Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
US Comedian Sarah Silverman: Jews Must Stand Up for Ahed Tamimi

Silverman, who is a Jewish descendant, became the latest high-profile U.S. celebrity to lend her support to the imprisoned Palestinian girl.

U.S. Comedian Sarah Silverman, who comes from a Jewish family, has publically come out in support of iconic Palestinian teen Ahed Tamimi, making her the latest high profile celebrity to support the jailed 17-year-old.

“Jews have to stand up EVEN when — ESPECIALLY when — the wrongdoing is BY Jews/the Israeli government,” Silverman, who supposted progressive U.S. senator Bernie Sanders for president, wrote in a tweet in which she shared a link to Amnesty International’s campaign calling on Israel to free Tamimi.

Marwa Al-Sabouni describes her city as being sprinkled with the 'crumbles of biscuits and cakes'.   

Hear what was done to her home - Homs - to benefit Israhell. 31 minutes at this link:

What role is there for architecture in a city destroyed by war?

Is planning still important in a city that's been razed to the ground by civil war? Syrian architect Marwa Al-Sabouni thinks so. She describes life in the city of Homs, which has sustained massive destruction during the Syrian war, and reveals what she'd like it to look like in the future.

Marwa Al-Sabouni describes her city as being sprinkled with the 'crumbles of biscuits and cakes'.

Homs, where Al-Sabouni lives, has sustained the most damage of any Syrian city during their five-year civil war. Government departments, banks, clinics and markets have all shut down and almost everyone she knows has left.

I was also amazed by the destruction—layers, so many layers of destruction, endless horizons of dropping buildings.

'This war is killing the very fabric of people because on so many levels it's a civil war and people are fighting each other,' Al-Sabouni says.

'There are so many restrictions and so many security issues that prevent you from entering a place.

'For example, even entering the Old Homs ... so many land mines have exploded with people who were revisiting their destroyed homes and they were killed. It was misery over misery.

'[For] the people who found the looting at the places, there was also another stab ... electric wires, framing, ripped [from] the very structure of buildings.'

Al-Sabouni has a PhD in Islamic architecture, runs a private architectural studio and is the owner of the first and only website dedicated to architectural news in Arabic.

She recounts what it was like returning to the city after the destruction.

'I was watching people, I was watching the faces, the eyes, sometimes the foreheads where you find the drops of sweat—of angry sweat, of nervous sweat—and I was also amazed by the destruction—layers, so many layers of destruction, endless horizons of dropping buildings and how they can be very fragile.'

City planning neglected before the war

The war has left Al-Sabouni's city in ruins, but she says it wasn't a very attractive city in the first place.

'Homs was endless rows of featureless residential areas,' she says.

'The Ottoman Market was kept as it was from the Ottoman days, but it was buried and suffocated by the expansion of modern urbanisation. The souk main square, which should have been the downtown, was surrounded by high-rise blocks, and you found the souk just by accident.

'The old places that should have been cared about and should have had more attention were treated badly before the war.'

Most of the Old City of Homs was removed before the war to be upgraded by city planners. Al-Sabouni calls their creations 'ludicrous fantasies'.

'[They're] piercing the city with blocks and without any connection and any vision to it and killing the viability of the place, sometimes removing chunks of the place to replace it with an empty parking lot, which was very upsetting for people,' she says.

Urban planning as a tool of segregation

In her book, The Battle for Home: The Memoir of a Syrian Architect, Al-Sabouni writes that Syria has a long history of tolerance and diversity.

She describes Old Homs as a living museum of ancient architecture, with a Catholic church on one side facing a mosque on the other, both holding the same sentimental value.

Al-Sabouni says that same diversity was apparent in the neighbourhoods of Old Homs.

'We had Muslim and Christian neighbours living wall to wall, and back to back, and they all lived together and worked together, especially at the souk where you had no differences at all between them,' she says.

'They were living a real co-existence; you never even noticed that there is any difference between any religion in the old cities.'

It's a different story today. Al-Sabouni says new suburbs in Homs have been built based on sectarian differences relating to class and culture.

'People who are called the newcomers weren't able to mix inside the city, weren't able to live its life and enter the city, neither on the built environment level ... nor on the social and economic level, so they just lived literally on the margins,' she says.

