Evan Burton

Craig, Duane - you are both starting to get a little heated with each other, and are both in danger of straying into unacceptable behaviour. Take a breath, consider your words. You can make strong points while still remaining civil. Please take it easy with each other.

Duane, please don't drag other forums into here unless you have a specific point to make. If you feel you are being treated unfairly by me, then raise it with other Mods or the Admins. If you continue to see fit to drag other forums in here, I will feel free to do likewise with regard to your participation in other forums.

Now I would like to get Evan's opinion about the issue of John Howard's defence spending priorities. The link below outlines Howard's purchase, for $539 million, of second hand Abrams tanks from the US in 2004. The tanks are useless for Australian purposes and were destroyed en masse in Iraq. Was it a requirement of our alliance with the US that we serve as a second hand junk store for obsolete US weaponry? And if that doesn't convince you of Howard's slavish sycophancy towards Bush and his MIC buddies, then read about the absurd circumstances surrounding Howard's purchase of the JSF in 2002:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6665

Howard has put us in a very dangerous situation. And Indonesia hasn't forgotten East Timor. And we're not in the good books within the wider region after Howard's prolonged and grotesque display of US buttsucking. Kevin Rudd has a huge pile of rubbish to clean up, don't you think? Lucky for us he speaks Mandarin.

Mark,

I'm not really the one to ask about Army equipment; it is far from being my forte. The opinion piece did, however, have a few factual errors. I'll comment on the whole thing:

- I could easily be wrong, but I was of the understanding that the Abrahms conducted itself very well in Iraq. When I spoke to some Army chappies at the last Avalon Airshow, they were very pleased with it. They said that in Gulf War I, no Abrahms crewmember was ever killed in combat and the tank had something like a 90% operational availability.

- The tank isn't really meant for use within Australia; it's a sign of committing to overseas deployments.

- The C-17 can carry the Abrahms ("...cannot be airlifted by any of the ADF aircraft...").

- The LCHs, the LSH, and the LPAs can all carry the Abrahms. It is too big for the LCM8 but then that could only take one MBT prior to the Abrahms. ("...cannot even be loaded onto any of the Navy's six heavy landing craft, let alone its smaller LCM8 landing craft...").

- The article didn't comment on the capability of the COLLINS Class SSG. Let me just say that it can hold it's own against any opponent.

- The 4 Corners F-111 piece was very biased. Ask what operational limitations are placed on the aircraft at low level (where it is meant to operate) because of fatigue concerns. I love the Pig and would like to see it continue in service for another 10 years... but the airframe is wearing out, and our spares are all coming from AMARC.

- I don't necessarily agree with the F/A-18D decision, but it was unfairly maligned in the piece.

- I don't believe the JSF decision was made as portrayed in the opinion piece. There are future aspects of the JSF which are looking particularly bright. It certainly is a 'hi-tech' buy with accompanying risk, but so was the F-111. It was claimed they were a white elephant. They got delivered 10 years late... but they were worth every penny and totally vindicated their purchase.

- There is truth in what has been said about the FFG refit.

- I'm not sure about Wedgetail, but IMO the opinion piece is accurate on it's delays.

- Tiger is certainly having problems. I'm not associated with it enough to say if they are transient or long term.

- I agree about the Super Seasprite. I don't think the system integration problems will ever reach a satisfactory state of affairs, even if a great deal of money is thrown at it. IMO we should cut our losses. Better still, let's get 16 x SH-60 Romeos or Sierras.

Sorry you feel that way John, but all of the people I know have considered these to be 'good times'. You'll never please everyone, and yes some people have not done well - but that will always be the case.

Naturally, I hold a different view. I did not like Howard, I actually did like Kevin Rudd but mistrusted the Labor party. I fear the unions having too much control, dread what is going to happen to Defence, and I am not confident in Labor's financial management ability. I sincerely hope I am proven wrong and we continue to prosper.

