JohnB

Very exact, nice. However, it is biased to a viewpoint as it can be rephrased as "If I can't find a mundane explanation for it, it must be a hoax." As a definition, it can only confirm preconceived viewpoints as it precludes the possibility of being wrong. I'm always cautious when a definition doesn't include the possibility that the definer is mistaken. (At least, in this type of discussion anyway.) I do note your use of the caveat "thus far", however just because something can be explained by trickery, does not mean that it was done by trickery. This photo from a bubble chamber can also be explained by trickery. Does that mean it was produced by trickery? Of course not. (And fear of being dunked into a bubble chamber by a posse of irate physicists led by swansont has nothing to do with my opinion.)

John Phoenix, if you wish to prove or discuss whether a particular "thing" exists or not, then a definition is mandatory. However, if you are claiming that there is an effect that people call "ghosts", it is less so. The caveat being that you now have provide some evidence that the "effect" is real and not imagined. JillSwift, (welcome BTW) how does your psychological hypothesis account for photographs? While there are certainly mundane explanations for the indistinct blobs that are often put forward as "evidence", these tend to fail when faced with humanoid apparitions. bascule, I'm not sure the Randi Challenge applies. I have my own thoughts about the things and frankly I think that they are no more "supernatural" than radio was 200 years ago. In this thread I described experiments that would at least allow us to decide whether or not an effect was present and real. You didn't participate in that thread, however I'd like your opinion as to whether the two camera setup would be a suitable first instance. You and iNow would the hardest sceptics I know of in this area, so would a positive result make you go "Hmmmmm"?

Just the view from the outside. It does sometimes appear that there is a "Cult of Personality" around Obama. It was brought up here before the election and I saw it myself in some vids. The Republicans chanted "USA, USA" while the Democrats chanted "Obama, Obama." From the outside this is a bit of a worry. It appeared that many in the US viewed Obama as some sort of saviour who would "unite the country, yada, yada yada." It wasn't about policies, it was about the man. I can see where the opponents are coming from. I think they're wrong, but I can see their point. The point has been made before, it's not about the speech, but the other things that go with it. However the "anti" argument is pretty much a "slippery slope" one. "How can I help the President achieve his goals in education" could become "How can I help the President achieve his goals in....". It logically follows that one way to help is to report those who dissent or to actively obstruct them. The messages of "Stay in school", "Appreciate America is a Great Nation", "Be clean in your habits, body and mind" and "Help the Leader achieve his goals" are all worthy messages. The Scouts say similar things, unfortunately so did the Hitler Youth. As I said, it's more a slippery slope argument than anything else, and one that I think is false. That being said, I do think the message should be "How can I help make America a better nation?" rather than "How can I help the President?" I don't see evidence of the personality thing in these forums, however the "Republicans are Evil" does wear a bit thin after a while. (And makes our members look incredibly one eyed.) iNow, I appreciate your reasoning for the Thread Title and sympathise with it, however can you see that by being deliberately provocative it doesn't invite reasoned debate? The title itself can appear as an attack and invites active response if anything, but not debate. Similarly, all jokes that provoke a response are funny, but not all things that provoke a response are jokes. As an Australian "Comedy" team discovered after this disaster. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS36ZuCW-7c As to why some people might be concerned; From the link you posted earlier; http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/academic/bts.html http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/7-12.pdf Would there not have been howls of anger if it were suggested that excerpts from George W. Bushs speeches should be posted in large print around the classroom 4 years ago?

On August 31, the Onion published an article where Neil Armstrong admitted that he was now convinced that the moon landing was a hoax. http://www.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil?utm_source=a-section Chuckles all round at the silly conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately two Bangladeshi papers didn't know that the "Onion" was not "a genuine news site" and printed the story as fact. From the BBC report; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8237558.stm You really couldn't make this stuff up, could you?

Point of order Madam Moderator. As energy formed before suns did in the time after after the Big Bang, and given that some of that energy must have been in the EM spectrum, could one not argue that there was indeed light before suns?

Thanks for the confirmation snail. I must admit I was suspicious. While extremely cool, I was thinking along the same lines as Mokele. Done like a well performed magic trick. I'll bet that 5 minutes after seeing the vid, 75% of people would swear that the flier had never left their sight.

Now I really have seen everything. The videos description; http://www.todaysbigthing.com/2009/08/05

Red Green built one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJJrjDI5xSQ But, if you can't build one, write a song about one.

