Snafu as China space launch set to US patriotic song

Perhaps Henry convinced Chinese leaders to play "America the Beautiful" in exchange for the transfer of wealth.

www.powerlineblog...arce.php

www.nature.com/ne...20110929

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09

Yesterday the German journalist the German, Quirin Schiermeier, published WikiLeaks "news" in Nature magazine that UNs Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is but a fig leaf for wealth transfers from industrialized nations to poor developing nations:

www.powerlineblog...arce.php

www.nature.com/ne...20110929

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09

the launch of China's first space station module inadvertently glorified the country's biggest rival

We are not rivals.

@Omatumr - I would like to think that you're right, and that the US and China are not rivals in space, but are fellow explorers and scientists. In that case, the choice of "America the Beautiful" was a sign of solidarity and goodwill. But I'm not so sure...

I agree with omatumr. I saw 'rival' and wondered who they meant and was a little surprised to see they meant America.

Now who is it that has been implicated in cyber attacks on sensitive US computer networks launched from some of that country's elite research institutions?

It's nice to be open minded, but not to the point that ones brains fall out.

@hemitite Now who is it that has been implicated in cyber attacks on sensitive US computer networks launched from some of that country's elite research institutions?

The US mostly, though I know that hackers in the UK also enjoy this sort of thing.

I was a PI for NASA when it was decided to dismantle the Apollo program that President John Kennedy started.

The motive unclear, but apparently noble.

Avoid the threat of nuclear annihilation by:

a.) Ending the space race and
b.) Uniting nations against a common enemy - Global Climate Change.

It was necessary to hide or ignore subsequent evidence [1-3] that Earth's heat source is not a stable H-fusion reactor, "in equilibrium" [4], in order to convince the public that man causes global climate change.

1. "Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements, and the solar neutrino puzzle" (1977)

www.omatumr.com/a...enon.pdf

2. "Solar abundances of the elements" (1983)

www.omatumr.com/a...nces.pdf

3. "Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion"
Meteoritics & Planetary Science 33, A97, 5011 (1998)

www.lpi.usra.edu/...5011.pdf

4. "Bilderberg Sun" (1967)

http://adsabs.har....3....5G

I agree with omatumr. I saw 'rival' and wondered who they meant and was a little surprised to see they meant America.

I think Omatumr is being a little sacastic. I suspect he thinks we sold out to them a long time ago and now China has us by a ring in the nose.

I think Omatumr is being a little sacastic. I suspect he thinks we sold out to them a long time ago and now China has us by a ring in the nose.

In fact. Omatumr does not know how this mosaic will look when all of the pieces are put together!

For almost 40 years, Omatumr was puzzled that high quality experimental measurements - cited in references [1-3] above - were ignored.

The Climategate e-mails helped me see that the 1967 Bilderberg model of the Sun: A steady H-fusion reactor, "in equilibrium"

http://adsabs.har....3....5G

Is the cornerstone of Al Gore's story of anthropogenic global warming, AGW.

I..e., if Earth's heat source is constant, then man causes climate change.

the launch of China's first space station module inadvertently glorified the country's biggest rival

We are not rivals.

Well...I am beginning my fifth year living in China. I stay mostly in medium and small sized cities, not in Beijing or Shanghai, etc. Most people are very receptive to Americans, though not always naively so. Sometimes i get the "Welcome-to-the-neighborhood,-you-wretch attitude, but most people are positively interested in America. So yeah, I would agree that we are not rivals from that. But also, it is good to have rivals, though not enemies. As an example, sports teams rivals really get people excited, and something to strive for. If we have a relationship of simultaneous rivaly and cooperation with china, it should be beneficial. But lets not drop our guard yet. It is just good sense to stay on guard. It is only proper and prudent.

I was a PI for NASA

I'd bet even Magnum PI had a better grasp of basic physics!

I see the paedo Omatumar is spouting his 'Metal Sun' nonsense again! Its amazing he keeps popping up considering his urges towards his daughter are well known.

his sons too....

Yikes, I thought the last 2 posts were particularly vitriolic insults towards omatumr but I dug around and found this http://mominer.ms...hildren/ I can't find anything else on this case on the web, what was the verdict of the court case?

A video animation put together by state television to mark the highly publicized launch of Tiangong-1 is set to the music of "America the Beautiful", a patriotic song about the United States.

The tendency of Chinese to copy the intellectual property of other countries gets anecdotal at times. On the other hand, it's very effective strategy, when combined with pragmatic and naturally secretive nature of the China politics. All informations will get inside it and none will get out.