I'm not affected by Workchoices but have heard too many bad stories for me to believe that it was really a good thing. The ability to collectively bargain is a necessity for people who do not have the skills for individual agreements and don't realise just how valuable their skills are. I don't like unions but I always want them there - they keep the ba**ards honest.

I'm surprised by Turnbull's win; I think people feared a Labor win more than they disliked Turnbull, and voted a party line. I've met him socially through my partner; I don't like him and neither does she. We think he is too power hungry.

Oh - and Eden-Monaro retained it's "bellwether" status; the sitting member Nairn (Lib) lost the seat.

The seat has foretold the election result for some 60 years, I believe.

Labor win, about a 5% swing to them. Johnny and Maxine are still fighting over their seat; it'll be a cliffhanger.

Just a reminder - you post what someone has said, you are responsible for the content. Because you quote someone who has used unacceptable language does not mean the quote can be used verbatim. Edit out the offending text.

Thanks.

I'm on strike until I get genuine lens flare.

It's surprising, though. My girlfriend spent 10 years in KSA with her late husband. Despite the restrictions, and the terrible treatment of women in general, she still loves the place and the people. Go figure.

Yes it was nice that someone posted that little tidbit ... It shows how much you depend on you pals from another forum to do your "rebuttals" for you .

Doesn't matter who found it; as ever, it proves you are wrong. You really are emulating Jack!

Oh Jack - not even you believe that. For a start, I can guarantee that nowhere has NASA ever claimed that to be an image taken from the Shuttle flightdeck in space.

For start... is something missing? Hmmm - SEATS! There are no seats!

That's a big giveaway - even Blind Freddy would see that.

Other smaller points to note:

- ECS / OMS panel, upper right: fuel and oxidizer pressures all read zero.

- Mission clock, upper far right: no time displayed.

- CRYO panel, top centre: O2/H2 quantities read zero, pressures out of green range.

- Cabin pressure zero

- Cabin partial pressure O2 zero (as would be expected with zero cabin pressure)

- Landing gear status indicators all barberpoled

- etc, etc

Sheesh!

Gary you wrote the following on the JFK forum concerning “sufficiently vile” PM’s

“Ultimately though, I don't wholly agree, though I do substantially in the case you've described, with the predicate that recipients of PM's can share them.”

Do you think Duane’s qualifies? Perhaps the best way to resolve this transparently would be for Duane to authorize making the content of the PM public, unless of course he is ashamed of its contents.

That would be up to Duane, but at this time I see no need to ask him.

I think that the statement that Von Braun was "morally obtuse" is quite correct. I think he was happy when the Nazis ambitions were roughly coinciding with his own, tried hard not to notice what was happening around him, and decided best not fight against a regime that would not hesitate to have him executed.

Even with his past revealed, many have enormous respect for him.

I think Maxine has a very good chance of defeating Howard; she is a very popular lady.

The Iraq war is of concern to some, but not all. I would not rate it any high than any other major issue - interest rates, financial stability, etc.

I really don't know. The polls say it will be a Labor victory, but you know what they say about polls...

About 6 months ago, I was asking people if they thought Rudd could win. These were people I encountered occasionally - taxi drivers, cleaners, or just random encounters. Most were incredulous that I could even suggest such a thing.

People I mention it to now still indicate voting Liberal, but I haven't asked if they were always a Lib voter, etc.

If I had to make a call, I'd say it will be close but a Liberal victory.

But Evan, you do have to admit that the misrepresentation suffered by Charles must have been purposeful? One simply cannot accidentally truncate a sentence like that - because it's adulterated nuance was used in a purposeful manner to imply an altogether different meaning to the original full sentence.

No, I don't.

Charles' original statement was:

Assuming for the sake of argument -- and man, it pains me to do so -- that AA 77 did hit the Pentagon, might the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with such an event, as well as the absurd official conspiracy theory and the feds' refusal to release video records of the hit, be explained by the use of an above-top-secret "esoteric" anti-aircraft weapon deployed in the District?

