View allAll Photos Tagged extrapolated
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-19 (NATO reporting name: "Farmer") was a Soviet second-generation, single-seat, twin jet-engine fighter aircraft. It was the first Soviet production aircraft capable of supersonic speeds in level flight. A comparable U.S. "Century Series" fighter was the North American F-100 Super Sabre, although the MiG-19 would primarily oppose the more modern McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II and Republic F-105 Thunderchief over North Vietnam. Furthermore, the North American YF-100 Super Sabre prototype appeared approximately one year after the MiG-19, making the MiG-19 the first operational supersonic jet in the world.
On 20 April 1951, OKB-155 was given the order to develop the MiG-17 into a new fighter called "I-340", also known as "SM-1". It was to be powered by two Mikulin AM-5 non-afterburning jet engines, a scaled-down version of the Mikulin AM-3, with 19.6 kN (4,410 lbf) of thrust. The I-340 was supposed to attain 1,160 km/h (725 mph, Mach 0.97) at 2,000 m (6,562 ft), 1,080 km/h (675 mph, Mach 1.0) at 10,000 m (32,808 ft), climb to 10,000 m (32,808 ft) in 2.9 minutes, and have a service ceiling of no less than 17,500 m (57,415 ft).
After several prototypes with many detail improvements, the ministers of the Soviet Union issued the order #286-133 to start serial production on February 17, 1954, at the factories in Gorkiy and Novosibirsk. Factory trials were completed on September 12 the same year, and government trials started on September 30.
Initial enthusiasm for the aircraft was dampened by several problems. The most alarming of these was the danger of a midair explosion due to overheating of the fuselage fuel tanks located between the engines. Deployment of airbrakes at high speeds caused a high-g pitch-up. Elevators lacked authority at supersonic speeds. The high landing speed of 230 km/h (145 mph), compared to 160 km/h (100 mph) for the MiG-15, combined with the lack of a two-seat trainer version, slowed pilot transition to the type. Handling problems were addressed with the second prototype, "SM-9/2", which added a third ventral airbrake and introduced all-moving tailplanes with a damper to prevent pilot-induced oscillations at subsonic speeds. It flew on 16 September 1954, and entered production as the MiG-19S.
Approximately 5,500 MiG-19's were produced, first in the USSR and in Czechoslovakia as the Avia S-105, but mainly in the People's Republic of China as the Shenyang J-6. The aircraft saw service with a number of other national air forces, including those of Cuba, North Vietnam, Egypt, Pakistan, and North Korea. The aircraft saw combat during the Vietnam War, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1971 Bangladesh War.
However, jet fighter development made huge leaps in the 1960s, and OKB MiG was constantly trying to improve the MiG-19's performance, esp. against fast and high-flying enemies, primarily bombers but also spy planes like the U-2.
As the MiG-19S was brought into service with the Soviet air forces in mid-1956, the OKB MiG was continuing the refinement of the SM-1/I-340 fighter. One of these evolutionary paths was the SM-12 (literally, “SM-1, second generation”) family of prototypes, the ultimate extrapolation of the basic MiG-19 design, which eventually led to the MiG-19bis interceptor that filled the gap between the MiG-19S and the following, highly successful MiG-21.
The SM-12 first saw life as an exercise in drag reduction by means of new air intake configurations, since the MiG-19’s original intake with rounded lips became inefficient at supersonic speed (its Western rival, the North American F-100, featured a sharp-lipped nose air intake from the start). The first of three prototypes, the SM-12/1, was essentially a MiG-19S with an extended and straight-tapered nose with sharp-lipped orifice and a pointed, two-position shock cone on the intake splitter. The simple arrangement proved to be successful and was further refined.
The next evolutionary step, the SM-12/3, differed from its predecessors primarily in two new R3-26 turbojets developed from the earlier power plant by V. N. Sorokin. These each offered an afterburning thrust of 3,600kg, enabling the SM-12/3 to attain speeds ranging between 1,430km/h at sea level, or Mach=1.16, and 1,930km/h at 12,000m, or Mach=1.8, and an altitude of between 17,500 and 18,000m during its test program. This outstanding performance prompted further development with a view to production as a point defense interceptor.
Similarly powered by R3-26 engines, and embodying major nose redesign with a larger orifice permitting introduction of a substantial two-position conical centerbody for a TsD-30 radar, a further prototype was completed as the SM-12PM. Discarding the wing root NR-30 cannon of preceding prototypes, the SM-12PM was armed with only two K-5M (RS-2U) beam-riding missiles and entered flight test in 1957. This configuration would become the basis for the MiG-19bis interceptor that eventually was ordered into limited production (see below).
However, the SM-12 development line did not stop at this point. At the end of 1958, yet another prototype, the SM-12PMU, joined the experimental fighter family. This had R3M-26 turbojets uprated to 3.800kg with afterburning, but these were further augmented by a U-19D accelerator, which took the form of a permanent ventral pack containing an RU-013 rocket motor and its propellant tanks. Developed by D. D. Sevruk, the RU-013 delivered 3,000kg of additional thrust, and with the aid of this rocket motor, the SM-12PMU attained an altitude of 24,000m and a speed of Mach=1.69. But this effort was to no avail: the decision had been taken meanwhile to manufacture the Ye-7 in series as the MiG-21, and further development of the SM-12 series was therefore discontinued.
Nevertheless, since full operational status of the new MiG-21 was expected to remain pending for some time, production of a modified SM-12PM was ordered as a gap filler. Not only would this fighter bridge the performance gap to the Mach 2-capable MiG-21, it also had the benefit of being based on proven technologies and would not require a new basic pilot training.
The new aircraft received the official designation MiG-19bis. Compared with the SM-12PM prototype, the MiG-19bis differed in some details and improvements. The SM-12PM’s most significant shortfall was its short range – at full power, it had only a range of 750 km! This could be mended through an additional fuel tank in an enlarged dorsal fairing behind the cockpit. With this internal extra fuel, range could be extended by a further 200 - 250km range, but drop tanks had typically to be carried, too, in order to extend the fighter’ combat radius with two AAMs to 500 km. Specifically for the MiG-19bis, new, supersonic drop tanks (PTB-490) were designed, and these were later adapted for the MiG-21, too.
The air intake shock cone was re-contoured and the shifting mechanism improved: Instead of a simple, conical shape, the shock cone now had a more complex curvature with two steps and the intake orifice area was widened to allow a higher airflow rate. The air intake’s efficiency was further optimized through gradual positions of the shock cone.
As a positive side effect, the revised shock cone offered space for an enlarged radar dish, what improved detection range and resolution. The TsD-30 radar for the fighter’s missile-only armament was retained, even though the K-5’s effective range of only 2–6 km (1¼ – 3¾ mi) made it only suitable against slow and large targets like bombers. All guns were deleted in order to save weight or make room for the electronic equipment. The tail section was also changed because the R3M-26 engines and their afterburners were considerably longer than the MiG-19's original RM-5 engines. The exhausts now markedly protruded from the tail section, and the original, characteristic pen nib fairing between the two engines had been modified accordingly.
Production started in 1960, but only a total of roundabout 180 MiG-19bis, which received the NATO code "Farmer F", were built and the Soviet Union remained the only operator of the type. The first aircraft entered Soviet Anti-Air Defense in early 1961, and the machines were concentrated in PVO interceptor units around major sites like Moscow, Sewastopol at the Black Sea and Vladivostok in the Far East.
With the advent of the MiG-21, though, their career did not last long. Even though many machines were updated to carry the K-13 (the IR-guided AA-2 "Atoll") as well as the improved K-55 AAMs, with no change of the type’s designation, most MiG-19bis were already phased out towards the late 1960s and quickly replaced by 2nd generation MiG-21s as well as heavier and more capable Suchoj interceptors like the Su-9, -11 and -15. By 1972, all MiG-19bis had been retired.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 13.54 m (44 ft 4 in), fuselage only with shock cone in forward position
15.48 m (50 8 ½ in) including pitot
Wingspan: 9 m (29 ft 6 in)
Height: 3.8885 m (12 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 25 m² (269 ft²)
Empty weight: 5,210 kg (11,475 lb)
Loaded weight: 7,890 kg (17,380 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 9,050 kg (19,935 lb)
Fuel capacity: 2,450 l (556 imp gal; 647 US gal) internal;
plus 760 l (170 imp gal; 200 US gal) with 2 drop tanks
Powerplant:
2× Sorokin R3M-26 turbojets, rated at 37.2 kN (8,370 lbf) thrust each with afterburning
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,380km/h at sea level (Mach=1.16)
1,850km/h at 12,000m (Mach=1.8)
Range: 1,250 km (775 mi; 750 nmi) at 14,000 m (45,000 ft) with 2 × 490 l drop tanks
Combat range: 500 km (312 mi; 270 nmi)
Ferry range: 2,000 km (1,242 mi; 690 nmi)
Service ceiling: 19,750 m (64,690 ft)
Rate of climb: 180 m/s (35,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 353.3 kg/m² (72.4 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.86
Armament:
No internal guns.
4× underwing pylons; typically, a pair of PTB-490 drop tanks were carried on the outer pylon pair,
plus a pair of air-to air missiles on the inner pair: initially two radar-guided Kaliningrad K-5M (RS-2US)
AAMs, later two radar-guided K-55 or IR-guided Vympel K-13 (AA-2 'Atoll') AAMs
The kit and its assembly:
Another submission for the 2018 Cold War Group Build at whatifmodelers.com, and again the opportunity to build a whiffy model from the project list. But it’s as fictional as one might think, since the SM-12 line of experimental “hybrid” fighters between the MiG-19 and the MiG-21 was real. But none of these aircraft ever made it into serial production, and in real life the MiG-21 showed so much potential that the attempts to improve the MiG-19 were stopped and no operational fighter entered production or service.
However, the SM-12, with its elongated nose and the central shock cone, makes a nice model subject, and I imagined what a service aircraft might have looked like? It would IMHO have been close, if not identical, to the SM-12PM, since this was the most refined pure jet fighter in the development family.
The basis for the build was a (dead cheap) Mastercraft MiG-19, which is a re-edition of the venerable Kovozávody Prostějov (KP) kit – as a tribute to modern tastes, it comes with (crudely) engraved panel, but it has a horrible fit all over. For instance, there was a 1mm gap between the fuselage and the right wing, the wing halves’ outlines did not match at all and it is questionable if the canopy actually belongs to the kit at all? PSR everywhere. I also had a Plastyk version of this kit on the table some time ago, but it was of a much better quality! O.K., the Mastercraft kit comes cheap, but it’s, to be honest, not a real bargain.
Even though the result would not be crisp I did some mods and changes. Internally, a cockpit tub was implanted (OOB there’s just a wacky seat hanging in mid air) plus some serious lead weight in the nose section for a proper stance.
On the outside, the new air intake is the most obvious change. I found a Su-17 intake (from a Mastercraft kit, too) and used a piece from a Matchbox B-17G’s dorsal turret to elongate the nose – it had an almost perfect diameter and a mildly conical shape. Some massive PSR work was necessary to blend the parts together, though.
The tail received new jet nozzles, scratched from steel needle protection covers, and the tail fairing was adjusted according to the real SM-12’s shape.
Ordnance was adapted, too: the drop tanks come from a Mastercraft MiG-21, and these supersonic PTB-490 tanks were indeed carried by the real SM-12 prototypes because the uprated engines were very thirsty and the original, teardrop-shaped MiG-19 tanks simply too draggy for the much faster SM-12. As a side note, the real SM-12’s short range was one of the serious factors that prevented the promising type’s production in real life. In order to overcome the poor range weakness I added an enlarged spine (half of a drop tank), inspired by the MiG-21 SMT, that would house an additional internal fuel tank.
The R2-SU/K-5 AAMs come from a vintage Mastercraft Soviet aircraft weapon set, which carries a pair of these 1st generation AAMs. While the molds seem to be a bit soft, the missiles look pretty convincing. Their pylons were taken from the kit (OOB they carry unguided AAM pods and are placed behind the main landing gear wells), just reversed and placed on the wings’ leading edges – similar to the real SM-12’s arrangement.
Painting and markings:
No surprises. In the Sixties, any PVO aircraft was left in bare metal, so there was hardly an alternative to a NMF finish.
Painting started with an all-over coat with acrylic Revell 99 (Aluminum), just the spine tank became light grey (Revell 371) for some contrast, and I painted some di-electric covers in a deep green (Revell 48).
The cockpit interior was painted with a bright mix of Revell 55 and some 48, while the landing gear wells and the back section of the cockpit were painted in a bluish grey (Revell 57).
The landing gear was painted in Steel (unpolished Modelmaster metallizer) and received classic, bright green wheel discs (Humbrol 2). As a small, unusual highlight the pitot boom under the chin received red and white stripes – seen on occasional MiG-19S fighters in Soviet service, and the anti-flutter booms on the stabilizers became bright red, too.
After the basic painting was done the kit received a black ink wash. Once this had dried and wiped off with a soft cotton cloth, post shading with various metallizer tones was added in order to liven up the uniform aircraft (including Humbrol’s matt and polished aluminum, and the exhaust section was treated with steel). Some panel lines were emphasized with a thin pencil.
Decals were puzzled together from various sources, a Guards badge and a few Russian stencils were added, too. Finally, the kit was sealed with a coat of sheen acrylic varnish (a 2:1 mix of Italeri matt and semi-gloss varnish).
The K-5 missiles, last but not least, were painted in aluminum, too, but their end caps (both front and tail section) became off-white.
The Mastercraft kit on which this conversion was based is crude, so I did not have high expectations concerning the outcome. But the new nose blends nicely into the MiG-19 fuselage, and the wide spine is a subtle detail that makes the aircraft look more “beefy” and less MiG-19-ish. The different drop tanks – even though they are authentic – visually add further speed. And despite many flaws, I am quite happy with the result of roundabout a week’s work.
The sighting head for the super-secret Norden bomb sight is mounted below and to the right of the yellow, portable, oxygen tank. Ahead of the floor so it can look down through the optically "flat" bomb aiming window. The sighting part of the Norden was developed by Mr. Norden for the US Navy. It was then combined with a Sperry Autopilot for USAAC service. It could not hit a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet.
Having the sighting head removed by the bombardier (aka bomb aminer) and kept under lock and key had some security value, but hid the crucial role of the autopilot, which was a box with gyroscopes, stabilizing a platform in 3d space, and firmly fastened to the plane. By sensing relative acceleration or motion between the stable platform and the airplane, the Sperry unit could steer the airplane on a course selected by the pilot. By changing the selected course that the Autopilot was flying, a curious pilot, a bombardier or a bomb-sight could effectively "fly" the airplane on a straight course, or by constantly varying the input, on a curved course.
The Norden bomb sight itself was a mechanical computer which could be synchronized with the path the bomber was flying over the surface of the earth. The bombardier adjusted
for bomber altitude above target, rotation of the earth, uncorrected crosswind drift etc.
Once it was tracking the bomber's path over the Earth, the free-falling path of an idealized bomb can be projected ahead of the spot being flown over. Then come corrections for: aerodynamic drag based true airspeed, density of the air at the bomber's altitude, increasing density down to the altitude of the target, terminal velocity of the bomb and adding any net crosswinds between bomber and target. There may be other facts to add. If the model is right, all this allows the sight picture to be extrapolated to where bombs would hit, if released ...now!
Looking ahead on the path that bombs dropped in the future will hit, the bombarder marks a target and the mechanical computer follows the track until it hits that mark, and that's when the bombs are dropped.
Now the bombs are falling and the action isn't in the plane.
The bombs come out, at the true airspeed of the plane, falling slowly, but accelerating downward every second.
Aerodynamic drag slows the bomb, initially, in the forward direction (it has to, they were inside the plane and not experiencing any drag, now, suddenly, they are experiencing drag) even as gravity accelerates them vertically. "Terminal velocity" for forward speed of a bomb released horizontally is 0. Terminal velocity in a vertical fall is when the acceleration of gravity balances the acceleration of drag. There is no horizontal acceleration that speeds up a bomb dropped horizontally. Just drag that slows it down.
The fins cause the bomb to "weathervane"- go nose-first into the sum of the fading forward velocity and growing vertical velocity. So the drag isn't all simply accelerating against forward momentum. Its accelerating the bomb backward relative to the air its passing through. If it falls for long enough, it will hit terminal velocity for the density its in, and that density will increase as altitude decreases.
But horizontal velocity will decrease to 0. There isn't anything speeding up the bomb horizontally. Just drag slowing it down. As a practical matter, the drag will win the day. Its not an asymptote, its a finite segment of a curve, and it stops.
Kid Kicking Pile of Dried Leaves | Turn Intentions Into Action. Photo by ROMMEL BANGIT
Model Release Available
Follow to know more Children growing weaker as computers replace outdoor activities.
RELATED:
action; active; asia; asian boy; babes; blue; bouncy; callisthenic; chubby; chunky; dynamic; ehow; energetic; exercise; explore; facebook; fat; flabby; fleshy; flubby kid; frisky; full of beans; full of fun; full of life; full of life; full of zest; full of zip; good-humoured; good-natured; happy; heavy; hefty; how; humorous; impish; Interestingness; jokey; jump kick; kick; kid; kid kicking dried leaves; kinetics; light-hearted; lively; mischievous; naughty; obese; on the go; outdoor; outdoor activity; overweight; park; person; photography; play; playboy; playful; rommelbangit; rotund; round; smile; spirited; stout; teasing; topf50; top-f50; turn intention into action; untitled; vigorous; what; when; where; who; why; youtube, running, running on air
RELATED:
accelerated acclimated accompanied accomplished achieved acquired acted activated actuated adapted added addressed adhered adjusted administered admitted adopted advanced advertised advised advocated aided aired affected allocated altered amended amplified analyzed answered anticipated appointed appraised approached approved arbitrated arranged ascertained asked assembled assigned assumed assessed assisted attained attracted audited augmented authored authorized automated awarded avail balanced bargained borrowed bought broadened budgeted built calculated canvassed capitalized captured carried out cast cataloged centralized challenged chaired changed channeled charted checked chose circulated clarified classified cleared closed co-authored cold called collaborated collected combined commissioned committed communicated compared compiled complied completed composed computed conceived conceptualized concluded condensed conducted conferred consolidated constructed consulted contracted contrasted contributed contrived controlled converted convinced coordinated corrected corresponded counseled counted created critiqued cultivated cut debugged decided decentralized decreased deferred defined delegated delivered demonstrated depreciated described designated designed determined developed devised devoted diagrammed directed disclosed discounted discovered dispatched displayed dissembled distinguished distributed diversified divested documented doubled drafted earned eased edited effected elected eliminated employed enabled encouraged endorsed enforced engaged engineered enhanced enlarged enriched entered entertained established estimated evaluated examined exceeded exchanged executed exempted exercised expanded expedited explained exposed extended extracted extrapolated facilitated familiarized fashioned fielded figured financed fit focused forecasted formalized formed formulated fortified found founded framed fulfilled functioned furnished gained gathered gauged gave generated governed graded granted greeted grouped guided handled headed hired hosted identified illustrated illuminated implemented improved improvised inaugurated indoctrinated increased incurred induced influenced informed initiated innovated inquired inspected inspired installed instigated instilled instituted instructed insured interfaced interpreted interviewed introduced invented inventoried invested investigated invited involved isolated issued joined judged launched lectured led lightened liquidated litigated lobbied localized located maintained managed mapped marketed maximized measured mediated merchandised merged met minimized modeled moderated modernized modified monitored motivated moved multiplied named narrated negotiated noticed nurtured observed obtained offered offset opened operated operationalized orchestrated ordered organized oriented originated overhauled oversaw paid participated passed patterned penalized perceived performed permitted persuaded phased out pinpointed pioneered placed planned polled prepared presented preserved presided prevented priced printed prioritized probed processed procured produced profiled programmed projected promoted promoted prompted proposed proved provided publicized published purchased pursued quantified quoted raised ranked rated reacted read received recommended reconciled recorded recovered recruited rectified redesigned reduced referred refined regained regulated rehabilitated reinforced reinstated rejected related remedied remodeled renegotiated reorganized replaced repaired reported represented requested researched resolved responded restored restructured resulted retained retrieved revamped revealed reversed reviewed revised revitalized rewarded routed safeguarded salvaged saved scheduled screened secured segmented selected sent separated served serviced settled shaped shortened showed shrank signed simplified sold solved spearheaded specified speculated spoke spread stabilized staffed staged standardized steered stimulated strategized streamlined strengthened stressed structured studied submitted substantiated substituted suggested summarized superseded supervised supplied supported surpassed surveyed synchronized synthesized systematized tabulated tailored targeted taught terminated tested testified tightened took traced traded trained transacted transferred transformed translated transported traveled treated tripled uncovered undertook unified united updated upgraded used utilized validated valued verified viewed visited weighed welcomed widened witnessed won worked wrote
Pyramid Books 1960. 160pp. Cover by Victor Kalin.
Venus Plus X is a science fiction novel written by Theodore Sturgeon, published in 1960. It tells the story of Charlie Johns, a man who wakes up in the odd technologically advanced society of Ledom. The main theme is social commentary on the sexes becoming more and more ambiguous which he extrapolates to the final conclusion, a place where people have no gender. -Wiki-
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-19 (NATO reporting name: "Farmer") was a Soviet second-generation, single-seat, twin jet-engine fighter aircraft. It was the first Soviet production aircraft capable of supersonic speeds in level flight. A comparable U.S. "Century Series" fighter was the North American F-100 Super Sabre, although the MiG-19 would primarily oppose the more modern McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II and Republic F-105 Thunderchief over North Vietnam. Furthermore, the North American YF-100 Super Sabre prototype appeared approximately one year after the MiG-19, making the MiG-19 the first operational supersonic jet in the world.
