Descriptive Statistics Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Descriptive Statistics - Case Study Example This would look like a promising finding because it is higher than the current trend on the mean number of weeks that a prostate cancer patient lives after receiving a confirmed diagnosis of being in stage 4 which is 9.6, with a standard deviation of 3.2. Unfortunately, the data contains an extreme point in this instance, which is 45 and this would certainly draw the mean upwards (Doty, 1996), thereby misrepresenting the behavior of the data. It can also be observed that the standard deviation is unusually high, and since it measures the approximate distance of the data values from the mean (Black, 2010), this indicates that the data set is highly variable. In order to provide a more appropriate interpretation of the behavior of the data, the research team may choose to eliminate this extreme point. This is usually done when a data set contains a minimum number of extreme values that affect the results when the mean is used to interpret it (Fink, 2003). Based on the new calculations made once the value of 45 is removed, the data set will now have a mean of 7.64 and a standard deviation of 2.4. Clearly, such results are lower than the current trend.

Media and war on Terror Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Media and war on Terror - Essay Example The government on the other hand used the media to counter the information and claims distributed by terrorists. Through the media, governments also wages a war of winning the hearts and minds of the people by letting the public know how terrorist organizations are causing havoc in our society. In so doing, they erode public sympathy from the terrorist potential supported. Having said this, media inadvertently becomes an instrument of the tugging parties on the war on terror. Media and terrorism will always have a symbiotic relationship because media will feed on the news created by terrorists. The â€Å"juicy† news that terrorists will provide increases the news agency’s rating while terrorist organization gained media exposure to win public sympathy and support. This kind of set-up inadvertently forms a symbiotic relationship whereby each entity thrives on the existence of the other. Media benefits in either way. When terrorists organization issues a threat, media increases its ratings by sensationalizing it and when government counters to continue our way of life so as to deprive the terrorist of their victory, the media again has something â€Å"juicy† to report to increase its

Candide and Redemption, Moral Truth, and a Just Society

Candide and Redemption, Moral Truth, and a Just Society Candide and the Theme of Redemption Voltaire view of redemption is that it has to be bought. Candide, the primary protagonist, lives with Baron before his expulsion. One of the teachings that he clings to is optimism in life. He is expelled from Barons castle and losses the girl that he loves dearly-Cungode (Voltaire, 1999). After the expulsion he sets to travel the world though not by choice by due to various circumstances. His journey and life shows that when a person is optimistic in the end they get saved from the sufferings that they have endured. His redemption from the misfortunes that he has suffered is made possible at the end when he not only gets Cungode back but also finds a family and farming career which makes him happy. What remains apparent is that for Candide there has to be a price paid for a person to gain back what was his. For example, he purchases the freedom of the old woman, Pangloss and Cunegode. The willingness that Candide had to purchase back this people indicates that he believed that to get redemption a price has to be paid. The other example is that in order to save her beloved Candide had to kill two people. Salvation therefore comes but only at a price that a person must be willing to pay. Candide and the theme of Moral Truths Moral truth as presented using the protagonist Candide is subjective implying that there can never be an absolute level of morality. By extension, this means that moral truth is when the good that a person does surpasses the evil that they have committed. For example, Candide makes a statement that if I had not been so lucky as to run Miss Cunegondes brother through the body, I should have been devoured without redemption'(Voltaire, 1999).. This statement indicates that Candide killed to protect himself and there he is justified for doing so. The other example is when Candide kills the monkeys that were biting the buttocks of young ladies. He is relieved and says that although he killed two people he has saved the lives of the girls Also, moral truth involves striving to ensure that the lives of beloved ones are improved whenever one can. For example Candide helps Pangloss, Cunaagode and the old woman with a pure heart. He purchases a farm and they start cultivating to improve their lives. When asked if this is the best of all possible words as Pangloss used to teach Candide does not give an absolute answer but sates We must tend our garden. This implies that the moral truth is simply hard work and improving life. Candide and the theme of Just Society The society is in many ways presented as being un-just. Candide and other characters are always placed in a situation where they have to suffer in the hands of bad people. For example Candide is expelled from Barons castle simple because he was found kissing Cunegode. It is not fair that Candime has to take the blame alone.   On his journey he is brutally flogged without a good justification. There appears to be a great gap between the rich and the poor. Those who are powerful take advantage of the vulnerable within the society. All this occurrences make the society to be evil. For example, women are used and the damped if they come from a lower social class as indicated in this statement; The old servants of the family suspected him to have been the son of the Barons sister, by a good, honest gentleman of the neighborhood, whom that young lady would never marry because he had been able to prove only seventy-one quarterings, the rest of his genealogical tree having been lost through the injuries of time'(Voltaire, 1999). The other example of unjust society is presented in the way slaves are treated without mercy by people who are in power. I need not tell you how hard it was for a young princess and her mother to be made slaves and carried to Morocco (Voltaire, 1999). This statement indicates that being made slave was involuntary but the slave masters were indifferent to their suffering. Reference Voltaire (1999). Candide. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.

