The Anti-vaccination movement has had a pretty bad past month, and I would feel sorry for them too if it wasn’t for the fact that their propaganda (which is mainly based upon a long since dis-proven and fraudulent study by Mr. Andrew Wakefield that was published in 1998 in The Lancet, and formerly retracted in 2010) has scared parents into not getting their kids vaccinated, which has caused numerous deaths and unnecessary illnesses, as well as permanent injuries.
First is the news reports of multiple outbreaks of measles in several communities in the United States and Canada. Many of the people who have gotten infected are young children who were deliberately not vaccinate, the results of which have been directly attributed to causing these outbreaks.
Suffice to say there has been quiet a bit of backlash against the Anti-vaccination movement, which they rightfully have coming to them. Also, since these outbreaks first started making the news there have also been multiple articles published telling parents why they need to ignore the Anti-vaccination movement and vaccinate their children, which I feel is sort of sad because it shows we as a society have to publish numerous articles about why you need to vaccinate your children and make them immune to diseases that could kill them because some parents have been scared into not doing so.
Then there is ofcourse what happened to the cult… I mean group formerly known as the deceptively named Australian Vaccination Network, which is now known as the still kind of deceptively named Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network.
What happened to the group is that it finally changed it’s name after it lost an appeal against the New South Wales Office of Fair Trading, which had ordered the group to change it’s name in 2012 due to group’s deceptive sounding name. Shortly after the group changed it’s named, it also . . .
No, Asteroid 2003 QQ47 Is NOT Going to Hit the Earth Next Week
Well, it took three months, but we have our first notpocalypse of 2014!
Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are spreading a story that a large asteroid named 2003 QQ47 might impact the Earth next week, specifically on March 21, 2014.
Let me be very clear right away: Nope. It won’t. This story is totally wrong! Well, the asteroid does exist, but it won’t hit us next week, and in fact can’t hit the Earth for at least a century. The truth is the asteroid will safely pass us on March 26 of this year, never getting closer than 19 million kilometers (nearly 12 million miles)—about 50 times farther away than the Moon!
I’m pretty sure what’s happening here is that a very old story has been recycled and is getting spread around without anyone doing any fact-checking. It’s all over Twitter and got picked up credulously by some bigger venues like the Daily Mail, which posted it with the typically understated title of “Asteroid hurtles toward Earth.” What follows after that is a breathless and almost entirely incorrect article about 2003 QQ47 that seems to simply rehash information from more than a decade ago. Seriously.*
For example, the Mail article says the asteroid is “newly discovered,” but in fact was first detected in 2003, 11 years ago! Hence its name, 2003 QQ47. It was found to be a near-Earth asteroid, or NEA, one that does sometimes get close to us. For a while after it was discovered it was thought to have a small chance of hitting Earth, with an impact probability in August 2014 of about 1 in 250,000. But by September 2003 new observations allowed a better trajectory to be calculated, and an impact in 2014 was ruled out. This happens quite often, where a new asteroid will have only a rough orbit calculated, and an impact has long but non-zero odds of hitting us. As more observations come in the chances of impact can actually increase briefly before dropping to zero.
This is what happened with QQ47 back in 2003. Got that? An impact in 2014, this year, was shown to be out of the question more than a decade ago and was even taken off JPL’s Sentry Risk page at that time, when it was found to have no potential Earth impacts for at least 100 years. We’re quite safe from this particular asteroid.
Did agents of the Church of Scientology really infiltrate the US government? If so, then how widespread was the infiltration? What was its alleged purpose? What does the Church have to say about the accusations? Tune in to learn more about the fact, fiction and controversy surrounding the Snow White program.
Watch More Stuff They Don’t Want You To Know on TestTube http://testtube.com/stufftheydontwant…
• STDWYTK Audio Podcast on iTunes
• STDWYTK Audio Podcast RSS Feed
• Watch More http://www.youtube.com/user/conspirac…
• Twitter http://twitter.com/ConspiracyStuff
• Facebook http://facebook.com/ConspiracyStuff
• Google+ http://gplus.to/ConspiracyStuff
Ross and I are in a coffee shop, on a miserably uncomfortable bench that may have once been a church pew, surrounded by conspiracy theorists who are yelling at us.
“Do you want your employer to know you have cancer? Or AIDS? Or AIDS?!” yells Abel, the leader of the group, his forehead bulging. Ross has asked him about digital surveillance. His question barely relates to AIDS, but we’re getting used to this kind of thing. Ross says he wouldn’t want his employer to know if he had AIDS.
