Evan Burton

Israel responsible for faking Aussie passports

http://www.smh.com.au/national/israel-resp...00524-w5a3.html

Australia's relations with Israel have hit a new low, with the Rudd Government expelling an Israeli diplomat over the fake passports affair.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, told Parliament today that inquiries by Australian intelligence agencies into the use of fake Australian passports in Dubai had concluded the fakes were the work of a state intelligence agency. Mr Smith said this led to the conclusion there was no doubt Israel was responsible.

"No government can tolerate the abuse of its passports, especially by a foreign government," he said. "This represents a clear affront to the security of our passport system."

The scandal over the use of fake passports erupted internationally after the January murder of a Hamas operative. Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, one of Hamas's top arms dealers, was found dead in his hotel room on January 20. Dubai police identified 27 people involved in the assassination, 12 of whom travelled on forged British passports. Four of the suspects travelled on Australian passports in the names of four dual Australian-Israeli citizens.

Mr Smith said that intelligence sharing with Mossad would also be cut as the fake passports affair drags relations between the two countries to a new low.

Speaking after his statement to Parliament, Mr Smith said the fakes were of such a quality that they “could only (have been) affected by a nation through a state intelligence service.” He said that this had led to the conclusion that “Israel was responsible for the counterfeiting and cloning of those passports”.

The AFP and the Director-General of ASIO made trips to Israel to investigate the allegations. Mr Smith said that the Australian investigation cleared the four Australians whose identities were used in the operation. They were “innocent victims”, he said. On relations with Israel, Mr Smith said: “We do not regard these actions as the actions of a friend.” But Mr Smith qualified his attack on Israel, adding, “We are a firm friend of Israel. We regret very much that this incident has occurred.”

The Minister briefed the National Security Committee of Federal Cabinet this morning on the findings of the intelligence agencies, and recommended the expulsion of the Israeli diplomat as well as a freeze on intelligence sharing. Questioned on whether the officer expelled from Australia was a member of Mossad, Mr Smith said: “I’m not proposing to identify that particular person". However, he appeared to keep open such a possibility by adding, “Our response on any measure is comparable to the British response.” Mr Smith said the abuse of Australia's passports was not what Australia expected from a nation with which it had had such a close and friendly relationship.

Isreal's ambassador is overseas until June 8, but the Israeli embassy in Canberra has declined to comment until later today.

In March, Britain expelled Mossad's London station chief over the use of forged British passports in the assassination of al-Mabhouh in Dubai.

The French, Irish and German governments also investigated the use of copies of their passports in the Dubai killing.

What happened before the Big Bang?

By Phil Plait

July 2007

********

Does that question even make sense?

When astronomers think about the Big Bang, in general they don’t actually mean that one singular moment when the Universe burst into being. It’s really the name given to the model used to describe what happened an infinitesimally thin slice of time after that moment.

The problem is, right at that moment, at T=0, our laws of physics… well, they stall out. You wind up dividing by zero a lot, which causes a lot of headaches. You get things like zero volume and infinite density of matter and energy. It’s not that this moment didn’t exist physically, or that something impossible happened, it’s just that the math we currently use can’t describe it. And let me be clear: what happened after that one moment we can model fairly well. We may not have a complete picture, and the model may yet be supplanted (more on that in a moment), but we have a relatively (har har) good grasp on how the Universe behaved after T=+0.0000000000000…1 seconds. But at T=0, fuggeddaboutit. And T<0? The way the math works, that question doesn’t even make sense.

The basic trouble is that Einstein’s relativity gives us a good description of some things (large scale gravity, for example), and quantum mechanics tells us about other things (how particles behave), but no one has ever successfully combined the two, and they must be combined to understand that First Nanonanonanonanonanosecond. Einstein himself tried, and failed.

It’s possible, now, that this has changed.

Martin Bojowald, an assistant professor of physics at Penn State University, may have broken through this barrier for the first time. He is working on a theory called Loop Quantum Gravity, and it combines relativity and quantum mechanics. Using this new math, something amazing happens: at T=0, the volume of the Universe is not zero, and the density is not infinite.

