148 thoughts on “De Saturday Papers

    1. :-Joe

      Finally the proof comes out that hugh hefner faked the moon landing…

      Haha, whose a conspiracy tinpot loon now, huh?…

      & d’staAARr knows how to keep it shexshy… n’claAAZzzy as usual…
      -Who in the hell is buying that?…

      :-J

  1. GiggidyGoo

    Murphy squirming yet again saying his analogy of ‘trendy’ hotels wasn’t a good choice of words.
    A bit of an analogy himself.

  2. GiggidyGoo

    Proposed backstop could be overwritten. Little snippet on the front page of De Paper. Ties in with Varadkars interview with SOR on Thursday.
    Cast iron and bulletproof were the words that Varadkar used to describe something – a backstop that didn’t exist – over a year ago.
    Chickens home to roost. Knuckles rapped. Told his place. This is grown-up territory. No boys allowed.

    1. ReproBertie

      If only you had read her full remarks. She says the backstop could be overwritten once a solution is found in the agreement on future relations. So, once more, the backstop is part of the WA. If the UK want a deal then that deal includes a backstop. Once the WA is agreed then the negotiations on the future relationship between the UK and EU begin and the future relationship defined in those negotiations may remove the backstop (e.g. in the event of a free trade agreement). That has always been the case since the tea boy signed up to the backstop.

      Nothing has changed.

        1. bisted

          …you are getting as bad as the quare fella posting your dodgy d̶o̶s̶s̶i̶e̶r̶s̶ links…

        2. ReproBertie

          No need for you to panic at all. The tea boy promised there’ll be Mars Bars and whey in the event of a No Deal Sasamach. Of course he also blamed the EU for UK postal regulations so he may not be the most trustworthy person.

      1. GiggidyGoo

        “Once the WA is agreed“
        Really – you posted that?
        Did you mean “once the Proposed WA is agreed”?
        True enough, nothing has changed.

        1. ReproBertie

          I meant exactly what I posted.

          You keep playing your game of “it doesn’t exist” all you like. The rest of us will deal with the reality of the situation.

          1. ReproBertie

            The Withdrawal Agreement is what the deal is called. I really don’t understand why you have such a problem understanding that when nobody else does. You’ve created this stupid semantic argument just so you can throw virtual stones at Varadkar anytime the WA is mentioned. Is that really all you have to offer the discussion?

          2. GiggidyGoo

            And if it’s a deal, how come the UK and EU are still discussing and posturing?
            What you are referring to is a Proposed Withdrawal Agreement. Do you agree?

          3. GiggidyGoo

            Clever fellow. There is a fact that there is no agreement. The semantics (weak as they are) are on your side. For an agreement to exist, the two parties must agree – or don’t you see that? The UK does not agree with the Proposed (and that’s all it it) WA.
            “I mean exactly what I posted”. You posted that there has to be an agreement, yet there is an agreement?

            So, i’ll ask you again (and it’s a simple yes or no answer mind you) Is there a Proposed Withdrawal Agreement? Any non-semantics answer (yes or no, in other words) will suffice.

          4. ReproBertie

            There is a Withdrawal Agreement which has been accepted by the EU27, the UK negotiation team and the UK cabinet. It has yet to be accepted by the UK parliament and it contains a backstop, originally proposed by the UK to only include Northern Ireland but expanded, following a UK request, to include the entire UK.

      2. eoin

        You say nothing has changed Bertie but the currency markets are taking the softness of the German comments to mean there is flexibility on the backstop, independent on the shape of a final relationship agreement. Sterling rose around 1% on the back of that softness.

        1. ReproBertie

          Nothing you wrote after “Bertie” is evidence of the status of the backstop changing.

          If the UK want to leave with a deal then that deal will include the backstop. The EU has repeatedly stated that the WA is not up for renegotiation. Michel Barnier said it again yesterday, after people got a bit premature over Merkel’s remarks.

          1. B9Com From No

            It’s pretty obvious there’s going to be a fudge of some sort though Bertie.

            I agree so far Van Der Leyen is holding the line and fair play to her, personally I think the Dutch King and Queen were despatched here to broker a truce between what are now firm friends after all. I expect the bottom line will be a single all Ireland trade zone within the EU for agriculture and dairy products, some consolidation as well in the motor trade, and eventually an agreement of some kind for a future vote on United Ireland ( that’s my tinfoil hat side but if you think about it, it’s the only way Varadkar could emerge with any credibility). The rest of the stuff the border checks will take care of. Anyone who thinks Revenue hires hundreds of extra customs staff on a whim or contingency is the real fantasist here

          2. GiggidyGoo

            Looks like the french minister, on her visit here this week, is of the opinion that there’s a ‘draft’ (proposed in other words) document for a withdrawal agreement. She is urging the UK to sign up to it.