We’ve been going to these “9/11 Truther” meetings for a couple of months now. The Truther movement emerged shortly after the World Trade Center attacks in 2001. Truthers hold that the United States government planned and executed the attacks to create a false justification for the war in Iraq. Here in Los Angeles, there are two prominent Truther groups seemingly in competition. We have been attending the biggest and most active one. About twenty-five people attend each meeting. Each one is four to five hours long and mostly consists of Abel showing us YouTube videos and steamrolling conversations. Say, for instance, responding to a question about surveillance with rantings about employer/employee AIDS relations.
Another issue on Abel’s agenda: his recent tweets to Tom Hanks. He calls his tweets “twitters.”
“I twittered at Tom Hanks,” Abel says, “and asked him why he isn’t calling out Hollywood for covering up 9/11. Now his eight hundred thousand followers will all see my message!”
The room breaks into applause. Several people tell him he did a good job. A small voice from the back asks, “What’s Twitter?”
When I get home, I check Tom Hanks’s Twitter profile. He has seven million followers. I wonder whom Abel actually “twittered.”
After spending about a dozen hours with these people and watching the three 9/11 documentaries they have given us as homework, Ross and I still have questions about the September 11th conspiracy stories. The Truthers try their best to field our questions, but their answers sound exasperated. They can’t believe this isn’t obvious to everyone. And they’ve grown tired of showing 9/11 videos, so the “9/11 Truth” meetings are conspicuously absent of 9/11 truth.
“There’s only so many times you can watch Building 7 fall,” says Abel. Ross and I agree that that’s a good point.
Building 7, a part of the World Trade Center complex that collapsed along with the Twin Towers during the attacks, is key to the Truthers’ argument that the tragedy was orchestrated by the U.S. government. The DVDs they gave us for homework were full of Building 7. They say Building 7 collapsed exactly how you’d expect a building to collapse if someone blew it up. To them, this is evidence that the government deliberately manufactured a “false flag” event to lead us into war. The DVDs are full of barely related details and wild assumptions. We try to broach a couple of them during the meeting.
“The videos mentioned that the World Trade Center was built to withstand a plane crash, but wasn’t it also built in the 1970s, before these kinds of planes even existed?” I ask, a bit weakly. “Wouldn’t that be part of the government’s explanation?”
“RIGHT!” shouts a fifty-year-old woman across the room, throwing her hands in the air, “They built it to withstand a strike from the strongest airliner at the time!” She seems to have missed the point, but she’s very pleased with herself. She throws her hands in the air, as if to say, “Nothing could be more obvious!” It becomes clear that this group has grown so accustomed to incredulity that scoffing is their default. Counterpoints fly past unnoticed.
Two hours later, the room has dissolved into a shouting spree that I cannot follow to save my life (which, at this point, I’m not sure I want to save). Abel is on a long diatribe about Hillary Clinton: “The Democratic party is dusting off old Hillary’s vagina and waxing it and polishing it up so you can vote for her because she’s a woman. And we all know how well it worked when they did that for the black guy!”
There’s a murmur in the crowd. Everyone mutters something quietly to him- or herself, ranging from “that’s right!” to “well, I don’t know about that…”
The man next to Ross and me, who is sporting cargo shorts and no shirt, shakes his dreadlocks at us. “They’re just MURDERERS. In a CEMETERY!” he says.
I give him a tiny smile, hopeful that this will end our interaction. Ross visibly pretends not to hear.
I raise my hand again. “I’m sorry. Can I bring this back to 9/11 for a second? I’m new to this, so maybe I’m missing something, but if so few people have even heard of Building 7, why did the government destroy it? Couldn’t they have achieved the same ends by just destroying the Twin Towers?”
Abel releases an annoyed sigh. Building 7, he says, was full of secret documents. September 11th planning documents, in fact. His voice slows and his eyes narrow on me. It’s the twelfth hour they’ve spent with us, but they seem to have just noticed us, like a smell creeping through a closed door.
“What’s your background, anyway? What do YOU think happened on September 11th?” asks Abel.
All eyes turn to us. We’ve been found out.
