kallend 1,621 #276 October 24, 2007 NOTHING in your post invalidates anything I previously wrote. LeMay's campaign of systematic destruction of Japanese cities did not start until spring 1945, so there was no need to reserve anything prior to that. You are STILL unable to cite any post in which a SOLE reason was stated.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #277 October 24, 2007 Quote1) As I said, it's a waste of time. I'd rather try to convince my dog she's a cat, at least she would understand what was going on. What evidence have you shown that Hiroshima had no military value at all? Or that every person killed was a woman or child? Or even civilian for that matter? What evidence have you posted that Hiroshima was left untouched throughout the entire war just for the purpose of judging the impact of a nuke and no other reason? It's not up to me to prove you wrong, only up to you to substantiate your claims. You want an argument for aiming at suburbs? Ok, how's this....we got to kill more Japanese that way. More killed with the bomb means less trying to kill our men in case an invasion is needed. 2) Not all were defenseless woman and kids. Some were holding scissors at the time. Fuck 'em. And all the rest. It was war and they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. 3) I wouldn't want to distract from this thread. Watching you try to prove the U.S. was wrong is quite amusing. At least, for the time being. I'm quickly becoming bored with you. Bravo - the best example of misquoting your opponent then attacking you own misquotes that I have seen in quite a while.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #278 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThis thread should be euthanized. Yea, let's take this thread, put it to paper, enclose it in a nuclear bomb and drop it on Iran or Iraq. Maybe we can get Iran to quit seeking nukes if we kill, oh, let's say a few 100 thousand women and kids. Your non-sequitor, tinfoil-hat-brigade-esque postings on this thread have been entertaining, in kind of a "Watch a marmoset try to explain particle physics" way. Irony score 1000... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #279 October 24, 2007 Sorry, Kallend, but it DID have military value. But it was of value only if left intact. I'm sorry if you can't comprehend how that can be, but those who know a bit about military strategy and intelligence gathering can. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #280 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuote1) As I said, it's a waste of time. I'd rather try to convince my dog she's a cat, at least she would understand what was going on. What evidence have you shown that Hiroshima had no military value at all? Or that every person killed was a woman or child? Or even civilian for that matter? What evidence have you posted that Hiroshima was left untouched throughout the entire war just for the purpose of judging the impact of a nuke and no other reason? It's not up to me to prove you wrong, only up to you to substantiate your claims. You want an argument for aiming at suburbs? Ok, how's this....we got to kill more Japanese that way. More killed with the bomb means less trying to kill our men in case an invasion is needed. 2) Not all were defenseless woman and kids. Some were holding scissors at the time. Fuck 'em. And all the rest. It was war and they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. 3) I wouldn't want to distract from this thread. Watching you try to prove the U.S. was wrong is quite amusing. At least, for the time being. I'm quickly becoming bored with you. Bravo - the best example of misquoting your opponent then attacking you own misquotes that I have seen in quite a while. Show me where I misquoted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #281 October 24, 2007 Quote Sorry, Kallend, but it DID have military value. But it was of value only if left intact. I'm sorry if you can't comprehend how that can be, but those who know a bit about military strategy and intelligence gathering can. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Thank you for confirming my (and, I guess, Lucky's) point. That is EXACTLY why it was placed on the reserved list. Re-read Gen. Groves's memo about target selection. THANK YOU AGAIN... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #282 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThis thread should be euthanized. Yea, let's take this thread, put it to paper, enclose it in a nuclear bomb and drop it on Iran or Iraq. Maybe we can get Iran to quit seeking nukes if we kill, oh, let's say a few 100 thousand women and kids. Your non-sequitor, tinfoil-hat-brigade-esque postings on this thread have been entertaining, in kind of a "Watch a marmoset try to explain particle physics" way. Irony score 1000 The difference is that 99.9% of the time, I'm intentionally non-sequitor... A PhD does not mean one is inherently more authoritative on subjects outside one's area of study...so drop the ego, professor.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #283 October 24, 2007 Quote Quote Sorry, Kallend, but it DID have military value. But it was of value only if left intact. I'm sorry if you can't comprehend how that can be, but those who know a bit about military strategy and intelligence gathering can. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Thank you for confirming my (and, I guess, Lucky's) point. That is EXACTLY why it was placed on the reserved list. Re-read Gen. Groves's memo about target selection. THANK YOU AGAIN No, Kallend, the reason it was left intact before it was placed on the reserve list had nothing to do with nukes. It also had nothing to do with reach of bombers, etc. My post confirms nothing that you or Lucky claimed. Now, if you please, show me where I misquoted? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #284 October 24, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Sorry, Kallend, but it DID have military value. But it was of value only if left intact. I'm sorry if you can't comprehend how that can be, but those who know a bit about military strategy and intelligence gathering can. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Thank you for confirming my (and, I guess, Lucky's) point. That is EXACTLY why it was placed on the reserved list. Re-read Gen. Groves's memo about target selection. THANK YOU AGAIN No, Kallend, the reason it was left intact before it was placed on the reserve list had nothing to do with nukes. It also had nothing to do with reach of bombers, etc. My post confirms nothing that you or Lucky claimed. Well, I can hardly help it if you can't figure out where you made your error. However, it was placed on the reserved list at almost the same time as LeMay implemented his "Empire Plan", there really was no need before that. Quote Now, if you please, show me where I misquoted? "every person killed was a woman or child?" no-one claimed that. "Hiroshima had no military value at all". Where was that claimed? "Hiroshima was left untouched throughout the entire war " no-one claimed anything about the entire war.. "just for the purpose of judging the impact of a nuke and no other reason?" who claimed that? It was untouched prior to the May-July strategic bombing campaign because it wasn't a priority military target (April had been almost all precision bombing of priority military targets). It was untouched after that because it was a reserved target.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #285 October 24, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Sorry, Kallend, but it DID have military value. But it was of value only if left intact. I'm sorry if you can't comprehend how that can be, but those who know a bit about military strategy and intelligence gathering can. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Thank you for confirming my (and, I guess, Lucky's) point. That is EXACTLY why it was placed on the reserved list. Re-read Gen. Groves's memo about target selection. THANK YOU AGAIN No, Kallend, the reason it was left intact before it was placed on the reserve list had nothing to do with nukes. It also had nothing to do with reach of bombers, etc. My post confirms nothing that you or Lucky claimed. Well, I can hardly help it if you can't figure out where you made your error. However, it was placed on the reserved list at almost the same time as LeMay implemented his "Empire Plan", there really was no need before that. Quote Now, if you please, show me where I misquoted? "every person killed was a woman or child?" no-one claimed that. "Hiroshima had no military value at all". Where was that claimed? "Hiroshima was left untouched throughout the entire war " no-one claimed anything about the entire war.. "just for the purpose of judging the impact of a nuke and no other reason?" who claimed that? It was untouched prior to the May-July strategic bombing campaign because it wasn't a priority military target (April had been almost all precision bombing of priority military targets). It was untouched after that because it was a reserved target. Every one of those "misquotes' is taken directly from either a reference you or lucky made or as a direct implication. I made no error in my postings, all of which are historically correct, something that cannot be said of yours and Lucky's. It's not my fault you're too ignorant to understand military history. I'm bored with this thread. Don't you have anything new to add other than just rehashing the same old BS you've been throwing around? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #286 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuote Ha ha. I'm sorry that you consider direct quotes from the minutes of the Manhattan Project to be "ignorant". I'm sorry you consider links to the President's Advisory Committee (on radiation exposure) to be ignorant. I'm sorry that you consider the history of the 20th AAF to be ignorant. Kind of like the person who didn't know that the pound could be used as a unit of mass, I guess. Oh well.