Sorry iNow, I should have been clearer. I meant a designer for the Universe. You were arguing the old "irreducable complexity" thing? You poor person. Go have a spoonful of honey to take the sour taste out of your mouth. Actually, I prefer the original.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that english wasn't you native language. The grannies and schoolchildren were the Japanese back up troops, some 20,000,000 of them. They were not going to be human shields, they were to be active combattants. I thought that was clear. (It would have been if you'd read the links.) Not quite because you still think; Semantically you might be correct, but in combat the choice is "Kill or be killed". Do you suggest that the US troops should choose to "be killed"? There is only one choice. The tactic of using human shields in the islands couldn't be adequately counteracted for the simple reason that jungle fighting doesn't allow you to see them coming. You don't know the shields are there until they come out of the jungle 100 yards away, ahead of the attacking troops. The Japanese didn't use human shields as a defensive tactic, but as an offensive one. Obviously, the only way to avoid this tactic is to not have the enemy attack you, but that is rather difficult when he wants your airfield. Wouldn't you agree? I brought the point up because I know how it messed with the minds of the Aussie diggers exposed to it. They still see their faces. The invasion aftermath would have been worse, much worse. Addressing your other points. Firstly the Potsdam Declaration was broadcast in clear, so the Japanese had no illusions as to the terms. This was 26th July 1945. What were the terms? Sounds to me like they could look forward to a life of peaceful pursuits in their homeland. Freedom of speech, religion and thought, not going to be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation. Looks like they learned the lessons from the treatment of the Germans by the Treaty of Versailles. Occupation to end when a freely chosen peaceful government is established. Note also; A direct appeal to the people of Japan. So the terms of surrender were "made public in detail" and the assurances were given. On the 28th July 1945 the Japanese Prime Minister responded that the Japanese government would ignore the proclamation. So with all that, Japan refused to surrender. The conditions you asked for were met, and exceeded actually. From here; The info is from "Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire" by Richard B. Frank. It can be found at Amazons. Another good one is "Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism" by Robert James Maddox, also at Amazons. The first pages especially concern Gar Alperovitz, the author of the commondreams revisionist piece that charonY linked to. It's interesting to see his truncated quotes compared to the full actual quote. As to the short time span between the bombs, there is actually a good military reason for this. Remember Potsdam; (Emphasis mine.) As Col. Paul Tibbetts is quoted; (from the memoirs of Charles Sweeney, the Nagasaki pilot) Note Tibbetts said "we only had one more bomb on Tinian". A common revisionist argument is that the 3 days between the bombs was because the materials weren't on Tinian at the time. In fact, all the parts for both bombs were delivered to Tinian on July 28, 29. The point was to make the Japanese believe that the Allies had a lot of bombs and would make frequent use of them. As to whether the scientists would have worked on the bomb if they thought it would be used. Al Christman's book, "Target Hiroshima: Deak Parsons and the Creation of the Atomic Bomb" (Naval Institute 1998), notes that the operational plan in February 1945 "called for the military use in the summer [of 1945] of Little Boy and one or two Fat Man bombs, followed by more if necessary." Quote from here. (Emphasis mine) It would be an incredibly stupid scientist that believed in July (when the first bomb was tested) that the military didn't intend to use it. Because they had said they would back in February. From the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History. (Here) So that was June. Are you suggesting that everybody except the scientists working on the project thought the bomb would be used? You might want to read this piece. It concerns the unredacted MAJIC intercepts. (And shows where some of the revisionist thinking started.) Ah-Ha. Gotcha, you are hiding something! See, I told you they were hiding something! Oops. (Emphasis miine.) So much for being about to surrender. Sooooo, none of the people attempting "peace" talks actually had the authority to do so. On the point of giving some warning. Since we knew from the MAGIC intercepts that in the event of invasion, all POWs were to be executed, it was deemed extremely likely that should a warning be given to a target city, the Japanese would move their people out, and the POWs in. Neat huh, we get to kill our own. I leave the final word to the newly (1945) installed Japanese Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu, MAGIC intercept 15th September 1945 (That's right, after the surrender); So, how do you like working for the Japanese Foreign Ministry?

