Author Topic: Last night on the history channel (Read 2310 times)

Edbert1 · « **Reply #90 on:** June 06, 2006, 01:55:35 PM »

The German scientists working for the USA landed on the moon before the German scientists captured by the Russians did. Sputnik, manned orbit, and the space-walks were a side-show

Brenjen · « **Reply #91 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:04:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Edbert1
The German scientists working for the USA landed on the moon before the German scientists captured by the Russians did. Sputnik, manned orbit, and the space-walks were a side-show

ROFL; be careful Edbert1...all we have to go by is documentation & first hand accounts of the people involved that we actually landed on the moon. These guys will probably jump on the "we didn't land on the moon, it was done in a studio" conspiracy next.

When someone can't prove or disprove they make leaps to unconnected stories & prop each other up. They feel stronger in packs.

Where was that post about flamer caricatures with the bulldog & the little yapping sidekick on his shoulder, it fits.

Brenjen · « **Reply #92 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:08:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
we already know the answer, well some of us anyway.

some English nuke engineer who thought the world would be safer if USSR and the USA had the bomb gave USSR the technical theory for it and the rosenbergs gave the Russians the mechanical info.*

* rosenbergs brother-in-law worked at los alamos.

the USSR has always had and still does have spies and sympathisers in the USA.

There is no doubt the Rosenburgs helped the soviets enormously with their treason if you believe documentation & eyewitness accounts.

Eagler · « **Reply #93 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:11:14 PM »

if its on the tele or the internet it must be true ...

makes one wonder what the next generation of mush minds will believe as truth

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #94 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:32:48 PM »

This thread has like a black haze over it..... Or maybe a black cloud?

Or is that a sniper in black back there by the cave?

Brenjen · « **Reply #95 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:36:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
if its on the tele or the internet it must be true ...

makes one wonder what the next generation of mush minds will believe as truth

If it's backed up with documentation.

How were things proven to the masses before? In print? So every newspaper article is true?

I only see one arguement in opposition to the documentary & not one of the brainiacs on these boards have even bothered to bring it up;

The documents found in 2001 could have been forgeries & the two surviving Japanese scientists could have been (would've had to have been) involved in their creation.

I saw no scientific tests of the paper or ink listed, they may have & I just missed it. But then this begs the question, why would men in their late 80's or 90's keep quiet all these years & let the documents surface on their own?

I really hate having to bring up counter-points to my own questions but I'm tired of waiting on an actual thought to emerge from the flame posters.

Oh BTW Mods where were you on this one:

5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.

Are these flamers related to you or just in the "club"

And with that I am leaving this thread, I have already put three people on the ignore list to get this far without losing my temper.

Hangtime · « **Reply #96 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:43:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Brenjen
So why dont you guys stop digging? Trying to find that counterpoint I asked for?

stinky cheeze must use better bait put-the-shovel-down

straffo · « **Reply #97 on:** June 06, 2006, 03:05:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Brenjen
The Russians built a bomb very quickly after the end of WWII, how do you suppose they obtained this technology if it was impossible for anyone but the incredible United States to figure out? The Russians were about as technologically backwards as a society could be when the war started.

Now explain the T34, the Lavochkin ?

Technologically backwards , I don't think so.

Who wrote cheese ? I'm greedy now !

DiabloTX · « **Reply #98 on:** June 06, 2006, 04:22:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
Who wrote cheese ? I'm greedy now !

I did. Want some more?

ARLO!! CUT SOME MORE CHEESE!!!!

DiabloTX · « **Reply #99 on:** June 06, 2006, 06:42:54 PM »

Ok, I have done a ton of internet research on this subject, as I must admit, interested me as I had never heard of the possibility of Japan creating a nuclear weapon and testing it during WWII.

After going through the websites that I found I came to the conclusion that they did NOT squib a nOOk but that they were trying like hell to get to that point.