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #287 October 24, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Ha ha. I'm sorry that you consider direct quotes from the minutes of the Manhattan Project to be "ignorant". I'm sorry you consider links to the President's Advisory Committee (on radiation exposure) to be ignorant. I'm sorry that you consider the history of the 20th AAF to be ignorant. Kind of like the person who didn't know that the pound could be used as a unit of mass, I guess. Oh well. You can't even understand a simple message. I don't consider the things you listed to be ignorant. I never said they were so don't start that BS again. I consider YOU to be ignorant. You don't understand how something can be of such military value that to destroy it would cause serious harm to the war effort before nukes were even brought into the equation. Of course, I would expect nothing less from someone who claimed to know more about my business's financial status than I even though they never knew anything about it let alone have looked at the books. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,621 #288 October 24, 2007 Quote Every one of those "misquotes' is taken directly from either a reference you or lucky made or as a direct implication. Please provide links. Also please note that mnealtx made the same incorrect assertion and has thus far been unable to provide a link despite being asked. NCClimber did the same but he was honest enough to admit his error. Just because you (incorrectly) inferred something does NOT mean that I or anyone else implied it. We have seen previous examples of your incorrect interpretations (pound - mass). I have provided sources for just about everything I wrote on this thread. Have you?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #289 October 25, 2007 "every person killed was a woman or child?" no-one claimed that. The first mention is at post #209. Continues up through 231,232 and more. The fact that he never mentions adult males or military personel being killed is an extremely strong insinuation that only women and kids were targeted/killed. "Hiroshima had no military value at all". Where was that claimed? Post #152."OK, and why was it untouched? Perhaps.....uh, cause it had virtually no militayr significance?" "It was left alone becuase it had no military significance, bombed with the A bombs because it was unmollested and there was collection of civilian victims to be murdered" "Hiroshima was left untouched throughout the entire war " no-one claimed anything about the entire war.. Post #31. Also #89, one of your own. "just for the purpose of judging the impact of a nuke and no other reason?" who claimed that? It was untouched prior to the May-July strategic bombing campaign because it wasn't a priority military target (April had been almost all precision bombing of priority military targets). It was untouched after that because it was a reserved target. Again, post #31. Also #74 makes a pretty implicite reference to the same idea. Hard to draw any other conclusion as to his insinuation There you have it, Kallend. Post numbers and quoted lines from those posts. If you re-read all the posts in this thread you will see that those i listed are just a few of many. What have I claimed that I needed a source for? Now, where did I misquote someone in this thread? Also, where did I say I consider direct quotes from the minutes of the Manhattan Project to be "ignorant" or that I consider links to the President's Advisory Committee (on radiation exposure) to be ignorant? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #290 October 25, 2007 He lost his credibility a while back, please try and keep up ok? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerryzflies 0 #291 October 25, 2007 Quote"every person killed was a woman or child?" no-one claimed that. The first mention is at post #209. Continues up through 231,232 and more. The fact that he never mentions adult males or military personel being killed is an extremely strong insinuation that only women and kids were targeted/killed. Sorry, but that is just an unwarranted assumption on your part. It implies nothing. Quote "Hiroshima had no military value at all". Where was that claimed? Post #152."OK, and why was it untouched? Perhaps.....uh, cause it had virtually no militayr significance?" "It was left alone becuase it had no military significance, bombed with the A bombs because it was unmollested and there was collection of civilian victims to be murdered" "VIRTUALLY NO" is not the same as "NO". That is a crock, willard. you are reaching. Quote "Hiroshima was left untouched throughout the entire war " no-one claimed anything about the entire war.. Post #31. Also #89, one of your own. Post 31 says nothing whatever about the entire war. Post 89 is just a quote from General Groves. Are you claiming Groves lied? Or that kallend made up the quote from Groves? Quote "just for the purpose of judging the impact of a nuke and no other reason?" who claimed that? It was untouched prior to the May-July strategic bombing campaign because it wasn't a priority military target (April had been almost all precision bombing of priority military targets). It was untouched after that because it was a reserved target. I seem to recall seeing a cited quote from Groves in this thread that said just about the same thing as Kallend. You haven't managed to claim anything. Quote Again, post #31. Also #74 makes a pretty implicite reference to the same idea. Hard to draw any other conclusion as to his insinuation No, post 31 doesn't claim what you say it does. Post 74 is not about Hiroshima at all, it is about post-war nuclear testing. You are simply wrong. Quote There you have it, Kallend. Post numbers and quoted lines from those posts. If you re-read all the posts in this thread you will see that those i listed are just a few of many. Willard, your claims are all based on what you perceive as insinuations, or are just unsupportable in the posts you reference. You haven't produced anything at all. Whn others provide sources to support their positions and you provide none fpr your counter positions, you do not come across as very convincing. Sorry.