Scarlet Letter :: essays research papers

Throughout The Scarlet Letter, Hawthorne uses Nature to symbolize both the negative and positive character traits which set the mood of the novel. By doing this, Hawthorne steps out of the traditional Romantic ideals, putting The Scarlet Letter into an her genre. I will call it post- Romanticism. Traditional Romantic writings only portray the positive side of human nature. They show the positive effects of individualism, the soul and freedom as only being positive. By comparing the imagery of nat e in relationship to the characters, we see the positive and negative, which is not a traditional Romantic theme. Hawthorne uses many different negative variations of plant imagery to illustrate his ideas. First of all, living plant life, portraying the torturing of Dimmesdale by Chillingworth, remains evident throughout the novel. For example, when Chillingwo h went to the forest to gather herbs he â€Å"dug up roots and plucked off twigs from the forest trees†(1511) which symbolizes how Chillingworth was â€Å"plucking† the life out of Dimmesdale limb by limb. Also, Hawthorne describes grass as pure and without weeds o kill the grass; however, â€Å"when poor Mr. Dimmesdale was thinking of his grave, he questioned with himself whether the grass would ever grow on it, because an accursed thing must there be buried†(1495). Dimmesdale feels himself dammed. It can not be a ued that Chillingworth is doing anything positive. From the beginning, when he first sees Hester, he had only selfish and hedonistic reasons for â€Å"helping† Dimmesdale. â€Å"It Irks me, nevertheless, that the partner of her iniquity should not, at least, s nd on the scaffold by her side, But he will be known! - he will be known! - he will be known!†(1455). When Dimmesdale dies Chillingworth has no one to torment with his evil schemes. â€Å"All his strength and energy- all his vital and intellectual force- emed at once to desert him; insomuch that he positively withered up, shriveled away, and almost vanished from mortal sight, like a uprooted weed that lies wilting in the sun†(1552). During Chillingworth and Dimmesdale’s covert discussion about â€Å"the powers of nature call[ing] so earnestly for the confession of sin,[and discussing] that these black weeds have sprung up out of a buried heart, to make manifest an unspoken crime†(1 9) illustrates the idea of weeds filling the heart with sin and guilt. Moreover, â€Å"the black flower of civilized society†(1448) refers to the Puritans harsh attitude towards sinners as they view Hester’s punishment.

Assess the Short Term Significance of the Suez War of 1956

Assess the short term significance of the Suez War of 1956 The Suez War had profound short term significance in many aspects. It can be argued to be one of the first wars in the Arab-Israeli conflict which involved substantial foreign involvement. Although Britain and France were humiliated and lost their influence in the Middle East, it highlighted the rising importance of Cold War politics in the Middle East. Egypt and Israel can be considered as winners of the Suez War; Egypt gained complete control of the Suez Canal and Israel had access to the Straits of Tiran.However, both countries were to remain hostile and the legacy of the Suez War will be conflict, not peace. First of all, the Suez War in 1956 played a significant role in Nasser’s Egypt. There were many gains for Egypt from the Suez War. American Historian, William Polk states ‘in western eyes, the Suez War made Nasser a hero’ and ‘claimed a political victory within a military defeat’, this comment clearly infers to the unsuccessful attempt of Britain and France to ‘destroy’ Nasser which made him became a symbol of anti-colonial movement.This statement is reinforced by the words of Nasser, where he wrote that the Suez War ‘regained the wealth of the Egyptian people’ and ‘it was clear for the Egyptian people that they could defend their country and secure its independence’, while this comment is partly accurate, as Egypt did manage to gain complete control of the Suez Canal and obtained a large quantity of British military stores, the source here is clearly biased because Nasser had deliberately failed to describe Egypt’s casualties from the war. He had done this to promote his position as not only the Egyptian leader, but a leader which all the Arab nations looked up to.Despite their success, Egypt had suffered the highest casualty with total death up to 1600, while Israel, Britain and France’s death were well below a hundred. Additionally, Egypt had failed to control the Gaza Strip and Photograph A shows despite control of the Suez Canal, Egypt was unable to use the canal efficiently to fund the country; for instance, by collecting toll fees. The Suez War critically damaged Egypt’s relations with America. In response to America’s cancellation of a promised grant of 46 million dollars towards building the Aswan dam, American aid was replaced by Russian aid.However, one should always be mindful that Nasser did not want Egypt to be tied to the Soviet Union as he wanted Egypt to be neutral. Conversely, in American eyes, Egypt became part of the Cold War; as any country which was not