read 1671 times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Oberg

Today, along with so many of my friends and neighbors, I am terribly
ashamed of my country. Daily revelations about the actions of my
government expose unspeakable things being done in my name. The America
I grew up loving, I must admit, has become the purveyor of terrible
horrors against the world and our own citizens, and this regime is
steadily depriving we, the people, of our constitutional rights, our
freedoms and our democratic process.

How did it happen that my country has become a torturer, and even a
defender publicly of our right to use torture in our 'defense'? Why has
my country come to claim it our right to preemptively and illegally
invade and occupy other countries, even one that was no imminent
threat, killing thousands of innocents in the process? When did my
country become unwilling to respond swiftly with our aid and compassion
when disaster strikes its own citizens, as we saw in horror when
Katrina struck with such fury? What has brought my country to establish
a network of secret prisons around the world, where unknown numbers may
be held without charge and with no way to monitor their treatment? How
is it we can allow our government to unlawfully spy upon any citizen
without a warrant, and to then boldly claim their unlimited authority
to do anything they deem necessary to 'protect' us. Who authorizes
these crimes and who carries them out when I never, ever would provide
my assent for these horrific actions to be done in my name?

Across America, millions of us are now beginning to awaken to the
tragedy that has befallen our beloved country, a travesty brought upon
us by an illegitimate, unaccountable regime that has stolen elections
and then arrogantly claims a mandate to rule us with absolute disdain
for all dissent against their criminal agenda. Moving inexorably
towards the establishment of a fascist theocracy that will rule us for
generations, they enact daily a program that enriches the few at the
expense of most in the world, and place their cronies in positions of
power in every institution established to protect us from corporate and
governmental abuses. Their global domination project drains our
treasury, weakens our military and undermines our ability to meet even
the basic needs of our citizens, while putting future generations into
unimaginable debt. We are being taken over a cliff to our material and
moral doom by this regime, and many of us are simply not going to take
it any longer. It is time to act.

This Tuesday, George Bush delivers his State of the Union address, and
all across America, a new movement for change, the World Can't Wait:
Drive out the Bush Regime, will gather many thousand of citizens to
proclaim that we in actual fact face a terrible state of emergency in
this country, and loudly demand that they STEP DOWN. We will then, in
towns and cities all across the country, drown out his speech with
noise of all kinds, music and bells and car horns and our angry voices,
calling on everyone to wake up to the danger we all face, and the
possibility of creating a new direction for our country. This regime
clearly does not represent the majority of Americans. It is time for us
all to get out of our homes, out from behind our TV and computer
screens, make ourselves visible in our unity, and demand that they stop
this madness that has overtaken our country.

We must say loudly and with determination that it is time for them to
STEP DOWN, and to take their failed and criminal agenda with them. We
must all now come to the streets in our millions to show them that
their attempt to steal our democracy has failed, and that we, the
people, are now demanding that our government again stand with us in
responding to the real priorities we must face together. We are
entering a challenging period ahead, with oil running out and the
impact of our environmental abuse about to crash down upon us. The
world can't wait for this regime to continue to destroy our country and
our chance for a future that will permit us to responsibly face these
crises together.

This Tuesday night, 8:00 PM to 9:30 PM EST, in towns and cities
everywhere, I ask you to join with me, with your friends and your
neighbors, and come to the streets wherever you are as Bush offers us
more of their failed and destructive agenda, and show your
determination to fight against this whole direction they seek for our
future. They are counting on our apathy and despair to keep us in our
place. Let your noisy protest alert the nation to the great danger we
face if we stand aside and allow them an uncontested pathway to more of
their unacceptable actions. Then, this Saturday at 11:00 AM, join in
marching with us around the White House and delivering the message of
the people of America: BUSH, STEP DOWN, AND TAKE YOUR PROGRAM WITH YOU!

Jim Oberg is a retired Engineer who lives in Wilsonville, OR, with his
wife and two cats, and is volunteering with the World Can't Wait
movement to help mobilize the response to the terrible abuses of this
regime. He can be reached at .
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

and this:

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110105E.shtml

How Has It Come to This?
By Jim Oberg
t r u t h o u t | Perspectve

Tuesday 01 November 2005

On November 2nd, one year after an election that saw more
"irregularities" than any in recent history, I will be leading a march
to the streets to drive out the Bush regime! For me, a 65-year-old
retiree who has believed in the orderly transition of power and
reasoned argument in the public forum, I can tell you that this is a
radical departure from my pattern of support for and trust in our
system.

When our vote is taken away or made meaningless, as has now
happened, our reality in America is changed in a fundamental way. No
longer can we, the citizens, hold those in government accountable for
their actions. That is what has happened in America, I am now certain,
after examining the many studies done following this election. We now
must face the terrible fact that we are ruled by a regime that claims a
mandate to do as they please, when in fact they represent an
illegitimate and criminal tyranny over us.

And look what they have done with that unchallenged power:
Established torture as a policy of interrogation; instituted
concentration camps around the world where those simply accused are
sent to languish with no defense or hope of exoneration; illegally
invaded a country based on fabricated intelligence, killing many
thousands of innocents and turning the entire world community against
us; pillaged our treasury and transferred untold wealth to their
cronies, supporters and our largest corporations; devastated our
environment by removing all protections that guard the very life
support system of our planet. The list is long.

We face huge crises in the near future as our oil runs out and
global warming crashes down on us. Many feel we have only a decade
during which we can face these great dangers squarely and still hope to
save ourselves. This regime is wasting our much needed grace period by
ignoring and exacerbating these threats.

The World Can't Wait! We cannot face the challenges of our times
until this gang of unchecked zealots who are driving our country over a
cliff to its doom are driven from power, and a new direction can be
charted for our country and world.

If our votes no longer count, we are left with the one vote that
does count, the vote we make with our feet. I implore you, join with me
and the many millions in America who see this great threat to our
common future, and come into the streets and the town squares on
November 2nd across America, and, with one voice, say loudly to these
illegitimate leaders in Washington: NO! THIS REGIME DOES NOT REPRESENT
US! AND WE WILL DRIVE IT OUT! THE WORLD CAN'T WAIT!

--------

Jim Oberg is a retired engineer who intended to spend his golden
years with his friends on the golf course. He lives with his wife and
two cats in Wilsonville, Oregon, and can be reached at
.

For more information: http://www.worldcantwait.net/.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Jim Oberg wrote:
> > >
> > As to Iraq and al Qaeda, "no-connection-no-sirree-bob!',
> > don't put all your anti-Bush eggs in that rotten basket,
> > the range of interrelationships is getting better
> > defined and documented every day....
> >
>
> Look, I have no doubt that you guys will be able to manufacture some
> evidence about the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection any millenium now.
>
> But what the cavity in your cranium missses is the ability for logical,
> temporal and spacial reasoning.
>

Sorry for a bit of unneeded disrespect. I didn't know your age, Jim.

>
> If you tell the UN in 2003 that you have personally seem
>

Tha's "seen"

>
> Zarqawi and
> Saddam kiss each other in Berlin in sept 2002, and it turns out that
> Saddam has never been in Berlin, and if in year 2010 it turns out that
> Zarqawi and Saddam did actually kiss each other in Manila in July 1993
> - then your story about you seeing them kiss each other in Berlin in
> sept 2002 is still an intentional lie and you are a liar.
>
> Similarly, no matter what evidence you manufacture, it still will not
> negate the fact that Powell lied, for example, about Zarqawi' Kurdish
> ricin plant being located in the Saddam-controlled part of Iraq, whereas it
> was actually located in the US-controlled part.
>
> Powell's speech was a mathematically provable lie on the day it was
> made and will remain a lie, as long as the basic laws of mathematical
> logic stay the same.

[captain.]

"Herb Schaltegger" > wrote in
message .com...
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:39:48 -0500, Vladimir Makarenko wrote
> (in article >):
>
>>> ...and it doesn't negate the Soviets from going into the "stupid idiots"
>>> record book when they had to fire 14 SAMs to get the U2 and they also
>>> shot
>>> down one of their own chase MIGs in the process.
>>
>> Have you got "preparation H" ? How date with Bill O'Reily went?
>>
>> VM.
>
> Gah, what a freaking apologist. Screw off you pseudo-Soviet troll.
>
> <PLONK>
>
> --
> Herb
>
> "Everything is controlled by a small evil group to which,
> unfortunately, no one we know belongs."
> ~Anonymous
>

gay

[Jim Oberg]

> wrote

THAT is funny!

I'm James E Oberg,
dunno this guy...

Karlamov, you be worth the fuss,
you find neat stuff, hang around...

[Eric Chomko]

Jim Oberg ) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" > wrote
: > Funny I do that with American history books that discuss the JFK
: > assassination. Official line, 'Oswald lone nut' or the truth,
: > 'conspiracy'.

: wrong newsgroup, post this over at
: alt.drooling.whackos, please.


Nice try, but that passion you possess about your govt. lying to you, etc.
and how you would be offended etc., well that is the JFK assassination in
a nutshell, except about 1000-fold.

It's easy for you because you took the bait, believe in the lone not
theory. But if you ever did open your mind and realized the truth, then
you WOULD care and stop questioning petty crap, like whether Gagarin used
a parachute or whether he made a full orbit or not!

It appears to be a conservative trait, procescute the jaywalkers and let
the murderers run free.

Eric

[Eric Chomko]

Vladimir Makarenko ) wrote:


: Eric Chomko wrote:
: >
: > Vladimir Makarenko ) wrote:
: > : Brian Thorn wrote:
: > : > On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:25:15 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
: > : > > wrote:
: > : >
: > : >
: > : >>>If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
: > : >>>lie about them in 1961?
: > : >
: > : >
: > : >>You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
: > : >>had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > Well, that the spacecraft wasn't safe for the cosmonaut to land in...
: > : > that's a pretty important detail. Nevermind that, per the aviation
: > : > rules of the time (which the Soviets publicly supported) bailing out
: > : > of an aircraft or spacecraft negated the flight.
: >
: > : Not really when Soviet shot down U2 and the pilot bailed out - that fact
: > : didn't negate the spy flight which of course was against international
: > : rules which the US in the time publicly supported.
: >
: > I spoke with a guy that felt that Powers should have went down with his
: > plane. Said guy's father worked for the CIA at the time.
: >
: > I also know Powers' son, runs a Cold War history museum, who was born
: > after the incident and obviously disagree with guy number 1 (CIA man's
: > son).
: >
: > : >>They said more than enough. All that crap that they "lied" is just
: > : >>another loser whining.
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > Nonsense. The only one whining around here is you. The rest of us have
: > : > acknowledged that Gagarin was heroic and the first man to travel in
: > : > space.
: >
: > : Switch from "I" to "we" is always very symptomatic. It doesn't work
: > : though. Better try to cut your crap.
: >
: > : >
: > : >
: > : >>And btw, - recently US Airforce took out of US National Archives
: > : >>thousands of documents including those dated by fifties.
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > Reference?
: >
: > : E.g. NYT of 04/19/2006 - i.e. today:
: >
: > : http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/opinion/19weds4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
: >
: > : Now read and continue to bitch how Soviets won space race.
: >
: > Won? By never leaving LEO in a manned spacecraft?

