View allAll Photos Tagged Progressive
"Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution." Mao Tse-tung (1893 – 1976). Kampf um Mao's Erbe (1977)
On behalf of Britain, I ask the whole world to accept the sincere apologies of the British people, for the damage done to science and society by Charles Darwin.
Britain has a great scientific heritage, having produced some of the world's finest, and greatest scientists. However, Britain's enormous contribution to science has been seriously sullied by the false ideas popularised by Charles Darwin, which have led to a serious decline in scientific integrity, and spawned a whole catalogue of fakes, frauds and very dubious science.
Although it has been evident for some time that Darwinian, progressive evolution is not scientifically credible, and that there is a great deal of evidence against it, the idea has now developed a life of its own, and has become an essential lynch pin in an ideological agenda. As a consequence, there is no longer any normal, scientific objectivity permitted and Darwinism has become uniquely sacrosanct, even to the extent of it being given a protected status in science education by some national governments. This is very damaging to genuine, scientific endeavour, and has had the effect of creating a virtual straitjacket, for any field of research that is likely to have any adverse implications for Darwinism.
So what is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?
The fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.
So what exactly was the erroneous idea that Darwin popularised?
Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.
However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.
This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, body parts etc. (macro-evolution).
Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over millions of years.
Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale.
That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were strictly limited, as the science of selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.
Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.
Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.
This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history,
However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.
A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.
That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are literally ... genetic, copying MISTAKES.
The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.
The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been correct all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment.
The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.
A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.
This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.
So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?
Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the fanciful idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro evolution based on the belief in a total progression from microbes to humans through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.
However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it should be regarded as unscientific nonsense. It defies logic, the laws of probability, the law of cause and effect and Information Theory.
People are often confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. However, evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of progressive, macro-evolution.
Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating entirely new structures, body parts, organs etc. and that is a FACT.
It is no wonder that Professor W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... "the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity".
Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.
Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.
Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story. The dogs remain dogs and will always remain dogs. Hundreds of years of experiment and observation through selective breeding confirms that.
To explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of billions of genetic copying mistakes..... mutations ... of mutations .... of mutations.... of mutations .... and so on - and on - and on.
In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA), of every living thing that has ever lived, was created by a series built on previous mistakes ... mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc.
If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain where that original information came from?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - features, structures, body parts, organs, biological systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed - in all living things, such as:
skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes, all built on previous mistakes ... mistake upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - over and over again, millions of times. That is ... every part, system and process of all living things are the result of the accumulation of billions of genetic MISTAKES over many millions of years.
So what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Incredible!
If you believe that ... you will believe anything.
Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been transformed from an original, single, living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations (mistakes).
Conclusion:
Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.
The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.
However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.
Want to join the club?
What about the fossil record?
The formation of fossils.
Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.
Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.
So it is evident that any rock containing good, intact fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes under catastrophic conditions.
The very existence of intact fossils is testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.
You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.
Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.
The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.
Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.
In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?
You don't need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.
But what does leading sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault have to say:
www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Rapid formation of strata - some recent field evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Drama in the rocks - the scientific evidence of rapid strata formation - confirmed by the scientific method of experiment and observation.
All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.
Living Fossils - when NO evidence IS evidence.
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658
The Cambrian Explosion.
Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.
Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.
See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...
Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?
The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:
Piltdown Man (a fake),
Nebraska Man (a pig),
South West Colorado Man (a horse),
Orce man (a donkey),
Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),
Archaeoraptor (a fake),
Java Man (a giant gibbon),
Peking Man (a monkey),
Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)
Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)
The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),
Peppered Moth (faked photographs)
The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)
Etc. etc.
Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.
All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.
Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
Piltdown Man was even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution, and Nebraska Man (found 3 years before the trial) was resurrected and given increased media publicity leading up the trial in order to influence the outcome.
Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.
Is that 'science'?
The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.
Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..
Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. It was also promoted as 'scientific' evidence for evolution by evolutionists in the popular media leading up to the Scopes Trial. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.
South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... It was presented as evidence for human evolution.
Orce man, a fragment of skullcap, which was most likely from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any proof of human evolution as it was made out to be.
Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.
Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.
Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.
Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.
The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.
Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.
The Orgueil meteorite, organic material and even plant seeds were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life, which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there and could therefore be declared by evolutionists as being a scientific fact.
Is macro evolution even science? The answer to that has to be an emphatic - NO!
The usual definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes to man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.
You don't need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.
However, what does the world's, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?
Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering
"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science -- like all origins are -- can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared -- at least its visibility is clouded from the public's viewpoint.
Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. 'Science but not Scientists' (2006) p.xi"
And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin's 'Origin', wrote:
"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." 'Science and Common Sense' (1937) p.229
“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to
the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable.
This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”
Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'
"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments.
"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others.
"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince.
"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11
Evolution is a fairy tale.
Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”
___________________________________________
THE GREAT MISTAKE
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/15650423453
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
Progressive Field, Home of the Cleveland Indians. What can I say...the cloud cover sucked. Until a sunset appeared out of nowhere. Then the cloud cover didn't suck anymore...LOL. Out of 30 MLB ballparks, this is the 23rd ballpark that I photographed. _DSC4703B
If interested in purchasing this photograph, please contact me for prices.
© 2015 Mark Whitt Photography
Sometimes things get lucky. While having lunch, saw neighbor building being painted. Obviously grabbed camera and took the shot. Cropped to get this view. While playing with picasa, zero tint position gave this feel. I liked the grain and pattern. One of most satisfying shot for me. :-)
Shot during a cold, rainy weekday afternoon.
*** For the guessewherenyc group members trying to find this location, due to the angle these buildings span a few blocks at least one of the cross streets that these buildings are on would be good I think.
Home of the 1st Place Cleveland Indians! Took this photo at last night's game against the Detroit Tigers. Photo taken in the Bottom of the 9th as Chris Perez was securing another Win!
This is a hand stitched Panorama using 3 images taken with my iPhone 4s.
SW1500 #34 brings up the rear of the local as they approach the end of the ex-MN&S High Line in Richfield, MN on 8/26/15. (misc 60909J)
La victoire sur soi-même: elle se passe de vos acclamations. Une action qui dédaigne tous les gestes désordonnés, qui refuse de se perdre dans les orages de la poussière et les remuements des dunes; une action qui s'en tient à l'essence de nous même, au soin de la racine, à la culture profonde de notre vigne, à la santé du cep, voilà mon fils, qui compte. Le seul orgueil d'en avoir fini avec toutes les ambitions vaines, et d'être le feu qui fait oraison à la lumière. Se conquérir sans cesse, pour atteindre à la connaissance suprême dans le suprême amour. Et dans le rien de tout, faire porter à ce néant la fleur d'un sourire qui ne doit pas se flétrir, voilà des conquêtes. (...) Tu ne te connais pas. Laisse là ces mépris: ils font vivre en nous la vermine, dont ils veulent nous venger. Défais-toi de ces colères puériles. Purge ces flammes trop lourdes de fumée. Réserve ta puissance à d'autres entreprises. Garde toi pour le feu, toi qui es tout feu. Et ton sang même est feu. Tourne-toi désormais vers les seuls objets qui te sollicitent, où tout aspire à la beauté. Pour l'étincelle de l'instant comme pour le temps éternel, ta passion est là uniquement.
