Lumich
That's not at all a fair assessment of their work. They aren't trained historians, okay, but that's not unusual for authors of history books; it can even be a plus (unencumbered by institutional constraints and the need for ideological compliance). Docherty and Macgregor also provide lots of detailed concrete evidence, following the prosopographic tradition of Carroll Quigley. The topic of the book is the machinations of a "secret elite" (whose members are well-known high-ranking public figures), so yes, this is akin to a conspiracy. But it is neither a rant nor a theory.
But of course I understand you're only referring to the Jews I listed. This is not "my position", this is a conspicuous fact. Nuland=Jewess, Kagan=Jew, Friedman=Jew, Blinken(stein)=Jew, Zelensky=Jew, Kolomoisky=Jew, Kushner=Jew, Witkoff=Jew. There are a lot of Jews of Eastern European descent involved in the high-level planning and management of the Ukraine war (obviously not at the frontlines and not at the military level).
The Jews emphasize narratives where they have been victims. These narratives are rolled out far and wide, and are even protected by law in some countries. They convey notions such as that historically they've been mistreated. They do not say openly that they're "taking revenge", but the very fact of the wildly disproportionate importance lent to their narratives in education and propaganda invites questioning of the purpose.
There is also this idea floating about that the purpose of the war in the Ukraine is to get rid of the locals so the Jews may have a second state to retreat to.
There are also a lot of Jews in the US foreign policy establishment, particularly among the "neocons", which are known for their many wars in the Middle East. Some think these wars are on behalf of the Jewish state, others think the Jewish state has to be at war on behalf of the USA. All of this is quite well known among educated people, but somehow "not politically correct to point out", apparently because some people think the Jews are owed special respect (because of "chosenness" or some such).
There are even people in the USA who think that their country is run according to what the Jews demand, by means of AIPAC and systemic corruption (see Epstein – bingo, another one). Some US org/agency/whatnot even invented and disseminated conspiracy theories like "the Jews did 9/11" to play into such ideas. This is also quite well known even outside the US, but also "not decent to point out" for some reason.
So I hope this has somewhat satisfied your curiosity concerning the Jews I listed.
What this means is that you have no desire to find truth or facts, but rather to hush up. So the usefulness of talking to you must be very cautiously evaluated.
« unanimous parliamentary vote of no confidence »
Quote from Who Perpetrated the Maidan Massacre? Who Overthrew the Ukrainian Government in 2014? … by Ivan Katchanovski:
The deputy parliament head from Svoboda also opened a parliament session on February 22 to remove Yanukovych from the presidency. The parliament vote to oust Yanukovych for “abandoning [the] presidency” was unconstitutional. It did not follow the impeachment procedures specified in the Ukrainian Constitution, and the tally lacked the required constitutional majority of 338 votes. Further, the vote was done under duress, and many of the 328 “yes” votes that were recorded were fabricated. According to the official parliament record, 248 deputies out of 450 were registered at the opening (Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine 2014). Many Yanukovych party deputies switched loyalty, but many others voted under threat of violence by the far-right group of Maidan snipers, the Maidan Self-Defense, and a mob which surrounded the parliament. The commander of the far-right-linked Maidan company of snipers admitted that his group impelled, by force, deputies from the Yanukovych Party of Regions to vote for his removal. The number of present deputies in various videos of this vote was about 262. Davyd Zhvania, a member of Maidan leadership, who headed a parliamentary committee, stated that Maidan opposition leaders seized duplicate cards of absent deputies and used them to fraudulently inflate this vote […]
https://econjwatch.org/File+download/1340/KatchanovskiMar202...
« how Ukraine was manipulated into being the sacrificial lamb in order to draw Russia into invading it »
Yes, this is of course really sad, but also fascinating and instructive. At the core, I think, there is the implantation of the transformative idea that "the Ukraine is not Russia, but something better than Russia", in order to forge a new identity ex negativo by constantly referring to Russia as a negative example and almost compulsively stating one's being different, and of course superior. (Which really begs the question of how different they are: usually it's outright lies that are repeated over and over again by propaganda.)
It's a sort of flattery: "You're showing promise, you have potential, you're really good already. You could really be part of our shiny vassal system (Europe), but there's a tiny problem … Russia won't like it, and there might be a war. But don't worry, if you persevere in your efforts, we're going to support you, and we are really strong, as sure you know. Ready whenever you are, but as for the timing and planning, we may have some suggestions, as we happen to have a lot of experience in freedom fighting."