: Ask him - I never claimed that; the guy insists that Soviets did and
: whines about that.

: Who is LEO?

Not who, but what? LEO means low earth orbit (telling my 11 year old about
it just this morning!). Wiki says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_Orbit

Compare to GEO (geosynchronous orbit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_Orbit

Space newsgroup and all, those kinds of acronyms get thrown about.

Eric

: VM.

: >
: > Eric
: >
: > : VM.
: >
: > : >
: > : > Brian

[Eric Chomko]

Jim Oberg ) wrote:
: You really ought to look at my book -- I discuss the big US-Russian problem
: as both sides talking past each other towards each one's misinterpretations
: of the other's realities. Because that may be going on here, on a small
: scale --
: each of us angry at what we have come to THINK is the other's point of view.

: I'm beginning to suspect that I pegged you wrong, and I would certainly
: argue that you've pegged ME wrong, and I beg an opportunity to
: attempt to change what I think is an unjust characterization.

Which way? He of you or you of he? I suspect that to really make the point
empathy and you wanting to make your point are needed.

Believe it or not, but my father was a counterintellignece office during
the Cold War, specializing in Russian culture. He speaks the language
fluently, etc. Two of his jobs were chief interpreter of the
Washington/Moscow hotline and Russian language instructor at West
Point. Maybe I should get him your book and see what he thinks?

Eric


: "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote

: > "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote:
: >> Well, you know Vladi, a little lie here, and another one there, and
: >> perhaps a whopper in some other reference book, or perhaps a page
: >> deleted from an encyclopedia, or a figure skillfully erased from
: >> a photograph, AND PRETTY SOON YOU WILL HAVE REWRITTEN HISTORY.
: >
: > This is exactly what this guy is trying to do. Where from his agenda
: > comes - paranoia or tabloid money - I don't give a damn. But he
: > demonstrated over years a pattern of behavior which is very simple -
: > everything Soviets have done in space race either sucks or very bad.
: > Read **** he was writing few years ago here and there that "Mir" station
: > is a major danger to the world, while not letting a single word about
: > gambling of the "Shuttle" program. This is the real history: "Mir" was
: > designed and built so robust that it withstood major accidents including
: > collision and continued to function properly twice as long as it was
: > initially supposed. "Shuttle" - you know what kind of "gem" this junk
: > turned out to be. Waste of human lives and money. So do not tell me
: > about "rewritten" history - when such guys are trying write it there is
: > no need to rewrite, whatever Ministry of Truth will review it.
: >
: > VM.

[Eric Chomko]

wrote:

: Eric Chomko wrote:
: > wrote:
: >
: > : Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
: > : > Mary Pegg wrote:
: > : >
: > : > > Jim Oberg wrote:
: > : > >
: > : > >
: > : > >>This topic came up in an earlier discussion, so here is a
: > : > >>section of my book, 'Star-Crossed Orbits', that tries
: > : > >>to put it into perspective:
: > : > >
: > : > >
: > : > > <snip>
: > : > >
: > : > > Interesting, but surely a bigger obstacle to the FAI recognising
: > : > > the claims is that Gagarin bailed out, and therefore did not
: > : > > complete the flight?
: > : >
: > : > Anything to get the butt ****ing dumb American public off the glaring
: > : > NASA and administration technical incompetence ball, eh, Mary?
: > : >
: > : > That's fine with me, go ahead, give it your best shot. Make my day.
: > : >
: > : > Punk.
: > : >
: >
: > : Thomas, I don't think you realize the inmportance of such things. As it
: > : stands, USA id just 1 Guinness world records ahead of the next
: > : competitiors: Germans. As the Germans plan 2 new world records planned
: > : in hte next month: one for eating the most sourkraut while singing
: > : "Deutschland, Deutschland, Ueber Alles!" and the other one for writing
: > : the most anti-Serb articles in a period of one week. USA has just one
: > : planned: the record number of foreign journalists tortured by being
: > : made to eat the most number of huamburgers.
: >
: > : If USA is to keep its coveted World leadership in the Guinnnes race,
: > : Soviet primacy in space travel have to be taken away and given to our
: > : good old Ameircan Wernher Von Braun. No, wait! Wernher and his team
: > : were also Germans!
: >
: > : Unfortunately, after the death of Wernher Von Braun and his Nazi SS
: > : team, their blueprints for space travel have been lost because NASA
: > : doesn't have any transaltors from German.
: >
: > : But USA still holds the most important space travel record for the
: > : greatest number of astronauts taken to space by the Russian Zoyuz
: > : craft.
: >
: > : Moreover, I hear NASA is deadlocked with China and India in a race to
: > : be the first country other than Russia to be able to send a craft into
: > : space and be able to return it wihtout any major explosions. I hear
: > : NASA is planning to spend many $billions on this noble task. Although
: > : this can be solved much more cheaply by hiring a German translator...
: >
: > Ich bin ein Berliner!
: >
: > Where do I sign up?
: >

: I am not sure. I can tell you where to sign up if you were not a
: Berliner but, say, a Frankfurter, a Wiener or a Hamburger though... :-)

I lived in Frankfurt and graduated Frankfurt American High School!

: We'll even allow you to hire an assistant. A hamburger helper, so to
: speak.

Only if I get to live in a castle, Herr Schloss...

: Cheers!

Machts gut, auch... (out)

[Eric Chomko]

wrote:

: Eric Chomko wrote:
: > Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj ) wrote:
: > : Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:
: >
: > : > "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote
: > : >
: > : >>Brian Thorn wrote:
: > : >>
: > : >>>On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:25:15 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
: > : > wrote:
: > : >>>
: > : >>>>>If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
: > : >>>>>lie about them in 1961?
: > : >>>
: > : >>>>You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
: > : >>>>had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
: > : >>>
: > : >>>Well, that the spacecraft wasn't safe for the cosmonaut to land in...
: > : >>>that's a pretty important detail. Nevermind that, per the aviation
: > : >>>rules of the time (which the Soviets publicly supported) bailing out
: > : >>>of an aircraft or spacecraft negated the flight.
: > : >>
: > : >>Not really when Soviet shot down U2 and the pilot bailed out - that fact
: > : >>didn't negate the spy flight which of course was against international
: > : >>rules which the US in the time publicly supported.
: > : >>
: > : > ...and it doesn't negate the Soviets from going into the "stupid idiots"
: > : > record book when they had to fire 14 SAMs to get the U2 and they also shot
: > : > down one of their own chase MIGs in the process.
: > : >
: > : >
: > : Yeah, But they got it! And your statement is such obvious sour grapes
: > : that it's comical.
: > : Do you blame Gary Powers for letting himself and his plane be captured?
: >
: > As stated in an earlier post, some felt he should have gone down with the
: > plane.
: >

: Some Americans just don't realize the honor and pleasure of committing
: suicide in order to keep their deceitful bosses from getting exposed as
: such. Not enough Japanese- or German-style discipline here. Not enough

Wait, didn't the Germans and the Japanese LOSE WWII? Not a very good
example, pal!

: true patriotism. Not the kind of people you can successfully rape Iraq,
: Iran, Venezuella and Belarus with. The future is bleak...

Belarus? They have oil, too?

I was hoping for Nigeria on that list. With their damn internet scams, I
think we ought to go there and steal the oil. Serves um right!

[Eric Chomko]

Scott Hedrick ) wrote:

: "Volker Hetzer" > wrote in message
: ...
: > Jim Oberg wrote:
: >> "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote
: >>> Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
: >>> terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
: >>> Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
: >>
: >> You have trouble with English, malchik?
: >>
: >> It's great the Soviets were first in space -- it was the only
: >> practical method of goosing the US gummint to spend
: >> tens of billions of dollars in response.
: >>
: >> It's NOT great that people are so tolerant of
: >> Soviet lies -- that's L-I-E-S -- about their
: >> space achievements.
: > They didn't lie about their space achievements, just about
: > the launch site

: Also the method of landing, which was *specifically* forbidden under the
: rules.

: *That* is the point- the Soviets knowingly *did not* follow the rules, which
: *required* that Gagarin land *inside the spaceship*. He did not. Thus, under
: the rules, he is not the first man to orbit the earth.

Are you going to get Pluto off the list of planets, too? I mean it most
likely is a Kuiper Belt object, like Sedna. Why not lobby to take it off
in the interest of being correct?

: I'm not particularly interested in changing the record, because what he did
: was daring enough. Nevertheless, anyone interested in the truth should be
: willing to accept the *fact* that Gagarin cheated.

Man, I read this and think about how JFk was killed and the word "cheated"
has a whole new meaning. I know, you believe in the lone nut theory out of
necessity, so it's easy for you to pick on the Rooskies for cheating...

Eric

[Mary Pegg]

Scott Hedrick wrote:

> *That* is the point- the Soviets knowingly *did not* follow the rules,
> which *required* that Gagarin land *inside the spaceship*. He did not.
> Thus, under the rules, he is not the first man to orbit the earth.

I doubt there were any rules about *orbiting* - only about claiming
longest and fastest flights.