            ‘The French government has urged Britain to sign up to the draft EU Withdrawal Agreement.’
            You better set her straight.

          3. SOQ

            IMO the elephant in the room is not trade but the free movement of people which a sizeable number in Britain, particularly in poorer areas- voted to restrict.

            Free movement on the island of Ireland cannot happen without a border much harder than anything seen during the troubles. That is never going to happen so the people border must go in the Irish sea – there is no other place it can go.

          4. ReproBertie

            Why is a fudge obvious? We’ve had Sasamachs telling us the EU 27 would throw us under the bus and fudge a deal since the Backstop was first agreed back in November 2017. Almost 2 years later and we’re still looking at the exact same document, which the EU repeatedly says won’t be renegotiated.

          5. B9Com From No

            I agree SOQ
            That’s why I think they’re going to have an Oirish solution to an Irish problem
            The notion proposed by reprobertie that there’s this deal and no other one is preposterous.
            There’s an EU-wide negotiated proposed agreement grounded in the four fundamental freedoms, and that can only result in a hard border, hence the backstop.

            The solution is to get rid of the backstop. Water it down somehow and all sides claim credit and move on. All those French and German noises about supporting the Irish are waffle, pious BS from people who’ve made their life’s work out of talking out of both sides of their mouths at once (just like Coveney and Varadkar). Behind the scenes I have no doubt they are telling the lads, listen sort this stuff out, this is your problem lads, we’ve backed you enough already, now Paddy here’s a bit of money, our bribes always worked on your lot before, go away and lie down, and think about it, otherwise we’ll harmonize tax and shut you down anyway. Good paddy.

            That’s how politics actually works and it’s what we pay them for. Anything else will not happen.
            The UK government unlike ours is actually a democracy and will not overthrow the express wish of their own people. It’s really not that hard to figure it out now. Embarrassing watching people tie themselves up in knots about it.

          6. ReproBertie

            It’s not proposed by me. It’s the deal reached after months of negotiations between the EU27 and UK teams. The EU are not reopening it.

        2. B9Com From No

          It’s no longer on the table, it’s principal architect has fallen on her sword, as a result.

          How many more times does the democratically elected parliament of the UK have to reject it before you accept reality?

          Besides, and it didn’t get much airing this week, but did you not hear the noises about a “special aid” package for Ireland? Varadkar’s interview with SOR was carefully and calculatingly worded as well to float the new balloon. It’s only the minor details being ironed out now

          1. ReproBertie

            It’s the only offer on the table. May’s inability to control her own party is irrelevant. The WA is not up for renegotiation. Like it or not, that’s the reality facing the UK.

          2. B9Com From No

            I agree with you in one respect.
            The EU negotiations team has been disbanded.
            However Ireland’s interpretations of the WA are always under review, that’s the reality. The fudge might even be an undertaking NOT to have a United Ireland referendum, if that brings the DUP into line. But don’t be fooled. The Tories won’t throw Boris under a bus to cede power on the issue to a Dolly mixture of Brexit party and the Corbynistas. They haven’t been on this earth for over 200 years in order to throw in the towel now. There will be a face saving fudge in October, wait and see.

          3. ReproBertie

            I thought the fudge was coming in late March. We’ve heard it all before and the EU27 have stood firm. The UK has come crawling back twice already to try and change the WA and has been sent packing both times.

          4. B9Com From No

            See Eoin’s story in Sunday papers today
            I’d prefer for what you’re saying to be true obviously

          5. ReproBertie

            What I’m saying is true and a bunch of diplomats from EU countries meeting the tea boy to explain that to him is not a change of situation. A new British Taoiseach changes nothing. The WA is the result of three years of negotiations and compromise built around British red lines. It’s the only offer on the table.

  3. GiggidyGoo

    Another minister fiddling with figures – this time, More than 17,600 patients who were in a queue for a public outpatient appointment had their names struck off the list since the beginning of the year without being treated.
    The Boy Harris will probably use the ‘I didn’t know’ ‘unacceptable’ lines again.