part of Western alliance and which bought arms from Eastern Europe was just as bad as the USSR. The Suez War 1956 was of great significance for Israel. We can reinforce Avi Shlaim’s interpretation on the Sinai campaign to help discuss the impact on Israel. Despite an Israeli, Avi Shlaim gives a ne utral point on the impacts to Israel.The origin of the Sinai campaign was initially planned by Ben Gurion and its leaders such as Moshe Dayan. It’s 3 ‘Operational Objectives’ were to defeat the Egyptian Army, to open up Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and to put an end to Fedayeen attacks across Israel’s southern border. Moshe Dayan, in his memoirs, the Story of My Life, was confident that the three main objectives were achieved by the end of the Suez War. The Israeli army won a clear military victory which proved the Israeli Defense Forces the strongest in the Middle East; this was further reinforced by Moshe Dayan as ‘Nasser learned the respect the power of Israel’s army. Although Shlaim’s view that damage to Egypt was ‘slight and quickly repaired’ due to timely withdrawal from Sinai, Historian Normal Lowe argues that the inflicted heavy losses on Egypt in men and equipment would take ‘years to make goodâ€℠¢. Furthermore, Israel managed to gain access to the Straits of Tiran, allowing them to trade with Asia and Africa. The end to Fedayeen attacks proved immense success, the Sinai Peninsula became effectively demilitarized guarded by UN troops which would allow Israel to enjoy eleven years of security and stability along the border with Egypt.As well as the Three ‘Operational Objectives’ from the Sinai Campaign, it consisted of three political aims; to overthrow Nasser, expand Israeli borders and establishment of a new political order in the Middle East. Unlike the successes from their operational objectives, they failed to achieve the political aims. In the first political aim, Israel paid a heavy political price for ganging up with Britain and France against the emergent forces of Arab nationalism. In the second political aim involving Israel’s borders, Israel was forced to disgorge all the territory it had conquered.The third aim however, written by Shlaim tends to contradict Moshe Dayan’s view that the ‘victory in Sinai meant that Israel emerged as a state that would be welcomed as a friend and ally. ’ While this may not be directed at Arab nations, it may have been implied in terms of relations with foreign powers. Although Ben Gurion failed to topple Nasser and achieve his political aims, the Suez War had allowed Gurion to force Sharett’s resignation which initially gave him the option of launching a war against Egypt. Moreover, Shlaim contends that Israel and Ben Gurion learned two important lessons from its experience in the Suez War.Firstly, Israel must rely on nuclear deterrence to protect its borders rather than expanding it. Secondly, Israel was to depend on the US in future decision making and must deal and directly consult with the US before engaging in future wars; this is evident in the Suez War, where Israel was pressured by US withholding aid and expulsion from the United Nations to withdraw from S inai. The impact of Suez War led to a high tide of Arab Nationalism in the Middle East. When Nasser regained control of the Suez Canal he destroyed the statue of De Le Sepp's; a clear message of Egypt’s contempt for western imperialism.Arabs reduced oil supplies to Western Europe showing they have become more anti-western. Syria and Saudi Arabia also broke off relations with Britain and France. In 1957, a ‘Treaty of Arab Solidarity’ was signed by Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Despite the mistrust remaining between the Arab states, this treaty highlighted the Arab nations all had a united aim to overthrow Israel and support the Palestinians. This is supported by Ian J. Bickerton and Carla L. Klausner as they discuss how Suez war ‘only deepened the Arab desire for revenge’.Furthermore, William Cobban argues that the legacy of the Suez Crisis will be ‘war not peace’, and that Nasser would rally the Arab nations to a full scale war against the Israelis. This view of Arab Nation’s continual avenging attitude towards Israel is reinforced by Andrew Goldsmith, as he argues that the result of the Suez War resembled a ‘hiccup rather than a true turning point in the history of Egypt and Israel’s internal politics’. It was one of many conflicts in which Arab countries and Israel have failed to solve any existing tensions.Another short term significance of the Suez War was that it greatly damaged leading European colonial powers particularly Britain. Keith Kyle argues that Suez confirmed to the world that Britain was ‘no longer a superpower’, as Britain’s failure to overthrow Nasser and secure the Suez Canal had cost them world degradation. With a clear indication of Britain’s end of imperialism, it led to a further decline of British and French influence around the world such as in Africa and South-East Asia. The Suez War encouraged rebels in Algeria, where the Alg erians gained their independence from France in 1962.Britain’s failure had cost them to lose foreign allies; the Israelis now looking