Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Evan Burton

admin
  • Content count

    4,395
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by Evan Burton

  1. That's an extremely biased look at Churchill, and not accurate in places. For example, the concept of area bombing was in place with the Air Staff well before Churchill; it was only with the bombing of Coventry and similar that Churchill supported the Air Staff request to employ area bombing. Daylight precision bombing was too costly in terms of crew killed and aircraft lost, and night precision bombing was not practical until the advent of improved navigation aids and techniques such as Gee, the Pathfinders, etc.
  2. 6th doctor found dead in a month

    On the surface this looks worrying but I wonder if it really is? For example, 7 or 8 doctors dead. You intimate that it is because of "Big Pharma" or similar, where the doctors are killed because of alternative beliefs, etc. Being a naturopath, etc seems to be true for some of these people but not all; how many are confirmed to be proponents of alternative medicine? Next, some people do actually die of natural causes; until you can prove that their deaths were a result of foul play, the numbers don't count. Lastly, how do these deaths figure statistically amongst the medical community? Have significantly more doctors died during this period? I'd be interested to see if the numbers are actually statistically significant. After all, in the US there are about 2.3 million deaths annually and doctors make up 0.29% of the US population. A rough figure might then be that we should expect some 6800 deaths annually to have been people who were in the medical profession.
  3. 11 posts, all by the OP, and the topic has been open since March 2014. Thread closed.
  4. News & Items of Interest

    REBOOT THE SUIT There is a kickstarter campaign to fund the full restoration of the EMU suit worn by Neil Armstrong during the Apollo 11 mission. More via the link below: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/20/reboot_the_suit_preserving_neil_armstrong_s_spacesuit.html
  5. In the interest of being open & transparent, would all Mods please record any Moderator actions they take (locking, deleting, warning, moving, etc) here. This thread is for recording the actions only, and not for discussing them. Access is limited to Moderators only. Unlock the thread, make your post, then lock the thread when finished.
  6. Moderator actions - Political Conspiracies

    After discussion with moderators, several threads closed and new thread - 'News & items of Interest' - created.
  7. Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

    Bernie / Stephen, One warning only: do not make claims that someone is a paid agent, etc. If you believe you have proof of such then contact a mod for permission to post it... but be warned - if you are going to accuse someone of such then the bar for such proof is set high. This goes for other Forum members as well.
  8. DHS Preparing for Civil War In US?

    Notice how all of these 'predictions' never come true?
  9. Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

    Greg Parker is suspended for 72 hours for offensive behaviour.
  10. David Carrell

    Hi David - welcome to the Forum. Always happy to greet Vets to the board.
  11. DEPOPULATION - what elites want -

    Anderson Cooper, Ex-GOP Rep. Throw Down over Vaccine-Autism Link by Josh Feldman | 1:52 pm, February 5th, 2015 You know how there are lots of anti-vaccine people who say that vaccines give their kids autism? Well, that’s not true. It’s been thoroughly discredited. But former Republican Congressman Dan Burton believes that the mercury in vaccines can cause autism in children, and faced off against Anderson Cooper last night over that very subject. Burton insisted that he’s pro-vaccines, he just wants mercury to be removed from them. Cooper shot back that, actually, they were, years ago. The FDA, out of an abundance of caution, got the mercury compound thimerosal either completely eliminated or significantly reduced in all vaccines over a decade ago. But even with that, multiple studies have found no actual link between thiomersal in vaccines and autism in kids. Cooper repeatedly confronted Burton about this, even saying at one point that the hearings he held about this years ago “freaked out so many parents” unnecessarily. Burton kept insisting that all mercury is dangerous to human health and should be completely eliminated from vaccines, even though it pretty much has been at this point. Burton claimed there are studies backing him up, but Cooper just told him, “The preponderance of evidence is not in your favor.” Watch the full showdown below, via CNN: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/anderson-cooper-ex-gop-rep-throw-down-over-vaccine-autism-link/
  12. Anyone who is interested in the Apollo 11 landing might enjoy this: it is the audio from the landing, 16mm film from the LM onboard camera, on screen explanation of what is going on, etc. Highly recommended. Running time about 15 mins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RONIax0_1ec
  13. James Larson