- André SUARES, Voyage du condottière.
We are back today, at our new location.
Come and enjoy amazing tunes played by:
11:30 am - DJ Nath
01:00 pm - DJ Dex
02:30 pm - DJ Nina L
Clarion, PA. August 2016.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like to use THIS picture in any sort of media elsewhere (such as newspaper or article), please send me a Flickrmail or send me an email at natehenderson6@gmail.com
Camel / Camel (Album)
Side one:
- "Slow Yourself Down" (Andrew Latimer, Andy Ward) - 4:47
- "Mystic Queen" (Peter Bardens) - 5:40
- "Six Ate" (Andrew Latimer) - 6:06
- "Separation" (Andrew Latimer) - 3:57
Side two:
- "Never Let Go" (Andrew Latimer) - 6:26
- "Curiosity" (Peter Bardens) - 5:55
- "Arubaluba" (Peter Bardens) - 6:28
Andrew Latimer – guitar; vocals
Peter Bardens – organ, Mellotron, piano, VCS 3 synthesizer; vocals
Doug Ferguson – bass guitar; vocals
Andy Ward – drums, percussion
Recorded: 15–26 August 1972 at Morgan Studios, London
sleeve design: Modula
Label: MCA Records / 1973
ex Vinyl-Collection MTP
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel_(album)
A portrait of singer Hayley Griffiths performing with prog rock band Karnataka at The Queen's Hall in Edinburgh, last week.
You can see another shot I took of her, here:
My thanks are due to Andy Catlin for arranging my photo pass.
Coll Misc 0840-19
The Electors. The Borough Council 'Municipal Reformers' promised you... The text on this poster continues in alternate black and red.
New in April 1967 to Black & White Motorways, a Daimler SRC6 Roadliner carrying Plaxton C47F coachwork.The Cummins 90 degree V6 engine was fitted to most Roadliners,The capacity was 9.6litres and they developed 192bhp at 2600rpm.Unreliable in operation some later versions had a Perkins V8 but that was almost as bad.They were both to powerful for the Daimatic automatic gear boxes and tended to rip the guts out of them.
I drove a later one once with an Elite body on it,a very impressive motor a great pity that because of BLs holding further development was not to take place.
picssr.
The Triumph Spitfire is a small English two-seat sports car, introduced at the London Motor Show in 1962.[3] The vehicle was based on a design produced for Standard-Triumph in 1957 by Italian designer Giovanni Michelotti. The platform for the car was largely based upon the chassis, engine, and running gear of the Triumph Herald saloon, and was manufactured at the Standard-Triumph works at Canley, in Coventry. As was typical for cars of this era, the bodywork was fitted onto a separate structural chassis, but for the Spitfire, which was designed as an open top or convertible sports car from the outset, the X-frame chassis was reinforced for additional rigidity by the use of structural components within the bodywork. The Spitfire was provided with a manual hood for weather protection, the design improving to a folding hood for later models. Factory-manufactured hard-tops were also available.Models
Five Spitfire models were sold during the production run:
Model name Engine Year Number built
Triumph Spitfire 4 (Mark I) 1147 cc inline 4 Oct 1962 – Dec 1964 45,753[1]
Triumph Spitfire 4 Mark II 1147 cc inline 4 Dec 1964 – Jan 1967 37,409[1]
Triumph Spitfire Mark III 1296 cc inline 4 Jan 1967– Dec 1970 65,320[1]
Triumph Spitfire Mark IV 1296 cc inline 4 Nov 1970 – Dec 1974 70,021[1]
Triumph Spitfire 1500 1493 cc inline 4 Dec 1974 – Aug 1980 95,829[1]
Origins
The Triumph Spitfire was originally devised by Standard-Triumph to compete in the small sports car market that had opened up with the introduction of the Austin-Healey Sprite. The Sprite had used the basic drive train of the Austin A30/A35 in a light body to make up a budget sports car; Triumph's idea was to use the mechanicals from their small saloon, the Herald, to underpin the new project. Triumph had one advantage, however; where the Austin A30 range was of unitary construction, the Herald featured a separate chassis. It was Triumph's intention to cut that chassis down and clothe it in a sports body, saving the costs of developing a completely new chassis / body unit.
Italian designer Michelotti—who had already penned the Herald—was commissioned for the new project, and came up with a traditional, swooping body. Wind-up windows were provided (in contrast to the Sprite/Midget, which still featured sidescreens, also called curtains, at that time), as well as a single-piece front end which tilted forwards to offer unrivalled access to the engine. At the dawn of the 1960s, however, Standard-Triumph was in deep financial trouble, and unable to put the new car into production; it was not until the company was taken over by the Leyland organization that funds became available and the car was launched. Leyland officials, taking stock of their new acquisition, found Michelotti's prototype hiding under a dust sheet in a corner of the factory and rapidly approved it for production.
Spitfire 4 or Mark I (1962-1964)
Triumph Spitfire 4 (Mark I)
Triumph Spitfire (Ottawa British Car Show '10).jpg
Overview
Production 1962–1964
45,753 made
Powertrain
Engine 1,147 cc (1.1 l) I4
Transmission 4-speed manual with optional overdrive on top and third from 1963 onwards
Dimensions
Curb weight 1,568 lb (711 kg) (unladen U.K.-spec)
The production car changed little from the prototype, although the full-width rear bumper was dropped in favour of two part-bumpers curving round each corner, with overriders. Mechanicals were basically stock Herald with the notable addition of front disc brakes. The engine was an 1,147 cc (1.1 l) 4-cylinder with a pushrod OHV cylinder head and 2 valves per cylinder, mildly tuned for the Spitfire, fed by twin SU carburettors. Also from the Herald came the rack and pinion steering and coil-and-wishbone front suspension, and at the rear a single transverse-leaf swing axle arrangement. This ended up being the most controversial part of the car: it was known to "tuck in" and cause violent over steer if pushed too hard, even in the staid Herald. In the sportier Spitfire (and later the 6-cylinder Triumph GT6 and Triumph Vitesse) it led to severe criticism. Known fixes for this include things like camber compensators (essentially a single leaf spring suspended beneath the vertical links), or simply achieving more negative camber to the rear wheels can help the handling become more manageable. The body was bolted to a much-modified Herald chassis, the outer rails and the rear outriggers having been removed; little of the original Herald chassis design was left, and the Spitfire used structural outer sills to stiffen its body tub.