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

wrote:
>
> And speaking of Jim's articles, here is hte first article of his that
> my google search has found:
>
> http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=24632
>
> Activism
> Jim Oberg: 'We must now demand that they step down'
> Contributed by JWO on Monday, January 30 @ 09:55:56 EST
> This article has been read 1671 times.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jim Oberg
>
> Today, along with so many of my friends and neighbors, I am terribly
> ashamed of my country. Daily revelations about the actions of my
> government expose unspeakable things being done in my name. The America
> I grew up loving, I must admit, has become the purveyor of terrible
> horrors against the world and our own citizens, and this regime is
> steadily depriving we, the people, of our constitutional rights, our
> freedoms and our democratic process.
>
> How did it happen that my country has become a torturer, and even a
> defender publicly of our right to use torture in our 'defense'? Why has
> my country come to claim it our right to preemptively and illegally
> invade and occupy other countries, even one that was no imminent
> threat, killing thousands of innocents in the process? When did my
> country become unwilling to respond swiftly with our aid and compassion
> when disaster strikes its own citizens, as we saw in horror when
> Katrina struck with such fury? What has brought my country to establish
> a network of secret prisons around the world, where unknown numbers may
> be held without charge and with no way to monitor their treatment? How
> is it we can allow our government to unlawfully spy upon any citizen
> without a warrant, and to then boldly claim their unlimited authority
> to do anything they deem necessary to 'protect' us. Who authorizes
> these crimes and who carries them out when I never, ever would provide
> my assent for these horrific actions to be done in my name?
>
> Across America, millions of us are now beginning to awaken to the
> tragedy that has befallen our beloved country, a travesty brought upon
> us by an illegitimate, unaccountable regime that has stolen elections
> and then arrogantly claims a mandate to rule us with absolute disdain
> for all dissent against their criminal agenda. Moving inexorably
> towards the establishment of a fascist theocracy that will rule us for
> generations, they enact daily a program that enriches the few at the
> expense of most in the world, and place their cronies in positions of
> power in every institution established to protect us from corporate and
> governmental abuses. Their global domination project drains our
> treasury, weakens our military and undermines our ability to meet even
> the basic needs of our citizens, while putting future generations into
> unimaginable debt. We are being taken over a cliff to our material and
> moral doom by this regime, and many of us are simply not going to take
> it any longer. It is time to act.
>
> This Tuesday, George Bush delivers his State of the Union address, and
> all across America, a new movement for change, the World Can't Wait:
> Drive out the Bush Regime, will gather many thousand of citizens to
> proclaim that we in actual fact face a terrible state of emergency in
> this country, and loudly demand that they STEP DOWN. We will then, in
> towns and cities all across the country, drown out his speech with
> noise of all kinds, music and bells and car horns and our angry voices,
> calling on everyone to wake up to the danger we all face, and the
> possibility of creating a new direction for our country. This regime
> clearly does not represent the majority of Americans. It is time for us
> all to get out of our homes, out from behind our TV and computer
> screens, make ourselves visible in our unity, and demand that they stop
> this madness that has overtaken our country.
>
> We must say loudly and with determination that it is time for them to
> STEP DOWN, and to take their failed and criminal agenda with them. We
> must all now come to the streets in our millions to show them that
> their attempt to steal our democracy has failed, and that we, the
> people, are now demanding that our government again stand with us in
> responding to the real priorities we must face together. We are
> entering a challenging period ahead, with oil running out and the
> impact of our environmental abuse about to crash down upon us. The
> world can't wait for this regime to continue to destroy our country and
> our chance for a future that will permit us to responsibly face these
> crises together.
>
> This Tuesday night, 8:00 PM to 9:30 PM EST, in towns and cities
> everywhere, I ask you to join with me, with your friends and your
> neighbors, and come to the streets wherever you are as Bush offers us
> more of their failed and destructive agenda, and show your
> determination to fight against this whole direction they seek for our
> future. They are counting on our apathy and despair to keep us in our
> place. Let your noisy protest alert the nation to the great danger we
> face if we stand aside and allow them an uncontested pathway to more of
> their unacceptable actions. Then, this Saturday at 11:00 AM, join in
> marching with us around the White House and delivering the message of
> the people of America: BUSH, STEP DOWN, AND TAKE YOUR PROGRAM WITH YOU!
>
> Jim Oberg is a retired Engineer who lives in Wilsonville, OR, with his
> wife and two cats, and is volunteering with the World Can't Wait
> movement to help mobilize the response to the terrible abuses of this
> regime. He can be reached at .
>
Vkarlamov
Your Googling skills are pathetic, if this is the first Jim Oberg
article that you found. Jim has been posting to news since way way
earlier than the Bush presidency!
But anyway abstracting from that, what do you think of the content
of this article thay you have chosen to quote in full?
What about its tone and sentiments?
I am certain that you quoted it in full because it agrees so much
with sentiments that you have expressed. :)
I am glad to see that you are not completely hostile to Mr. Oberg.
--
Rostyk

[Vladimir Makarenko]

" wrote:
>
> Vladimir Makarenko wrote:
> > Brian Thorn wrote:
> > > On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:59:18 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>But whatever number of commas you will change in these records, add or
> > >>subtract a couple degrees, it will never change the fact that Soviets
> > >>did not lie about their achievements: they were first in space.
> > >
> > >
> > > If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
> > > lie about them in 1961?
> > >
> >
> > You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
> > had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
> > They said more than enough. All that crap that they "lied" is just
> > another loser whining.
> >
>
> Actually more to the point, is that the Soviets played the same game,
> and bitched to anyone who would listen about the LEAST little mistake
> or typo-goof anyone else made- while DELIBERATELY lying themselves.
> This is called 'hypocracy'. (Look it up.) The US conducted their
> program in pretty much openess (granted, there were some secrets in
> certain areas, NO ONE is denying that), but the Soviets were completely
> behind the curtain. Because they only announced successful results,
> anyone trying to do the same thing got wrong information- such as
> success rates for different types of vehicles, ballistic results, etc.
> Jim can tell you better what exactly was screwed up because of that,
> but I do know the US spent a hell of a lot of time, effort, and money
> reflying several planetary missions because the Soviets lied about
> their successes. Their claims that Venera 4 transmitted from the
> Venusian surface affected Venus probes' results for years. They failed
> to announce failed launches, leading to all sorts of wild speculations,
> including a potential highning of tensions during the Cuban Missile
> Crisis when debris from a failed launch was detected coming over the
> DEW line.
> And complaints about current malfeisence is about as relevant as
> mentioning Watergate in a discussion of how President Lincoln made his
> political decisions.

It looks like I am starting to understand what the real reason for this
fight is: on mostly American part the space race was/is regarded as
Olympic competition and on the part of Russians as another face of arms
race. When all that started the Soviets didn't have anything close to a
bomber fleet US had in the time. The space program was a corner stone of
their strategic defense and its civilian and military components got
separated I guess only around seventies.
I mean what if Russians now would start complain about Americans
"cheating" them in sixties about SR 71 or Tonkin incident?
Therefore this feud will have no end. It's like fight over what is
better (or worse) - MacDonalds or BurgerKing.
Have fun.

VM.

[Jim Oberg]

> wrote
> Settle down, boy.

I'm willing. You have passion and verbal finesse, no doubt,
and we can work on your knowledge base -- so hang around and
help keep the discussions stirred up.

[[email protected]]

Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > And speaking of Jim's articles, here is hte first article of his that
> > my google search has found:
> >
> > http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=24632
> >
> > Activism
> > Jim Oberg: 'We must now demand that they step down'
> > Contributed by JWO on Monday, January 30 @ 09:55:56 EST
> > This article has been read 1671 times.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Jim Oberg
> >
> > Today, along with so many of my friends and neighbors, I am terribly
> > ashamed of my country. Daily revelations about the actions of my
> > government expose unspeakable things being done in my name. The America
> > I grew up loving, I must admit, has become the purveyor of terrible
> > horrors against the world and our own citizens, and this regime is
> > steadily depriving we, the people, of our constitutional rights, our
> > freedoms and our democratic process.
> >
> > How did it happen that my country has become a torturer, and even a
> > defender publicly of our right to use torture in our 'defense'? Why has
> > my country come to claim it our right to preemptively and illegally
> > invade and occupy other countries, even one that was no imminent
> > threat, killing thousands of innocents in the process? When did my
> > country become unwilling to respond swiftly with our aid and compassion
> > when disaster strikes its own citizens, as we saw in horror when
> > Katrina struck with such fury? What has brought my country to establish
> > a network of secret prisons around the world, where unknown numbers may
> > be held without charge and with no way to monitor their treatment? How
> > is it we can allow our government to unlawfully spy upon any citizen
> > without a warrant, and to then boldly claim their unlimited authority
> > to do anything they deem necessary to 'protect' us. Who authorizes
> > these crimes and who carries them out when I never, ever would provide
> > my assent for these horrific actions to be done in my name?
> >
> > Across America, millions of us are now beginning to awaken to the
> > tragedy that has befallen our beloved country, a travesty brought upon
> > us by an illegitimate, unaccountable regime that has stolen elections
> > and then arrogantly claims a mandate to rule us with absolute disdain
> > for all dissent against their criminal agenda. Moving inexorably
> > towards the establishment of a fascist theocracy that will rule us for
> > generations, they enact daily a program that enriches the few at the
> > expense of most in the world, and place their cronies in positions of
> > power in every institution established to protect us from corporate and
> > governmental abuses. Their global domination project drains our
> > treasury, weakens our military and undermines our ability to meet even
> > the basic needs of our citizens, while putting future generations into
> > unimaginable debt. We are being taken over a cliff to our material and
> > moral doom by this regime, and many of us are simply not going to take
> > it any longer. It is time to act.
> >
> > This Tuesday, George Bush delivers his State of the Union address, and
> > all across America, a new movement for change, the World Can't Wait:
> > Drive out the Bush Regime, will gather many thousand of citizens to
> > proclaim that we in actual fact face a terrible state of emergency in
> > this country, and loudly demand that they STEP DOWN. We will then, in
> > towns and cities all across the country, drown out his speech with
> > noise of all kinds, music and bells and car horns and our angry voices,
> > calling on everyone to wake up to the danger we all face, and the
> > possibility of creating a new direction for our country. This regime
> > clearly does not represent the majority of Americans. It is time for us
> > all to get out of our homes, out from behind our TV and computer
> > screens, make ourselves visible in our unity, and demand that they stop
> > this madness that has overtaken our country.
> >
> > We must say loudly and with determination that it is time for them to
> > STEP DOWN, and to take their failed and criminal agenda with them. We
> > must all now come to the streets in our millions to show them that
> > their attempt to steal our democracy has failed, and that we, the
> > people, are now demanding that our government again stand with us in
> > responding to the real priorities we must face together. We are
> > entering a challenging period ahead, with oil running out and the
> > impact of our environmental abuse about to crash down upon us. The
> > world can't wait for this regime to continue to destroy our country and
> > our chance for a future that will permit us to responsibly face these
> > crises together.
> >
> > This Tuesday night, 8:00 PM to 9:30 PM EST, in towns and cities
> > everywhere, I ask you to join with me, with your friends and your
> > neighbors, and come to the streets wherever you are as Bush offers us
> > more of their failed and destructive agenda, and show your
> > determination to fight against this whole direction they seek for our
> > future. They are counting on our apathy and despair to keep us in our
> > place. Let your noisy protest alert the nation to the great danger we
> > face if we stand aside and allow them an uncontested pathway to more of
> > their unacceptable actions. Then, this Saturday at 11:00 AM, join in
> > marching with us around the White House and delivering the message of
> > the people of America: BUSH, STEP DOWN, AND TAKE YOUR PROGRAM WITH YOU!
> >
> > Jim Oberg is a retired Engineer who lives in Wilsonville, OR, with his
> > wife and two cats, and is volunteering with the World Can't Wait
> > movement to help mobilize the response to the terrible abuses of this
> > regime. He can be reached at .
> >
> Vkarlamov
> Your Googling skills are pathetic, if this is the first Jim Oberg
> article that you found.
>

If you ever learn about the way Google works, then if you type in "Jim
Oberg" and hit "Search", the algorithmic results will be exactly the
same, regardless of your skills. Try it out!


>
> Jim has been posting to news since way way
> earlier than the Bush presidency!
>

So have I. So what does that prove?

>
> But anyway abstracting from that, what do you think of the content
> of this article thay you have chosen to quote in full?
> What about its tone and sentiments?
>

Tone is hysterical and illogical. Childish sentiments.

>
> I am certain that you quoted it in full because it agrees so much
> with sentiments that you have expressed. :)
>

It is a hystrical and illogical temper tantrum that doesn't really give
the exact things that he finds so terrible about Bush. The only thing
discernable from his hysteria is htat Jim somehow wants to imply that
USA is some kind of a banana republic, in which the president falsified
and stole the 2004 elections.

Yes, I hate a lot of things about Bush but I am very logical and
rational about listing these things and explainming why they are bad,
and I don't accuse him of crimes he hasn't committed.

Instead of calling American people to start a violent revolution
agaisnt their freely elected President, Bush, or sharing with us his
"Amazing" revelations that the Soviet Union was not the most honest
country on Earth (wow, it took him just 40 years to realise soemthing
that even the most backward Siberian peasants have known for at least
20 years!), he would start a rational well-thought-out movement to
reduce the undue influence that special interest re-election money has
on our politicians and to reform our media to make it a bit less
deceiptful towards its own reades and fellow citizens.