    G'day James - welcome to the Forum!
  14. I also apologise for the XXXXX's appear in words. I'm guessing a 'banned word' filter has been turned on and whenever that combination turns up, it automatically censors them. Sadly, it doesn't know the difference between the word itself and when that combination of letters appears within another word. Thus when I want to describe someone who controls things, the word 'controller' gets censored. It is trying to get rid of a word that can be described to a mythical creature that live underneath a bridge.
  15. Someone did release some parking lot footage that seemed to show something hit the building. But it sure doesn't look like an airliner. I agree... but how do you explain the large number of people whom actually saw the aircraft hit the Pentagon? http://stj911.org/legge/Legge_Chandler_NOC_Refutation.html http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/ http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
  16. Hi Jon, This is pretty simple. It's called orbital mechanics. The astronauts on the surface had a small window in which to launch otherwise they would have to wait for the next opportunity to rendezvous with the CSM. If you think this is impossible, ask yourself: how did they launch spacecraft from the Earth to meet & rendezvous with spacecraft (or docking targets) already in Earth orbit? The calculations are exactly the same and can be done far in advance of launch time. http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm
  17. Hi Jon, That is also a much misunderstood issue. There were two variants of the "practice lander": the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) and the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle (LLTV). Neither one of them was a replica of the Lunar Module but the second was meant to allow astronauts to experience something like they would experience in the final stages of the lunar landing. Being in air was NOT 'an advantage'. The reason Armstrong crashed the LLTV was because (basically) the thrusters that controlled attitude ran out of fuel. It must be stressed the the LLRV / LLTV was NOT the LM; the LM was designed to operate on the Moon; the LLRV / LLTV was designed to simulate - on Earth - what that experience would be like. The LLRV / LLTV was very difficult to fly and several of them crashed; despite this, every single Commander of an Apollo lunar landing mission said that practise in them was invaluable, that a successful landing might not have been successful without that training, and that use of the LLTV for training of LM crews should continue.
  18. Hi Jon, Based on your comments I am guessing that you haven't been told all the details and therefore making assumption on faulty data. Let's look at your first statement: that they landed without help of the computer because it was overloaded; this is just plain wrong. The Lunar Module (LM) landing computer was called the Primary Guidance and Navigation System (PGNS) otherwise known as "pings". It had a backup called the Abort Guidance System (AGS or "aggs"). The PGNS was vital for every landing and if it was not functional, an abort was mandatory. During the Apollo 11 landing were the (in)famous '1201' and '1202' alarms. This indicated a situation called 'executive overflow' and meant that there was so much data coming in that it could not do all the things it was meant to do in the required time; it would restart, dump what it considered to be non-essential, and continue to provide what it believe to be 'priority' tasks. If you listen to the landing Flight loop audio, you hear the Mission Controller Gene Kranz call for information on the alarms; the experts in the back room (and there were experts in the back room for every systems on the spacecraft) told him they were GO on the alarm as long as it was not continuous. So the PGNS was working, just not at the level expected (I can explain why, if required). The reason people probably think he did without the computer is the auto-land system. A large majority of people did not know that the LM had the ability to do a completely automatic landing: this was called P65 (Programme 65). None of the astronauts ever used it, however. All of them switched to the semi-automatic landing mode called P66 (listen to the landing audio of all missions and you'll hear them switch from P64 to P66). This allowed the astronauts to control rate-of-descent and horizontal movement. Armstrong switched to P66 because he saw that the autoland system was going to take him into a boulder strewn field; he used P66 to halt the rate of descent, increase the forward movement to a clear area, then have the computer assist him to make a soft landing. If you have any questions, please ask.
  19. Ron, Put simply it is not true... but there are elements of the truth that are misrepresented. It is all to do with the original Apollo 11 broadcast. Weight saving was very important in the Apollo programme, and so they couldn't afford to have a big TV camera on the Moon with the first landing. They needed a lightweight one. Another important consideration was signal bandwidth; the technical people already had loads of critical data being streamed back from the LM (heartrate, LM computer data, etc). There was precious little available for the transmission of TV pictures. The TV camera people came up with a good compromise: the Slow Scan TV (SSTV), a system which some radio hams may be familiar with. This gave a reasonable B&W picture within the available bandwidth (a colour TV was available but had not been fully certified for the mission; NASA did not want to take any risks and pushed its use to Apollo 12). The SSTV differed from regular TV in two major ways: the SSTV sent back pictures at a resolution of 320 lines (versus US TV's 525 lines) at 10 frames per second (versus TV's 30 frames per second). This meant that they had to be converted from SSTV format to the US NTSC format before being broadcast. I won't bother to go into detail about how this was done but it was not unlike showing the SSTV picture on a TV and then filming that picture with a normal (NTSC) TV camera. This conversion process led to loss of quality but no-one really cared too much about that: we were seeing pictures live from the Moon! The SSTV tapes were put into storage and the pictures that we all saw became the standard. Many years later, someone somewhere was looking at some pictures taken by staff at the Honeysuckle Creek (HSK) tracking station, where the Apollo 11 pictures were first broadcast (if anyone has seen the movie The Dish, it is wrong; Parkes didn't take over until about 12 mins into the moonwalk. There is a reason for this; if you want to know just ask). It was a polaroid picture of the SSTV screen at HSK, taken during the Apollo 11 landing... and the picture quality was way better than we had seen, even though it was a polaroid. Whoever it was followed this up and learnt of the SSTV (it is all available information but only us geeks are interested in the technical details). They asked: if the SSTV picture is better, and considering we have such advanced digital processing available today, couldn't we get a better quality video image of the landing? People slapped their heads for not thinking of this earlier, and so the search for the tapes began. For years a team searched through the various archives for the tapes but to no avail; some other mission tapes were found, and some later missions video was found but the SSTV appeared to be lost forever (the search still goes on but chances are slim to none they will be found). The first question people ask is why would such a valuable tape be lost? Surely it would be of historical significance and be preserved forever? It is a very reasonable question but you have to appreciate two things. Firstly, a lot of people didn't even want TV on the mission. They wanted scientific data and mission essential items; this was just pictures of no real value; besides, they had Hasselblad cameras which would take high quality pictures from the surface - there was no need for TV. Only when a number of the NASA hierarchy pointed out that millions of people want to watch - not just listen to - the first manned lunar landing did the TV camera make it on board. The second point was that the SSTV tapes were only a backup; once it was confirmed that the broadcast video was safe then there was no real need for the SSTV tapes. The next question people ask is: so what did happen to the tapes? No-one is absolutely sure but the mostly explanation is that they were taped over, re-used, probably during deep space probes and various Earth satellite programmes during the 1980s. Even so, NASA have decided to preserve the only machine capable of replaying them... just in case. So why would such tapes be re-used? As I have said, these tapes were backup that were no longer needed. As time went by they were put in an archive somewhere and forgotten. The 1980s rolled around, the Shuttle was yet to fly, NASA was basking in the glory of Viking and Voyager, and what was that Apollo thing? Oh yeah - that cool rocket with Buzz Armstrong, really great, we beat the Russians to Mars or something, didn't we? NASA had expensive machines to record various technical data from satellites and probes and they most all used a particular type of recording tape. By the late 70s and early 80s, a few things happened with that type of tape. The first was that a large batch of the tape (Memorex, I think, but don't quote me on that) was found to be faulty. Instead of lasting for decades, it began to deteriorate within a few years. That meant recent data had to be transferred to unaffected stock before the data was lost. Around the same time, we started to realise that the Earth was a limited resource that we shared with other inhabitants. The tapes in use were made using whale oil (IIRC). Next, the real technological revolution started to take off and the demand for these specific types of tape waned; the people who made them no longer saw a profit in them and so they were discontinued. This meant NASA had to recycle to limited stock of long-life tape to use with it's current missions. Someone grabbed a batch of tape from the archives (possibly not labelled appropriately), didn't appreciate the historical significance, and used it for a current mission. Now, despite the SSTV tapes being most likely lost forever, the search actually turned up some items of use and generated interest in the original Apollo 11 mission. Former workers came forward with home movies of the original SSTV screen; these provided better quality images than we had. Digital processing companies expressed interest in restoring the available footage, and so that is what happened. They took the broadcast footage, newly discovered footage, and applied restoration techniques to them. The result is far superior quality than what we used to have... video artifacts and all. That's right: in the 60s, no-one would have thought anyone would claim the whole thing was a hoax. These days they know better and so when the restoration took place the company that did it left in all the things that would have normally been removed. Sooo... very long winded but that is why what was said is wrong but has elements of truth to it. And as always, happy to answer questions or provide references.
  20. Here is how a tin foil hat person thinks