Score another 1 for non-existent hackers in the non-existent global cyberwar!

all but 1 of the charges were dropped because of statue of limitations. he pled guilty to attempted sodomy. he should be in prison but got off with probation and registering as a sex offender.

Now who is it that has been implicated in cyber attacks on sensitive US computer networks launched from some of that country's elite research institutions?

It's nice to be open minded, but not to the point that ones brains fall out.

Competition drives innovation. It worked wonders during the Cold War and it is still needed today. Humans are a crisis-driven species and opponents can produce crises on demand, whenever they are needed. If your Enemies and you are both on the Same Side that is.

Score another 1 for non-existent hackers in the non-existent global cyberwar!

You cannot know how well your defenses will work unless and until they are attacked in earnest by a genuine Foe. The Need to test and improve defenses is as great as the need to develop effective offensive capabilities by using them in actual combat. There is absolutely no other dependable way of doing this.

An enemy will not fear them, and the people cannot depend on them, unless they have proved themselves in genuine conflict. These are inescapable Realities of War.

there was more to this story than I thought - going by the comments - better than the stuff on tv

Otto: Rationalize violence much? I guess it's ok to have a standing army, but to have it engaged at all times regardless of need? If you were an innocent caught in one of their wars you would quickly change your opinion.

all but 1 of the charges were dropped because of statue of limitations.

LOL, STATUE of limitations? The word is STATUTE. Shame on you jsdarkdestruction! :)

lol, i was in a hurry.

I was a PI for NASA when it was decided to dismantle the Apollo program that President John Kennedy started.

And are now a spammer for multiple Crank theories.

So just how do Neutron Stars form when neutron repulsion is alleged by you to be so powerful that it stops Black Holes from forming no matter how large the mass?

Ignoring the question won't magically make you right Oliver. The ideas are contradictory and I bet even the Plasma Universe Cranks can see that now that it has been pointed out.

Ethelred

Nothing inadvertent at all. They know America is the greatest and/or powerful nation in the world... currently. Either they are mocking them by announcing America is history, we are the future or the academics know that America is truly the freeist, democratic, and powerful nation in the world and was a praise by them, both a political message either way, the latter saying they believe in the ideals of the west as they become more opulent (Tianamen Square...)

Or they just don't give a f*** as they do what they bloody want! But having not yet interfered in other nation's politics and keeping it all domestic.

Let's just say contrary to how compact the brain cells are packed, orientals have on average 6% bigger brains. Let's hope tradition and culture don't get in the way of their advancement.

Rationalize violence much? I guess it's ok to have a standing army, but to have it engaged at all times regardless of need? If you were an innocent caught in one of their wars you would quickly change your opinion.

I'm not rationalizing anything. I'm telling you how things WORK. There is no other way of maintaining fighting prowess except by fighting. This is truer today than ever as new tech must constantly be proven in combat and effective tactics developed as a result.

Standing armies are a huge financial burden. If they are not proving their worth the public wonders why they exist. This can force the military to become political like those in Iran and saddams iraq. An idle army can be a critical danger to a country as saddams was. That's why he ordered it out into the desert in the first gulf war, where it could be 'cut off and killed' as Powell described.

Fact: most standing armies will have to be used if they exist, and credible reasons to do so are always provided.

If you were an innocent caught in one of their wars you would quickly change your opinion.

And if you were an innocent threatened by an enemy force your perspective would be different. As other countries have standing armies, you must have one. As you know the enemy will eventually use his against you, you must use yours first.

You bet it's insane. The Only Way to insure against total destruction is if the enemy and you are both on the Same Side, and are working in concert to Manage conflict.

An idle army can be a critical danger to a country as saddams was.

Fact: most standing armies will have to be used if they exist, and credible reasons to do so are always provided.

That's one more reason against big standing armies -- if you have one, you must keep it "entertained", going to the extremes of making up reasons for war (eg., 2nd Iraq war). Defending this sad state of affairs is insane. Saddam's army was ridiculously huge, it gobbled up an enormous percentage of the country's wealth. He was forced to go to Kuwait by his own generals. And the USA has been going down the same path for a hundred years -- they just can't stay at peace for a couple of years straight, despite all their rhetoric for it.

The USA isn't going to be invaded by a conventional enemy army any time soon. They can get by just fine with strong security and counter-terrorism forces. The conventional army should be scaled back, then you'll find the USA involved in much less wars.

That's one more reason against big standing armies -- if you have one, you must keep it "entertained"

You must keep it Trained and credible.