towards the USA as their main supporter. Britain’s decreasing influence in the Middle East is further supported by Normal Lowe, where Britain’s ally in Iraq, premier Nuri-es Said came under increasing attack from other Arabs for his pro-British attitude. Britain’s damage from the Suez War then led to financial trouble where its international reserve was seriously depleted. Because of the blockage of canal and the disruption of pipeline caused by the Suez War, gas rationing was introduced in Britain.This meant Britain had no choice but to become more obedient and less reluctant to oppose any US policy for its financial support . While Mordechai Bar-On, the Bureau Chief- General of Moshe Dayan states in hindsight that from the view of Britain and France, the Suez war was a major mistake. From Israel’s point of view, it was ‘perhaps lucky’ that they made the mistake, because it was to this mistake, Israel ‘became more ready for the next round in 1967. ’ France on the other hand went its own way, opposed to Britain’s decision to side with the US.Led by de Gaulle, it left NATO and turned to leading Europe alongside a newly prosperous Germany. The Suez War had a profound impact on the Cold War. President Eisenhower explained that as a result of Suez, ‘The Middle East, which had always been coveted by Russia, today be prized more than ever by international communism’, this outcome was perhaps made by President Eisenhower himself as Timothy Naftali, author of Khrushchev’s Cold War explains that Nikita Khrushchev was able to get away with â€Å"nuclear bluff†, showing weakness of the US that the Soviet Union exploited.As Egypt turns towards the Soviet Union for aid, Eisenhower was to become even more determined in containing communism. He set u p the Eisenhower Doctrine which offers economic aid and military protection to Arab states that agree to reject communism. He even stated, ‘Since we are about to get thrown out of the [Middle East], we might as well believe in Arab nationalism’, showing Eisenhower’s awareness that the Middle East was to become the ‘arena’ of the Cold War.However, his comment cannot be fully relied on as it was perhaps an excuse for America to enter the Middle East with dual objectives, as in Canada’s point of view, supported by William Cobban, Eisenhower‘s beginning to commit US troops to the Middle East – ‘what he said he would never do’ – was to replace Britain with its ‘own brand of imperialism’. In conclusion, despite major losses inflicted on Egypt, Nasser was able to turn the defeat into a political victory in which Nasserism influence, where a blend of Pan-Arabism, positive neutralism and Arab socialism was to extent throughout the Arab nations.The results of the war have also proved Israel’s strength and determination in securing its position in the Middle East. Britain and France was to be humiliated and the Suez War accelerated decolonization and had caused them to lose influence in the Middle East. Relations between the USSR and USA have evidently resulted in a freeze rather than a thaw. However, the Suez War was just one of many events that had failed to resolve peace between Israel and Egypt. Andrew Goldsmith argues that the ‘internal politics of the Middle East were affected much less significantly than its external politics by the events of 1956. , Israel’s gain from the opening of Straits of Tiran and its peaceful border with Egypt were all reversed in 1967. Nasser still refused to recognize Israel. The contradiction is made by Moshe Dayan where he confirms that the result of Suez War stated ‘Reactionary and aggressive’ nature of Israel, and be cause it made Nasser the definite leader of the Arab World. Word count -1986 Appendix Photograph A obtained from http://www. theegyptianchronicles. com/Article/1956Jubilation. html Bibliography Secondary 1. Michael Scott-Baumann , Crisis in the Middle East: Israel and the Arab States 1945-2007, 2009 2.Normal Lowe, Mastering Modern World History,2005 3. Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall Israel and the Arab World 4. Kirsten E. Shulze, The Arab-Israeli Conflict,1999 5. Andrew Goldsmith, http://www. hillel. upenn. edu/kedma/05/goldsmith. pdf 6. Paul Reynolds, http://news. bbc. co. uk/2/hi/middle_east/5199392. stm, 7. http://israelipalestinian. procon. org/view. answers. php? questionID=000472 Contemporary 1. Michael Scott-Baumann, Conflict In the Middle East : Israel and the Arabs, 2007 2. http://millercenter. org/president/speeches/detail/3360 3. http://www. spartacus. schoolnet. co. uk/COLDsuez. tm 4. http://www. historylearningsite. co. uk/suez_crisis_1956. htm 5. William Cobban, Mission Sue z. The Canadian Experience 6. National Geographic : Suez Crisis 7. The Egyptian Chronicles 1956, Photograph in Appendix http://www. theegyptianchronicles. com/Article/1956Jubilation. html , 8. Council on Foreign relations, http://www. cfr. org/content/meetings/hungary_suez-summary. pdf ——————————————– [ 1 ]. Conflict in the Middle East: Israel and the Arabs page 23. By Michael Scott-Baumann [ 2 ]. http://www. theegyptianchronicles. com/Article/1956Jubilation. html [ 3 ].The Iron Wall Israel and the Arab World – page 143-185 by Avi Shlaim [ 4 ]. Mission Suez. The Canadian Experience by William Cobban [ 5 ]. http://israelipalestinian. procon. org/view. answers. php? questionID=000472 [ 6 ]. http://www. hillel. upenn. edu/kedma/05/goldsmith. pdf [ 7 ]. Modern World History page 238-289 [ 8 ]. National Geographic : Suez Crisis [ 9 ]. http://news. bbc. co. uk/2/hi/middle_east/5 199392. stm- Paul Reynolds [ 10 ]. http://millercenter. org/president/speeches/detail/3360 [ 11 ]. http://www. cfr. org/content/meetings/hungary_suez-summary. pdf [ 12 ]. Mission Suez. The Canadian Experience by William Cobban