'In the last decades we had so many social illnesses. Each group adopted a position and adopted some kind of attitude towards the others ... just dividing the society.

'You can't blame one group over the other, everybody was involved. And the built environment has perpetuated this and has enhanced this.'

What will Homs look like in the future?

Before the war, Homs was the third largest city in Syria, home to 800,000 people. Al-Sabouni believes more than half those residents have now left.

Despite the destruction and lack of services, people are trying to get back to normal life.

'People reinvented their lives on pavements, opening sheds on the pavements instead of shops. Schools have opened in apartments and sometimes universities have divided their sections into different residential apartments,' she says.

'Even clinics and hospitals have resorted to the apartment solutions—so people have resumed their lives, but with so many challenges with very much a lack of services, electricity, sometimes water.

'But people are coping with each day.'

Al-Sabouni hopes urban planning will be a priority in rebuilding a new Homs.

'I hope it will be a place for everything to flourish because, as I argue, the built environment is the stage of the society and it is the fabric of our souls,' she says.

'So if it has flourished as it should be that means also that our societies are back to their own nature and back to their shared home.'

From Phil Giraldi:
Boycotting Israel Is the Right Thing to Do
Israel's war on free speech continues

for links, go here:

Tracking the consequences of Israel’s apparent conviction that it should never be bound by the rules and conventions that constrain the behavior of other countries sometimes leads one into dark places. The daily torments inflicted on the Palestinians is increasingly a horrific tale that has no apparent end, while Benjamin Netanyahu struts and boasts of his power to do more and even worse, openly calling for war with Lebanon, Syria and Iran on a world stage where no one seems willing to confront him.

I have chronicled how Israel does terrible damage to the United States, through inciting war, its financial demands, and its unparalleled ability to make Washington complicit in its war crimes and general inhumanity. But, as bad as it is, in some areas the worst is yet to come, as Israel and its hubristic leaders know no limits and fear no consequences, thanks to the uncritical support from the American Establishment, a large percentage of which is Jewish, that is unwilling to take a strong stand against Netanyahu and all his works.

Israel has been particularly successful at promoting its preferred narrative, together with sanctions for those who do not concur, in the English language speaking world and also in France, which has the largest Jewish population in Europe. The sanctions generally consist of legal penalties for those criticizing Israel or questioning the accuracy of the accepted holocaust narrative, i.e. disputing that “6 million died.”

Those attacking Israeli government policies can be found guilty of antisemitism, which is now considered a hate crime in Britain. Under the new law, passed in December 2016, Britain became one of the first countries to use the definition of antisemitism agreed upon earlier in the year at a conference of the Berlin-based International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

A statement from British Prime Minister Teresa May’s office explained that the intention of the new definition was to “insure that culprits will not be able to get away with being antisemitic because the term is ill-defined, or because different organizations or bodies have different interpretations of it”.

May went on to elaborate how the law“…means there will be one definition of antisemitism – in essence, language or behavior that displays hatred towards Jews because they are Jews – and anyone guilty of that will be called out on it.” The Guardian, in covering the story, added that “Police forces already use a version of the IHRA definition to help officers decide what could be considered antisemitism.”

The British government’s own definition relies on guidance provided by the IHRA, which asserts that “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews” and elaborated that it could be considered antisemitic to accuse Jews of being “more loyal to Israel or their religion than to their own nations, or to say the existence of Israel is intrinsically racist.” In other words, even if many Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the countries they live in and even though Israel is intrinsically racist, it is now illegal to say so in Great Britain.

The British government’s subservience to Jewish and Israeli interests is nearly as enthusiastic as in the United States, though it is driven by the same sorts of things – Jewish money and Jewish power, particularly in the media. A majority of Conservative Party members of parliament have joined Conservative Friends of Israel and the Labour counterpart is also a force to be reckoned with on the political left.

Last November there was a major scandal when Britain’s Overseas Development Minister Priti Patel was forced to resign after she held 14 “unofficial” meetings with Israeli government officials, including Netanyahu. The meetings were during a “vacation trip” in Israel arranged by a British Jew with the improbable name Lord Polak who functions as a lobbyist for the Jewish state. During her visit, Patel visited an Israeli military hospital in the occupied Golan Heights. When she returned to Britain, she began to work on the feasibility of sending U.K. aid money to the Israeli Army for its alleged humanitarian work. None of the meetings were reported to the British Foreign Ministry.

