State several evidence which support the ancient astronaut theory. Discuss whether you agree or disagree to the evidence that you have identified.

          Based on the movie I have watched Ancient Aliens: The Evidence, which supports the ancient astronaut theory. There are several evidences that can identify through the documentary.

         Firstly, it is about small wooden bird model found in Egypt known as the Saqqara Bird that flying besides the pharaoh and has the description ‘I want to fly’. It can recognize as simple lines and geometric shapes. This statement was supported by Dr Algund Eenboom who the CEO- Author of Aircraft of the pharaoh. 

         Secondly, they also found some dozens of objects that look like an insect or fish that represented fire jets in Colombia’s ancient buildings around 1500 years. Well, the fire jet has triangular shape design, stabilizers and a fuselage which almost as the same as nowadays modern fire jets. It was found that the shape of the objects similar to aerodynamic space shuttle with high speed aerodynamic body. 

        The Third evidence is giant human figure with enormous heads also been found at Easter Island. These statues stand 13 feet high and weigh 14 tons and look much heavier. They also found a field of stone ruins scattered with giant carved blocks.

        Through the documentary, I disagree with all the evidence was given. In my opinion, aliens never existed and ‘they’ totally not contribute to development ancient civilization. Aliens are only human imagination. Other than that, human intelligent are capable to construct wonders with the skills of their knowledge.   

                                           

Based on the documentary A.B.B, do you think all the vices committed by Julius Caesar were necessary in order to safeguard the superiority of Rome as the greatest civilization in the ancient world?

         Julius Caesar is known as one of the greatest leader ever existed in ancient time and it is supported by many historians who believe that the superiority of Rome was contribute by Julius Caesar. In order to answer this question, all the vices committed by Julius Caesar were unnecessary in order to safeguard the superiority of Rome. This is because Julius Caesar is a cruel leader and his action was not humanity.

          The reason which are in the battle of Alesia, Caesar allowed thousands of women and children to starve to death. It shows that he willing to anything to protect his army even though he had to sacrifice the other people life. His action was unacceptable and he totally has no sympathy to people around him. Well, he was cruel when he ordered his army to cut off every man hands as a warning for those who are do not followed his order and were trying to against him. His methods that he uses maybe make people scared and just obey the rule but it is unfair to people to treat them like that. It seems he consider more to his power than other people’s fate. 

                     

         

         Moreover, he always tried to dominate many countries by having bloody battles. The example was given which is when he approached to Avaricum where a battle had held and about 39,000 of men, women and children had been slaughtered by his soldiers. Against to his action, there are another ways that can apply to take over the country. Then by killing innocence people, it is unacceptable as humanity value.

         Regarding the documentary, Caesar had slept with women including his friends’ wives. The situation cannot be happen as a leader of country. He cannot take an opportunity as a leader to everyone obeys his order. He should show a good attitude and respects other people right.

     For conclusion, Julius Caesar’s vices were unnecessary in order to safeguard the superiority of Rome because as a leader there are another ways to develop civilization. As a leader, Caesar should be more tolerate but distinct to his citizen. Lastly, without using vicious way a leader still can success very well.

                

Do you agree that Brutus had a noble motive when murdering his adopted father, Julius Caesar? Discuss.

                                      

          Gaius Julius Caesar was a dictator of Roman Republic and a distinguished writer of Latin prose. Julius died in 15^th March 44 BC during his age was 55 years. He was killed by 60 of Roman senators that led by Gaius Cassius Longinus and his adopted son, Marcus Junius Brutus. Caesar was stabbed about 23 times until death in the Theatre of Pompey. 

                To answer this question given, I disagree that Brutus had a noble motive when murdering his adopted father, Julius Caesar and there are several reasons why Brutus kill Caesar even though he actually loves Caesar.

            First of all, in his claimed he only stated that he loved Rome more and Caesar was an ambitious man. He also wanted to save Rome from destroy in Caesar domination. 

           In my opinion, I think Brutus had confuses situation to make decision. Moreover, he had been pressured by Cassius who seduced him to murder his adopted father. If he had a noble motive, he will not hesitated when he want to stab Caesar and then felt guilty after killing Caesar. 
  