The Reality of the Moon Landing

During the 1960s, the Cold War and the Vietnam War were in full swing, and tensions grew internationally and nationally. People began to lose trust in the moral and ethical behavior of the government. One example of this distrust occurred following a major historical event around the same time period. With millions of people watching, a United States astronaut was televised setting foot on the moon for the first time.Some skeptics thought that the moon landing was fabricated by the U. S.’s desire to beat the Soviet Union in the Space Race; however, the points made by these conspiracy theorists are mere speculation, lack solid evidence and leave more questions than answers. For example, lying about the authenticity of the landing came with too much of a risk of getting caught by other countries. Those who claim the landing never happened also stated that the moon landing was filmed on a movie set, but they do not consider that the special effects needed to create such a realist ic scene were not yet developed thoroughly enough at that time.If the moon landing was a falsehood, the lie would be an immense secret kept with great difficulty, considering the thousands of people who would be involved in the hoax. This paper will prove that the moon landing did occur, and will also disprove the opposing side. There was not enough motivation for the U. S government to stage the landing on the moon because that lie would encompass too much of a risk and likelihood of getting caught by the world. Although President Kennedy was under a lot of pressure to compete and excel in the â€Å"Space Race† with the Soviet Union, that competition only served to motivate success.American pride and support for the U. S. space program was strong and would be even further bolstered if the U. S. would be able to beat the Soviets to the moon. According to the article â€Å"The Decision to Go to the Moon,† by Steve Graber, he states that â€Å"The decision involved much consideration before making it public, as well as enormous human efforts and expenditures to make what became Project Apollo a reality by 1969. † Clearly the decision to formally challenge NASA and the world with this undertaking was not made lightly.Kennedy, at this point, was quite determined to prove that the U.S. did in fact possess the technology and the ability to lead the world into space. President Kennedy, along with NASA, was determined to get a man to the moon, and he brought the American people together and united them under the common goal of beating their enemy by the end of the decade. Enormous efforts were underway as NASA and the government began constructing their plans. The success in putting a man on the moon gave the U. S. tremendous advances in technology, scientific knowledge, and improved economic and political advantages from the use of satellites.Thus, by analyzing the motives to either fake the landing or to actually pull the landing off, the obviou s answer was that there was little incentive to fake the landing and tremendous benefits to actually landing a man on the moon. The U. S. government obtained enough motivation to complete the goal of landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade because they would gain significant benefits and not because they desperately wanted to beat the Soviets; they also had no need to worry about the risk of getting caught since there was no need to to lie, therefore, the U. S. did land on the moon.Some conspiracy theorists believe that the moon landing was faked because motivation to â€Å"beat† the Soviets to the moon was too strong to delay; however the government realized the other motivations besides beating the Soviets, so the moon landing did occur. Both the U. S. and Russia were watching each other extremely closely, waiting for the other to slip. In his article â€Å"Did NASA Fake the Moon Landing,† Ray Villard states that a group of citizens made a claim that †Å"The United States needed to cement its world leadership during the Cold War by pretending to pull off what really was a technologically impossible stunt.