news flash.......mosley bleeds from O-ring.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
No. It pretty clearly wasn't a military operation, nor did it have a
warfighting purpose, nor was it conducted by the military under
direction of
a branch of the DoD.

As examples of other things that fail one or more of the above tests:
Glenn's coast to coast record flights -- military operation (he was
active
duty, flying a USMC aircraft), conducted by the military, no direct
military
purpose. (PR isn't really preparation for warfighting.)
Army Corps of Engineers dam building -- conducted by military, not a
military operation (having a civilian purpose).
Various exploration expeditions -- conducted (in part) by military
personel,
but under civilian control. (Military personel lent to other
governmental
agencies.)
:-)
LaDonna

And HOW do you know it wasn't "conducted by the military under
direction of a branch of the DoD?"
LaDonna

I have seen no evidence that NASA space programs ever were military,
although there has been, and probably still is, some NASA support to
military space programs. Of course, I am not an initiate into the secret
knowledge of the "black Apollo program", the "skull and bones space
initiative", "Gemini XIII" and the like. The public record amply shows
a. NASA is on record as being a civilian agency
b. NASA military astronauts were not active with military units while
assigned to NASA. [1]
c. The chain of command involved in manned missions is entirely within NASA
until it reaches the director, and then jumps to the executive branch.
(There are a few possibly trivial exceptions having to do with range safety,
which is a USAF responsibility.) Military personnel (such as Gen. Phillips)
served within the NASA command relationship structure. (I.e., Phillips
reported to a civilian superior.)

Do you have any evidence that NASA operations were conducted by the military
under direction of a branch of the DoD? Given that NASA is a civilian
agency, NASA conducted the flights, and the flights were conducted under
NASA's direction. I think that the burden of proof on claiming otherwise is
on those claiming that Project Mercury (to concentrate on only one aspect)
was a military operation/project. We've explained why we think it wasn't.
Those who have argued that it was a military operation have dwelt on the
military source of boosters, the role of space programs in international
politics, and the role of the military in providing personnel and support
have yet to show that this makes it a military operation, as opposed to a
civilian operation with national defense implications and using some
military aspects.

Consider the Lewis and Clark expedition, conducted by the grandiose titled
"Corps of Discovery". The Lewis and Clark expedition was conducted under the
leadership of two Captains in the US Army (although one was serving as
Jefferson's secretary), but it's purposes were exploratory, not military
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall...ls/expand.html cites
they were instructed "to seek new trade routes, to befriend the western
tribes of Indians, and to report on the geography, geology, astronomy,
zoology, botany, and climate of the West." Was this a military operation? If
so, what makes it so, if not, why not. (I would argue that it was not, due
to the purposes involved, the extensive use of civilians, and the fact that
the military officers involved were not functioning under the command of a
military unit nor the Secretary of War at
the time of the expedition.

I think that the burden of proof is on those who claim that Mercury was a
military operation, just as the burden of proof was on those who claimed
that Air America was an espionage operation. (The later was proved to be a
CIA front by uncovering documents, interviewing participants etc.) Has this
been done, or attempted, by your, CT, or anyone you can cite? Or is it all
just semantic juggling.

[1] "Agreement Between the Department of Defense. Army, Navy and Air Force
and the NASA Concerning the Detailing of Military Personnel for Service with
NASA," signed by T. Keith Glennan for NASA on Feb. 24, 1959, Donald A.
Quarles for DOD on Apr. 3, 1959, Wilber M. Brucker for the Dept. of the Army
on Mar. 12, 1959, Thomas S. Gates for the Dept. of the Navy on Mar. 12,
1959, James H. Douglas for the Dept. of the Air Force on Mar. 24, 1959, and
approved by President Eisenhower Apr. 13, 1959. This document would
implement Sec. 203(b) (12) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958
(P.L. 85-568). The individual would be notified by NASA as soon as
accepted. The military departments would assign the members detailed to
NASA to appropriate military units for purposes of providing rations,
quarters, and medical treatment. Normally the tour of duty with NASA would
be 3 years, although in the case of ROTC graduates the tour could be
shorter. At the request of the NASA Administrator, military personnel could
be recalled prior to the end of the normal tour of duty. Likewise, the
military department could recall any person detailed to NASA, should the
Secretary so indicate., cited at
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4003/ch5-8.htm

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
From Ami Silberman:
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
Dave Michelson wrote in message
news:PViCc.859869$oR5.503123@pd7tw3no...

Please stop arguing with CT. There's no way that he will ever back
down
from
his perverse amd perverted perspectives, and you're annoying the
rest of
us.

Either killfile him or ignore him. Your choice.

Ok, I'm curious: How is CT "perverse and perverted?"

He engages in humpty-dumptyism.

I take it that this is an expression of frustration regarding the
definition of "power projection". I have offered the synonym
"intimidation".

OK, now I see why we are at irreducable loggerheads. I don't see
intimidation as being a synonym for power projection. If we stick to using
intimidation, we might be better agreed.
(If anyone has a problem with the connection between the two, I have
suggested the solution that we speak only in terms of -intimidation-
and set aside the other issue.)