           Other than that, he also ran away to Asia (Philippine) with Cassius since the Roman was looking for them. It shows that he scared to face Roman because he had kill Caesar for noble motive.  He actually had no plan to kill Caesar. 

         Lastly, Brutus did not had noble motive when murdering Caesar. He is an immature person and cannot think wisely during the situation. In addition, he was influence by Cassius.       

Based on the facts presented in this documentary are you convince that fast food is the main cause of obesity in United States and around the world.

        Fast food is well known among the people for past until nowadays. Based on the facts presented in this documentary, I do not think it is right for people to blame fast food on obesity problem. there are several reasons why fast food cannot be blame as obesity problem. 

 

        Everyone has a choice to eat at home or eat out. So, it depend on consumers whether they want to eat fast food or not. 

     This nation has a serious obesity epidemic but blaming fast food restaurants is not the answer. Why? This is because, fast food is cheap and tasty, and so it's easy to see why people might make the choice to eat it in lieu of foods that are better for them. 

                      
         Besides that, people have also fallen into a lazy lifestyle, they do not get much exercise. It will cause obesity problem around the world. Everyone is free to decide what to and what not to eat and everyone is aware of what is healthy to eat and what is not. For example, in this documentary Morgan have a right to decide what he want to eat. So, he knows what is good for him. 

         If we eating fast food but we always exercise, it not will cause obesity problem among us. Other than that, for example in Malaysia cultures, we have varieties of food such as ‘nasi lemak’, ‘roti canai’, and lots of oily food. So, we have another food that can make us facing obesity problem among people.

        Consumers have to make limit when they chose to eat fast food. They have to take in less quantity if they think fast food can influence them to obesity problem. 

         Fast Food places are not holding a gun to your head telling you that you have to buy and eat their food or you will be killed, are they? So, it always comes from consumers’ choice.  

        In conclusion, obesity cannot be related only to fast foods, because there are many possible reasons why people gain weight. May be they exercise or eat fatty foods besides fast foods. This is still about people's choices, whether they eat healthy food.

Discuss whether or not Tun Abdul Razak’s son, our current prime minister, Datuk seri Najib is continuing his father’s legacy primarily affirmative action.

                                              

           Based on Wikipedia, Affirmative action refer to policies that take factors including “race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group” in areas of employment, education and business, usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination. 
  
       The purpose of affirmative action is intended to promote equal opportunity.

       Tun Abdul Razak bin Hussein Al-Haj was the second Prime Minister of Malaysia, ruling from 1970 to 1976. He is also renowned for launching the Malaysia New Economic Policy (MNEP). Malaysia New Economic Policy (MNEP) was an ambitious and controversial sosio-economy restructuring affirmative action program.

         The question asks whether our current prime minister, Datuk Seri Najib continuing his father’s legacy primarily in affirmative action. Yes, Datuk Seri Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak is continuing his father’s legacy and I agree with the statement. This is because nowadays we can see the changes in Malaysia. Datuk Seri Najib has an effort to continue his father’s legacy. 

               

       At the first day as a prime minister, Najib made ​​it clear that his leadership will prioritize based on the achievement of the people. He waged a people-oriented programs including alleviating poverty by provide helped to rural people, access to education for all levels of society and upgrade the government services. He also is a leadership who prioritize for all nations. 

        Other than that, he also was introducing 1Malaysian Plan 2010 until now. The 1Malaysia slogans are a great action taken by Najib to show the community of nation in Malaysian. For example, Kedai Rakyat 1Malaysia (KR1M), Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia (BR1M), Majlis Pelancaran Program Perumahan 1Malaysia (PR1MA) and Kelab Putera 1Malaysia (KP1M). Other than that, Najib also gives RM500 to people who qualify regardless of race. The programs give lots of advantages to all citizen of Malaysia. Like his father, he still cares about the rights of the Malays. 