The second part about "drawing Russia in" is also interesting. I think the bear was poked and provoked, but also blinded and distracted; not lured (as was the Ukraine), but encouraged as part of a con game (where con is short for confidence), so as to dare to make a move that it would otherwise not dare to make.
For example, the Russian contingent deployed to Syria helping the government fight the islamist NATO proxies was allowed to do so for a long time, when it would have been possible for the West block powers (which have vastly more resources in the area) to disrupt and suppress the Russian contribution. But they didn't.
What is surprising about that? The Northcliffe propaganda press and writers such as H.G. Wells had been nurturing the idea of the inevitability of war with Germany for years, so, unless they really sucked at propaganda, at least some "positive effect" would be the expected outcome.
« It's just that the nature and scope of the conflict that caught them by surprise - a land war »
Maybe, in some respect. But they had factored in the armies of France and Russia, hadn't they (in 1904 and 1907 already), so they were certainly expecting some land war scenarios.
The reason they didn't tell their people they were willing to sacrifice them on the order of a couple hundred thousands may have had to do with the lack of popular support for such an honorable prospect.
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have died in this war on both sides.
« I suppose for Americans the hundreds of thousands of dead who tried are worth nothing. »
You nailed it. Exactly nothing. They care about the people fighting for them as they would for their tools, their assets, their expendables and consumables. Plus, as they can't tell Ukrainians apart from Russians … why do you think they would care? In the end, who knows, could be that what they really want to achieve is to make Russia into a willing weapon against China just as they made the Ukraine into a willing weapon against Russia.
As I said, if they had any love for the Ukraine they wouldn't have used the country to set up a war, in a systematic and concerted effort spanning at least two decades. So they don't care about the Ukrainians. They care about themselves.
Also, check the background of key people like Nuland, Kagan, Friedman, Blinken(stein). Where did they come from? Are they taking historic vengeance of some sort, at least in their own twisted logic?
« They are doing the hard deadly work, but your comment shows you price that at nothing. »
They are destroying their own country and Russia, being paid by other countries further West, whose oligarchs will end up owning the Ukraine. It's an understatement to say that I price that at nothing. I price that at a huge net negative. They are total fools and idiots, being lured by a pied piper named Uncle Sam, flattering them as "heros", flattery which they readily fall for, in every sense of the word.
« No idea why you are telling the world this. »
Because "the world", in an act of collective dementia praecox, pretends that history started on February 24, 2022. "The world" even forgot about the "most blatant coup in history", the Maidan massacre and coup d'etat of February 2014, organized by Uncle Sam, to bring to power extremist divisive forces to implement US planning.
« super power … military … default world currency »
I do understand the parasitic nature of the USA's modus vivendi, they live on debt they don't intend to pay back, printing dollars, issueing fiat money they impose as a tribute. They're committed to maintaining their position at the expense of their vassals and victims. Blooding down the Ukraine and having Europe pay for it is part of that strategy.
Such wording is of course an allusion to Australian author Christopher Clark's 2012 book The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914. The book is very detailed, but still a big lie in the overall narrative, meant to gloss over the fact that a clique in the British establishment had spent at least ten years organizing and preparing this war; yes, with their indispensable associates in France and Russia, but masterminded in London, as explained by Scottish authors Docherty and Macgregor in Hidden History.
That's a funny way of putting it. The USA has about 900 military bases abroad. (Russia also has two or three.) A bit like saying, gosh, that poor serial rapist continues to be exploited by really problematic women.
Portraying oneself as "weak", "naive", "unable", manipulable and full of "hubris" amounts to a picture of someone who's not really accountable. This is what US propaganda very successfully instills in the part of its population that is, perhaps, too educated to go along with, or embarrased by, what an obvious narcissistic pervert like Trump represents (a "coming-out" of sorts for the US).
« We did this to ourselves. » — Poor USA. The world is sorry for you. … Sarcasm aside, it is curious and conspicuous how in this kind of reflection no attention is paid to the victims of US aggression, and instead a display of self-pity is offered. Please don't take it personally, I know that kind of "canned excuse" and rationalization is 100 % the result of what rramadass explains in his important comment 50148581 on this page/topic, and that is beyond the "thinking habits" of most people, not necessarily because they're dumb but because they don't want to think that they're part of something bad.
If "nukes" were an option, Russia could have used them in March '22 after the failure of the invasion (a mock invasion really), when it must have been painfully apparent to the Kremlin that the bear had entered a giant bear trap, and the Kremlin been victim to a strategic deception.
They wouldn't have had to use them in a terrorist manner, such as the USA did against Japan in dozens of instances, summing up all the firebombing attacks.
They could have used them in a demonstrative manner in the March 13, 2022 atack on the Javorov military training ground, surrounded by miles of forest, where foreign volunteers were said to be preparing.
They could have used them to destroy major roads close to the borders with Poland and Romania, to “send a message” to what it would mean for these countries to host supply hubs to the Ukraine, such as Rzeszów.
They could even have used them to destroy some of the massive Soviet bridges, to cut off supply routes and thus force the enemy to use airlift, which has disadvantages compared to road (and rail) transport.
The reason they used none of these options, in my firm conviction, has to do with the nature of the atomic bomb itself. It belongs entirely to the realm of what rramadass focuses on in his long comment 50148581 here on this page.
Let's not understate the US effort here. Total aid supplied to the Ukraine, adjusted for inflation, has been more than twice the lend/lease volume supplied to the Soviet Union.
The USA is interested in a protracted war at Europe's and Russia's expense in order to MAGA. To a large extent, its GDP is one of death and destruction. This is reflected in Usanian “cultural” products such as movies, where most often the solution is presented in the form of a gun (“troubleshooting”). They pride themselves of being able to bomb everywhere (“global strike” etc). The underlying mindset is one of a robber and rapist: he takes from others what he thinks is his to enjoy.
Of course, just as the mafia don walks about in fine clothes and strives for social acclaim, the USA also wants to “look good” and portray itself not as a rapacious jerk or terrorist but as a “policeman” of sorts.
The Ukraine has indeed been socially prepared for at least two decades, and militarily since at least 2014 (#TrainToWin). Nuland said circa 2014 the USA had invested some 5 billion dollars into socially engineering the Ukraine into conflict with Russia.
The USA also employed Germany and other vassals in order to prepare the Ukraine for a war that would be waged not only against Russia but also against Germany's strategic interests (which of course was and is peaceful economic integration along the East-West axis towards China).
If the USA had any regard for “the Ukrainians” it would never have set the country up for war but instead stayed out of meddling in Eastern Europe, just as it should also have left Western Europe a long time ago.
The real reason for which is of course that … Dinosaurs are Too Big to Fail. :)
Discovery of a couple large aquatic lizards preceded the invention of the dinosaurs by a few decades. Most notably among these, we find mosasaurus, ichthyosaurus, and plesiosaurus, which looks dubious and which Cuvier thought was a hoax.
I read the German Wiki article on mosasaurus, and even though the creature looks straightforward by comparison, and I find no reason to doubt its existence in a configuration roughly similar to what's presented today, the science isn't settled at all in the matter, and there's considerable questioning and shuffling about of the various specimens and the corresponding taxonomy, which is because the evidence is scarce and sketchy, by the very nature of the fossil record.
Far greater and deeper questions arise when we turn to the dinosaurs. Fundamental things like their posture (wrt to their tail) have been "corrected" in the past decades, and it looks like a couple decades from now they'll actually have feathers to be more in line with how they've been inserted into the evolutionary graph as the ancestors of birds. Other things such as the unlikely (and unviable) anatomy of many of the most famous dinosaurs don't look like they can ever be fixed.
With all the bona fide and even sympathy for such phantastic paleontological scenarios, I simply do not understand how this situation can be a base for any kind of "certainty". Curiosity and fascination, okay, I get it – but certainty?
I asked Chatty for the best book on the history of the discovery (or invention) of the dinosaurs in the first half of the 19th century†, and it came up with The Dawn of Dinosaurs by John R. Horner, published in 2005. The title struck me as odd (I would have preferred Dawn of the Dinosaurs), and it appears the book doesn't exist, Chatty had made it up.
But that turned my attention to Jack Horner, a very important figure in paleontology (at least in the USA), who has discovered various T-rex skeletons and dinosaur eggs and whatnot, and so I watched a couple minutes of a lecture he gave in 2001, which left a peculiar impression (I mean his personality), and then I read his Wiki page and was not disappointed to find my impressions totally confirmed by the article …
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horner_(paleontologist)
Can't fault him for liking young girls, that's human nature, and he had the money to be a customer of Jeffrey Epstein; but isn't it curious how he didn't allow dyslexia from stopping him to rise to the top of the field? And what does it say about a field (at least in the USA) if such characters somehow manage to rise to the top? Could it be there is a (well-funded) system that facilitates their ascent? Because they have just what it takes to fulfil the role?
That, of course, should not reflect negatively on whatever paleo findings were made on the lands of your grandparents.
† Chatty next suggested The Dinosaur Hunters by Deborah Cadbury (Terrible Lizard for the US edition), which I found on AA and which seems to do a proper dive into history as is essential to find the truth of the matter.
Exactly. I remember opening a Metro/TIFKAM app for the first time on my new Windows 8 connected to my new 27" QHD monitor, and then staring in bewilderment as it went fullscreen and 95 % of the screen was just monochrome with nothing on it at all.
Wtf were they thinking? That I would enjoy vanilla sauce on my roastbeef because they weren't serving strawberries yet?
Still puzzling to me how such a multi-billion $ company can fuck up so hard.
Don't know about you specifically, but people here clearly "flag" things they disagree with, which is part of why what could be an interesting discussion often ends up being a dull CJ style chorus between affirmative and know-it-all. As if there was no middle ground between that and a "flamewar".
I've read comments to the effect it would be easy to change to the better by administrative means, but apparently there's no will, so "smug-flagging" seems to be in line with the purpose of the site, and that's it.
I agree with you with regard to governments and human history. As for natural history, I concede that at first glance, there is no reason to assume anyone would want to alter it, and doubts like mine seem absurd. And doubts they are – while I'm leaning towards the heretical view in as far as dinosaurs are concerned, I have not yet reached any kind of "personal certainty" in this matter. Which makes the topic all the more interesting to me.
The initial motivation that one may assume for "coming up with the dinosaurs" does not necessarily have to be of a political nature. It could have been as innocent as a hoax invented for fun, or as a form of intellectual art, or as a theoretical monument – science fiction, if you will, or science as a form of art. Later on, when the artefact had entered the edifice of science proper and become part of a serious scientific consensus, a certain if moderate political quality would have been gained in as much as Science (as a whole) had displaced Faith as the ruling ideology for the educated class, and consequently as an important pillar of power.
On the other hand, rather than having sophisticated creative jokesters at the origin of the story, such as would gather in places like the Royal Society (the English being known for their humour), we could have a simple misinterpretation as the foundations of the dinosaur edifice, without any ill or peculiar intent at all.
But I'm leaning more to the jokester scenario. These 19th century natural historians were collecting and assembling lots of bones into skeletons, and to the creative mind it must have been both tempting and the obvious thing to make up some new "extinct animals" from whatever bones are available. It would have been a lot of fun, you just need a bit of phantasy and maybe some "missing links". And think about the possibilities once you get hold of whale skeletons (cf. your comment 47374816) … and it turns out the golden age of whaling coincided with the invention of the dinosaurs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_whaling
Pascal said, « le cœur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît pas », and the same applies to other traits of the human mind that don't fit the narrow rationalistic model that we think underpins our current-day science and its ancestors of the last couple centuries.
Are dinosaurs a "fundamental" fact? True, they precede later lifeforms, but nothing depends directly on their existence; and while they have been woven into the evolutionary graph, that framework itself, by admission of its own postulates, consists mostly of "missing data", which means that relationships of descent between species are fraught with uncertainty.
You're invoking the concept of scientific consistency. In science, everything has to be consistent. I don't know whether it actually is. For example, it seems science says that during the cretaceous, sea surface temperature was ~35°C and we had rain forests covering both poles; whereas today, still according to science, we need to be scared because a certain atmospheric trace gas is on the rise, part of which due to human activity, and that will bring us beyond a so-called tipping point, from which there is no recovery (a ludicrous claim thoroughly disproven by Earth's history, still according to science).
So what we have here is an example of how everything isn't consistent in science when questions of, let's say: political expediency, arise; and also a case where scientific integrity seems tainted by such politics. (Because in the final analysis, horribile dictu, on average and in the vast majority, they won't bite the hand that feeds them.)
As you know so many things (which makes your comment stream an interesting read) you're probably also familiar with Ott Christoph Hilgenberg, a disciple of Alfred Wegener, who put forward the theory of a "growing globe" (Vom wachsenden Erdball). There is a lot of geological evidence for Earth actually having grown in the relatively recent geological past, but the idea has been discarded (and is now considered heretical) because it seems irreconcilable and inconsistent with other theories about how the cosmos formed and works, and current physics does not allow for a growth mechanism. Instead, we have plate tectonics, which postulates absurd motions like India ramming into Asia, having come all the way from SE Africa, crumpling up the Himalayas, and lots more of even more absurd continental motions as can be seen in the bumper car scenarios of the Wilson cycle, forming a series of unlikely supercontinents in order to accomodate the findings of natural history.
So we've seen sacrifice of consistency to politics, and here we have sacrifice of plausibility to consistency. My point is that in order for consistency to be a key criterion, we have to assume that everything is correct, because otherwise some mistake in some place may lead to more mistakes in other places – for consistency's sake. So how certain are we that everything is correct?
I do not have any new evidence. In fact, I have no evidence at all. I'm not even a scientist. I'm just wondering and thinking, for example whether the evidence for dinosaurs is sound, reliable, trustworthy, to be accepted.
Still, it seems a bit unfair to conclude that my comment is "not useful", at least if read together with the dead comments I gave the IDs for (the direct parent comment's wording was just the Mantell/Owen test, as explained above). Let's also observe there's no absolute definition of usefulness, as the concept presupposes the existence of a user and a purpose, and we may assume users and purposes are not all alike and uniform, but rather exist in various forms.
Also, I don't posit that everything should or could be doubted. In fact, I disagree with such a stance. Rather, I have specific points that I doubt. These curiously overlap (but are not congruent) with what features prominently in TV documentaries.
Now, to add a bit about dinosaurs, let's take the tyrannosaurids. You observed in 38592967 (3 years ago) that their heads are big and their arms are short. These features are highly conspicuous. I tried to think of other bipedal predators, whose existence couldn't be cast in doubt, but could think of none. Only the kangaroo came to mind, which is much lighter, whose head is much smaller, whose legs are stronger relatively speaking, and whose couching posture seems much more relaxed and at ease, so not at odds with gravity like the T-rex.
I asked AI for bipedal carnivorous animals, and it replied there are basically only birds. Now I know birds have come to be seen "by science" as descendants of the dinosaurs, but the differences are enormous (size, body part proportions, weight, configuration and development of arms and legs, beaks). But go figure, there are no other bipedal predators … other than us humans. Chatty called birds "the most widespread obligate bipedal reptiles" and "avian theropod dinosaurs" (literal quotes), but there has not yet arisen a "consensus" that this is "a fact", so I guess there is at least some common sense left among competent scientists.
To my thinking, the tyrannosaurus is in serious doubt by the very fact of its unlikely construction. It looks like a fraud. And in an investigation, if one element of a compound is fraudulent, then the entire compound must be put in doubt.
By the way, having read a book about dinosaurs in elementary school age, I never had doubts concerning their reality until four years ago. And sorry the comment got a bit long.
Do we know that for sure? Let's zoom in on Gideon Mantell and Richard Owen, who helped invent dinosaurs in 19th century England, preceding Research Casting International by roughly 150 years. This curious concoction should be read by taking into account all three sibling comments, dead or alive (50083123 etc).
Now I'm wondering whether HN uses some sort of language model to infer semantic similarity and thus kill content automatically. Frankly, whether this is automatic or by consensus of certain users, there's not much of a difference. It is dystopian, especially given the mountains of meaningless one-line comments that abound here (probably “too little substance to be worth killing”).
Once upon a time the Internet was the realm of free thought and free speech. I get it that spam etc needs to be fought and suppressed, but frankly, none of my comments that have been killed (quite a couple of them already) come close to that category. Rather, it seems the ruling HN mindset is about as narrow-minded (if not more so in certain respects) than your typical mainstream forum.
The Mesoamerican advanced Stone Age peoples who had an ongoing encounter with the Spaniards certainly did have conscious thought, despite their gods. Why would Bronze Age peoples have been different in that respect?
At any rate, suppression of such comments is to be expected for CJ style groups but not for open-minded discussions.