In other words, the math still works, even at The Big Moment.

Loop Quantum Gravity has been around a while, but Bojowald appears to have simplified it, using different mathematical terminology. This allows solutions to be determined for what was, before, an intractable problem. And what his solution reveals is something that’s… well, it’s astonishing.

It’s been thought for sometime that there may have been some previous Universe that existed "before" ours. This is a difficult idea, because in the Big Bang model, space and time were created in that initial moment. But if Bojowald’s solutions are correct, it leads the way to understanding this previous Universe. It was out there, everywhere, and it contracted. Eventually it became an ultradense, ultrahot little ball of space and time. At some point, it got so small and so dense that bizarre quantum laws took effect — things like the Uncertainty Principle, which states that the more you know about one characteristic of an object (say, its position) the less you know about another (its velocity). There are several such laws, and they make it hard — impossible, really — to know everything about the universe at that moment.

What Bojowald’s work does, as I understand it (the paper as I write this is not out yet, so I am going by my limited knowledge of LQG and other theories like it) is simplify the math enough to be able to trace some properties of the Universe backwards, right down to T=0, which he calls the Big Bounce. The previous Universe collapsed down, and "bounced" outward again, forming our Universe. No doubt the physical aspects of this previous Universe were somewhat different; the quantum uncertainties at the moment of bounce would ensure that. It may have been much like ours, or it may have been quite alien. In his equations, it’s the volume of that previous Universe that cannot be determined. How big was it? It may literally be impossible to ever know.

In a sense, this uncertainty wipes the slate clean after a Universe crunches back down.

I want to stress that all of this is very interesting, and may possibly be borne out to be a better solution to the real physical situation of the Universe than anything we have now. Or, let’s face it: it might all eventually be tossed into the toilet. It’s a bit early to know. But it’s fascinating, and provides a glimpse into the future of cosmology, where we may not be limited by the one singular Universe in which we live. Another theory, called Brane Theory, is similar– it posits that there are other Universes as well, and they, well, they bounce back and forth, colliding every few hundred billion or trillion years. And that’s not even the weird part of brane theory… it might be able to explain dark matter and dark energy, and why our Universe appears to be accelerating. It’s well beyond what I can write for this blog entry (though it’ll be in my next book, heh heh). There is plenty of info on it on the web if you’re interested (here’s a good page to start you off).

Also, and what’s perhaps most exciting about these theories, is that they make predictions, predictions which can be verified or falsified based on observations. These are delicate experiments to be sure, but some will be possible to perform in just the next few years (for example, different cosmological origin theories predict different behaviors for the Universe at very early times, and these would imprint themselves on objects which can be observed).

These theories may seem like mumbo-jumbo or magic, but they have that very basic property of science: they’re testable.

And of course, I have to use this to stick it to the creationists once again. One thing they love to talk about is "fine tuning", how so many physical constants (like the charge on an electron, and the strength of gravity and the nuclear forces) appear to be incredibly well-adjusted to produce not just our Universe, but intelligent life in it: us.

Well, some of us.

The creationists claim that the only way this could possibly happen is if some sort of Intelligent Designer — and let’s not be coy, they mean God — set these values to be precisely what they are. Even just on its merits this isn’t right. I talked about this in the video clip I posted last week, so I won’t elaborate here. Go watch it.

But now we see another answer to the creationists: maybe this isn’t the only Universe. There might have been a string of them, reaching back in time, in meta-time beyond time. In those other Universes, maybe the electron had more charge, and stars couldn’t form. Or maybe it had less, and every star collapsed into a black hole. But if you get enough Universes, and the constants change in each one, then eventually one will get the mix right. Stars will last for billions of years, planets can form, life can evolve, and on one blue green ball of dust, chemicals can get complicated enough that they could look inside themselves, understand what they see, and marvel at the very fact of their own existence.