The Spitfire was an inexpensive small sports car and as such had very basic trim, including rubber mats and a large plastic steering wheel. These early cars were referred to both as "Triumph Spitfire Mark I" and "Spitfire 4",[1] not to be confused with the later Spitfire Mark IV.
In UK specification the in-line four produced 63 bhp (47 kW) at 5750 rpm, and 67 lb·ft (91 N·m)of torque at 3500 rpm. This gave a top speed of 92 mph (148 km/h), and would achieve 0 to 60 mph (97 km/h) in 15.5 seconds. Average fuel consumption was 31mpg.[1]
For 1964 an overdrive option was added to the 4-speed manual gearbox to give more relaxed cruising.[3] Wire wheels and a hard top were also available.[3]
An all monocoque construction derivative of the Spitfire with, pop-up headlamps, named the Triumph Fury was proposed with a prototype being built.
Spitfire Mark II (1965-1967)
Triumph Spitfire Mark II
1965TriumphSpitfire.jpg
Overview
Production 1965–1967
37,409 made
Powertrain
Engine 1,147 cc (1.1 l) I4
Transmission 4-speed manual with optional overdrive on top and third
Dimensions
Curb weight 1,568 lb (711 kg)(unladen U.K.spec)
In March 1965 the Spitfire Mark II was launched. It was very similar to the Mark I but featured a more highly tuned engine, through a revised camshaft design, a water-cooled intake manifold, and tubular exhaust manifold, increasing the power to 67 bhp (50 kW) at 6000 rpm.[1] The coil-spring design clutch of the Mark I was replaced with a Borg and Beck diaphragm spring clutch.(North American model still received the coil-spring clutch housing, and were also equipped with AC-Delco distributors) The exterior trim was modified with a new grille and badges. The interior trim was improved with redesigned seats and by covering most of the exposed surfaces with rubber cloth. The original moulded rubber floor coverings were replaced with moulded carpets.[1]
It was introduced at a base price of £550, compared to the Sprite's £505 and the Midget's £515.[1] Top speed was claimed to be 96 mph (154 km/h) and its 0–60 mph time of 15.0 seconds was considered "lively".[1] The factory claimed that at highway speeds (70 mph (110 km/h)) the car achieved 38.1 miles per imperial gallon (7.41 L/100 km; 31.7 mpg-US).[1]
Spitfire Mark III (1967-1970)
Triumph Spitfire Mark III
1968 Triumph Spitfire Mk III.jpg
Overview
Production 1967–1970
65,320 made
Powertrain
Engine 1,296 cc (1.3 l) I4
Transmission 4-speed manual with optional overdrive on top and third
Dimensions
Curb weight 1,568 lb (711 kg)(unladen U.K.spec)
The Mark III, introduced in March 1967, was the first major facelift to the Spitfire. The front bumper was raised in response to new crash regulations, as well as the front coil springs being slightly raised, which made the car sometimes look a little out of proportion. Although much of the bonnet pressing was carried over, the front end looked quite different. The rear lost the overriders from the bumper but gained reversing lights as standard (initially as two separate lights on either side of the number plate, latterly as a single light in a new unit above the number plate); the interior was improved again with a wood-veneer instrument surround and a smaller 15 inch wire spoked steering wheel. A folding hood replaced the earlier "build it yourself" arrangement. For most of the Mark III range, the instrument cluster was still centre-mounted (as in the Mark I and Mark II) so as to reduce parts bin counts (and thereby production costs) for right-hand and left-hand drive versions.
The 1147 cc engine was replaced with a bored-out 1296 cc unit (the bore increasing from 69.3 mm (2.73 in) to 73.7 mm (2.90 in), stroke retained at 76 mm (3.0 in)), as fitted on the new Triumph Herald 13/60 and Triumph 1300 saloons. A new quieter exhaust gave a sweet distinct note and reduced cabin noise. In SU twin-carburettor form, the engine put out a claimed 75 bhp (56 kW), and 75 lb·ft (102 N·m) of torque at 4000 rpm, and made the Mark III a comparatively quick car by the standards of the day.[citation needed] Popular options continued to include wire wheels, a hard top and a Laycock de Normanville overdrive, and far more relaxed and economical cruising at high speeds. The Mark III was the fastest Spitfire yet, achieving 60 mph (97 km/h) in 13.6 seconds,[1] and reaching a top speed of 95 mph (153 km/h). Average fuel consumption was improved slightly at 33mpg.[1] The Mark III actually continued production into 1971, well after the Mark IV was introduced.[1]
On 8 February 1968, Standard-Triumph General Manager George Turnbull personally drove the 100,000th Triumph Spitfire off the end of the Canley production line.[4] More than 75 per cent of the total production had been exported outside the UK, including 45 per cent to the USA and 25 per cent to mainland European markets.[4]
Starting in 1969, however, US-bound models had to be changed to comply with new safety/emission regulations; models produced after 1969 are sometimes referred to as "federal" Spitfires. The changes being a reduced compression ratio to 8.5:1, a less aggressive camshaft, and a positive crankcase breather valve resulted in a slight decrease in power (68 bhp) and 73 ft/lbs of torque. Thankfully, the 0-60 time of 14.3 seconds was still faster than the previous Mark II. The instrument panel was moved in front of the driver, and new seats were introduced with integrated headrests to help against whiplash. Also the wood dash was replaced with a matte black finish.
Then, in the Mk.III's final production year (1970), the separate "TRIUMPH" letters on the front of the bonnet were replaced with an RAF style "Spitfire" badge (U.S. market only - U.K. models had a plain badge without the RAF roundel) that rested in the right corner (car opposing point of view) of the bonnet. This year also received a zip up rear window, full wheel hubcaps, black radiator grille, key-in-ignition buzzer, and a new black spoked steering wheel. Some markets also got a single Stromberg carburettor. At the rear the two separate reversing lights were replaced by a single light in a central fitting which also held the number plate lights.