On 20 April 1951, OKB-155 was given the order to develop the MiG-17 into a new fighter called "I-340", also known as "SM-1". It was to be powered by two Mikulin AM-5 non-afterburning jet engines, a scaled-down version of the Mikulin AM-3, with 19.6 kN (4,410 lbf) of thrust. The I-340 was supposed to attain 1,160 km/h (725 mph, Mach 0.97) at 2,000 m (6,562 ft), 1,080 km/h (675 mph, Mach 1.0) at 10,000 m (32,808 ft), climb to 10,000 m (32,808 ft) in 2.9 minutes, and have a service ceiling of no less than 17,500 m (57,415 ft).
After several prototypes with many detail improvements, the ministers of the Soviet Union issued the order #286-133 to start serial production on February 17, 1954, at the factories in Gorkiy and Novosibirsk. Factory trials were completed on September 12 the same year, and government trials started on September 30.
Initial enthusiasm for the aircraft was dampened by several problems. The most alarming of these was the danger of a midair explosion due to overheating of the fuselage fuel tanks located between the engines. Deployment of airbrakes at high speeds caused a high-g pitch-up. Elevators lacked authority at supersonic speeds. The high landing speed of 230 km/h (145 mph), compared to 160 km/h (100 mph) for the MiG-15, combined with the lack of a two-seat trainer version, slowed pilot transition to the type. Handling problems were addressed with the second prototype, "SM-9/2", which added a third ventral airbrake and introduced all-moving tailplanes with a damper to prevent pilot-induced oscillations at subsonic speeds. It flew on 16 September 1954, and entered production as the MiG-19S.
Approximately 5,500 MiG-19's were produced, first in the USSR and in Czechoslovakia as the Avia S-105, but mainly in the People's Republic of China as the Shenyang J-6. The aircraft saw service with a number of other national air forces, including those of Cuba, North Vietnam, Egypt, Pakistan, and North Korea. The aircraft saw combat during the Vietnam War, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1971 Bangladesh War.
However, jet fighter development made huge leaps in the 1960s, and OKB MiG was constantly trying to improve the MiG-19's performance, esp. against fast and high-flying enemies, primarily bombers but also spy planes like the U-2.
As the MiG-19S was brought into service with the Soviet air forces in mid-1956, the OKB MiG was continuing the refinement of the SM-1/I-340 fighter. One of these evolutionary paths was the SM-12 (literally, “SM-1, second generation”) family of prototypes, the ultimate extrapolation of the basic MiG-19 design, which eventually led to the MiG-19bis interceptor that filled the gap between the MiG-19S and the following, highly successful MiG-21.
The SM-12 first saw life as an exercise in drag reduction by means of new air intake configurations, since the MiG-19’s original intake with rounded lips became inefficient at supersonic speed (its Western rival, the North American F-100, featured a sharp-lipped nose air intake from the start). The first of three prototypes, the SM-12/1, was essentially a MiG-19S with an extended and straight-tapered nose with sharp-lipped orifice and a pointed, two-position shock cone on the intake splitter. The simple arrangement proved to be successful and was further refined.
The next evolutionary step, the SM-12/3, differed from its predecessors primarily in two new R3-26 turbojets developed from the earlier power plant by V. N. Sorokin. These each offered an afterburning thrust of 3,600kg, enabling the SM-12/3 to attain speeds ranging between 1,430km/h at sea level, or Mach=1.16, and 1,930km/h at 12,000m, or Mach=1.8, and an altitude of between 17,500 and 18,000m during its test program. This outstanding performance prompted further development with a view to production as a point defense interceptor.
Similarly powered by R3-26 engines, and embodying major nose redesign with a larger orifice permitting introduction of a substantial two-position conical centerbody for a TsD-30 radar, a further prototype was completed as the SM-12PM. Discarding the wing root NR-30 cannon of preceding prototypes, the SM-12PM was armed with only two K-5M (RS-2U) beam-riding missiles and entered flight test in 1957. This configuration would become the basis for the MiG-19bis interceptor that eventually was ordered into limited production (see below).
However, the SM-12 development line did not stop at this point. At the end of 1958, yet another prototype, the SM-12PMU, joined the experimental fighter family. This had R3M-26 turbojets uprated to 3.800kg with afterburning, but these were further augmented by a U-19D accelerator, which took the form of a permanent ventral pack containing an RU-013 rocket motor and its propellant tanks. Developed by D. D. Sevruk, the RU-013 delivered 3,000kg of additional thrust, and with the aid of this rocket motor, the SM-12PMU attained an altitude of 24,000m and a speed of Mach=1.69. But this effort was to no avail: the decision had been taken meanwhile to manufacture the Ye-7 in series as the MiG-21, and further development of the SM-12 series was therefore discontinued.
Nevertheless, since full operational status of the new MiG-21 was expected to remain pending for some time, production of a modified SM-12PM was ordered as a gap filler. Not only would this fighter bridge the performance gap to the Mach 2-capable MiG-21, it also had the benefit of being based on proven technologies and would not require a new basic pilot training.
The new aircraft received the official designation MiG-19bis. Compared with the SM-12PM prototype, the MiG-19bis differed in some details and improvements. The SM-12PM’s most significant shortfall was its short range – at full power, it had only a range of 750 km! This could be mended through an additional fuel tank in an enlarged dorsal fairing behind the cockpit. With this internal extra fuel, range could be extended by a further 200 - 250km range, but drop tanks had typically to be carried, too, in order to extend the fighter’ combat radius with two AAMs to 500 km. Specifically for the MiG-19bis, new, supersonic drop tanks (PTB-490) were designed, and these were later adapted for the MiG-21, too.
The air intake shock cone was re-contoured and the shifting mechanism improved: Instead of a simple, conical shape, the shock cone now had a more complex curvature with two steps and the intake orifice area was widened to allow a higher airflow rate. The air intake’s efficiency was further optimized through gradual positions of the shock cone.
As a positive side effect, the revised shock cone offered space for an enlarged radar dish, what improved detection range and resolution. The TsD-30 radar for the fighter’s missile-only armament was retained, even though the K-5’s effective range of only 2–6 km (1¼ – 3¾ mi) made it only suitable against slow and large targets like bombers. All guns were deleted in order to save weight or make room for the electronic equipment. The tail section was also changed because the R3M-26 engines and their afterburners were considerably longer than the MiG-19's original RM-5 engines. The exhausts now markedly protruded from the tail section, and the original, characteristic pen nib fairing between the two engines had been modified accordingly.
Production started in 1960, but only a total of roundabout 180 MiG-19bis, which received the NATO code "Farmer F", were built and the Soviet Union remained the only operator of the type. The first aircraft entered Soviet Anti-Air Defense in early 1961, and the machines were concentrated in PVO interceptor units around major sites like Moscow, Sewastopol at the Black Sea and Vladivostok in the Far East.
With the advent of the MiG-21, though, their career did not last long. Even though many machines were updated to carry the K-13 (the IR-guided AA-2 "Atoll") as well as the improved K-55 AAMs, with no change of the type’s designation, most MiG-19bis were already phased out towards the late 1960s and quickly replaced by 2nd generation MiG-21s as well as heavier and more capable Suchoj interceptors like the Su-9, -11 and -15. By 1972, all MiG-19bis had been retired.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 13.54 m (44 ft 4 in), fuselage only with shock cone in forward position
15.48 m (50 8 ½ in) including pitot
Wingspan: 9 m (29 ft 6 in)
Height: 3.8885 m (12 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 25 m² (269 ft²)
Empty weight: 5,210 kg (11,475 lb)
Loaded weight: 7,890 kg (17,380 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 9,050 kg (19,935 lb)
Fuel capacity: 2,450 l (556 imp gal; 647 US gal) internal;
plus 760 l (170 imp gal; 200 US gal) with 2 drop tanks
Powerplant:
2× Sorokin R3M-26 turbojets, rated at 37.2 kN (8,370 lbf) thrust each with afterburning
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,380km/h at sea level (Mach=1.16)
1,850km/h at 12,000m (Mach=1.8)
Range: 1,250 km (775 mi; 750 nmi) at 14,000 m (45,000 ft) with 2 × 490 l drop tanks
Combat range: 500 km (312 mi; 270 nmi)
Ferry range: 2,000 km (1,242 mi; 690 nmi)
Service ceiling: 19,750 m (64,690 ft)
Rate of climb: 180 m/s (35,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 353.3 kg/m² (72.4 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.86
Armament:
No internal guns.
4× underwing pylons; typically, a pair of PTB-490 drop tanks were carried on the outer pylon pair,
plus a pair of air-to air missiles on the inner pair: initially two radar-guided Kaliningrad K-5M (RS-2US)
AAMs, later two radar-guided K-55 or IR-guided Vympel K-13 (AA-2 'Atoll') AAMs
The kit and its assembly:
Another submission for the 2018 Cold War Group Build at whatifmodelers.com, and again the opportunity to build a whiffy model from the project list. But it’s as fictional as one might think, since the SM-12 line of experimental “hybrid” fighters between the MiG-19 and the MiG-21 was real. But none of these aircraft ever made it into serial production, and in real life the MiG-21 showed so much potential that the attempts to improve the MiG-19 were stopped and no operational fighter entered production or service.
However, the SM-12, with its elongated nose and the central shock cone, makes a nice model subject, and I imagined what a service aircraft might have looked like? It would IMHO have been close, if not identical, to the SM-12PM, since this was the most refined pure jet fighter in the development family.
The basis for the build was a (dead cheap) Mastercraft MiG-19, which is a re-edition of the venerable Kovozávody Prostějov (KP) kit – as a tribute to modern tastes, it comes with (crudely) engraved panel, but it has a horrible fit all over. For instance, there was a 1mm gap between the fuselage and the right wing, the wing halves’ outlines did not match at all and it is questionable if the canopy actually belongs to the kit at all? PSR everywhere. I also had a Plastyk version of this kit on the table some time ago, but it was of a much better quality! O.K., the Mastercraft kit comes cheap, but it’s, to be honest, not a real bargain.
Even though the result would not be crisp I did some mods and changes. Internally, a cockpit tub was implanted (OOB there’s just a wacky seat hanging in mid air) plus some serious lead weight in the nose section for a proper stance.
On the outside, the new air intake is the most obvious change. I found a Su-17 intake (from a Mastercraft kit, too) and used a piece from a Matchbox B-17G’s dorsal turret to elongate the nose – it had an almost perfect diameter and a mildly conical shape. Some massive PSR work was necessary to blend the parts together, though.
The tail received new jet nozzles, scratched from steel needle protection covers, and the tail fairing was adjusted according to the real SM-12’s shape.
Ordnance was adapted, too: the drop tanks come from a Mastercraft MiG-21, and these supersonic PTB-490 tanks were indeed carried by the real SM-12 prototypes because the uprated engines were very thirsty and the original, teardrop-shaped MiG-19 tanks simply too draggy for the much faster SM-12. As a side note, the real SM-12’s short range was one of the serious factors that prevented the promising type’s production in real life. In order to overcome the poor range weakness I added an enlarged spine (half of a drop tank), inspired by the MiG-21 SMT, that would house an additional internal fuel tank.
The R2-SU/K-5 AAMs come from a vintage Mastercraft Soviet aircraft weapon set, which carries a pair of these 1st generation AAMs. While the molds seem to be a bit soft, the missiles look pretty convincing. Their pylons were taken from the kit (OOB they carry unguided AAM pods and are placed behind the main landing gear wells), just reversed and placed on the wings’ leading edges – similar to the real SM-12’s arrangement.
Painting and markings:
No surprises. In the Sixties, any PVO aircraft was left in bare metal, so there was hardly an alternative to a NMF finish.
Painting started with an all-over coat with acrylic Revell 99 (Aluminum), just the spine tank became light grey (Revell 371) for some contrast, and I painted some di-electric covers in a deep green (Revell 48).
The cockpit interior was painted with a bright mix of Revell 55 and some 48, while the landing gear wells and the back section of the cockpit were painted in a bluish grey (Revell 57).
The landing gear was painted in Steel (unpolished Modelmaster metallizer) and received classic, bright green wheel discs (Humbrol 2). As a small, unusual highlight the pitot boom under the chin received red and white stripes – seen on occasional MiG-19S fighters in Soviet service, and the anti-flutter booms on the stabilizers became bright red, too.
After the basic painting was done the kit received a black ink wash. Once this had dried and wiped off with a soft cotton cloth, post shading with various metallizer tones was added in order to liven up the uniform aircraft (including Humbrol’s matt and polished aluminum, and the exhaust section was treated with steel). Some panel lines were emphasized with a thin pencil.
Decals were puzzled together from various sources, a Guards badge and a few Russian stencils were added, too. Finally, the kit was sealed with a coat of sheen acrylic varnish (a 2:1 mix of Italeri matt and semi-gloss varnish).
The K-5 missiles, last but not least, were painted in aluminum, too, but their end caps (both front and tail section) became off-white.
The Mastercraft kit on which this conversion was based is crude, so I did not have high expectations concerning the outcome. But the new nose blends nicely into the MiG-19 fuselage, and the wide spine is a subtle detail that makes the aircraft look more “beefy” and less MiG-19-ish. The different drop tanks – even though they are authentic – visually add further speed. And despite many flaws, I am quite happy with the result of roundabout a week’s work.
Masonic Lodge 229 Albert Street Victoria Harbour, ON L0K 2A0
Masonic Broken Column.
www.phoenixmasonry.org/broken_column.htm
THE BROKEN COLUMN:
Short Talk Bulletin - Vol. 34, February 1956,
No. 2 - Author Unknown
The story of the broken column was first illustrated by Amos Doolittle in the "True Masonic Chart" by Jeremy Cross, published in 1819.
Many of Freemasonry's symbols are of extreme antiquity and deserve the reverence which we give to that which has had sufficient vitality to live long in the minds of men. For instance, the square, the point within a circle, the apron, circumambulation, the Altar have been used not only in Freemasonry but in systems of ethics, philosophy and religions without number.
Other symbols in the Masonic system are more recent. Perhaps they are not the less important for that, even without the sanctity of age which surrounds many others.
Among the newer symbols is that usually referred to as the broken column. A marble monument is respectably ancient - the broken column seems a more recent addition. There seems to be no doubt that the first pictured broken column appeared in Jeremy Cross's True Masonic Chart, published in 1819, and that the illustration was the work of Amos Doolittle, an engraver, of Connecticut.
That Jeremy Cross "invented" or "designed" the emblem is open to argument. But there is legitimate room for argument over many inventions. Who invented printing from movable type? We give the credit to Gutenberg, but there are other claimants, among them the Chinese at an earlier date. Who invented the airplane? The Wrights first flew a "mechanical bird" but a thousand inventors have added to, altered, changed their original design, until the very principle which first enabled the Wrights to fly, the "warping wing", is now discarded and never used.
Therefore, if authorities argue and contend about the marble monument and broken column it is not to make objection or take credit from Jeremy Cross; the thought is that almost any invention or discovery is improved, changed, added to and perfected by many men. Edison is credited with the first incandescent lamp, but there is small kinship between his carbon filament and a modern tungsten filament bulb. Roentgen was first to bring the "x-ray" to public notice-the discoverer would not know what a modern physician's x-ray apparatus was if he saw it!
In the library of the Grand Lodge of Iowa in Cedar Rapids, is a book published in 1784; "A BRIEF HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY" by Thomas Johnson, at that time the Tiler of the Grand Lodge of England (the "Moderns"). In this book the author states that he was "taken the liberty to introduce a Design for a Monument in Honor of a Great Artist." He then admits that there is no historical account of any such memorial but cites many precedents of "sumptuous Piles" which perpetuate the memories and preserve the merits of the historic dead, although such may have been buried in lands far from the monument or "perhaps in the depth of the Sea".
In this somewhat fanciful and poetic description of this monument, the author mentions an urn, a laurel branch, a sun, a moon, a Bible, square and compasses, letter G. The book was first published in 1782, which seems proof that there was
at that time at least the idea of a monument erected to the Master Builder.
There is little historical material upon which to draw to form any accurate conclusions. Men write of what has happened long after the happenings. Even when faithful to their memories, these may be, and often are, inaccurate. It is with this thought in mind that a curious statement in the Masonic newspaper, published in New York seventy-five years ago, must be considered. In the issue of May 10, 1879, a Robert B. Folger purports to give Cross' account of his invention, or discovery, an inclusion, of the broken column into the marble monument emblem.
The account is long, rambling and at times not too clear. Abstracted, the salient parts are as follows. Cross found or sensed what he considered a deficiency in the Third Degree which had to be filled in order to effect his purposes. He consulted a former Mayor of New Haven, who at the time was one of his most intimate friends. Even after working together for a week, they did not hit upon any symbol which would be sufficiently simple and yet answer the purpose. Then a Copper-plate engraver, also a brother, was called in. The number of hieroglyphics which had be this time accumulated was immense. Some were too large, some too small, some too complicated, requiring too much explanation and many were not adapted to the subject.
Finally, the copper-plate engraver said, "Brother Cross, when great men die, they generally have a monument." "That's right!" cried Cross; "I never thought of that!" He visited the burying-ground in New Haven. At last he got an idea and told his friends that he had the foundation of what he wanted. He said that while in New York City he had seen a monument in the southwest corner of Trinity Church yard erected over Commodore Lawrence, a great man who fell in battle. It was a large marble pillar, broken off. The broken part had been taken away, but the capital was lying at the base. He wanted that pillar for the foundation of his new emblem, but intended to bring in the other part, leaving it resting against the base. This his friends assented to, but more was wanted. They felt that some inscription should be on the column. after a length discussion they decided upon an open book to be placed upon the broken pillar. There should of course be some reader of the book! Hence the emblem of innocence-a beautiful virgin-who should weep over the memory of the deceased while she read of his heroic deeds from the book before her.
The monument erected to the memory of Commodore Lawrence was placed in the southwest corner of Trinity Churchyard in 1813, after the fight between the frigates
Chesapeake and Shannon, in which battle Lawrence fell. As described, it was a beautiful marble pillar, broken off, with a part of the capital laid at its base. lt remained until 1844-5 at which time Trinity Church was rebuilt. When finished, the corporation of the Church took away the old and dilapidated Lawrence monument and erected a new one in a different form, placing it in the front of the yard on Broadway, at the lower entrance of the Church. When Cross visited the new monument, he expressed great disappointment at the change, saying "it was not half as good as the one they took away!"
These claims of Cross-perhaps made for Cross-to having originated the emblem are disputed. Oliver speaks of a monument but fails to assign an American origin. In the Barney ritual of 1817, formerly in the possession of Samuel Wilson of Vermont, there is the marble column, the beautiful virgin weeping, the open book, the sprig of acacia, the urn, and Time standing behind. What is here lacking is the broken column. Thus it appears that the present emblem, except the broken column, was in use prior to the publication of Cross' work (1819).
The emblem in somewhat different form is frequently found in ancient symbolism. Mackey states that with the Jews a column was often used to symbolize princes, rulers or nobles. A broken column denoted that a pillar of the state had fallen. In Egyptian mythology, Isis is sometimes pictured weeping over the broken column which conceals the body of her husband Osiris, while behind her stands Horus or Time pouring ambrosia on her hair. In Hasting's ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS, Isis is said sometimes to be represented standing; in her right hand is a sistrum, in her left hand a small ewer and on her forehead is a lotus, emblem of resurrection. In the Dionysaic Mysteries, Dionysius is represented as slain; Rhea goes in search of the body. She finds it and causes it to be buried. She is sometimes represented as standing by a column holding in her hand a sprig of wheat, emblem of immortality; since, though it be placed in the ground and die, it springs up again into newness of life. She was the wife of Kronus or Time, who may fittingly be represented as standing behind her.
Whoever invented the emblem or symbol of the marble monument, the broken column, the beautiful virgin, the book, the urn, the acacia, Father Time counting the ringlets of hair, could not have thought through all the implications of this attempt-doubtless made in all reverence-to add to the dignity and impressiveness of the story of the Master Builder.
The urn in which "ashes were safely deposited" is pure invention. Cremation was not practiced by the Twelve Tribes; it was not the method of disposing of the dead in the land and at the time of the building of the Temple. rather was the burning of the dead body reserved as a dreadful fate for the corpses of criminals and evil doers. That so great a man as "the widow's son, of the tribe of Naphtali" should have been cremated is unthinkable. The Bible is silent on the subject; it does not mention Hiram the Builder's death, still less the disposal of the body, but the whole tone of the Old Testament in description of funerals and mournings, make it impossible to believe that his body was burned, or that his ashes might have been preserved.
The Israelites did not embalm their dead; burial was accomplished on the day of death or, at the longest wait, on the day following. According to the legend, the Master Builder was disinterred from the first or temporary grave and reinterred with honor. That is indeed, a supposable happening; that his body was raised only to be cremated is wholly out of keeping with everything known of deaths, funeral ceremonies, disposal of the dead of the Israelites.
In the ritual which describes the broken column monument, before the figure of the virgin is "a book, open before her." Here again invention and knowledge did not go hand in hand. There were no books at the time of the building of the Temple, as moderns understand the word. there were rolls of skins, but a bound book of leaves made of any substance-vellum, papyrus, skins-was an unknown object. Therefore there could have been no such volume in which the virtues of the Master Builder were recorded.
No logical reason has been advanced why the woman who mourned and read in the book was a "beautiful virgin." No scriptural account tells of the Master Builder having wife or daughter or any female relative except his mother. The Israelites reverenced womanhood and appreciated virginity, but they were just as reverent over mother and
child. Indeed, the bearing of children, the increase of the tribe, the desire for sons, was strong in the Twelve Tribes; why, then, the accent upon the virginity of the woman in the monument? "Time standing behind her, unfolding and counting the ringlets of her hair" is dramatic, but also out of character for the times. "Father Time" with his scythe is probably a descendant of the Greek Chromos, who carried a sickle or reaping hook, but the Israelites had no contact with Greece. It may have been natural for whoever invented the marble monument emblem to conclude that Time was both a world-wide and a time immemorial symbolic figure, but it could not have been so at the era in which Solomon's Temple was built.