†But, the U. S. at this time did possess the correct technology and landing on the moon was not impossible because of the efforts put in by the technicians and scientists to create the necessary machinery. The U. S. also wanted to make their world leadership stronger, but they could not lie to achieve that goal because the Soviets were watching the U. S. and their every move during this time. If the Soviets were to find out the landing was a lie or was staged then they would easily expose the U. S. to the world.But, the Soviets did not deny the landing and accepted the fact the U. S.  landed on the moon first knowing we did actually possess the technology to go to space. This fact alone provides evidence that the government did not stage the moon landing. Even though the U. S. government did desperately want to beat the So viet Union there was no reason to lie because the U. S. knew they possessed the power and the technology to reach their goal. The government also knew that landing on the moon would bring more benefits to them, such as the advancement in science and a broader understanding of space, which would ultimately encourage them to not lie and follow through with their goal to get a man to the moon.With the support and the money from congress and the backing of the citizens, the U. S. acquired a strong determination to get to the moon first. Even though the theorists claim the motivation was wrong to land on the moon and that the government lied to the world, there is too much evidence in support of the moon landing because we did hold the advanced technology and the correct motivation; therefore the moon landing was not faked and did happen.The special effects at this time were not developed enough to stage a realistic moon landing and a film directed on Earth would not be able to fool the world, which means there would not be a reasonable way to fake the landing and the moon landing did occur. During the 1960’s the science fiction genre was just emerging and the available special effects technology was not nearly as sophisticated as today. For example, if the moon landing was created using special effects the moon most likely would not look as real as needed and many people would start questioning the reality of the landing.In the article Villard goes on to state that at that time â€Å"No microcomputers, digital-image processing, or 3-D animation software existed. The decade's landmark space film, 2001: A Space Odyssey, illustrates the pinnacle of special-effects capability in the 1960s. † Even the film, 2001: A Space Odyssey included flaws in regards to special effects because of how underdeveloped they were at the time the movie was made. The claim is that the same director who filmed the movie was also asked to stage the moon landing.If such were th e case, one would expect that the two films should contain similarities in production value, but the two sets of footage were both quite different from one another. Additional proof that the landing was not filmed is provided in video of the astronauts walking on the moon: the moonwalk is far too complex to be faked with the available special effects. In the videos, the men are almost floating at points- a feat that would be impossible to portray with the pull of gravity on Earth.1960’s America did not possess the movie making capabilities needed to create a believable moon landing on a movie set, leaving one other possibility: we actually did set foot on the moon. There are those that believe the moon landing was filmed in a large Hollywood movie set, however, this cannot be true because the movie technology was not capable of such a task and there are clear counter points for each reason the critics say the landing was filmed, such as why there are no stars; so there are st rong facts that the landing did happen.The critics claim with confidence that the scientific technology was not there to send a man to the moon but they fail to acknowledge the fact that we actually did not hold the technology to produce a realistic film of the landing. The fact of the matter was that because of the advances of top end scientists, engineers, test pilots, medical researchers, from across the country and the test flights that orbited the Earth, we were able to get a man to walk on the moon for the first time.But, despite this knowledge, according to an article from International Business Times the author states â€Å"Some theorists allege that NASA officials approached Kubrick sometime in early 1968 and asked him to film ‘footage’ depicting an earth ship landing on the moon and a space traveler walking on the lunar surface. † While the claim is a strong idea, the government would not lie about the landing because they knew the many benefits that wo uld come their way if they were able to land on the moon.The knowledge of what the country would gain pushed them even further to reaching their goal, as they eventually did. Theorists also say that since there was no stars in the photographs brought back, that proves Kubrick filmed the landing because there are billions of stars in space, yet not one star was in the photographs. But the landing took place during the lunar morning with the sun shining too brightly. Similar to the fact that we cannot see the stars from earth during the day, they cannot be seen while in space either: they are too bright to be captured in a picture.So the fact that there were not any stars actually helps prove the moon landing was not filmed because that gives more reality to the pictures if thought about from a scientific perspective. Even though the critics accumulated possible theories as to why they believe the landing was filmed, each can be refuted with scientific explanations, such as why there were