         He desperately changes the life of Malays who live in rural area and gives them a better life. For example he increases employment opportunities in rural areas by expanding the industrial area. His mission and his father are same, namely to give progress to the nation and to provide a fair to people. 

           Najib proves that he is a leader who constantly hears the pulse of the people, when he releases Hindraf leaders detained under ISA. He considered as a brave action and a concern leader to the people. Najib as a father of 1Malaysia never tired of launching new efforts to the advancement of the people and country. To strengthen the 1Malaysia concept, he introduced a very strong slogan "Rakyat Didahulukan, Pencapaian Diutamakan”. 

         In conclusion, Datuk Seri Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak is continuing his father’s legacy primarily affirmative action.

There were many suspects in the JTR murders over the years. What are the evidence that supports the claim that James Kelly was JTR? If you are rival detective, how do you eliminate all the evidence that you’re identified in the documentary?

          

                                                                                             

         James Kelly was the suspect of Jack the Ripper. There are several evidences that supports the claim that James Kelly was JTR.

           The evidence which are he is a paranoid schizophrenic was declared by a doctor from Broadmoor Asylum. He was crazy and had murdered his wife by stabbing her in the neck and had escaped from an insane asylum a few months prior to the killing. After the last Ripper murder in London on November 1888, the police searched for Kelly at what had been his residence prior his wife's murder, but they were not able to locate him. Then he had disappeared after the last murder when the police went to question him.
                                                 
                              

          Other than that, he fits the profile and meets the criteria of motive. He was also responsible for multiple murders in cities around the United States. Other than that, one or two murders of prostitutes while Kelly was there. Its shows that Kelly is a main suspect that involves in the case of Jack the Ripper.

       James Kelly also was insane, and most forensic psychologists and psychiatrists also agree that Jack the Ripper was not. This is because, Kelly suffer because his disease and he not realize what he have done.  Most agree that the killer had very good knowledge of Whitechapel, so they believe he lived there. Besides that, Kelly is not a doctor and he doesn’t have knowledge in medical field. I think that he could have been a doctor because he seemed to know what he was doing and how to cut them with such precision.

Distinguish between facts and fictions that are portrayed in the movie or which aspect of the plot that is accurate to the historical fact in the JTR murders and which aspect of the plot that is based on the filmmaker’s own imagination.

          Jack the ripper was the one of the famous and renowned killers in history. Jack the Ripper is the infamous serial murderer who victimized women in the Whitechapel area of London in the 1880’s. 

         Well, his victims which are Mary Ann Nichols, Anne Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, catherine Eddows and Mary Jane Kelly. The differences between facts and fictions in Jack the Ripper which are in the book we can see that every murders by Jack the Ripper don’t have a grape fruits. But in the movie Jack the Ripper from hell every murder has a grape fruit with them when they had be murdered. 

       Other than that, Martha Tabram was killer with 39 stabs. The killer doesn’t take any organ in her body. While in the movie, the filmmaker imagines that Martha Tabram was taken her organ. 

        In conclusion, the different between film and historical fact is the last murder because Catherine Eddowes is killed instead of Mary Jane Kelly. Actually Mary Jane Kelly was not killing.  

Do you think Gandhi is responsible for the tragic end of his eldest son Harilal?

           In my opinion, I think Gandhi is not responsible for the tragic end of his eldest son, Harilal. This is because Gandhi actually had given an advice and responsible to his eldest son, Harilal. Gandhi wants his son stand on his own feet, that why he didn’t leave harta to him. He wanted his son to become a responsible person. 

                                            
       It’s not Gandhi fault when Harilal had failed three times in exams. Gandhi also sent thirty Rupees every month to his son to pay his fee in exam. It Harilal’s fault when he had a tragic ending in this movie. After Harilal’s wife died, Gandhi invited his son to come with him to the Ashram to build new live but Harilal refused to follow him. Harilal did not stick to his decision. For example, he became a Muslim but he returned to Hinduism in the end. That why Harilal’s character is a person who easy to be cheated by people. The other party used advantages of Gandhi’s name to make a profit. For example, they used Harilal to use Gandhi’s name and build Hari-Bhai Company.