It evidently did not occur to the originators of this emblem that it was historically impossible. Yet the Israelites did not erect monuments to their dead. In the singular, the word "monument" does not occur in the Bible; as "monuments" it is mentioned once, in Isaiah 65 - "A people...which remain among the graves and lodge in the monuments." In the Revised Version this is translated "who sit in tombs and spend the night in secret places." The emphasis is apparently upon some form of worship of the dead (necromancy). The Standard Bible Dictionary says that the word "monument" in the general sense of a simple memorial does not appear in Biblical usage.
Oliver Day Street in "SYMBOLISM OF THE THREE DEGREES" says that the urn was an ancient sign of mourning, carried in funeral processions to catch the tears of those who grieved. But the word "urn" does not occur in the Old Testament nor the New.
Freemasonry is old. It came to us as a slow, gradual evolution of the thoughts, ideas, beliefs, teachings, idealism of many men through many years. It tells a simple story-a story profound in its meaning, which therefore must be simple, as all great truths in the last analysis are simple.
The marble monument and the broken column have many parts. Many of these have the aroma of age. Their weaving together into one symbol may be-probably is-a modernism, if that term can cover a period of nearly two hundred years. but the importance of a great life, his skill and knowledge; his untimely and pitiful death is not a modernism.
Nothing herein set forth is intended as in any way belittling one of Freemasonry's teachings by means of ritual and picture. These few pages are but one of many ways of trying to illuminate the truth behind a symbol, and show that, regardless of the dates of any parts of the emblem, the whole has a place in the Masonic story which has at least romance, if not too much fact, behind it.
THE BROKEN COLUMN AND ITS DEEPER MEANING:
by Bro. William Steve Burkle KT, 32°
Scioto Lodge No. 6, Chillicothe, Ohio.
Philo Lodge No. 243, South River, New Jersey
The meaning of the Broken Column as explained by the ritual of the Master mason degree is that the column represents both the fall of Master Hiram Abif as well as the unfinished work of the Temple of Solomon[i]. This interesting symbol has appeared in some fascinating places; for example, a Broken Column monument marks the gravesite in Lewis County Tennessee[ii] of Brother Meriwether Lewis (Lewis & Clark), and a similar monument marks the grave of Brother Prince Hall[iii]. In China, there is a “broken column-shaped” home which was built just prior to the French Revolution by the aristocrat François Nicolas Henri Racine de Monville[iv]. Today “The Broken Column” is frequently used in Masonic newsletters as the header for obituary notices and is a popular tomb monument for those whose life was deemed cut short. Note that when I speak of The Broken Column here, I am referring to only the upright but shattered Column Base with its detached Shattered Capital, and not to the more extensive symbolism often associated with the figure such as a book resting on the column base, the Weeping Virgin (Isis), or Father Time (Horus) disentangling the Virgin’s hair. In this version the shattered column itself is often said to allude to Osiris[v]. While these embellishments add to the complexity of the allusion, it is the shattered column alone which I intend to address.
The Broken Column is believed to be a fairly recent addition to the symbolism of Freemasonry, and has been attributed to Brother Jeremy L. Cross. Brother Cross[vi] is said to have devised the symbol based upon a broken column grave monument dedicated to a Commodore Lawrence[vii], which was erected in the Trinity Churchyard circa 1813. Lawrence perished in a naval battle that same year between the Frigates Chesapeake and Shannon. The illustration of the broken column was reportedly first published in the “True Masonic Chart” by artist Amos Doolittle in 1819[viii]. There is however little evidence beyond the word of Brother Cross that the symbol was thus created[ix],[x].
Whether the Broken Column is a modern invention or passed down from times of antiquity is of little consequence; regardless of its origins the symbol serves well as a powerful allusion in our Craft, and as will be discussed, may have deeper meanings which align with other Masonic symbols which also incorporate images of columns and pillars.
Freemasonry makes generous reference to columns and pillars of all sorts in the work of the various degrees including the two pillars which stood at the entrance of Solomon’s Temple, the four columns of architectural significance, and the three Great Columns representing strength, beauty, and wisdom[xi]. The first mention of pillars in a Masonic context[xii] is found in the Cooke Manuscript dated circa 1410 A.D. The three Great Pillars of Masonry are of particular interest in this article even though it is the Broken Column and its deeper meanings which I ultimately intend to explore.
Three Great Columns:
The basis for the Three Great Columns can be traced to an ancient Kabalistic concept and a unique diagram found in the Zohar which illustrates the emanations of God in forming and sustaining the universe. The diagram also reflects certain states of spiritual attainment in man. This diagram, called the Sephiroth consists of ten spheres or Sephira connected to one another by pathways and which are ordered to reflect the sequence of creation. In accordance with Kabalistic belief Aur Ein Sof (Light Without End) shines down into the Sephiroth and is split like a prism into its ten constituent Sephira[xiii], eventually ending in the material universe. To discuss the Sephiroth in sufficient depth to impart a good understanding is well beyond the scope of this paper; however, a basic understanding of how the structure of the Sephiroth is related to the Great Columns is manageable, and is in fact essential to the subsequent discussion of the Broken Column. Be aware that the explanations I give are vast oversimplifications of a highly complex concept. In an attempt to simplify the concept, it is inevitable that some degree of inaccuracy will be introduced.
I would like to begin my discussion of the Three Great Columns by discussing the Cardinal Virtues. The Cardinal Virtues are believed to have originated with Plato who formed them from a tripartite division[xiv] of the attributes of man (power, wisdom, reason, mercy, strength, beauty, firmness, magnificence, and base kingship) presented in the Sephiroth. These concepts were later adopted by the Christian Church[xv] and were popularized by the treatises of Martin of Braga, Alcuin and Hrabanus Maurus (circa 1100 A.D.) and later promoted by Thomas Aquinas (circa 1224 A.D.). According to Wescott[xvi] the Four Cardinal Virtues are represented by what were originally branches of the Sepheroth:
“Four tassels refer to four cardinal virtues, says the first degree Tracing Board Lecture, these are temperance, fortitude, prudence, and justice; these again were originally branches of the Sephirotic Tree, Chesed first, Netzah fortitude, Binah prudence, and Geburah justice. Virtue, honour, and mercy, another triad, are Chochmah, Hod, and Chesed.”
broken-column1
Thus we have a connection between the Cardinal Virtues and the Sephiroth. The Three Pillars of Freemasonry (Wisdom, Beauty, and Strength) are associated with the Cardinal Virtues[xvii] and also therefore with the Kabalistic concept of the Sephiroth[xviii]. I have provided an illustration of the Sepiroth in Figure 1. This particular version of the Sephiroth is based upon that used in the 30th Degree or Knight Kadosh Grade[xix] of the ASSR. The Sephiroth, incidentally is also called “The Tree of Life”. Each of the vertical columns of spheres (Sephira) in the Sephiroth are considered to represent a pillar (column). Each pillar is named according to the central concept which it represents; thus in Figure 1 we have the pillars Justice, Beauty, and Mercy left to right, respectively. The Sephiroth is a very elegant system in which balance is maintained between the Sephira of the two outermost pillars by virtue of the center pillar. Note also that traditionally the Sephiroth is divided into “Triads” of Sephira. In Figure 1 the uppermost triad, consisting of the spheres Wisdom, Intelligence, and Crown represent the intellectual and spiritual characteristics of man. The next triad is represented by the Sephira Justice, Beauty, and Mercy; the final triad is Splendor, Foundation, and Firmness (or Strength).
According to S.L. MacGregor Mathers[xx], the word Sephira is best translated to mean (or is best rendered as) “Numerical Emanation”, and each of the ten Sephira corresponds to a specific numerical value. Mathers also asserts that it was through knowledge of the Sephiroth that Pythagoras devised his system of numerical symbolism. While there are additional divisions and subdivisions of the Sephiroth, the concept which is of interest to us here is that God created the Material World or Universe (signified by the lowest Sephira, Kingdom) in a series of ordered actions which proceeded along established pathways (i.e. the connecting lines between the Sephira in our Figure). Each of the Sephira and each pathway are a sort of “buffer” between the majesty and power of God and the material world. Without these buffers, profane man and the material world he inhabits would meet with destruction. On the other hand, enlightened man is able to progress upwards along these pathways to higher level Sephira and to thereby achieve enhanced knowledge of the Divine. Tradition holds that man once was closer to the Divine spirit, but became corrupted by the material world, losing this connection (i.e. The fall of Man from Grace. Note also the reference to the Tree of Knowledge and possible connections to the Tree of Life). God uses the Sephiroth in renewing and sustaining the material universe. Each new soul created is an emanation of God and travels to materiality (physical existence) via the pathways established in the Sephiroth. In a similar fashion, the spirits of the departed return to God via these same pathways, making the Sephiroth the mechanism by which God interacts with the universe.
broken-column2
The Broken Column:
In Figure 2, I have redrawn the Sephiroth as an overlay of the Three Great Columns; however in this version the Pillar of Beauty is Broken. Note especially that the center pillar, the Pillar of Beauty in the Sephiroth has a gap between Beauty and Crown, in effect making this column a Broken Pillar[xxi]. I believe this “fracture” symbolizes Man’s separation from knowledge of the Divine, and an interruption in the Pathway leading from Beauty directly to the Crown (which symbolizes “The Vast Countenance”[xxii]).
I would also like to extrapolate that if the Broken Column indeed represents Hiram Abif as per the explanation given to initiates, then the two remaining columns would then correspond to Solomon and Hiram King of Tyre[xxiii]. Certainly the Sephira (Wisdom, Justice, and Splendor) which comprise the column of Justice align well with the characteristics traditionally associated with King Solomon. Tradition unfortunately does not address Hiram King of Tyre although we can assume that Intelligence, Mercy, and Firmness or Strength would be a likely requirement for a Monarch of such apparent success. The connection between the Three Great Columns and the three principle characters in the drama of the Third Degree does have a certain sense of validity. The “Lost Word” associated with Hiram Abif would then allude to the lost Pathway.
In so many of our Masonic Lessons we initially receive a plausible but quite shallow explanation of our symbols and allusions. Those who sense an underlying, deeper meaning tend to find it (Seek and you will find, knock and the door shall be opened). Perhaps in our ritual of the Third Degree, that which is symbolically being raised (restored) is the Pillar of which resides within us. If so, the Lost Word has then in fact been received by each of us. It only remains lost if we choose to forget it or choose not to pursue it.
[i] Duncan, Malcom C. Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor. Crown; 3 Edition (April 12, 1976). ISBN-13: 978-0679506263. pp 157.
[ii] “Meriwether Lewis, Master Mason”. The Lewis and Clark Fort Mandan Foundation.
[iii] “WHo is Prince Hall ?” (1996). Retrieved December 5, 2008 from www.mindspring.com/~johnsonx/whoisph.htm.
[iv] Kenna, Michael. (1988). The Broken Column House at Désert de Retz in Le Desert De Retz, A late 18th Century French Folley Garden. Retrieved December 6, 2008 from Valley Daze. valley-daze.blogspot.com/2007/09/broken-column-house.html
[v] Pike, Albert. (1919) Morals and Dogma. Charleston Southern Jurisdiction. pp. 379. ASIN: B000CDT4T8.
[vi] “The Broken Column”. The Short Talk Bulletin 2-56. The Masonic Service Association of the United States. VOL. 34 February 1956 NO. 2.
[vii] Brown, Robert Hewitt. (1892). Stellar Theology and Masonic Astronomy or the origin and meaning of ancient and modern mysteries explained. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1, 3, and 5 Bond Street. 1892.. pp. 68.
[viii] “Boston Masonic Lithograph”. Retrieved December 5, 2008 from Lodge Pambula Daylight UGL of NSW & ACT No1000. lodgepambuladaylight.org/lithograph.htm.
[ix] Folger, Robert B. Fiction of the Weeping Virgin. Retrieved December 6, 2008 from the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon A.F. & A.M. freemasonry.bcy.ca/art/monument / fiction/fiction.html
[x] Mackey, Albert Gallatin & Haywood H. L. Encyclopedia of Freemasonry Part 2. pp. 677. Kessinger Publishing, LLC (March 31, 2003).
[xi] Claudy, Carl H. Introduction to Masonry. The Temple Publishers. Retrieved December 5, 2008 from Pietre-Stones Review of Freemasonry. www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/claudy4.html.
[xii] Dwor, Mark. (1998). Globes, Pillars, Columns, and Candlesticks. Vancouver Lodge of Education and Research . Retrieved December 6, 2008 from the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon A.F. & A.M. freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/globes_pillars_columns.html
[xiii] Day, Jeff. (2008). Dualism of the Sword and the Trowel. Cryptic Masons of Oregon – Grants Pass. Retrieved December 6, 2008 from rogue.cryptic-masons.org/dualism_of_the_sword_and_trowel
[xiv] Bramston, M. Thinkers of the Middle Ages. Monthly Packet. Evening Readings of the Christian Church (1893). Ed. Charlotte Mary Yonge, Christabel Rose Coleridge, Arthur Innes. J. and C. Mozley. University of Michigan (2007).
[xv] Regan, Richard. (2005). The Cardinal Virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance. Hackett Publishing.
[xvi] Wescott, William ( ). The Religion of Freemasonry. Illuminated by the Kabbalah. Ars Quatuor Coronatorum. vol. i. p. 73-77. Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/kabbalah.html.
[xvii] MacKenzie, Kenneth R. H. (1877). Kabala. Royal Masonic Cyclopedia. Kessinger Publishing (2002).
[xviii] Pirtle, Henry. Lost Word of Freemasonry. Kessinger Publishing, 1993.
[xix] Knight Kadosh. The Thirtieth Grade of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, and the First Degree of the Chivalric Series. Hirams Web. University of Bradford.
[xx] Mathers, S.L. MacGregor. (1887). Qabalah Unveiled. Reprinted (2006) as The Kabbalah: Essential Texts From The Zohar. Watkins. London. pp. 10.
[xxi] Ibid. Dualism of the Sword and the Trowel
[xxii] Ibid. Qabalah Unveiled .Plate III. pp. 38-39.
[xxiii] Duncan, Malcom C. Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor. Crown; 3 Edition (April 12, 1976).
Deathangle Absolution Records (2013)
Private edition 3x cassette compilation boxset in vinyl box.
The normal version is 2 tapes of previously released tracks and 3 new ones. It is limited to 100 copies with an insert.
This edition contains an extra tape (titled "Undisclosed Frequencies") with 2 tracks never released to the public and also contains an extra a hand-numbered insert explaining the release and personalized to the original owner. I am not the original owner, so I covered up the name to protect that person's identity.
Limited to 16 copies. Mine is #9.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-19 (NATO reporting name: "Farmer") was a Soviet second-generation, single-seat, twin jet-engine fighter aircraft. It was the first Soviet production aircraft capable of supersonic speeds in level flight. A comparable U.S. "Century Series" fighter was the North American F-100 Super Sabre, although the MiG-19 would primarily oppose the more modern McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II and Republic F-105 Thunderchief over North Vietnam. Furthermore, the North American YF-100 Super Sabre prototype appeared approximately one year after the MiG-19, making the MiG-19 the first operational supersonic jet in the world.
On 20 April 1951, OKB-155 was given the order to develop the MiG-17 into a new fighter called "I-340", also known as "SM-1". It was to be powered by two Mikulin AM-5 non-afterburning jet engines, a scaled-down version of the Mikulin AM-3, with 19.6 kN (4,410 lbf) of thrust. The I-340 was supposed to attain 1,160 km/h (725 mph, Mach 0.97) at 2,000 m (6,562 ft), 1,080 km/h (675 mph, Mach 1.0) at 10,000 m (32,808 ft), climb to 10,000 m (32,808 ft) in 2.9 minutes, and have a service ceiling of no less than 17,500 m (57,415 ft).
After several prototypes with many detail improvements, the ministers of the Soviet Union issued the order #286-133 to start serial production on February 17, 1954, at the factories in Gorkiy and Novosibirsk. Factory trials were completed on September 12 the same year, and government trials started on September 30.
Initial enthusiasm for the aircraft was dampened by several problems. The most alarming of these was the danger of a midair explosion due to overheating of the fuselage fuel tanks located between the engines. Deployment of airbrakes at high speeds caused a high-g pitch-up. Elevators lacked authority at supersonic speeds. The high landing speed of 230 km/h (145 mph), compared to 160 km/h (100 mph) for the MiG-15, combined with the lack of a two-seat trainer version, slowed pilot transition to the type. Handling problems were addressed with the second prototype, "SM-9/2", which added a third ventral airbrake and introduced all-moving tailplanes with a damper to prevent pilot-induced oscillations at subsonic speeds. It flew on 16 September 1954, and entered production as the MiG-19S.
Approximately 5,500 MiG-19's were produced, first in the USSR and in Czechoslovakia as the Avia S-105, but mainly in the People's Republic of China as the Shenyang J-6. The aircraft saw service with a number of other national air forces, including those of Cuba, North Vietnam, Egypt, Pakistan, and North Korea. The aircraft saw combat during the Vietnam War, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1971 Bangladesh War.
However, jet fighter development made huge leaps in the 1960s, and OKB MiG was constantly trying to improve the MiG-19's performance, esp. against fast and high-flying enemies, primarily bombers but also spy planes like the U-2.
As the MiG-19S was brought into service with the Soviet air forces in mid-1956, the OKB MiG was continuing the refinement of the SM-1/I-340 fighter. One of these evolutionary paths was the SM-12 (literally, “SM-1, second generation”) family of prototypes, the ultimate extrapolation of the basic MiG-19 design, which eventually led to the MiG-19bis interceptor that filled the gap between the MiG-19S and the following, highly successful MiG-21.
The SM-12 first saw life as an exercise in drag reduction by means of new air intake configurations, since the MiG-19’s original intake with rounded lips became inefficient at supersonic speed (its Western rival, the North American F-100, featured a sharp-lipped nose air intake from the start). The first of three prototypes, the SM-12/1, was essentially a MiG-19S with an extended and straight-tapered nose with sharp-lipped orifice and a pointed, two-position shock cone on the intake splitter. The simple arrangement proved to be successful and was further refined.
The next evolutionary step, the SM-12/3, differed from its predecessors primarily in two new R3-26 turbojets developed from the earlier power plant by V. N. Sorokin. These each offered an afterburning thrust of 3,600kg, enabling the SM-12/3 to attain speeds ranging between 1,430km/h at sea level, or Mach=1.16, and 1,930km/h at 12,000m, or Mach=1.8, and an altitude of between 17,500 and 18,000m during its test program. This outstanding performance prompted further development with a view to production as a point defense interceptor.
Similarly powered by R3-26 engines, and embodying major nose redesign with a larger orifice permitting introduction of a substantial two-position conical centerbody for a TsD-30 radar, a further prototype was completed as the SM-12PM. Discarding the wing root NR-30 cannon of preceding prototypes, the SM-12PM was armed with only two K-5M (RS-2U) beam-riding missiles and entered flight test in 1957. This configuration would become the basis for the MiG-19bis interceptor that eventually was ordered into limited production (see below).
However, the SM-12 development line did not stop at this point. At the end of 1958, yet another prototype, the SM-12PMU, joined the experimental fighter family. This had R3M-26 turbojets uprated to 3.800kg with afterburning, but these were further augmented by a U-19D accelerator, which took the form of a permanent ventral pack containing an RU-013 rocket motor and its propellant tanks. Developed by D. D. Sevruk, the RU-013 delivered 3,000kg of additional thrust, and with the aid of this rocket motor, the SM-12PMU attained an altitude of 24,000m and a speed of Mach=1.69. But this effort was to no avail: the decision had been taken meanwhile to manufacture the Ye-7 in series as the MiG-21, and further development of the SM-12 series was therefore discontinued.
Nevertheless, since full operational status of the new MiG-21 was expected to remain pending for some time, production of a modified SM-12PM was ordered as a gap filler. Not only would this fighter bridge the performance gap to the Mach 2-capable MiG-21, it also had the benefit of being based on proven technologies and would not require a new basic pilot training.
The new aircraft received the official designation MiG-19bis. Compared with the SM-12PM prototype, the MiG-19bis differed in some details and improvements. The SM-12PM’s most significant shortfall was its short range – at full power, it had only a range of 750 km! This could be mended through an additional fuel tank in an enlarged dorsal fairing behind the cockpit. With this internal extra fuel, range could be extended by a further 200 - 250km range, but drop tanks had typically to be carried, too, in order to extend the fighter’ combat radius with two AAMs to 500 km. Specifically for the MiG-19bis, new, supersonic drop tanks (PTB-490) were designed, and these were later adapted for the MiG-21, too.
The air intake shock cone was re-contoured and the shifting mechanism improved: Instead of a simple, conical shape, the shock cone now had a more complex curvature with two steps and the intake orifice area was widened to allow a higher airflow rate. The air intake’s efficiency was further optimized through gradual positions of the shock cone.
As a positive side effect, the revised shock cone offered space for an enlarged radar dish, what improved detection range and resolution. The TsD-30 radar for the fighter’s missile-only armament was retained, even though the K-5’s effective range of only 2–6 km (1¼ – 3¾ mi) made it only suitable against slow and large targets like bombers. All guns were deleted in order to save weight or make room for the electronic equipment. The tail section was also changed because the R3M-26 engines and their afterburners were considerably longer than the MiG-19's original RM-5 engines. The exhausts now markedly protruded from the tail section, and the original, characteristic pen nib fairing between the two engines had been modified accordingly.
Production started in 1960, but only a total of roundabout 180 MiG-19bis, which received the NATO code "Farmer F", were built and the Soviet Union remained the only operator of the type. The first aircraft entered Soviet Anti-Air Defense in early 1961, and the machines were concentrated in PVO interceptor units around major sites like Moscow, Sewastopol at the Black Sea and Vladivostok in the Far East.
