More Rack o' Lamb?
BTW,what's the Threshold of proof on Youtube,since anyone can upload any Crap,as long it doesn't violate the Term of Use?

The Eurofighter is a copy of the US F-18. It doesn't compare to the F-117 or F-22 and that why Brittan has been chomping at the bits to buy the F-35 the most advanced aircraft in the world.

Actually, that's not a fact. Hitler wanted Russia. He had no designs on the United States in fact he believed the US would just go along with his take over of Europe.

It's Japan that entered the US into the war and Hitler was furious because he knew US involvement would end the war. Also WW2 was officially ended by which country? AMERICA when Japan signed the instrument of surrender aboard the USS Missouri with Chester Nimitz and Douglas Macarthur.

we would have had to go save england and europe either way, japan just gave us a kick start... but i do have admit, we came very close to losing the pacific, only thing that saved us was the fact the 4 aircraft carriers were not in port at Pearl harbor when the japs attacked...

be sure and let larrson know that the only reason england has nukes is because we gave the technology to them...one of the biggest reasons we are allies today

It's pretty low brow that some people actually think their country has unique advanced technology.

Science is the technology and available to all nations equally, aside from specific industrial secrets but that's like saying because Iran doesn't have access to contemporary nuclear research that they don't know anything about quantum mechanics, when the truth is they know just as much about nuclear physics as anybody else, provided their scientists qualify at the same international standard interning/fellowshipping at the same international univerisities/multinationals as everybody else, which in several cases they do.

The limiter is industrial capacity and GNP.

Flankers, Hornets, Eurofighters, the Tornado, Mirages/Rafale, the MiGs, Vipers, F-35, Raptor, these are all independent designs at contemporary technological standards.
The Flanker was first introduced decades after the Eagle, so is more advanced. The Raptor introduced decades after the first Flanker, so is more advanced.
It aint rocket science, but it aint got anything to do with patriotically secret technologies, there's no such thing. You're talking about movie fiction, where nobody is as good as the US unless they copied them. It's fiction.


Oh and the reason, not capability that some nations like Britain, France and Sweden and until recently Russia decided not to pursue "stealth qualities" to the same degree as the US new designs was because of a predictable fault and the true role of High Survivability Features (stealth is an incorrect term for the technology used by media),

Networked EWR systems like those used in any major power's own airspace immediately foils all directional stealth features (receivers are literally on every facing of the aircraft in towers and antennae all over the enemy landscape, even communications towers at tv studios can be used to spot stealth planes and was, historically in Bagdad).
Only absorptive stealth features are effective in open warfare against a modern military power on their home soil.
You can't invade with F-35s and Raptors. You can police somewhere who's military infrastructure you've already destroyed.

What "stealth" really does for you is making it harder for missile seeker heads to stay locked on you, it is easier to defeat enemy missile fire with "stealth features", hence why engineers call them high survivability features instead.

There are other things to help defeat missile fire, extreme agility and plenty of excess thrust in something nimble with some terrific supersonic acceleration, that does it just as well as "stealth". The object is to defeat missile energy before it hits you, and it's much easier working against its fuel supply than it is its seeker avionics.

Eurofighters were specifically designed to defeat Flankers. Flanker beats Eagle, Eurofighter beats Flanker, F-22 beats Flanker. Why can't we just be happy with that?

To give a technological example,

F-117, suppresses emissions and disperses transmission signals, meaning basically if you shine a radar on an F-117 the beam goes off in a bunch of other directions and only a piece the size of a pidgeon returns to the antennae.
But if you've got a whole field of antennae, there's an F-117 in the middle of the field, you flood the field with transmissions and you network all the antennaes just like a radio-telescope and there you have how EWR and certain other systems work.
The antennae pick up all the F-117 signals and see it just as if it had no stealth at all.

That's largely the kind of stealth used in the F-35 and F-22. It's useless against the Russians or the French or any major power in open warfare, completely useless and very expensive.

Against individual aircraft however, like an interceptor trying to fire on you, the little missile seeker head is never going to pick up enough return signal or IR signature to track you, not unless he was right up your tailpipe, outmanoeuvring you, and fired ballistic.