    1. eoin

      You know those letters that were featured on Broadsheet last month, the letters asking outpatients if they still needed an appointment? Nationally, around 75% of outpatients send back the letter, around 70% say they still require the appointment. Of the 5% who don’t still need the appointment, one of the top #5 reasons is, the patient has died. We don’t know how many of the 25% who don’t return the letter have died. The HSE don’t capture if the patient died from the condition that was the subject of the appointment.

      And if anyone wants to dig further into how many patients are dying waiting for an appointment, you might start digging at the Midland Regional Hospital in Portlaoise. It’s a giant scandal.

  4. eoin

    Ah, isn’t that nice. Junior minister and, in my opinion, a total gombeen, John Halligan appoints Anthony McFeely of Waterford local radio station WLR, to be his special adviser. What special skills does Anthony have in an education ministerial setting you might ask which might justify his appointment to an €80,000 a year role? Or, alternatively, if you were of a cynical disposition, how might Anthony assist John be re-elected in the next 18 months (Constitutional maximum, likely to be shorter than that).

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2019/si/342/made/en/pdf

    1. GiggidyGoo

      Varadkar didn’t give him the scanner at waterford hospital (same as Ross’ Garda Station) but signed off on a little helper. He has his work cut out. An ‘advisor’ or ‘advertiser’.

    2. B9Com From No

      Pure Mick Wallace, Lowry and Healy Rae stuff
      We produce a special class of gombeen here

      It’s truly amazing how our rural friends suck up all this Alabamian politics to such an extent. Actually bending over backwards to assume the position.

        1. B9Com From No

          Similar story with Coveney today
          My point was it’s always the Alabamian constituencies

  5. eoin

    Just five articles in today’s Times Ireland digital edition. There were supposed to 12-18 a day, weren’t there, or at least that was the plan when the announcement of the closure of the print edition was made?

    Not a word from the NUJ as a strut (a minor strut to be sure) on the media plurality tent, is cut.

    1. Johnny Green

      Morning Eoin,bit of trouble for Digi in Grenada who were awarded a 15 year contract under Caribbean Regional Communications Infrastructure Programme (CARCIP) only last year,World Bank initiated the program.
      ‘Last week, Prime Minister Dr Keith Mitchell said he was embarrassed to learn of the situation and accepted the fact that former parliamentarians who government had assigned telephone numbers have been using the phones without making the necessary transfer for invoice payment to their names.‘
      https://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/240787/digicel-conduct-internal-probe-grenada

      1. eoin

        It’s hard to know which echoes are strongest in this story from Grenada
        (1) Moriarty and the payments to a minister to secure a mobile phone licence, or
        (2) the INM investigation where journalists’ data was hacked.

        As I understand this story, there are undertones of payments/valuable benefits given to politicians and also the leaking of mobile phone records to the media.

        Crazy to think this individual was swapped in – after a sleazy secretive dinner between the decision-making minister and one of the bidders, and at the very last minute in a multi-year procurement – into a consortium for a bid for the broadband contract, which originally was to cost €500m but may now cost €3bn.

  6. eoin

    Is it beyond the wit of our brave media to establish the coordinates of the huge tankers when they were seized by Iranian authorities. The Iranians say the tankers were in their waters. The British say the tankers were in international waters, but as far as I can tell, the first tanker was seized within 10kms of an Iranian island in the strait, which suggests the Iranians were in the right.

    The Brits have seized an Iranian tanker in Gibraltar which, as you all know, is waaay over on the left hand side of the Med. The Brits claim it was carrying oil to Syria in contravention against EU sanctions against Syria for all the brutality by Assad. But, wouldn’t Iran just sail their tanker down the Gulf, up the Suez and dock at a Syrian port on the right hand side of the Med.

    Or, TLDR, are the Brits and Americans manufacturing grounds for military action against Iran, just like they did with Iraq and Libya?

    1. bisted

      …maybe Hunt is going for a late bounce in his bid to be tory leader by starting a war with Iran…worked for Thatcher in the Malvinas…

      1. eoin

        That’s what I expect our brave media to study so they can say, yea or nay, the huge tankers were in international waters or they weren’t. Maybe our brave media can also ask why an Iranian tanker carrying oil from Iran to Syria would be on the far side of the Med.

    2. Cian

      Perhaps the ship was too big for the Suez canal?
      Perhaps the “brave media” *did* their research and realised that a ship that size wouldn’t fit in the canal so would need to go the long way around. But that is the difference between a journalist and an BS commentor.