And maybe, just maybe, they can also figure out how it all came to be. This isn’t fantasy, folks, it’s science. It’s how things work.

Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.

Ah!

I put them in the ballistics thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=193465

Sorry Bernice.

Sorry Bernice, but I can't explain it. No posts are invisible and no-one has deleted any.

i made a post in this thread composed of docs and photos with no comment, i wonder why it is not here now..??????? could i please have a reply from a mod or such...thankyou...b

i am asking again thankyou, where has my post gone...i will repost with no comments as i did about 5 pm here, in canada 11pm ish on this f, in england, the docs and photos that i previously had, lets see if they disappear also.......b

There have been various derailments, various insults thrown back and forward by various members throughout this thread (and now subsequently in other threads). I apologise for missing many of them, and they should have been removed before now. That's my fault for not paying closer attention.

Since that is the case, everyone shall start off with a clean slate. Just remember the rules:

- Don't question people's motives.

- Don't comment on people's research abilities.

- Don't call people liars, etc.

- Try to stay on topic.

Thank you.

I have made a number of posts invisible pending a decision as to what thread they are more appropriate in, if any (they currently appear to be off-topic). I'll also be moving posts regarding ballistics, etc, to the ballistics thread.

I am more well read that you imagine and am not as ignorant as you imply.

Your posts in this thread do not reflect that.

Let me make this clear: do not question any member's motives regarding military service, in any theatre, why they served or they did not serve. It is STRICTLY a member's personal choice and NOTHING to do with the various arguments put forward.

As a serving military member of near 20 years service, I will take great offence if anyone is questioned - regardless of what decisions they made.

I am reminded that you never did get back to me about the airliners that left these peculiar "vapor trails".

They were certainly persistent. So am I.

Jack

You certainly did not ask that that Matt get back to you regarding the image you posted; do you presume him psychic? The number of threads where you have failed to answer direct question put to you are quite numerous.

To me, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The LHC super conducting super-collider in Switzerland, which was originally to have been built in Texas, provides only experiments on which scientists then propose theories about matter vs anti-matter, about which those scientists and opposing scientists will argue for decades or centuries more, about the big-bang theory "which created everything", according to some scientists, who are opposed by other scientists who insist that "everything cannot be created from nothing". Scientists are to be encouraged to look for answers.

But they will not find them in super conducting super-colliders...which may provide clues, but not answers.

Jack,

You appear not to have read my previous post: scientists do NOT claim they have all the answers. They do their best to develop hypotheses that match the observed results and then test those hypotheses to the best of their ability. It is called science.

Burton is no more qualified than I am to say that an explanation for creation can be found.

Correct - and I do not claim that any explanation has been found. I simply assert it is closed-minded to assume something cannot be discovered.

Philosophers have pondered the question as long as there have been philosophers: WHAT EXISTED BEFORE ANYTHING EXISTED? Or did "something" ALWAYS exist? Was there a beginning, or no beginning? This amounts to pondering the imponderable. It is unknowable. Only scientific theorists and religionists believe they have answers.

Jack

Again, refer to my above regard what we know and what we think. Regarding "...was there a beginning..." you should do some reading of the subject. It is a difficult concept, counter-intuitive at times, but have a look just the same.

What came before the Big Bang? Science Daily

]What came before the Big Bang? Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology

Mike,

You have referred to Prof Fetzer's military service, and his character in this thread. Please do NOT question it again or your posts will be made invisible and you may be made subject to moderation. By all means attack his ideas, his claims, and prove them incorrect or suspect... but motivations regarding past periods of his life and honesty on this thread will not be tolerate.

Play the ball, not the man.

If you believe you have clear evidence of deception by a Forum member then raise it with a moderator, and seek the most appropriate way forward.

Thank you.

Can this man not be honest about anything?

Professor who do you think you are fooling?

I ask again, why did you turn your back on your Country and your men, when they needed you most?

Prof Fetzer,

Being ignorant of JFK matters, I would feel uncomfortable trying to decide what is relevant, what is not, etc. I have asked other mods - more knowledgeable about the JFK theories - to consider your request.

