Did you know that the amount of aluminum in a vaccine is so minuscule that, without high levels of aluminum already present in the blood, it is impossible to receive aluminum toxicity from it?

Vaccine related injuries like autism in children or multiple sclerosis in an adult are a myth. The only two cases litigated were not taken before a court, they were taken before an appointed panel that was under great pressure from public sentiment to ignore facts and simply pay out a damage to the 'victims'.

Peer reviewed science proves time and again that the claims being made about vaccines are false. However, a couple of non-mainstream 'doctors' and some idiotic celebrities seem to be influencing the sheeple into ignoring science. I shouldn't be surprised, seeing how people will believe in things like Scientology and fake Moon landings , but until there are FACTS proving vaccines to be the cause of these ills, the benefit outweighs the slim chance of danger.

Since you seem to be on the side of the anti-vaxxers, I would be happy to look at any peer-reviewed studies you can find linking vaccines to autism or other ailments. I will wait until you find one.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Laser Pointer - Mythbusters Bust Moon Landing Conspiracies. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

That's the funny thing. We're both looking at the same thing but seeing different things. To me that's much more a wedge shape than a crow's short and straight.

But more importantly, the underside of the tail in a frame or two from an angle isn't as telltale as the up-close-and-personal HD view of the birds beak and head from multiple angles.

There's no question about how "ravenous" they are, and you're still not expressing any thoughts on those features.

You're avoiding all the clear evidence pointing to the obvious, indisputable truth, and hanging on with a death grip to the only slim, inconclusive evidence that you claim supports your unlikely theory. (Are you a 9/11 and moon landing conspiracy theorist?)

In the words of Elsa, let it go... Let it go! Can't hold it back any more. Turn away and slam the door already because here I am in the light of day. And you know what? The cold never bothered me anyway.

NASA. Pssh. Only a bunch of left-wing uber-liberal hippy mumbo jumbo comes out of them.

There's a very vocal 1% of scientists and 100% of republican politicians that say the climate isn't changing or is only changing for the better.

Besides, it's hot on Mars isn't it?! And that planet seems fine. That should tell you all you need to know!

Don't let the fear-mongers scare you into saving water or believing in climate change. It's a big conspiracy, just like the moon landing and 9/11.

I'm so tired of hearing the bullshit that spills from deniers mouths. It's -way- past time to start treating them exactly the same way we treat flat-earthers and moon-landing-hoaxers...with ridicule and pity.

There has been no -scientific- controversy for well over a decade, but these fucking morons (and/or liars) keep providing cover for the hydrocarbon industries. They're doing actual damage, and it's time to marginalize them via any means necessary.

Here's a serious question for you all, although not precisely related to this video.

How long do we have to wait before the proper response to climate-change deniers is ridicule? There hasn't been any actual scientific controversy for over a decade...how many decades do we have to pander to them before we can treat them exactly the same as flat-earthers and moon-landing-hoaxers?

NASA's photos and videos are not the only evidence of the moon landing. They left reflectors which can be used to laser-range the moon.

I used this opportunity to sift a video about it. Sadly, in finding an appropriate one I went down a rabbit-hole of hoax videos for a while. So much dumb.

http://videosift.com/video/APOLLO-Lunar-ranging-experiment

Your video, 3D Recreation Of Moon Landing Shows It Wasn't A Hoax, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

this is exactly like the moon landing

That's almost exactly what I just said 17-18kg in earth terms. Do you think laid on your back you could easily throw a 17kg object 1.5-2m upwards?

He's not doing a push up he's trying to jump upright. Launching nearly 20kg of weight far enough to get to your feet would take some doing that way I'd say. Just lifting 20kg with the arms alone is an effort never mind throwing it which is effectively what's happening here.

This is part of the reason I defaulted to thinking in terms of rocketry as it's not as simple as just someone trying to lift something, they are trying to propel themselves 1-2m upwards with only a thrust from the arms. Much better to wiggle around/push up to get to your knees so one could bring one's legs muscles to bear (made very difficult by hard to bend suit).

Frankly I think it would be a total pain in the arse getting back upright. If it weren't for the suit you could easily push up to your knees and then straighten your legs but the inflation is going to make that very hard work (but doable after a struggle to one knee as other video footage proves).

The alternative however which sparked this whole argument i.e. lay on your front and push off with your arms. That I think would be considerably harder than you are making out. Throwing a 17kg weight with only your arms over 1m in height is not what I'd call effortless.

My old CRT monitor probably weighs about 20kg, it'd take everything I had to throw that over 1m up into the air. Without the power of your thigh muscles and the rigidity of your spine 20kg is quite a lot really.

How high can you "jump" with only your arms? (like those super push-ups where you clap your hands in between to show off) maybe a foot or two if your really really strong? So with the extra weight of a suit and reduced gravity multiplying the result by 6 under lunar gravity, 6feet is probably just about attainable for someone in peak physical shape. But it's defiantly not what I'd call easy!


