Hawker Hunter T. Mark 53

Hawker Hunter T. Mark 53


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Hawker Hunter T. Mark 53

The Hawker Hunter T.Mark 53 was the designation given to two two-seat trainers ordered by Denmark alongside their larger purchase of single-seat Hunter Mark 51s. The two aircraft were ordered on individual contracts, but were produced consecutively. Their maiden flights came on 17 October 1958, and they were delivered to Denmark by the end of the year. The T.Mark 53 was similar to the standard T.7, but lacked the wing leading edge extension used on the British aircraft.

The two T.53s served with ESK-724, the same unit that operated the Mark 51s, and remained in service until 1974, sixteen years after being delivered. They were purchased by Hawkers in December 1975 and given to the Duxford Aviation Museum.

Engine: Rolls Royce Avon Mk.122 (R.A.21) turbojet
Power: 7,550lb thrust
Crew: 2
Wing span: 33ft 8in
Length: 48ft 10.5in
Height: 13ft 2in
Empty Weight: 13,360lb
Maximum Weight: 17,200lb
Max Speed: 694mph at sea level; Mach 0.92 at 36,000ft;
Climb rate: 12.5 minutes to 45,000 feet
Service Ceiling: 47,000ft
Range: 1,900 miles with tanks
Armament: One 30mm Aden cannon
Bomb-load: Capable of carrying stores on four under-wing pylons


Hawker Hunter T. Mark 53 - History

Beechcraft T-34 Mentor

(Variants/Other Names:
Turbo-Mentor T-3 Komadori Fuji LM-1/LM-2 Nikko Model 45)


T-34A N34EP (s/n 53-3313), flown by Jim Skogen of Minnesota, USA.
Photo by Max Haynes, MaxAir2Air.com.

History: The Model 45 primary trainer was based on the successful civilian Beech Model 35 Bonanza. Although first built in 1948 in response to an expected demand by the Air Force, a fly-off competition was required before the decision was made to purchase it. At this time the USAF was trying to figure out the best way to train new pilots whether to have them start in jets or use piston-powered craft for the transition phase of training. The latter choice was made and in March of 1953 the Model 45 was selected under the designation T-34 Mentor. Eventually a total of 450 T-34As were built for the Air Force. A year later the first of 423 T-34B trainers were delivered to the U.S. Navy, these with increased horsepower.

Consideration was given to arming the craft with machine guns and bomb racks for a potential close support role, but no orders materialized. Eventually, most piston engines were phased out in favor of an all-jet training regimen. However, the Navy decided in 1973 to buy 184 T-34’s with upgraded turbine power. This allowed the service to keep the tried and true Mentor airframe, with its excellent and forgiving handling qualities, while providing students with the required experience. The first T-34C Turbo-Mentor began student training in January 1978 and production of this model reached 353. A number of countries have purchased a variation of this model to provide forward air control and tactical strike capability. Japan licensed and built the T-3 version of the aircraft, and also built a four-seat liaison version (LM-1/LM-2), often informally referred to as the "Fuji."

After their retirement from active duty with the US Air Force, many Mentors went on to serve with the Civil Air Patrol as spotter and general-purpose utility aircraft. About 100 of the 1,300 T-34s built still remain in military service today.

In the last twenty years, the T-34 has developed an extremely loyal following among warbird owners and operators, with well over a hundred now in private hands. Its good looks, maneuverability, and relative economy of operation have captured the interest of the warbird community, and it promises to live on for generations to come.

Nicknames: "The Radial Interceptor" Komadori ("Robin") (Japanese Air Self-Defense Force nickname for Fuji-built version called the T-3) Harukaze ("Spring Breeze") (Japanese Ground SDF nickname for LM-1/LM-2 Nikko four-seat liason version.)

Specifications (T-34B):
Engine: One 225-hp Continental O-470-4 flat-six piston engine
Weight: Empty 2,055 lbs., Max Takeoff 2,900 lbs.
Wing Span: 32ft. 10in.
Length: 25ft. 10in.
Height: 10ft. 0.25in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 188 mph
Range: 770 miles
Armament: None

Number Built: 1,300+

Number Still Airworthy: 400+

[ Flight Report by Budd Davisson ]

T-34 Cockpit Photo:

(Click for larger)


Hawker Hunter T. Mark 53 - History

English Electric (BAC) Lightning

(Variants/Other Names: See History below)


An English Electric/BAC Lightning stands proud on the ramp.
Photo by D. Miller, used courtesy Creative Commons.

History: The Lightning was the result of a supersonic research aircraft called the English Electric P.1A, which first flew in August 1954. The P.1A was the brainchild of W.E. "Teddy" Petter, who also was responsible for the EE Canberra bomber. The P.1A was extensively tested during the mid- to late fifties, and contributed significantly to the Royal Air Force's knowledge about supersonic flight.