- 10 More Lies Truthers Tell (illuminutti.com)
- Charlie Veitch, the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Who Realized He Was Duped (illuminutti.com)
- Paul Ryan’s Democrat challenger is alien conspiracy theorist, 9/11 truther (theblaze.com)
- Sept. 11 ‘Truthers’ Mark Anniversary (nation.time.com)
- Noam Chomsky Schools 9/11 Truther; Explains the Science of Making Credible Claims (openculture.com)
- 9/11 truther challenge (lunaticoutpost.com)
- Dallas Gets It Very Own 9/11 Truther Billboard on Stemmons Freeway (blogs.dallasobserver.com)
By Tanya Lewis via LiveScience
In Galway, Ireland, 76-year-old Michael Faherty was found burned to death at his home in December 2010. The coroner concluded Faherty’s death was a case of spontaneous human combustion — a human being catching fire with no apparent cause.
Can human bodies simply burst into flame without any external source of ignition? Or could there be a more mundane — and scientific — explanation for the phenomenon? The season finale of the Science Channel’s “The Unexplained Files,” airing Wednesday (Oct. 2) at 9 p.m. ET/PT, investigates this and other mysteries.
More than 200 cases of spontaneous human combustion have been reported around the world. Most involve a victim burning almost completely — although their extremities may remain intact — while their surroundings remain unburned. [Spooky! The 10 Biggest Unexplained Phenomena]
In 1986, the charred body of 58-year-old retired firefighter George Mott was found in his apartment outside Crown Point, N.Y. All that was left of him was a leg, a shrunken skull and pieces of his rib cage.
In February, 65-year-old Danny Vanzandt was found burned to death in his home in Sequoyah County, Okla., with no signs of burns on nearby furniture. Spontaneous combustion was suspected, but a recent medical examiner’s report concluded Vanzandt died from a heart attack before a lit cigarette may have ignited his clothing.
And in 1985, Frank Baker, a Vietnam veteran living in Vermont, claims he spontaneously caught fire while sitting on his couch. Unlike others, Baker lived to tell the tale.
Most scientists dismiss the idea that humans can catch fire for no reason.
- Can Humans Spontaneously Combust? ‘Unexplained Files’ Investigates (livescience.com)
- ‘Unexplained Files’ Investigates What Really Causes Spontaneous Human Combustion (businessinsider.com)
- Can humans spontaneously combust? (mnn.com)
- Can humans spontaneously combust? ‘Unexplained Files’ investigates (sott.net)
- Does Spontaneous Human Combustion Exist? (guardianlv.com)
This article concerns the Boston Bombing and slightly dated (April 2013) but still a good read.
Mason I. Bilderberg
Alex, your latest theory is terrible — we expect more from you
Alex Jones must be either getting lazy or think his readers are really dumb, because his grand theory about the Boston Marathon bombings is the sloppiest concocted narrative we’ve seen since that dog ate your homework.
Of course, Jones and his comrades at InfoWars thinks the brothers suspected in the bombing are innocent, citing such reliable sources as Twitter user “Trippin No L’ 4/20.”
The basic outline is the same as all of his projects: A globalist cabal working through the U.S. government staged a “false flag” operation that will be blamed on terrorists as pretext to take away guns and civil liberties and eventually tyranny. Eventually, they willdepopulate the entire planet through massive genocides.
In the video, Jones calls the bombings “the biggest event” of his 18 years of broadcasting, so you would think he would bring his A game, but he really let us down with this one. There’s something you have to respect about a good conspiracy theory — Hollywoodcertainly does — and Jones is generally a master, but his latest work is so full of holes, internal inconsistencies and outrageous leaps in logic that only die-hard fans willing to suspend all disbelief will appreciate it. It’s really the Phantom Menace of the InfoWars franchise.
Here are just a few of the things a good continuity supervisor would catch:
- Jones says Navy SEALs were on the scene and involved in carrying out the attack. He knows this because there were “guys in uniforms” wearing “Navy SEAL caps” all over the finish line. This is his primary piece of evidence, appearing in numerous blog posts and videos across his site. But if you’re executing a secret conspiracy, don’t you think you’d leave the uniform and baseball cap identifying yourself as a member of said conspiracy at home? Why not just wear a name tag that says, “Hello, my name is conspirator #4, Gorge Soros sent me?” The devil is in the fabricated details, Alex, you know that.
- The mask slips, Jones says, when the “whole script got screwed up” after CNN reported, and then retracted, that a suspect had been arrested (thanks, John King!). The reason for the change, Jones says, is that the conspirators didn’t anticipate that people would have access to public images of the bombing. Really? The omnipotent globalist regime didn’t think, gee, “I wonder if there will be any cameras at this very high-profile event. You know, the one where thousands of people come with iPhones and dozens of media outlets set up hundreds of camera along the route?” How are we supposed to take the globalist threat seriously when they can’t even get this right.