Re: conspiracies The only one I really take at all seriously any more is the idea that 2001 (esp the book) was perhaps (very) loosely based on actual events. I have time for it simply because of Arthur C. Clarke himself who was going to give an interview (which he rarely does) on Project Camelot of all things but died about 2 weeks before it happened. If you know anything about project camelot you'll know whatever he had to say was going to be mental but then again he was very old and eccentric and plenty other people involved in the space program have "jumped the shark" so to speak. (Edgar Mitchell talks about aliens on a regualr basis, Buzz Aldrin has spoken about monoliths on Phobos, pilots being followed by "Foofighters" in WW2 etc. etc.)

But it's basically wishful thinking on my part, the story and implications are remarkably plausible for what they are but that is all they are. Combined with the whole Jack Parsons/Alastair Crowley connection to the JPL my creative juices start flowing. However the obvious counter argument i.e. that the world is largely run by genuine lunatics is never far from my mind either (look at the whole "men who stare at goats" thing).

I'll listen to anyone and some I'm even prepared to believe on their own terms but I have to defer to actual evidence where it exists (or does not exist). Consequently while I'll listen to someone like John Leer talking about stuff that would seem outlandish even in a science fiction story, people why claim the moon landing was a hoax tend to get the cold shoulder as it's pretty demonstrably not true/hard to believe.

I realise that's kind of backwards but willing suspension of disbelief is a lot easier when there's really no tangible evidence either way. (why I suspect huge incomprehensible delusions like those espoused by many religions get so much traction. It's easier to believe the big lie than the small one)

Jolly entertaining though regardless

No need to go through the whole Newtons things... easier to keep it all in kg since that's how we think anyway. So on the moon, astronaut + suit = 100/6 = 17 kg. Only about 40 lbs... So an astronaut should have no problem doing a pushup there.

As I said, probably more to due with the awkward, pressurized suits.

However, the jumping part... well, that's a puzzle to me why they aren't able to jump higher since I don't see any mechanical disadvantage. It's one of the arguments for the 'fake moon landing' thing.

However, if the moon surface were 'spongy' then it would be like trying to jump out of a barrel of mud.

Re: conspiracy thing... Alternative 3 claims that Apollo astronauts went to the moon, but discovered the bases that had already been there and were threatened/sworn to silence. Curiously, Neil Armstrong became a public recluse after his career as an astronaut, rarely giving interviews or talking about his experience.

However, if you believe the 'we never went to the moon at all' version, the claim is that NASA hired Stanley Kubrick to film the fake moon landing thing based on his realistic looking 2001.

I have a degree in physics. I'm guessing that English is maybe a 2nd language for you? Your explanation of mass and weight is a little confusing. With regards to our astronaut on the moon, it's the difference in weight that matters. He should be able to (approximately) lift six times the weight he could on earth.
(Sidebar: It's often been said that Olympics on the moon would be fantastic because a man who could high-jump 7 feet high on earth would be able to high-jump 42 feet high (7x6) on the moon. In fact, he would only be able to jump about half that. Do you know why? I'll leave that with you as a challenge.)

Insofar as faked moon landings, I'm 90 % sure we went to the moon. However, bear in mind that Americans didn't know their own government was spying extensively on them til last year. It's the old joke... "Just because your paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't watching you..."

Alternative 3 is an interesting study of conspiracy dynamics. I first heard of it 30 years ago. It started as an April Fools joke in Britain on a science news TV show. It was brilliant in it's conception...

Short version:
1. Global warming will lead to total collapse of earth's eco-systems in two centuries or less.
2. Global governments are co-operating to move the cream of earth's leaders, scientists, etc to bases that have been established for decades on the far side of the moon and on Mars. (Alternative 3. Alternative 1 was huge underground bunkers, Alternative 2 was huge geo-synchronous cities... both were deemed too impractical to carry out.)
3. Mars is actually very liveable. We landed there in the 60s, established bases, using flying saucer technology developed here on earth by scientists.
4. The general population is being kept ignorant of the impending disaster, our advanced technology, the true state of Mars, etc. Governments worldwide are co-operating at the highest levels to perpetuate the myth that our progress in space is a slow, laborious process. (Which explains why the Soviet Union did not expose the Apollo programs as fake...) They don't want to cause a panic while they advance their agenda.
5. They have even developed psychic assassins capable of killing with their minds via spontaneous human combustion.

Due to TV schedule changes it was shown at a later date convincing the general public there that it was the real deal. (You can actually see the original show on YouTube... you'll even recognize some of the 'real scientists' etc as British character actors if you're old enough.)

It's a long convoluted story but thanks to a couple of follow up books and the Internet which gave it new life it has now 'morphed' into this vast conspiracy that involves alien / government co-operation at the highest levels à la X-Files. (The original conspiracy did not involve aliens...)

Adding to the fun and mystery is that some real world events -- too complicated to explain here -- later played right into details of the conspiracy.

I always thought it would make for a brilliant Hollywood movie -- the original version, not the 'updated' version.

Just looked up alternative 3. touche' lol
(assuming that was indeed a joke on your part)

If your original comment was supposed to be sarcastic then it got lost in the emotionless void that is text only communication sorry (there is a sarcasm tick box to avoid exactly this kind of misunderstanding mind you). If you were however seriously suggesting the moon landing was a hoax then see above. (this is the internet after all, people that genuinely believe this stuff are all over the place)