In 1954, the design was modified so it could be a practical all-weather interceptor. Three prototypes, designated P.1B, were built, the first of which made its maiden flight on 4 April 1957. In November 1958, the aircraft was re-named "Lightning" and exceeded Mach 2 for the first time. Since the Lightning was such a radically different aircraft from anything that had come before, the RAF ordered 20 additional pre-production aircraft, and tested them thoroughly, before authorizing it to enter active service. Even so, the Lightning was to have enormous teething problems in its first few years and the RAF's "learning curve" was steep.

Throughout its life, the Lightning evolved beyond its initial interceptor role into a very capable strike fighter and reconnaissance platform. The first production Lightning, the F.1, flew in October 1959, and deliveries began in the summer of 1960. It had a powerful radar and heat-seeking Firestreak missiles. A follow-on variant, the F.1A, had air-refueling capability and a UHF radio. The F.2 variant appeared in 1961, and had better range, speed and ceiling, a liquid-oxygen breathing system for the pilot, a steerable nosewheel, fully-variable afterburners, and improved electronics. The F.3, featuring two 16,360-pound thrust Avon engines, a larger square-tip fin, Red-Top missiles, and the capability of carrying two large over-wing fuel pods, entered service in 1964. The F.3A, later re-designated the F.6, was the result of a BAC recommendation to nearly double the Lightning's fuel capacity and to fit it with a redesigned wing. This modification allowed the airplane to carry more, be more efficient, and go faster.

Major export customers of the Lightning were Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, which purchased at least three of the variants, the most notable being the F.53 (F.6). Four two-seat trainer models, the T.4, T.5 and Saudi Arabia's T.54 and T.55, were also produced.

Although the aircraft was very maintenance-intensive in active duty, the first civilian-owned Lightning, ZU-BBD (XS452) took to the air in 1999 in Cape Town, South Africa, with a second, ZU-BEX (XS451) making its first post-restoration flight in the summer of 2000. Two more Lightnings were completed by 2006 in Cape Town, and several more Lightning projects are underway around the globe, so it appears possible that the warbird community will be able to see and appreciate this magnificent aircraft with slightly increasing regularity as time goes on.

Nicknames: Frightning (Referring to the aircraft's challenging crosswind landing characteristics).

Specifications (F.6):
Engines: Two 13,200-pound thrust Rolls-Royce RA34R afterburning Avon 310 turbojets
Weight: Empty 28,000 lbs., Max Takeoff 50,000 lbs.
Wing Span: 34ft. 10in.
Length: 55ft. 3in.
Height: 19ft. 7in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed at 40,000 ft: 1,500 mph (Mach 2.3)
Ceiling: 60,000 ft.
Range: 800 miles
Armament:
* Two 30-mm Aden guns in ventral pack
* Two Firestreak or Red Top air-to-air missiles, or
44 50.4-mm (2-inch) rockets, or
Five Vinteen 360 70-mm cameras and linescan equipment and underwing flares
* Up to 144 rockets or six 1,000-pound bombs on underwing/overwing hardpoints


The actual mission, dubbed Operation Neptune Spear, officially started in the early-morning hours of May 2, Pakistan time (afternoon of May 1, Eastern Daylight Time).

May 1 (EDT)
1:25 p.m. – President Obama, along with other top officials, formally approve the execution of Operation Neptune Spear.
1:51 p.m. – Stealth Black Hawk helicopters take off from Afghanistan, carrying a group of 25 Navy SEALs.
3:30 p.m. – The choppers land on the compound in Abbottabad. One helicopter crashes, but there are no injuries. The mission continues, uninterrupted.
3:39 p.m. – Osama bin Laden is located on the third floor of the compound and is shot in the head, above the left eye.
Sometime during the operation, three other men (including one of bin Laden’s sons) and a woman in the compound are also killed.
3:53 p.m. – President Obama receives preliminary word that bin Laden is identified and dead.
3:55 p.m. – SEAL team members move bin Laden’s body to the first floor of the compound and place it in a body bag.
3:39 p.m.-4:10 p.m. – The team locates and retrieves multiple items from the compound for intelligence investigation.
4:05 p.m. – The first helicopter exits the compound.
4:08 p.m. – The team destroys the chopper that crashed.
4:10 p.m. – A backup helicopter scoops up remaining team members and leaves the area.
5:53 p.m. – The choppers with SEAL team members return to Afghanistan.
7:01 p.m. – President Obama receives further intelligence information that the body killed in the raid is likely that of bin Laden.
11:35 p.m. – President Obama addresses the nation about the raid.
12:59 a.m. – Osama bin Laden’s body is buried at sea within 24 hours to comply with Islamic law.

