H1N1

[Bryan]

You'd better start watching Mythbusters.

That Mythbusters episode was bizarre. They claimed to have proved that the moon landing could not have been faked by perfectly faking it.

>>>I'm not claiming I think the moon landing was fake, just that they didn't even come close to proving their case with the experiments they performed.

[Guest TrueMetis]

That Mythbusters episode was bizarre. They claimed to have proved that the moon landing could not have been faked by perfectly faking it.

>>>I'm not claiming I think the moon landing was fake, just that they didn't even come close to proving their case with the experiments they performed.

Well not really they proved that things like the the boot prints and flag waving would have worked in a vacuum, they proved that if you put someone on a bungee to reduce their weight to 1/6th and slowed it down it would not look like the moon landing video, and they proved with the the shadows did not have to have multiple light sources.

So yes it could have been faked if the people who filmed it did it in a giant vacuum. (While on a plane to simulate 1/6 gravity)

Everthing the Mythbusters tested about the moon landing

[Keepitsimple]

The interesting thing about H1N1 is that it may very well be the mildest form of flu virus that we have seen in a long time. The pattern of seasonal flu is that every new strain (like this year's H1N1) usually "replaces" the previous strain and continues for a couple of years before a new mutated strain takes it's place. So at least for a few years, H1N1 may well be a Godsend and reduce seasonal flu mortalities around the world by many tens of thousands. Here in Canada, we would expect 2000-8000 mortalities per year - we are only at a little over 400. The US alone averages about 36,000. Globally, we would expect around 250,000 - and are currently below 15,000.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[ZenOps]

What you are forgetting - is how pervasive the media is.

If you believe that everything you see is where they say it is coming from.

The common hoax theory is of course that they just shot a 10 pound satellite relay into the side of the moon (much like a regular satellite - but with an 8 second delay instead of 250 millisecond) and that they were just bouncing either a prerecorded or time delayed feed from a California studio.

Which of course - is totally possible. You can never know for sure when you flip your TV to your favorite channel or go to your favorite .com site that you are actually going to the right place - you rely on things like "responsible" government to do that for you. (And for .coms, the 11 supercomputer clusters than feed the legit DNS.com registry to the entire world) Like reporters in the 1980's who got caught lying about where they were in the world - and were just sitting in their studio in front of a bluescreen.

I never really liked the "flag waving hoax" idea. I mean really, if you are going to hoax the whole thing - they would have definitely used a "air evacuated studio", or of course the real thing (on the moon) I get the feeling they put that one out on purpose - just to debunk the hoaxers easier later. Which does make one wonder if you are putting out hoaxes to hoax hoaxers, what the hell is the point?

It does have a lot to do with faith. Believe a little bit that god does exist is about the same as landing on the moon.

What is the best proof we have that it actually happened with the best technology we have in 2009 from Nasa themselves? A five pixel high set of photos.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

If thats the best we can do today 40 years later - I don't want to believe that we that much on a fast track regression to cavemen.

Of which I think this is apt "Let the people who grew up in the 1960's believe that man landed on the moon, Let the people who grow up in the year 2010 believe that it never happened for their sakes."

Edited January 14, 2010 by ZenOps

[bush_cheney2004]

What is the best proof we have that it actually happened with the best technology we have in 2009 from Nasa themselves? A five pixel high set of photos.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

If thats the best we can do today 40 years later - I don't want to believe that we that much on a fast track regression to cavemen.

Sorry, but NASA cannot change the laws of physics (Rayleigh criterion / Dawes limit) for visible light optical sensors (e.g. Hubble). Larger earth based optics (telescopes) are limited by seeing conditions to about 1 arc-sec resolution.

Others are quite satisfied with direct and indirect evidence of real moon landings, ignoring faith entirely.

Edited January 14, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Sir Bandelot]

Sorry, but NASA cannot change the laws of physics (Rayleigh criterion / Dawes limit) for visible light optical sensors (e.g. Hubble). Larger earth based optics (telescopes) are limited by seeing conditions to about 1 arc-sec resolution.

Thats true for visual observing but with the use of cameras, adpative optics and image stacking the resolution can often be better than that. Even for backyard Gallileos with small scopes, like me.

Still, the features of the lander sitting on the moon are so very tiny, it's beyond our abilities to resolve in detail. Example the moon is about 30 arc minutes in diameter, thats 1800 arc seconds, representing a distance of roughly 2000 miles. If the lander and it's shadow are a mere 30 feet across, that is 1800 * 30/(2000 x 5280) = .005 arc seconds. Resolution would have to be even better than that to see any detail. Not feasible with the current technology.

[Sir Bandelot]

EU to probe pharma over “false pandemic”

04 January 2010

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) is to hold an emergency debate and inquiry this month into the “influence” exerted by drugmakers on the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) global H1N1 flu campaign.

The text of the resolution approved by the Assembly calling for the debate and inquiry states that: “in order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies, and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.

The WHO’s “false pandemic” flu campaign is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century,” according to Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, chairman of the PACE Health Committee, who introduced the parliamentary motion.The definition of an alarming pandemic must not be under the influence of drug-sellers,” he adds.

http://www.pharmatimes.com/worldnews/article.aspx?id=17147

Some very disturbing allegations about the WHO. These scandals only serve to further discredit these global organizations as being in the best interest of big money enterprises.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Sir Bandelot