Here in the United States, the friends of Israel appear to believe that anyone who is unwilling to do business with Israel or even with the territories that it has illegally occupied should not be allowed to do business in any capacity with federal, state or even local governments. Constitutional guarantees of freedom of association for every American are apparently not valid if one particular highly favored foreign country is involved.

Twenty-four states now have legislation sanctioning those who criticize or boycott Israel. And one particular pending piece of federal legislation that is also continuing to make its way through the Senate would far exceed what is happening at the state level and would set a new standard for deference to Israeli interests on the part of the national government. It would criminalize any U.S. citizen “engaged in interstate or foreign commerce” who supports a boycott of Israel or who even goes about “requesting the furnishing of information” regarding it, with penalties enforced through amendments of two existing laws, the Export Administration Act of 1979 and the Export-Import Act of 1945, that include potential fines of between $250,000 and $1 million and up to 20 years in prison

According to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, the Senate bill was drafted with the assistance of AIPAC. The legislation, which would almost certainly be overturned as unconstitutional if it ever does in fact become law, is particularly dangerous and goes well beyond any previous pro-Israeli legislation as it essentially denies free of expression when the subject is Israel.

Israel is particularly fearful of the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement because its non-violence is attractive to college students, including many young Jews, who would not otherwise get involved on the issue. Benjamin Netanyahu and his government clearly understand, correctly, that BDS can do more damage than any number of terrorist attacks, as it challenges the actual legitimacy of the Israeli government and its colonizing activity in Palestine.

Israel has recently passed legislation criminalizing anyone who supports BDS and has set up a semi-clandestine group called Kella Shlomo to counteract its message. The country’s education minister has called BDS supporters “enemy soldiers” and has compared them to Nazis. Netanyahu has also backed up the new law with a restriction on foreigners who support the BDS entering the country. This has included a number of American Jews who have been critical of Netanyahu, bringing home to them for the first time just how totalitarian “the Middle East’s only democracy” has actually become.

The British experience as well as a recent case involving New Zealand illustrate just how insensitive Israel is to the interests of other nations and should serve as a warning to Americans of how Netanyahu and company are heedless of fundamental rights like freedom of speech and association. A prominent New Zealand singer who goes by the name Lorde canceled a planned tour to Israel based on her concerns about the mistreatment of the Palestinians. End of story? No. She was promptly lambasted by the usual suspects including Howard Stern and “America’s Rabbi” Shmuley Boteach and was then punished by the Grammys ceremony in New York City on February 8th, where she was told that she would not be allowed to sing one of her own songs even though she was up for album of the year. She was the only finalist who was blocked in that fashion and no one in the media, predictably, linked the two events and recognized that she was almost certainly being punished for not performing in Israel.

Now Lorde is in the middle of a lawsuit initiated by the Israeli government supported lawfare organization called Shurat HaDin. In line with its own anti-boycott legislation, Israel now believes it has the right to sue anyone who supports BDS no matter what country they live in or where they indicated their support. In this case, Israel is intent on silencing New Zealanders who exercised their freedom of speech in New Zealand.

Shurat HaDin is no stranger to foreign courts, though it has lost more cases than it has won. In February 2015, a lawsuit initiated by it led to the conviction of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization of liability for terrorist attacks in Israel between 2000 and 2004 even though there was no evidence demonstrating that there had been any direct involvement by either body. A New York Federal jury and judge, always friendly to Israeli or Jewish litigants, awarded damages of $218.5 million, but under a special feature of the Anti-Terrorism Act the award was automatically tripled to $655.5 million. Shurat HaDin states that it is “bankrupting terror.”

In the New Zealand case two New Zealand women who used publicly accessible social media to convince Lorde to cancel her concert are being blamed by Shurat HaDin for the mental anguish of several Jewish concertgoers who apparently have been in a state of shock since the Lorde cancellation was confirmed. They are suing for “moral and emotional injury and the indignity” and also for the New Zealanders having violated the anti-BDS legislation “to give real consequences to those who selectively target Israel and seek to impose an unjust and illegal boycott against the Jewish state.”