The next day, a DNA test confirmed that the body was indeed that of Osama bin Laden.


Early Life and Career

Vin Diesel was born Mark Vincent on July 18, 1967, in Alameda County, California. Diesel and his twin brother, Paul, were raised by their mother Delora and their stepfather, Irving H. Vincent. Their biological father split from their mother before they were born.

Not one to reveal details about his personal background, Diesel has been candid about developing a passion for performing early on. His stepfather was a drama teacher and Diesel himself started acting at the age of 7 at the Theater for the New City. "I&aposve always been certain that I was going to be a movie star," he told Entertainment Weekly. "Even as a kid I knew it."

Diesel continued to act in theatrical productions throughout his adolescence. During his teen years, he also took up another occupation𠅌lub bouncer. This job helped him develop a toughness that he has carried through many of his film performances. As he explained to Men&aposs Fitness, "I must have been in more than 500 fights. I fought every night, and I bounced for nine or 10 years. And these weren&apost pretty fights."

Working as a bouncer also left his days free to audition for roles and study English at New York&aposs Hunter College. Diesel drew inspiration from his days as a struggling actor for his first self-made film project — an enterprise that helped launch his career.


Share All sharing options for: Predicting the Chargers 53-man roster 1.0

Photo by Jamie Squire/Getty Images

Happy Friday, everyone, and welcome to my very first prediction of the Chargers’ initial 53-man roster.

This is a long one, so I’m going to try and keep this intro short.

With the team changing defensive philosophies, I struggled to decide just how many players to keep in the front seven. Instead of being split into defensive tackles and ends, it’s now categorized by defensive lineman and edge players.

This is also the first year where I don’t think an undrafted player will make the first 53. Unless it’s Alex Kessman, the kicker from Pitt, I don’t think any of the other UDFAs really pop at a position that is also still of need. No one offers anything unique and so I didn’t want to force a player onto the list for the sake of doing it. I hope I’m proven wrong but it’s hard to imagine this early in the process.

With that being said, let’s go ahead and jump right in.

(UPDATE: I began writing this prior to the Christian Covington signing and had already picked the defensive lineman. I switched Cortez Broughton out for Covington in that position group.)

Quarterbacks (3): Justin Herbert, Chase Daniel, Easton Stick

Herbert will start with Daniel likely to be the backup. I predict the team will keep Easton Stick on the roster in order to save him from being poached by another team. The front office has always liked his intangibles on and off the field and with an entire offseason effectively stolen from him in 2020, they still want to give him the chance at developing in their system. As a depth quarterback, there’s still plenty to like about Stick’s makeup.

Running Backs (4): Austin Ekeler, Justin Jackson, Larry Rountree, Gabe Nabers

Before this year’s draft, I mentioned on several occasions that I could foresee Staley selecting a running back even though the team had just spent a fourth-round pick on Joshua Kelley one year prior. Kelley seemed very much like a Lynn prospect and I believe that Staley wanted to to bring in “his guy” into the room, which ended up being Rountree.

Outside of his first two games in the NFL, Kelley was fairly inefficient the rest of 2020. After recording 173 total yards of offensive and one rushing score against the Bengals and Chiefs, Kelley managed just 329 yards (3.03 YPC) and another rushing touchdown over his next 11 games played.

I don’t see the team keeping four running backs and a fullback, so if Nabers does make the cut in the team’s new offense, I believe Kelley is the odd man out to begin the season.

Wide Receivers (6): Keenan Allen, Mike Williams, Josh Palmer, Tyron Johnson, Jalen Guyton, K.J. Hill

The Chargers kept six wide receivers on their initial roster to begin the 2020 season and I predict them to do it again this year.

With Allen and Williams locked in, there would be four spots up for grabs to be had between the likes of Palmer, Guyton, T-Billy, Hill, and Joe Reed. After the small breakouts by both Guyton and Johnson, along with Hill seeing an increase in opportunities to end last season, I think it’s safe to say that Reed would be the odd-man out this year.

Reed was drafted in the fifth-round a year ago in hopes he would solve the Bolts’ problems at kick returner. After failing to move the needle all that much, he ended up losing the job to Nasir Adderley who rattled off multiple returns of 50+ yards during the team’s four-game win-streak to end the season. As a raw player at the position, Reed spent all of last season working on his route-running and fundamentals of the position. Unless he made major progress in that area, I don’t see how he adds value to the team over anyone listed above.