- In the space of few hundred words, InfoWars can’t decide if the media is merely useful idiots or direct co-conspirators. First, the site says the bomb threat at the courthouse after the attack was a pretext to “distract the media,” but states that the “government … ordered the corporate media to ignore the Plan A.” But if you can simply order the media to do anything you want, why create a distraction? Why bother with any of this, really? Just order the media to make the whole thing up, catch the fall guy right away, then kick up your feet with a hot cup of global enslavement and wash it down with some mind-controlling fluoridated water. It’s these kind of internal consistencies that really take the reader out the story.
Beyond this, let’s just step back for a moment and take a look at the overall concept. For a compelling narrative, you need a capable and scary villain, but these guys sound like thewet bandits of megalomaniacal cabals. They have the most powerful people in the world — including the media — in their camp, and they can’t even come up with a compelling coverup, let alone remember to take their baseball caps off?
- Info-Spats: Even Conspiracy Theorists Are Sick of Alex Jones (illuminutti.com)
- Alex Jones is a kosher-certified fraud (destroyzionism.com)
- Alex Jones: ‘I Will Defeat Rush Limbaugh in the Free Market of Ideas. People Like This Show More Than His’ | NewsBusters (illuminutti.com)
- Alex Jones Explains How Government “Weather Weapon” Could Have Been Behind Oklahoma Tornado (illuminutti.com)
- The End of Conspiracy Theories (illuminutti.com)
- Alex Jones Responds To Maddow’s Take Down: ‘I’m Attracted To Mr. Maddow, And That Really Conflicts My…’ (mediaite.com)
Via The Soap Box
This may odd by what I’m about about to say here, but not all conspiracy theorists are conspiracy theorists.
At least they’re not all true conspiracy theorists per se …
When I think of a conspiracy theorist, I think about a person who not only believes in conspiracy theories, but also refuses to, and out right rejects any evidence that contradicts a conspiracy theory. In time this rejection of the evidence for what they consider “the truth” can lead them down a dark path, one in which causes them to think irrationally and illogically, and become hostile towards those who do not believe them, which can ultimately end up affecting their lives in a negative manner, and causes them to surround themselves with people who think like them.
This is what I typically think of when I think of a conspiracy theorist, due to the result of past encounters with actually conspiracy theorists on the internet. The problem with this is that not all of them are like this.
Not all people who believe in certain conspiracy theories are irrational and hostile people who reject evidence debunking the conspiracy theory they believe in. They might continue to believe in the conspiracy theory regardless of the evidence, but at least they don’t out right reject the evidence without reason. Also, the belief in these conspiracy theories does not effect their lives in a negative manner, and they don’t try to push their theories onto others (which is also something that conspiracy theorists tend to do), and they don’t hang out with other people wo also believe what they believe.
This is why I believe a different term should be used for these people, and not the general term “conspiracy theorist” because, lets all face it, the term “conspiracy theorist” has become a pretty negative term as of late, and I also believe the term is inaccurate for some people as well.
I believe the term that should be used instead for such people should be called “conspiracy believer”.
- Conspiracy Theorists Worst Nightmares Confirmed: The US Government Is Poisoning Us! (conservativeread.com)
- 5 things I’ve noticed about… FEMA camps (illuminutti.com)
- The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind (illuminutti.com)
- Info-Spats: Even Conspiracy Theorists Are Sick of Alex Jones (illuminutti.com)
- You Might Be A Conspiracy Theorist (financialsurvivalnetwork.com)
- Look What This ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ Had To Say Back in 1984: “A Disgusting Procedure For A Professed Free Society” (sgtreport.com)
When I saw on Twitter that a ‘major new peer-reviewed study’ was about to reveal serious health impacts from GMO corn and soya, I was intrigued to say the least. Would this be Seralini 2.0, a propaganda effort by anti-biotech campaigners masquerading as proper science, or something truly new and ground-breaking?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – and it would take a lot of extraordinary evidence to confound the hundreds of studies showing that GMO foods are just as safe as conventional, as summarised in this recent AAAS statement:
“The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”
So when I found the paper, again via Twitter, I determined to read it as I would a climate ‘denier’ paper which aimed to overturn the scientific consensus in that area – with an open mind, but a sceptical one. I could see that it was already generating news, and the anti-GMO crowd on Twitter were also getting excited about some new grist to their ideological mill. Here’s what Reuters wrote:
“Pigs fed a diet of only genetically modified grain showed markedly higher stomach inflammation than pigs who dined on conventional feed, according to a new study by a team of Australian scientists and U.S. researchers.”