And right there, you lose any credibility. Allied troops would have been faced with a simple choice, shoot the kids and grannies charging at them or die. This was not a new tactic for the Japanese. During the fighting in New Guinea it was quite common for the Japanese to round up natives and use them as human shields in front of their charges. The defending troops were faced with a choice, machine gun unarmed women and children or die. It's not a pleasant choice and there is only one way to choose. They did it, and they hated the Japanese for making them do it. So yes, sometimes soldiers "have to do" such things. Any belief to the contrary is out of some sort of fantasyland.

I think that there are a few unspoken assumptions here. Firstly, a designer for the universe does not imply a designer for humans. Secondly, if there was a designer for humans, we don't know the rules or intent. That would depend on intent, would it not? Without knowing what an item is intended to do, how can you comment on how well the design fulfils it's function?

My point being that there is a profound lack of proof. You are aware that fighting was still going on aren't you? Allied and Japanese soldiers were dieing in combat every day. How long would you wait? How would you explain to the families of the fallen that you let them die rather than end the war? Perhaps. He was also quite happy to demand authorization to use 30-50 of them in Korea though. Ending the war was paramount. Stopping the fighting was paramount. The sooner the war ended, the less casualties there would be. This is surely not a hard concept to grasp. If it could be done with reduced casualties, all the better. A number of those who said the bomb wasn't neccessary were of the belief that Japan would have surrendered anyway by 1st November. (X Day) Big bloody woop. That's another 3 months of jungle fighting, another 3 months of bombings, another 3 months of POWs being executed, another 3 months of death and destruction for Japan and another 3 months of Allied casualties. And of course, if those of that opinion were wrong and Downfall went ahead, then wholesale slaughter would have been the result. US dogfaces didn't sign up to shoot Japanese grannies with pointed sticks, but they would have had to. You think the Vietnam vets have mental problems? That would have been a picnic compared to US servicemen coming home after machine gunning Japanese schoolchildren, tens of thousands of them. The Imperial Palace is in Tokyo. He was in residence in May. I suggest that he saw quite well the firebombing destruction of that city. Riiiiight. They were making a really big bomb that they thought nobody would ever use. Can I sell you a bridge? I've got a nice one in San Francisco going cheap. Clarke was an intelligence officer, not a line commander. As such he did not command those about to die. Both Leahy and Nimitz believed the invasion unneccessary because the Navy could defeat Japan from the sea. Do not underestimate interservice rivalry. Do you think that the propect of the Army ending the war and stealing their thunder might have had something to do with their attitudes? You might be interested in reading this page; http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/downfall.html The full transcript of "OPERATION DOWNFALL [uS invasion of Japan]: US PLANS AND JAPANESE COUNTER-MEASURES" can be found here. As someone who has had access to the actual documents, his opinion should carry some weight. Note the date. Three days after the Potsdam Declaration. An interesting comment about food on the home islands; Bottom line, dropping the bombs ended the war and saved lives on both sides.

CharonY, there could be a misunderstanding here. I can't find anything that shows that the Japanese were involved with peace talks with anyone. The best I can find is that they had made overtures through the Swiss and Soviets that they might be interested in starting them. But there were no peace talks actually going on. You appear to operating from the idea that talks had started, they hadn't. Also the Potsdam Declaration was a continuance of the Cairo Declaration of 1943 where Truman, Churchill and Chiang Kai-Shek which said; Given that "Unconditional Surrender" was specifically required by the Cairo Communique, the suggestion by Gar Alperovitz in his oped piece that assurances for the Emperor were "removed" from the Potsdam Declaration are factually wrong. Clause 8 clearly states; I also quote President Truman in his initial address to Congress, 16th April 1945. Assurances for the Emperor were not "removed" from the Potsdam Declaration because they were never there in the first place. Concerning war crimes trials. The Emperor neither ordered or committed war crimes. In this respect he was only in danger of possible prosecution as Japans "Head of State". Military policy was set by the military. Tojo, not Hirohito was the one we were after. Potsdam Clause 10; Note also Clause 12 which gave the people of Japan the option to retain the Emperor; (Emphasis mine.) Bear's Key. You're making a great conspiracy theory out of nothing. The Cairo Communique resolving unconditional surrender was issued on the 1st December 1943. The Potsdam Declaration on 26th July 1945. Potsdam showed that the resolve of the Allies for unconditional surrender remained unchanged. A fact that is often overlooked is that the Manhatten Project was a secret. This means that very few people were actually told about it. Specifically, nobody who didn't "need to know", knew. The fire bombing campaign had been going on for months in Japan with no sign of surrender coming. Operation Downfall was planned and some troops had been sent home for some R&R before the invasion. (My father was one such). Along come some eggheads and say to MacArthur "We've got a new bomb that might make the Japanese surrender". MacArthurs view would have been "Well, the invasions not for a few months, let them try it. If it doesn't work it won't effect the invasion, if it does I won't have to send my men into the meat grinder." You have to remember that; a) Nobody who hadn't seen Alamagordo had the faintest idea what the bomb could do. and b) Nobody was certain that the bloody thing would work when dropped from a plane. Rubbish. 67 Japanese cities, including Tokyo had already been virtually destroyed by firebombing raids. The Emperor had already seen first hand the destruction of his cities. Of course it did, but it wasn't a rationale, it was a goal. Once you have acheived the goal of getting the bomb first, why would you keep that as a goal? In 1944 the goals were; a) The invasion of Europe. and b) The surrender of Germany. Once Europe had been invaded, did the goal change? Nope, it just moved on to the next one. In the Pacific, the goal was to end the war in accordance with the orders of the Allied governments. The big point you seem to be missing is that the stated policy of the Allies was "The Unconditional surrender of Japan". That policy was set by, among others, the US President. As C in C, the Generals follow his orders. Truman said "Make the Japanese surrender unconditionally", it's up to the Generals to use every means at their disposal to follow that order. Hopefully with an eye to minimising Allied casualties, and if it reduces Japanese casualties, all the better. Perhaps you should read Truman on Trial: Not Guilty. 67 cities destroyed by firebombing, 2 destroyed by nukes. 2 years since they had been told "unconditional surrender or else". How much longer should Japan have been given? Seriously, Ketsu-Go was intended to bleed the Allies with horrific casualties so that we would agree to conditions such that war crimes trials would not occur and that the Japanese military would remain in control of the Japanese government. The military were willing to sacrifice millions of Japanese and Allies if it meant they could retain power. The use of the nukes showed that the Allies could cause millions of Japanese casualties without loss to ourselves. This changed the equation. The hope of bleeding the Allies ended. I find it fascinating that every year at about this time people who have never had the lives of thousands or millions riding on their decisions are quite happy to sit back in a comfy chair and expound to the world how those "on the spot", got it wrong.

Padren, I've thoughts like that myself. If you're going to explore the Universe but don't want those backwards hicks to know you're there, then don't fly ships that glow in the dark!

Link please. All that I've read implies nothing more than overtures to maybe have peace talks on "Conditional" surrender. There were two conditions; 1: The continuation of the role of the Emperor 2: No war crimes trials. The second was totally unacceptable to the Allies. You don't think the prospect of avoiding the invasion of the Japanese homeland with the huge toll in lives on both sides might have had something to do with it? House to house guerilla warfare in the streets of Tokyo was not high on the list of "Fun things I want to do in Japan" either. While fuel and ammunition were in short supply, the defence plan "Ketsu-Go" was for an all out attack on the invasion fleet and the men and machines were available for that. The Japanese knew where we would invade and roughly when. The plan called for attacks on the troopships only, not the warships. The idea being that if enough ships were lost, the Allies would negotiate rather than try again. To that end, the Japanese had available for the defence; 10,000 Kamikaze aircraft 700 Army and 5,200 Navy suicide attack boats 100 Kōryū-class midget submarines 250 smaller Kairyū-class midget submarines 1,000 Kaiten manned torpedoes I will add that the invasion of Japan would in reality, never have happened. Okinawa was to be the build up staging area for the invasion, but on the 9th October 1945 was hit by Typhoon "Louise". A total of 12 ships and craft were sunk, 222 grounded, and 32 severely damaged. Many of those grounded were written off. Full listing and report here. Had the war not ended, the invasion fleet would have been at Okinawa that day and in all likelihood have been smashed with tremendous loss of life. To generally respond to the OP. The war would have lasted maybe another year or so but the butchers bill would have been huge.

Says it all really, right there.

I knew it was a month old, it just tickled my sense of humour.

How about a $23 quadrillion bill? http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/15/quadrillion.dollar.glitch/ I love how Visa added a $15 "Negative Balance Fee" to the bill.

Good Grief. What if they decided to indulge, um, recreationally? Obama Lama bring bong?

I'm just waiting for President Obama to have an argument with the exiled Tibetan Leader. I can see the Headlines now; "Obama Lama Ding Dong."

I've read many things about the Piri Reis map over the years. To be clear on what we're talking about, let's look at it. First off, some facts about the map. 1. It is real and not a modern forgery. 2. It was created by Admiral Piri Reis circa 1513 AD. Reis was an Admiral in the Turkish navy and as such had free access to the Imperial library. 3. Piri Reis stated that he compiled the map from older sources. (The map also has numerous comments around the edges.) The map itself is a "Portolano" type map. These were used before the invention of accurate timepieces. Without accurate clocks it is virtually impossible to work out longitude. (Latitude was calculated from Polaris, the Pole Star.) Navigation was by the "Compass Rose" method, basically you sail in a given direction, say North East until you get to the destination Latitude and then change course. That's why there are Compass Roses all over the things. Portolano style maps are notoriously bad at showing accurate scale. Note the inaccuracies in this 1489 Portolano by Albino de Canepa. Hard to recognise the British Isles, isn't it? Note also the multiple Compass Roses and the patterns of lines criss crossing the map, these lines represent the straight course, point to point route for sailing. There are two reasons for the claim that the Piri Reis map shows Queen Maud Land in Antarctica. 1. It goes across the bottom of the map. 2. Confirmation by the US Military. The letter stated: The point often missed by those both for and against the "Antarctica" theory is that if the coastline is a good match then it can't be Antartica. The weight of a large ice mass depresses the land and changes the coastline. The Scandinavian Ice Sheet of the last Glacial Maximum was nearly 3 kilometers thick, depressing the land by a full 900 metres. If the Antarctic coast in this area is under 1 mile of ice, then the land must be depressed by at least 150 metres, significantly changing the coastline. Conclusion: Lt. Colonel Ohlmeyer was a twit. As for point 1, you'll notice that South America looks rather short. The area that is claimed to be Queen Maud Land is nothing more than the east coast of South America bent around the edge of the map. The Piri Reis map does not show Antarctica. For some good essays on the Piri Reis map; http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198001/piri.reis.and.the.hapgood.hypotheses.htm For comparisons of the Piri Reis map to modern ones; http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/PiriRies.HTM (Is this the link you were thinking of Mokele?) For translations of the comments written by Piri Reis and placed on his map; http://www.sacred-texts.com/piri/pirikey.htm I thoroughly recommend this link for anyone who is interested in the Piri Reis map. It's fascinating to read what the man himself had to say. One comment, refers to the area in the top left of the map. You'll note a large island is shown there, "taken from Colombo's map". There is no island in that position, however it is the location of the "Great Bahama Bank", where the Bimimi Road was found. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/mapas_pirireis/esp_mapaspirireis04.htm has some further thoughts on this. Sorry for the long post, but I thought if it was pretty fully covered we could save time the next time it's brought up. And before anyone brings up Oronteus Finaeus and his map of 1531, let me add that it was a widely held belief that there was a "Great Southern Land" in the Southern Hemisphere for quite some time. It was believed necessary to "balance" all the land in the Northern Hemisphere, so there is nothing unusual about finding a "Terra Australis" on an old map. You'll note that Finaeus himself uses that name for his "Antarctica". With large numbers of Portolanos being scanned and placed online, I've managed to build up a considerable collection (Okay, yes, I was hoping to find some hint on the location of Atlantis. and early cartography is simply fascinating) and I have yet to find one that can be reasonably shown to show Antarctica. Cheers.

Yes, I do. You just can't seem to grasp the bigger picture here. Why should the Universe give a tinkers damn about one piddly little planet? Especially since that one could lead to the genesis of thousands? Who are we to stand in the way of Universal evolution?

Ivan, I don't see what you are worried about. If you believe these things then the only logical conclusion is that human civilisation evolved for the specific purpose of allowing the planet to reproduce. Hence, any demand to stop the possible reproduction of the planet must be viewed as an "unnatural act" as it goes against the very basic desire of organisms to reproduce. You need to get some perspective and see the big picture. Reproduction of the planet to spread life throughout the Universe is the goal, to create a "Super Gaia". What is the life of a single civilisation compared to that? More to the point, demanding that this process be stopped is counter to the evolutionary process that will guide the Universe to it's ultimate and rightful destination. You're being selfish.

I knew there was a good reason to explain why I'm learning to read the language.