He was forced to go to Kuwait by his own generals.

Saddaam was installed as a result of a Baathist military coup. He was fully aware of the dangers of an existential military. Alexander was similarly aware; which is why, when they threatened mutiny unless he took them home, he led them instead through the arabian desert where 90pct of them died. He too was following Orders.

The USA isn't going to be invaded by a conventional enemy army any time soon.

You are naive. You have no understanding of how populations can explode like mongols and be at your doorstep before you wake up.

One can envision a ME without the western/soviet actions of the last 50 years. All the current chaos could easily have been refocussed against a common foe. Borders would fall, animosities forgotten, armies combined, and a new caliphate strangling us today.

Without a standing army in todays world along with aggressive, preemptive actions against enemies BEFORE they are dangerous enough to threaten you, you are in danger of being overrun. Without ongoing training and improvement, a standing army quickly becomes useless and a danger.

Fortunately these 2 Conditions can be resolved in concert.

The one thing that people like you fail to grasp is the absolute INEVITABILITY of conflict in the world.

Before we arrived, afghanistans population was set to double in 16 years. The kurdish pop is growing at a similar rate. WHEREVER unrest and conflict are occuring today you will find a population in the throes of an obsolete religionist culture based on the intent of outgrowing their enemies. Aggressive reproduction. 'Warfare of the cradle' is what teddy roosevelt called it. Their women can do little else but make and raise babies.

These CULTURES are the enemies of peace. The west has rid itself of its own. It has no choice but to fight the rest.

A caliphate in the US? Unjustified wars as population control? I can't argue with someone who thinks like this. Enjoy your sad, hateful life. You have become as soulless as your enemy; they have won. Congrats.

A caliphate in the US? Unjustified wars as population control? I can't argue with someone who thinks like this. Enjoy your sad, hateful life. You have become as soulless as your enemy; they have won. Congrats.

Caliphate in the ME to start; but many including the Moslem brotherhood wants to spread it worldwide.

And you enjoy your sad disneyland existence while what I describe takes place all around you. No war is ever unjustified in today's world. How are you going to negotiate peace with people whose children are starving and who are convinced that it is your fault for existing? You want to give them food and money in the hopes of making them happy so you can educate them?

They are already educated to the fact that you are evil and your existence is against god. God tells them the only way to fix this is to grow large enough, fast enough, to overwhelm you. 'By propagation or by the gun' -is what they promise.

The religion is irrelevant. An old old Formula.

Perhaps you would like to negotiate laissez faire and an exchange student program with these guys?
http://en.wikiped...ko_Haram

-You send them 13 year old hostages and they send you 13 year old suicide bombers. Fair exchange?

Their culture was Designed to make war on YOU. It would be foolish in that case to allow them to decide when, where, and how to start that war wouldn't it?

The Brits tried that tactic with hitler, thereby giving him the initiative. It almost cost them their existance. You think it is EVER any different?

Solomon said you cannot resist the seasons. He also said there is a [Proper] Time for peace and a [Proper] Time for War. And Solomon was the wisest king that ever was.

Perhaps you would like to negotiate with this guy:
http://www.youtub...a_player

-The only way he does not see a big target on your chest is if you say 'There is no god but god and muhammud is his prophet. And don't try to claim duress later on in order to get out of it. The inquisition treated Marranos especially harshly. So do these guys.

Their religions were both concocted by the same People, for the same Purpose. In their Time they are both equally recalcitrant and equally Effective at Propagation.

You can dehumanize them all you want, but that's the same thing the extremists do with us. You point to the 0.001% of their population that is most extremist, and they point to the same segment in yours (in which you're included). Both factions then proceed to generalize to the whole population, which is fallacious. Not every American is a warmongering gun-toting Quran-burning hillbilly, and the same applies to the Muslims. "Burn them all" won't fly. You and the people who think like you have become as bad as their enemy.

All the examples you gave can be dealt with by counter-terrorism organizations. None of those warrants armies being deployed abroad. This, coupled with the dangers of a standing army, mean that it is no longer necessary in its current form.

Nice dogma. You don't like what I describe. Doesnt mean it isnt true. Unfortunately it is the best description I have seen for most all politics. You think professing peace and preaching goodness will make it so?

Both factions then proceed to generalize to the whole population, which is fallacious.

Then who starts wars? Who fights them? Nazis were also a very small percentage of the population. But as German numbers swelled and their hardship grew, they were told it was the fault of Jews and Bolsheviks. Suddenly everybody was a fanatic and the whole country was easily converted into an army.