I have no problem removing clear breaches of the Forum rules, but sometimes we mods can be believed to censoring or stifling lively discussion if we act when we think it is warranted but others do not. The sheer volume of posts and views to this thread has made us tend to adopt the later attitude and if we have been reticent in our obligations, I apologise and hope members will understand.

SPECIAL REQUEST TO JOHN SIMKIN AND EVAN BURTON ABOUT HIJACKING THREADS

John and Evan,

Anyone who has followed this thread is aware that Josiah Thompson and Mike Williams have no

knowledge or interest in the subject of this thread but are here for the plain and simple reason

of wanting to attack, ridicule, and belittle me, regardless of the merits of their case. They have

hijacked this thread devoted to Judyth Vary Baker, which is both unprofessional but also easily

predicable for those with any familiarity with their character. This conduct on their part--which

I inadvertently encouraged by responding to one of Mike Williams' posts--not only undermines

the efforts of those who are seriously concerned with Judyth's credibility but sets a very poor

example for other threads where, if this kind of conduct is tolerated here, it may be expected

to occur on other threads at other times for other reasons. I therefore formally request that a

neutral party--Evan Burton would be fine!--review the past 100 posts or so and remove them

from this thread and add them to some other. I know that Williams and Thompson created a

thread, "Fetzer and Ballistics 101", for the obvious reasons. That might be a suitable location

for these posts, since they are assailing me, often in relation to questions of ballistics. I have

no problem with being attacked: it goes with the territory! But it is extremely unfair to me and

to Judyth and to everyone else, such as Jack White, Michael Hogan, Pamela Brown, David Lifton

Douglas Weldon, Stephen Roy, Pat Speer, Gregory Burnham, Dean Hagerman, Barb Junkkarinen,

and many others--to have the thread taken over by parties with no serious interest in its subject.

I therefore request in the interest of fair-play that irrelevant posts, including mine, be moved to

another location, where the parties are welcome to continue to assail me to their heart's content.

With appreciation,

Jim

Todd,

Why "unknowable"? Why not "yet undiscovered" or "a not yet understood process"? The LHC will go a long way to answering the questions we have.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/kims-allout-wa...00520-vhkq.html

The South Koreans are blaming the North, but I am still not convinced. If the purported torpedo hit roughly amidships on the South Korean patrol vessel, and that happened to be where explosives / mines were stored, then I think it might be possible that a torpedo was responsible. At this time, though, I have my doubts.

"Intelligent design" is just creationism in a new set of clothes. Jack is incorrect with his assertions and displays the attitude that would be expected from someone from a "christian" education. He makes the same incorrect assumptions as many before him. He forgets there is no absolute proof in science. Just because we don't know how life started does not mean evolution is wrong. Science uses logical inference, testing those hypotheses. Evolution makes many specific predictions – and so far all of those predictions have been validated. Evolution has been confirmed to such a high degree that we can now take it as a solid premise. The same cannot be said for ID.

Some supporting evidence from those far more qualified than I am.

Darwin’s 200th birthday, 12th February 2009, is the opportunity for the science community to celebrate Charles Darwin's life and the huge contribution he made to increasing the understanding of the world we live in.

Darwin's work on The Origin of Species and his Theory of Evolution is supported by a diverse and robust body of physical evidence, from fossilised bones to radiometric measurement of the ages of the Earth's rocks. Clear evidence about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by facts and data from the breadth of Science and its numerous disciplines.

This anniversary is an opportunity to affirm the importance of education about the fundamental elements of science. A scientific understanding of the world in which we live will enable us all to meet the future needs of the planet.

Creation vs evolution. Creationism and intelligent design, arguments, evidence and theory.

There has been much debate about the teaching of creationism and intelligent design. Intelligent Design is a creationist belief that suggests that the biological complexity of human beings is evidence for presence of a God or an 'intelligent designer'. There are concerns that it is sometimes advanced as scientific theory but it has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations supporting it and it is not accepted by the international scientific community. Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the National Curriculum for science, but there is scope for schools to discuss creationism as part of Religious Education.