Tight Ends (4): Jared Cook, Donald Parham, Stephen Anderson, Tre’ McKitty

After losing both Hunter Henry and Virgil Green this offseason, the Chargers did a respectable job of not letting the position become a gaping hole with the signing of Cook and selection of McKitty in last week’s draft.

Cook is still very much a vertical threat and he’s almost a better fit for Justin Herbert than Henry was when it comes to the vertical nature that the offense is expected to have. Parham also fits snuggly in, as well. His 6’8 frame was utilized in the red zone to the tune of three touchdowns on 10 total catches in 2020. Two of those three scores were balls that he hauled in despite a defender in proper position so I’m very confident the team will continue to utilize him in that manner.

Anderson was a YAC threat in his limited touches and I believe those small sparks of life he showed earned him another contract with the Chargers. He can fill multiple roles.

Lastly, McKitty was drafted due to this blocking ability, according to Tom Telesco. Following day two of the draft, TT mentioned that he was someone they felt was the last “pro-ready” blocker at the position left on the board so they felt he was worth the pick.

Offensive Linemen (9): Rashawn Slater, Matt Feiler, Corey Linsley, Oday Aboushi, Bryan Bulaga, Trey Pipkins, Brenden Jaimes, Scott Quessenberry, Tyree St. Louis

Right now, four of the five starting spots up front can be penciled in. The lone spot that I can see some competition popping up during camp is the right guard spot. Aboushi is the man there currently but don’t sleep on rookie Brenden Jamies, who started 41-straight games for Nebraska. If Aboushi ends up winning the job outright, Jamies will then compete for the swing tackle job with Pipkins.

Quessenberry is the immediate backup to Linsley and has the versatility for spot duty at both guard spots. St. Louis is emergency depth at guard, as well.

Defensive Lineman (5): Linval Joseph, Justin Jones, Jerry Tillery, Christian Covington, Breiden Fehoko

Should the Charger utilize the similar 3-4 looks the Rams used, expect to see Joseph, Tillery, and Jones on the field at the same time quite often. Specifically, you should see them align at a nose, 4i, and a 4i, respectively, with an edge player outside both Tillery and Jones. The actual front will vary on a per-snap basis, but these players in this personnel grouping should see plenty of time together.

Behind the top three are the newly-signed Covington and Fehoko. Broughton is depth at all three interior positions while Fehoko is more of a true nose like Joseph. Watch out for UDFA Forrest Merrill here, but I’d give the nod to Fehoko at this early junction.

Edge Rushers (5): Joey Bosa, Uchenna Nwosu, Kyler Fackrell, Chris Rumph II (R), Emeke Egbule

One of the weakest positions on the roster heading into the 2021 season. Bosa and Nwosu figure to be the team’s starters but there’s still questions to be had about how this defense will line up most of the time this year. Nwosu is your picture-perfect 3-4 outside linebacker. Bosa is a picture-perfect 4-3 defensive end. Staley already stated that Bosa is an “EDGE” player, meaning he will not be anywhere closer to the center than a five-technique. If you want to see how the defense may lineup this year, go back and watch the first 2016 matchup against the Raiders when Bosa made his debut. John Pagano ran a 3-4 with some 4-3 concepts thrown in which is going to be somewhat close to how I think Staley will design this defense.

Uchenna Nwosu bull rushes Terron Armstead into Drew Brees' lap for the sack pic.twitter.com/qmw34zWKEj

— PFF (@PFF) October 13, 2020

The addition of Fackrell was huge from a depth standpoint. He played in Green Bay’s five-man front and had a huge year in 2018 when Staley was still coaching for the Bears. He has the chance to be a big-time pickup for the Bolts.

Rumph will obviously make the roster as the team’s fourth-round pick this year and he’ll get the chance to develop under Staley’s tutelage and Bosa’s guidance. He’ll likely see minimal time in 2021 as a situation pass-rusher.

I expect Egbule to make a semi-transition to edge after playing most of his season snaps there against the Saints in Week 5. Egbule only saw 35 plays on defense and 25 came against New Orleans where he recorded three stops and a hit on the QB. Allowing him to play both on and off-ball linebacker would help depth at both positions.

Linebackers (4): Kenneth Murray Jr., Drue Tranquill, Kyzir White, Nick Niemann (R)

If there’s one theme that you can blatantly see in this linebacker group, it’s that the Chargers built one of the fastest groups in the NFL. Niemann is actually the fastest of the group, besting Murray’s 4.52 with a 4.51 at Iowa’s Pro Day. Behind them is Tranquill’s 4.58 and Ogbongbemiga’s 4.66. White is the slowest of the group at 4.69.

Your projected starters will Murray and Tranquill. They both started Week 1 last year and should’ve taken the league on together had it not been for the freak ankle injury to Tranquill. They get another shot in 2021.