no stars or why the flag was moving, and prove that Apollo 11 did land on the moon.If the moon landing never happened and the world was lied to, such a secret would be almost impossible to keep for this long, and therefore gives proof  that the moon landing occurred. Thousands of people would be needed to work on the staging- everyone from makeup artists to the director, and to this day not a single person ever come forward claiming the landing was a hoax or even hinted at the possibility. There were also thousands who were a part of the actual moon landing. In an article from Balance-Today. org the author states, â€Å"Including the astronauts, scientists, engineers and technicians, more than 400,00 skilled workers contributed to the Apollo project. To date, not one of them even hinted that the landings were faked.†Again, there was no hinting or an accidental slip that we never actually succeeded in landing on the moon and all of these people who were a part of the â €Å"staged† event would gain a lot of fame if they came forward with their story. The Soviet Union would also never keep the secret if they found out. The Soviets were looking for ways to hurt the U. S. and they would not think twice before exposing us to the world if they found out the U. S. government lied. Given human nature and the drive for power, fame, money and glory, it is simply unreasonable to believe a secret this immense could be kept for this long.Considering the fact that nobody came forward and confessed that the moon landing was a lie, then one can conclude the U. S. made the first man walk on the moon. Some say that the reason nobody confessed the landing was faked, was because the government threatened and murdered people who would potentially leak the secret; however the theory of the killings cannot be true because there were too many people involved, and since nobody hinted that the landing was a lie the landing did actually occur.The theory of the govern ment’s â€Å"murders† is farfetched because of the fact that there were thousands who would know and would be involved in the process of not only the actual moon landing, but a â€Å"staged† occurrence as well. In the article Villard states that conspiracy theorists believe that â€Å"The government scared and murdered potential tattletales, including its own astronaut heroes in a reprehensible assertion that the tragic 1967 Apollo 1 fire was rigged. † However, despite the existence of treacherous and devious governments, the democracy of the United States would never allow the government to carry out such an atrocity.As was becoming more and more the norm, the citizens would ask questions, and the media, along with other countries would also become involved. Also, even though the theorists say the government caused the Apollo 1 tragedy, that theory was proven wrong. After a thorough investigation the tragedy was determined to be caused by a spark from a short circuit in a bundle of wires, quickly causing the fire to spread through the flammable materials. The impossibility was too big for everyone to believe the government could silence or murder anyone involved.There were too many people and too many benefits for a person who could claim they worked on the greatest hoax ever. Even though the theorists tried to come up with an explanation for why nobody confessed, the idea that the government killed everyone is impossible because the murders would be too obvious, which means there was no secret that needed to be kept and no need to kill people who knew, so the moon landing was real. In conclusion, there is too much concrete evidence and reasoning for the moon landing to be faked. The U. S.retained the correct motivation to get to the moon first before the Soviet Union because of the benefits that would come to them such as what the satellites could offer and the scientific discoveries they found. Pulling off the lie would help the country’s growing status in the world but they would not gain much more than that besides being able to say they finally beat the Soviets in the Space Race. The moon landing being filmed on a movie set is not possible either because of the lack of the special effects technology during this time.Nothing made on Earth would look real enough to be presented to the world, especially the realistic moonwalk since there is no way to float on Earth. Unlike what the theorists claim, we did possess the scientific technology to go to space and land on the moon because NASA and the government brought in the top end scientists and engineers to accomplish the task some say was impossible. The secret, if the moon landing was faked, became to enormous to keep and the government could not murder every person without the killings resembling genocide.Since nobody ever came forward with a confession there is nobody to prove the moon landing was staged. As a result, the theories that accumulated after the moon landing cannot be possible because of the scientific evidence and the fact that there were multiple moon landings closely following the first Apollo mission which means we did possess the technology; therefore the U. S. government did not lie and the country did land the first man on the moon.