Len subsequent quoted:

the near total absence of damage to the building

IMO Len was arguing that damage to the building was far from being a "total absence" and was indeed consistent - or explainable - by the attack. It would have been better to quote the whole sentence / paragraph, but there is a dispute as to the level of damage. I also disagree with statement "...that AA 77 did hit the Pentagon, might the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with such an event...". I believe the damage is consistent with the aircraft striking the building.

Anyway, I do not believe that it was a deliberate attempt to alter the meaning of Charles' statement. A correction has been made, and I believe that should be the end of the matter.

Has any member of this Forum ever been convicted of perjury in a court of law?

Not my concern.

If so, would it be permissable to post a message referring to that person as a "xxxx" within the context of a discussion of the "lies" that led to the conviction?

That would be for John and Andy to decide.

Has any member of this Forum ever been caught in a posted lie?

I don't know.

If so, would it be permissable to refer to that person as a "xxxx" within the context of a discussion of the posted "lies"?

That would be for John and Andy to decide.

Based upon his perjury conviction, is it permissable to refer to Scooter Libby as a xxxx?

Yes, because he is not a member here.

If so, and if Libby joined this Forum, would the permission be rescinded?

That would be for John and Andy to decide.

Finally, If I were to write in a post, "the Pentagon and its grounds did not suffer significant damage consistent with the impact of a 757," and, oh I don't know, a "Rio D. Janiero" were to quote me as having written, "the Pentagon and its grounds did not suffer significant damage" within the broader context of attempting to cast aspersions on my rationality and judgment, would "Janiero's" action properly be described as a "lie" and "Janiero" a "xxxx"?

No. They would be not quoting you in full, and if brought to the moderator's attention, they'd be asked to correct the matter (if it was significant enough that the truncated quote could be given incorrect meaning or taken out of context, or any other reason the moderator decided was sufficient to warrant correction).

If so, would the moderators deny me the right to do so in my defense?

See above.

Some posts set to invisible for review.

See Moderator Actions thread.

Four posts on this page of the Defense Historians Document 9/11 Pentagon Attack thread set to invisible. The posts belong to, and reason for are:

Jack White - Questioning the motives of a poster

Peter Lemkin - Quoting Jack's post, and also questioning the motives of a poster

Charles Drago - Trying to circumvent the rules, accusing Len of being untruthful

David G. Healy - Quoting Charles' post

David, if you are happy for me to remove Charles' quote from your post, I'll set it visible again. That was the only problem with it.

The remainder will be brought to the attention of other moderators to review my actions.

A Day In The Life of a Conspiracy Theorist - Part III

It's unbelievable! Today, I awoke unexpectedly .and felt just fine. I am happy and content. My government works hard for me and I appreciate them. I have nothing else to say. Amazing!

Since you seem to know one of the residents, would you share the postal code for Stepford?

Charles

Huh?

Sorry, but you lost me on that one, Charles.

The Stepford Wives -- a novel, film, and film remake -- is the story of Stepford, Connecticut, a near-utopian American upper-middle class community where all the ladies are just so happy and content as they work hard for their appreciative husbands. Bombshells one and all, by the way, impeccably and arousingly attired and made-up at all times. Never a complaint. Always a smile. Spectacular under the sheets, over the table, next to the couch, in the shower, out of doors ...

Just one problem: They're literally robots.

Hope this helps.

Charles

OH! Sorry - I didn't get the reference. No, don't know the place... but if you get the location, do tell me!

Come on Jack - fair is fair. I have showed you a number of examples regarding flare / halo, and not once do they mention atmospheric effect.

Show us some photographic references where they talk about flare / halo being caused by the atmosphere (except the previously mentioned 22 degree effect).

Are you able to do this, to show some evidence? Or is merely your opinion?

Nearly a week, and still no evidence to refute what I have said. Nada. Nothing. Only attacks on people who disagree with him.

Do you have some Japanese in your heritage Jack? You demonstrate a remarkable proclivity to mokusatsu - to "kill with silence". You seem to do that with most posts that disagree with your Apollo studies.