      1. Yep

        The depth/draught of the Grace 1 is 22ish metres and Max clearance for Suez is 20ish. Not showing workings but easily googlable.

        Also not claiming heightened tensions are not being manufactured by vested interests but this is not some smoking gun event

        1. eoin

          That observation could be correct, but you’d have to say, for a major oil exporting country, it would have been staggeringly stupid of Iran to sail a tanker all the way down the east coast of Africa, around the Cape, up the west coast of Africa, all because the tanker was 2m too big. And what happened in international waters at the Gibraltar Strait, did the Brits do what they did in the 17th century and act like pirates and seize the Iranian tanker? Or did the stupid Iranians sail into British waters around Gibraltar.

          Sorry, but our brave media is not doing a great job of asking basic questions.

          Meantime, Iran is being portrayed as some evil empire despite it being Trump who unilaterally tore up an agreement for Iran to restrict nuclear activities in return for medicine etc.

    3. Cian

      “but as far as I can tell, the first tanker was seized within 10kms of an Iranian island in the strait, which suggests the Iranians were in the right.”

      Based on what exactly? What coordinates do you think the boat was seized at, and what is your source?

  7. eoin

    Compo culture across the front pages of three Irish papers today. The IT reports

    “Mr Kennedy’s [internal FG Maria Bailey dodgy compo claim] investigation is understood to have found her claim overstated the impact of the injuries she suffered as a result of falling from a swing. Mr Varadkar has said Mr Kennedy’s report will not be published.”

    “Party sources had previously said there were three options open to Mr Varadkar if he wanted to sanction Ms Bailey: replace her as chair of the Oireachtas housing committee, remove the party whip from her or deselect her as a general election candidate in Dún Laoghaire. A number of party sources now say Mr Varadkar is likely to opt for the first two options. ”

    Next week will be day #50 of the 14-day review. If she did overstate her claim, hasn’t she committed an offence? Isn’t there something in the corruption legislation about someone in public office creating a false document in the expectation of enrichment?

  8. eoin

    Given the history of the subject on Broadsheet, you’d think there would be a post to mark the 50th anniversary of the alleged landing by (US) mankind on the Moon.

    “On my challenge……by the ancient laws of combat, we have met at this chosen ground… …to settle, for good and all… …who holds sway over the opposing views about the moon landings” That sort of thing.

    Anyway, here’s that great 1970s conspiracy movie “Capricorn 1” about a fictional faked landing on Mars. Stars OJ Simpson in his prime and Karen Black is as wonky-eyed as she ever was. The original idea for the movie was the debate about the Moon landings and distrust in government in the 1970s, especially in Nixon’s USA. The director was also amazed at how easy it would have been to fake the Moon landing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z9yNHIolnM

        1. eoin

          No, I think we’re all happy that mankind created a rocket which could travel from Earth to the Moon. The Russians actually did it in 1959. What is at issue is whether or not the USA managed to send three men from Earth to the surface of the Moon and bring them back.

          Anyway, here’s a clip from that episode of Blackadder where they pretend to the Queen they’re off to circumnavigate the globe but they just sail from Portsmouth to France and back again.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfTdnWLMLDA

          1. ReproBertie

            There’s no issue. The USA landed 12 astronauts on the moon. And brought them all back safely.

          2. Man On Fire

            There is no issue..

            ROFL

            That’s why the conspiracy is looking more apparent year after year..

      1. Pat

        What a daft fuss to prove something that’s patently obvious! They should do a piece on why the moon’s not made of cheese next!

      2. GiggidyGoo

        That was gas alright. He’s referencing frames per second, film, two types of capturing video etc. I wonder if it ever crossed his mind that if the capability existed at the time to send rockets into orbit, then chances are that the capability was there to build different types of capturing video?

        Has anyone set for foot on the moon since 1972?

          1. Johnny Green

            The food has gotten a lot better:)
            ‘Fifty years ago, Pillsbury created Space Food Sticks, a nutrient-packed snack product designed for Apollo 11 astronauts to be able to eat with their helmets on.
            Space Food Sticks became a popular consumer snack in the 1970s, and slipped from grocery store shelves later in the decade. But a newly created version of the snack — with 5 mg of THC — is truly out of this world. ‘
            https://www.fooddive.com/news/leftovers-space-food-sticks-relaunch-with-cannabis-nutri-grain-shrinks-do/559119/

          2. eoin

            THC-laced chapsticks? That’s about the only way you can travel to the Moon and back in 2019.

