|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
|
#152
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message .. .
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... Wow. How very adult of you. So, what sort of documents should I expect when I stop by the address I gave you tomorrow afternoon? You've had more than a week, even silly first class won't take that long. I told you before I am not handing those documents to someone who has demonstrated such unfailing love for OM. I AM giving them to someone else who will be posting them as I've said many times before. When the website is ready, you will all be informed. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
(Stuf4) wrote in message . com...
From Ami: "Stuf4" wrote From Ami Silberman: "Stuf4" wrote NASA was created as a civilian agency. Its nature was national defense. They owned and operated lots of ICBM boosters. There are hundreds of indicators that have been presented to this forum. The single most direct that I know of is from the private words of JFK where he stated point blank that the sole justification for funding Apollo was because of the "defense implications". For whatever reason you snipped that reference without comment. It was irrelevent. The federal highway system was originally funded for its defense implications, but that doesn't make it a military road, nor toll-collectors on toll portions of it military personel. We are in agreement that NASA was not a military agency. But unlike your highway analogy, notice that NASA *did* have many military personnel. And NASA did not own or operate a single ICBM booster. They owned and operated boosters which had been developed as boosters for ICBMs, but were modified for manned and unmanned space missions. Both the weaponized ICBM and the Mercury booster carried the exact same Air Force designation: Atlas-D. NASA ordered the Atlas and the Titan boosters straight from the Air Force, not the contractors. I don't know what Atlas modifications you are referring to, but in the case of the Titan, minor modifications (for pogo suppression, etc) could actually be used by the Air Force as improvements to future versions of the ICBM. (And to avoid an extremely narrow focus, I'll point out that ICBM refers to a ballistic missile that has intercontinental range. The Air Force put nukes on top. NASA put astronauts there.) I'm sure that civilian agencies used plenty of Jeeps, which were originally military vehicles. That doesn't mean that those agencies were militarized. I consider it to be a plain fact that NASA was militarized. Military pilots flying on top of military rockets. Those boosters even had Air Force serial numbers. The plan to launch test pilots into space atop Redstone rockets and Atlas rockets existed before NASA ever came into existence. They were Army and Air Force programs. NASA simply took over. NASA was an important part of the cold war, which, broadly speaking, was about defending the American way of life. Not everything involved in doing so was military. NASA utilized experienced military personel, rented space from the Air Force, and used equipment developed originally for the military. They did not, however, participate in deterence, force projection, nor (until the shuttle) military development. No? You might be interested in looking at this Vintage NORAD Slideshow that was posted to the forum a couple of years ago. I'll cut straight to a two slide sequence: http://www.pinetreeline.org/slides/slide12.html http://www.pinetreeline.org/slides/slide13.html The first slide is of nuclear annihilation of America. The second slide shows the orbital groundtracks of Vostok 3 and 4. The message is crystal clear: Launches of ICBMs with human payloads communicates nuclear destructive capability (as Sputnik did years before). They even handed off development of MOL to the Air Force. The military role of NASA (as opposed to the role of the military in NASA) was primarily as a technology demonstrator. It showed that the US had the technological superiority over the Soviet Union, and did so in an open manner. It had the military implications that if space were to become directly militarized, the US would be in a better position than the Soviets to do so. I agree with that. Take a look at those pictures of astronauts standing on the Moon saluting the flag. They are doing so out of habit, because they are active duty military personnel. (http://images.google.com/images?sour...e=UTF-8&q=apol lo+salute) This is never mentioned in the Apollo Surface Journal. Do you have a citation for anyone stating that the salute was done out of habit? IIRC, at least one astronaut said that he did so because it seemed the correct thing to do. Remember, this was a time when patriotism was expressed quite openly. My point was that military personnel are habitually trained to salute. I don't see it as a controversial statement (if you want, you can put the two together and surmise that it "seemed the correct thing to do" because of the habit). I have never seen a single photo of any non-military astronaut saluting the flag on the Moon. I am guessing that they considered it improper for a civilian to do that. Well, the civilians could hardly hold their hats over their hearts, could they... Not for very long, at least. I think that deciding whether to