Kelly the Dog Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Two words: Klaus Fuchs. Stalin knew more about the Manhattan Project than Truman did. But hey..."no leaks"... 338544[/snapback] I had an uncle, a physicist, who worked on the Manhattan Project. He passed away two years ago, you can look him up, his name was Lawrence Himmel and later was a professsor of Physics at Berkeley and Wayne State. He told us that he was never told what he was working on but that him and his team figured it out after awhile. Then he was ordered not to tell anyone anywhere for any reason, what he had done for 20 years. I was a little kid in the early to mid 60s when he finally told his parents, my grandparents. He kept his word for the full 20 years. Later, when we were in Washington, DC during the 1980s he thought it would be cool to see some of his own notes that he had worked on four decades ago. I can't remember the building they were stored in, but the government wouldn't let him read his own notes unless he could prove a good reason for doing so.
stuckincincy Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I had an uncle, a physicist, who worked on the Manhattan Project. He passed away two years ago, you can look him up, his name was Lawrence Himmel and later was a professsor of Physics at Berkeley and Wayne State. He told us that he was never told what he was working on but that him and his team figured it out after awhile. Then he was ordered not to tell anyone anywhere for any reason, what he had done for 20 years. I was a little kid in the early to mid 60s when he finally told his parents, my grandparents. He kept his word for the full 20 years. Later, when we were in Washington, DC during the 1980s he thought it would be cool to see some of his own notes that he had worked on four decades ago. I can't remember the building they were stored in, but the government wouldn't let him read his own notes unless he could prove a good reason for doing so. 338550[/snapback] A shot it the dark - did you have a relation named Al Himmel who was a prof at Buffalo State?
Kelly the Dog Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 A shot it the dark - did you have a relation named Al Himmel who was a prof at Buffalo State? 338587[/snapback] Nope. Never heard of himmel.
stuckincincy Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Nope. Never heard of himmel. 338606[/snapback] OK. I shared an office with him, and he instructed me in nuclear chemistry - hence the query. BTW, he taught me a few social graces. They didn't include "woot" as a response to a simple inquiry.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I had an uncle, a physicist, who worked on the Manhattan Project. He passed away two years ago, you can look him up, his name was Lawrence Himmel and later was a professsor of Physics at Berkeley and Wayne State. He told us that he was never told what he was working on but that him and his team figured it out after awhile. Then he was ordered not to tell anyone anywhere for any reason, what he had done for 20 years. I was a little kid in the early to mid 60s when he finally told his parents, my grandparents. He kept his word for the full 20 years. Later, when we were in Washington, DC during the 1980s he thought it would be cool to see some of his own notes that he had worked on four decades ago. I can't remember the building they were stored in, but the government wouldn't let him read his own notes unless he could prove a good reason for doing so. 338550[/snapback] Was he actually at Los Alamos, or somewhere else? The Manhattan Project was a big project with lots of sites nation-wide, and it was not the least bit uncommon for people outside Los Alamos to not be told and not know what the hell they were working on...which led to some interesting near-events, like Oak Ridge nearly going critical because they didn't know how to store (or even that they were storing) enriched uranium.
/dev/null Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Two words: Klaus Fuchs. Stalin knew more about the Manhattan Project than Truman did. But hey..."no leaks"... 338544[/snapback] heheheheheheheh, hey Beavis. he said Fuchs. heheheheheheh, that wuz cool
Kelly the Dog Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Was he actually at Los Alamos, or somewhere else? The Manhattan Project was a big project with lots of sites nation-wide, and it was not the least bit uncommon for people outside Los Alamos to not be told and not know what the hell they were working on...which led to some interesting near-events, like Oak Ridge nearly going critical because they didn't know how to store (or even that they were storing) enriched uranium. 338625[/snapback] He started out at Oakridge I believe. I know he was in NY, perhaps Columbia for sometime, and he was at Livermore and Los Alamos for short times. That is how I recall it anyway. I know zero about physics or the Manhattan Project except what I recall him saying. He worked on gaseous diffusion to separate isotopes and he and his team were assigned to develop some viable material that could hold up to the highly caustic (is that the term?) uranium passing through. He/they came up with this alloy of nickel and alluminum that they eventually used. Again, that is how I remember it. And I remember him laughing about how it was so stupid that they wouldn't let him see his notes because you could find this stuff in the library (or maybe even the internet already) and no one making a weapon would use that outdated stuff.
Wacka Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Isikoff is a slimy but pretty decent reporter, as far as investigative reporters go. Hardly a liberal shill, he broke and practically spearheaded the Monica Lewinsky story against Clinton (thanks, Mike) as well as broke the Paula Jones story (or one of the first). 338492[/snapback] No he sat on the Lewinsky story and it wsa Drudge that broke it. And Drudge mentioned that Isikoff wsa sitting on it.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 No he sat on the Lewinsky story and it wsa Drudge that broke it. And Drudge mentioned that Isikoff wsa sitting on it. 338675[/snapback] From what I recall, he wanted to run the story. Newsweek sat on it and it was leaked to Drudge. From today's Seattle Times... Newsweek's item was principally reported by Isikoff, a veteran investigative reporter, who initiated the story by calling the source. Isikoff, a former Post reporter, gained national attention in 1998 when the magazine held his report on an independent counsel's investigation of Monica Lewinsky's relationship with President Clinton, a report that then leaked to Internet gossip Matt Drudge. Isikoff's role was crucial because he had listened to tapes secretly recorded by Linda Tripp, a colleague of the former White House intern. Isokoff also, from today's NYT... Mr. Isikoff, 53, broke into newspapering with The Washington Star, now defunct, and joined The Washington Post in 1981. While at The Post, he began pursuing the story of Paula Jones and her sexual harassment suit against President Clinton. When The Post was reluctant to print his findings, he became involved in a now legendary newsroom brouhaha with Fred Barbash, then the deputy national editor. Robert Kaiser, the paper's managing editor, suspended Mr. Isikoff for two weeks. The point is that he is just a snake and goes after anyone, liberal and conservative alike, and is hardly a liberal shill. His greatest triumphs were going after liberals. His book was titled "Uncovering Clinton".
Campy Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Whether it was true, or not...a lot of people, especially the left aisle, want a "Hearts and Minds" campaign run. "Change the reasons people become terrorists" "Kumbaya", etc. Is it not better to cure the disease than just treat the symptoms? Little incidents such as this set back any progress that was made almost to sqaure one, or worse. Media HAS to be sensitive to these things. 338442[/snapback] That's not really their responsibility is it? If the government as a whole wants to eliminate these "setbacks," perhaps they should re-examine their policies and procedures. Of course I'm the cynic who simply can't buy into the claim that the only people responsible for the prison-abuse thingy were the soldiers charged in the affair.
Pete Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Is it totally beyond belief that the story was true and that Newsweek is backing off at the request of the government? Considering how many people here are calling for reinstituting full-fledged censorship of the media, it wouldn't be totally out of the question for something like that to occur, would it? 338360[/snapback] I think that is the case. Still the blood is on Newsweeks hands regardless. War is hell and we are at war
Terry Tate Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 For the folks who are convinced that these "abuses" actually took place, and it's the governments' responsibility to prove they didn't, I have just one question - have you stopped beating your wives?
Thurman's Helmet Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 How do those fluckers over there even know what a TOILET is?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 18, 2005 Author Posted May 18, 2005 How do those fluckers over there even know what a TOILET is? 338936[/snapback] A: they don't. The crap into a hole in the ground. It's unnerving to walk into a stall and see a hole there where the toilet should be.
PastaJoe Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 For the folks who are convinced that these "abuses" actually took place, and it's the governments' responsibility to prove they didn't, I have just one question - have you stopped beating your wives? 338933[/snapback] Well if you had pictures of me stacking up my family in human pyramids and leading my wife around by a collar, and the FBI said I was abusing my wife while we were down in the Caribbean, then people would probably be more likely to believe that I was beating my wife, than if that claim was made without any prior similar proof of behavior.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Well if you had pictures of me stacking up my family in human pyramids and leading my wife around by a collar, and the FBI said I was abusing my wife while we were down in the Caribbean, then people would probably be more likely to believe that I was beating my wife, than if that claim was made without any prior similar proof of behavior. 339060[/snapback] Just checking...but you do know that this is about Gitmo, and not Abu Ghraib, right?
Alaska Darin Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Just checking...but you do know that this is about Gitmo, and not Abu Ghraib, right? 339071[/snapback] Just another of Joe's "lahjikal" leaps of faith. You know, where all US military police stack people in naked pyramids but all Muslims aren't terrorists.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Just another of Joe's "lahjikal" leaps of faith. You know, where all US military police stack people in naked pyramids but all Muslims aren't terrorists. 339080[/snapback] Be nice. Let's at least let him clarify whether it was an honest mistake or stupid analogy before we crucify him for being stupid...
PastaJoe Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Just checking...but you do know that this is about Gitmo, and not Abu Ghraib, right? 339071[/snapback] The FBI reported previously about abuses at Gitmo, and a former soldier stationed there has described seeing tactics used to shame Muslims, especially by female soldiers, so the latest claim just fits the pattern. Now go ahead with the pattern here and attack the messenger because you don't like the message.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 18, 2005 Author Posted May 18, 2005 The FBI reported previously about abuses at Gitmo, and a former soldier stationed there has described seeing tactics used to shame Muslims, especially by female soldiers, so the latest claim just fits the pattern. Now go ahead with the pattern here and attack the messenger because you don't like the message. 339341[/snapback] Allegations. ALLEGATIONS. Unsubstantiated and unconfirmed allegations, not facts, are what Newsweek and their liberal ilk are reporting and it's irresponsible, no matter how you try to spin it.
Recommended Posts