Well here's the thing, the biggest competitor is people using Russian equipment and specifically Flankers, more specifically the Su-30. It datalinks four other fighters and networks all sensor information, so that one Flanker paints you, all four of them pick up little bits of your return signal and networks them to make a bigger signal, and any of the four, the closest one actually fires on you, using sensor data from the other Flankers.
That's the Russian system, foils stealth, but only an Su-30 or a MiG-31 can establish the datalink, you need one of those as a controller but the other fighters can be any late model Russian fighter, they started devloping remote datalink back in 1958 and installed it since 64 I think.

So the Eurofighter being designed to counter the Flanker, stealth is useless and not what it needs for its role. It's defeated by any of the newer Flanker purchases out there.
The only way to beat a datalinked set of modern Flankers or similar is with superior agility and sustained energy through manoeuvres. The same way you defeated missile fire in Vietnam. Yes the Raptor can do that too but the Eurofighter does it just as well, and so does any of the latest "SuperFlanker" demonstrators sold by Russia, including the version sold to India. Whether the F-35 can live up to these old fashioned airframe high performance qualities remains to be seen.

Not done with lightsabres, but using the same old rules and technological array of choices that every body has, just choosing to be different sometimes. I mean seriously, you americans are such kidders with the whole superman thing.

not sure what your saying here.. the f117 is not designed for anything but stealth ground attacks, useless for much else, and all were retired in 2008...weak aircraft, at best

you really needed me to walk you through this review of what I posted?
c'mon man, let it settle and the shift in an accurate perception becalm before kicking.

For prosperity, the B2 Spirit uses a completely different kind of stealth, much more like true stealth but so prohibitively expensive the crew claim is basically they never get to fly them because it has to be recoated in absorptive material at a ridiculous cost, after only 3 flights.

the f-35 and f22 are just basic stealth, there is many ways to see them...but what they lack in stealth, they make up for in speed, maneuverability, and and advanced weapons and targeting...

the stealth tech your talking about is from the 70's, the first f117 was completed in 81, released to the public in 88, after they found a way to track them...

No, I didn't say that (see comprehension), but Boobtoob videos more often than not, merely offer a superficial, prosaic and biased treatment of an issue and aren't worth my time. There are more reliable and succinct methods of conveying one's point.

Why Conspiracy Theorists Love YouTube.



This writer says much.

""If you argue with conspiracy theorists on the Internet for even a short period of time, you'll notice one thing very quickly: they love YouTube. It's extremely rare to carry on any sort of debate with a conspiracy theorist of any stripe,9/11 Truther, moon hoaxer, global warming denier, what-have-you and not see the CT post at least one, and usually more, links to videos on YouTube supposedly validating their position. In fact, in terms of sheer volume of the evidence posted by conspiracy theorists, YouTube appears to be their primary source of information. Furthermore, most of them simply can't understand why not everybody is immediately persuaded by something on YouTube, and if you push back against their arguments, you'll invariably get still more YouTube links. In the paranoid world of conspiracy theories, YouTube is evidently the ultimate oracle of all knowledge.""

""So, why do conspiracy theorists love YouTube?

1. In most cases, it's honestly the best they can do.

Conspiracy theories are, by definition, fringe beliefs. The most common shopworn theories these days 9/11 was an inside job, global warming is a hoax, the Illuminati is out to impose a New World Order on us, etc., etc.are completely unsupported by empirical evidence. No reputable scientists or engineers believe that 9/11 was a controlled demolition. (Steven Jones and Judy Wood are not a reputable scientists, and Richard Gage is not a reputable engineer). The only studies showing that climate change is not happening or is not caused by humans are tainted by association with energy lobbies or other political agendas, and the supposed scientific bases for these viewpoints are not accepted in mainstream science. Therefore, by definition, you will not have pieces of peer-reviewed scholarship to point to that support conspiracy theories. The only support you can find is from some source where content is user-contributed, and thereby not vetted by any type of editorial process whatsoevermeaning, an open and unregulated community of ideas, which is the definition of what YouTube is.

Example: you can't find a legitimately peer-reviewed scientific paper claiming that the World Trade Center towers were blown up. Papers of that nature simply don't exist. But type in 9/11 controlled demolition into YouTube and you'll bring up thousands of hits. Anybody can put up a YouTube video about anything. Unless it flagrantly violates the terms of service enough to be taken off the net, it will remain there for as long as the contributor wants it there, with no factual vetting of any kind. This is great if you think your cat playing the piano is really funny; chances are others will find that funny too. It's not great when you're trying to prove a scientific or factual point. Conspiracy theorists don't have much evidence to choose from, and the richest bed of that sort of material is going to be an open source, user-contributed interface. Ergo, YouTube is custom-made for them.""

""2. Most conspiracy theorists are unaware of, or do not appreciate the importance of, non-Web-based, factually vetted sources of information (put another way, the difference between primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources).

It sounds like a cliche, but it is largely true that most conspiracy theorists, at least those active on the Internet, are white males between the ages of 18 and 30 who either don't have or are not yet finished getting college degrees. Let's face it, the term peer-reviewed journal doesn't come up much in this demographic, and far be it from most of these people to set foot into a respected university library. For these people, the Internet with its ease of information retrieval is the paradigm source of knowledge. Need to find something? Google it. Need to learn something about a particular subject? Type it into Wikipedia. ""

continued ....


""Note, however, that even Wikipedia has a gatekeeping function. There are editors and moderators who constantly view and vet the articles that are posted there. So even a tertiary source like Wikipedia has some editorial control.

Here's the point: open-sourced Web services like YouTube don't even rise to the level of tertiary sources! YouTube lacks even the minimal gatekeeping functions that Wikipedia has. I can post a video claiming that Ringo Starr was the first President of the United States. As long as it doesn't violate the terms of service, which have nothing to do with factual accuracy, no one will take it down.

Conspiracy theorists, however, typically don't understand the hierarchy of various source materials. The difference between YouTube and the National Archives is completely lost on most of them. Consequently, YouTube is a source as equally credible as the National Archives,in fact, possibly even more credible because the gatekeeping function of source materials is often mistaken, in conspiracy theorists eyes, with conspiratorial meddling or other chicanery.

3. Conspiracy theorists cannot distinguish between credible and non-credible sources.

This point is closely related to the above one. Because theres no difference in a conspiracy theorist's eyes between any two sources based upon the nature of those sources, they have no way of telling whether a source is true or false. David McCullough, a respected academic historian with decades of credentials, is no more reliable a source than David Icke, an ex-football player who believes that the world is controlled by reptilian shape-shifting aliens. John Maynard Keynes, one of the most influential economists in recent history, is no more credible than bloviating radio talkshow host Alex Jones on matters of economics. This is why conspiracy theorists generally interpret any questioning of the credibility of their sources as an ad hominem attack, because to them credibility is irrelevant. Taken to an extreme, this idea results in the bizarre belief that a YouTube video can be just as true and credible as a peer-reviewed scientific paper published in a nationally-respected journal.

However, because the world (and especially the Internet) is filled with tidal waves of contradictory information, as human beings we must necessarily have a mechanism that separates truth from ********. No one believes absolutely everything they hear, even people who are extremely gullible; it's just that the truth-versus-******** mechanism of gullible people is out of whack compared to that of the non-gullible. In evaluating the credibility of a particular piece of information, conspiracy theorists do not ask the questions that most of us would ask.Where did this information come from? Who did it start with? What supports it? Is the source credible?because their shallow understanding of epistemology does not result in that sort of analysis. Too often, conspiracy theorists thought processes center around the content or outcome of a particular piece of informationDoes it support the official story or does it support my theory?or a set of associations, usually negative, with the disseminator of the information itself.Is it a government spokesperson saying this?""

continued ....


""4. Presenting an argument in video format is much more emotionally satisfying than presenting an argument in any other way.

Motion pictures have been used for propaganda purposes since the technology was invented. The phenomenal success of movies to make a political, social or racial statement was demonstrated first with D.W. Griffith's 1915 film The Birth of a Nation, and the extraordinary power of movies to persuade people continues today.

Packaging an argument in a video format, especially if it has interesting visuals and a good soundtrack, will carry your argument further and faster than it would travel by any other means. Conspiracy theorists are always recruiting, and using video is one of their most powerful tools. Consequently, it makes sense that their weapon of choice would be YouTube.

To a large extent, conspiracy theorists probably don't even realize the immense power of the medium that they seem to choose (unconsciously, perhaps) as their preferred means of communication.

5. Conspiracy theorists often exhibit an anti-intellectual bias, and because of their positions are forced to attack, ignore or explain away the legitimacy of expertise. YouTube plays into these biases perfectly.

Here is the real meat of this blog: conspiracy theorists are usually anti-intellectual. They have no patience for the opinions of experts usually because those experts do not support conspiracy theories and they're often contemptuous of credentialed experts in the first place. Consequently, conspiracy theorists invest a tremendous amount of thought and effort into denigrating or explaining away the views of those who know more about the subjects they're talking about than they do.


Conspiracy theorists hate experts and intellectuals mainly because they are forced to. Few if any real experts in anything engineering, economics, metallurgy, political science, or history agree with conspiracy theories, and conspiracy theorists know that this is a major obstacle in their attempts to gain mainstream acceptance. Honestly, if one structural engineer with questionable credentials says that the World Trade Center towers were dynamited and 99 real structural engineers say that theory is ********, which side are most people going to believe? Consequently, conspiracy theorists have to tear down experts. They do this mainly by denigrating the real value or relevance of expert opinion, which usually means casting aspersions on expert status in the first place. This has two effects: first, they think it blunts the attacks of experts on their theories, and second, it elevates non-expert opinion into the same realm as expert knowledge.""

""Conclusion

Conspiracy theorists suffer from a number of profound misconceptions regarding how the world works, how knowledge is gathered and verified, and what constitutes proof and evidence. If they did not suffer from these misconceptions, they would not be conspiracy theorists, because the fantastic and unsupportable nature of their theories would be self-evident upon careful review of the real evidence. YouTube, being open-sourced user-generated content with no editorial or gatekeeping function, has become conspiracy theorists prime source of information precisely because it's open-sourced with none of the gatekeeping functions, such as peer review or editorial processes, that make other sources of information reliable. This coupled with an inability to tell good sources from bad ones plays directly into conspiracy theorists conceits that they have special knowledge, that expert opinion is overrated or irrelevant, and that they can change the world simply by spreading a couple of YouTube links and opening people's eyes.

But conspiracy theorists reliance on YouTube is yet another illustration of why their worldview is intellectually bankrupt and incapable of attracting serious mainstream attention. When your evidence regarding something is a YouTube video from Prison Planet or Infowars, you're telegraphing to the world that you've got nothing better to support your position. Dont be surprised when people don't take you seriously.""


http://muertos.blog.com/2010/05/28/why-conspiracy-theorists-love-youtube/

"2. Most conspiracy theorists are unaware of, or do not appreciate the importance of, non-Web-based, factually vetted sources of information (put another way, the difference between primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources)."


So true.

seems that most are aware, but just dismiss them as lies because it doesn't go along with their thought process... like any article about how shows the science with 911... they won't read it because their mind is saying it's all lies, that bush and Cheney made them write the article as disinformation...

Indeed, prejudice and confirmation bias.

Complain to Forums

It was their software that failed to correctly process a tag.

"Wise men don't need advice. Fools won't take it."
- Benjamin Franklin

"Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other."
-Benjamin Franklin

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise."
- Benjamin Franklin

To what spin are you inferring? That somehow Putin was coerced by myself into making a statement that he did not want to make.

Of course it was on YouTube so he really didn't say it. I know it is so hard for most to watch something they haven't been told how to interpret and determine for themselves.

But let me assure you, that is not me. Putin has it all on the line here and has no misunderstanding of what that all means. And that question would be if you understand what all this is about, probably not. Oil, while having a minor role, is not the driver.

But that's ok, a limited series of inputs always results in a limited view, the way of the sheeple.

An intelligent observer that can determine for themselves. Otherwise you are but the sheeple waiting to be told what to believe. And the end result is that will become that "Rack of Lamb".

Even though off topic, it is a relief to read an intelligent response. But I do have to state that the US does win a lot of those contest in today's world, after all when you have a military larger that the next fourteen countries combined....

Really, I'm waiting. I have no objection to reviewing any source, even sheeple mags.

But I do need to ask, where is an unbiased source? Of course because this thread is about Iran sending warships to patrol off US waters, can we stick to the topic, Iran and Syria, Russia and China as it applies to Iran.

While I'm waiting I will be reviewing some YouTube channels. Love RT and Alex Jones (except when Alex gets all heated up). And let's not forget Corrina over at PsycheTruth. And Ray Stevens music, he is just great making fun of those Dumbocrats and Odumbo, what a kick. And let's not forget Mark Dice, he can get Dumbocrats to agree to such ridiculous stuff, I mean did you see the one where... Obama Supporters Sign Petition to Repeal the BILL OF RIGHTS?

Anyway, I'll stay entertained while waiting but you know you really do have to be weary of that Harvard University channel, they say some of the stupidest stuff, especially if it's the law school.