With the advent of the MiG-21, though, their career did not last long. Even though many machines were updated to carry the K-13 (the IR-guided AA-2 "Atoll") as well as the improved K-55 AAMs, with no change of the type’s designation, most MiG-19bis were already phased out towards the late 1960s and quickly replaced by 2nd generation MiG-21s as well as heavier and more capable Suchoj interceptors like the Su-9, -11 and -15. By 1972, all MiG-19bis had been retired.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 13.54 m (44 ft 4 in), fuselage only with shock cone in forward position
15.48 m (50 8 ½ in) including pitot
Wingspan: 9 m (29 ft 6 in)
Height: 3.8885 m (12 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 25 m² (269 ft²)
Empty weight: 5,210 kg (11,475 lb)
Loaded weight: 7,890 kg (17,380 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 9,050 kg (19,935 lb)
Fuel capacity: 2,450 l (556 imp gal; 647 US gal) internal;
plus 760 l (170 imp gal; 200 US gal) with 2 drop tanks
Powerplant:
2× Sorokin R3M-26 turbojets, rated at 37.2 kN (8,370 lbf) thrust each with afterburning
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,380km/h at sea level (Mach=1.16)
1,850km/h at 12,000m (Mach=1.8)
Range: 1,250 km (775 mi; 750 nmi) at 14,000 m (45,000 ft) with 2 × 490 l drop tanks
Combat range: 500 km (312 mi; 270 nmi)
Ferry range: 2,000 km (1,242 mi; 690 nmi)
Service ceiling: 19,750 m (64,690 ft)
Rate of climb: 180 m/s (35,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 353.3 kg/m² (72.4 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.86
Armament:
No internal guns.
4× underwing pylons; typically, a pair of PTB-490 drop tanks were carried on the outer pylon pair,
plus a pair of air-to air missiles on the inner pair: initially two radar-guided Kaliningrad K-5M (RS-2US)
AAMs, later two radar-guided K-55 or IR-guided Vympel K-13 (AA-2 'Atoll') AAMs
The kit and its assembly:
Another submission for the 2018 Cold War Group Build at whatifmodelers.com, and again the opportunity to build a whiffy model from the project list. But it’s as fictional as one might think, since the SM-12 line of experimental “hybrid” fighters between the MiG-19 and the MiG-21 was real. But none of these aircraft ever made it into serial production, and in real life the MiG-21 showed so much potential that the attempts to improve the MiG-19 were stopped and no operational fighter entered production or service.
However, the SM-12, with its elongated nose and the central shock cone, makes a nice model subject, and I imagined what a service aircraft might have looked like? It would IMHO have been close, if not identical, to the SM-12PM, since this was the most refined pure jet fighter in the development family.
The basis for the build was a (dead cheap) Mastercraft MiG-19, which is a re-edition of the venerable Kovozávody Prostějov (KP) kit – as a tribute to modern tastes, it comes with (crudely) engraved panel, but it has a horrible fit all over. For instance, there was a 1mm gap between the fuselage and the right wing, the wing halves’ outlines did not match at all and it is questionable if the canopy actually belongs to the kit at all? PSR everywhere. I also had a Plastyk version of this kit on the table some time ago, but it was of a much better quality! O.K., the Mastercraft kit comes cheap, but it’s, to be honest, not a real bargain.
Even though the result would not be crisp I did some mods and changes. Internally, a cockpit tub was implanted (OOB there’s just a wacky seat hanging in mid air) plus some serious lead weight in the nose section for a proper stance.
On the outside, the new air intake is the most obvious change. I found a Su-17 intake (from a Mastercraft kit, too) and used a piece from a Matchbox B-17G’s dorsal turret to elongate the nose – it had an almost perfect diameter and a mildly conical shape. Some massive PSR work was necessary to blend the parts together, though.
The tail received new jet nozzles, scratched from steel needle protection covers, and the tail fairing was adjusted according to the real SM-12’s shape.
Ordnance was adapted, too: the drop tanks come from a Mastercraft MiG-21, and these supersonic PTB-490 tanks were indeed carried by the real SM-12 prototypes because the uprated engines were very thirsty and the original, teardrop-shaped MiG-19 tanks simply too draggy for the much faster SM-12. As a side note, the real SM-12’s short range was one of the serious factors that prevented the promising type’s production in real life. In order to overcome the poor range weakness I added an enlarged spine (half of a drop tank), inspired by the MiG-21 SMT, that would house an additional internal fuel tank.
The R2-SU/K-5 AAMs come from a vintage Mastercraft Soviet aircraft weapon set, which carries a pair of these 1st generation AAMs. While the molds seem to be a bit soft, the missiles look pretty convincing. Their pylons were taken from the kit (OOB they carry unguided AAM pods and are placed behind the main landing gear wells), just reversed and placed on the wings’ leading edges – similar to the real SM-12’s arrangement.
Painting and markings:
No surprises. In the Sixties, any PVO aircraft was left in bare metal, so there was hardly an alternative to a NMF finish.
Painting started with an all-over coat with acrylic Revell 99 (Aluminum), just the spine tank became light grey (Revell 371) for some contrast, and I painted some di-electric covers in a deep green (Revell 48).
The cockpit interior was painted with a bright mix of Revell 55 and some 48, while the landing gear wells and the back section of the cockpit were painted in a bluish grey (Revell 57).
The landing gear was painted in Steel (unpolished Modelmaster metallizer) and received classic, bright green wheel discs (Humbrol 2). As a small, unusual highlight the pitot boom under the chin received red and white stripes – seen on occasional MiG-19S fighters in Soviet service, and the anti-flutter booms on the stabilizers became bright red, too.
After the basic painting was done the kit received a black ink wash. Once this had dried and wiped off with a soft cotton cloth, post shading with various metallizer tones was added in order to liven up the uniform aircraft (including Humbrol’s matt and polished aluminum, and the exhaust section was treated with steel). Some panel lines were emphasized with a thin pencil.
Decals were puzzled together from various sources, a Guards badge and a few Russian stencils were added, too. Finally, the kit was sealed with a coat of sheen acrylic varnish (a 2:1 mix of Italeri matt and semi-gloss varnish).
The K-5 missiles, last but not least, were painted in aluminum, too, but their end caps (both front and tail section) became off-white.
The Mastercraft kit on which this conversion was based is crude, so I did not have high expectations concerning the outcome. But the new nose blends nicely into the MiG-19 fuselage, and the wide spine is a subtle detail that makes the aircraft look more “beefy” and less MiG-19-ish. The different drop tanks – even though they are authentic – visually add further speed. And despite many flaws, I am quite happy with the result of roundabout a week’s work.
Tacloban, January 28th, 2014 - In the Rawis and Anibong Bay districts, where 8 boats were washed ashore by the typhoon and killed hundreds of people, the smell is terrible and dead bodies are still being found under the rubble.
The lack of proper housing forced some of the survivors to look for shelter inside the same boats which brought destruction and death just a few months before.
Picture extrapolated from the "Letters to Tacloban" reportage.
LETTERS TO TACLOBAN - Full documentary on
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI2aVCAsbGA&spfreload=10
8 November 2013, typhoon Haiyan hit the Philippines.
What was left behind was a wounded country with cities such as Tacloban, completely destroyed.
The government received help from many countries and international NGOs, but the reconstruction plan is far from being completed.
The core of this movie is the story of a group of children who relocated to Calabanga after the disaster, and the delivery of their letters to their families in Tacloban.
From Manila to Calabanga, through Legazpi and Tacloban, this documentary highlights the slow and painful process of both physical and emotional reconstruction after the strongest typhoon ever recorded, hit the Philippines.
Check the Trailer on:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=X81Lo0mV0RI&list=UU8wz023WyA9...
For the full story:
This style of fortress was built all over Europe (and far beyond) through the 17th and 18th centuries and into the 19th century. They were, for obvious reason, usually referred to as "star forts". By the time of the Napoleonic War, 150 years after this one was built, they represented the pinnacle of military engineering and the siege and assault of such famous fortress towns as Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajos by Wellington's army in Spain, is the stuff of military legend.
I have shown with red lines where the ramparts and bastions of Ayr Citadel are, or where there are good indications that they originally were. The rest is easy to extrapolate.
Not a single building within the citadel dates back to when it was built, with the exception of the church of St John the Baptist, which was used by Cromwell's soldiers as a look-out tower as well as an armoury and chapel. The congregation had been forced out and the Auld Kirk of Ayr came to be built to house them with some financial assistance from Cromwell. The 'Citadel' church was in public use again between 1687 and 1689, after which it ceased to be used for worship and much of it was demolished, the tower itself only being spared as it was a valuable sea-mark for sailors and a look-out for ships. (The tower stands among the trees beyond Cromwell's all-weather tennis courts!)
With Massimo Vitali at Grieger Lab, Düsseldorf.
In the picture: Massimo comparing some LightJet print proofs from drum scans provided by CastorScan.
When the Lightjet and scan operator of Grieger opened our 2.7 Gb file he exclaimed "WOW" and he told us that he never saw such an high quality of file and scan.
The final LightJet print was amazing, and it matched perfectly the colors and the natural smothness of an analogue print: the color fidelity was absolutely incredible. Also, it showed a detail, a precision, a contrast and a flatness of field much better than any possible analogue print.
Honestly, it's extremely difficult to find a print of comparable quality anywhere.
Considering that Grieger is probably the most famous photo lab in the world and there every day they print pictures by Gursky, Struth, Ruff, Demand, etc etc...not bad.
-----
CastorScan's philosophy is completely oriented to provide the highest scan and postproduction
quality on the globe.
We work with artists, photographers, agencies, laboratories etc. who demand a state-of-the-art quality at reasonable prices.
Our workflow is fully manual and extremely meticulous in any stage.
We developed exclusive workflows and profilation systems to obtain unparallel results from our scanners not achievable through semi-automatic and usual workflows.
-----
CastorScan uses the best scanners in circulation, Dainippon Screen SG-8060P Mark II, the best and most advanced scanner ever made, Kodak-Creo IQSmart 3, a high-end flatbed scanner, and Imacon 848.
The image quality offered by our Dainippon Screen 8060 scanner is much higher than that achievable with the best flatbed scanners or filmscanners dedicated and superior to that of scanners so-called "virtual drum" (Imacon – Hasselblad,) and, of course, vastly superior to that amateur or prosumer obtained with scanners such as Epson V750 etc .
Dainippon Screen SG-8060P Mark II exceeds in quality any other scanner, including Aztek Premier and ICG 380 (in the results, not just in the technical specifications).
8060's main features: 12000 dpi, Hi-Q Xenon lamp, 25 apertures, 2 micron
Aztek Premier's main features: 8000 dpi, halogen lamp, 18 apertures, 3 micron
ICG 380's main features: 12000 dpi, halogen lamp, 9 apertures, 4 micron
Some of the features that make the quality of our drum scanners better than any other existing scan system include:
The scans performed on a drum scanner are famous for their detail, depth and realism.
Scans are much cleaner and show fewer imperfections than scans obtained from CCD scanners, and thus save many hours of cleaning and spotting in postproduction.
Image acquisition by the drum scanner is optically similar to using a microscopic lens that scans the image point by point with extreme precision and without deformation or distortion of any kind, while other scanners use enlarger lenses (such as the Rodenstock-Linos Magnagon 75mm f8 used in the Hasselblad-Imacon scanners) and have transmission systems with rubber bands: this involves mild but effective micro-strain and micro-geometric image distortions and quality is not uniform between the center and edges.
Drum scanners are exempt from problems of flatness of the originals, since the same are mounted on a perfectly balanced transparent acrylic drum; on the contrary, the dedicated film scanners that scan slides or negatives in their plastic frames are subject to quite significant inaccuracies, as well as the Imacon-Hasselblad scanners, which have their own rubber and plastic holders: they do not guarantee the perfect flatness of the original and therefore a uniform definition between center and edge, especially with medium and large size originals, which instead are guaranteed by drum scanners.
Again, drum scanners allow scanning at high resolution over the entire surface of the cylinder, while for example the Hasselblad Imacon scans are limited to 3200 dpi in 120 format and 2000 dpi in 4x5" format (the resolution of nearly every CCD scanner in the market drops as the size of the original scanned is increased).
Drum scanners allow complete scanning of the whole negative, including the black-orange mask, perforations etc, while using many other scanners a certain percentage of the image is lost because it is covered by frames or holders.
Drum scanners use photomultiplier tubes to record the light signal, which are much more sensitive than CCDs and can record many more nuances and variations in contrast with a lower digital noise.
If you look at a monitor at 100% the detail in shadows and darker areas of a scan made with a CCD scanner, you will notice that the details are not recorded in a clear and clean way, and the colors are more opaque and less differentiated. Additionally the overall tones are much less rich and differentiated.
We would like to say a few words about an unscrupulous and deceitful use of technical specifications reported by many manufacturers of consumer and prosumer scanners; very often we read of scanners that promise cheap or relatively cheap “drum scanner” resolutions, 16 bits of color depth, extremely high DMAX: we would like to say that these “nominal” resolutions do not correspond to an actual optical resolution, so that even in low-resolution scanning you can see an enormous gap between drum scanners and these scanners in terms of detail, as well as in terms of DMAX, color range, realism, “quality” of grain. So very often when using these consumer-prosumer scanners at high resolutions, it is normal to get a disproportionate increase of file size in MB but not an increase of detail and quality.
To give a concrete example: a drum scan of a 24x36mm color negative film at 3500 dpi is much more defined than a scan made with mostly CCD scanner at 8000 dpi and a drum scan at 2500 dpi is dramatically clearer than a scan at 2500 dpi provided by a CCD scanner. So be aware and careful with incorrect advertisement.
Scans can be performed either dry or liquid-mounted. The wet mounting further improves cleanliness (helps to hide dirt, scratches and blemishes) and plasticity of the image without compromising the original, and in addition by mounting with liquid the film grain is greatly reduced and it looks much softer and more pleasant than the usual "harsh" grain resulting from dry scans.
We use Kami SMF 2001 liquid to mount the transparencies and Kami RC 2001 for cleaning the same. Kami SMF 2001 evaporates without leaving traces, unlike the traditional oil scans, ensuring maximum protection for your film. Out of ignorance some people prefer to avoid liquid scanning because they fear that their films will be dirty or damaged: this argument may be plausible only in reference to scans made using mineral oils, which have nothing to do with the specific professional products we use.
We strongly reiterate that your original is in no way compromised by our scanning liquid and will return as you have shipped it, if not cleaner.
With respect to scanning from slides:
Our scanners are carefully calibrated with the finest IT8 calibration targets in circulation and with special customized targets in order to ensure that each scan faithfully reproduces the original color richness even in the most subtle nuances, opening and maintaining detail in shadows and highlights. These color profiles allow our scanners to realize their full potential, so we guarantee our customers that even from a chromatic point of view our scans are noticeably better than similar scans made by mostly other scan services in the market.
In addition, we remind you that our 8060 drum scanner is able to read the deepest shadows of slides without digital noise and with much more detail than CCD scanners; also, the color range and color realism are far better.
With respect to scanning from color and bw negatives: we want to emphasize the superiority of our drum scans not only in scanning slides, but also in color and bw negative scanning (because of the orange mask and of very low contrast is extremely difficult for any ccd scanner to read the very slight tonal and contrast nuances in the color negative, while a perfectly profiled 8060 drum scanner – also through the analog gain/white calibration - can give back much more realistic images and true colors, sharper and more three-dimensional).
In spite of what many claim, a meticulous color profiling is essential not only for scanning slides, but also, and even more, for color negatives. Without it the scan of a color negative will produce chromatic errors rather significant, thus affecting the tonal balance and then the naturalness-pleasantness of the images.
More unique than rare, we do not use standardized profiles provided by the software to invert each specific negative film, because they do not take into account parameters and variables such as the type of development, the level of exposure, the type of light etc.,; at the same time we also avoid systems of "artificial intelligence" or other functions provided by semi-automatic scanning softwares, but instead we carry out the inversion in a full manual workflow for each individual picture.
In addition, scanning with Imacon-Hasselblad scanners we do not use their proprietary software - Flexcolor – to make color management and color inversion because we strongly believe that our alternative workflow provides much better results, and we are able to prove it with absolute clarity.
At each stage of the process we take care of meticulously adjusting the scanning parameters to the characteristics of the originals, to extrapolate the whole range of information possible from any image without "burning" or reductions in the tonal range, and strictly according to our customer's need and taste.
By default, we do not apply unsharp mask (USM) in our scans, except on request.
To scan reflective originals we follow the same guidelines and guarantee the same quality standard.
We guarantee the utmost thoroughness and expertise in the work of scanning and handling of the originals and we provide scans up to 12,000 dpi of resolution, at 16-bit, in RGB, GRAYSCALE, LAB or CMYK color mode; unless otherwise indicated, files are saved with Adobe RGB 1998 or ProPhoto RGB color profile.
Massimo Vitali // »Landscapes with Figures« & »Natural Habitats« picture books in a slipcase
scans by CastorScan
-----
CastorScan's philosophy is completely oriented to provide the highest scan and postproduction
quality on the globe.
We work with artists, photographers, agencies, laboratories etc. who demand a state-of-the-art quality at reasonable prices.
Our workflow is fully manual and extremely meticulous in any stage.
We developed exclusive workflows and profilation systems to obtain unparallel results from our scanners not achievable through semi-automatic and usual workflows.
-----
CastorScan uses the best scanners in circulation, Dainippon Screen SG-8060P Mark II, the best and most advanced scanner ever made, Kodak-Creo IQSmart 3, a high-end flatbed scanner, and Imacon 848.
The image quality offered by our Dainippon Screen 8060 scanner is much higher than that achievable with the best flatbed scanners or filmscanners dedicated and superior to that of scanners so-called "virtual drum" (Imacon – Hasselblad,) and, of course, vastly superior to that amateur or prosumer obtained with scanners such as Epson V750 etc .
Dainippon Screen SG-8060P Mark II exceeds in quality any other scanner, including Aztek Premier and ICG 380 (in the results, not just in the technical specifications).
8060's main features: 12000 dpi, Hi-Q Xenon lamp, 25 apertures, 2 micron
Aztek Premier's main features: 8000 dpi, halogen lamp, 18 apertures, 3 micron
ICG 380's main features: 12000 dpi, halogen lamp, 9 apertures, 4 micron
Some of the features that make the quality of our drum scanners better than any other existing scan system include:
The scans performed on a drum scanner are famous for their detail, depth and realism.
Scans are much cleaner and show fewer imperfections than scans obtained from CCD scanners, and thus save many hours of cleaning and spotting in postproduction.
Image acquisition by the drum scanner is optically similar to using a microscopic lens that scans the image point by point with extreme precision and without deformation or distortion of any kind, while other scanners use enlarger lenses (such as the Rodenstock-Linos Magnagon 75mm f8 used in the Hasselblad-Imacon scanners) and have transmission systems with rubber bands: this involves mild but effective micro-strain and micro-geometric image distortions and quality is not uniform between the center and edges.
Drum scanners are exempt from problems of flatness of the originals, since the same are mounted on a perfectly balanced transparent acrylic drum; on the contrary, the dedicated film scanners that scan slides or negatives in their plastic frames are subject to quite significant inaccuracies, as well as the Imacon-Hasselblad scanners, which have their own rubber and plastic holders: they do not guarantee the perfect flatness of the original and therefore a uniform definition between center and edge, especially with medium and large size originals, which instead are guaranteed by drum scanners.
Again, drum scanners allow scanning at high resolution over the entire surface of the cylinder, while for example the Hasselblad Imacon scans are limited to 3200 dpi in 120 format and 2000 dpi in 4x5" format (the resolution of nearly every CCD scanner in the market drops as the size of the original scanned is increased).
Drum scanners allow complete scanning of the whole negative, including the black-orange mask, perforations etc, while using many other scanners a certain percentage of the image is lost because it is covered by frames or holders.
Drum scanners use photomultiplier tubes to record the light signal, which are much more sensitive than CCDs and can record many more nuances and variations in contrast with a lower digital noise.
If you look at a monitor at 100% the detail in shadows and darker areas of a scan made with a CCD scanner, you will notice that the details are not recorded in a clear and clean way, and the colors are more opaque and less differentiated. Additionally the overall tones are much less rich and differentiated.
We would like to say a few words about an unscrupulous and deceitful use of technical specifications reported by many manufacturers of consumer and prosumer scanners; very often we read of scanners that promise cheap or relatively cheap “drum scanner” resolutions, 16 bits of color depth, extremely high DMAX: we would like to say that these “nominal” resolutions do not correspond to an actual optical resolution, so that even in low-resolution scanning you can see an enormous gap between drum scanners and these scanners in terms of detail, as well as in terms of DMAX, color range, realism, “quality” of grain. So very often when using these consumer-prosumer scanners at high resolutions, it is normal to get a disproportionate increase of file size in MB but not an increase of detail and quality.
To give a concrete example: a drum scan of a 24x36mm color negative film at 3500 dpi is much more defined than a scan made with mostly CCD scanner at 8000 dpi and a drum scan at 2500 dpi is dramatically clearer than a scan at 2500 dpi provided by a CCD scanner. So be aware and careful with incorrect advertisement.
Scans can be performed either dry or liquid-mounted. The wet mounting further improves cleanliness (helps to hide dirt, scratches and blemishes) and plasticity of the image without compromising the original, and in addition by mounting with liquid the film grain is greatly reduced and it looks much softer and more pleasant than the usual "harsh" grain resulting from dry scans.
We use Kami SMF 2001 liquid to mount the transparencies and Kami RC 2001 for cleaning the same. Kami SMF 2001 evaporates without leaving traces, unlike the traditional oil scans, ensuring maximum protection for your film. Out of ignorance some people prefer to avoid liquid scanning because they fear that their films will be dirty or damaged: this argument may be plausible only in reference to scans made using mineral oils, which have nothing to do with the specific professional products we use.
We strongly reiterate that your original is in no way compromised by our scanning liquid and will return as you have shipped it, if not cleaner.
With respect to scanning from slides:
Our scanners are carefully calibrated with the finest IT8 calibration targets in circulation and with special customized targets in order to ensure that each scan faithfully reproduces the original color richness even in the most subtle nuances, opening and maintaining detail in shadows and highlights. These color profiles allow our scanners to realize their full potential, so we guarantee our customers that even from a chromatic point of view our scans are noticeably better than similar scans made by mostly other scan services in the market.
In addition, we remind you that our 8060 drum scanner is able to read the deepest shadows of slides without digital noise and with much more detail than CCD scanners; also, the color range and color realism are far better.