He has a monomania that the Cold War was mostly about nuclear weapons.

"The Cold War was mostly about nuclear weapons."

Now *there's* a highly controversial statement!

I think that the Cold War was mostly about world domination, whether
physically, geopolitically, ideologically, militarily etc. Nuclear weapons
served as a very important tool in this struggle, but mostly in:
a. maintaining a perceived counterstrike capability prevented domination by
the opponent.
b. maintaining a perceived strike capability kept the opponent from direct
attacks or pushing too hard.
c. maintaining a nuclear capability kept those countries without such a
capability from playing at the same level.

I personally think that the waging of war by proxy, espionage, and
exportation of ideology was much more important in how the cold war develope
d, once MAD capability was achieved.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
(Stuf4) wrote in message
. com...
[Huge quoted section, which was not addressed in the post whatsoever,
clipped.]
~ CT

**trying desperately to recover from a dead faint after reading such
well-thought, rational discussion**
:-)
LaDonna

Trying desperately to recover from a dead faint after highlighting and
hitting backspace.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 02:49:01 GMT, Dave Michelson
wrote:

I know that you'll do the right thing.

....No, the *right* thing would be to do what needs to be done to each
and every troll: track it down, chop off its hands, and stick them on
a spike as a warning to the next ten thousand generations that some
forms of masturbation come with too high a price.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

On 2004-06-25, Ami Silberman wrote:
a. NASA is on record as being a civilian agency

Just for said record...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/spaceact.html

(1958, as amended 1986)

sec.102 b)

"(...)The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the
responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency
exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by
the United States (...)"

Note appropriate use of the C-word.

The subsection goes on to discuss explicitly military operations, and
makes it abundantly clear they're to be part of DoD and not NASA.

--
-Andrew Gray

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:33:18 -0400, "Ami Silberman"
wrote:

No. It pretty clearly wasn't a military operation, nor did it have a
warfighting purpose, nor was it conducted by the military under direction of
a branch of the DoD.

....Ami, let me clarify something for you: CT is nothing but a
Conspiracy Troll. He revels in these mind**** games, and will do
nothing but play "Arguement Clinic" with you until Beady's cows come
home, and then he'll start arguing that the cows are really bulls. We
all came to the conclusion after his first bull**** theory that he was
worthless, and we killfiled him. Granted, the little pig****er keeps
changing his e-mail address to defeat the filtering, but we just keep
tossing him back in.

Please, as a favor to me, do the same to CT and be done with him.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message ...
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
**trying desperately to recover from a dead faint after reading such
well-thought, rational discussion**

Glad to be of service. Nice that you can tell the difference between a
rational discussion and what, say Stuffie and "scott" produces.

On the other hand, it shows that you are *intentionally* being obtuse.

I was NOT talking about you, Hedrick, and you damned well know it.
You couldn't quote someone accurately if Al Queda were threatening to
behead you.
LaDonna

OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:33:18 -0400, "Ami Silberman"
wrote:

No. It pretty clearly wasn't a military operation, nor did it have a
warfighting purpose, nor was it conducted by the military under direction of
a branch of the DoD.

...Ami, let me clarify something for you: CT is nothing but a
Conspiracy Troll. He revels in these mind**** games, and will do
nothing but play "Arguement Clinic" with you until Beady's cows come
home, and then he'll start arguing that the cows are really bulls. We
all came to the conclusion after his first bull**** theory that he was
worthless, and we killfiled him. Granted, the little pig****er keeps
changing his e-mail address to defeat the filtering, but we just keep
tossing him back in.

Please, as a favor to me, do the same to CT and be done with him.

OM


Right, Mosley. You have proven yourself to be SUCH an authoritative
source on who and who is not full of it...NOT. Talk about the pot
calling the kettle black....
And, by the way, what do you know about CT, anyway? Anything but your
rantings? I'm curious about his background. Can anyone clue me in?
LaDonna

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
**trying desperately to recover from a dead faint after reading such
well-thought, rational discussion**

Glad to be of service. Nice that you can tell the difference between a
rational discussion and what, say Stuffie and "scott" produces.

I was

talking about you, Hedrick, and you damned well know it.

I know, and I was thanking you for the compliment. It just goes to show that
when _you_ behave in a rational manner, others will respond to you likewise.

Imagine what would happen if you actually provided some verifiable facts,
such as the names and jurisdictions of the law enforcement personnel you
spoke to about Apollo 1.

You

quote someone accurately

Yes, I do, as *everyone* can verify for themselves. All I do is follow
proper posting procedures by trimming those quotes of unnecessary material.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in message . ..
...Ami, let me clarify something for you: CT is nothing but a
Conspiracy Troll.

Right, Mosley. You have proven yourself to be SUCH an authoritative
source on who and who is not full of it

Yeah, but you keep enabling Stuffie.

And, by the way, what do you know about CT, anyway?

Much more than you do. You're right to listen to OM about Stuffie.

I'm curious about his background.

Like you, Stuffie has a problem remembering verifiable details about
himself.

Can anyone clue me in?

Not even with an infinity of time.