salute the flag or not was a personal decision. I'm waiting for Fox to release the Apollo 17 DVD, when I get it I'll figure out if Schmidt saluted the flag. Tonight I'll check to see if Armstrong did. I'm even having difficulty figuring out whether all (or most) of the military astronauts saluted the flag, or just paused to look at it respectfully (like Aldrin appears to have done, although he did salute President Nixon). * Anyone who maintains that NASA is non-military has completely missed the very essence of NASA. * It was about national defense in 1958. It is still about national defense today. Eisenhower created it to consolidate key military space programs. JFK hammers the point that it was funded as a defense program. Reagan repeats that theme in his 1982 space policy. Anything more recent? It was about national defense (satellite recon) in the late 50s. It was about technology demonstration and possible defense applications in JFKs day (but it was not funded by the DoD.) Reagan was pushing the shuttle as a vital carrier for military payloads, including SDI. Those are three solid points. More recent? It all seemed downhill from Reagan. But if we look hard enough, I'm sure we'd find something. It was never the essence of the planetary science portion of NASA, and it is very arguable whether the manned program was more than part-time dedicated to defense needs. As an artifact of history (the cold war), NASA was originally staffed with many active duty defense people, and people who had worked for the services, because they had the experience, and the security clearances. (Just because something is civilian doesn't mean that it doesn't require security.) Security clearances aren't all that hard to get for people who walk in off the street. Even Bill Clinton can get one! I've never taken much stock in that explanation for why test pilots were chosen. If you want to know why today NASA is dying, it is because it is no longer needed in this defense role. The threat has changed. As Ike melded the NACA with DoD to meet the threat in 1958, we may see Bush decide to meld the FAA with DoD to meet the threats of today. That's what the Department of Homeland Security reorg was all about. It is "today's NASA". 9-11 is "today's Sputnik". NACA became part of the DoD? That's news to me. There are a lot of agreements between the DoD and NASA, but that doesn't mean NASA is part of the DoD. Where in http://www.defenselink.mil/odam/omp/...ok/Pdf/DoD.PDF, which is the organization of the DoD, is NASA? It's not a command, an agency, anywhere. In an attempt to clear up this disconnect, I'll go back and be more explicit: "Ike melded the NACA to *parts* of DoD..." (Take the case of JPL and Redstone getting broken away from the Army and absorbed by NASA as two examples.) Is anyone still confused? I'll defer to LaDonna's excellent statement that this whole subthread sprouted off of: "...surely with the news coverage of the past week you have heard of the "Cold War?" What do you think the race to the Moon was all about?" That still doesn't make everything involved with the Cold War part of the defense establishment, the military, or the DoD. What happened is that there was so much focus on the cheerleader aspects of the space program, the public lost sight of it's primary reason for being funded. If a poll taken today were to state- Check off the following agencies that were part of the Cold War defense establishment: __ Air Force __ Atomic Energy Commission __ Navy __ NASA __ Army __ CIA ...I expect that the vast majority would not include NASA. I would even guess that several of the moonwalkers themselves got so wrapped up into the PR aspects that they lost contact with the sole justification that JFK had to remind Jim Webb about. A question that I would be very intrigued to hear them field is, "What connection do you see between Apollo and the nuclear arms race?" ~ CT (I hate when this thing doesn't post your message and you have to start over.) Anyway, I was trying to say I am reminded of my military days; you know, those idiots who cannot figure out how to do anything if it is not in the reg book. (I think it's AMI who asks about a citation regarding saluting the flag out of habit? I can't tell since the color-coding is gone in reply mode.) I've often wanted to tell some of those dip-sh**s in the military, "So, if it doesn't specifically tell you in a regulation that you can go to the bathroom, you will never go???" Prime example of this mentality (which permeates this news group, by the way): December 7, 1941, Hickam Field: The ammunition is locked up, a guard is posted with orders not to open it for anyone, the bombs are dropping, people are dying, and this fool refuses to open the locker without orders. (Does anyone need "verifiable references" for this one???) Some things are just common sense--which is obviously not-so-common anymore. CT, you go. You are doing great, and it is wonderful to read a voice of reason in here for a change. LaDonna |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
|
#156
|
|||
|
|||