- The Top 5 Lies About Biotech Crops (illuminutti.com)
- Mark Lynas, environmentalist who opposed GMOs, admits he was wrong. (illuminutti.com)
- Former anti-GMO crusader speaks at Donald Danforth Plant Science Center (stltoday.com)
- Why Exactly Do People Care About GMO Foods? (minus the hysteria) (jessicagottlieb.com)
- Chuck Norris puts the hurt on GMO foods (wnd.com)
by Mike Wall via Space.com
A Mars rock that bears a passing resemblance to a rodent is scuttling across the Internet with gusto, even inspiring some fans to set up a Twitter account in its name.
UFO buffs spotted the purported “Mars rat” in a panoramic photo snapped in September 2012 by NASA’s Curiosity rover. Zooming in on a portion of the image reveals what appears to be a rodent crouching between two rocks, its nose to the ground.
“It’s a cute rodent on Mars. Note its lighter-color upper and lower eyelids, its nose and cheek areas, its ear, its front leg and stomach,” Scott Waring wrote at UFO Sightings Daily back in December. “Looks similar to a squirrel camouflaged in the stones and sand by its colors.”
In an update to that post, Waring raised the possibility that NASA flew the rat/squirrel to Mars secretly, as part of an experiment testing out the Red Planet’s ability to support life as we know it.
“Why would they not tell us about it?” Waring wrote. “Because the squirrel would be expected to die eventually and that would get PETA [People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals] to fight against them in a court of law.”
The Mars rat has now gone viral, jumping from the pages of UFO Sightings Daily to more mainstream publications such as Discovery News, Fox News and a host of other outlets (including, of course, SPACE.com).
The rodent has even picked up its own Twitter account, @RealMarsRat. Just 49 people were following the rat as of Friday afternoon (May 31), but that’s still pretty good for a rodent.
While some people seem to really believe that a squirrel is crawling around on the Red Planet (or was in September, anyway), the Mars rodent is actually an example of a psychological phenomenon called pareidolia.
Pareidolia refers to the tendency of the human brain to perceive animals or other familiar shapes in vague or random images. The phenomenon has fueled a great deal of excited speculation about the Red Planet over the years, most famously after some people saw a humanoid face on Mars in photos taken by NASA’s Viking 1 orbiter in 1976.
And just this March, UFO Sightings Daily reported that an apparent animal, perhaps a rat or a lizard, lurked in another one of Curiosity’s photos.
It’s highly unlikely that a rat, squirrel, lizard or any other organism could survive on the cold, dry Martian surface today, researchers say, though some scientists think the Red Planet may still be able to support microbial life in select underground pockets.
Things were likely different in Mars’ wetter and warmer past, however. Curiosity’s observations led mission scientists to announce earlier this year that microbes could have survived on the Red Planet billions of years ago.
- ‘Mars Rat’ Taking Internet by Storm (space.com)
- Mars rat? Blogger spots ‘creature’ in NASA Curiosity rover image (myfox8.com)
by Dr. Karen Stollznow via randi.org
A fellow Twitter user recently asked me for my impressions of the The Dead Files. The Travel Channel show first aired back in September, 2011, and is now into its third season. Here is the network’s glowing blurb:
The Dead Files team approaches every case from their two specific areas of expertise: Steve DiSchiavi is a Homicide Detective and Amy Allan is a Physical Medium. They are a paranormal team like no other, combining their unique, eclectic and often-conflicting skills to solve unexplained paranormal phenomena in haunted locations across America.
Across the internet viewers rave that The Dead Files isn’t like other ghost hunting shows in that they don’t use EMF readers or record EVPs. Of course, this show is more comparable to The Long Island Medium in that regard, and showcases Amy’s alleged skills as a psychic medium, sensitive and empath. Her bio claims that, “Her abilities have been studied and tested by leading parapsychologists.” She claims to have been “mentored” by the late William Roll, a parapsychologist and big believer in mediumship. Amy appears to hold a BA in psychology and other qualifications in business. However, she was working as a massage therapist in Denver before she got her TV gig.