White will play in base situations where the team utilizes 4-3 looks. Traditional 3-4 fronts operate with two middle linebackers and I don’t see any reason he’d start over Murray or Tranquill in those situations.

Niemann has too much athletic upside not to be kept on the team as fans should hope he turns into an even better Nick Dzubnar on special teams early on.

Cornerbacks (6): Chris Harris Jr., Michael Davis, Asante Samuel Jr. (R), Ryan Smith, Brandon Facyson, Tevaughn Campbell

The Chargers got much-needed help at the cornerback spot when they drafted Samuel in the second round of this year’s draft. He’ll figure in as the team’s third corner behind Harris and Davis but should be considered considered a starter as it’s expected that the defense will still rely heavily on Nickel looks in today’s NFL. In those situations, Harris will be the team’s slot defender while Samuel and Davis are outside.

Michael Davis takes it the other way for the 78-yard PICK-6! #BoltUp

Smith, Facyson, and Campbell will provide the depth at the position with Smith likely to fill one of the gunner roles on punt/kick coverages.

Safeties (4): Derwin James, Nasir Adderley, Alohi Gilman, Mark Webb (R)

James hopes to return to the field in 2021 alongside the rest of the young, exciting talent on the defensive side of the ball. After a First-Team All-Pro season as a rookie, the entire NFL landscape is hoping number 33 hits the ground running.

Adderley underwhelmed in his first season as a starter in 2020 but a new defensive scheme where he’s not forced to be the only line of defense at the third level should raise his confidence and allow him to play faster. He’s too talented not to bounce back.

Both Gilman and Webb fit the mold of a standard strong/box safety in the NFL. Neither offer sideline-to-sideline range and their best contributions will be in stopping the run. Both should be cutting their teeth on special teams, as well.

Special Teams (3): Cole Mazza, Michael Badgley, Ty Long

As of now, the Chargers have competition at each of the three special teams spots. Badgley must beat out two other kickers while Long and Mazza each have one additional player to compete with. In the end, I think the three incumbents win out.


What Did Spurgeon Believe?

Charles Spurgeon thought through his theology for himself. Taking over ideas he had not sifted and mastered was foreign to him. When Spurgeon reached unconventional conclusions, he did not shrink from implementing them, even when this was quite difficult.

Baptists had a long tradition of ordaining ministers, for example, but Spurgeon managed to get his church to omit this step—he never was ordained. He campaigned arduously to do without the customary title, Reverend, and he eventually succeeded in replacing it with Pastor.

Features of His Theology

Spurgeon considered his objections to ordination and the title Reverend as being scripturally based, a constant feature of his theology. As he put it, “I like to read my Bible so as never to have to blink when I approach a text. I like to have a theology which enables me to read [the Bible] right through from beginning to end, and to say, ‘I am as pleased with that text as I am with the other.’ ”

Next, Spurgeon’s theology was all the more radically biblical for being unsystematic. In the late 1850s he tried to dovetail biblical teaching on human responsibility with his doctrine of election. By 1860 he became convinced it couldn’t be done something had to yield. Since both doctrines were woven into the fabric of his Bible, however, Spurgeon decided to not sacrifice either. Instead, he sacrificed the possibility of a thoroughly systematic theology.

Spurgeon expressed his approach in a forthright introduction to a sermon on election (no. 303):

“It has been my earnest endeavor ever since I have preached the Word, never to keep back a single doctrine which I believe to be taught of God. It is time that we had done with the old and rusty systems that have so long curbed the freeness of religious .

To continue reading, subscribe now. Subscribers have full digital access.


Half-Orc Features

  • Ability Score Increase. Your Strength score increases by 2, and your Constitution score increases by 1.
  • Age. Half-orcs mature a little faster than humans, reaching adulthood around age 14. They age noticeably faster and rarely live longer than 75 years.
  • Alignment. Half-orcs inherit a tendency toward chaos from their orc parents and are not strongly inclined toward good. Half-orcs raised among orcs and willing to live out their lives among them are usually evil.
  • Size. Half-orcs are somewhat larger and bulkier than humans, and they range from 5 to well over 6 feet tall. Your size is Medium.
  • Speed. Your base walking speed is 30 feet.
  • Darkvision. Thanks to your orc blood, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.
  • Menacing. You gain proficiency in the Intimidation skill.
  • Relentless Endurance. When you are reduced to 0 hit points but not killed outright, you can drop to 1 hit point instead. You can't use this feature again until you finish a long rest.
  • Savage Attacks. When you score a critical hit with a melee weapon attack, you can roll one of the weapon's damage dice one additional time and add it to the extra damage of the critical hit.
  • Languages. You can speak, read, and write Common and Orc. Orc is a harsh, grating language with hard consonants. It has no script of its own but is written in the Dwarvish script.