Spitfire Mark IV (1970-1974)
Triumph Spitfire Mark IV
Triumph Spitfire MkIV in Morges 2012 - 2.jpg
Triumph Spitfire Mark IV
Overview
Production 1970–1974
70,021 made
Powertrain
Engine 1,296 cc (1.3 l) I4
Transmission 4-speed manual with optional overdrive on top and third
Dimensions
Curb weight 1,717 lb (779 kg)(unladen UK spec)
The Mark IV brought the most comprehensive changes to the Spitfire. It featured a completely re-designed cut-off rear end, giving a strong family resemblance to the Triumph Stag and Triumph 2000 models, both of which were also Michelotti-designed. The front end was also cleaned up, with a new bonnet pressing losing the weld lines on top of the wings from the older models, and the doors were given recessed handles and squared-off glass in the top rear corner. The interior was much improved: a proper full-width dashboard was provided, putting the instruments ahead of the driver rather than over the centre console. This was initially black plastic however was replaced with wood in 1973.
The engine continued at 1296 cc, but in 1973 was modified with larger big-end bearings to rationalize production with the TR6 2.5 litre engines, which somewhat decreased its "revvy" nature; there was some detuning, to meet new emissions laws, which resulted in the new car being a little tamer than the Mark III. Peak power was reduced to 63 bhp (47 kW) at 6000 rpm, and the peak torque was now 69 lb·ft (94 N·m) at 3500 rpm.[1] With the overall weight also increasing to 1,717 lb (779 kg) the performance dropped as a consequence, 0 to 60 mph (97 km/h) now being achieved in 15.9 seconds and the top speed reducing to 90 mph (140 km/h).[1] The overall fuel economy also dipped to 32mpg.[1] The gearbox gained synchromesh on its bottom gear.
An all-new hardtop was also available, with rear quarter-lights and a flatter rear screen.
By far the most significant change, however, was to the rear suspension, which was de-cambered and redesigned to eliminate the unfortunate tendencies of the original swing-axle design. The Triumph GT6 and Triumph Vitesse had already been modified, and the result on all these cars was safe and progressive handling even at the limit.
The Mark IV went on sale in the UK at the end of 1970 with a base price of £735.[1]
Spitfire 1500 (1974-1980)
Triumph Spitfire 1500 USA
1980 Triumph Spitfire 1500 Front.jpg
Overview
Production 1979–1980
Bumper normally black
Triumph Spitfire 1500
1980 Triumph Spitfire 1500 Heritage Motor Centre, Gaydon.jpg
Overview
Production 1974–1981
95,829 made
Powertrain
Engine 1,493 cc (1.5 l) I4
Transmission 4-speed manual with optional overdrive on top and third
Dimensions
Curb weight 1,750 lb (790 kg)(unladen U.K.-spec)
In 1973 in the United States and Canada, and 1975 in the rest of the world, the 1500 engine was used to make the Spitfire 1500. Although in this final incarnation the engine was rather rougher and more prone to failure than the earlier units, torque was greatly increased by increasing the cylinder stroke to 87.5 mm (3.44 in), which made it much more drivable in traffic.[1] The reason for the engine problems was the continued use of three main bearings for the crankshaft.[citation needed]
While the rest of the world saw 1500s with the compression ratio reduced to 8.0:1, the American market model was fitted with a single Zenith-Stromberg carburettor and a compression ratio reduced to 7.5:1 to allow it to run on lower octane unleaded fuel,[1] and after adding a catalytic converter and exhaust gas recirculating system, the engine only delivered 53 bhp (40 kW) with a decent 0–60 time of 15.4 seconds.[5] The notable exception to this was the 1976 model year, where the compression ratio was raised to 9.1:1. This improvement was short-lived, however, as the ratio was again reduced to 7.5:1 for the remaining years of production.
In the UK the 9:1 compression ratio, less restrictive emissions control equipment, and the Type HS2 SU carburettors now being replaced with larger Type HS4 models,[1] led to the most powerful variant to date. The 1500 Spitfire now produced 71 bhp (53 kW) at 5500 rpm, and produced 82 lb·ft (111 N·m) of torque at 3000 rpm.[1] Top speed was now at the magical 100 mph (160 km/h) mark, and 0 to 60 mph (97 km/h) was reached in 13.2 seconds.[1] Fuel economy was reduced to 29mpg.[1]
Further improvements to the suspension followed with the 1500 included longer swing axles and a lowered spring mounting point for more negative camber and a wider rear track. The wider, lower stance gave an impressive skid pad result of 0.87g average. This put the Spitfire head and shoulders over its competition in handling.
The American market Spitfire 1500 is easily identified by the big plastic over-riders and wing mounted reflectors on the front and back wings. The US specification models up to 1978 still had chrome bumpers, but on the 1979 and 1980 models these were replaced by black rubber bumpers with built-in over-riders. Chassis extensions were also fitted under the boot to support the bumpers.
Detail improvements continued to be made throughout the life of the Mark IV, and included reclining seats with "chequered brushed nylon centre panels" and head restraints, introduced for domestic market cars early in 1977 along with a new set of column stalk operated minor controls (as fitted already in the TR7) replacing the old dashboard mounted knobs and switches.[6] Also added for the model's final years were a wood dash, hazard flashers and an electric screen washer, in place of the previous manual pump operated ones.[6] Options such as the hard top, tonneau cover, map light and overdrive continued to be popular, but wire wheels ceased to be available.
The 1980 model was the last and the heaviest of the entire run, weighing 1,875 lb (850.5 kg).[1] Base prices for the 1980 model year were $5,995 in the US and £3,631 in the UK.[1] The last Spitfire, an Inca Yellow UK-market model with hardtop and overdrive, rolled off the assembly line at Canley in August 1980, shortly before the factory closed. It was never sold and is now displayed at the British Motor Heritage museum at Gaydon.
Chesham (/ˈtʃɛʃəm/, local /ˈtʃɛsəm/, or /ˈtʃɛzəm/) is a market town in the Chiltern Hills, Buckinghamshire, England. It is located 11 miles south-east of the county town of Aylesbury. Chesham is also a civil parishdesignated a town council within Chiltern district. It is situated in the Chess Valley and surrounded by farmland, as well as being bordered on one side by Amersham and Chesham Bois. The earliest records of Chesham as a settlement are from the second half of the 10th century although there is archaeological evidence of people in this area from around 8000 BC. Henry III granted the town a royal charter for a weekly market in 1257.
The town is known for its four Bs, usually quoted as:- boots, beer, brushes and Baptists.[3] Chesham's prosperity grew significantly during the 18th and 19th centuries with the development of manufacturing industry.
In the face of fierce competition from both home and abroad all these traditional industries rapidly declined. The ready availability of skilled labour encouraged new industries to the town both before and after the end of the Second World War. Today employment in the town is provided mainly by small businesses engaged in light industry, technology and professional services.