It's like World War Two all over again. On Thursday, Germany will transmit secret, enciphered radio messages that Britain will attempt to intercept and then decipher using Colossus, a rebuilt version of the 1940s computer that cracked Nazi war-time codes.

To add to the pressure on old Colossus, a machine the size of a truck that took 14 years to rebuild, modern PC operators will be racing to see if they can unscramble the encoded transmissions first.

"It's going to be an interesting challenge, but I think we'll win," said Tony Sale, the engineer who led the project to reconstruct the computer, which along with many others was dismantled after the war to retain its secrecy.

Britain's war-time Prime Minister Winston Churchill credited those who built and operated Colossus at the Bletchley Park estate near London, including famed code-breaker Alan Turing, with helping to shorten World War Two by up to 18 months.

The Germans never fully worked out that their high-level encryption machine, called the Lorenz SZ42, had been cracked and continued to use it to encipher military commands, including crucial details on troop movements, ammunition and supplies.

Thursday's experiment is not just the culmination of a labour of love for Sale and his team, but an opportunity to show just how powerful and effective a 63-year-old computer can be and how avant-garde it was for its time.

The challenge will involve engineers at the Heinz Nixdorf Museum in Paderborn, Germany encoding three secret German texts using the Lorenz cipher and then transmitting them via radio.

In Britain, a team of experts will use World War Two era equipment to intercept the messages and transfer them to Sale to be loaded into the Colossus. The computer will then try to work out the cipher settings, allowing the messages to be read.

It's a laborious process.

Just the transmission of the messages - 6000 characters of German text in all - will take 20 minutes, while the deciphering could take anything from six hours to a day, although Sale hopes it will be at the shorter end of the range.

In its heyday, Colossus and several other computers like it were able to crack codes in a few hours, allowing Britain's war-time leaders to understand Germany's battle plans and adjust tactics accordingly.

Even though the Colossi, as they were known, were dismantled after the war, and their existence only properly discovered in the late 1970s when the Official Secrets Act provisions expired, they laid the groundwork for modern computing.

While their return to service will echo World War Two, the messages will bear no resemblance to secret war plans.

"There are sensitivities in Germany about such things, so we are just transmitting detailed descriptions of the Heinz Nixdorf Museum," Sale told Reuters. "It was the safest thing to do."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/can-...4766927938.html

A Day In The Life of a Conspiracy Theorist - Part III

It's unbelievable! Today, I awoke unexpectedly .and felt just fine. I am happy and content. My government works hard for me and I appreciate them. I have nothing else to say. Amazing!

Since you seem to know one of the residents, would you share the postal code for Stepford?

Charles

Huh?

Sorry, but you lost me on that one, Charles.

What a lotta nonsense! And who is this newcomer Gavin? What are his credentials and where did he get his expensive toys? Are such miniatures NASA-issue?

Distractions do not address the question. Things are not shadows just because you claim they are.

Jack

Who are you to ask where he comes from? Did you bother to read the biography Gavin posted?

Are they expensive toys? I don't know. Not that expensive to my knowledge, about $70 for a 1/6th model. I know people who pay a lot more for similar items. I mean, a Micky Mouse figure for $75? A 'Star Wars' walker for $200?

The figures are produced by a private company called Dragon Models. You have been told this before, I believe, in a previous thread some time ago.

So who should people believe? A recreation of conditions, which demonstrate effects, and which anyone with the desire can recreate... or Jack who says "TRUST ME!" and hurls abuse at anyone who disagrees with him? Who cannot stand to admit he might have been wrong about something? Who constantly ignores questions which are too hard or too embarrassing for him?

I know who I'll trust.

The blue is coming from the artificial light source reflecting off the camera lens

So now that we have that one all settled , would you like to explain why the real Sun doesn't look anything like the Apollo ''Sun" ?

Because one is taken through the atmosphere, and one is not. The atmosphere causes the colour difference. The size difference in the apparent disks could be due to any number of factors - the most obvious being zoom.