With respect to scanning from color and bw negatives: we want to emphasize the superiority of our drum scans not only in scanning slides, but also in color and bw negative scanning (because of the orange mask and of very low contrast is extremely difficult for any ccd scanner to read the very slight tonal and contrast nuances in the color negative, while a perfectly profiled 8060 drum scanner – also through the analog gain/white calibration - can give back much more realistic images and true colors, sharper and more three-dimensional).
In spite of what many claim, a meticulous color profiling is essential not only for scanning slides, but also, and even more, for color negatives. Without it the scan of a color negative will produce chromatic errors rather significant, thus affecting the tonal balance and then the naturalness-pleasantness of the images.
More unique than rare, we do not use standardized profiles provided by the software to invert each specific negative film, because they do not take into account parameters and variables such as the type of development, the level of exposure, the type of light etc.,; at the same time we also avoid systems of "artificial intelligence" or other functions provided by semi-automatic scanning softwares, but instead we carry out the inversion in a full manual workflow for each individual picture.
In addition, scanning with Imacon-Hasselblad scanners we do not use their proprietary software - Flexcolor – to make color management and color inversion because we strongly believe that our alternative workflow provides much better results, and we are able to prove it with absolute clarity.
At each stage of the process we take care of meticulously adjusting the scanning parameters to the characteristics of the originals, to extrapolate the whole range of information possible from any image without "burning" or reductions in the tonal range, and strictly according to our customer's need and taste.
By default, we do not apply unsharp mask (USM) in our scans, except on request.
To scan reflective originals we follow the same guidelines and guarantee the same quality standard.
We guarantee the utmost thoroughness and expertise in the work of scanning and handling of the originals and we provide scans up to 12,000 dpi of resolution, at 16-bit, in RGB, GRAYSCALE, LAB or CMYK color mode; unless otherwise indicated, files are saved with Adobe RGB 1998 or ProPhoto RGB color profile.
WhatsAppiness:
Ruin: All that praise for restraint, that other horror. I want to be awful, and say “fuck you, sentimentalize this shit”, with my ass in the air, doing a ‘Wife of Bath’, begging. Driven to it, with no idea where the impetus comes from. Overcome and innocent, but completely unapologetic, not Dickens at all. Bugger all that redemption.
Rack: I need to embrace unrestrained. Slough off all that wasted academic shite.
Ruin: I am so tired of moralisers. We are all magnificent. Or at least were until we became old crones, but, if the truth be told, I actually love our cronedom. Therein lies the fun, that dried-out and screaming rebellion of the neutered unashamed crones, at that point where we might have been expected to achieve wizened dignity. I prefer our withered magnificence, so overlooked that if it was to fully manifest it might be more ferocious than it ever could have been in our callow youth. Goya described them beautifully on the walls of his house, the ‘Quinta Del Sordo’, the house of the deaf man, those wizened frightened outrageous characters, appalled, and celebrating their own impotence. Welcome to now.
Rack: I am going to send you, via email, an interesting piece on transgression that Jan alerted me too. Caused quite the furore.
Ruin: Bring it on Rack, bring it on. We are old lushes thoroughly lushed-out with that added benefit of having feck all to lose, a double pandemic, dare we even take time to catch our breath?
Rack: When I mentioned you, he was keen to remind me that he introduced us. I guess it is true.
Ruin: Did he?
Rack: Yes. He maintains he met you in ‘Ludlow Café’ when he was a server. And then we worked on his movie.
Ruin: Yes, it’s probably true, thank him profusely. I had forgotten that part, though I have written about that first day on the shoot and your dropping of that ‘bombshell’ in the ‘Moondance Café’. I was so jealous of him for years, he was so bloody cool and tormented, and handsome. You can tell him I said that. We must immortalise us; we have a story to tell, a pandemic story, whilst negotiating a second one, even.
Rack: We MUST.
Ruin: I don’t care that we were on the edges of everything, more able to have an overview, perhaps. You know I will use all of this, rape and pillage everything.
Rack: Go right ahead.
Exit stage left followed by a slew of hungry, marauding, bears.
You caught me, 'in flagrante', remembering Mayor Koch, in New York. I must be heading back there, back to the first of these two pandemics which I am (we are) currently enjoying. Going by the last few images it would seem to be so, away from the family embrace, that sentimental mire, to another 'reality' completely. It was an utterly different way of being, one that my family had no idea about. That hasn't really changed. But then, as now, we all have our own personal bogs. I know that I don't understand their realities either. That we tolerate each other at all must be one of 'The Glorious Mysteries', relentlessly intoned in childhood family rosaries.
Rack never blurted, she always controlled her output. The effect was precise and Protestant, ‘I found out I am HIV positive a few days ago’
‘Oh Christ’, Ruin blurted, Catholic to the hilt.
Ruin was always an outlet for Rack, almost like a delinquent spokesperson, the stuttering utterer of the unspeakable. He had the ability to take the private into the realm of the universally available with consummate ease. She didn’t. It was something she greatly feared and something she instinctively grasped that early summer morning in 1987, in the 'Moondance Cafe', on 7th Avenue and Broome. She knew she was making the personal public. She was undoing herself. He possessed that strange gift, the one imposed and imprinted, like the mark of Cain, on the sexually molested child, of having no facility to recognise boundaries, no ability to be able to tell the personal and private apart from what could be made universally available. She knew that he was her surrogate broadcaster and momentarily shuddered at the stranger, whom she had spontaneously trusted, sitting opposite her. This understanding hung between them as they ordered breakfast.
Their opening was torturous and drove them scurrying apart. It was more than either of them could handle, Rack racked with regret for exposing this opening wound, and Ruin incapable of carrying this apocrypha alone. Their rehabilitation was slow and arduous. It was a time when to speak these words was a declaration of the almost immediate dissolution of self. It was a time before the hope generated by the misnomered cocktails and the political agitation, which was to burgeon out of despair and become Act- Up. It was a time before anything could be done, other than to grasp at whatever straws were on offer. So, both started grasping and would occasionally find themselves in the same room, drawn to the same possible panacea. Rack’s volition was desperation. Ruin’s was guilt. They acknowledged each other with some embarrassment, and growing affection, and more often than not turned away from each other and left separately. Ruin knew he loved Rack. Rack was not at all sure.
Dear Rack,
“I have often thought that writers do not write; they read what is already written and transcribe. So perhaps they are not complaining about ill health, lack of money, and rejection, but about the bondage of a calling that keeps them laboriously transcribing cryptic messages in rapidly disappearing ink, like the traces of a dream, year after year...."
Thinking of how romantic you are.... even if it all is so appalling to live through.
Love,
Ruin
“I can’t control my destiny. I trust my soul; my only goal is just to be. There’s only now, there’s only here. Give in to love or live in fear. No other path; no other way. No day but today.”
__Jonathan Larson, author of the musical 'Rent'.
This certain Mr Larson and I had crossed paths at the beginnings of a most significant time for us all in New York City. He had been our waiter in the ‘Moondance Diner’. If you Wiki him you will read his strange and wonderful story. He posthumously won a Pulitzer Prize for describing us. But in my ‘story’ he is the waiter he was, as I am the clog seller, perhaps.
He was there serving us breakfast, when Rack told me her news.
That news that she had just discovered that she was HIV positive.
What a long/short time ago! Probably further back than either of us can hope to project forward, unless we defy all odds and celebrate our 'hundredth and someteenths' together, and more.
So, I am sitting here remembering and honouring our waiter, and I am glad that I always treat waiters as, of course, my equal.
I like Mr Larson's "I trust my soul". I trust mine and know you trust yours. He died soon after, still trusting. Now he is a Pulitzer Prize winning playwright, then he was our waiter.
And what is more, I couldn't give a fuck if it is grossly sentimental. What we lived through in those early years of the HIV epidemic in New York City has all that stuff of melodrama, it was destined to generate sentimentality and ferocity as well, it also cemented friendships. It was like being in the trenches. We were younger and we were watching death, at work, amongst us.
It had Puccini writ large.
He was our waiter. He waited on us as Rack told me she had just gotten the results, during those first days I met her. All that time he was 'secretly' writing his 'Swansong'. He died the night before the final dress rehearsal, of a hidden heart problem, with the play going on to, eventually, win him a Pulitzer. He died without ever knowing what he had achieved. He was ‘just’ a waiter all his life. He died not knowing he had written a modern day 'La Boheme'. But then, if the truth be told, of course he knew.
His quote suggests that he held on to his centre regardless, with no acknowledgement he continued, whilst serving coffee to me and Rack, and countless others. He was watching and taking mental notes. An artist has to have that centre (I iterate):
“I can’t control my destiny. I trust my soul; my only goal is just to be. There’s only now, there’s only here. Give in to love or live in fear. No other path; no other way. No day but today.”
He wrote what he wrote, and he died. What else could one possibly hope for? This comes somewhat within that realm of ‘a perfect life’ description.
I greatly respected him, and I hope I tipped excessively. He respected everyone he served. Likewise, I respect myself and, by extrapolation, you. This perhaps is (or at least reflects) the core, and is my reason for making work, that we might increase this acceptance of the essential, that we might disperse tolerance, coupled with negotiation, like a virus, which could, maybe, challenge polarisation.
I was thinking lately as to what might be my favourite word. I considered 'even', but realised eventually, that it is 'perhaps', perhaps. Perhaps not.
Hopefully this might put all ideas of posterity to rest.
I am mythologising us a little, hey, it's 'fiction', I can. David Shields tells us that all fiction is memoir, and all memoirs are fiction. I concur, for what it's worth. Jonathan might, or might not, have been our waiter on that particular day. This seems to be part of a thing that might be going on, a re-evaluation of what we went through. I will be watching the film tonight, 'tik tik boom' set in our meeting place, that diner. 'Moondance' has since been moved to Wyoming, where it managed to survive, just, for 5 years or so. It closed down recently and has now disappeared. There is, perhaps, a wave here happening, this second pandemic might even be adding to its cresting. Either way, the ‘Moondance Diner’ was our meeting place. It was also where I had breakfast most mornings, and where we ate together from time to time. Mr. Larson was our waiter there often, more often than not actually. There is something in this about overlooking each other, missing each other, missing our time, even. I would like somehow to re-encapsulate it. I suspect it is coming, this other wave. Us ‘pandemic-surfers’ might have something to offer.
I know that you surf beautifully, that scaffolding exists, we have our armature. It might be time to start flinging some clay at it to see how much of it actually sticks. Mixing metaphors there, but what the heck, needs must.
Surfing mud-slingers, why I never!
PRESS RELEASE
March 2009 sees the 30th anniversary of the original Classic Space sets from LEGO. Now, three decades on, it’s time for a celebration of spacey goodness at www.neoclassicspace.com.
Neo-Classic Space is a reimagining of the LEGO Classic Space range, using modern building techniques and parts. More than just inspired by the Classic Space sets, Neo-Classic Space is an extrapolation of the line into the 21st century and beyond. We aim to follow a carefully thought standard, which we feel is in keeping with the original designs.
The culmination of a top-secret project planned over many months, www.neoclassicspace.com will present a new model every day throughout March, many from builders you already know and love, some from new talent you may not have discovered.
This is only the beginning. It is time to retake space. We hope you'll come along for the ride!
END
Edit: Almost forgot... thanks to Carl Greatrix for the cartoon spaceman, and to James Brophy for the "Classic Space 30" Logo.
duration: 25 secs. - with audio
Jubilee Square.
Even on White Night, boring old "noise abatement" laws apply. After the InCANdescent event was smartly cleared away by the City's cleaning crew, this "proof of concept" kinetic light sculpture was installed in the early hours. The organisers were not keen on photography.
What is said in hotel bars should stay in hotel bars (especially when said over breakfast sake / nihonshu), but really - this is so interesting. Named after Alexander Calder, the inventor of the mobile, the structure follows similar dynamics - except upside down! Stability is of course aided by myriad gyroscopes embedded in the structure, and balance maintained by internal weights, continuously adjusted by stepper motors - hence the odd buzzing sounds. Each major component (arm or egg-flower) has a processor running a complete real time model of the structure. (This is done at a very sophisticated level. A library of air resistance and slight aerofoil lift behaviours for 58,000 different variations of petal positions is accessible by the software, for instance.) Accelerometers and accurate force measurement at the joints of the structure enable any deviation between predicted and actual behaviour to be instantly detected. Typically this will be caused by either wind currents, or incredulous drunk people poking the structure. The distributed processing enables near instantaneous compensatory correction for these events. (The stability is of course partially illusory. Designed to be displayed primarily in an indoor environment, a strong enough air current, or a hard enough shove will cause catastrophic failure, and collapse of the structure - in a manner perhaps analogous to ABS related accidents.) The project was created to showcase the video display panels, the product a secretive joint venture by a Consortium in response to (as generally perceived within the industry) an "over dominance" in the sector by a large South Korean manufacturer of OLED displays. Based also on OLED technolgy, there is no addressing matrix. Instead, video data "bumbles" or "pinballs" between pixel units using very high frequency, very short range radio - the data being stored or passed on as required. (The pixel units can also interpolate and extrapolate missing data - both spatially and temporally - but in practice, despite the haphazard data distribution method, there is a high level of reliability, and thus seldom the need for this function to be invoked.) Accordingly, the panels can be cut, and the edges planed and sanded to any shape, a boon to artists. Power is distributed via two fine fibrous conducting planes just below each surface. The material of the conductors is "self-healing". On exposure to both water vapour and oxygen in the air, the fibres react to become an insulator to prevent shorting and power leakage. The fibres also swell during the reaction, forming a seal, and preventing further ingress of water or oxygen molecules, and thus preventing deeper deterioration of the conducting layers from the cut edges. Intentional power connections - to transfer power between the light panels and also to power the electric motors - are made using vampire connectors that bite into opposites sides of the sheets, through to the conducting layers. A small amount of conductive hydrophobic gel must be used in these situations, to inhibit the self healing properties of the conducting layers, and to prevent the power connections thus failing. (This method is anticipated to ensure securely conductive connections "for at least 80 years", although with a material that has only been in production for 5 weeks, it is difficult to be sure for certain!) The cigar shaped pixel units are aligned at right angles to the surfaces (apparently by simple buoyancy during the manufacturing process when the resin substrate is still liquid and thinly spread horizontally by gravity), with the ends touching and drawing power from the embedded conducting fibrous mesh. The thermoplastic resin base can also be heated and then bent or moulded by presses into curved surfaces without affecting operation. Acoustic transducers in the pixel units automatically determine the geometry of the panels (including any curvature) and the placement of adjacent pixel units by generating and timing the travel time of a chatter of clicks, each time a panel is powered up. This information is used to assist in placing the projection of the video. (In the example above, the video images of "coloured walls of flame" are wrapped using a cylindrical projection around each of the egg-flowers in their closed positions.) Each pixel unit can generate colours using a palate of seven colours - as opposed to the usual (RGB) three. This provides an ultra rich gamut easily capable of accommodating tetrachromacy. Unfortunately this richness of colour is not reproduced in this set, because obviously standard bayer filtered CCD cameras were used, and so the colours appear blandly oversaturated. When the South Korean manufacturer eventually found out about the project, they got very cross and decided to throw a spanner in the works big time and in an act of monstrous hypocrisy they lodged an "anti-trust" complaint with the European Commission, and the Consortium was embarrassed into taking the route of scoundrels and bounders everywhere by filing for bankruptcy in a court in Texas on the weekend of the festival, to contain any contingent liabilities. (Hence the sudden reluctance to have the installation photographed.) This caused problems for the Installation Engineers, because their Hotel's hyper sharp credit agency service flagged up a problem. Fortunately the Hotel's manager was by then an ecstatic fan of the sculpture, even helping out with assembly and disassembly - a process that requires many hands. (Once powered up the structure is reasonably stable - but getting there is tricky - think about it.) In the best grand tradition of arts patronage the Hotel manager cheerily faxed off a Japanese Language Only Purchase Order to the Hotel group's Director of Finance to puzzle over when he eventually came back from holiday, and continued to buy everyone drinks. With high production investment and development costs, poor yield rates, low margins, near commodity prices and very short technology life cycles, who would get involved in electronic displays?
See also enhanced video details of the spherical fulcrum connectors and egg-flower petal mechanisms.
Part of a set / slideshow documenting in photographs and video the White Night / Nuit Blanche festival held in Brighton and Hove at the end of October 2010.
See also these related flickr galleries: White Night Brighton +Silhouettes +Light +Colours +People and from the sister festival in Picardie Nuit Blanche Amiens.
The set description contains additional related external links.
Masonic Broken Column:
www.phoenixmasonry.org/broken_column.htm
THE BROKEN COLUMN:
Short Talk Bulletin - Vol. 34, February 1956,
No. 2 - Author Unknown
The story of the broken column was first illustrated by Amos Doolittle in the "True Masonic Chart" by Jeremy Cross, published in 1819.
Many of Freemasonry's symbols are of extreme antiquity and deserve the reverence which we give to that which has had sufficient vitality to live long in the minds of men. For instance, the square, the point within a circle, the apron, circumambulation, the Altar have been used not only in Freemasonry but in systems of ethics, philosophy and religions without number.
Other symbols in the Masonic system are more recent. Perhaps they are not the less important for that, even without the sanctity of age which surrounds many others.
Among the newer symbols is that usually referred to as the broken column. A marble monument is respectably ancient - the broken column seems a more recent addition. There seems to be no doubt that the first pictured broken column appeared in Jeremy Cross's True Masonic Chart, published in 1819, and that the illustration was the work of Amos Doolittle, an engraver, of Connecticut.
That Jeremy Cross "invented" or "designed" the emblem is open to argument. But there is legitimate room for argument over many inventions. Who invented printing from movable type? We give the credit to Gutenberg, but there are other claimants, among them the Chinese at an earlier date. Who invented the airplane? The Wrights first flew a "mechanical bird" but a thousand inventors have added to, altered, changed their original design, until the very principle which first enabled the Wrights to fly, the "warping wing", is now discarded and never used.
Therefore, if authorities argue and contend about the marble monument and broken column it is not to make objection or take credit from Jeremy Cross; the thought is that almost any invention or discovery is improved, changed, added to and perfected by many men. Edison is credited with the first incandescent lamp, but there is small kinship between his carbon filament and a modern tungsten filament bulb. Roentgen was first to bring the "x-ray" to public notice-the discoverer would not know what a modern physician's x-ray apparatus was if he saw it!
In the library of the Grand Lodge of Iowa in Cedar Rapids, is a book published in 1784; "A BRIEF HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY" by Thomas Johnson, at that time the Tiler of the Grand Lodge of England (the "Moderns"). In this book the author states that he was "taken the liberty to introduce a Design for a Monument in Honor of a Great Artist." He then admits that there is no historical account of any such memorial but cites many precedents of "sumptuous Piles" which perpetuate the memories and preserve the merits of the historic dead, although such may have been buried in lands far from the monument or "perhaps in the depth of the Sea".
In this somewhat fanciful and poetic description of this monument, the author mentions an urn, a laurel branch, a sun, a moon, a Bible, square and compasses, letter G. The book was first published in 1782, which seems proof that there was
at that time at least the idea of a monument erected to the Master Builder.
There is little historical material upon which to draw to form any accurate conclusions. Men write of what has happened long after the happenings. Even when faithful to their memories, these may be, and often are, inaccurate. It is with this thought in mind that a curious statement in the Masonic newspaper, published in New York seventy-five years ago, must be considered. In the issue of May 10, 1879, a Robert B. Folger purports to give Cross' account of his invention, or discovery, an inclusion, of the broken column into the marble monument emblem.
The account is long, rambling and at times not too clear. Abstracted, the salient parts are as follows. Cross found or sensed what he considered a deficiency in the Third Degree which had to be filled in order to effect his purposes. He consulted a former Mayor of New Haven, who at the time was one of his most intimate friends. Even after working together for a week, they did not hit upon any symbol which would be sufficiently simple and yet answer the purpose. Then a Copper-plate engraver, also a brother, was called in. The number of hieroglyphics which had be this time accumulated was immense. Some were too large, some too small, some too complicated, requiring too much explanation and many were not adapted to the subject.
Finally, the copper-plate engraver said, "Brother Cross, when great men die, they generally have a monument." "That's right!" cried Cross; "I never thought of that!" He visited the burying-ground in New Haven. At last he got an idea and told his friends that he had the foundation of what he wanted. He said that while in New York City he had seen a monument in the southwest corner of Trinity Church yard erected over Commodore Lawrence, a great man who fell in battle. It was a large marble pillar, broken off. The broken part had been taken away, but the capital was lying at the base. He wanted that pillar for the foundation of his new emblem, but intended to bring in the other part, leaving it resting against the base. This his friends assented to, but more was wanted. They felt that some inscription should be on the column. after a length discussion they decided upon an open book to be placed upon the broken pillar. There should of course be some reader of the book! Hence the emblem of innocence-a beautiful virgin-who should weep over the memory of the deceased while she read of his heroic deeds from the book before her.
The monument erected to the memory of Commodore Lawrence was placed in the southwest corner of Trinity Churchyard in 1813, after the fight between the frigates
Chesapeake and Shannon, in which battle Lawrence fell. As described, it was a beautiful marble pillar, broken off, with a part of the capital laid at its base. lt remained until 1844-5 at which time Trinity Church was rebuilt. When finished, the corporation of the Church took away the old and dilapidated Lawrence monument and erected a new one in a different form, placing it in the front of the yard on Broadway, at the lower entrance of the Church. When Cross visited the new monument, he expressed great disappointment at the change, saying "it was not half as good as the one they took away!"
These claims of Cross-perhaps made for Cross-to having originated the emblem are disputed. Oliver speaks of a monument but fails to assign an American origin. In the Barney ritual of 1817, formerly in the possession of Samuel Wilson of Vermont, there is the marble column, the beautiful virgin weeping, the open book, the sprig of acacia, the urn, and Time standing behind. What is here lacking is the broken column. Thus it appears that the present emblem, except the broken column, was in use prior to the publication of Cross' work (1819).