From the early part of the 20th century onwards there has been a considerable expansion of the town with new housing developments and civic infrastructure. Increasingly Chesham has also become a commuter town with improved connection to London via the London Underground and road networks. The town centre has been progressively redeveloped since the 1960s and was pedestrianised in the 1990s. The population of the town has increased to slightly over 20,000 but further growth has been restricted because the area forms part of the Metropolitan Green Belt.
History
There is archaeological evidence of the earliest settlement during the Late Mesolithic period around 5000 BC in East Street, Chesham where a large quantity of Flint tools were found. The earliest farming evidence from the Neolithic era around 2500 BC. Bronze Age tribes settled in the valley around 1800 BC and they were succeeded by Iron Age Belgic people of the Catuvellauni tribe around 500 BC. Between 150-400 AD there is evidence of Romano-British farming and nearby at Latimer there is archaeological evidence of a Roman villa and the planting of grapevines. However the area was then deserted until the Saxon periodaround the 7th century'.
Contrary to popular belief, the town is not named after the river; rather, the river is named after the town. The first recorded reference to Chesham is under the Old English name Cæstæleshamm meaning "the river-meadow at the pile of stones" around 970 in the will of Lady Ælfgifu, who has been identified with the former wife of King Eadwig. She held an estate here which she bequeathed to Abingdon Abbey.
Prior to 1066 there were three adjacent estates which comprised Caestreham which are briefly recorded in the Domesday Book as being of 1½, 4 and 8½ hides, having four mills. The most important of these manors was held by Queen Edith, the widow of Edward the Confessor. Other land having been returned to the Crown it was in the hands of Harold Godwinson and his brother Leofwine Godwinson. Part of these later became Chesham Bois parish. After 1066 Edith kept her lands and William the Conqueror divided royal lands between his half brother Odo, Bishop of Bayeux and Hugh de Bolbec.
The Domesday Book records that there were three manors in Cestreham and one at nearby Latimer. William the Conqueror shared out the estates between four of his dependants. The vast majority of land was granted to Hugh de Bolebec and smaller parcels to Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, Toustain Mantel and Alsi.
Before the 13th century the three Cestreham manors were known as Chesham Higham, Chesham Bury and Chesham Boys (or 'Bois'). In the 14th century they were first recorded as 'the manors of Great Chesham'. Collectively they extended beyond the current Chesham town boundary. Together with the manor at Latimer they were held by the Earls of Oxfordand Surrey. During the 16th century Greater Chesham was owned by the Seymour familywho disposed of it to the Cavendish family who were the Earls and later Dukes of Devonshire. It is from the 15th century that the earliest surviving properties survive and are to be found close by the church in an area called the Nap, and along part of the present-day Church Street. Though gradually disposing of land the Cavendishes maintained an influence in the town until the 19th century. The Lowndes family started purchasing land from the 16th century. William Lowndes was an influential politician and Secretary to the Treasury during the reigns of Mary II, William III and Queen Anne. He had the original Bury and manor house of Great Chesham, rebuilt in 1712. The Lowndes family settled in Chesham and over the next 200 years became equally influential both nationally through politics and the law and locally within the town as its principle benefactors.
No evidence remains of any church prior to the Norman Conquest. However, the siting of puddingstones beneath the present-day church suggests a wooden church was constructed on the site during the Anglo-Saxon period. During the 12th century two families of Norman descent, the de Bolebecs and the Sifrewasts, each held a share of the advowson assigned to the adjacent manors of Chesham Higham and Chesham Bury respectively for the Church at Chesham which it is evidenced from about 1154 was dedicated to St Mary. These moieties were subsequently given by the families to two monasteries. In 1194 the de Bolbecs bestowed their advowson to the abbot and monks of Woburn Abbey and henceforth the parish of Chesham Higham was renamed 'Chesham Woburn'. Meanwhile, and sometime before 1199, the Sifrewast family granted their advowson to the convent of St Mary's de Pré Leicester. As a consequence the advowson for the parish of Chesham Bury became known as 'Chesham Leicester'.[12] In 1536 Henry VIIIseized control of church property as part of the Dissolution of the Monasteries. Subsequently, during Edward VI and Elizabeth I's reigns, first Chesham Woburn and then Chesham Leicester advowsons became part of the estates of the Dukes of Bedford. Though there were originally two vicars appointed to the parish church of St Mary's from the 17th century a single incombent was appointed. Jurisdiction was still shared between both advowsons and two parsonages, an 'upper' and 'lower', continued to be maintained until the 18th century when both were superseded by a single new parsonage. The Duke of Bedford subsequently consolidated the moities by Act of Parliament in 1767. To accommodate the increasing population during the 19th century a new parish church were built in 1867; Christ Church at Waterside, and further churches were built at Ashley Green and Bellingdon which were at the time both within the civil parish of Chesham.
Chesham is noted for the religious dissent which dominated the town from the 15th century. In 1532 Thomas Harding was burnt at the stake in the town for being a Lollard and heretic. From the 17th century Chesham was a focus for those dissenting from mainstream religion. Quakers met in the late 17th century in Chesham and in 1798 they built the current meeting house. The first Baptists' meeting dates back to about 1640 and a place was registered for services in 1706. The first chapel was opened in 1712, one of many to be built for the various Baptist groups during the 18th and 19th centuries. John Wesley preached in Chesham in the 1760s and a Wesleyan Methodist society existed in the town. In more recent time a Wesleyan Methodist chapel was opened in 1897. The Christian Brethren which date back in Chesham to 1876, opened their Gospel Hall in 1895, which closed in December 2008. Broadway Baptist church had branches at the Vale, Hawridge, Ashley Green and Chartridge, only the one at Chartridge survives. Trinity Baptist church had branches at Hyde Heath, Ley Hill and Whelpley Hill, only the one at Hyde Heath survives. The Congregational Church had branches at Asheridge and Pond Park.
The primary industries of the town in medievaltimes were flour production, woodworking and weaving of wool. There were four mills built along the Chess which was diverted to generate sufficient power. Surplus flour was supplied to London. The number of clothworkers, including spinners and those associated with dying (fullers), grew rapidly between 1530 and 1730 and became the major industry in the town prior to a period of rapid decline. Between 1740 to 1798 mills were converted to produce paper (pulp) responding to London's insatiable demand for paper. However, technological developments in paper-making elsewhere rendered the mills unprofitable and they reverted to flour production in the 1850s.