Pop explosions make this inevitable. Moslem enclaves are exploding throughout Europe. Propagation wars occur in Kashmir, Rwanda/Burundi, the balkans, Palestine. In those regions fanatics are a significant percentage of the people.

Chinas military hasn't fought in generations. Iran, Israel, Russia, and others are similarly out of practice. Would you like to pray for peace now?

This is funny

You and the people who think like you have become as bad as their enemy.

-So because I explain what might actually be going on to cause the war and misery in the world, you take this to mean that I actually condone it? Do you conclude the same things about those who investigate murders or corporate corruption, or epidemics??

The only way to understand these things is to investigate them fearlessly. I can grasp your inability to understand war and the origin of conflict if you think they are too icky. You would rather gush about how the world OUGHT to be and condemn those who might be pursuing those same dreams in more pragmatic ways yes?

All the examples you gave can be dealt with by counter-terrorism organizations. None of those warrants armies being deployed abroad.

-So what would the ME look like if our standing army wasn't currently standing between major antagonists to either side of afghanistan and Iraq? Where would Israel be without it's standing army? How would the US assemble a force capable of helping to defend allies like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, from scratch? How could we possibly know that such an ad hoc force would function effectively in battle? How do you design and build fleets of fighter jets, ships, armored divisions, led by officers who know how those things can be used in combat?

You can't. If other countries have a standing military then you must have one. And if you have one you are going to have to use it because you know those other countries will do so whether you use yours or not; and it is the nature of armies to be used.

Sure you can give them up; if the enemy does so first.

WikiLeaks exposed [1] the Trojan Horse and SPACE.com revealed the truth about Earth's heat source:

www.space.com/131...ing.html

Environmentalism was a Trojan Horse we welcomed unaware that science [2,3] would be sacrificed for:

Redistribution of wealth [1] under a one-world government.

Conclusions:

A. The Great Reality [4] is greater than dogmatic science.
B. Communion is greater than dogmatic communism.
C. God is much greater than any dogmatic religion.
D. Cowards hide under various dogmatic cloaks.

Regretfully it took me forty years (1971-2011) to decipher this.

1. www.nature.com/ne...20110929

2. www.nature.com/na...9a0.html

3. www.omatumr.com/a...nces.pdf

4. www.youtube.com/w...vJiyeLIo

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09

thats garbage oliver, that article doesnt support you in any way. do you have no shame? looking at your past obviously not.

how about we all hum a few bars of "the east is red"???

Space.com did no such thing. That article did not support you in anyway. For that matter neither have you.

So just how do Neutron Stars form when neutron repulsion is alleged by you to be so powerful that it stops Black Holes from forming no matter how large the mass?

Ignoring the question won't magically make you right Oliver. The ideas are contradictory and I bet even the Plasma Universe Cranks can see that now that it has been pointed out.

Ethelred

Jotaf, you said you weren't going to argue with Otto anymore. I thought that was a very good idea. So why did you fail to follow through.

On some things there is no discussing them with Otto. He is into this bizarre Illuminati conspiracy crap and it is a total waste of time to discuss it with him.

And trying to support Islam with sappy claims that not all Moslems are nutcases doesn't make the nutcases go away. They are in charge or have the locals so terrorized they might as well be in charge in way too many Islamic nations. The religion is rotten to the core and was created by a man that used his new religion to gain temporal power. It has NOT gotten better since Mohammed. As bad as Christianity has been it eventually tempered out a bit. The nutcases are unwilling to allow that in Islam.

Maybe the Islamic spring will actually change this but I suspect that none of those nations will have tolerant governments in the long run.

Ethelred

And trying to support Islam with sappy claims that not all Moslems are nutcases doesn't make the nutcases go away.

And neither does it help calling them all nutcases either.

As bad as Christianity has been it eventually tempered out a bit. The nutcases are unwilling to allow that in Islam.

Just like the religious nutcases in the US are unwilling to allow secularism to take hold. For a supposedly secular state, good luck to any presidential nominee that doesn't believe (or pretends to believe) in a god.

Maybe the Islamic spring will actually change this but I suspect that none of those nations will have tolerant governments in the long run.

Governments of all kinds tolerate all manner of ethically bankrupt practices, it's just than some do a better job at disguising them.

Look, I'd much rather live in a liberal western democracy than not, it's just that your post had a whiff of hypocrisy.

On some things there is no discussing them with Otto. He is into this bizarre Illuminati conspiracy crap

Am not.

and it is a total waste of time to discuss it with him.