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message m... You know what some of this reminds me of? I'm reminded of those dip-sh**s in the military who, when asked something that was not specifically outlined in some manual somewhere, WAS CLUELESS TO RESPOND. Stuffie's like that. If it wasn't on a piece of paper, they couldn't figure it out. That's the job of the investigator. I can't tell for sure because in the "respond" page everything is black instead of color-coded.) Use a real newsreader instead of Google. Prime example of such "If it ain't in the regs I ain't gonna do it" mentality: Which has nothing whatsoever to do with an investigator being able to document his or her conclusions. A *real* investigator would not be so arrogant as to expect others to take their word for anything- a *real* investigator would know that evidence needs to be reviewed and would provide verifiable references so that could be done. After all, a *real* investigator who has contacted law enforcement authorities, as you claim you have (but can't seem to remember who you talked to or where they work), would expect those same law enforcement authorities to recreate the investigation for themselves, following the verifiable evidence provided by the investigator, precisely because that's what would be needed in order to prosecute,l since secret or unverifiable evidence is *no evidence at all*. You're doing quite well, and it's wonderful to hear a voice of reason. I'm sure you enjoyed what Stuffie had to say as well- he's full of ****, but he's entertaining. Frankly, when it comes to wild-assed, absurd, unsupported claims that fly in the face of the available evidence, while you are trying to be a contender, Stuffie makes you look like a rank amateur. When it comes to blind stubborn refusal to address the evidence contrary to your claim, you try hard, but again you're just an amateur compared to Stuffie. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... (I hate when this thing doesn't post your message and you have to start over.) Use a real newsreader and take your time. They are freely available for download. it is wonderful to read a voice of reason in here for a change. JimO, Henry, Mary, Herb, and others post here all the time, so you've had ample opportunity to read multiple voices of reason. Why haven't you named anyone here that you consider REASONABLE, whose questions you said you'd answer? |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... "Scott Hedrick" wrote in message .. . "LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... Wow. How very adult of you. So, what sort of documents should I expect when I stop by the address I gave you tomorrow afternoon? You've had more than a week, even silly first class won't take that long. I told you before I am not handing those documents So much for your being a seeker of the truth. You didn't send anything because you don't have anything to send. I AM giving them to someone else who will be posting them as I've said many times before Who? |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
From Greg Moo
"Stuf4" wrote Take a look at those pictures of astronauts standing on the Moon saluting the flag. They are doing so out of habit, because they are active duty military personnel. (http://images.google.com/images?sour...e=UTF-8&q=apol lo+salute) I have never seen a single photo of any non-military astronaut saluting the flag on the Moon. I am guessing that they considered it improper for a civilian to do that. You know, I've never been in the military, but I salute the flag when I hang it outside my house. People outside the military DO tend to give the flag respect you know. Whether or not you are aware of it, flag protocol is explicitly specified by United States Code. According to this code, those who are to render a hand salute are military personnel, and that is *only* when they are in uniform. Anyone interested in specifics can read: "FLAG LAWS AND REGULATIONS" http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/m.../flaglaws1.htm There were only two civilians who walked on the Moon. Neil Armstrong certainly knew about flag protocol. It was part of his Boy Scout training, let alone his Navy training. Jack probably got this training from NASA. If not in formal training, I expect that one of his Boy Scout / military buddies clued him in at one of the many ceremonies that he attended. ~ CT |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
... Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: You know, I've never been in the military, but I salute the flag when I hang it outside my house. People outside the military DO tend to give the flag respect you know. I imagine they could have put their hands over their Hasselblads and recited the Pledge Of Allegiance, but I doubt that would have made much of a historic photo. Pat And the photo "Aldrin Saluting the Flag" on the site LaDonna posted has him with his hands by his sides. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sky & Telescope's News Bulletin - Mar 19 | Stuart Goldman | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | March 20th 04 03:20 AM |
Good news and bad about Mars rover... | Steven James Forsberg | Policy | 2 | January 26th 04 11:12 AM |
Sky & Telescope's News Bulletin - Jan 9 | Stuart Goldman | Amateur Astronomy | 12 | January 10th 04 02:34 AM |
Sky & Telescope's News Bulletin - Sep 12 | Stuart Goldman | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 13th 03 02:45 AM |
news flash! Rutan drops the shapceship! | Rand Simberg | Policy | 3 | August 8th 03 11:14 PM |