New industries emerged from the 16th century onwards. The woodlands had been a source of firewood for London during the mediaeval period. A small-scale woodenware industry; making shovels, brooms, spoons and chairs, began around 1538 and its expansion was accompanied by the planting of beechwoods between 17th and 19th centuries. Straw plaiting was seen as home-based work for the wives and daughters of labourers from the 18th century. Straw was also imported from Italy to produce the superior 'Tuscan plait' traded at a Saturday market for the Luton and Dunstablehat trade and remained the major cottage industry until around 1860, providing employment for women and girls some of whom attended a 'plait-school' in Waterside. Lace making developed in the 16th century as a cottage industry and was valued for its quality. Chesham specialised in black lace. The industry declined in the 1850s due to mechinisation in Nottingham. Between 1838 and 1864 silk-spinning, powered by a steam-driven mill in Waterside was started to make use of unemployed lace workers. This trend was relatively short-lived as changes in fashion and the growth of the railways resulted in competition from elsewhere for the valuable London markets. However one exception was the firm of George Tutill, which specialised in high-quality banners and was responsible for three-quarters of those made for trade unions. The firm is still a going concern still specialising in flags and banners.
Three of the four Bs that have shaped Chesham's history relate to its industries. Brush making was introduced around 1829 to make use of the off-cuts from woodworking. Boot and shoe making which started as a cottage industry later expanding through small workshops thrived following the opening of tanneries around 1792 which also supplied leather for saddle making and glove. By the mid-19th century both brushmaking and footwear manufacture became major industries in the town with production concentrated in large factories. The industry declined in the early-20th century as the market for heavy boots declined. Beer brewing grew rapidly around the town centre in the 19th century again declining at the start of the 20th century. These traditional industries were succeeded by smaller but more commercial enterprises which took advantage of the available skilled labour. For example, in 1908 the Chiltern Toy Works was opened by Joseph Eisenmann on Bellingdon Road, later moving to the 'new' industrial estate in Waterside, making high quality teddy bears. The works finally closed in 1960. Post Second World War industry has ranged from the manufacture of glue (Industrial Adhesives) to aluminium-based packaging (Alcan), Aluminium Castings & Bronze Castings (Draycast Foundries Limited) and balloons (B-Loony).
Social History
A Chesham workhouse for 90 paupers was operating in Germain Street as early as 1777. New legislation transferred the control of the Chesham institution to Amersham Poor Law Union in 1835. However, there were long-standing rivalries between the locals of both towns and in July that year violence broke out when an order was given to remove the paupers to Amersham. The Riot Act was read out to an angry crowd of 500 and arrests followed.
Publicly funded education started with the opening of a British School in 1825 followed by a National School in 1845, an Infants' School in 1851 and the first Elementary School for girls in 1864. Chesham Building Society, opened for business in 1845 and continued to operate until June 2010 when it was taken over by the Skipton Building Society. Other public institutions also started at this time with the Fire Brigade coming in 1846, the first cemetery in 1858 and the Police Station built in 1861.
Chesham cottage hospital, built for £865 17s 11d on land provided by Lord Chesham, opened in October 1869 and just ahead of an outbreak of typhoid in 1871. Despite a local campaign to save the hospital it closed in 2005. In September 2010 the derelict hospital building was severely damaged by fire caused by arsonists according to police reports. The Council commissioned a waterworks to be built in 1875 in Alma Road and mains drainage in the town and a sewage works was opened adjacent to the Chess, downstream in 1887. A gasworks was constructed on the southern part of the town in 1847. Bathing in the Chess at Waterside was an old tradition which became increasingly popular in the 19th century. Complaints that it had become a nuisance led to the Urban District Council surrounding the site with a concrete wall. This further increased its popularity and an open-air pool was built by the council in 1912.
Transport connections have always come late to the town. The Metropolitan Railwayeventually reached Chesham in July 1889. Electrification was not to come until the 1960s. Between the two world wars and in the 1950s and 60s there was much expansion in the town with new public housing developments along the Missenden Road, at Pond Park and at Botley.
The first public viewings of cinema films in Chesham were provided by travelling showmen around 1900 and attracted large crowds. The first purpose-built cinema, The Empire Picture Hall, opened in Station Road in 1912 and in 1914 The Chesham Palace started up in The Broadway. Both showed silent films. By 1920 the Empire had closed. In 1930 the Chesham Palace was refurbished to show the new 'talkies' and reopened as The Astoria which remained in business until 1959 when the arrival of television forced it to close. The Embassy in Germain Street opened in 1935 and survived until 1982, closing due to competition from cinemas in nearby towns. The Elgiva Theatre, completed in 1976 beside St Mary's Way, was equipped to show films and on moving to a new site just across the road in 1998 state of the art projection equipment was installed in the new theatre (see image below).
No Post Process
Camera Nikon D80
Tripod : Yes
No Flash
Focal Length: 50mm
Exposure Time: 20 secs.
F-stop: F12
ISO: 100
Metering Mode: Pattern
Light Source: Tungsten
Exposure Program: Manual
The More the Merrier. A photo of my Grandfather with five of his grandchildren there were still four more yet to come.
Atheist myths debunked.
The development of order.
One of many questions’ atheists are unable to answer is:
Why is there order in the universe?
Order denotes purpose. Purpose requires a purposeful creation, which atheists deny.
There are several laws of nature and principles of science that atheists dearly wish would not exist.
Among these are:
The Law of Cause and Effect, the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis.
These laws frustrate all attempts by atheists to replace God with ‘naturalism’ - their extraordinary belief that everything arose from nothing of its own volition, progressively increasing in order and potential, by entirely, natural processes.
Every natural, origin scenario (naturalism) defies explanation of the existence of order in the universe.
The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the building blocks of the universe, matter and energy, cannot be created by natural means.
The Second Law tells us matter/energy does not increase in order and potential. It tells us that, over time, the natural tendency is towards disorder and decreasing potential, from an obvious, original peak. There cannot be any natural, ongoing, development of order. This is an inconvenient fact for all atheist, natural, origin scenarios, which require the exact opposite; a simple, natural origin of matter/energy from nothing, progressively increasing in order and potential.
In addition to this inconvenient truth is the fact that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. A simple, random, chaotic, or disordered origin cannot naturally lead to a complex, ordered result. This causality principle endorses the Second Law.
The Second Law tells us order/complexity/potential does not increase naturally, but tends to decrease, and the Law of Cause and Effect tells us the result of a process cannot be superior to the totality of its original cause or causes. There cannot subsequently be more potential or order in an effect/entity than that which was intrinsic to its origin. Furthermore, the tendency, over time, is for this potential to decrease.
The absolute killer for atheist, origins mythology is that: even if progressively increasing order/potential in the universe was possible, it would still denote purpose.
What inherent principle could support increasing order/improvement as a likely outcome of purely, natural processes?
For example: If, as atheists are compelled to believe, matter/energy automatically progressed, of its own volition, from its origin, to acquire an inherent predisposition for the spontaneous generation of life (so-called abiogenesis), which (incidentally) violates the Law of Biogenesis, they have to explain how such a predisposition/blueprint for life originated in an unconscious, unplanned, purposeless universe?