Anyway, this is the best information I could find:

Japan's research into nuclear weapons during WWII

Brenjen · « **Reply #100 on:** June 06, 2006, 06:50:24 PM »

At least you stopped flaming long enough to look into it further, that's all a discussion needs for it to be an interesting one. Maybe there's hope for you yet; I welcome disagreement & opposition, that's what forces you to look deeper & helps to expand the mind. All I ask is a little common courtesy & I will be happy to return the same to you.

DiabloTX
06-07-2006 12:42 AM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

Funny that I would pick that particular post to look at.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #101 on:** June 06, 2006, 07:10:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Brenjen
At least you stopped flaming long enough to look into it further, that's all a discussion needs for it to be an interesting one. Maybe there's hope for you yet; I welcome disagreement & opposition, that's what forces you to look deeper & helps to expand the mind. All I ask is a little common courtesy & I will be happy to return the same to you.

DiabloTX
06-07-2006 12:42 AM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

Funny that I would pick that particular post to look at.

Quote

Oh, BTW anyone can write anything in wikpedia, it is far from a reliable source of information.

Yup. I tried that the first time. You more or less didn't even bother to look at that data but rather attacked the source. It's not a discussion if the person who brings up the topic refuses to partake in a discussion. A more relevant answer would have been, "Wikipaedia is not the best source of information but is a good place to start research on just about any topic. While I disagree with that entry, I'll try to find more information to support my side of the discussion."

Rather than be civil about it we got a complete dismissal of the information instead of an intelligent reply. To dismiss my source was no different than my dismissal of yours. BUT, unlike you I pursued the topic further through research (the so-called "flaming" was just having fun at your expense, you're an easy, easy target. Thus the "B5N" moniker.).

Putting someone on an ignore list is pretty damn lame too. Someone doesn't agree with you? IGNORE!!!! Yeah, ignoring them is going to make your position more relavent.

Brenjen · « **Reply #102 on:** June 06, 2006, 07:25:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DiabloTX
Yup. I tried that the first time. You more or less didn't even bother to look at that data but rather attacked the source. It's not a discussion if the person who brings up the topic refuses to partake in a discussion. A more relevant answer would have been, "Wikipaedia is not the best source of information but is a good place to start research on just about any topic. While I disagree with that entry, I'll try to find more information to support my side of the discussion."

Rather than be civil about it we got a complete dismissal of the information instead of an intelligent reply. To dismiss my source was no different than my dismissal of yours. BUT, unlike you I pursued the topic further through research (the so-called "flaming" was just having fun at your expense, you're an easy, easy target. Thus the "B5N" moniker.).

Putting someone on an ignore list is pretty damn lame too. Someone doesn't agree with you? IGNORE!!!! Yeah, ignoring them is going to make your position more relavent.

I DID look at the wikipedia link & I saw it was one I had already read after seeing the History channel segment, I did my own research. I dismissed it only after knowing what it contained & the fact that the links it provided are more of the same, opinions & no evidence. I was civil about it.

That part about "but unlike you I pursued the topic further...." Yeah, after slinging insults my way on a personal level, being shot down & begining to look silly for doing it you decided to arm yourself with knowledge, that's the wise thing to do.

Also, if you insult me with personal attacks I will stand up for myself & if that makes me "easy" then you bet I am. Using the ignore list is not lame, it's the only way I can keep from losing my temper with some people who refuse to do anything but gang flame because it makes them feel superior.

I'm a fighter; I always have been, as I grew older I began to get my attitude in check but, that doesn't mean I'm weak. Many people mistake kindness for weakness, it's hard to make that mistake with me as I am neither. But I can be cordial if I am in a setting that is conducive to cordiality.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #103 on:** June 06, 2006, 07:36:34 PM »

Yeah. Your first two replies to posts were real cordial. In fact I'd call them "condescendingly cordial".

You started the tone of this thread with those replies. You are now reaping the benefit of those replies.

Brenjen · « **Reply #104 on:** June 06, 2006, 07:40:42 PM »

Time to ignore you again pee-wee.