Based on past experience, Shurat HaDin might even win the case inside Israel while finding that the ruling will not be accepted or enforceable in New Zealand as it is in violation of that country’s constitution. But the real intent is to intimidate critics and, as in some cases brought in the U.S., to force opponents to spend money on defense lawyers, making critics of Israel reluctant to go public or even willing to settle out of court. Friends of Israel make sure that any criticism of the country they love above all others becomes toxic. Florida State Senator Randy Fine is, for example, currently demanding that Tampa and Miami cancel upcoming April concerts by Lorde to punish her for her “anti-Semitic boycott” of Israel. He is abusing his position as an elected public official to silence someone he doesn’t agree without of deference to a racist foreign country that has nothing to do with the United States.

It is important for Americans to realize that Israel not only spies on the U.S., digs its paws deep into our Treasury, and perverts Washington’s Middle East policy, it is also attempting to dictate what we the people can and cannot say. And Congress and much of the media are fully on board. This is absolutely insufferable and must be stopped. Groups like Shurat HaDin flying into New York to exploit friendly Manhattan judges and juries to advance Israel’s toxic agendas should be told to go home upon arrival.

Israel’s complete hypocrisy was highly visible in yet another news story last week. The Polish government has passed controversial legislation, subject to judicial review, to criminalize any claims that Poles were responsible for the Second World War prison camps that the Germans set up in their country. This has been strongly and vociferously opposed by Netanyahu speaking for the Israeli government, which is apparently concerned that its claim on perpetual and universal victimhood is being challenged. Washington is also, to no one’s surprise, lining up with Israel, threatening that the new law might damage bilateral relations with Warsaw.

Characteristically, no one in the U.S. mainstream media, which is generally supportive of Bibi’s complaints, is noting that the proposed Polish legislation is not too dissimilar to any number of existing anti-free speech laws criminalizing holocaust denial in Europe or criticism of Israel in the United States. Nor is it different than some laws in Israel, including the criminalization of anyone who speaks or writes in support of BDS. As usual, there is one standard for Jewish issues and Israelis and a quite different standard for everyone else.

Current News / News of an Immediate & Urgent Nature / BDS in NYC
« Last post by yankeedoodle on February 16, 2018, 11:31:13 AM »
Right there in Jew York City - the Borough of Queens, that gave us shit-for-brains shabbos goy Donnie-boy - they found a lady running the Queens Museum who disrespected Israhell.  Any guess what happened to her.

Museum manager fired for plot to block Israel celebration

The head of the Queens Museum and a top deputy have been ousted after a boneheaded move last year to try to prevent Israel from celebrating its 70th anniversary at the facility.

The board of trustees was shocked to learn that its top manager turned out to be a fierce opponent of Israel, according to a bombshell investigative report.

Last year, the Israel Mission to the UN asked to rent space at the museum since it was the temporary location where the United Nations actually took the vote that led to the creation of the Jewish state.

Israel was able to hold the event only after museum officials reversed a decision to reject the request following a public outcry.

But the controversy gave the museum a black eye.

Upset at what happened, the board of trustees then hired an outside firm to conduct an independent probe into why its own staff sought to block the commemoration and the dubious explanations given to board members to justify it.

The investigative report found that museum director Laura Raicovich and deputy director David Strauss “exercised poor judgment” and “knowingly misled” the board.

As it turned out, Raicovich had a massive conflict. She was a staunch critic of Israel and did not disclose her hostility to the museum’s board, the report said.

She co-edited a book that backed the boycott and divestment movement against Israel and allowed the museum to become a “fiscal sponsor” for a different museum critical of Israel.

Raicovich even wrote a foreword to the book that said the anti-Israel goals discussed in it are “complemented by programs, exhibitions and educational initiatives” at the museum.

She also paid a co-author with museum funds and even placed the book for sale in the museum’s gift shop.

“She volunteered to communicate the museum’s declination of the event to the Israeli ambassador even though these facts would leave the museum vulnerable to accusations that it’s decision was driven by anti-Israel animus,” said the pro-bono report conducted by the law firm KattenMuchinRosenman.

Queens Councilman Rory Lancmann was infuriated by the findings.

“Raicovich used our museum as a vehicle for her anti-Semitic, anti-Israel views,” he said.

Raicovich “showed immediate hostility” to hosting the Israel event before consulting with the board and then Strauss concocted lame reasons why the board should reject it, the report said.

“Mr. Strauss told the Board that the Museum had a longstanding written policy prohibiting the Museum from renting space for political events — which was not true,” a summary of the report found.