They may argue that the origin of life is a just a chance event, but the mechanism/constituents of any chance event must have the intrinsic capacity or capability to produce the chance outcome. A random, number generator may generate an unlikely combination of numbers by chance, but it cannot generate any numbers at all unless it is devised/constructed with the ability to do so. An unlikely event may happen by chance, but only if such an event is intrinsically possible. The atheist ploy, of just ignoring laws of nature, spectacularly fails.
How could the potential for constructive improvement develop autonomously in unplanned, unconscious, purposeless, dumb matter, which originated from nothing? The obvious, rational answer is that it couldn’t.
Atheists often employ bizarre arguments to justify their denial of the universality of laws which refute their beliefs. One of these, which has attained common currency among atheists, is the idea that snowflakes and crystals are examples of natural development of order. And that they somehow contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Here is an exchange I had with an atheist which illustrates this:
An atheist (Aimless Alliterations) in answer to part of my original post where I cited the Second Law of Thermodynamics, wrote this:
“Oh, goodness gracious. You tied yourself up in all sorts of knots a while back with this one . You really need to read the science and understand it before making statements like this.
Quoting me:
"The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. "
“Really? Where does it state this?”
Quoting me again:
"According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when left to themselves, things naturally become more disordered, rather than more ordered."
“Okay then..............account for snowflakes, rock crystals, the grading of sediment in a river system”.
My reply:
You wrote:
"According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when left to themselves, things naturally become more disordered, rather than more ordered." Okay then..............account for snowflakes, rock crystals, the grading of sediment in a river system."
I am afraid it is you who doesn’t understand the Second Law. What I said is perfectly correct.
There are only 2 ways the effects of entropy can be temporarily decreased, halted or reversed by an input of energy. Either by a directive means or agent guiding the energy input, OR a directive or conversion mechanism possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way.
Raw (unguided) energy (such as random heat) tends to increase entropy and time makes it worse.
Snowflakes, rock crystals etc. do not violate the Law of Thermodynamics, although atheists who hate all natural laws that interfere with their ideology dearly wish they did. They act only according to their pre-coded, atomic structure, and furthermore they are formed by the removal of heat, being transferred from them to their surroundings, rather than the opposite, which evolutionists require for abiogenesis.
Regarding the grading of sediment, I am surprised you mention that, because we know that is how most strata are formed, which effectively demolishes the uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic column and the fossil record. In this case, the grading is guided by the physical properties of the particles (size, shape, weight etc.) obeying physical laws. And, it will in time, be eroded and disorganised by the same forces that created it.
Abiogenesis (life arising of its own accord by natural processes from sterile matter) certainly does violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it requires a reversal of the effects of entropy.
Atheists and evolutionists often argue that abiogenesis doesn’t violate the Second Law because the Earth is an ‘open system’ which allows an input of energy from outside itself, namely the Sun.
They claim that the law of entropy only applies to ‘closed systems. This claim is obviously spurious, because firstly, we can observe entropy happening all around us. We are in the open system of the Earth, and yet we are well aware of entropy. We see that the Sun does not halt or reverse entropy, in fact we see the opposite. The raw energy and heat from the Sun, unless harnessed, does damage, things all around us obey the law - they deteriorate, rot, erode and decay, they do not naturally improve. If you paint your house, the Sun, and the weather effects caused by the Sun, will eventually damage the paintwork, it will crack and peel after a few years. The hotter the Sun (the greater the energy input) the quicker it will happen.
Secondly, even if it were true that in an open system, things can defy the law of entropy, natural laws are laws for the whole universe, and the universe, as a whole, is a closed system.
So, what can we deduce from this?
Can the effects of entropy ever be reversed of halted?
Obviously, when you paint your house, you are reversing the bad effects of entropy for a short period, but you have to keep doing it, it is not permanent. Moreover, the energy you are using to repair and temporarily reverse the effects of entropy, is directed and guided by your skill and intelligence.
So, the atheist argument about the Earth being an open system is clearly not a valid one.
To conclude: We know that the energy input to the so-called Primordial Soup would have been raw, random, unguided energy. So the only other possibility to reverse the effects of entropy is that a directive or conversion mechanism was possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way, i.e. that basic matter (chemistry) is somehow inherently predisposed with the potential/blueprint for creating life and the information for life.
Please explain what that directive mechanism for the constructive utilisation of raw energy is - and where that inherent potential for the reversal of entropy and the construction of life comes from?
We certainly don't see abiogenesis happening naturally today, it doesn't even happen artificially in contrived experiments. To claim it happened long ago as a one-off phenomenon in some imagined scenario is not science, it is just pie-in-the-sky fantasy.
Atheist reply:
Quoting me:
“Snowflakes, rock crystals etc. do not violate the Law of Thermodynamics, although atheists who hate all natural laws that interfere with their ideology dearly wish they did. They act only according to their pre-coded, atomic structure, and furthermore they are formed by the removal of heat, being transferred from them to their surroundings...”
“So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible.
You certainly don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or maybe you do but are simply lying about it to justify your absurd claims?”
My reply:
“You wrote:
"So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible.
You certainly don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or maybe you do but are simply lying about it to justify your absurd claims?"
Oh, for goodness sake! I warned you about scouring the internet searching for answers from quack, atheist websites. They are presented by people as clueless and gullible as the people they are trying to convince, or by people who are deliberately trying to deceive the public for ideological reasons.
Atheists should know that snowflakes, crystals etc. are not examples of the development of order. By regularly presenting them as such, they reveal either their deceitfulness or their complete misunderstanding of science.
There is NO reduction in entropy, the Second Law is NOT, and CANNOT be, violated, as you claim. If you knew even the basics of the Second Law, you would not make a fool of yourself by saying it is.
Snowflakes have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the increase in complexity/order required for the origin of life.
Snowflakes, crystals etc. are simply reverting to the natural state dictated by their atomic structure as they cool. If you knew anything about the Second Law you would know that the natural, intrinsic order of matter is highest at lower temperatures. You would know that the application of raw (undirected) heat/energy increases entropy.
The natural, intrinsic order of substances is greatest at absolute zero.
That does not mean cooling causes a decrease in entropy overall, the heat/energy is transferred from one substance to its surroundings and the entropy is increased in the surroundings.
Snowflakes have absolutely no relevance to abiogenesis, because there is no increase in order above or beyond that which is intrinsic to the inherent, atomic properties of water. By lowering the temperature, the apparent increase in order is not an actual increase in, or the development of order, but simply a restoration at the atomic level to the original, natural, ordered state of water at the lower temperature.