Her bio also states that she has “worked with many private investigators and police agencies.” There is no proof offered to back up these claims. As we know, there are very few documented cases where psychics have assisted law enforcement agencies and ever fewer where the police thought they were of any use. Even then, their help is never proven to be psychic. A Denver cold case detective once said to local investigators Bryan & Baxter, “I wish we had a phone line that was specifically for psychics to call and leave their tips; and then we’d never answer it.” He added, “If someone contacted us with information that led us to a body then that person would become a suspect.”
In The Dead Files, Amy and Steve travel to a “haunted” location and conduct an investigation – independently. “Each investigator’s methods and findings remain hidden from the other team member to preserve the integrity of their findings.” Before Amy visits the premises, cameraman Matthew Anderson performs a “cleaning” of the premises to remove any pieces of “leading information” that could influence Amy’s reading. Of course, removing photographs and collectibles doesn’t prevent a cold reader from gleaning information. In every episode I spotted overlooked clues, including a cross on the wall. At any rate, she is there because the place is allegedly haunted, and not to read the occupants, as such. Each place is invariably found to be “haunted”.
Amy does a walk through of the premises and Matthew films her commentary. In every episode I have watched she asserts immediately, “There’s something here”. Her repertoire of “feelings” is recycled, and in every show she claims to experience a “choking sensation”, and reports the presence of “shadow figures” and “demons” lurking everywhere. Her melodramatic visions are of typical situations that underpin alleged “hauntings”, including physical abuse, family arguments, illness and death. Amy ends the investigations by having a sketch artist draw a picture of one of the “ghosts” she saw on the premises. Alternatively, she draws an image of something she saw or felt.
All in all, Amy is a cold reader.
MORE . . .
- A review of the top paranormal events of 2012 (illuminutti.com)
- 2012 Failed and Forgotten Psychic Predictions (illuminutti.com)
- Dead Wrong: Travel Channel’s The Dead Files (randi.org)
- Paranormal Weekend Haunts Crescent Hotel (arkansasmatters.com)
- Haunting Tales: Texas Poltergeist Ranch (newsfromthespiritworld.com)
This video is so good, so incredibly brilliant, solid and simple, that you will want to paste it all over your Facebooks and Twitters just to piss off all the IMBECILES who still claim that the Moon landings were faked (those idiots exist, yes). The reason is simple: the technology to fake it didn’t exist.
It’s a very simple argument. It’s not about showing how ignorant the hoaxers demonstrate to be with their idiotic “proofs”, which actually show they don’t know anything about physics, photography or even perspective. Or the fact that simple there’s tons of physical proof that we were there. Or the fact that the Soviet Union was monitoring it too and accepted the American victory in the Space Race.
No, it’s something even more obvious. This video explains why there was absolutely no way to fake it at the time. Even the cameras needed to fake it didn’t exist back then.
It’s completely convincing and undeniable argument and worth watching from beginning to end. I enjoyed it so much that I was giggling at some points. Especially one of them: we have gone from a world in which we couldn’t possibly fake a landing on the Moon but we went there for real to a world in which we are no longer going to the Moon but we can easily fake it.
OH. YOU. IRONY. [Thanks Karl!]
- Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof (gizmodo.com)
- Top 5 Reasons Why People Think the Moon Landings Were Faked (techeblog.com)
- Remembering the Apollo Moon Landings (researchsupporthub.northampton.ac.uk)
A new theory has been put forward in the astrophysics world suggesting people have assumed too much when looking for alien attempts to communicate with Earth.
The theory, proposed by James Benford, his son, Dominic Benford, and Jame’s twin brother Gregory Benford, published in two papers in June, have generated a great deal of excitement in the science world. The Benfords looked at the issue of communications and concluded that aliens, much like humans, would want to economize their resources where possible, and thus they would not send out communications resembling what scientists have expected would be sent. Instead, the scientists suggest, aliens might be as frugal with expensive resources as humans are.
The University of California Irvine said extraterrestrials might have been trying to contact Earth all along, but because scientists were looking for something different, the messages were missed. The trio of scientists believe extraterrestrials might send out short messages, or pulses. James explained, saying
“This approach is more like Twitter and less like War and Peace.”
James is a physicist as well as the founder and president of Microwave Sciences Inc. in Lafayette, California. Dominic is a scientist with NASA, and Gregory is an astrophysicist with the University of California Irvine. The new hypothesis is based on an old adage. Gregory explained …
MORE . . .