The emblem in somewhat different form is frequently found in ancient symbolism. Mackey states that with the Jews a column was often used to symbolize princes, rulers or nobles. A broken column denoted that a pillar of the state had fallen. In Egyptian mythology, Isis is sometimes pictured weeping over the broken column which conceals the body of her husband Osiris, while behind her stands Horus or Time pouring ambrosia on her hair. In Hasting's ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS, Isis is said sometimes to be represented standing; in her right hand is a sistrum, in her left hand a small ewer and on her forehead is a lotus, emblem of resurrection. In the Dionysaic Mysteries, Dionysius is represented as slain; Rhea goes in search of the body. She finds it and causes it to be buried. She is sometimes represented as standing by a column holding in her hand a sprig of wheat, emblem of immortality; since, though it be placed in the ground and die, it springs up again into newness of life. She was the wife of Kronus or Time, who may fittingly be represented as standing behind her.
Whoever invented the emblem or symbol of the marble monument, the broken column, the beautiful virgin, the book, the urn, the acacia, Father Time counting the ringlets of hair, could not have thought through all the implications of this attempt-doubtless made in all reverence-to add to the dignity and impressiveness of the story of the Master Builder.
The urn in which "ashes were safely deposited" is pure invention. Cremation was not practiced by the Twelve Tribes; it was not the method of disposing of the dead in the land and at the time of the building of the Temple. rather was the burning of the dead body reserved as a dreadful fate for the corpses of criminals and evil doers. That so great a man as "the widow's son, of the tribe of Naphtali" should have been cremated is unthinkable. The Bible is silent on the subject; it does not mention Hiram the Builder's death, still less the disposal of the body, but the whole tone of the Old Testament in description of funerals and mournings, make it impossible to believe that his body was burned, or that his ashes might have been preserved.
The Israelites did not embalm their dead; burial was accomplished on the day of death or, at the longest wait, on the day following. According to the legend, the Master Builder was disinterred from the first or temporary grave and reinterred with honor. That is indeed, a supposable happening; that his body was raised only to be cremated is wholly out of keeping with everything known of deaths, funeral ceremonies, disposal of the dead of the Israelites.
In the ritual which describes the broken column monument, before the figure of the virgin is "a book, open before her." Here again invention and knowledge did not go hand in hand. There were no books at the time of the building of the Temple, as moderns understand the word. there were rolls of skins, but a bound book of leaves made of any substance-vellum, papyrus, skins-was an unknown object. Therefore there could have been no such volume in which the virtues of the Master Builder were recorded.
No logical reason has been advanced why the woman who mourned and read in the book was a "beautiful virgin." No scriptural account tells of the Master Builder having wife or daughter or any female relative except his mother. The Israelites reverenced womanhood and appreciated virginity, but they were just as reverent over mother and
child. Indeed, the bearing of children, the increase of the tribe, the desire for sons, was strong in the Twelve Tribes; why, then, the accent upon the virginity of the woman in the monument? "Time standing behind her, unfolding and counting the ringlets of her hair" is dramatic, but also out of character for the times. "Father Time" with his scythe is probably a descendant of the Greek Chromos, who carried a sickle or reaping hook, but the Israelites had no contact with Greece. It may have been natural for whoever invented the marble monument emblem to conclude that Time was both a world-wide and a time immemorial symbolic figure, but it could not have been so at the era in which Solomon's Temple was built.
It evidently did not occur to the originators of this emblem that it was historically impossible. Yet the Israelites did not erect monuments to their dead. In the singular, the word "monument" does not occur in the Bible; as "monuments" it is mentioned once, in Isaiah 65 - "A people...which remain among the graves and lodge in the monuments." In the Revised Version this is translated "who sit in tombs and spend the night in secret places." The emphasis is apparently upon some form of worship of the dead (necromancy). The Standard Bible Dictionary says that the word "monument" in the general sense of a simple memorial does not appear in Biblical usage.
Oliver Day Street in "SYMBOLISM OF THE THREE DEGREES" says that the urn was an ancient sign of mourning, carried in funeral processions to catch the tears of those who grieved. But the word "urn" does not occur in the Old Testament nor the New.
Freemasonry is old. It came to us as a slow, gradual evolution of the thoughts, ideas, beliefs, teachings, idealism of many men through many years. It tells a simple story-a story profound in its meaning, which therefore must be simple, as all great truths in the last analysis are simple.
The marble monument and the broken column have many parts. Many of these have the aroma of age. Their weaving together into one symbol may be-probably is-a modernism, if that term can cover a period of nearly two hundred years. but the importance of a great life, his skill and knowledge; his untimely and pitiful death is not a modernism.
Nothing herein set forth is intended as in any way belittling one of Freemasonry's teachings by means of ritual and picture. These few pages are but one of many ways of trying to illuminate the truth behind a symbol, and show that, regardless of the dates of any parts of the emblem, the whole has a place in the Masonic story which has at least romance, if not too much fact, behind it.
THE BROKEN COLUMN AND ITS DEEPER MEANING:
by Bro. William Steve Burkle KT, 32°
Scioto Lodge No. 6, Chillicothe, Ohio.
Philo Lodge No. 243, South River, New Jersey
The meaning of the Broken Column as explained by the ritual of the Master mason degree is that the column represents both the fall of Master Hiram Abif as well as the unfinished work of the Temple of Solomon[i]. This interesting symbol has appeared in some fascinating places; for example, a Broken Column monument marks the gravesite in Lewis County Tennessee[ii] of Brother Meriwether Lewis (Lewis & Clark), and a similar monument marks the grave of Brother Prince Hall[iii]. In China, there is a “broken column-shaped” home which was built just prior to the French Revolution by the aristocrat François Nicolas Henri Racine de Monville[iv]. Today “The Broken Column” is frequently used in Masonic newsletters as the header for obituary notices and is a popular tomb monument for those whose life was deemed cut short. Note that when I speak of The Broken Column here, I am referring to only the upright but shattered Column Base with its detached Shattered Capital, and not to the more extensive symbolism often associated with the figure such as a book resting on the column base, the Weeping Virgin (Isis), or Father Time (Horus) disentangling the Virgin’s hair. In this version the shattered column itself is often said to allude to Osiris[v]. While these embellishments add to the complexity of the allusion, it is the shattered column alone which I intend to address.
The Broken Column is believed to be a fairly recent addition to the symbolism of Freemasonry, and has been attributed to Brother Jeremy L. Cross. Brother Cross[vi] is said to have devised the symbol based upon a broken column grave monument dedicated to a Commodore Lawrence[vii], which was erected in the Trinity Churchyard circa 1813. Lawrence perished in a naval battle that same year between the Frigates Chesapeake and Shannon. The illustration of the broken column was reportedly first published in the “True Masonic Chart” by artist Amos Doolittle in 1819[viii]. There is however little evidence beyond the word of Brother Cross that the symbol was thus created[ix],[x].
Whether the Broken Column is a modern invention or passed down from times of antiquity is of little consequence; regardless of its origins the symbol serves well as a powerful allusion in our Craft, and as will be discussed, may have deeper meanings which align with other Masonic symbols which also incorporate images of columns and pillars.
Freemasonry makes generous reference to columns and pillars of all sorts in the work of the various degrees including the two pillars which stood at the entrance of Solomon’s Temple, the four columns of architectural significance, and the three Great Columns representing strength, beauty, and wisdom[xi]. The first mention of pillars in a Masonic context[xii] is found in the Cooke Manuscript dated circa 1410 A.D. The three Great Pillars of Masonry are of particular interest in this article even though it is the Broken Column and its deeper meanings which I ultimately intend to explore.
Three Great Columns:
The basis for the Three Great Columns can be traced to an ancient Kabalistic concept and a unique diagram found in the Zohar which illustrates the emanations of God in forming and sustaining the universe. The diagram also reflects certain states of spiritual attainment in man. This diagram, called the Sephiroth consists of ten spheres or Sephira connected to one another by pathways and which are ordered to reflect the sequence of creation. In accordance with Kabalistic belief Aur Ein Sof (Light Without End) shines down into the Sephiroth and is split like a prism into its ten constituent Sephira[xiii], eventually ending in the material universe. To discuss the Sephiroth in sufficient depth to impart a good understanding is well beyond the scope of this paper; however, a basic understanding of how the structure of the Sephiroth is related to the Great Columns is manageable, and is in fact essential to the subsequent discussion of the Broken Column. Be aware that the explanations I give are vast oversimplifications of a highly complex concept. In an attempt to simplify the concept, it is inevitable that some degree of inaccuracy will be introduced.
I would like to begin my discussion of the Three Great Columns by discussing the Cardinal Virtues. The Cardinal Virtues are believed to have originated with Plato who formed them from a tripartite division[xiv] of the attributes of man (power, wisdom, reason, mercy, strength, beauty, firmness, magnificence, and base kingship) presented in the Sephiroth. These concepts were later adopted by the Christian Church[xv] and were popularized by the treatises of Martin of Braga, Alcuin and Hrabanus Maurus (circa 1100 A.D.) and later promoted by Thomas Aquinas (circa 1224 A.D.). According to Wescott[xvi] the Four Cardinal Virtues are represented by what were originally branches of the Sepheroth:
“Four tassels refer to four cardinal virtues, says the first degree Tracing Board Lecture, these are temperance, fortitude, prudence, and justice; these again were originally branches of the Sephirotic Tree, Chesed first, Netzah fortitude, Binah prudence, and Geburah justice. Virtue, honour, and mercy, another triad, are Chochmah, Hod, and Chesed.”
broken-column1
Thus we have a connection between the Cardinal Virtues and the Sephiroth. The Three Pillars of Freemasonry (Wisdom, Beauty, and Strength) are associated with the Cardinal Virtues[xvii] and also therefore with the Kabalistic concept of the Sephiroth[xviii]. I have provided an illustration of the Sepiroth in Figure 1. This particular version of the Sephiroth is based upon that used in the 30th Degree or Knight Kadosh Grade[xix] of the ASSR. The Sephiroth, incidentally is also called “The Tree of Life”. Each of the vertical columns of spheres (Sephira) in the Sephiroth are considered to represent a pillar (column). Each pillar is named according to the central concept which it represents; thus in Figure 1 we have the pillars Justice, Beauty, and Mercy left to right, respectively. The Sephiroth is a very elegant system in which balance is maintained between the Sephira of the two outermost pillars by virtue of the center pillar. Note also that traditionally the Sephiroth is divided into “Triads” of Sephira. In Figure 1 the uppermost triad, consisting of the spheres Wisdom, Intelligence, and Crown represent the intellectual and spiritual characteristics of man. The next triad is represented by the Sephira Justice, Beauty, and Mercy; the final triad is Splendor, Foundation, and Firmness (or Strength).
According to S.L. MacGregor Mathers[xx], the word Sephira is best translated to mean (or is best rendered as) “Numerical Emanation”, and each of the ten Sephira corresponds to a specific numerical value. Mathers also asserts that it was through knowledge of the Sephiroth that Pythagoras devised his system of numerical symbolism. While there are additional divisions and subdivisions of the Sephiroth, the concept which is of interest to us here is that God created the Material World or Universe (signified by the lowest Sephira, Kingdom) in a series of ordered actions which proceeded along established pathways (i.e. the connecting lines between the Sephira in our Figure). Each of the Sephira and each pathway are a sort of “buffer” between the majesty and power of God and the material world. Without these buffers, profane man and the material world he inhabits would meet with destruction. On the other hand, enlightened man is able to progress upwards along these pathways to higher level Sephira and to thereby achieve enhanced knowledge of the Divine. Tradition holds that man once was closer to the Divine spirit, but became corrupted by the material world, losing this connection (i.e. The fall of Man from Grace. Note also the reference to the Tree of Knowledge and possible connections to the Tree of Life). God uses the Sephiroth in renewing and sustaining the material universe. Each new soul created is an emanation of God and travels to materiality (physical existence) via the pathways established in the Sephiroth. In a similar fashion, the spirits of the departed return to God via these same pathways, making the Sephiroth the mechanism by which God interacts with the universe.
broken-column2The Broken Column
In Figure 2, I have redrawn the Sephiroth as an overlay of the Three Great Columns; however in this version the Pillar of Beauty is Broken. Note especially that the center pillar, the Pillar of Beauty in the Sephiroth has a gap between Beauty and Crown, in effect making this column a Broken Pillar[xxi]. I believe this “fracture” symbolizes Man’s separation from knowledge of the Divine, and an interruption in the Pathway leading from Beauty directly to the Crown (which symbolizes “The Vast Countenance”[xxii]).
I would also like to extrapolate that if the Broken Column indeed represents Hiram Abif as per the explanation given to initiates, then the two remaining columns would then correspond to Solomon and Hiram King of Tyre[xxiii]. Certainly the Sephira (Wisdom, Justice, and Splendor) which comprise the column of Justice align well with the characteristics traditionally associated with King Solomon. Tradition unfortunately does not address Hiram King of Tyre although we can assume that Intelligence, Mercy, and Firmness or Strength would be a likely requirement for a Monarch of such apparent success. The connection between the Three Great Columns and the three principle characters in the drama of the Third Degree does have a certain sense of validity. The “Lost Word” associated with Hiram Abif would then allude to the lost Pathway.
In so many of our Masonic Lessons we initially receive a plausible but quite shallow explanation of our symbols and allusions. Those who sense an underlying, deeper meaning tend to find it (Seek and you will find, knock and the door shall be opened). Perhaps in our ritual of the Third Degree, that which is symbolically being raised (restored) is the Pillar of which resides within us. If so, the Lost Word has then in fact been received by each of us. It only remains lost if we choose to forget it or choose not to pursue it.
[i] Duncan, Malcom C. Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor. Crown; 3 Edition (April 12, 1976). ISBN-13: 978-0679506263. pp 157.
[ii] “Meriwether Lewis, Master Mason”. The Lewis and Clark Fort Mandan Foundation.
[iii] “WHo is Prince Hall ?” (1996). Retrieved December 5, 2008 from www.mindspring.com/~johnsonx/whoisph.htm.
[iv] Kenna, Michael. (1988). The Broken Column House at Désert de Retz in Le Desert De Retz, A late 18th Century French Folley Garden. Retrieved December 6, 2008 from Valley Daze. valley-daze.blogspot.com/2007/09/broken-column-house.html
[v] Pike, Albert. (1919) Morals and Dogma. Charleston Southern Jurisdiction. pp. 379. ASIN: B000CDT4T8.
[vi] “The Broken Column”. The Short Talk Bulletin 2-56. The Masonic Service Association of the United States. VOL. 34 February 1956 NO. 2.
[vii] Brown, Robert Hewitt. (1892). Stellar Theology and Masonic Astronomy or the origin and meaning of ancient and modern mysteries explained. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1, 3, and 5 Bond Street. 1892.. pp. 68.
[viii] “Boston Masonic Lithograph”. Retrieved December 5, 2008 from Lodge Pambula Daylight UGL of NSW & ACT No1000. lodgepambuladaylight.org/lithograph.htm.
[ix] Folger, Robert B. Fiction of the Weeping Virgin. Retrieved December 6, 2008 from the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon A.F. & A.M. freemasonry.bcy.ca/art/monument / fiction/fiction.html
[x] Mackey, Albert Gallatin & Haywood H. L. Encyclopedia of Freemasonry Part 2. pp. 677. Kessinger Publishing, LLC (March 31, 2003).
[xi] Claudy, Carl H. Introduction to Masonry. The Temple Publishers. Retrieved December 5, 2008 from Pietre-Stones Review of Freemasonry. www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/claudy4.html.
[xii] Dwor, Mark. (1998). Globes, Pillars, Columns, and Candlesticks. Vancouver Lodge of Education and Research . Retrieved December 6, 2008 from the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon A.F. & A.M. freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/globes_pillars_columns.html
[xiii] Day, Jeff. (2008). Dualism of the Sword and the Trowel. Cryptic Masons of Oregon – Grants Pass. Retrieved December 6, 2008 from rogue.cryptic-masons.org/dualism_of_the_sword_and_trowel
[xiv] Bramston, M. Thinkers of the Middle Ages. Monthly Packet. Evening Readings of the Christian Church (1893). Ed. Charlotte Mary Yonge, Christabel Rose Coleridge, Arthur Innes. J. and C. Mozley. University of Michigan (2007).
[xv] Regan, Richard. (2005). The Cardinal Virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance. Hackett Publishing.
[xvi] Wescott, William ( ). The Religion of Freemasonry. Illuminated by the Kabbalah. Ars Quatuor Coronatorum. vol. i. p. 73-77. Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/kabbalah.html.
[xvii] MacKenzie, Kenneth R. H. (1877). Kabala. Royal Masonic Cyclopedia. Kessinger Publishing (2002).
[xviii] Pirtle, Henry. Lost Word of Freemasonry. Kessinger Publishing, 1993.
[xix] Knight Kadosh. The Thirtieth Grade of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, and the First Degree of the Chivalric Series. Hirams Web. University of Bradford.
[xx] Mathers, S.L. MacGregor. (1887). Qabalah Unveiled. Reprinted (2006) as The Kabbalah: Essential Texts From The Zohar. Watkins. London. pp. 10.
[xxi] Ibid. Dualism of the Sword and the Trowel
[xxii] Ibid. Qabalah Unveiled .Plate III. pp. 38-39.
[xxiii] Duncan, Malcom C. Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor. Crown; 3 Edition (April 12, 1976).
Yes, that is a two story high version of Renoir's 'Dance at Bougival'. Why? I really am at a loss to explain Mr. Johnson's obsession with extrapolating elements of Impressionist paintings and sculpting them, sometimes on a gargantuan scale.
still preserved by the alejandro jodorowsky foundation from a lost short by the director. en la guarida de la reina liquen was only partially filmed and probably never meant to be finished, existing primarily as a technical experiment and extrapolated from a comic book written and drawn by the director years earlier (the film dates from 1968, at best guess).
film historians note the homage to the comic/short film/vegetable in the third act of the director's doomed attempt at filming an adaptation of some dusty sci-fi rubbish, apparently all about a war far in the future between planets over a psychic drug. jodorowsky is rumoured to have been drawn to the material by a very large worm.
“Around the time that this issue appears, science fiction will experience one of its gayest landmark-events, the Broadway opening of Gore Vidal’s urbane and delightful comedy, VISIT TO A SMALL PLANET, starring the incomparable Cyril Ritchard – an event which F&SF celebrates by bringing you the complete original television play which gave birth to the stage version.
“S. F. has been shoddily treated by the dramatic media of stage, screen and TV. On the stage it has, up till this season, been simply ignored – and neglect is, I suppose, a happier fate than being represented by the grotesque parodies which label themselves, ‘science fiction’ in films or in TV-except-by-Vidal.
“Mr. Vidal is no stranger to our field. In addition to a large number of serious novels, an even larger number of teleplays, and a brief venture into the sexy whodunit (as Edgar Box), this incredible young man (barely over 30!) has written the memorable MESSIAH (Dutton 1954), probably science fiction’s most effective extrapolation of religious cultism. VISIT was, he reports, his most successful television play. . . and by far the hardest to sell. Its tone of witty iconoclasm, of ‘poking fun at so much that was gloriously sacred’—a tone so taken for granted by all s. f. readers – was poison to the advertising agencies. Obviously even its popularity did not influence the Madison Avenue mind; it has had no successors. Perhaps the prestige of Broadway may bring about some enlightenment. . . and meanwhile you can enjoy at least this one charming satiric adventure, here presented for the first time in any magazine.” [Editor’s Note]
"A Visit to a Small Planet" was quite popular during its run from February 7, 1957 through January 11, 1958, at the Booth Theatre in New York City. The New York Herald-Tribune even described it as "gloriously funny" with "an almost endless barrage of freshly-minted quips to keep the merriment rolling". Audiences really enjoyed the lighthearted and whimsical nature of the play in which an alien comes from another planet to do a bit of sightseeing and to see or start a war. He thinks he has arrived in time to see the Civil War, which he expects will be jolly, but he has misjudged his landing and gets here in 1957. [Source: ConcordTheatricals.com]
[Note: “Visit to a Small Planet” was also the basis for a 1960 Paramount Picture starring Jerry Lewis]
Massimo Vitali, Drum Scan by CastorScan (SMALL CROP)
Original picture: www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/10738367025/
------
CastorScan's philosophy is completely oriented to provide the highest scan and postproduction
quality on the globe.
We work with artists, photographers, agencies, laboratories etc. who demand a state-of-the-art quality at reasonable prices.
Our workflow is fully manual and extremely meticulous in any stage.
We developed exclusive workflows and profilation systems to obtain unparallel results from our scanners not achievable through semi-automatic and usual workflows.
-----
CastorScan uses the best scanners in circulation, Dainippon Screen SG-8060P Mark II, the best and most advanced scanner ever made, Kodak-Creo IQSmart 3, a high-end flatbed scanner, and Imacon 848.
The image quality offered by our Dainippon Screen 8060 scanner is much higher than that achievable with the best flatbed scanners or filmscanners dedicated and superior to that of scanners so-called "virtual drum" (Imacon – Hasselblad,) and, of course, vastly superior to that amateur or prosumer obtained with scanners such as Epson V750 etc .
Dainippon Screen SG-8060P Mark II exceeds in quality any other scanner, including Aztek Premier and ICG 380 (in the results, not just in the technical specifications).
8060's main features: 12000 dpi, Hi-Q Xenon lamp, 25 apertures, 2 micron
Aztek Premier's main features: 8000 dpi, halogen lamp, 18 apertures, 3 micron
ICG 380's main features: 12000 dpi, halogen lamp, 9 apertures, 4 micron
Some of the features that make the quality of our drum scanners better than any other existing scan system include:
The scans performed on a drum scanner are famous for their detail, depth and realism.
Scans are much cleaner and show fewer imperfections than scans obtained from CCD scanners, and thus save many hours of cleaning and spotting in postproduction.
Image acquisition by the drum scanner is optically similar to using a microscopic lens that scans the image point by point with extreme precision and without deformation or distortion of any kind, while other scanners use enlarger lenses (such as the Rodenstock-Linos Magnagon 75mm f8 used in the Hasselblad-Imacon scanners) and have transmission systems with rubber bands: this involves mild but effective micro-strain and micro-geometric image distortions and quality is not uniform between the center and edges.
Drum scanners are exempt from problems of flatness of the originals, since the same are mounted on a perfectly balanced transparent acrylic drum; on the contrary, the dedicated film scanners that scan slides or negatives in their plastic frames are subject to quite significant inaccuracies, as well as the Imacon-Hasselblad scanners, which have their own rubber and plastic holders: they do not guarantee the perfect flatness of the original and therefore a uniform definition between center and edge, especially with medium and large size originals, which instead are guaranteed by drum scanners.
Again, drum scanners allow scanning at high resolution over the entire surface of the cylinder, while for example the Hasselblad Imacon scans are limited to 3200 dpi in 120 format and 2000 dpi in 4x5" format (the resolution of nearly every CCD scanner in the market drops as the size of the original scanned is increased).
Drum scanners allow complete scanning of the whole negative, including the black-orange mask, perforations etc, while using many other scanners a certain percentage of the image is lost because it is covered by frames or holders.
Drum scanners use photomultiplier tubes to record the light signal, which are much more sensitive than CCDs and can record many more nuances and variations in contrast with a lower digital noise.
If you look at a monitor at 100% the detail in shadows and darker areas of a scan made with a CCD scanner, you will notice that the details are not recorded in a clear and clean way, and the colors are more opaque and less differentiated. Additionally the overall tones are much less rich and differentiated.
We would like to say a few words about an unscrupulous and deceitful use of technical specifications reported by many manufacturers of consumer and prosumer scanners; very often we read of scanners that promise cheap or relatively cheap “drum scanner” resolutions, 16 bits of color depth, extremely high DMAX: we would like to say that these “nominal” resolutions do not correspond to an actual optical resolution, so that even in low-resolution scanning you can see an enormous gap between drum scanners and these scanners in terms of detail, as well as in terms of DMAX, color range, realism, “quality” of grain. So very often when using these consumer-prosumer scanners at high resolutions, it is normal to get a disproportionate increase of file size in MB but not an increase of detail and quality.
To give a concrete example: a drum scan of a 24x36mm color negative film at 3500 dpi is much more defined than a scan made with mostly CCD scanner at 8000 dpi and a drum scan at 2500 dpi is dramatically clearer than a scan at 2500 dpi provided by a CCD scanner. So be aware and careful with incorrect advertisement.
Scans can be performed either dry or liquid-mounted. The wet mounting further improves cleanliness (helps to hide dirt, scratches and blemishes) and plasticity of the image without compromising the original, and in addition by mounting with liquid the film grain is greatly reduced and it looks much softer and more pleasant than the usual "harsh" grain resulting from dry scans.
We use Kami SMF 2001 liquid to mount the transparencies and Kami RC 2001 for cleaning the same. Kami SMF 2001 evaporates without leaving traces, unlike the traditional oil scans, ensuring maximum protection for your film. Out of ignorance some people prefer to avoid liquid scanning because they fear that their films will be dirty or damaged: this argument may be plausible only in reference to scans made using mineral oils, which have nothing to do with the specific professional products we use.
We strongly reiterate that your original is in no way compromised by our scanning liquid and will return as you have shipped it, if not cleaner.
With respect to scanning from slides:
Our scanners are carefully calibrated with the finest IT8 calibration targets in circulation and with special customized targets in order to ensure that each scan faithfully reproduces the original color richness even in the most subtle nuances, opening and maintaining detail in shadows and highlights. These color profiles allow our scanners to realize their full potential, so we guarantee our customers that even from a chromatic point of view our scans are noticeably better than similar scans made by mostly other scan services in the market.
In addition, we remind you that our 8060 drum scanner is able to read the deepest shadows of slides without digital noise and with much more detail than CCD scanners; also, the color range and color realism are far better.
With respect to scanning from color and bw negatives: we want to emphasize the superiority of our drum scans not only in scanning slides, but also in color and bw negative scanning (because of the orange mask and of very low contrast is extremely difficult for any ccd scanner to read the very slight tonal and contrast nuances in the color negative, while a perfectly profiled 8060 drum scanner – also through the analog gain/white calibration - can give back much more realistic images and true colors, sharper and more three-dimensional).
In spite of what many claim, a meticulous color profiling is essential not only for scanning slides, but also, and even more, for color negatives. Without it the scan of a color negative will produce chromatic errors rather significant, thus affecting the tonal balance and then the naturalness-pleasantness of the images.
More unique than rare, we do not use standardized profiles provided by the software to invert each specific negative film, because they do not take into account parameters and variables such as the type of development, the level of exposure, the type of light etc.,; at the same time we also avoid systems of "artificial intelligence" or other functions provided by semi-automatic scanning softwares, but instead we carry out the inversion in a full manual workflow for each individual picture.
In addition, scanning with Imacon-Hasselblad scanners we do not use their proprietary software - Flexcolor – to make color management and color inversion because we strongly believe that our alternative workflow provides much better results, and we are able to prove it with absolute clarity.
At each stage of the process we take care of meticulously adjusting the scanning parameters to the characteristics of the originals, to extrapolate the whole range of information possible from any image without "burning" or reductions in the tonal range, and strictly according to our customer's need and taste.
By default, we do not apply unsharp mask (USM) in our scans, except on request.
To scan reflective originals we follow the same guidelines and guarantee the same quality standard.
We guarantee the utmost thoroughness and expertise in the work of scanning and handling of the originals and we provide scans up to 12,000 dpi of resolution, at 16-bit, in RGB, GRAYSCALE, LAB or CMYK color mode; unless otherwise indicated, files are saved with Adobe RGB 1998 or ProPhoto RGB color profile.
October 27, 2018 at 12:00pmuntil November 11, 2018 at 5:00pm at GENERATOR Projects
The exhibition, “Flesh and Finitude”, has borrowed its title from Cary Wolfe’s book, What is Posthumanism (2010). It explores the boundaries of human life and body. What is the end of the human and where does something else begin? This year’s NEoN festival’s theme is ‘Lifespans’ and our exhibition’s aim is to investigate the ‘posthuman condition’, the lifespan of ‘human’ as we know it.
Five artists were invited to provide different points of enquiry into what it means to be human in relation to other species, Nature, objects, technology, and humanity itself.
“Not all of us can say, with any degree of certainty, that we have always been human, or that we are only that.” (Rosi Braidotti, The Posthuman (2013) p.1) Today, when artificial intelligence, 3D printed organs and genetic engineering are a reality, what it means to be human is extended and redesigned. At the same time, technological advancement also reflects on our relationship (and most importantly similarities) with the Other.
Digital and sculptural works reflect on different aspects of human and its boundaries, its uncanny symbiotic relationship with others, held together by a melancholic sense of uncertainty.
Curated by Zsofia Jakab
Artists:
Caitlin Dick (UK) – Caitlin Dick recently graduated from her Master’s in Contemporary Art from Edinburgh College of Art and previously studied a BA (Hons) in Contemporary Art Practice at Gray’s School of Art, Aberdeen. Caitlin’s most recent work The Problem Begins When…, shown in Embassy Gallery Edinburgh, has focussed on the fusion of the technological and the human, creating an uncomfortable hybrid through digital and kinetic sculpture.
Give in to that Easy Living expands upon this previous work, attempting to explore these matters in a playfully cynical way, experimentally introducing an object-based installation which highlights our relationship with the bizarre, posthuman form that technology has created. Mobility assistance devices, kinetic sculpture and film create a sad scene of near total technological integration. Technology has become an extension of ourselves, no longer a separate entity; we feel lost or uneasy without it. The expectation of connection to anything and anyone at any time and for it then to be reciprocated immediately is an assumed part of capitalist consumer culture. Not only do we need to be accessible 24/7, we also believe that it is essential to be constantly active as part of our techno-ego. Our technological addiction has melted into everyday life, becoming monotonously accepted as part of normality. Website
Caitlyn Main (UK) – Caitlyn Mains practice operates from a state of uncertainty: through sustained linguistic unravelling and temporal installation, she presents works that speak of intimacy, agitation and balance. She accommodates, and indeed, propagates conditions encouraging fragility: every piece has the potential to collapse in on itself, and contains obvious indications of temporality. The work is a physical manifestation of precariousness – the use of dangling, leaning, bound and suspended elements serves to underline the flimsiness of matter.
Mains compositions reverberate between a situation of familiarity and abstraction. As firm edges become dissolved, or ignored, the parameters of her work seem to become floppy, saggy, and fluid – seeping outward to be absolved into the daily mass of visual information that surrounds us. The flesh of her assemblages is that of the world – the bones and tendons extrapolated from the domestic and the detrital, from our illuminated back lit phone screens and the phrases uttered to one another. Her frantic constellations continually oscillate between contradictory states: they are simultaneously saturated and empty, humorous, pathetic, sexual, exquisite and insignificant. Website
Rodrigo Arteaga (CHILE) – Rodrigo’s work aims to redefine some notions and ideas around nature and culture, considering what sort of division can exist between them. He has used material culture that comes from science and its varied systematic methods in the form of books, maps, diagrams, furniture and tools. There is some inherent contradiction in this effort to bring together order and disorder, the useful and the useless, unearthing the coded enigmas of our relationship to the environment. He has responded to scientific culture in an attempt to embrace its limits, maybe turn it back onto itself, finding a crack, subjectivizing something meant to be objective. Website
Alicia Fidler (UK) – Alicia’s practice expands how aesthetics of an object can be used to allude to the presence of action and a premise for performance. Functionality and Agency are contexts, which she employs to transcend an object’s still state. Adopting motifs such as handles, hooks, hinges, nets, harnesses and hoops, she dips into our preexisting relationships with objects and actions. Using Function as a guide for how the body enters the work. ‘Where the handle meets the hand to produce the thing’.
The work’s interaction is the crux, the genesis. She is fascinated by the anticipation and desire for engagement with sculpture. Changing and twisting the nature of the body and the object, into a moment caught in time. She makes works, which in every sense give instructions and demand usage but are so still. Wrapped up in potentiality. Stalling the moment of activity, producing an object that screams its performative past and future out. Recently working with visual suggestion, she has begun to use photographs of past performances. Distorting them with pattern and abstraction. Absorbing images directly onto materials. Re-digesting the echoes of action, presenting a twisted instruction. Through self-referencing, function and performance my work has become anthropomorphic. The sculptures embody their own Agency through visual clues.
They play out their own situations and actions extending beyond the tools, objects and apparatus they resemble. She moves from the realms of interaction, into works that represent a single moment; Bodilyobjects. Website
Callum Johnstone (UK) Callum Johnstone’s practice explores environmental collapse and the implications it will have on humanity. Knowing that our environment is changing at an accelerated pace due to climate change, humanity must quickly adapt by re-imagining and re-designing the structures in which we live. Johnstone aims to show that it is not the physical structures alone which must change, by also the underlying structures of our society which need to be rethought.
Though his work is primarily understood as sculpture, it often verges on the boundaries of architecture and design. His structures often incorporate repeating modular elements which allow the potential for a continuation, acting simply as a beginning component to a much larger superstructure. These ideas can then extend to the actions of the individual which as a collective become a greater movement and have the potential to alter society as we know it. Johnstone sees himself not only as a commentator and illustrator of current events but also as a module of the superstructure we call society. As a catalyst of ideas, the artist intends to inspire a conversation on ways in which humanity may adapt to imminent environmental threats.
Image Credit: Kathryn Rattray Photography
If you think about it, this IS kind of deep stuff. And it did get me to thinking. Perhaps one could extrapolate and say, “In a perfect world, there are no people.”
Now, John Lennon’s song “Imagine” includes these lines:
"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too ..."
But the only way I can imagine such a state of being is if there were no people. So, there it is again ...
“In a perfect world, there are no people.”
I made this drawing from photos in Steve Ginter's Naval Fighters #40, F11F-1. Its a dandy point of departure for making an accurate seat for your Hasegawa 1/72 F11F-1, Lindberg's 1/48 "Tiger" or improving the seat in the FM 1/48 F11F1.
Building on the previous effort, the outline of the major bits, here I've refined that outline, broken-out the headrest, head cushion, face-curtain grab-handle, the "D" ring on the headrest, the wheels the seat rolls on going up its guide rail, two doublers on the seat at the pilot's shoulder, a bracket holding the knee guard to the foot-rest extension of the seat, and all the rivets, holes, seams and panel lines on the sides.
Of course, any errors are my own. But for the purposes of building plastic models, I think this is pretty reasonable extrapolation, based on what I can actually see in the half-tone photo.
Students of old ejection seats will note a similarity to the ejection seat in later North American Furys. Not the same, but not very different either. A family resemblance based on common sub-contractor.
Working in a camera store gave me access to a great Nikon scanner for film. I would experiment with scanning between doing manipulations and touchups. This looks like a photo'd Nissan taillights and extrapolated from there -- I don't remember how this one "began", but it did not come from photographing automotive equipment. I couldn't duplicate this effort if I tried. It seems to be tagged as the product of a Nikon D70 - not to my knowledge.
Free-roaming pet cats wreak havoc on wildlife.
I gathered the scattered feathers of the Mockingbird that had been serenading me and liked to hop around and feed in the leaf litter, where the neighbor's cat was lying in wait one morning, and pounced on it, bringing an end to the morning songs I'd been enjoying...
And so I gathered its feathers to take this picture. So long birdy!
No matter how well-fed, no matter how enticing "the cat's meow," the domestic pet cat is a natural hunter, and many will catch & kill anything they can, including some insects, reptiles, rodents, rabbits, and birds.
Birds are the most difficult prey for cats, but (I think) this pile of feathers used to be the resident male mockingbird; certainly, his song has been absent in recent days.
Pet cats also love to raid mockingbird nests to eat not only the nestlings, but also the eggs. Research shows 95% of these nest raids occur at night.
Felines are among nature's supreme predators. Most are able to sneak up on their prey, and seize it with an explosive burst of speed, or powerful leap, but sometimes the cat simply lies in wait.
Research with Kitty Cams shows that birds account for about 13% of cat kills.
“If we extrapolate the results of this study across the country and include feral cats, we find that cats are likely killing more than 4 billion animals per year, including at least 500 million birds. Cat predation is one of the reasons why one in three American bird species are in decline,” said Dr. George Fenwick, President of American Bird Conservancy, the only organization exclusively conserving birds throughout the Americas.
abcbirds.org/article/kittycam-reveals-high-levels-of-wild...
I was reading in The Guardian, that (non red-topped) pulsating organ, that no one starts out wanting to be a narcissist. Obviously I was reading it to see if I had graduated from common or garden narcissist to this newly emerging creature, the 'Subtle Narcissist'. I think I have that one down pat too, but more of that later. I just wanted to extrapolate here, a little, before I ate my morning slice of 'duck', and had my coffee.
No one sets out to be a dick. But that's doubly bad, as no one actually sets out to have a dick either. Happenstance forces it upon you, unless you believe, as some do, that you choose your parents, and by extension, choose your own penis. If this were true why wouldn't everyone choose a huge one? (These questions need to be asked). I don't believe we choose anything. I don't believe in 'Freedom of Choice'. It's just a shoddy leftover from religions of every ilk.
Unfortunately by the time you realise you have a dick, it has mesmerised you. The one eyed trouser, or nappy in this case, snake has hypnotised you. This is also true of assholes, no one ever started off making the decision to become one of those either (or to even have one, for that matter), and they too hypnotise a sizeable subset of people. That they have the tendency to wink at you only makes it worse.
I could go on, and I will, but me coffee is getting cold. No one sets out to be an exhibitionist, mass murderer, objectifier, artist, 'Spine-sucker', dictator, petty thief, employee at Goldman Sachs, or whatever. There is always that horror to face, that Tabula Rasa. This suggests that nothing is in need of pardoning or punishing. That might be the point that I want to start from.
I have known some gloriously exhibitionistic women too, I am thinking the likes of Annie Sprinkle, one amongst many. I have also known hesitant exhibitionists, those who love the frisson and the ensuing uproarious laughter shared on long walks.
My preference is for the latter of these two, but that's just me, and I never set out to be me.
What does a person from Synecdoche, New York call themselves anyway? A fictional everyone, great title, great film. Gays never set out to take over either. Thankfully, I won't be around by the time we pull it out and off.
I feel like I have been a giant Scolaro all my life, in my dreams, an exposed dick in training. I also like the idea of a 'Private Dick', those wonderful 'Film Noir' staples, but have never managed to be one myself.
I am suspicious of the very notion of 'privacy'. It is possibly over-rated, and secretly we might know everything about each other anyway. Everybody does, it's no secret at all, perhaps.
Might I add, that your admittance to having straight friends is testament to you tolerance, and to be admired. I admit that I do also still have some straight friends, but I do try their patience, so who knows how long that will continue.
I hope they remember that no one sets out to be objectionable (at birth), well hardly anybody anyway.
And finally (like heck), I might add that this young stripling had a very attractive member, as far as I can remember (unfortunately it's a very dim memory, but that's more age related), and I would not like to disparage it in any way. It was, however, enough of a memorable pecker to inspire a sort of reverie in me, and that's nothing to shake one's appendage at. That sexually it did nothing for me had nothing to do with its attractiveness or otherwise. This is something youth often misunderstands completely, They get the wrong end of the stick, or prick, as in this case. I hope this young man, and his todger, founder a happy home, wherever that dark lair might be.
As far as I am concerned all 'front bottoms' and 'back bottoms' will always be equal.
I am still struggling to find the opening line for this monumental act of 'subtle narcissism' I seem to be working on. I am also not editing at all, at all. Shoot one's wad and clean it up later seems to be my modus operandi. I might just leave all that for time to sort out, in its own peculiar way. Why change the habit of a lifetime, eh?
This is an excerpt of a longer on-line video, see the address below. This composition machine was mentioned by David MacMillan in his extensive on-line reference blog "circuitousroot", as follows:
"The Koike firm actually made what might be the widest range of type- and line-casting machinery of any company, including the K.M.T. Automatic Typesetting Machine (a Monotype-style composing type caster with matrix cases of up to 4,992 matrices)".
A lot of things jump out from the full-length video; the machine uses "modern" six row punched tape and off-the-shelf punching equipment. The matrix case layout (MCA) is shown at 00:14 (all time references are from the on-line full length video), with the hole punching scheme on the borders. Common characters are grouped together to reduce matrix case travel. Katagana in one group, Roman caps in one row, etc. This matrix case appears to have groups of 16 characters in an arrangement 11 by 11, or 1,936 characters by my count (a 44 x 44 case).
Extrapolating this, if a 15 x 17 Monotype matrix case has 255 characters, a theoretical Japanese case would hold seven times the number of mats. Thinking that, they could offer Garamond, say, all sizes from six point to twelve point, no need to change the matrix case.
Do I see square type nicks at 00:30? Would Koike not have used English Monotype composition moulds, why re-invent something if the best is available right now off-the-shelf?
At 01:00, is the machine doing composition and sorts casting at the same time, or what?
At 1:07, the paper tape is being fed from the inside of the roll as opposed to Monotype paper rolls that unwind from the outside, so the cast is in reverse where the line spacing information is accessed for each line prior to casting the text.
I don't see a tall spring assembly for the pump; is this machine hydraulic like the final Lanston Monomatic design?
The title roughly translates as the following:
"Record of operation of Japanese Monotype & Intel Casting Machine at Nagase Ranshin Factory"
Sword in the Stone (1963)
Merlin
Original Graphite Pencil Drawings Used to Make The 1963 Film
Certificate of Authenticity (COA) from The Cricket Gallery
16 Field Animation Paper
Beautifully Framed (some minor dings and scratches)
Production Drawings are the building blocks of animation; through these drawings, the animator carefully plans the look and movement of each character. Drawings are refined (often using different colored pencils) until the animator is satisfied with the look, detail, and degree of motion for each character; at this point, cels are created by tracing drawings onto clear acetate. Production Drawings provide perhaps the most intimate look in the animation process.
The Sword in the Stone is a 1963 animated fantasy comedy film, produced by Walt Disney originally released to theaters on December 25, 1963. The eighteenth animated feature in the Walt Disney Animated Classics, it was the last Disney animated feature released while Walt Disney was alive.
It is part of the 'English Cycle' of Disney animated films, which include Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, 101 Dalmatians, The Jungle Book, Robin Hood, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh and The Rescuers.
The film is based on the novel of the same name, at first published in 1938 as a single novel. It was then later republished in 1958 as the first book of T. H. White’s tetralogy The Once and Future King. From Merlin’s statement that The Times will not come out for another 1200 years, it may be extrapolated that the film is set circa A.D. 558.
This animated feature is set in medieval times. After the English king dies leaving no heir, in the churchyard of a cathedral in London, a sword appears imbedded in a stone inscribed, "Who so pulleth out this sword of this stone and anvil is rightwise king born of England." Although many try, no one can budge the sword from the stone. Deep in the dark woods, kind, but absent-minded Merlin the Magician begins to teach 11-year-old Arthur, who is called Wart, and lives in the castle of Sir Ector where he's an apprentice squire to burly, oafish Sir Kay -- when he's not washing stacks of pots and pans in the scullery. By being changed by Merlin into various animals, Wart learns the basic truths of life, but he also runs into the evil Madam Mim, who tries to destroy him. Merlin and Mim have a Wizards' Duel, during which each changes into various creatures, with Merlin using his wits to win. On New Year's Day, a great tournament is held in London to pick a new king. Wart, attending as Kay's squire, forgets Kay's sword, and runs back to the inn to get it, but the inn is locked. Wart, seeing the sword in the stone, innocently, and easily, pulls it out. When the knights marvel at the wondrous sword and question where he got it, Wart has to prove himself all over again, and again he pulls the sword from the stone. Wart is proclaimed king by the marveling warriors. Wart as King Arthur is apprehensive of his ability to govern, but Merlin returns to reassure him. Written by Corinne Shetter.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Gloster Glaive was basically a modernized and re-engined variant of the successful, British-built Gloster Gladiator (or Gloster SS.37), the RAF’s final biplane fighter to enter service. The Gladiator was not only widely used by the RAF at the dawn of WWII and in almost every theatre of operations, but also by many other nations. Operators included Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania or Nationalist China, and while the RAF already opted for more modern monoplanes, Gloster saw the opportunity to sell an updated Gladiator to countries which were not as progressive.