It is illuminating.

As bad as Christianity has been it eventually tempered out a bit. The nutcases are unwilling to allow that in Islam.

Both religions are violent and extreme at their core. Both contain literature calling for the same kind of treatment of unbelievers. Both demand propagation as conquest.

The church 'tempered out' rather inexplicably. Islam radicalized rather inexplicably. Why is that? Shouldn't we expect the same sorts of inexplicable transformations in the future when Needs merit such change?

And neither does it help calling them all nutcases either.

I didn't do that. However the religion itself demands insane behavior. Quit the religion and you are supposed to be killed.

Just like the religious nutcases in the US are unwilling to allow secularism to take hold.

They ARE willing. Only a few, as in a literal handful, are willing to use violence.

For a supposedly secular state, good luck to any presidential nominee that doesn't believe (or pretends to believe) in a god.

Does seem to be that way lately. However we have had non-religious presidents in the past. It is NOT part of Christianity that the religion and the government should be one. Sharia IS part of Islam.

it's just that your post had a whiff of hypocrisy.

Bullshit. I am NOT in control of the ReligiousRight and YOU know better than to think I approve of them.>>

Islam is an inherently evil religion UNLESS almost all of them stop believing in some of the major doctrines that were created by Mohammad. Try and find somewhere that Jesus demanded the murder of people that quit the religion. Heck he wasn't even trying to found a religion. Mohammad tried and did. Demanded murders and slaughtered a lot of people. Many Moslems lie about this stuff just like they try to lie about his 12 year old wife.

And I bet Otto can't support his claim that Christianity:

Both demand propagation as conquest.

Jesus didn't do that. Even Paul didn't. Mohammad DID IT. Not just demand, he actually led the conquest. Of course Jehovah was a psycho but unlike Jesus, Jehovah isn't real. Mohammad was real and made conquest and murder a part of the religion. Both religions support, but do not demand, slavery but it was Christians that ended it first. Mauritania still had chattle slavery until the early 1970's.

Ethelred

Try and find somewhere that Jesus demanded the murder of people that quit the religion.

Jesus had spokespeople to do this for him:

"For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?" Hebrews 10:26-29 ESV

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." 2 Peter 2:1-22 ESV
cont

And we know who would be called upon to do all the necessary destructing, as god does not dirty his hands here on earth?

Jesus the lovegod could not be advocating killing anything more sentient than fig trees no could he? He did reference the Law however wherein his father demanded a lot of healthy purging in his name.

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 Truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matt 5

-Additional references available on request.

But jesus the aggressive pacifist could get LOTS of people killed in less direst ways:

"34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law
36 a mans enemies will be the members of his own household.

37 Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it."

-To the gods of Demographics Management martyrdom is just as effective a Tool as pogrom. Presenting oneself for killing in His Name is every bit as violent as dutifully killing the martyrs of other religions.

And I bet Otto can't support his claim that Christianity...Mohammad DID IT.

Eh? The god of noah issued the first and most important mitzvah:

"Then God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground." gen 1:28

-Which all true believers know meant THEM as opposed to heathens and infidels and heretics. Jews were doing this long before moslems which caused continuous war and rebellion against roman rule, and the eventual destruction of their kingdom.

I thought you knew the bible ET. Happy to illuminate you.

Both religions support, but do not demand, slavery but it was Christians that ended it first. Mauritania still had chattle slavery until the early 1970's.

Youre ignoring all the enslaving done during the african land grab in the latter 1800s by euros of many nations. Leopold was especially good at this in the congo.

Brits were boasting of their actions against moslem slave traders even as they were buying slaves from tribal chiefs for use in south africa and rhodesia.
http://www.garret...ost.html

oh sorry I misread 1970 as 1870. Silly me.

Oliver, do you not know of phase 2 of the plan? see kissinger and nixon knew about neutron repulsion and it being the main source of the suns and the universes power but chairman mao did not. as the world all followed their lead in the conspiracy they said it was to prevent nuclear war. however under the guise of that the united states had different reasons. as the climatoligists/scientists destroy our economy and power while funneling money to third world nations for supportung the scam the chinese will soon grow too strong and overpopulated for anyone but the us to even have a chance of stopping the chinese from taking over the world, at that moment neutron repulsion will be officially "discovered" and cheap easy neutron repulsion energy will be used both to power production of weapons and supplies and as weapons of mass destruction themselves in neutron repulsion bombs. saving the united states and allowing us to finally take over the whole world without looking like the bad guys...