Variant Half-Orc: Mark of Finding

Source: Eberron - Rising from the Last War

If your Half-Orc has the Mark of Finding, replace all Racial Traits found in the Player's Handbook with these, except for Age, Alignment, Size, and Speed.


Does John 7:53—8:11 belong in the Bible?

The story of the woman caught in adultery is found in John 7:53—8:11. This section of Scripture, sometimes referred to as the pericope adulterae, has been the center of much controversy over the years. At issue is its authenticity. Did the apostle John write John 7:53—8:11, or is the story of the adulterous woman forgiven by Jesus a later, uninspired insertion into the text?

The Textus Receptus includes John 7:53—8:11, and the majority of Greek texts do. That is the reason the King James Version of the New Testament (based on the Textus Receptus) includes the section as an original part of the Gospel of John. However, more modern translations, such as the NIV and the ESV, include the section but bracket it as not original. This is because the earliest (and many would say the most reliable) Greek manuscripts do not include the story of the woman taken in adultery.

The Greek manuscripts show fairly clear evidence that John 7:53—8:11 was not originally part of John’s Gospel. Among the manuscripts that do contain the section, either wholly or in part, there are variations of placement. Some manuscripts put the pericope adulterae after John 7:36, others after John 21:25, and some even place it in the Gospel of Luke (after Luke 21:38 or 24:53).

There is internal evidence, too, that John 7:53—8:11 is not original to the text. For one thing, the inclusion of these verses breaks the flow of John’s narrative. Reading from John 7:52 to John 8:12 (skipping the debated section) makes perfect sense. Also, the vocabulary used in the story of the adulterous woman is different from what is found in the rest of the Gospel of John. For example, John never refers to “the scribes” anywhere in his book&mdashexcept in John 8:3. There are thirteen other words in this short section that are found nowhere else in John’s Gospel.

It certainly seems as if, somewhere along the way, a scribe added this story of Jesus into John’s Gospel in a place he thought it would fit well. Most likely, the story had been circulating for a long time&mdashit was an oral tradition&mdashand a scribe (or scribes) felt that, since it was already accepted as truth by consensus, it was appropriate to include it in the text of Scripture. The problem is that truth is not determined by consensus. The only thing we should consider inspired Scripture is what the prophets and apostles wrote as they “spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21).

Those who favor the inclusion of the story of the woman taken in adultery point to the sheer number of Greek manuscripts that contain the passage. They explain its omission in early manuscripts as an attempt by overzealous church leaders to prevent misunderstandings. Here is the theory of those who favor inclusion: John wrote the passage just as it appears in the Textus Receptus. But later church leaders deemed the passage morally dangerous&mdashsince Jesus forgives the woman, wives might think they could commit adultery and get away with it. So, the church leaders tampered with the Word of God and removed the passage. To leave the passage in, they reasoned, would be to make Jesus seem “soft” on adultery. Later scribes, following the lead of the Holy Spirit, re-inserted the pericope, which should never have been removed in the first place.

The fact, however, remains that John 7:53—8:11 is not supported by the best manuscript evidence. Thus, there is serious doubt as to whether it should be included in the Bible. Many call for Bible publishers to remove these verses (along with Mark 16:9&ndash20) from the main text and put them in footnotes.

Because we’re talking about certain editions of the Bible being “wrong” in certain ways, we should include a few words on the inerrancy of Scripture. The original autographs are inerrant, but none of the original autographs are extant (in existence). What we have today are thousands of ancient documents and citations that have allowed us to (virtually) re-create the autographs. The occasional phrase, verse, or section may come under scholastic review and debate, but no important doctrine of Scripture is put in doubt due to these uncertainties. That the manuscripts are the subject of ongoing scholarship does not prove there is something wrong with God’s Word it is a refining fire&mdashone of the very processes God has ordained to keep His Word pure. A belief in inerrancy underpins a reverent, careful investigation of the text.


Historical Vaccine Safety Concerns

There is solid medical and scientific evidence that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks. Despite this, there have been concerns about the safety of vaccines for as long as they have been available in the U.S. This page will explain past vaccine safety concerns, how they have been resolved, and what we have learned.

In 1955, some batches of polio vaccine given to the public contained live polio virus, even though they had passed required safety testing. Over 250 cases of polio were attributed to vaccines produced by one company: Cutter Laboratories. This case, which came to be known as the Cutter Incident, resulted in many cases of paralysis. The vaccine was recalled as soon as cases of polio were detected.