Below are links to statements and reports by a range of scientific bodies of national or international standing.

The Association for Science Education is the professional association for teachers of science. With a broad spread of membership from primary and secondary teachers, to technicians, those involved in Initial Teacher Education, and also includes some 2.500 student members.

Geological Society of London is a learned society with the aim of "investigating the mineral structure of the Earth". It is the oldest national geological society in the world and the largest in Europe with over 9000 Fellows.

American Association for the Advancement of Science regarding the importance of the integrity of science as depicted in film. This is a response to the release of a film called 'Expelled' which it was felt inappropriately witted science against religion.

American Association for the Advancement of Science is an international non-profit organisation dedicated to advancing science around the world. Founded in 1848, AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals. The non-profit AAAS is open to all and fulfills its mission to “advance science and serve society” through initiatives in science policy; international programs; science education; and more.

The American Institute of Biological Sciences is a nonprofit scientific association dedicated to advancing biological research and education for the welfare of society

The Geological Society of America is a global professional society with a membership of more than 21,000 individuals in over 85 countries.

InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) is a global network of the world's science academies, including from the United Kingdom, The Royal Society. The panel was launched in 1993, its primary goal is to help member academies work together to advise citizens and public officials on the scientific aspects of critical global issues. .

Joint Statement AAAS, NSTA, National Research Council - Kansas Education Standards The National Academies perform an unparalleled public service by bringing together committees of experts in all areas of scientific and technological endeavor. These experts serve pro bono to address critical national issues and give advice to the federal government and the public.

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), founded in 1944 is committed to promoting excellence and innovation in science teaching and learning for all. NSTA's current membership of more than 55,000 includes science teachers, science supervisors, administrators, scientists, business and industry representatives, and others involved in and committed to science education.

http://www.sciencecouncil.org/Creationism.php

Intelligent Design Creationism: Fraudulent Science, Bad Philosophy.

Last month's launch of the US Air Force X-37B secret mini space plane has fueled speculation about the real mission of this vehicle and if it could possibly be used for a new type of military weapon. The X-37B launched on April 22, 2010 and has the ability to stay in orbit for up to 270 days. While the Air Force provided a webcast of the launch, since then there has been no word — leaked or official – about the status of the mission. “There has been a lot of speculation about what this vehicle could do and what sort of capabilities it could provide to the U.S. military, and some of that speculation was based on more science fiction than fact,” said Brian Weeden from the Secure World Foundation. “While a successful completion of the X-37B flight, landing, and turn-around will certainly be a significant step forward in reusable space vehicle technology, it is a long ways away from a single-stage-to-orbit capability.”

Weeden has put together a fact sheet on the X-37B, looking at the technical feasibility of some of the proposed missions for the mini space shuttle look-alike, and says the there's almost no chance it could be used as a new weapon or a new weapon delivery system.

The X-37B will land unpiloted at Edwards Air Force Base in California. It uses solar arrays and lithium ion batteries to generate power instead of fuel cells like the space shuttle, a major reason why it can stay on orbit for much longer.

Weeden said that after looking at all the proposed missions for the X-37B, he concluded the most likely is that it will be used as a flexible, responsive spacecraft to collect intelligence from space and as a platform to flight test new sensors and satellite hardware.

“One of the downsides to using satellites for collecting intelligence is that once they are launched they have a fixed set of sensors and capabilities,” Weeden said. “The X-37B brings to space the capability to customize the on-board sensor package for a specific mission, similar to what can be done with U.S. reconnaissance aircraft such as the U-2 and SR-71. In many ways, this gives the X-37B the best of both worlds,” he added.

Here's a brief look at the potential uses for the X-37B:

On-orbit sensor platform and test bed, with the ability to return payload. "What it offers that we have seldom had is the ability to bring back payloads and experiments to examine how well the experiments performed on-orbit," said Gary Payton, the undersecretary of the Air Force for space programs. "That's one new thing for us."

Given the R&D that likely was put into the X-37B, this approach probably isn't very cost-effective, but Weeden said this is the most likely use the spaceplane. X-37B payload bay could hold various sensors used for intelligence collection of the Earth from space, potentially including radar, optical, infrared, and signals/electronic intelligence suites to flight-test and evaluate new sensors and hardware.

Deployment platform for operationally responsive space satellites. Weeden said this has a midrange chance of being X-37B's mission, and he quotes Payton: "We could have an X-37 sitting at Vandenberg or at the Cape, and on comparatively short notice, depending on warfighter requirements, we could put a specific payload into the payload bay, launch it up on an Atlas or Delta, and then have it stay in orbit, do the job for the combatant commander, and come back home. And then the next flight, we could have a different payload inside, maybe even for a different combatant commander."

But given it still would be dependent on the availability of EELV, it may not have a very quick response time for launch.

On-orbit repair vehicle. Weeden said this option has a fairly low chance of being X-37B's real mission. While it could be used to rendezvous with malfunctioning satellites and repair or refuel them, the X-37B is limited in altitude (it has been rumored that it will have a maximum altitude range of 700 or 800 km (about 500 nautical miles), potentially high enough to access most Sun-synchronous satellites, but this is unconfirmed, plus not many existing operational military satellite components will fit in the X-37B cargo bay. And as the engineers who tried to figure out how to fix the Hubble Space Telescope robotically, without humans, on-orbit repair is extremely difficult, if not impossible.

On-orbit inspection of satellites. This option has a low potential, as well. The X-37B could be used to rendezvous and inspect satellites, either friendly or adversary, and potentially grab and de-orbit satellites. However, the X-37B cargo bay is much smaller than many operational satellites, and most of the space in the bay is likely to be filled by the required robotic arm and other gear.

Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) weapon or delivery system. Weedend says that chance of this being X-37B's mission is zero. It could be launched in response to a pending crisis and remain on orbit for a length of time to respond to high value/very time sensitive targets. However, since the X-37B re-enters like the space shuttle and lands at an estimated 200 mph (321 kph), this means it travels in the atmosphere much slower than a ballistic arc or a hyperkinetic weapon, so it would need to carry conventional explosives to do any significant damage. Also, after re-entry would be a slow moving, not-very-maneuverable glide bomb, easy prey for any air defense system along its path to the target.

For more information, a four-page, fact-filled X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle Fact Sheet is now available on Secure World Foundation’s website.

Source: Secure World Foundation, special thanks to Leonard David.

May I suggest we merge the two threads? If so, where should the thread reside - here or in the JFK section?

Also raised here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15948

Say goodbye to children getting a decent education in Texas.

Evangelicals rewrite Texan curriculum

CHRIS MCGREAL

May 19, 2010

HOUSTON: In a coup likely to shift what millions of American children learn at school, a clutch of Christian evangelicals and social conservatives who have grasped control of the Texas Board of Education are expected to force through a new state curriculum this week.

The board is to vote on a purge of alleged liberal bias in Texas school books in favour of what board member Cynthia Dunbar says really matters: a belief in America as a nation chosen by God as a beacon to the world.

''We are fighting for our children's education and our nation's future,'' Ms Dunbar said. ''In Texas we have certain statutory obligations to promote patriotism and to promote the free enterprise system.

''There seems to have been a move away from a patriotic ideology. There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections.''

Those corrections prompted a blizzard of accusations of rewriting history and indoctrinating children by promoting right-wing views on religion, economics and guns while diminishing the science of evolution, the civil rights movement and the horrors of slavery.

Several changes include sidelining Thomas Jefferson, who favoured separation of church and state, while introducing a new focus on the ''significant contributions'' of pro-slavery Confederate leaders during the civil war. Study of Sir Isaac Newton is dropped in favour of examining scientific advances through military technology.

The education board has dropped references to the slave trade in favour of calling it the ''Atlantic triangular trade'', and recasts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as driven by Islamic fundamentalism.

''There is a battle for the soul of education,'' Mavis Knight, a liberal member of the Texas education board, said. ''They're trying to indoctrinate with American exceptionalism, the Christian founding of this country, the free-enterprise system.''

The curriculum has alarmed liberals across the country in part because Texas buys millions of textbooks every year, giving it sway over what publishers print. By some estimates, all but a handful of American states rely on textbooks written to meet the Texas curriculum. California is considering a bill that would bar them from being used in the state's schools.

Underpinning the changes is a particular view of religion.

Ms Dunbar was elected to the state education board on the back of a campaign in which she argued to allow the teaching of creationism - euphemistically known as intelligent design - in science classes.

Two years ago, she published a book, One Nation under God, in which she argued that the United States was ultimately governed by the scriptures.

''The only accurate method of ascertaining the intent of the founding fathers at the time of our government's inception comes from a biblical world view,'' she wrote.

''We as a nation were intended by God to be a light set on a hill to serve as a beacon of hope and Christian charity to a lost and dying world.''

The blizzard of amendments has produced the odd farce. Some figures have been sidelined because they are deemed to be socialist or un-American.

One of them is a children's author, Bill Martin, who wrote a popular tale, Brown Bear, Brown Bear, what Do You See? Martin was cut from the curriculum when he was confused with an author with a similar name who wrote a different book, Ethical Marxism.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/evangelicals-r...00518-vcax.html

I have no problem with you posting the photos I furnished here, on DPF, your blog or ANYWHERE.

Jack,

I have uploaded the images onto a restricted website. Anyone wishing access to the images should contact myself or other mods, and we will supply you with the details.

Professor,

You should read my post more carefully. I repeat: the posts and images have NOT been deleted; they are invisible but available to anyone who wishes to see them.

Do you think it is appropriate that the moderators, up to and including John Simkin, have deleted posts and disappeared photographs when we were in the process of conducting productive research?

Prof Fetzer,

That is not quite correct. Neither posts nor subject images have been deleted; they have been made invisible and can still be made available to researchers who wish to view them. In this post I ask the members to opine their preferred method of viewing images which may be considered by some to be inappropriate for general viewing.

So far, no-one has indicated a preference on this thread. The images are still available to those who wish to see them.

I'm going to start this thread here then move into its more appropriate place, in the PC sub-forum. That way a link will be left here on the JFK forum and people can follow it back if they are interested.

Censorship is an issue close to my heart. In Australia, our esteemed leaders wish to place a mandatory filter on our internet (see another thread about this in this sub-forum), in order to protect young children from inappropriate images, etc. I object to this, believing it is a parental responsibility and, as an adult, if I wish to view adult images I should be allowed to do so.

Anyway - censorship. A number of members expressed opinions about images being displayed. This made me think about my visits to the US and my surprise about the censorship that occurs there. I'd like to describe my experience and ask others to post their own experiences and opinions.

I found it amazing that US television censored things that I would consider innocuous. When watching the movie 'Kill Bill', I was confused that violence could be shown but they changed the name of a car from "Pussy Wagon" to "Party Wagon". I was also surprised by the censoring of "god damn", and not showing two raised fingers (the reverse of Churchill's V For Victory)... or even sometimes blocking out the single finger "bird"!

So - can there be an agreed definition of what is obscene or inappropriate? Is the best censorship..NO censorship?

Re: images.

To ensure researchers can obtain these subject images, we have a couple of options:

1. Place them onto a site like Photobucket, and allow people to download them from there;

2. Mods can post images to members on request; or

3. A restricted access sub-Forum can be made, and only those people requesting access can see the contents. This would prevent what can be called inappropriate images being seen by underage persons whilst still allowing access to researchers.

Perhaps researchers might indicate what their personal preferences are. I am happy to set up a Photobucket site for Forum general use, if member would like that.