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,621 #292 October 25, 2007 I hope people actually check your claims, because then they can see for themselves that they are crap. The posts you cite don't contain what you say they do (one is TOTALLY unrelated), or you have simply inferred content that wasn't actually there. So let me recapitulate the essential points brought out in theis thread. * The USA has performed involuntary radiation exposure experiments on both civilians and service personnel. The AEC concealed these experiments from many of the victims. US Government sources are cited. * Hiroshima was made a "reserved" target by the Manhattan Project's targeting committee because it met their criteria for a target (large urban area, little previous damage, not one of LeMay's priority military targets, good for determining the power of the bomb. Minutes of the targeting committee, or official history of the Manhattan Project, have been cited in support each of these. *Another criterion in the targeting decision (quoted directly from the minutes of the committee: "making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released." IOW, they wanted a big PR event to impress the Russians. Have a lovely evening. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #293 October 25, 2007 Your reasoning is bullshit. Or are you like Kallend and want everyone to be 100% specific and detailed while you are being vague? Get a life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,621 #294 October 25, 2007 Quote Your reasoning is bullshit. Or are you like Kallend and want everyone to be 100% specific and detailed while you are being vague? Get a life. ROFL You haven't rebutted a single one of his points, which he made in detail. Irony score 10/10 I cited sources in my posts and you just misquote and hurl insults.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #295 October 25, 2007 Quote* The USA has performed involuntary radiation exposure experiments on both civilians and service personnel. The AEC concealed these experiments from many of the victims. US Government sources are cited. Here's a quick pre-test on your knowledge and understanding of the cited report: How is "human radiation experiment" defined by the report? You have 5 minutes to answer. It should be easy. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #296 October 25, 2007 Quote I hope people actually check your claims, because then they can see for themselves that they are crap. The posts you cite don't contain what you say they do (one is TOTALLY unrelated), or you have simply inferred content that wasn't actually there. So let me recapitulate the essential points brought out in theis thread. * The USA has performed involuntary radiation exposure experiments on both civilians and service personnel. The AEC concealed these experiments from many of the victims. US Government sources are cited. Where did I ever make a claim or reference to the contrary? * Hiroshima was made a "reserved" target by the Manhattan Project's targeting committee because it met their criteria for a target (large urban area, little previous damage, not one of LeMay's priority military targets, good for determining the power of the bomb. Minutes of the targeting committee, or official history of the Manhattan Project, have been cited in support each of these. Again, where did i state anything to the contrary? *Another criterion in the targeting decision (quoted directly from the minutes of the committee: "making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released." IOW, they wanted a big PR event to impress the Russians. One more time...where did I post anything to the contrary? Have a lovely evening. You asked for posts, i listed a small sample. There are more if you aren't too frigging' lazy to look them up. Why did you post the above statements? I never said anything to the contrary about any of the three. Stop crediting me with things i never said. Now, What have I claimed that I needed a source for? Now, where did I misquote someone in this thread? Also, where did I say I consider direct quotes from the minutes of the Manhattan Project to be "ignorant" or that I consider links to the President's Advisory Committee (on radiation exposure) to be ignorant? C'mon, Kallend, show us where. I spent the time gathering what you requested, now it's your turn. BTW, to refute just one claim of yours and Lucky's, and to show that what i infered from his post had to be exactly what he meant, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki According to Wiki, which you have a lot of faith in, as many as 220,000 died within a year as a direct result of the bombings and several thousand more over the years since. If Lucky is right and 250,000 WOMEN AND CHILDREN died from the bombs, then where is there room for anyone else? According to the math every victim, and then another 30,000, were women and kids. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #297 October 25, 2007 Quote Quote Your reasoning is bullshit. Or are you like Kallend and want everyone to be 100% specific and detailed while you are being vague? Get a life. ROFL You haven't rebutted a single one of his points, which he made in detail. Irony score 10/10 I cited sources in my posts and you just misquote and hurl insults. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Get the hint? As to insults, you are ignorant. You are ignorant of the reasons Hiroshima wasn't bombed before it was chosen to be on the reserved list. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,621 #298 October 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Your reasoning is bullshit. Or are you like Kallend and want everyone to be 100% specific and detailed while you are being vague? Get a life. ROFL You haven't rebutted a single one of his points, which he made in detail. Irony score 10/10 I cited sources in my posts and you just misquote and hurl insults. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Get the hint? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2991356#2991356... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,621 #299 October 25, 2007 QuoteQuote According to Wiki, which you have a lot of faith in, as t. ROFL You are floundering in a quagmire of your own making.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #300 October 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote According to Wiki, which you have a lot of faith in, as t. ROFL You are floundering in a quagmire of your own making. Ah, yes, kallend at his best. He asks for proof, he is shown proof, he doesn't like proof, so he resorts to attempting to make fun of people, straying off topic, etc. Not to mention telling lies about other members posts. Mr. Kallend, I hate to leave but this thread, and you, are boring me. Have a nice day and remember...it's not nice to tell lies about other people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next Page 12 of 13 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
willard 0 #287 October 24, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Ha ha. I'm sorry that you consider direct quotes from the minutes of the Manhattan Project to be "ignorant". I'm sorry you consider links to the President's Advisory Committee (on radiation exposure) to be ignorant. I'm sorry that you consider the history of the 20th AAF to be ignorant. Kind of like the person who didn't know that the pound could be used as a unit of mass, I guess. Oh well. You can't even understand a simple message. I don't consider the things you listed to be ignorant. I never said they were so don't start that BS again. I consider YOU to be ignorant. You don't understand how something can be of such military value that to destroy it would cause serious harm to the war effort before nukes were even brought into the equation. Of course, I would expect nothing less from someone who claimed to know more about my business's financial status than I even though they never knew anything about it let alone have looked at the books. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #288 October 24, 2007 Quote Every one of those "misquotes' is taken directly from either a reference you or lucky made or as a direct implication. Please provide links. Also please note that mnealtx made the same incorrect assertion and has thus far been unable to provide a link despite being asked. NCClimber did the same but he was honest enough to admit his error. Just because you (incorrectly) inferred something does NOT mean that I or anyone else implied it. We have seen previous examples of your incorrect interpretations (pound - mass). I have provided sources for just about everything I wrote on this thread. Have you?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #289 October 25, 2007 "every person killed was a woman or child?" no-one claimed that. The first mention is at post #209. Continues up through 231,232 and more. The fact that he never mentions adult males or military personel being killed is an extremely strong insinuation that only women and kids were targeted/killed. "Hiroshima had no military value at all". Where was that claimed? Post #152."OK, and why was it untouched? Perhaps.....uh, cause it had virtually no militayr significance?" "It was left alone becuase it had no military significance, bombed with the A bombs because it was unmollested and there was collection of civilian victims to be murdered" "Hiroshima was left untouched throughout the entire war " no-one claimed anything about the entire war.. Post #31. Also #89, one of your own. "just for the purpose of judging the impact of a nuke and no other reason?" who claimed that? It was untouched prior to the May-July strategic bombing campaign because it wasn't a priority military target (April had been almost all precision bombing of priority military targets). It was untouched after that because it was a reserved target. Again, post #31. Also #74 makes a pretty implicite reference to the same idea. Hard to draw any other conclusion as to his insinuation There you have it, Kallend. Post numbers and quoted lines from those posts. If you re-read all the posts in this thread you will see that those i listed are just a few of many. What have I claimed that I needed a source for? Now, where did I misquote someone in this thread? Also, where did I say I consider direct quotes from the minutes of the Manhattan Project to be "ignorant" or that I consider links to the President's Advisory Committee (on radiation exposure) to be ignorant? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #290 October 25, 2007 He lost his credibility a while back, please try and keep up ok? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #291 October 25, 2007 Quote"every person killed was a woman or child?" no-one claimed that. The first mention is at post #209. Continues up through 231,232 and more. The fact that he never mentions adult males or military personel being killed is an extremely strong insinuation that only women and kids were targeted/killed. Sorry, but that is just an unwarranted assumption on your part. It implies nothing. Quote "Hiroshima had no military value at all". Where was that claimed? Post #152."OK, and why was it untouched? Perhaps.....uh, cause it had virtually no militayr significance?" "It was left alone becuase it had no military significance, bombed with the A bombs because it was unmollested and there was collection of civilian victims to be murdered" "VIRTUALLY NO" is not the same as "NO". That is a crock, willard. you are reaching. Quote "Hiroshima was left untouched throughout the entire war " no-one claimed anything about the entire war.. Post #31. Also #89, one of your own. Post 31 says nothing whatever about the entire war. Post 89 is just a quote from General Groves. Are you claiming Groves lied? Or that kallend made up the quote from Groves? Quote "just for the purpose of judging the impact of a nuke and no other reason?" who claimed that? It was untouched prior to the May-July strategic bombing campaign because it wasn't a priority military target (April had been almost all precision bombing of priority military targets). It was untouched after that because it was a reserved target. I seem to recall seeing a cited quote from Groves in this thread that said just about the same thing as Kallend. You haven't managed to claim anything. Quote Again, post #31. Also #74 makes a pretty implicite reference to the same idea. Hard to draw any other conclusion as to his insinuation No, post 31 doesn't claim what you say it does. Post 74 is not about Hiroshima at all, it is about post-war nuclear testing. You are simply wrong. Quote There you have it, Kallend. Post numbers and quoted lines from those posts. If you re-read all the posts in this thread you will see that those i listed are just a few of many. Willard, your claims are all based on what you perceive as insinuations, or are just unsupportable in the posts you reference. You haven't produced anything at all. Whn others provide sources to support their positions and you provide none fpr your counter positions, you do not come across as very convincing. Sorry.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #292 October 25, 2007 I hope people actually check your claims, because then they can see for themselves that they are crap. The posts you cite don't contain what you say they do (one is TOTALLY unrelated), or you have simply inferred content that wasn't actually there. So let me recapitulate the essential points brought out in theis thread. * The USA has performed involuntary radiation exposure experiments on both civilians and service personnel. The AEC concealed these experiments from many of the victims. US Government sources are cited. * Hiroshima was made a "reserved" target by the Manhattan Project's targeting committee because it met their criteria for a target (large urban area, little previous damage, not one of LeMay's priority military targets, good for determining the power of the bomb. Minutes of the targeting committee, or official history of the Manhattan Project, have been cited in support each of these. *Another criterion in the targeting decision (quoted directly from the minutes of the committee: "making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released." IOW, they wanted a big PR event to impress the Russians. Have a lovely evening. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #293 October 25, 2007 Your reasoning is bullshit. Or are you like Kallend and want everyone to be 100% specific and detailed while you are being vague? Get a life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #294 October 25, 2007 Quote Your reasoning is bullshit. Or are you like Kallend and want everyone to be 100% specific and detailed while you are being vague? Get a life. ROFL You haven't rebutted a single one of his points, which he made in detail. Irony score 10/10 I cited sources in my posts and you just misquote and hurl insults.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #295 October 25, 2007 Quote* The USA has performed involuntary radiation exposure experiments on both civilians and service personnel. The AEC concealed these experiments from many of the victims. US Government sources are cited. Here's a quick pre-test on your knowledge and understanding of the cited report: How is "human radiation experiment" defined by the report? You have 5 minutes to answer. It should be easy. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #296 October 25, 2007 Quote I hope people actually check your claims, because then they can see for themselves that they are crap. The posts you cite don't contain what you say they do (one is TOTALLY unrelated), or you have simply inferred content that wasn't actually there. So let me recapitulate the essential points brought out in theis thread. * The USA has performed involuntary radiation exposure experiments on both civilians and service personnel. The AEC concealed these experiments from many of the victims. US Government sources are cited. Where did I ever make a claim or reference to the contrary? * Hiroshima was made a "reserved" target by the Manhattan Project's targeting committee because it met their criteria for a target (large urban area, little previous damage, not one of LeMay's priority military targets, good for determining the power of the bomb. Minutes of the targeting committee, or official history of the Manhattan Project, have been cited in support each of these. Again, where did i state anything to the contrary? *Another criterion in the targeting decision (quoted directly from the minutes of the committee: "making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released." IOW, they wanted a big PR event to impress the Russians. One more time...where did I post anything to the contrary? Have a lovely evening. You asked for posts, i listed a small sample. There are more if you aren't too frigging' lazy to look them up. Why did you post the above statements? I never said anything to the contrary about any of the three. Stop crediting me with things i never said. Now, What have I claimed that I needed a source for? Now, where did I misquote someone in this thread? Also, where did I say I consider direct quotes from the minutes of the Manhattan Project to be "ignorant" or that I consider links to the President's Advisory Committee (on radiation exposure) to be ignorant? C'mon, Kallend, show us where. I spent the time gathering what you requested, now it's your turn. BTW, to refute just one claim of yours and Lucky's, and to show that what i infered from his post had to be exactly what he meant, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki According to Wiki, which you have a lot of faith in, as many as 220,000 died within a year as a direct result of the bombings and several thousand more over the years since. If Lucky is right and 250,000 WOMEN AND CHILDREN died from the bombs, then where is there room for anyone else? According to the math every victim, and then another 30,000, were women and kids. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #297 October 25, 2007 Quote Quote Your reasoning is bullshit. Or are you like Kallend and want everyone to be 100% specific and detailed while you are being vague? Get a life. ROFL You haven't rebutted a single one of his points, which he made in detail. Irony score 10/10 I cited sources in my posts and you just misquote and hurl insults. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Get the hint? As to insults, you are ignorant. You are ignorant of the reasons Hiroshima wasn't bombed before it was chosen to be on the reserved list. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #298 October 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Your reasoning is bullshit. Or are you like Kallend and want everyone to be 100% specific and detailed while you are being vague? Get a life. ROFL You haven't rebutted a single one of his points, which he made in detail. Irony score 10/10 I cited sources in my posts and you just misquote and hurl insults. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Get the hint? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2991356#2991356... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #299 October 25, 2007 QuoteQuote According to Wiki, which you have a lot of faith in, as t. ROFL You are floundering in a quagmire of your own making.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #300 October 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote According to Wiki, which you have a lot of faith in, as t. ROFL You are floundering in a quagmire of your own making. Ah, yes, kallend at his best. He asks for proof, he is shown proof, he doesn't like proof, so he resorts to attempting to make fun of people, straying off topic, etc. Not to mention telling lies about other members posts. Mr. Kallend, I hate to leave but this thread, and you, are boring me. Have a nice day and remember...it's not nice to tell lies about other people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next Page 12 of 13 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
willard 0 #300 October 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote According to Wiki, which you have a lot of faith in, as t. ROFL You are floundering in a quagmire of your own making. Ah, yes, kallend at his best. He asks for proof, he is shown proof, he doesn't like proof, so he resorts to attempting to make fun of people, straying off topic, etc. Not to mention telling lies about other members posts. Mr. Kallend, I hate to leave but this thread, and you, are boring me. Have a nice day and remember...it's not nice to tell lies about other people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