The investigators then said Strauss tried to cover the lie by adding the political prohibition to the board’s website “only after the request for the event was already under consideration by the Board.”

Strauss also reported to the board that the NYPD advised that the museum would have to be closed for a week in order to provide security for the event. But that explanation was only based on a preliminary phone call in what was deemed a “worse case” scenario.

“Mr. Strauss made false statements to representatives of the Permanent Mission [of Israel] regarding the Museum’s concerns about hosting the event,” the report said.

The board accepted Raicovich’s resignation and fired Strauss after reviewing the findings.

The report doesn’t let the board off the hook, saying trustees should establish clear written policies and procedures for renting the museum.

Board members should have been “more skeptical” of the explanations given by the museum staffers and realized it has the authority to set or change policy.

Her boycott book:
Assuming Boycott


“The brilliant writers and debaters assembled here come at the issue from different angles, all from the central belief that art is never not political. In the end, they are less interested in arguing for or against tactics than they are in advocating an art of political thinking.”
—Holland Cotter, co-chief art critic, The New York Times

“Artistic resistance has seldom proven so socially useful, or as complicated. This intellectually engaging study targets the paradoxes, limitations, and media spectacle of organized cultural boycotts and state-sponsored censorship from South African apartheid in the 1980s, to present day Israel-Palestine, Cuba, the Gulf States, the United Kingdom, and the United States among other geopolitical zones of conflict.” —Gregory Sholette, artist and author of Delirium and Resistance: Activist Art and the Crisis of Capitalism

“Assuming Boycott defiantly holds the best arguments regarding boycott. It shows that boycott is not only a form of sanctions but also an invitation to dialogue. This collection of essays offers a historical perspective with comparative case studies, making it the ultimate resource to help decide where to draw the ethical line.” —Galit Eilat, writer and curator, co-curator of 31st São Paulo Biennial

“Assuming Boycott is an essential contribution to an ongoing, urgent conversation about how artists, writers, and thinkers have time and again created subtle, meaningful, powerful, and vibrant ways to engage the political sphere. This book is a valuable guide to cultural boycotts from South Africa to Palestine.” —Walid Raad, artist, professor, Cooper Union

“Without a trace of left-wing melancholy, the authors offer us an essential guide to the terrain of cultural politics today. With colleagues and comrades like these, one feels not only bolstered but downright emboldened.” —Hal Foster, Townsend Martin Professor of Art and Archeology, Princeton University; editor, The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture

Zionist Influence/Power / Re: Jewish war on free speech
« Last post by yankeedoodle on February 16, 2018, 11:02:29 AM »
From Karl Radl at

Jewish War on Free Speech
(14 February 2018)

We begin this week’s edition of the Jewish War on Free Speech with the news that soon after the Israeli government has publicized its new ‘anti-extremism software’. The British government has done the same and begun to talk ominously about forcing internet companies to use it to prevent content that said government doesn’t like being consumed. (1)

The British government haven’t been slow to demand that internet providers simply erase content containing wrong think from their servers either as we’ve also seen this week. (2) Meanwhile UK jewish ‘comedian’ David Baddiel has been shrieking loudly about how ‘anti-Semitism’ – and by extension the evil ‘anti-Semites’ who propagate it – need to exterminated now more than and ever and as much as, if not more than, racism and racists. (3)

Unsurprisingly the problem of just what ‘anti-Semitism’ can be defined as is a difficult and thorny one and the implications of banning an ill-defined term called ‘anti-Semitism’ for free speech are clear when one but considers that practically anything can be labelled as ‘anti-Semitism’ by jews.

Just this week for example the following have been labelled ‘anti-Semitic’ by jews:

- Not unconditionally supporting the state of Israel. (4)

- Writing about an individual jew doing something bad. (5)

- Producing an investigative documentary of which jews do not approve. (6)

- Bagel emojis. (7)

- Traditional football chants. (8)

- Having a political rally that jews do not approve of. (9)

- Nominating an organisation opposed to Israel for a prize. (10)

- Offering a cash prize for research into jewish involvement in Soviet atrocities. (11)

- Being a bully. (12)

- Cancelling a music concert in Israel. (13)

Thus when we see anti-BDS movement legislation being enacted in the state of Ohio. (14) We can see the link to academics being fired – in clear violation of the fundamental idea behind the university – (15) for being critical of the jewish and the continued erosion of free speech in the West.