If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed, and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape?
According to the ridiculous, atheist analogy of snowflakes and crystals it would be. It only goes to show that atheists will clutch at any straw, however silly, to justify their ideology. They have the audacity to challenge and attempt to undermine natural laws with their nonsense and then accuse those who uphold them of being unscientific and ignorant. Their barefaced cheek never ceases to amaze me.
I repeat my question, which you have failed to answer:
We know that the energy input to the so-called Primordial Soup would have been raw, random, unguided energy. So the only other possibility to reverse the effects of entropy is that a directive or conversion mechanism was possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way, i.e. that basic matter (chemistry) is somehow inherently predisposed with the potential/blueprint for creating life and the information for life. Please explain what that directive mechanism for the constructive utilisation of raw energy is - and where that inherent potential for the reversal of entropy and the construction of life comes from?
The basic, inherent, atomic structure of water, and of all matter, along with natural law, is part of the initial order of the universe which became present at the moment of its creation. It is not developing order, such as that which would be required for abiogenesis or cosmic and biological evolution.”
Atheist reply:
“You really, really don't understand The Second Law of Thermodynamics and you shouldn't write any further drivel which relies on this.
Let's look at you original claim: The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. Fail - The Second Law of Thermodynamics is nothing to do with chance.
But I'll tell you what .........rather than carry on with this nonsense I'll refer you to a very useful site that you (and anyone else) can access and it'll tell you what entropy is and how it relates to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It doesn't talk about origin of life or anything like that. It uses quite simple language and you need to read it and UNDERSTAND it.
entropysimple.oxy.edu/”
My reply:
You wrote:
"You asked for references to self-replicating information. There are many to choose from but here you go. Enjoy the bed-time reading."
There you go again - giving me links to internet sites, which I am quite capable of accessing myself. I am well aware of how to Google endless points of view on virtually every subject under the Sun. So please stop insulting my intelligence, I have seen all this stuff before. I asked you to give me examples yourself, a simple enough request. I don't want links to internet sites (or long copy and pasted tracts) which can be found on the internet to justify virtually anything. What is your problem with actually answering questions yourself?
You wrote:
"You really, really don't understand The Second Law of Thermodynamics and you shouldn't write any further drivel which relies on this.
Let's look at you original claim: The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. Fail - The Second Law of Thermodynamics is nothing to do with chance."
You accuse me of not knowing anything about the Second Law, after your astonishing, earlier statement:
"So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible."
You, who wants to claim that (what Einstein called the premier law in science) can be violated have the audacity to accuse me of not knowing anything about the Second Law. Unbelievable!
The reason I used the word 'chance' is perfectly obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject, which obviously doesn't include you.
Only DIRECTED energy can enable a temporary decrease in entropy, it does NOT HAPPEN by CHANCE. There has to be a guiding principle or agent either: 1) acting directly on the energy source - or: 2) a directive or conversion mechanism possessed by the recipient of the energy. A decrease in entropy doesn't happen randomly or as a 'chance' event.
You believe the atheist nonsense that snowflakes/crystals are an example of an increase in order, which demonstrates your dire knowledge of the subject.
If you knew anything about the Second Law you would not have cited such a spurious example, apparently you are willing to believe anything you read on atheist/evolutionist websites as though it is gospel.
Perhaps you can address the question I asked in my last post: If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape? But I doubt it, answering questions is not exactly your forte. You would rather nit pick about the qualifications of anyone who disagrees with atheist pseudoscience.
Atheist reply:
Quoting me:
“There you go again - giving me links to internet sites, which I am quite capable of accessing myself. I am well aware of how to Google endless points of view on virtually every subject under the Sun."
“Well you asked for examples and I provided these for you. These are references to well-respected research which provides evidence which you appear to be either too lazy or unwilling to research for yourself.
If you were aware of such research would you have written the nonsense you pour forth? ............Probably.
You also appear to have some sort of cognitive dissonance as far as the Second Law of Thermodynamics and entropy. I provide you with an excellent resource and you fail to take advantage of it to understand the subject matter properly.
That really is astonishing!
All your rubber ball example does is illustrate the law of conservation of energy.”
My reply:
You wrote:
"Well you asked for examples and I provided these for you. These are references to well-respected research which provides evidence which you appear to be either too lazy or unwilling to research for yourself."
No! You are either too lazy to answer any questions yourself, or you are unable to. I suspect it is the latter, because you have already demonstrated from previous remarks that your knowledge of the subject is absolutely dire. Yet you insist on continuing to try to bluff it out, by either copying or pasting other people's work or posting links to anything you think supports your argument.
I'm afraid you have been sussed.
You have already put your foot in it - big time, by citing snowflakes and crystals as an example of developing order.
You mistakenly thought all you had to do to win an argument was to parrot stuff direct from an atheist/evolutionist website. When, in fact, parroting the sort of pseudoscientific rubbish that atheist/evolutionist websites are filled with, is a sure way of making yourself look extremely foolish.
You wrote:
"All your rubber ball example does is illustrate the law of conservation of energy"
What sort of damn-fool answer is that?
I asked: "If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape?"
IS IT AN INCREASE IN ORDER OR NOT?
Please answer the question.
Because if it isn't an increase in order, it completely demolishes both your snowflake/crystal argument and the credibility of atheist/evolutionist so-called 'science'.
No wonder you don't want to answer.
**************************************************
Four and a half years later.
I am still waiting for any atheist to answer the rubber ball question?
The full debate can be seen here:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/16208667768
___________________________________
Another argument employed by atheists to justify their denial of the Law of Cause and Effect is ‘quantum mechanics’.
Their claim being; because quantum effects appear to behave randomly, they could also be uncaused.
This is complete nonsense, quantum effects may appear random and uncaused, but they are definitely not uncaused. Even if their direct cause is difficult to determine, they are part of a CAUSED, physical universe.
The idea that anything within a CAUSED universe can be causeless is ridiculous, because whatever caused the whole universe, is the original cause of everything within it.
Furthermore, just because directly traceable causes cannot be determined, doesn’t mean a direct cause doesn’t exist.
For example:
It can be compared to the randomness of a number coming up from throwing a dice. It may appear random and without a direct cause, but it isn’t. Because if we knew all the complicated and variable factors involved – such as the exact orientation of the dice as it leaves the hand, the velocity of the throw and the amount of spin etc., we could predict the number in advance.
So, just because, in some instances, direct causes are too incredibly complex to accurately predict the result, doesn’t mean there is no cause.
Quantum effects - The smoke and mirrors trick.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35908166441
Evolution, multi-million year timescale refured.
Rapid strata formation - field evidence.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/albums/72157635944...
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk