Revisionist Millennial Musing by Amy Shira Teitel About The V-2 Rocket

[bananas]

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2016/02/revisionist-mil.html

Revisionist Millennial Musing by Amy Shira Teitel About The V-2 Rocket
By Keith Cowing on February 8, 2016 4:05 PM. 4 Comments

Was The V-2 a Nazi Weapon?, Popular Science

"The short answer is that, no, the V-2 wasn't strictly speaking a Nazi weapon. The long answer is more complicated, and a lot more interesting."

Keith's note: Amy Shira Teitel who has done PR things for NASA on occasion, posted a video in December that accompanies this article wherein she splits hairs over whether the V-2 rocket was a "Nazi weapon". Of course it was. Its kind of odd that anyone would even ask that question. As Teitel happily wanders through a superficial review of German military history she seems to be thinking that because it was a German Army project before some Nazi walked in and took complete control over, that this affects whether or not to call it a "Nazi Weapon". At best this is a distinction without a difference. Anyone who has read one page in one book on World War II knows that the Nazis ran Germany - period. Teitel ends her video with a bubbly "The V2 is a really interesting rocket that played a very interesting role and it can be looked at so many different ways." Yes, it was an "interesting rocket", Amy. My father was severely injured by a V-2 that struck London - his roommates were killed by it, so I guess I am biased. But I am not alone in holding this view.

Amy Teitel can look at the always "interesting" V-2 anyway she wants from her millennial revisionist viewpoint 3/4 of a century after the fact- and she can even try to recast the V-2 as something it was not. Oddly, you never hear her mention the horrific and subhuman conditions that slaves endured to produce this "interesting rocket". I guess this is a trivial detail that gets in the way of her story telling. In the end the V-2 was created by Nazi Germany plain and simple. The V-2 is and always was a Nazi weapon. Klar, Amy?

[bananas]

1. This is the same author who had some plagiarism issues a few years ago

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2016/02/revisionist-mil.html#comment-2503315586

moon2mars • 8 hours ago

This is the same author who had some plagiarism issues a few years ago: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2394/1

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2394/1

Plagiarism in several space history articles

by Robert Kennedy and Dwayne Day
Monday, November 4, 2013
Comments (45)

On October 4, the website Ars Technica, a division of Condé Nast Publications, removed a May 15 article written by Amy Shira Teitel called “The secret laser-toting Soviet satellite that almost was,” which used, without attribution, conjectures, argument development, information, phrases, and entire sentences from a January 2010 article, “Soviet Star Wars”, written by Dwayne Day and Robert Kennedy and published in Air & Space/Smithsonian magazine. Also on October 4, the website DVICE.com removed a September 2012 article written by Ms. Teitel titled “Remembering the Moon’s earliest robotic explorers,” that also used, without attribution, information, phrases, and sentences from a March 2004 Air & Space/Smithsonian article written by Andy Chaikin, “The Other Moon Landings.” (Note: because the articles have been removed, the direct links to them no longer work.)

<snip>

In addition to the two articles with extensive copying, we also discovered two more examples of Ms. Teitel using source material and text from other authors. Both of those articles also appear on Ars Technica. Although we have not documented them as extensively as the other two cases, they clearly demonstrate a pattern whereby Ms. Teitel uses the work of numerous other space historians without permission or attribution and sells these articles to commercial websites. We are writing this article to notify other space historians that their works may also have been appropriated without permission.

These four examples demonstrate a pattern. In the cases involving our article and Mr. Chaikin’s article, it is obvious that Ms. Teitel copied multiple paragraphs from the original articles and rewrote them, usually changing a few words, but keeping the overall story arc, development of arguments, and even the sequential order from the original material. In all three of the Ars Technica cases, and in the one DVICE.com case we investigated, no reference was made to the previous articles, nor were hyperlinks to those articles included in Ms. Teitel’s articles. Because of the extent of the copying, and the complete lack of any reference to the original source material, it is obvious that this was not an oversight, but a modus operandi, and reference to the source material was deliberately omitted.

<snip>