Same applies to my dead comments 49953689, 49954141, as well as 49938615 and 49941900, on the subject of Hiroshima. If you cannot even quote top experts and administrators with first-hand knowledge (such as A. de Seversky and general C. Sams) just because they contradict the prevailing narrative, then what kind of discussion is that? And the flavour of "curiosity" involved must be very peculiar.
Frankly, my impression is that some people are using or abusing the "flag" feature and perhaps other features they may have at their disposal to remove opinions and facts they don't like or don't even want to see published.
Shouldn't this more correctly read zero or non-zero ?
Just as the moniker for the administrative status of occupied Poland, Generalgouvernement, was explicitly copied from British practice.
> auto m2 = m; // implicit too
Taking a copy requires making an allocation.
« A cover story for what ? » — To cover up dozens of heinous mass-murdering crimes with veneration of “the Bomb” ?
« We have eyewitnesses of Hiroshima. » — Yes, we do. You'll find some in the Palmer book (link in the dead comments). You'll also find some in chapter 19 of the Rhodes book (The Making of the Atomic Bomb), where they're more numerous but less interesting, as the book serves a different purpose: it's not an investigation, but a narrative. About 60 % of the eyewitnesses Rhodes quotes were children, and what we have is their recollection decades later. Let me quote this:
A five-year-old girl: The whole city … was
burning. Black smoke was billowing up and we
could hear the sound of big things exploding.
« We have videos of atomic bomb tests. » — Those are separate incidents.
« Multiple countries … Why ? » — You're rushing to ulterior questions, if not to conclusions. Palmer focuses on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki evidence. And there is more than enough in there already that is “puzzling”, to reuse your expression. So I'd prefer to stay focused.
« lab leak theory » — Doesn't matter whether you adhere to the lab leak theory or the bat market theory. I'm sure there is a theory for some fringe group that points to “clear signs of extraterrestrian origin”, or “generated by AI”. Any crap will do. The only thing that matters in this business is that you believe there is some new-fangled and dangerous “CoVID” out there to get you.
I had never really understood why in the early 90s “nuclear weapons” ceased to be “a problem” (a media talking point) moreless overnight “when the Wall came down”, as the arsenals still existed. A dozen years later I realized the Russians kept talking about them, and I was worried about “stability”.
And there were other things I couldn't make sense of – such as what does it mean for an aircraft to be “nuclear-capable”? I mean – there's a payload, and there's speed and altitude, and there may be safety concerns, but nothing really seems to fit when you look at what's considered “capable” and what's not.
And why did we have barrages to stop tank armies entering “from the East”?
And why spend so much on military in the first place when the bomb dwarfs everything? Why all this insanity?
Another dozen years later I found that same Swedish naval engineer whom Palmer would later also find in the exact same way, and whom he mentions in the preface. It was a bit like “tolle, lege” although of course I don't compare to Augustine.
And then the insanity started making sense again, but in a very different way.
But there's something else that strikes me profoundly when I read discussions such as these. It's not about the topic, it's about the participants. It's the way they talk about it – the way “the Bomb” has become an object of both erudition and veneration. “The Bomb” is studied and idolized, intellectually hugged and worshipped – while the victims are a mere projection screen for the greatness of “the Bomb”.
How can that be?
To me, the psychology of things is often the most interesting aspect. And I think what we have here is a cover story, a self-serving cover story, and that is not an accident.
It is usually stated, however, that the X-rays go first, and at the speed of light. Plasmarization, OTOH, would be subject to some inertia, however little, wouldn't it. So there'd be a delay before plasma formation, and the X-rays would already be “over the horizon” (joke – they wouldn't follow Earth's curvature, would they).
Which would be all the more curious, if true, as we were probably on the right track, i.e. judging by the 1950s Soviet development of GUZ enrichment (Gas-Ultra-Zentrifugen), “with a little help from their German friends”, such as Gernot Zippe and Manfred von Ardenne, while “the West” was far behind in this domain.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gernot_Zippe
Zippe kehrte 1957 nach Österreich zurück. Als er 1957 in
Amsterdam eine Konferenz zur Zentrifugen-Forschung besuchte,
stellte er fest, dass die Forschung im Westen weit zurücklag.
During the Manhattan Project, Usanians didn't get centrifugation to work properly, and their other enrichment processes were inefficient. Curious, curious.