>
> I am glad to see that you are not completely hostile to Mr. Oberg.
> --

He is a hysterical and illogical man who knows neither the sense of
proportion nor the concept of rationality and common sense. He acts
like a spoiled hysterical 2-year old girl.

I respect him for his dedication to book writing and studying space
industry, but even the most dedicated writers aren't immune to being
illogical and irrational.

[[email protected]]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> > wrote
>
> THAT is funny!
>
> I'm James E Oberg,
> dunno this guy...
>
> Karlamov, you be worth the fuss,
> you find neat stuff, hang around...
>

No, seriously, that is not you? Wow, what an amazing co-incidence:
another politically active ex-engineer named Jim Oberg.... The
lightning does strike twice.

Except the other Jim Oberg has EXACTLY diametrically opposeed political
views from yours.

[Brian Thorn]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:56:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Chomko) wrote:

>Man, I read this and think about how JFk was killed and the word "cheated"
>has a whole new meaning. I know, you believe in the lone nut theory out of
>necessity, so it's easy for you to pick on the Rooskies for cheating...

I used to be in the "Grassy Knoll Conspiracy" camp. Then, in 2003 ABC
aired a program that included a computer recreation of Dealey Plaza
which was stunningly convincing of the "Oswald Acted Alone" argument.
The whole "magic bullet" argument was utterly destroyed thanks to
modern computer technology based on irrefutable evidence (primarily
the Zapruder film and still-existing structures such as the TSBD), and
with it, the primary argument for Oswald having had accomplices (or
was a dupe.) They also convincingly disproved common conspiracy
arguments such as it being impossible to get off three shots in the
time available to Oswald, and that Oswald couldn't have gotten from
the TSBD to the site of the Tippet shooting in the available time.
Discovery Channel reairs this program from time to time.

Perhaps Oswald did not plan the assassination alone, we'll probably
never know for sure. But I no longer doubt he was the only assassin in
Dealey Plaza.

Brian

[[email protected]]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> > wrote
> > Sarcasm apart, I am 99% sure that there was no such FAI requirement
> > concerning the landed poundage or the number of layers needed to break
> > the "orbit the earth" record, and that you guys just invented all this
> > crap out of your severe inferiority complex towards Russian science.
> > What's the freudian term for it? "Korolev envy" or "Gagarin envy"?
>
> Thanks for the amateur brainwashing. But read Kislyakov's
> 'cosmonaut day' Novosti story posted nearby, and you'll see he
> makes no bones about Gagarin being ordered to lie. He's man
> enough to live through it. Be inspired by his example.
>

I still don't understand why you have now embarked on a crusade to tell
the World that the Soviet regime 45 years ago was not very honest. I
mean, everybody outside of the Soviet Union and half of the people
inside of it have known this obvious fact for more than 80 years. And
exactly 20 years ago, the new Soviet leader Grobachev launched his
famous Glasnost, aimed at educating each and every backward peasant
even in Siberia about the evils of the Soviet system and its deceiptful
nature.

So, whay have you now, 45 years later, engaged in this ridiculous
crusade of telling the World such a commonplace near-tautology,
hysterically and repeatedly shriekily shouting "liar-liar!" at
Khruschev, who has been dead for something like 30 years?

>
> And another think life tells us is that the most shrieky accusations
> of 'liar-liar' are often from people who plan to lie, and if ever caught,
> make the excuse it's only rejoinder to their 'true' accusations.
>

Thanks for your brilliant self-analysis. Please continue and tell us
about your plans to lie.

A lot of people have looked in puzzlement at you trying to rehash the
totally irrelevant stories about how some Soviets allegedly cheated in
order to get their names published in some world record book half a
century ago and shout "liar-liar" at them now, in year 2006. And I
assure you, people saw that these liar-liar" accusations were done to
cover up your own existing or planned lies, even before you so kindly
admitted it.

Upon re-reading your posts, I can see only one plausible explanation:

As I already wrote, starting with the early 1990s, when the Soviet
Union self-dissolved and its sucessor republics became as honest (or
dishonest) as most other European countries, US government and media
suddenly moved from a distant 2nd to an undisputed 1st in terms of
lying, cheating and falsifications.

The rape of formely peaceful and civilized Tito's Yugoslavia and the
re-balkanization of the Balkans involved USA furhter increasing its
level of disinformation, lies, fasifications, propaganda, and
brainwashing of its own citizens.

And then came the 2000s and Bush, who exploded all records, formely
held by the Soviets and especially the Nazi, in ht efield of
propaganda, flasificatin and lying.

Powell's speech to the UN alone towers heads and shouldrers abouve all
previous attempts at lying like Mount Everest and Tian-Shian Mountains
tower over the Kara-Kum desert, or whatever.

Thanks to Clinton and Bush, to the whole Wold - even to America's best
friends in Great Britain! - the word "American" is now synonimous with
words "liar, demagogue, warmonger, aggressor, near-sghted moron". Even
in Britain, Americans compalin of virulent anti-American hatred that
makes their lives living hell.

It is for the purpose of covering up this monstrosity that you have
brought up the issue of Gagarin's world records from 45 years ago, in
order to paint modern Russians as "liars" and to paint modern Americans
as "sainly truth-tellers", whose only guilt is that they "tolerate' the
lies that modern Rusisans perpetrate:

Even though the modern Russians resemple the Soviet comissars no more
than modern Germans resemble the Nazis, or the modern Spaniards
resemble the Coquistadors or the Holy Spanish Inqusitors, you still
want to use Gagarin's alleged world record book inconsistencies as a
45-ear-old shriveled fig leaf to cover your own gaping modern lies.

You write that the only purpose of your current hysteria is to rectify
mistakes on some maps and in some world record books. Yet, your own
the words in this thread that explain your true intentions:

>
> This isn't just ancient space history. The same attitude has persisted all
> the way into the current day. Throughout this book, we shall see many cases
> in which American officials talk themselves into tolerating Russian
> deception since, after all, "they're only Russians" and we need to get used
> to it. The lamentable consequences of this attitude will soon be all too
> apparent in subsequent chapters.

....

>
> Isn't it just a condescending way of saying, "We know
> Russians are liars, so why bother to expect them to tell the truth?"
>

I rest my case.

>
> The existence of the explicit FAI wording isn't in doubt.
>

If it's existence isn't in doubt, then it must exist. And if it exists,
then you will be able to provide us with the exact such text/wording
and tell us which pre-1961 FAI you took this text from.

Otherwise, we'll know who the real and the biggest liar is here.

>
> You only
> make yourself look more delusional by substituting your 'sureness'
> for documentary evidence.
>

I am doing quite the opposite: I am demanding to see that very
"documentary evidence" that you constantly talk about. But no matter
how many times I ask you for it, you go out of your way not to provide
it and even try to blame me for the absence of your documentary
evidence.

>
> As for our inferiority complex towards Russian science, can we
> enforce a Russian-level male life expectancy on you, or do we have
> to put up with you as long as average non-Russians manage to survive
> without the benefit of Russian science.
>

Are you so illogical and stupid that you blame the high mortality in
Russia not on alcoholism or the economic crisis caused by the
transition form socilaism to capitalism but on the failings of the
Russian space technology?

You do know hte definitions of the words "demagoguery" and "demagogue"?
if you ever become world-famous, that will be probably because your
picture will appear in all encyclopedias next to those 2 words.

[[email protected]]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> > wrote
>
> But deception about Baykonur isn't the issue,
> the Soviets don't have anything to regret in
> trying to mask its location, as with Los Alamos --
>

If "deception about Baykonur isn't the issue", then why did you start
this whole threat by raising this very issue of "deception about
Baykonur" in you original open letter and in many follow-up to it. As
in:

>
> It was this set of handsomely-bound documents that I was inspecting and
> authenticating for my host and paying client, Kaller's America Gallery in
> New York City. We would catalog each one, and I would read it over in
> Russian to note the accuracy of its claims. One thing I noted about the
> claims was the almost universal insistence that the launch site of these
> "space firsts", Baykonur, was located at precisely 47:22:00 north, 65:29:00
> east. Ever since the first American U-2 spy plane flew over Russia in 1956,
> the launch pad has been known to be at 45:55:00 north and 63:20:00 east.
>
> Foreign observers had always suspected that the error was deliberate,
> presumably to get the next U-2 spy planes to stray off course. Finally, in
> an incredibly rich collection of Russian space memoirs published in New York
> the same year as the auction, two former Soviet officials independently
> described how the falsehood originated. It was just as we suspected, but
> it's the real inside story.
>
> Vladimir Yastrebov, an expert in spacecraft tracking, wrote about his exact
> role in the deception: "I was personally involved in naming the Tyura-Tam
> launch site 'Baikonur' so as to disguise its true location. A few days after
> Gagarin's flight, my management sent me to one of the central
> administrations of the Ministry of Defense to meet with Col. Kerim A.
> Kerimov. Together with a senior officer from his section called Alexei
> Maximov, I was asked to draw up the records of Gagarin's flight in terms of
> range and altitude for registration with the International Aviation
> Federation in Paris. Preparing the document was easy enough, but we
> encountered a major hurdle when deciding how to identify the site from which
> the Vostok launch vehicle had lifted off. Since we were not allowed for
> security reasons to name Tyura-Tam, we studied the map and chose a
> ballistically plausible down-range alternative in the form of a small Kazakh
> settlement called Baikonur. And that is what the cosmodrome has been called
> ever since."
>
> Reading further in the same book, "Roads to Space", I found that Alexandr
> (not Alexei) Maximov, an official of the Ministry of Defense responsible for
> space activities, had also contributed a memoir. He told much the same
> story, but slightly garbled with regard to the dates and organizations: "So
> where did the name Baikonur come from?" he wrote. "In accordance with an
> international treaty, we had to register our Aug. 21 [1957] ICBM launch with
> the United Nations, indicating the date, time, and place of launch."
>
> "Since there were no spy satellites in orbit yet, nobody knew where the test
> range was situated, and we were not keen to divulge that information for
> security reasons. We therefore decided to indicate a site whose existence
> the Americans could verify. With their radars they were able to track the
> flight of our rocket and, by working backward, calculate the approximate
> location of the launch site. So we decided to give the Telegraph Agency of
> the Soviet Union and the United Nations the name of a place situated some
> 250 kilometers away from Tyura-Tam. That place happened to be called
> Baikonur -- and ostensibly that is where we have been launching from ever
> since."
>
> Yastrebov's account is more accurate since the Baikonur story was associated
> with the first manned flight aboard 'Vostok' and with the 1961 FAI
> registration, not with the earlier missile test. But Maximov's account is
> essentially corroborative regarding the motivation and the action itself.
>
> So the official claims contained intentional falsehoods.
>

Now you write:

>
> the objection is with providing falsified information
> to international groups, for proving a claim to
> a world record that nobody had any intent of denying them.
>

So, let us summarize. Even you agree that the Soviets were totally
justified in trying to hide and not report the true location of their
top secret rocket labs and launch pads, because the revelation of the
exact locations could have resulted in USA dropping nukes on them the
way they had done to the much more innocent people of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki or doing something similar in nature.

So, when the Soviet were filling out the official FAI application for
registering their world records and the application asked "your
address", the Soviets, who had to hide the true location of their
facilities, listed "Baikonur" instead of the true place "Tyura-Tam"
(which was a two hour drive away from Baikonur) in order to prevent the
US Air Force from finding out where exactly to bomb it.

And you call this act of saving the whole world from a nuclear
holocaust "falsifying information", "intentional falsehoods" and
"lying"? So, what would YOU have done if you were in their place? Would
you give the correct address and coordinates? Would you also publicise
when the Soviet pilots and air defense people at Tyura-Tam went to
sleep so that the US Air Force would know exactly not only where but
also when to strike them?

Since you yourself agree that the Soviets had no choice but to give the
wrong address on their world record application, what do you want from
us? If the reason for giving the wrong address was to prevent a nuclear
holocaust and not to deceive the records commission, why do you think
that the most pressing issue in the modern world is to get these
records removed on your insane and flimsy grounds?

Let's say that there was a contract out to kill you 45 years ago and
100 worst professional killers were looking for you. Imagine that you
had recently broken the world record in long jump by, and you had to
fill out an application the IIAF for that record (which is part of
public records and will be read by your assassins). Would you have
given your real address you were hiding form your killers or some other
address?

And if you gave another addreess, should the IIAF now declare you and
your country "liars" and take away your record from 45 years ago
because you had listed a false home address?

Instead of persecuting the long jumper, persecute the assassins who
were out to kill him. Those were the same kind of people who were
earlier kslaughtering innoncent civilians in Dresden, Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and later were killing the innocent civian Vietnamese, and the
Panamanians, and the Grenadans, and the Haitians, and the Serbs, and
the Gypisies, and the Macedonians, and the Chinese, and the Iraqis,
etc, etc, etc.

[[email protected]]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> > wrote
> > Settle down, boy.
>
> I'm willing. You have passion and verbal finesse, no doubt,
> and we can work on your knowledge base -- so hang around and
> help keep the discussions stirred up.
>

My point is that your habit of calling old men "malchik" ("boy") is
highly disrespectful and insuting.

[Jim Oberg]

> wrote
> So, let us summarize. Even you agree that the Soviets were totally
> justified in trying to hide and not report the true location of their
> top secret rocket labs and launch pads, because the revelation of the
> exact locations could have resulted in USA dropping nukes on them the
> way they had done to the much more innocent people of Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki or doing something similar in nature.

Stop right here. You're not summarizing.
You're slipping in new knee-jerk anti-American themes.
I sure SAID you were clever. Just not well informed.

Start over. And be honest this time. Summarize.

[Jim Oberg]

> wrote
> I still don't understand why you have now embarked on a crusade to tell
> the World that the Soviet regime 45 years ago was not very honest. I
> mean, everybody outside of the Soviet Union and half of the people
> inside of it have known this obvious fact for more than 80 years. And
> exactly 20 years ago, the new Soviet leader Grobachev launched his
> famous Glasnost, aimed at educating each and every backward peasant
> even in Siberia about the evils of the Soviet system and its deceiptful
> nature.

But they haven't.

Sure, they published a few newspaper articles, changed a few textbooks,
ran a few TV documentaries. Took down some statues, put up a few others...

But in comparison to other cases were dictatorsips were overthrown
and a population was nursed back to political health, don't you even notice
one glaring lack?

Where are the criminal trials for the murders in the name of the 'old
regime'?
Where are the indictments of men who 'followed orders' by committing
millions of massacres of innocent victims in the Gulag, in Hungary and
Czechoslovakia, in Chechnya and over the Sea of Japan (Korean Air 007),
on the streets of Western Europe (against Soviet defectors), and even the
attempt in St. Peter's Square? As far as I can determine, not one single
crime
commited by anyone at the behest of the Soviet Regime has been called
into account.

[Jim Oberg]

> wrote
> My point is that your habit of calling old men "malchik" ("boy") is
> highly disrespectful and insuting.

Where does your name indicate I should know you are an old man?
Especially when you sounded like a snot-nosed kid in your posts?
You haven't even TASTED 'disrespectful' in my posts.

[[email protected]]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> > wrote
> > So, let us summarize. Even you agree that the Soviets were totally
> > justified in trying to hide and not report the true location of their
> > top secret rocket labs and launch pads, because the revelation of the
> > exact locations could have resulted in USA dropping nukes on them the
> > way they had done to the much more innocent people of Hiroshima and
> > Nagasaki or doing something similar in nature.
>
> Stop right here. You're not summarizing.
> You're slipping in new knee-jerk anti-American themes.
> I sure SAID you were clever. Just not well informed.
>
> Start over. And be honest this time. Summarize.
>

Summary:

1. You and I agree that USSR had to hide the exact address of its
rocket and missile launch stes.

2. You then used the fact that USSR did so to cry "liar-liar"

3. You then told us that when you cry "liar-liar", you are trying to
hide your own lie but didn't tell us which lie you were hiding.

4. You then told us that if USSR had to hide the location in order to
protect it from an enemy attack 45 years ago, it means that modern
Russians are lliars.

5. I wrote several detailed articles, logically anayzing all these
topics.

6. You got ashamed at being exposed by me to be a vicious demagogue
and ignored my detailed posts.

7. Instead you pullled out a paragraph out of context and demanded:
"summarize!"

8. You are either not capable of logical discussions - or you are
capable but you forgot how because you seem to have spent all your time
with US jounrnalsits, who understand cheap demagoguery and don't
understand human logic.

9. Either you recall how to engage in substabtive logical discussions
with peole with high IQs - or you go back to pulling the wool over
journalists with IQs below 110.

Is that enough of a summary for you?

[Jim Oberg]

Wow! Worn out your thesaurus, I see.

But as to a summary of what I've written,
nope -- not even close.


> wrote

> Jim Oberg wrote:
>> > wrote
>> > So, let us summarize. Even you agree that the Soviets were totally
>> > justified in trying to hide and not report the true location of their
>> > top secret rocket labs and launch pads, because the revelation of the
>> > exact locations could have resulted in USA dropping nukes on them the
>> > way they had done to the much more innocent people of Hiroshima and
>> > Nagasaki or doing something similar in nature.
>>
>> Stop right here. You're not summarizing.
>> You're slipping in new knee-jerk anti-American themes.
>> I sure SAID you were clever. Just not well informed.
>>
>> Start over. And be honest this time. Summarize.
>>
>
> Summary:
>
> 1. You and I agree that USSR had to hide the exact address of its
> rocket and missile launch stes.
>
> 2. You then used the fact that USSR did so to cry "liar-liar"
>
> 3. You then told us that when you cry "liar-liar", you are trying to
> hide your own lie but didn't tell us which lie you were hiding.
>
> 4. You then told us that if USSR had to hide the location in order to
> protect it from an enemy attack 45 years ago, it means that modern
> Russians are lliars.
>
> 5. I wrote several detailed articles, logically anayzing all these
> topics.
>
> 6. You got ashamed at being exposed by me to be a vicious demagogue
> and ignored my detailed posts.
>
> 7. Instead you pullled out a paragraph out of context and demanded:
> "summarize!"
>
> 8. You are either not capable of logical discussions - or you are
> capable but you forgot how because you seem to have spent all your time
> with US jounrnalsits, who understand cheap demagoguery and don't
> understand human logic.
>
> 9. Either you recall how to engage in substabtive logical discussions
> with peole with high IQs - or you go back to pulling the wool over
> journalists with IQs below 110.
>
> Is that enough of a summary for you?
>

[Volker Hetzer]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> > wrote
>> I still don't understand why you have now embarked on a crusade to tell
>> the World that the Soviet regime 45 years ago was not very honest. I
>> mean, everybody outside of the Soviet Union and half of the people
>> inside of it have known this obvious fact for more than 80 years. And
>> exactly 20 years ago, the new Soviet leader Grobachev launched his
>> famous Glasnost, aimed at educating each and every backward peasant
>> even in Siberia about the evils of the Soviet system and its deceiptful
>> nature.
>
> But they haven't.
>
> Sure, they published a few newspaper articles, changed a few textbooks,
> ran a few TV documentaries. Took down some statues, put up a few others...
>
> But in comparison to other cases were dictatorsips were overthrown
> and a population was nursed back to political health, don't you even notice
> one glaring lack?
>
> Where are the criminal trials for the murders in the name of the 'old
> regime'?
It always depends on how many people were 'the old regime' and how the
transition from old to new went. With russia there was largely continuity
and the biggest problem was US sponsored Jelzin, not burning some old
apparatchiks at the stake. So, I guess it's a bit like east germany, where
I could see this firsthand. People living in squalor *after* the transition
have more axes to grind against current rulers than against past ones.

> Where are the indictments of men who 'followed orders' by committing
> millions of massacres of innocent victims in the Gulag, in Hungary and
> Czechoslovakia, in Chechnya and over the Sea of Japan (Korean Air 007),
> on the streets of Western Europe (against Soviet defectors), and even the
> attempt in St. Peter's Square? As far as I can determine, not one single
> crime
> commited by anyone at the behest of the Soviet Regime has been called
> into account.
In what way is this your business? They are adults overe there, like
everywhere else and can take care of that if they want to. But right
now they have a lot of bigger problems than revenge for things that
cannot be changed anymore.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

[[email protected]]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> > wrote
> > I still don't understand why you have now embarked on a crusade to tell
> > the World that the Soviet regime 45 years ago was not very honest. I
> > mean, everybody outside of the Soviet Union and half of the people
> > inside of it have known this obvious fact for more than 80 years. And
> > exactly 20 years ago, the new Soviet leader Grobachev launched his
> > famous Glasnost, aimed at educating each and every backward peasant
> > even in Siberia about the evils of the Soviet system and its deceiptful
> > nature.
>
> But they haven't.
>
> Sure, they published a few newspaper articles, changed a few textbooks,
> ran a few TV documentaries. Took down some statues, put up a few others...
>
> But in comparison to other cases were dictatorsips were overthrown
> and a population was nursed back to political health, don't you even notice
> one glaring lack?
>

of course not. It may seem so to an ignorant American hick like
yourself. But I asure you that you can find at least 40 different
documentaries per week on Russian TV detailing the crimes of the Soviet
regime. Plus dozens of mini-series per week devoted to these topics.

>
> Where are the criminal trials for the murders in the name of the 'old
> regime'?
>

Waht murderers? Stalin? Beria? It may come as ashock to you but they
have been dead for a few years now. About 50 years, to be exact.

>
> Where are the indictments of men who 'followed orders' by committing
> millions of massacres of innocent victims in the Gulag, in Hungary and
> Czechoslovakia, in Chechnya and over the Sea of Japan (Korean Air 007),
> on the streets of Western Europe (against Soviet defectors), and even the
> attempt in St. Peter's Square? As far as I can determine, not one single
> crime
> commited by anyone at the behest of the Soviet Regime has been called
> into account.
>

Where are the indictments of American leaders who GAVE orders in
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Viet Nam, Chile, Panama, Croatia, Kosovo, Iraq,
Belgrade?

[[email protected]]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> > wrote
> > My point is that your habit of calling old men "malchik" ("boy") is
> > highly disrespectful and insuting.
>
> Where does your name indicate I should know you are an old man?
> Especially when you sounded like a snot-nosed kid in your posts?
> You haven't even TASTED 'disrespectful' in my posts.
>

It wasn't I whom you called a "boy", but somebody else. But you don't
have the brains to keep such things straight.

And as far as how you can or cannot know who is old and who is not, it
is a common practice among civilized poeple not to call others "boy"
just per chance they may be old men. But you are too bigoted and
uncilivized to understand.

[[email protected]]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> Wow! Worn out your thesaurus, I see.
>
> But as to a summary of what I've written,
> nope -- not even close.
>

I knew you were incapable of detailed substantive discussions and
arguments. Just cheap grandstanding and demagoguery...

>
> > wrote
>
> > Jim Oberg wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> > So, let us summarize. Even you agree that the Soviets were totally
> >> > justified in trying to hide and not report the true location of their
> >> > top secret rocket labs and launch pads, because the revelation of the
> >> > exact locations could have resulted in USA dropping nukes on them the
> >> > way they had done to the much more innocent people of Hiroshima and
> >> > Nagasaki or doing something similar in nature.
> >>
> >> Stop right here. You're not summarizing.
> >> You're slipping in new knee-jerk anti-American themes.
> >> I sure SAID you were clever. Just not well informed.
> >>
> >> Start over. And be honest this time. Summarize.
> >>
> >
> > Summary:
> >
> > 1. You and I agree that USSR had to hide the exact address of its
> > rocket and missile launch stes.
> >
> > 2. You then used the fact that USSR did so to cry "liar-liar"
> >
> > 3. You then told us that when you cry "liar-liar", you are trying to
> > hide your own lie but didn't tell us which lie you were hiding.
> >
> > 4. You then told us that if USSR had to hide the location in order to
> > protect it from an enemy attack 45 years ago, it means that modern
> > Russians are lliars.
> >
> > 5. I wrote several detailed articles, logically anayzing all these
> > topics.
> >
> > 6. You got ashamed at being exposed by me to be a vicious demagogue
> > and ignored my detailed posts.
> >
> > 7. Instead you pullled out a paragraph out of context and demanded:
> > "summarize!"
> >
> > 8. You are either not capable of logical discussions - or you are
> > capable but you forgot how because you seem to have spent all your time
> > with US jounrnalsits, who understand cheap demagoguery and don't
> > understand human logic.
> >
> > 9. Either you recall how to engage in substabtive logical discussions
> > with peole with high IQs - or you go back to pulling the wool over
> > journalists with IQs below 110.
> >
> > Is that enough of a summary for you?
> >

[[email protected]]

Volker Hetzer wrote:
> Jim Oberg wrote:
> > > wrote
> >> I still don't understand why you have now embarked on a crusade to tell
> >> the World that the Soviet regime 45 years ago was not very honest. I
> >> mean, everybody outside of the Soviet Union and half of the people
> >> inside of it have known this obvious fact for more than 80 years. And
> >> exactly 20 years ago, the new Soviet leader Grobachev launched his
> >> famous Glasnost, aimed at educating each and every backward peasant
> >> even in Siberia about the evils of the Soviet system and its deceiptful
> >> nature.
> >
> > But they haven't.
> >
> > Sure, they published a few newspaper articles, changed a few textbooks,
> > ran a few TV documentaries. Took down some statues, put up a few others...
> >
> > But in comparison to other cases were dictatorsips were overthrown
> > and a population was nursed back to political health, don't you even notice
> > one glaring lack?
> >
> > Where are the criminal trials for the murders in the name of the 'old
> > regime'?
> It always depends on how many people were 'the old regime' and how the
> transition from old to new went. With russia there was largely continuity
> and the biggest problem was US sponsored Jelzin, not burning some old
> apparatchiks at the stake. So, I guess it's a bit like east germany, where
> I could see this firsthand. People living in squalor *after* the transition
> have more axes to grind against current rulers than against past ones.
>
> > Where are the indictments of men who 'followed orders' by committing
> > millions of massacres of innocent victims in the Gulag, in Hungary and
> > Czechoslovakia, in Chechnya and over the Sea of Japan (Korean Air 007),
> > on the streets of Western Europe (against Soviet defectors), and even the
> > attempt in St. Peter's Square? As far as I can determine, not one single
> > crime
> > commited by anyone at the behest of the Soviet Regime has been called
> > into account.
> In what way is this your business? They are adults overe there, like
> everywhere else and can take care of that if they want to. But right
> now they have a lot of bigger problems than revenge for things that
> cannot be changed anymore.
>
> Lots of Greetings!
> Volker
>

You are absolutely right, Volker. The peoples of East Germany,
Czechoslavoakia, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, etc can take pride in that
they accomplished a radical revolution, going from socialism to
capitalism/democracy without much blood invloved. And one of the main
reasons why there was so little blood was that the peoples all over
East Europe and Russia announced thast if Communists didn't resist the
transition ot democraxy/capitalism, then they would get immunity for
their Communist-time misdeeds and crimes.

But this burns the hides of many vultures like Jim here, who are angry
that they couldn't turn Russia into a feuding vengeful mess like
Yugoslavia, where they succeeeded in turning a prosperous peaceful
tolerant Tito's Yugoslavia into a fratricidal separatist paradise.

Now that the price of oil is going through the roof and Russia is
thriving, whiile the US economy is about to implode under the weight of
the aggressive wars that they themselves have started and will continue
to start, the hatred for Russia and its new success and prosperity is
at all time high among bigots bent on the unachievable goal of
World-dominance.

[Jim Oberg]

"Volker Hetzer" > wrote
> In what way is this your business? They are adults overe there, like
> everywhere else and can take care of that if they want to. But right
> now they have a lot of bigger problems than revenge for things that
> cannot be changed anymore.

Justice, not revenge -- and the future depends on a proper understanding
of the past, or false nostalgia may lead the Russian nation to knowingly
choose a route back into oppression and compelled obedience.

[Jim Oberg]

> wrote
> You are absolutely right, Volker. The peoples of East Germany,
> Czechoslavoakia, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, etc can take pride in that
> they accomplished a radical revolution, going from socialism to
> capitalism/democracy without much blood invloved. And one of the main
> reasons why there was so little blood was that the peoples all over
> East Europe and Russia announced that if Communists didn't resist the
> transition ot democraxy/capitalism, then they would get immunity for
> their Communist-time misdeeds and crimes.

I missed that announcement, can you cite any
published sources of such statements.

>
> But this burns the hides of many vultures like Jim here, who are angry
> that they couldn't turn Russia into a feuding vengeful mess like
> Yugoslavia, where they succeeeded in turning a prosperous peaceful
> tolerant Tito's Yugoslavia into a fratricidal separatist paradise.

Been to Chechnya lately? Or are you safe from the
Russian military conscription now so you can make bold talk.

[Jim Oberg]

> wrote
>> Where are the indictments of men who 'followed orders' by committing
>> millions of massacres of innocent victims in the Gulag, in Hungary and
>> Czechoslovakia, in Chechnya and over the Sea of Japan (Korean Air 007),
>> on the streets of Western Europe (against Soviet defectors), and even the
>> attempt in St. Peter's Square? As far as I can determine, not one single
>> crime commited by anyone at the behest of the Soviet Regime has been
>> called
>> into account.
>
> Where are the indictments of American leaders who GAVE orders in
> Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Viet Nam, Chile, Panama, Croatia, Kosovo, Iraq,
> Belgrade?

I figured you'd come up with same lame excuse.

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

wrote:
> Jim Oberg wrote:
>
> wrote
>>
>>>My point is that your habit of calling old men "malchik" ("boy") is
>>>highly disrespectful and insuting.
>>
>>Where does your name indicate I should know you are an old man?
>>Especially when you sounded like a snot-nosed kid in your posts?
>>You haven't even TASTED 'disrespectful' in my posts.
>>
>
>
> It wasn't I whom you called a "boy", but somebody else. But you don't
> have the brains to keep such things straight.
>
> And as far as how you can or cannot know who is old and who is not, it
> is a common practice among civilized poeple not to call others "boy"
> just per chance they may be old men. But you are too bigoted and
> uncilivized to understand.
>
Ok, all right, vkarlamov. You may not be a boy. However are you
behaving like a grown-up and rational human individual?
You know that sometimes behaviour that can be excused for a child
or adolescent is considered not acceptable from someone who passes
as an adult.
Well at the other end, sometimes irrational or uncontrolled behaviour
is again exused for someone who is considered in their second childhood
i.e. in dotage.

[Jim Oberg]

> wrote
> And as far as how you can or cannot know who is old and who is not, it
> is a common practice among civilized poeple not to call others "boy"
> just per chance they may be old men. But you are too bigoted and
> uncilivized to understand.

I did have a few verbal comments in response to this,
but I leave it to your imagination.

[Ten Cuidado]

"Jim Oberg" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote
> > And as far as how you can or cannot know who is old and who is not, it
> > is a common practice among civilized poeple not to call others "boy"
> > just per chance they may be old men. But you are too bigoted and
> > uncilivized to understand.
>
> I did have a few verbal comments in response to this,
> but I leave it to your imagination.


Plonk the ignorant commie and move on. He is a relic of a dead empire with
nothing driving him but regrets and anger.

[Volker Hetzer]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> "Volker Hetzer" > wrote
>> In what way is this your business? They are adults overe there, like
>> everywhere else and can take care of that if they want to. But right
>> now they have a lot of bigger problems than revenge for things that
>> cannot be changed anymore.
>
> Justice, not revenge
And any punishment served out now wouldn't make one bit of difference
to the running or future of this country. People know that **** happened in
their past. People know that this is to be prevented in the future.
Therefore the only purpose would be revenge.

-- and the future depends on a proper understanding
> of the past, or false nostalgia may lead the Russian nation to knowingly
> choose a route back into oppression and compelled obedience.
Punishment is no precondition for any of this.

[Volker Hetzer]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> Been to Chechnya lately? Or are you safe from the
> Russian military conscription now so you can make bold talk.
So, let's pose an example in your country. Imagine one federal state,
like texas, infiltrated by people dreaming of an islamist state,
with no effective government anymore, people grow opium and sell it abroad
and parents in neighbouring (infidel) states have to bring their children
to school in convois for fear of kidnappings, another source of income
for texas people. This going on for years.
Now imagine, your central government sends in the national guard or whatever
to restore law and order at which point the texans put up a new flag, compain
about religious persecution, call for independence and - the rest of the world
calls the US the oppressor for not letting them turn one of their states into
a crime paradise.
Over to you. How would you handle this?

[[email protected]]

Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
> wrote:
> > Jim Oberg wrote:
> >
> > wrote
> >>
> >>>My point is that your habit of calling old men "malchik" ("boy") is
> >>>highly disrespectful and insuting.
> >>
> >>Where does your name indicate I should know you are an old man?
> >>Especially when you sounded like a snot-nosed kid in your posts?
> >>You haven't even TASTED 'disrespectful' in my posts.
> >>
> >
> >
> > It wasn't I whom you called a "boy", but somebody else. But you don't
> > have the brains to keep such things straight.
> >
> > And as far as how you can or cannot know who is old and who is not, it
> > is a common practice among civilized poeple not to call others "boy"
> > just per chance they may be old men. But you are too bigoted and
> > uncilivized to understand.
> >
> Ok, all right, vkarlamov. You may not be a boy. However are you
> behaving like a grown-up and rational human individual?
> You know that sometimes behaviour that can be excused for a child
> or adolescent is considered not acceptable from someone who passes
> as an adult.
> Well at the other end, sometimes irrational or uncontrolled behaviour
> is again exused for someone who is considered in their second childhood
> i.e. in dotage.
..

Rostyk,

I assure you that your post above, which is making cheap substance- and
examples- free insults at your oppoponent, is the perfect example of
childish behaviour. Grow up.

[[email protected]]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> > wrote
> > And as far as how you can or cannot know who is old and who is not, it
> > is a common practice among civilized poeple not to call others "boy"
> > just per chance they may be old men. But you are too bigoted and
> > uncilivized to understand.
>
> I did have a few verbal comments in response to this,
> but I leave it to your imagination.
>

Thanks for wasting everybody's time with yet another information-free
post.

[captain.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jim Oberg wrote:
>> > wrote
>> > Settle down, boy.
>>
>> I'm willing. You have passion and verbal finesse, no doubt,
>> and we can work on your knowledge base -- so hang around and
>> help keep the discussions stirred up.
>>
>
> My point is that your habit of calling old men "malchik" ("boy") is
> highly disrespectful and insuting.
>

oh c'mon, it's not really *that* bad.

[Jim Oberg]

"Volker Hetzer" > wrote
> So, let's pose an example in your country. Imagine one federal state,
> like texas, infiltrated by people dreaming of an islamist state,
> with no effective government anymore, people grow opium and sell it abroad
> and parents in neighbouring (infidel) states have to bring their children
> to school in convois for fear of kidnappings, another source of income
> for texas people. This going on for years.
> Now imagine, your central government sends in the national guard or
> whatever
> to restore law and order at which point the texans put up a new flag,
> compain
> about religious persecution, call for independence and - the rest of the
> world
> calls the US the oppressor for not letting them turn one of their states
> into
> a crime paradise.
> Over to you. How would you handle this?

I'd rein in my imagination and face reality.

Chechnya was brutally conquered by force,
pacified by genocide, massacred and deported
and economically impoverished by blockade,
yet somehow missed out on the post-soviet
independence of non-Russian people in the
region because of some arbitrary European-drawn
line down the Caucasus Mountains. When faced
with growing nationalism, Russians reacted as
Russians do best: kill, kill, kill, and kill some more.
And tens of thousands of people (including thousands
of Russian kids who never asked to be there either)
die. Now the Russians (and their apologists) whine
about how Chechens have become radicalized.

In Texas, or any other territory under US jurisdiction
(e.g., Puerto Rico), we now determine issues of sovereignty
by holding elections. What an un-Russian idea.

[Jim Oberg]

"Volker Hetzer" > wrote
> And any punishment served out now wouldn't make one bit of difference
> to the running or future of this country. People know that **** happened
> in
> their past. People know that this is to be prevented in the future.
> Therefore the only purpose would be revenge.

So you are opposed to hunting down surviving Nazi
war criminals, too? I hadn't seen you take that position,
so I'll just ask you that: when after WW2 should the world
have called off prosecution of Nazi killers? 1946? 1955?
1995? Today?


> -- and the future depends on a proper understanding
>> of the past, or false nostalgia may lead the Russian nation to knowingly
>> choose a route back into oppression and compelled obedience.
> Punishment is no precondition for any of this.

But it is a major impetus.

[Jim Oberg]

> wrote a response

I'm happy to leave your response as the last word.

[Jim Oberg]

"captain." > wrote
in message news:Gu23g.3046$FY1.736@clgrps12...
>
> > wrote
>> My point is that your habit of calling old men "malchik" ("boy") is
>> highly disrespectful and insuting.
>
> oh c'mon, it's not really *that* bad.
>

And doing it once isn't a 'habit', it's a special case.

[Derek Lyons]

"Jim Oberg" > wrote:

>
>"Volker Hetzer" > wrote
>> In what way is this your business? They are adults overe there, like
>> everywhere else and can take care of that if they want to. But right
>> now they have a lot of bigger problems than revenge for things that
>> cannot be changed anymore.
>
>Justice, not revenge -- and the future depends on a proper understanding
>of the past, or false nostalgia may lead the Russian nation to knowingly
>choose a route back into oppression and compelled obedience.
>

Jim; please stop feeding the troll.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Vladimir Makarenko]

Jim Oberg wrote:
>
> "Volker Hetzer" > wrote
> > So, let's pose an example in your country. Imagine one federal state,
> > like texas, infiltrated by people dreaming of an islamist state,
> > with no effective government anymore, people grow opium and sell it abroad
> > and parents in neighbouring (infidel) states have to bring their children
> > to school in convois for fear of kidnappings, another source of income
> > for texas people. This going on for years.
> > Now imagine, your central government sends in the national guard or
> > whatever
> > to restore law and order at which point the texans put up a new flag,
> > compain
> > about religious persecution, call for independence and - the rest of the
> > world
> > calls the US the oppressor for not letting them turn one of their states
> > into
> > a crime paradise.
> > Over to you. How would you handle this?
>
> I'd rein in my imagination and face reality.
>
> Chechnya was brutally conquered by force,
> pacified by genocide, massacred and deported
> and economically impoverished by blockade,
> yet somehow missed out on the post-soviet
> independence of non-Russian people in the
> region because of some arbitrary European-drawn
> line down the Caucasus Mountains. When faced
> with growing nationalism, Russians reacted as
> Russians do best: kill, kill, kill, and kill some more.

Wow, I see you are not only a historian of how Gagarin flew in Boeing
around the world but now in the Caucasus problems as well.

> And tens of thousands of people (including thousands
> of Russian kids who never asked to be there either)
> die. Now the Russians (and their apologists) whine
> about how Chechens have become radicalized.

So far it's you who is whining, including issues you exploit but have no
idea about. Why wouldn't you go back to preach how evil Rooskies fed the
world with hoaxes of their space flights?


>
> In Texas, or any other territory under US jurisdiction
> (e.g., Puerto Rico), we now determine issues of sovereignty
> by holding elections. What an un-Russian idea.

Last time if I remember correctly the issue of sovereignity caused a bit
of skirmish between North and South. How many got killed?
And I vividly remember that in recent book of the rules the winner is
the one who has at least a half of million votes less than his rival.
Elections Texas style?

Man, you are such a cliche.

VM.

[Vladimir Makarenko]

Jim Oberg wrote:
>
> "Volker Hetzer" > wrote
> > In what way is this your business? They are adults overe there, like
> > everywhere else and can take care of that if they want to. But right
> > now they have a lot of bigger problems than revenge for things that
> > cannot be changed anymore.
>
> Justice, not revenge

So how much Justice was served to those who oppressed blacks in the US
till almost the end of XX century? Any legislators who supported
segregationist laws went to prison?

VM.

-- and the future depends on a proper understanding
> of the past, or false nostalgia may lead the Russian nation to knowingly
> choose a route back into oppression and compelled obedience.

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Volker Hetzer wrote:
> Jim Oberg wrote:
>
>> "Volker Hetzer" > wrote
>>
>>> In what way is this your business? They are adults overe there, like
>>> everywhere else and can take care of that if they want to. But right
>>> now they have a lot of bigger problems than revenge for things that
>>> cannot be changed anymore.
>>
>>
>> Justice, not revenge
>
> And any punishment served out now wouldn't make one bit of difference
> to the running or future of this country. People know that **** happened in
> their past. People know that this is to be prevented in the future.
> Therefore the only purpose would be revenge.
>
> -- and the future depends on a proper understanding
>
>> of the past, or false nostalgia may lead the Russian nation to knowingly
>> choose a route back into oppression and compelled obedience.
>
> Punishment is no precondition for any of this.

I wonder if you would offer the same conclusions and advice to
the Jewish community who have for years thrived on show trials,
lawsuits, policy decisions, films and a whole culture based on
the Holocaust. Including achieving a legal prohibition and
sanctions of anyone disagreeing with their version of events.
Else how would you consider that case as different.

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Volker Hetzer wrote:

> Jim Oberg wrote:
>
>> Been to Chechnya lately? Or are you safe from the
>> Russian military conscription now so you can make bold talk.
>
> So, let's pose an example in your country. Imagine one federal state,
> like texas, infiltrated by people dreaming of an islamist state,
> with no effective government anymore, people grow opium and sell it abroad
> and parents in neighbouring (infidel) states have to bring their children
> to school in convois for fear of kidnappings, another source of income
> for texas people. This going on for years.
> Now imagine, your central government sends in the national guard or
> whatever
> to restore law and order at which point the texans put up a new flag,
> compain
> about religious persecution, call for independence and - the rest of the
> world
> calls the US the oppressor for not letting them turn one of their states
> into
> a crime paradise.
> Over to you. How would you handle this?

Imagination is great. I can imagine all kinds of things (I happen to be
a science fiction and speculativ/alternate reality fiction fan).
However one needs to temper and reconcile imagination with reality
and real past history.

[[email protected]]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> > wrote a response
>
> I'm happy to leave your response as the last word.
>

No, you didn't. You put your own response above as the last word.

But I won't deny you your little pleasures that you live for. Just post
something substance-free (like most your recent posts), and I'll let it
be the last word.

[Sokhraneet Nash Mir]

"Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jim Oberg wrote:
>
> Wow, I see you are not only a historian of how Gagarin flew in Boeing
> around the world but now in the Caucasus problems as well.
>

It's theoretically possible. The Russian TU-4 bomber was copied from a
Boeing, bolt for bolt.
Gagarin could have easily flown a "Boeing".

Russians don't invent anything useful themselves. The Mig 15 would not be
worth a one line footnote in the history books if the Russians hadn't
stolen the Brits' Rolls-Royce engines for them.

> So far it's you who is whining, including issues you exploit but have no
> idea about. Why wouldn't you go back to preach how evil Rooskies fed the
> world with hoaxes of their space flights?
>
>
>>
>> In Texas, or any other territory under US jurisdiction
>> (e.g., Puerto Rico), we now determine issues of sovereignty
>> by holding elections. What an un-Russian idea.
>
> Last time if I remember correctly the issue of sovereignity caused a bit
> of skirmish between North and South.

I thought most people from around that time were dead already?

But Puerto Rico has the right to vote their own destiny. The vote may come
up again soon.

Not much chance of Texas wanting to go back to the Mexicans though.

At any rate, the Mexicans should be glad we didn't annex Mexico when there
were US troops in Mexico city...although they would actually be much better
off now.

How many got killed?
> And I vividly remember that in recent book of the rules the winner is
> the one who has at least a half of million votes less than his rival.
> Elections Texas style?
>
> Man, you are such a cliche.
>
> VM.

[Sokhraneet Nash Mir]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>>
>
> You have flooded our group with huge manuscripts full of lame excuses
> and sour grapes. So, don't complain when I used exactly the same
> argument as yours.
>

Turdboy,

You have dumped your load of rancid, foul smelling crap in our newsgroup.

Sell it to the local greenhouse but not here.

[Sokhraneet Nash Mir]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Rostyk,
>
> I assure you that your post above, which is making cheap substance- and
> examples- free insults at your oppoponent, is the perfect example of
> childish behaviour. Grow up.
>

Goo-goo! Gah-gah!

[Vladimir Makarenko]

Sokhraneet Nash Mir wrote:
>
> "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Jim Oberg wrote:
> >
> > Wow, I see you are not only a historian of how Gagarin flew in Boeing
> > around the world but now in the Caucasus problems as well.
> >
>
> It's theoretically possible. The Russian TU-4 bomber was copied from a
> Boeing, bolt for bolt.
> Gagarin could have easily flown a "Boeing".

Didn't he?

>
> Russians don't invent anything useful themselves. The Mig 15 would not be
> worth a one line footnote in the history books if the Russians hadn't
> stolen the Brits' Rolls-Royce engines for them.

Oops, Brookski, how many times I have to teach you that you have to
start with Sir Isaac Newton?

VM.

p.s. How is Bill O'Reilly doing there?


>
> > So far it's you who is whining, including issues you exploit but have no
> > idea about. Why wouldn't you go back to preach how evil Rooskies fed the
> > world with hoaxes of their space flights?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> In Texas, or any other territory under US jurisdiction
> >> (e.g., Puerto Rico), we now determine issues of sovereignty
> >> by holding elections. What an un-Russian idea.
> >
> > Last time if I remember correctly the issue of sovereignity caused a bit
> > of skirmish between North and South.
>
> I thought most people from around that time were dead already?
>
> But Puerto Rico has the right to vote their own destiny. The vote may come
> up again soon.
>
> Not much chance of Texas wanting to go back to the Mexicans though.
>
> At any rate, the Mexicans should be glad we didn't annex Mexico when there
> were US troops in Mexico city...although they would actually be much better
> off now.
>
> How many got killed?
> > And I vividly remember that in recent book of the rules the winner is
> > the one who has at least a half of million votes less than his rival.
> > Elections Texas style?
> >
> > Man, you are such a cliche.
> >
> > VM.

[Sokhraneet Nash Mir]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jim Oberg wrote:
>> > wrote
>> > And as far as how you can or cannot know who is old and who is not, it
>> > is a common practice among civilized poeple not to call others "boy"
>> > just per chance they may be old men. But you are too bigoted and
>> > uncilivized to understand.
>>
>> I did have a few verbal comments in response to this,
>> but I leave it to your imagination.
>>
>
> Thanks for wasting everybody's time with yet another information-free
> post.
>

Should we thank you as well?

[Sokhraneet Nash Mir]

Puta "Vladimir Makarenko" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> Oops, Brookski, how many times I have to teach you that you have to
> start with Sir Isaac Newton?
>
> VM.

Was he a Russian commie?

>
> p.s. How is Bill O'Reilly doing there?
>

Is he the guy that writes all those computer books?


Mas, mas, mas, por favor
Mas, mas, mas si, si senor

[[email protected]]

Sokhraneet Nash Mir wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> >>
> >
> > You have flooded our group with huge manuscripts full of lame excuses
> > and sour grapes. So, don't complain when I used exactly the same
> > argument as yours.
> >
>
> Turdboy,
>
> You have dumped your load of rancid, foul smelling crap in our newsgroup.
>
> Sell it to the local greenhouse but not here.
>

Go grow your wheat flour and stop bothering grown-ups, malchik s
palchik.

[Jorge R. Frank]

(Derek Lyons) wrote in news:444f0165.783634921
@news.supernews.com:

> "Jim Oberg" > wrote:
>
>>"Volker Hetzer" > wrote
>>> In what way is this your business? They are adults overe there, like
>>> everywhere else and can take care of that if they want to. But right
>>> now they have a lot of bigger problems than revenge for things that
>>> cannot be changed anymore.
>>
>>Justice, not revenge -- and the future depends on a proper understanding
>>of the past, or false nostalgia may lead the Russian nation to knowingly
>>choose a route back into oppression and compelled obedience.
>
> Jim; please stop feeding the troll.

Derek, Jim's the one who invited the troll (by starting the thread and
crossposting it to soc.culture.russian) in the first place.

(I'm not about to killfile Jim, but I *am* killfiling this thread... and as
soon as I find a newsreader with the capability to filter based on the
Newsgroups: header, I'm switching to it.)


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Derek Lyons]

"Jorge R. Frank" > wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote in news:444f0165.783634921
:
>
>> "Jim Oberg" > wrote:
>>
>>>"Volker Hetzer" > wrote
>>>> In what way is this your business? They are adults overe there, like
>>>> everywhere else and can take care of that if they want to. But right
>>>> now they have a lot of bigger problems than revenge for things that
>>>> cannot be changed anymore.
>>>
>>>Justice, not revenge -- and the future depends on a proper understanding
>>>of the past, or false nostalgia may lead the Russian nation to knowingly
>>>choose a route back into oppression and compelled obedience.
>>
>> Jim; please stop feeding the troll.
>
>Derek, Jim's the one who invited the troll (by starting the thread and
>crossposting it to soc.culture.russian) in the first place.

Doesn't change the fact that he's engaged in tit-for-tat sniping
instead of discussion.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[[email protected]]

You don't have to be a Christian to be saddened by the destruction of
beautiful religious art or architecture or the loss of a lot of good
people irregardless of Faith.

[Sokhraneet Nash Mir]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> You don't have to be a Christian to be saddened by the destruction of
> beautiful religious art or architecture or the loss of a lot of good
> people irregardless of Faith.
>

What?! Did sputnik crash into the Hermitage, the Russian warehouse of stolen
artworks?

[Thomas Lee Elifritz]

wrote:
> You don't have to be a Christian to be saddened by the destruction of
> beautiful religious art or architecture or the loss of a lot of good
> people irregardless of Faith.

Right, Christians don't give a **** about nature,
but for god's sake, save the art and architecture!

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

[Volker Hetzer]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> "Volker Hetzer" > wrote
>> And any punishment served out now wouldn't make one bit of difference
>> to the running or future of this country. People know that **** happened
>> in
>> their past. People know that this is to be prevented in the future.
>> Therefore the only purpose would be revenge.
>
> So you are opposed to hunting down surviving Nazi
> war criminals, too? I hadn't seen you take that position,
> so I'll just ask you that: when after WW2 should the world
> have called off prosecution of Nazi killers? 1946? 1955?
> 1995? Today?
When there was/is consensus to stop by the people who suffered. The jews
want them punished and I won't deny them that. They did suffer cruelly.
However, with Erich Honecker for instance, he did't kill millions of
people in an industrialized way and if the consensus of the people is
to let it rest, I'm not arguing either. He was broken enough.
Btw, south africa chose a similar way. Some particular outrageus crimes
were punished but there was no pea counting.
Call it forgiveness in the name of getting on.

Volker

[Volker Hetzer]

Jim Oberg wrote:
> "Volker Hetzer" > wrote
>> So, let's pose an example in your country. Imagine one federal state,
>> like texas, infiltrated by people dreaming of an islamist state,
>> with no effective government anymore, people grow opium and sell it abroad
>> and parents in neighbouring (infidel) states have to bring their children
>> to school in convois for fear of kidnappings, another source of income
>> for texas people. This going on for years.
>> Now imagine, your central government sends in the national guard or
>> whatever
>> to restore law and order at which point the texans put up a new flag,
>> compain
>> about religious persecution, call for independence and - the rest of the
>> world
>> calls the US the oppressor for not letting them turn one of their states
>> into
>> a crime paradise.
>> Over to you. How would you handle this?
>
> I'd rein in my imagination and face reality.
Translation: You don't know any better too.


> Chechnya was brutally conquered by force,
Which part of your country wasn't?

> pacified by genocide, massacred and deported
> and economically impoverished by blockade,
How are the indians?

> yet somehow missed out on the post-soviet
> independence of non-Russian people in the
> region
You did notice that russia doesn't have a problem
with independence per se then, right? Just with
crime.

> because of some arbitrary European-drawn
> line down the Caucasus Mountains.
We've all seen on the balkan how it looks like
when people don't miss out on that.

> When faced
> with growing nationalism, Russians reacted as
> Russians do best: kill, kill, kill, and kill some more.
The problem isn't nationalism, it's islamism.
They only hoisted the flag after the russians disagreed
about the drugs and the kidnappings.

> And tens of thousands of people (including thousands
> of Russian kids who never asked to be there either)
> die.
Okay. They botched it, I agree. However, apart from
the body armor and some more high tech gizmos I don't see
much difference in how you handle the same situation in
iraq. Still no bright ideas?

I mean, they *could* just go away and mine the borders but
how often do you want to give away land to some drug
trafficking warlords and islam fanatics? And where would it
end? The words "greater chechnya" have been said already
and the neighbouring countries are nervous.

Btw, they did have elections there last november.

> Now the Russians (and their apologists) whine
> about how Chechens have become radicalized.

> In Texas, or any other territory under US jurisdiction
> (e.g., Puerto Rico), we now determine issues of sovereignty
> by holding elections. What an un-Russian idea.
Right. I can just imagine some bit of your country declaring
independence and refusing to pay tax to some foreign government
anymore. Has hapened a few times. Typically it didn't take long
for the police to show up and tell the guy what they thought about
his independence.

[Scott Hedrick]

"Volker Hetzer" > wrote in message
...
> How are the indians?

Fat and sassy, thanks to the casinos.

>> In Texas, or any other territory under US jurisdiction
>> (e.g., Puerto Rico), we now determine issues of sovereignty
>> by holding elections. What an un-Russian idea.
> Right. I can just imagine some bit of your country declaring
> independence and refusing to pay tax to some foreign government
> anymore. Has hapened a few times.

When?

[Jim Oberg]

So it really IS a matter of revenge, and not justice?
In US law, the wishes of victims do not weigh heavily
in the decisions to prosecute serious crimes.




"Volker Hetzer" > wrote in message
...

> When there was/is consensus to stop by the people who suffered. The jews
> want them punished and I won't deny them that. They did suffer cruelly.
> However, with Erich Honecker for instance, he did't kill millions of
> people in an industrialized way and if the consensus of the people is
> to let it rest, I'm not arguing either. He was broken enough.
> Btw, south africa chose a similar way. Some particular outrageus crimes
> were punished but there was no pea counting.
> Call it forgiveness in the name of getting on.
>
> Volker

[[email protected]]

Sokhraneet Nash Mir wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Jim Oberg wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> > And as far as how you can or cannot know who is old and who is not, it
> >> > is a common practice among civilized poeple not to call others "boy"
> >> > just per chance they may be old men. But you are too bigoted and
> >> > uncilivized to understand.
> >>
> >> I did have a few verbal comments in response to this,
> >> but I leave it to your imagination.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for wasting everybody's time with yet another information-free
> > post.
> >
>
> Should we thank you as well?
>

First, thank yourself for your own post, moron.