The Cutter Incident was a defining moment in the history of vaccine manufacturing and government oversight of vaccines, and led to the creation of a better system of regulating vaccines. After the government improved this process and increased oversight, polio vaccinations resumed in the fall of 1955.

At the time, there was no system in place to compensate people who might have been harmed by a vaccine. Today we have the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program external icon (VICP), which uses scientific evidence to determine whether a vaccine might be the cause of an illness or injury, and provides compensation to individuals found to have been harmed by a vaccine. The VICP remains a model method for ensuring that all persons harmed by vaccines are compensated quickly and fairly, while also protecting companies that make lifesaving products from financially unsustainable liability claims through the tort system.

For more information, see Food and Drug Administration (FDA)&rsquos Science and the Regulation of Biological Products external icon page.

From 1955 to 1963, an estimated 10-30% of polio vaccines administered in the US were contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40). The virus came from monkey kidney cell cultures used to make polio vaccines at that time. Most of the contamination was in the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), but it was also found in oral polio vaccine (OPV). After the contamination was discovered, the U.S. government established testing requirements to verify that all new lots of polio vaccines were free of SV40.

Because of research done with SV40 in animal models, there has been some concern that the virus could cause cancer in humans. However, most studies looking at the relationship between SV40 and cancers are reassuring, finding no causal association between receipt of SV40-contaminated polio vaccine and development of cancer.

No vaccines used today contain SV40 virus.

Petricciani J, Sheets R, Griffiths E, Knezevic I. Adventitious agents in viral vaccines: Lessons learned from 4 case studies. Biologicals. 2014 Sep42(5):223-36. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25135887 external icon

Mohammad-Taheri Z, Nadji SA, Raisi F, Mohammadi F, Bahadori M, Mark EJ. No association between simian virus 40 and diffuse malignant mesothelioma of the pleura in Iranian patients: a molecular and epidemiologic case-control study of 60 patients. Am J Ind Med. 2013 Oct56(10):1221-5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23828611 external icon

Eom M, Abdul-Ghafar J, Park SM, Han JH, Hong SW, Kwon KY, Ko ES, Kim L, Kim WS, Ha SY, Lee KY, Lee CH, Yoon HK, Choi YD, Chung MJ, Jung SH. No detection of simian virus 40 in malignant mesothelioma in Korea. Korean J Pathol. 2013 Apr47(2):124-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23667371 external icon

Qi F, Carbone M, Yang H, Gaudino G. Simian virus 40 transformation, malignant mesothelioma and brain tumors. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2011 Oct5(5):683-97. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21955238 external icon

Hmeljak J, Kern I, Cör A. No implication of Simian virus 40 in pathogenesis of malignant pleural mesothelioma in Slovenia. Tumori. 2010 Sep-Oct96(5):667-73.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21302609 external icon

Lundstig A, Dejmek A, Eklund C, Filinic I, Dillner J. No detection of SV40 DNA in mesothelioma tissues from a high incidence area in Sweden. Anticancer Res. 2007 Nov-Dec27(6B):4159-61. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18225586 external icon

Poulin DL, DeCaprio JA. Is there a role for SV40 in human cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2006 Sep 1024(26):4356-65. Review. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16963733 external icon

Thu GO, Hem LY, Hansen S, Møller B, Norstein J, Nøkleby H, Grotmol T. Is there an association between SV40 contaminated polio vaccine and lymphoproliferative disorders? An age-period-cohort analysis on Norwegian data from 1953 to 1997. Int J Cancer. 2006 Apr 15118(8):2035-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287082 external icon

Dang-Tan T, Mahmud SM, Puntoni R, Franco EL. Polio vaccines, Simian Virus 40, and human cancer: the epidemiologic evidence for a causal association. Oncogene. 2004 Aug 2323(38):6535-40. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15322523 external icon

In 1976 there was a small increased risk of a serious neurological disorder called Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) following vaccination with a swine flu vaccine. The increased risk was approximately 1 additional case of GBS for every 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine. When over 40 million people were vaccinated against swine flu, federal health officials decided that the possibility of an association of GBS with the vaccine, however small, necessitated stopping immunization until the issue could be explored.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a thorough scientific review external icon of this issue in 2003 and concluded that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS. Scientists have multiple theories on why this increased risk may have occurred, but the exact reason for this association remains unknown.

Today, CDC continually monitors the safety of seasonal and pandemic flu vaccines, and any possible safety problems are discussed by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Vaccination is the best way to prevent flu infection and its complications, and having safe and effective flu vaccines is extremely important.