  9. millie st murderlark

    This place really does get super weird at the weekends. And that’s really saying something, all things considered.

    I’m off hiking. It’s good for clearing the head. Enjoy the weekend folks.

    1. rotide

      I’ve been taking a break from the place after the pizza unpleasantness a few weeks ago.

      The moon stuff reminds me why this was such a good idea. It’s a literal intelligence drain.

      1. f_lawless

        Hi Rotide,
        can I ask an honest question – what aspect of those who doubt the moon landing do you find the most lacking in intelligent thinking? Is it possible to have an open discussion about it without fear of ridicule or that someone’s going to shout “tinfoil hat” etc?
        Personally, the more I look into it of late, the more doubts I’m having, but I’m absolutely open to someone making the case as to why the narrative must be true.
        The following are a few reasons as to why I’m currently the fence:
        (a) The more years that pass, why has no country, US or otherwise sent someone again to the moon? The US supposedly did it 6 times in 3 years 50 years ago with technology weaker than a mobile phone. In the ongoing current geopolitical struggle, it’s increasingly clear that the US can’t really claim to be the most dominant nation technologically, or otherwise. But why havent they tried to consolidate a territorial claim over the moon before any other nation does so? Why hasn’t China, for example, sent someone to the moon by now? Why has no nation has staked any kind of a claim on the moon by now- as per previous human colonial activity?
        (b) The big lie phenomenon – the more heinous the lie, the more inclined the masses are inclined to go along with it (the Nazis knew this). Human psychology – herd mentality – deference to establishment narratives for fear of ridicule or ostracisation by your peers
        (c) “Someone would have talked”, “the story would have come out” fallacy: compartmentalisation of black ops – ie only relatively few are aware of full picture. Then, there’s the historical example of 1940s “Manhattan project” which had 1000’s of people working on the atomic bomb which was kept secret from the US general public until decades later. If the powers that be don’t want corporate media to cover it, it’s not going to happen.
        (d) Numerous anomalies with the official photos and videos that are hard to dismiss
        (e) the subsequent interviews with those who landed on the moon – particularly the depressed, edgy sounding Armstrong directly after the moon landing or eg. Alan Bean claiming he “didn’t know he passed through the Van Allen belt” when asked about it on camera
        ..I know I’m back from the pub and maybe a bit looser lipped, but can someone please put my mind at rest and articulate why they are convinced it all happened as the officail story goes – in an non-condescending way preferably?!

        1. ReproBertie

          If you had any interest in answers to those questions you would have found one of the countless sites that thoroughly debunk the theories.

          The idea that nobody speaking out about it being faked is somehow evidence of it being faked is a perfect example of the mental gymnastics required to be a moon landing denier.

          1. Man On Fire

            Mental gymnastics would be believing that a tin foil wrapped frame with human living quarters the size of a closet with no air lock somehow made it to the moon and back with analogue systems less powerful than a casio digital watch on their first attempt with a success rate from previous missions of something in the region of 12%.

            Thats mental gymnastics.

          2. Cian

            Why would they need an airlock?

            Tell me something. How much do you think was faked? Did Apollo 11 go into space? Just orbit to the moon? Or did it even exist? Does Cape Canaveral even exist?

          3. ReproBertie

            There are hundreds of satellites in LEO that can be seen by the naked eye yet not one person reported seeing the Apollo craft orbiting the earth during the missions despite the missions being tracked by thousands of amateur astronomers and the Soviets, who were desperate for an American failure. Were the Soviets in on the cover up? Of course not because there was no cover up. Fifty years ago the Apollo 11 astronauts landed on the moon and returned.

          4. Man On Fire

            So your reasoning is that just because apollo wasn’t seen orbiting the planet it therefore definitely made it to the moon.

            And your second reasoning that the Soviets who currently work alongside the US, and did so during the cold war, aren’t exposing the conspiracy so therefore it happened.

            Seriously!?

          5. ReproBertie

            I’m just pointing out the massive flaws in your arguments. Whatever the current political situation the Soviets had nothing to gain by covering for the Americans in 1969. The reason they didn’t expose the scam is because there was none to expose.

            There were photos taken of the landing sites in 2011. We can bounce lasers off the reflectors they placed on the moon. We know they went there but deniers like yourself have no interest in evidence so the options are to ignore you or point out the massive holes in your arguments.

          6. Man On Fire

            There were unmanned missions that landed on the moons surface before apollo claimed to have landed. Can you categorically tell me that these sites aren’t the reflection you are referring to?

          7. Man On Fire

            And your hypothesis that just because the Russians didn’t reveal the scam, it happened, is shakey at best.

          8. rotide

            “somehow made it to the moon and back with analogue systems less powerful than a casio digital watch ”

            “There were unmanned missions that landed on the moons surface before apollo”

            And the gold medal in Mental gymnastics goes to Man On FIre

          9. Man On Fire

            Are you denying that there were unmanned missions to the moon before Apollo?

            Medal for not knowing what he’s talking about but trolling for the sake of it goes to rotide.

            Toddle along and leave the conversation to the grown ups..

          10. ReproBertie

            If they stayed in earth orbit, as you believe, why didn’t the Russians, who were tracking them and desperately needed the Americans to fail, point it out?

            As I said, you have no interest in the evidence and, as you can’t explain why the Russians didn’t expose the Americans, you’re trying to build me pointing it out into something more than it is.

          11. Man On Fire

            So the crux of your whole argument is that the Russians didn’t expose it so therefore it happened.

            Don’t blame me for your inability to produce definitive evidence that the apollo mission ever left earth’s orbit.

            My advice, try harder.

          12. ReproBertie

            Nope, my focus on the Soviets is because it’s a flaw in your belief that the Apollo missions stayed in earth orbit that you can’t explain away. Of course the reason you can’t explain it is because the Apollo missions didn’t stay in orbit. They brought 12 astronauts to the moon and back.

          13. ReproBertie

            Did you even read that article before posting it?

            “We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon]”

            I know you want me to offer up something else because you’d like to move on from the point you can’t explain away but it ain’t happening. The Russians know the Apollo missions landed 12 astronauts on the moon and brought them back safely because they tracked them.

          14. Man On Fire

            Indeed, they believe it so much they’re investigating it.

            And how dare they phrase their words correctly and try to avoid controversy.

            Try harder.

          15. ReproBertie

            Except, as per that article, they’re not investigating it. They’re planning a moon base and joked about investigating the Apollo landing sites.

            So your theory is that back in 1969, when the Soviets were tracking the moon mission and desperately needed the “win” of an American failure they said nothing at all, and continued to say nothing at all until some 49 years later when they made a joke about it, somehow proves that the Apollo missions stayed in earth orbit?

            You certainly earned that gold medal.

          16. Man On Fire

            Russia won’t confirm or deny, which means your assertion that just because Russia won’t thoroughly out the scam, the apollo missions were successful.

            Gold medal indeed.

            Try harder.

          17. Man On Fire

            Luna 15 proves the Russian and US teams were working closely together on their respective missions so please try harder.

          18. ReproBertie

            You still haven’t managed to explain why the Soviets, who had everything to gain by exposing a hoax didn’t. The simple truth for them not exposing the hoax is that it wasn’t a hoax. There’s really no more to be said.

          19. Man On Fire

            I don’t need to, all I need to do is cast doubt which dogs every aspect of the official story.

            The Russians didn’t rat on us even though they were involved so therefore it happened..

            Yes indeed..

            Try harder

          20. Man On Fire

            And I agree, you’ve hit a dead end if that’s the lynchpin of your flaky story.

          21. ReproBertie

            So the Soviets and the USA were working together to ensure a massive Cold War victory for the USA?

          22. Man On Fire

            Are you denying that both the apollo 11 mission and the Luna 15 mission were in contact with eachother?

          23. ReproBertie

            You think releasing the Luna 15 flight plan to avoid any potential disaster is evidence that the USA and Soviets were working together to provide the USA with a massive Cold War win? Please do keep digging, I’m highly entertained.

          24. Man On Fire

            So now you’re speculating on the degree of their cooperation?

            At least you’re agreeing that they were working alongside eachother..

          25. ReproBertie

            I quite clearly don’t agree. Was my blatant mockery of your theory that the USA and Soviets were working together to hand the USA a massive win over the Soviets too subtle?

          26. Man On Fire

            “you think releasing the flight data for the Luna 15..”

            Indeed you do, your pathetic desperation glistening attempt at mockery was not addressed by me nor will it be..

            But from your own words you are agreeing with me, your speculating on the degree of their cooperation after you admitted that they were cooperating.

            As I’ve said time and time again in this thread..

            Try harder.

          27. ReproBertie

            Flight plan, not flight data. Completely different thing, though it’s hardly a surprise that you don’t know that, and not in any way an agreement with your hilarious theory that the USA and Soviets worked together to give the USA a massive Cold War win over the Soviets.

          28. Man On Fire

            Quips about wording..

            Incorrect about Russian and US communication..

            Shoehorns wild conspiracy about the cold war..

            Your doing the scam no favours at all.

            Try harder

          29. Man On Fire

            But I understand the need to try and abnormalise me in an attempt to portray superiority. Smell of desperation

            All you have to do though, is try harder..

          30. ReproBertie

            “Shoehorns wild conspiracy about the cold war.”

            It’s true that in a desperate attempt to cover up your total inability to explain why the Soviets, who tracked the Apollo missions, didn’t expose them as fake you shoehorned in a wild conspiracy about the USA and Soviets working together to hand the USA a massive Cold War victory over the Soviets, based entirely on the Soviets releasing the Lunar 15 flight plan.

          31. Man On Fire

            Nobody has mentioned the cold war except you.

            All I have to do is cast doubt, the Russian and US missions were in close communication throughout. This you cannot disprove.

            So the two launched their missions two days apart and finished their space programs in 1972 but didn’t collaborate..

            Even though you’ve been forced to admit they did..

            And if your saying that because I can’t explain away some aspects of your assertion therefore you’re correct, than by that sentiment if you can’t explain how a aluminium frame wrapped in half inch tin foil made it to the moon and back in 1969, how come a shuttle with 6 inch thick modern insulation had to retreat from leaving earth’s atmosphere in 1998 due to radiation exposure by the crew?

            If you can’t explain this I’ve won..

          32. ReproBertie

            How amusing that you think you can throw in strawmen and insist you somehow win if I can’t deal with them. The USA landed 2 astronauts on the moon in 1969 and brought them home again safely. That was the win. I’m not looking for a win. I’m just pointing out the Saturn V sized hole in your claim.

            If, as you claim, the Apollo missions stayed in earth orbit then why didn’t the Soviets, or any of the thousands of amateur astronomers who were watching, expose the fraud? Oh yeah, because they didn’t stay in earth orbit but went to the moon and back. Thanks for playing.

          33. Man On Fire

            Strawmen like your cold war swipe, yeah ok..

            So you can’t explain why the lads were using props to show they were half way to the moon when they were in earth’s orbit?

            And you can’t explain why the redundant shielding on the apollo 11 craft..

            And you than move onto amateur enthistiasts as some sort of undeniable proof that your heroes were a success..

            Meanwhile Flint, Michigan, has no clean running water.

        2. Cian

          A) because it cost billions and had no benefit. The Russians beat the us at every other aspect of space travel- it was the only one left to them to ‘win’. A few KG of moon rock for 150bn.
          B) while this may be a truism – it didn’t mean they lord
          C) the Manhattan project wasn’t kept secret after 1945. One they nuked Japan it wasn’t a secret any more.
          D) pass. I can’t defend vague items.
          E) I guess life after visiting the moon is a massive anti climax. I think the three were taken off active duty – imaging living the adrnenalin filled life of a fighter pilot, then test pilot, then a friggin astronaut, walking on the moon…..And then becoming a “celebrity”. Losing the change to fly, to put yourself in danger. It would be awful

          1. Man On Fire

            Sandbag replies from a contrarion that hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about.

          2. f_lawless

            thanks for the reply Cian – point taken about when the Manhattan Project was made public. Nevertheless, I still think you could still argue the point that it’s evidence large operations can and do operate in secret from the general public. Also, the US public learned about the MP because the government chose when to reveal it, not through some whistle blower.
            Regarding Armstrong and the other astronauts’ demeanour in interviews, (and specifically the very first they give to the press after coming back to Earth), I’d considered that it could be explained by a kind of “come down” after the high of being on the moon. On the other hand, there should be at least some glimpse coming through at some point in the press conference of the impact that their unique, monumental, transcendental experience must have had on them. And yet, that doesn’t happen – only flat, nervous, delivery; rehearsed-sounding responses; slightly depressed looking faces the whole way through.