(5) ;
(15) ;
Zionist Influence/Power / Trump just another G.W. Bush?
« Last post by yankeedoodle on February 15, 2018, 08:32:07 PM »
Chuck Baldwin's trying to put some truth into the thick-headed.

The Trump Presidency: A Repeat Of G.W. Bush?
And Trump toadies like Alex Jones are making fools of themselves by the way they continue to fawn over Donald Trump. It pains me to say it, but I am beginning to wonder if Jones hasn’t been a Zionist plant all along. And ditto for Matt Drudge. I’ll tell you this for a fact: Look closely in the closets of these Trump toadies, and you will find a gaggle of Zionists.

Read this report about Alex Jones’ Israeli/Mossad connections: 
The Growing Complexity Of Alex Jones’ Israeli Connections


As it stands right now, the Republican vs. Democrat battle in Washington, D.C., is nothing but a charade. Members of both parties (including Donald Trump) are routinely selling their oaths of office to compromise and capitulation, selling their souls to power (including foreign power), and selling our country’s independence and Christian heritage to the forces of Zionism (which is at the heart of globalism).

Anyone who says he is opposed to globalism but promotes Zionism is a fraud. I’ll say it straight out: Zionism IS globalism. Zionism is also neoconism. And Donald Trump is the most Zionist president in history. So, what does that tell you?

Big long article with many links here:
Must See, Hear or Read Videos, Audios or Books / Memories of Mike Piper
« Last post by yankeedoodle on February 15, 2018, 05:10:53 PM »
Andrew Carrington Hitchcock and Deanna Spingola remember Mike Piper.
(569) February 15 2018 Deanna Spingola – The Final Words Of Michael Collins Piper

55-minute audio at this link:
Gizmodo reports about Google's new ad-block that enables you to mute those annoying video ads that every site seems to have.
Google’s Big Ad-Blocking Update Comes to Chrome Tomorrow*: Here’s What We Know
* That's today, since this article is from yesterday.
She doesn't really look Jewish though.

Even though there are a lot of Jews in the Miami Dade County area, are the odds that the first victim is a Jew? And a relatively attractive Jew at that, which is good for media consumption? She's now getting top billing just like Noah Posner.

They should bring back Gene Rosen.

One of the 17 people killed during a mass shooting at a Florida high school Wednesday was identified as student Jamie Guttenberg.

The girl’s parents, Fred and Jennifer Guttenberg, had been desperately hoping to find their daughter until they were given the devastating news late Wednesday, according to Florida’s WPLG-TV.

The Guttenbergs also have a son, Jesse, who made it home safely.

The Broward County Sheriff’s Office has yet to release the names any of the other victims.

The massacre took place at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School when a former student walked in with a semi-automatic weapon and started shooting.

The suspect was apprehended outside the school a short time later.
Must See, Hear or Read Videos, Audios or Books / Out-of-this-world bullshit
« Last post by yankeedoodle on February 14, 2018, 02:21:04 PM »
Joe the jew Rogan says he's a retard at 1:00.   :lmao:


Neil deGrasse Tyson drops two total BS bombs in the first minute of this video. I’m surprised that Rogan who is usually a pretty intelligent guy fell for then. Maybe he thinks Tyson is a real scientist.
Here they are:

1) “Look at all the fuel they were loaded up with. It was enough to get to the moon” and 2) “It would have been harder to fake the landing than actually go to the moon.”

#1 – It was a multistage rocket. On a Saturn V, the first stage drops off after 2 minutes and 42 seconds. The second stage drops off after 9 minutes and 9 seconds so most of the “incredible” amount of fuel the ship was loaded with was gone in the first ten minutes. Something an “astrophysicist” should know. Even more important, who cares how much fuel was on the rocket? Any excess could have easily been dropped while they circled in earth orbit.

#2 – Tyson says it would be harder to take some staged photos and film and fool the news media (and the people who believe it) than ito put three men in a spacecraft on a 500,000+ mile round trip through the Van Allen radiation belt, onto and off the moon and back again. Really? That’s total and complete nonsense.

I don’t know what happened, but if these are Tyson’s arguments, he’s got nothing – which is usually the case with him.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10