In 1998, some research caused concern that hepatitis B vaccination might be linked with multiple sclerosis (MS), a progressive nerve disease. However, this link has not been found in the large body of research that has been done since that time. In 2002, the Institute of Medicine thoroughly reviewed all available evidence and published a report external icon . In this thorough review, the IOM committee concluded that there is no link between hepatitis B vaccination and MS.

In 1998, the FDA approved RotaShield vaccine, the first vaccine to prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis. Shortly after it was licensed, some infants developed intussusception (rare type of bowel obstruction that occurs when the bowel folds in on itself) after being vaccinated. At first, it was not clear if the vaccine or some other factor was causing the bowel obstructions. CDC quickly recommended that use of the vaccine be suspended and immediately started two emergency investigations to find out if receiving RotaShield vaccine was causing some of the cases of intussusception.

The results of the investigations showed that RotaShield vaccine caused intussusception in some healthy infants younger than 12 months of age who normally would be at low risk for this condition.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) withdrew its recommendation to vaccinate infants with RotaShield® vaccine, and the manufacturer voluntarily withdrew RotaShield from the market in October 1999.

There were concerns that the meningococcal vaccine Menactra caused a serious neurological disorder called Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS). Between 2005 and 2008, there were a number of youth who reported GBS after receiving Menactra. However, to investigate whether GBS was caused by the vaccine or was coincidental with vaccination, two large studies were conducted, with a combined total of over 2 million vaccinated adolescents. The results of these studies showed that there was no link between Menactra and GBS.

In 2007, Merck & Company, Inc. voluntarily recalled 1.2 million doses of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccines due to concerns about potential contamination with bacteria called B. cereus. The recall was a precaution, and after careful review, no evidence of B. cereus infection was found in recipients of recalled Hib vaccines.

An increased risk of narcolepsy (a chronic sleep disorder) was found following vaccination with Pandemrix, a monovalent 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine that was used in several European countries during the H1N1 influenza pandemic. This risk was initially found in Finland, and then some other European countries also detected an association.

Pandemrix is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline in Europe and was specifically produced for pandemic 2009 H1N1 influenza. Pandemrix was never licensed for use in the United States.

In 2014, CDC published a study on the association between 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, 2010/2011 seasonal influenza vaccines, and narcolepsy. The study found that vaccination was not associated with an increased risk for narcolepsy.

In 2018, a study team including CDC scientists analyzed and published vaccine safety data on adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccines (arenaprix-AS03, Focetria-MF59, and Pandemrix-AS03) from 10 global study sites. Researchers did not detect any associations between the vaccines and narcolepsy.

  • Incidence rate study data did not show a rise in the rate of narcolepsy following vaccination except in the one signaling country included (Sweden, which used Pandemrix).
  • Case-control analyses for Arepanrix-AS03 did not show evidence of an increased risk of narcolepsy.
  • Case-coverage analysis for Pandemrix-ASO3 in children in the Netherlands did not show evidence of an increased risk of narcolepsy, but the number of exposed cases was small (N=7).
  • Cases-control analysis for Focetria-MF59 did not show evidence of an increased risk of narcolepsy.

Porcine circovirus (PCV) is a common virus found in pigs. In 2010, it was discovered that both rotavirus vaccines licensed in the U.S.- Rotarix and RotaTeq- contained PCV type 1. PCV1 is not known to cause disease in animals or humans. In fact, PCV is common in healthy pigs, and humans are routinely exposed to the virus by eating pork. Safety monitoring of both vaccines has not shown any reason for concern about PCV.

In 2013, Merck & Company, Inc. recalled one batch of Gardasil, a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. The recall was a precaution following an error in the manufacturing process. The company had concerns that a small number of vials might have contained glass particles due to breakage. No health problems were reported relating to this recall other than known side effects that can result from any vaccination, like arm redness and soreness where the shot was given.


Just Plane Fun!

Aviation inspires achievement and endless possibilities and our amazing aircraft will have you in awe!

Know More

Science

The foundations of flight and aircraft design can be really fun. get to know the basic scientific principles through entertaining hands-on stations.

Know More

History

Travel through Texas aviation history like never before and learn about the power of military aviation and rise of civilian flight.

Know More


Watch the video: HAWKER HUNTER MK 58 BURKHARD DOTZAUER TEAM GERMANY RC JET 2ND COMPETITION FLIGHT 20KG JET WM 2013


Comments:

  1. Brice

    What phrase... super, magnificent idea

  2. Lucius

    really beautiful and not only

  3. Siraj

    the Magnificent idea

  4. Zuk

    the Relevant point of view, it is worth knowing.

  5. Senapus

    There is something in this. I will know, thank you very much for the information.

  6. Tokora

    In my opinion you are not right. I am assured. I can defend the position.



Write a message