    Now if we look at the articles linked above - and limit ourselves to websites that are not antivax and simply medicine or science reporting - what do we find? "The dangerous new strains of whooping cough bacteria were reported in March 2012. " " Two years earlier, scientists at Penn State had already reported that the pertussis vaccine significantly enhanced the colonization of B. parapertussis, thereby promoting vaccine-resistant whooping cough outbreaks." "In the study cited above, the researchers noted the vaccine’s effectiveness was only 41 percent among 2- to 7-year-olds and a dismal 24 percent among those aged 8-12" "In 1993, The National Childhood Encephalopathy study: a 10-year follow-up reported on the medical..." Hmmm - that's a dead link! I found a summary at http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/medicine/medicine-general-interest/national-childhood-encephalopathy-study-10-year-follow but there is simply a summary and nothing to actually see what they thought about the use of vaccines. The next couple of links also lead to the one above or other pay-to-view sites. Hint: if you want to make a claim using a big name journal study but no it doesn't really say what you want, link to a report where people have to pay to read the details. 9 out of 10 won't pay and just assume that you are not totally distorting what the report said. "In 2004, a study in the British Medical Journal found that the prevalence of asthma and wheezing in non-vaccinated individuals was approximately 50% less at age 69-81 months than children who had 3 or more doses of with the Diptheria and tetanus vaccine." "Researchers reported in the OSMA Journal that the pertussis vaccine may cause lasting and permanent brain damage. Physicians are required to warn all responsible parties of vaccine recipients that pertussis vaccine may cause “lasting brain damage”, but rarely if ever to Physicians inform parents of this fact." etc etc etc As always, the antivax movement continue to distort and twist the facts.
  21. What happened to Fetzer?!?!?

    That's correct, Glenn.
  22. What happened to Fetzer?!?!?

    Willing to be corrected but I think that was a misunderstanding regarding the international date line / time zones. For example, as I write this it is 9.03PM on Saturday 27 June 2015. At the same instant in Washington DC it is 7.03AM on the same day.
  23. They tried to, but the way they ran their rocket programme meant that too many design decisions were based on personality rather than best design. They tried to launch their N-1 a number of times - unsuccessfully - and the receding Politburo support for a lunar landing programme meant they didn't get a chance to fix the problems. People forget (or didn't know) that the Soviets had a "lunar" spacecraft (which had been tested unmanned a number of times) and a lunar lander. At a certain point it became more expedient to just hide the attempts they made, claim they never intended to go to the Moon, and concentrate on a more successful low Earth orbit space station programme.
  24. Nutters come out regarding the latest MAS crash

    Good on you. Many thanks.
  25. Nutters come out regarding the latest MAS crash

    I'm not sure that it was fired from "government" held territory; can you give some evidence of that? To be honest, I don't who held what territory on that day. We would need to see if there were any sightings of missile smoke trails, what the range of the Buk is and thus what areas it could have been fired from, etc. I don't know if the investigation can tell what general direction the missile came from. Without all this type of information we're pretty much stuck to saying "it was fired from somewhere within this radius around the aircraft at impact". Secondly, I hadn't heard about this "ukrainian pilot and ground crew"; can you tell me what that was about and throw in a couple of references for me to read (no walls of text, please)? Many thanks!
×