                                                  
        Harilal also swindled people for 30,000 Rupees. Actually, Gandhi wanted Harilal to stand on his own without depend on Gandhi’s name as a father. Harilal as a Gandhi’s son is guilty because he used an advantage of his father’s name. Gandhi didn’t give his son a formal education because he thought hard work, self-control, compassion, selfless service were the values no school could provide. 

       In conclusion, as a father, Gandhi knew what is better for his son. He wanted his son followed his step to fight for their country. What happened to Harilal is because of his fault. He himself had chosen a way for his fate.

In your opinion, do you think Gandhi has failed in his life work which is to promote non-violence and reuniting the people of India?

          

       
        In India he is known as Father of Nation. In my opinion, I think Mahatma Gandhi had never failed in his work which is to promote non-violence and reuniting the people of India.

     This is because at the beginning of Gandhi’s movie, I can see Gandhi who’s the man who loved the peace. Gandhi became famous person by fighting for the civil rights of Muslim and Hindu Indians in South Africa by using new techniques which was non-violence civil. He employing made non-violence civil disobedience for his own country. Gandhi led India to independence and inspired movements for non-violence.  

      What I can see the character of Gandhi in this movie which is he was brave and stubborn person. He also loved his country and his people very much. Why I say like that? This is because Gandhi always tried very hard to achieve independence for his country. He able to die to his country. What Gandhi said to the people in this movie which was to gain independence, must proved worthy of it. Besides that, Hindu-Muslim must be unity always, and then must removed untouchable from heart and from life. But, the important thing he said, “they must not fight with violence, that will inflame their will but with a firmness that will open their eyes”. 

       In a nutshell, people of Pakistan and India had gained non-violence even though they had civil war in the beginning. In the end, Pakistan and India had found a peace because of Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi successes to liberate India from British, and then promote non-violence and reuniting to people of India but he failed as a leader to its own people. He still Father of Nation in India because of his sacrifice.

Do you think Sherlock is an (emphatic) character? Why? Do you think Sherlock is an (emphatic) character? Why?

      

            In my opinion, Sherlock’s- a study in pink movie, is an emphatic character. This is because I can see the beginning of this movie when Sherlock tries very hard to solve the murder case. 

            The emphatic character shows when Sherlock cares about the feeling of person who had been murdered. For example, Sherlock investigates the victim because he wants to know more about the victim’s background. He cares about the victim’s family. 

          Besides that, the other example we can see is even though Sherlock didn’t pay for anything but he still committed about the case. He actually just likes what he had done and he also likes to make experiment. Other than that, I can see Sherlock is an emphatic character when he able to follow the cabbie cab even though he knows he actually will face a danger situation. This is because he wants to solve the case then help the victims who had been murdered and able to take a risk for him. The character of Sherlock shows that he is also a brilliant man. 

        The character of Sherlock shows that he can know something by looking. He also has signs to feel something that people didn’t notice. He uses his miracle to investigate case of murdered. He never gives up finding the murdered. That show Sherlock is an emphatic character. Other than that, in my opinion Sherlock also is a responsible character.    

TEST BRAIN- Several eureka moment that you have experience throughout the documentary

          Several eureka moment that I had experience throughout the documentary which is some scenes in this documentary have brain with them.Sometimes, I didn’t realize about some weird because I didn’t notice about them. For example, when my brain focuses on money, the table turn to the chair. Early in the scene, I also didn’t realize about new hat and handkerchief that Apollo Robbins wore.Sometimes, we didn’t notice about the change because we didn’t aspect about the changes. For example, when the people in front counter change without notice by some people. Other than that, eureka moment happened when the man didn’t notice when his things which were handkerchief, phone, scarf and wallet taken by Apollo Robbins. The man didn’t notice because he just focused on what Apollo Robbins said to him. When in holistic moment we actually didn’t realize what people did and take from us. Other than that, eureka moment happen when Doctor Amir Raz try to help Alice erase number four from her mind using hypnosis. We have to pay more attention on something to notice different thing that happened.