            Have you seen this analysis of Armstrong’s interview with Patrick Moore in 1970 by Peter Hyatt, “a Statement Analyst and instructor who teaches statement analysis and analytical interviewing to law enforcement and corporate America”? (Statement Analysis is the science of seeing deception in language)
            Armstrong rarely uses “I” when recounting his experience and instead constantly uses what Hyatt terms “distancing language” which is an indication of deception. Worth a watch at least. https://youtu.be/xmE62ru817w?t=249

          3. Cian

            You can’t compare Apolllo with Manhattan Project.
            The Manhattan Project was military-led. It was done during WW2. It was top secret. It was to help American win a war that was sending home housands of casualties a momth. Talking aboit it would be treaaon – punishable by death. It was done at a time where there were many other secret projects.

            Apollo was done in public. It was almost the exact opposite in every way.

          4. Cian

            LOL;
            1,000,000 casualties (400,000 deaths 600,000 injured) over 4 years = 20,000 per month (average)

        3. rotide

          There’s absolutely nothing i can say to you that hasn’t been covered in better and finer detail in the last 50 years by countless people who are experts in their fields so I’m not going to waste any energy trying.

          I think that’s the thing that’s so dismaying about not only the moon landing conspiracy people, but nearly all conspiracy theorists. It’s the consistant Dunning Krueger effect that persuades them that they know better than people that have spent their lives in a field, based on very little more than a believe in ‘narrative’ and some stuff on the internet.

          Anyway, i only dropped back to say hi . Enjoy shouting into the internet folks, life is short, try to be more positive:)

          1. Man On Fire

            “There’s absolutely nothing I can say..”

            You can say that again..

            Marks for effort for trying to sandbag the discussion..

          2. millie st murderlark

            A short and sweet visit. Drop in again maybe? I miss your biting comments.

            I agree with your comment btw. Thumb up from me.

          3. Janet, I ate my avatar

            hey Ro happy to hear you are having a more positive time these days,
            fair play,
            you probably won’t see this :)

  10. Portroegirl

    PIAB Report stated that they assessed 130,000 claims since 2004 which averages at 8,666 ie .18% of the population…..hardly ‘compo cuture’….so why is insurance so high!

    1. eoin

      It’s from the Irish Daily Mail, what do you expect.

      Annual insurance premiums in Ireland were around €3.3bn in 2016 and claims were around €2bn. The IDM is just looking at a subset of the market and isn’t providing any context, but you’re supposed to see the €470m and think crikey! But if you looked at the insured claims alone in 2016, they’re four times the amount in the IDM and the insured claims will exclude non-insured and state claims.

      https://www.insuranceireland.eu/media/Factfile%202016-Final.pdf

      1. portroegirl

        Plus the link you gave me re Insurance Ireland also included property in the Non Life Insurance Market @26% of claims,plus 52% Motor&18% Liability insurance.
        The IDM’s article is about personal injuries claims.Bu according to PIAB,since they were set up in 2004(15 years ago) they only assessed 130,000 claims in 15 years, which as I said is only .18% of population!PIAB said 70% of those claims were motor claims,18% public liability &12% employer’s liability.All personal injury claims have to go through PIAB.

        1. Cian

          0.18% of the population per year.
          Or, on average, each year, one in every 500 people make a claim….
          Or on average one in six people will claim at some stage of their life.

  11. GiggidyGoo

    The spy story reminded me of this story.

    During the war, a Russian spy was sent to Ireland to meet a top Irish spy who lived in Athenry and who had information on US secrets. His instructions were to travel by mailboat from Holyhead, get on a train from Dublin, get off at Athenry, and look for ‘Murphy’. As there were many Murphy’s in Ireland, he had to use a password ‘The sun shines bright over Galway Bay’ to identify the proper one.
    So off he set, took the mailboat, and took the train to Athenry. When he got off he went to the Station Master and asked ‘Can you tell me where I might find Murphy?’

    The Station Master replied ‘ Would that be Murphy the butcher, Murphy the cobbler, Murphy the publican…. in fact my own name is Murphy?’

    The russian whispers to him ‘The sun shines bright over Galway Bay’.

    Aaaahhh. ‘‘tis Murphy the spy you’re looking for, why didn’t you say’

    1. some old quare

      Are you suggesting that there may possibly be, on the odd occasion, British spys in Ireland GooGoo?

    2. ReproBertie

      “Why isn’t he Murphy like the rest of them?” the Tea Boy on Taoiseach Leo Varadkar.

Comments are closed.