Originally designated Gladiator Mk. IV, the machine received many aerodynamic refinements and the motor was changed from a draggy radial to a liquid-cooled inline engine. The latter was the new Rolls Royce Peregrine, a development of the Kestrel. It was, in its original form, a 21-litre (1,300 cu in) liquid-cooled V-12 aero engine ), delivering 885-horsepower (660 kW). The engine was housed under a streamlined cowling, driving a three blade metal propeller, and was coupled with a ventral radiator bath, reminiscent of the Hawker Fury biplane’s arrangement.
Structural improvements included an all-metal monocoque fuselage and stabilizers, as well as new wings and streamlined struts with reduced bracing. The upper wing was enlarged and of all-metal construction, too, while the lower wings were reduced in span and area, almost resulting in a sesquiplane layout. The total wing area was only marginally reduced, though.
The fixed landing gear was retained, but the main wheels were now covered with spats. The pilot still sat in a fully enclosed cockpit, the armament consisted of four machine guns, similar to the Gladiator. But for the Glaive, all Browning machine guns were synchronized and mounted in the fuselage: one pair was placed on top of the cowling, in front of the cockpit. Another pair, much like the Gladiator’s arrangement was placed in the fuselage flanks, below the exhaust outlets.
Compared with the Gladiator, the design changes were so fundamental that Gloster eventually decided to allocate a separate designation – also with a view to the type’s foreign marketing, since a new aircraft appeared more attractive than another mark of a pre-war design. For the type’s virgin flight in late 1938 the name “Glaive” was unveiled to the public, and several smaller European air forces immediately showed interest, including Greece, Croatia, Turkey, Portugal and Egypt.
Greece was one of the initial customers, and the first of a total of 24 aircraft for the Hellenic Air Force was delivered in early 1939, with 24 more on order (which were never delivered, though). The initial batch arrived just in time, since tension had been building between Greece and Italy since 7 April 1939, when Italian troops occupied Albania. On 28 October 1940, Italy issued an ultimatum to Greece, which was promptly rejected. A few hours later, Italian troops launched an invasion of Greece, initiating the Greco-Italian War.
The Hellenic Gloster Glaives were split among three Mirae Dioxeos (Fighter Squadrons): the 21st at Trikala, 22nd at Thessaloniki and 23rd at Larissa. When Italy attacked in October 1940, the British fighter was, together with the PZL 24, the Greeks' only modern type in adequate numbers. However, by late 1940, the Gloster Glaive was already no longer a front-runner despite a powerful powerplant and satisfactory armament. It had no speed advantage over the Fiat Cr.42 nor could it outfly the nimble Italian biplane, and it was much slower than the Macchi MC.200 and the Fiat G.50 it was pitted against. Its agility was the only real advantage against the Italian fighters, whose reliance on the slow firing Breda-SAFAT 12.7mm machine guns proved detrimental.
Anyway, on 5 April 1941, German forces invaded Greece and quickly established air superiority. As the Allied troops retreated, British and Hellenic forces covered them, before flying to Crete during the last week of April. There, the refugee aircraft recorded a few claims over twin-engine aircraft before being evacuated to Egypt during the Battle of Crete.
Overall, the Glaives performed gallantly during the early period of the conflict, holding their own against impossible numerical odds and despite the fact that their main target were enemy bombers which forced them to fight at a disadvantage against enemy fighters. Italian claims of easy superiority over the Albanian front were vastly over-rated and their kill claims even exceeded the total number of operational fighters on the Greek side. Total Greek fighter losses in combat came to 24 a/c with the Greek fighter pilots claiming 64 confirmed kills and 24 probables (about two third bombers).
By April 1941, however, lack of spares and attrition had forced the Hellenic Air Force to merge the surviving seven Glaives with five leftover PZL.24s into one understrength squadron supported by five Gloster Gladiators Mk I & II and the two surviving MB.151s. These fought hopelessly against the Luftwaffe onslaught, and most aircraft were eventually lost on the ground. None of the Hellenic Gloster Glaives survived the conflict.
General characteristics:
Crew: two
Length: 8.92m (29 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 34 ft 0 in (10.36 m)
Height: 11 ft 9 in (3.58 m)
Wing area: 317 ft² (29.4 m²)
Empty weight: 1,295 kg (2,855 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 1,700 kg (3,748 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls Royce Peregrine II liquid-cooled V12 inline engine, rated at 940 hp (700 kw)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 405 km/h (252 mph; 219 kn) at 4,400 m (14,436 ft)
Cruise speed: 345 km/h (214 mph; 186 kn)
Stall speed: 60 mph (52 knots, 96 km/h)
Range: 373 mi (600 km; 324 nmi)
Endurance: 2 hours
Service ceiling: 10,600 m (34,800 ft)
Rate of climb: 2,982 ft/min (15.15 m/s)
Time to altitude: 10.000 ft (3.050 m) in 3 minutes 20 seconds
Armament:
4× 0.303 calibre (7.7 mm) M1919 Browning machine guns in the fuselage
Provisions for 6× 10 kg (22 lb) or 4x 20 kg (44 lb) bombs under the lower wings
The kit and its assembly:
The fictional Gloster Glaive started quite simple with the idea of replacing the Gladiator’s radial with an inline engine. But this soon did not appear enough for an update – the Peregrine hardly delivered much more power than the former Mercury, so I considered some structural updates, too. Most of them comprised the replacement of former fabric-covered structures, and this led conceptually to a kitbash with only some Gladiator fuselage and tail parts left.
The basis is (once more) the very nice Matchbox Gloster Gladiator, but it was heavily modified. As an initial step, fuselage, fin and stabilizers (all OOB parts) lost their rib-and-fabric structure, simply sanded away. A minor detail, but it changes the overall look of the aircraft a lot, making it appear much more modern.
The fuselage was left without the OOB radial, and instead a leftover Merlin front end from an Airfix Hurricane (ca. 1cm long, left over from one of my first whif builds ever, a Hurricane with a radial engine!) was added. The lines match pretty well: the side profile looks sleek, if not elegant, but the Gladiator fuselage turned out to be wider than expected. Some major body work/PSR was necessary to integrate the new nose, but the result looks very good.
The liquid-cooled engine necessitated a radiator somewhere on the airframe…! Since I wanted the nose to remain slim and streamlined I eventually placed the radiator bath under the fuselage, much like the arrangement of the Hawker Fury biplane. The radiator itself comes from a late Spitfire (FROG kit).
The exhaust was taken from the Hurricane kit, too, and matching slits dug into the putty nose to take them. The three blade propeller is a mash-up, too: the spinner belongs, IIRC, to an early Spitfire (left over from an AZ Models kit) while the blades came from a damaged Matchbox Brewster Buffalo.
The Gladiator’s fuselage flank machine guns were kept and their “bullet channels” extrapolated along the new cowling, running under the new exhaust pipes. Another pair of machine guns were placed on top of the engine – for these, openings were carved into the upper hull and small fairings (similar to the Browning guns in the flanks) added. This arrangement appeared plausible to me, since the Gladiator’s oil cooler was not necessary anymore and the new lower wings (see below) were not big enough anymore to take the Gladiator’s underwing guns. Four MGs in the fuselage appears massive – but there were other types with such an arrangement, e.g. the Avia B-534 with four guns in the flanks and an inline engine.
The wings are complete replacements: the upper wing comes from a Heller Curtiss SBC4, while the lower wings as well as the spats (on shortened OOB Gladiator struts) come from an ICM Polikarpov I-153. All struts were scratched. Once the lower wings were in place and the relative position of the upper wing clear, the outer struts were carved from 1mm styrene sheet, using the I-153 design as benchmark. These were glued to the lower wing first, and, once totally dry after 24h, the upper wing was simply glued onto the top and the wing position adjusted. This was left to dry another 24h, and as a final step the four struts above the cowling (using the OOB struts, but as single parts and trimmed for proper fit) were placed. This way, a stable connection is guaranteed – and the result is surprisingly sturdy.
Rigging was done with heated sprue material – my personal favorite for this delicate task, and executed before painting the kit started so that the glue could cure and bond well.
Painting and markings:
The reason why this aircraft ended in Greek service is a color photograph of a crashed Hellenic Bloch M.B. 152 (coded ‘D 177’, to be specific). I guess that the picture was post-colored, though, because the aircraft of French origin sports rather weird colors: the picture shows a two-tone scheme in a deep, rather reddish chestnut brown and a light green that almost looks like teal. Unique, to say the least... Underside colors couldn’t be identified with certainty in the picture, but appeared like a pale but not too light blue grey.
Anyway, I assume that these colors are pure fiction and exaggerated Photoshop work, since the few M.B. 152s delivered to Greece carried AFAIK standard French camouflage (in French Khaki, Chestnut Brown and Blue-Grey on the upper surfaces, and a very light blue-grey from below). I’d assume that the contrast between the grey and green tones was not very obvious in the original photograph, so that the artist, not familiar with WWII paint schemes, replaced both colors with the strange teal tone and massively overmodulated the brown.
As weird as it looked, I liked this design and used it as an inspirational benchmark for my Hellenic Glaive build. After all, it’s a fictional aircraft… Upper basic colors are Humbrol 31 (RAF Slate Grey) and 160 (German Camouflage Red Brown), while the undersides became French Dark Blue Grey (ModelMaster Authentics 2105). The result looks rather odd…
Representing a combat-worn aircraft, I applied a thorough black ink wash and did heavier panel shading and dry-brushing on the leading edges, along with some visible touches of aluminum.
The Hellenic roundels come from a TL Modellbau aftermarket sheet. The tactical code was puzzled together from single letters, and the Greek “D” was created from single decal strips. For better contrast I used white decals – most Hellenic aircraft of the time had black codes, but the contrast is much better, and I found evidence that some machines actually carried white codes. The small fin flash is another free interpretation. Not every Hellenic aircraft carried these markings, and instead of painting the whole rudder in Greek colors I just applied a small fin flash. This was created with white and blue decal strips, closely matching the roundels’ colors.
Finally, after some soot stains around the guns and the exhausts, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
Modified beyond recognition, perhaps…? The fictional Gloster Glaive looks IMHO good and very modern, just like one of those final biplane designs that were about to be outrun by monoplanes at the brink of WWII.
The Mizner Mansion was a very nice domicile, but the front porch with it's marble table looked quite inviting in the afternoon... Fort Myers, Florida
Doctor Who is owned by the BBC. No copy right infringement intended. Please give credit if you use any of these designs.
-
Specimen: Homosapien
Gender: Female
Age: Undetermined
Respiratory: Online- 75 %
Circulatory: Online- 83%
Conscious: fluctuating- 43-57%
Specimen: Homosapien
Gender: Male
Age: Undetermined
Respiratory: Online- 75 %
Circulatory: Online- 83%
Conscious: Offline- 36%
The short surges of an electrical pulse stirred Amy from her temporary sleep. Groggily, she slowly became aware of a growing sickness in her stomach. looking down through hazy vision, she came to understand that (a) she was standing, (b) she was attached to some sort glowing red constrainment, and (c) she was really, really hungry. A sharp kicking and in her stomach pulled the rest of her consciousness together, as well as an involuntary groan that eventually formed into words.
"....hurph-murble-murwhere am I?" she managed groggily. fully aware of her surroundings now, she experimentally pulled on one of the (what appeared to be) plasma brackets clutched to her wrists. this was met with a jolt of pain sending up her arm, as well at a yell from around the wall.
"AAaaaaaah-nd I'm awake."
Conscious: Online- 99%
"Rory?" whispered Amy. There was a pause of silence, and simultaneously shocks of energy shot up both of their arms, as both of them had tried to move towards each other at once.
"Ok, so we won't be going anywhere anytime soon," murmured Rory.
"Yeah, I think that the fact that we're shocked like a car jumper every time we move a muscle is probably a good hint to tell us to stay put," replied Amy. Suddenly, to the Pond's left came the clicking racket of metal gears grinding upwards, and one of the blue soldiers- Sontarans, they remembered- walked through the now open door way. The sound was repeated in reverse as the door closed and the sontaran walked forward. removing his helmet, he sneered at his two captives.
"Good, the specimen are awake," he barked sharply as he turned toward the computer banks. Amy and Rory looked at each other (or rather, looked at the wall between them). uncertainly, Rory cleared his voice.
"What do you mean, specimen?" he asked. turning around, the sontaran gave them an evil grimace.
"For the molecule disruptors. Our last subjects didn't survive the electrical shock, but you two are travelers of time! Perhaps you will." He said this with a slight chuckle at the end that made Amy tense slightly and rory's knees buckle a bit. however, when he was finished laughing he continued.
"Unfortunately, I have orders to keep you alive for the time being. A mild inconvenience, but one necessary. Once your usefulness, or should i say, HIS usefulness is done-"
"Who do you mean, HIS usefulness?" Amy interjected quickly. She already knew the answer, but validation would help her nervous mental state. The sontaran stopped abruptly and gave her the eye.
"Who do you think?"
Amy's heart sank, lifted, and ached at the same time. Rory just groaned internally.
"As I was saying," their captor continued, "Once his usefulness is over with, you two are to be extrapolated protein by protein for our nursery banks, for we are rather short on calcium and iron."
Amy's heart skipped a beat. the sontaran laughed at their terrified faces before turning back to his work. Rory shifted uncomfortably, once again sending jolts up both of their arms. Holding back a tear, Amy looked forward at the dull, grey wall opposite of her. Dark stains dripped down the wall, collecting around a drain plate on the floor. Amy felt her stomach jump to her throat. Rory hung his head back, waiting, for that was all they could do.
Wait, and hope their friend did something extremely clever to get them out of this situation.
Vincenzo Castella, Milano, 2012. Installation view.
-----
CastorScan's philosophy is completely oriented to provide the highest scan and postproduction
quality on the globe.
We work with artists, photographers, agencies, laboratories etc. who demand a state-of-the-art quality at reasonable prices.
Our workflow is fully manual and extremely meticulous in any stage.
We developed exclusive workflows and profilation systems to obtain unparallel results from our scanners not achievable through semi-automatic and usual workflows.
-----
CastorScan uses the best scanners in circulation, Dainippon Screen SG-8060P Mark II, the best and most advanced scanner ever made, Kodak-Creo IQSmart 3, a high-end flatbed scanner, and Imacon 848.
The image quality offered by our Dainippon Screen 8060 scanner is much higher than that achievable with the best flatbed scanners or filmscanners dedicated and superior to that of scanners so-called "virtual drum" (Imacon – Hasselblad,) and, of course, vastly superior to that amateur or prosumer obtained with scanners such as Epson V750 etc .
Dainippon Screen SG-8060P Mark II exceeds in quality any other scanner, including Aztek Premier and ICG 380 (in the results, not just in the technical specifications).
8060's main features: 12000 dpi, Hi-Q Xenon lamp, 25 apertures, 2 micron
Aztek Premier's main features: 8000 dpi, halogen lamp, 18 apertures, 3 micron
ICG 380's main features: 12000 dpi, halogen lamp, 9 apertures, 4 micron
Some of the features that make the quality of our drum scanners better than any other existing scan system include:
The scans performed on a drum scanner are famous for their detail, depth and realism.
Scans are much cleaner and show fewer imperfections than scans obtained from CCD scanners, and thus save many hours of cleaning and spotting in postproduction.
Image acquisition by the drum scanner is optically similar to using a microscopic lens that scans the image point by point with extreme precision and without deformation or distortion of any kind, while other scanners use enlarger lenses (such as the Rodenstock-Linos Magnagon 75mm f8 used in the Hasselblad-Imacon scanners) and have transmission systems with rubber bands: this involves mild but effective micro-strain and micro-geometric image distortions and quality is not uniform between the center and edges.
Drum scanners are exempt from problems of flatness of the originals, since the same are mounted on a perfectly balanced transparent acrylic drum; on the contrary, the dedicated film scanners that scan slides or negatives in their plastic frames are subject to quite significant inaccuracies, as well as the Imacon-Hasselblad scanners, which have their own rubber and plastic holders: they do not guarantee the perfect flatness of the original and therefore a uniform definition between center and edge, especially with medium and large size originals, which instead are guaranteed by drum scanners.
Again, drum scanners allow scanning at high resolution over the entire surface of the cylinder, while for example the Hasselblad Imacon scans are limited to 3200 dpi in 120 format and 2000 dpi in 4x5" format (the resolution of nearly every CCD scanner in the market drops as the size of the original scanned is increased).
Drum scanners allow complete scanning of the whole negative, including the black-orange mask, perforations etc, while using many other scanners a certain percentage of the image is lost because it is covered by frames or holders.
Drum scanners use photomultiplier tubes to record the light signal, which are much more sensitive than CCDs and can record many more nuances and variations in contrast with a lower digital noise.
If you look at a monitor at 100% the detail in shadows and darker areas of a scan made with a CCD scanner, you will notice that the details are not recorded in a clear and clean way, and the colors are more opaque and less differentiated. Additionally the overall tones are much less rich and differentiated.
We would like to say a few words about an unscrupulous and deceitful use of technical specifications reported by many manufacturers of consumer and prosumer scanners; very often we read of scanners that promise cheap or relatively cheap “drum scanner” resolutions, 16 bits of color depth, extremely high DMAX: we would like to say that these “nominal” resolutions do not correspond to an actual optical resolution, so that even in low-resolution scanning you can see an enormous gap between drum scanners and these scanners in terms of detail, as well as in terms of DMAX, color range, realism, “quality” of grain. So very often when using these consumer-prosumer scanners at high resolutions, it is normal to get a disproportionate increase of file size in MB but not an increase of detail and quality.
To give a concrete example: a drum scan of a 24x36mm color negative film at 3500 dpi is much more defined than a scan made with mostly CCD scanner at 8000 dpi and a drum scan at 2500 dpi is dramatically clearer than a scan at 2500 dpi provided by a CCD scanner. So be aware and careful with incorrect advertisement.
Scans can be performed either dry or liquid-mounted. The wet mounting further improves cleanliness (helps to hide dirt, scratches and blemishes) and plasticity of the image without compromising the original, and in addition by mounting with liquid the film grain is greatly reduced and it looks much softer and more pleasant than the usual "harsh" grain resulting from dry scans.
We use Kami SMF 2001 liquid to mount the transparencies and Kami RC 2001 for cleaning the same. Kami SMF 2001 evaporates without leaving traces, unlike the traditional oil scans, ensuring maximum protection for your film. Out of ignorance some people prefer to avoid liquid scanning because they fear that their films will be dirty or damaged: this argument may be plausible only in reference to scans made using mineral oils, which have nothing to do with the specific professional products we use.
We strongly reiterate that your original is in no way compromised by our scanning liquid and will return as you have shipped it, if not cleaner.
With respect to scanning from slides:
Our scanners are carefully calibrated with the finest IT8 calibration targets in circulation and with special customized targets in order to ensure that each scan faithfully reproduces the original color richness even in the most subtle nuances, opening and maintaining detail in shadows and highlights. These color profiles allow our scanners to realize their full potential, so we guarantee our customers that even from a chromatic point of view our scans are noticeably better than similar scans made by mostly other scan services in the market.
In addition, we remind you that our 8060 drum scanner is able to read the deepest shadows of slides without digital noise and with much more detail than CCD scanners; also, the color range and color realism are far better.
With respect to scanning from color and bw negatives: we want to emphasize the superiority of our drum scans not only in scanning slides, but also in color and bw negative scanning (because of the orange mask and of very low contrast is extremely difficult for any ccd scanner to read the very slight tonal and contrast nuances in the color negative, while a perfectly profiled 8060 drum scanner – also through the analog gain/white calibration - can give back much more realistic images and true colors, sharper and more three-dimensional).
In spite of what many claim, a meticulous color profiling is essential not only for scanning slides, but also, and even more, for color negatives. Without it the scan of a color negative will produce chromatic errors rather significant, thus affecting the tonal balance and then the naturalness-pleasantness of the images.
More unique than rare, we do not use standardized profiles provided by the software to invert each specific negative film, because they do not take into account parameters and variables such as the type of development, the level of exposure, the type of light etc.,; at the same time we also avoid systems of "artificial intelligence" or other functions provided by semi-automatic scanning softwares, but instead we carry out the inversion in a full manual workflow for each individual picture.
In addition, scanning with Imacon-Hasselblad scanners we do not use their proprietary software - Flexcolor – to make color management and color inversion because we strongly believe that our alternative workflow provides much better results, and we are able to prove it with absolute clarity.
At each stage of the process we take care of meticulously adjusting the scanning parameters to the characteristics of the originals, to extrapolate the whole range of information possible from any image without "burning" or reductions in the tonal range, and strictly according to our customer's need and taste.
By default, we do not apply unsharp mask (USM) in our scans, except on request.
To scan reflective originals we follow the same guidelines and guarantee the same quality standard.
We guarantee the utmost thoroughness and expertise in the work of scanning and handling of the originals and we provide scans up to 12,000 dpi of resolution, at 16-bit, in RGB, GRAYSCALE, LAB or CMYK color mode; unless otherwise indicated, files are saved with Adobe RGB 1998 or ProPhoto RGB color profile.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Gloster Glaive was basically a modernized and re-engined variant of the successful, British-built Gloster Gladiator (or Gloster SS.37), the RAF’s final biplane fighter to enter service. The Gladiator was not only widely used by the RAF at the dawn of WWII and in almost every theatre of operations, but also by many other nations. Operators included Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania or Nationalist China, and while the RAF already opted for more modern monoplanes, Gloster saw the opportunity to sell an updated Gladiator to countries which were not as progressive.
Originally designated Gladiator Mk. IV, the machine received many aerodynamic refinements and the motor was changed from a draggy radial to a liquid-cooled inline engine. The latter was the new Rolls Royce Peregrine, a development of the Kestrel. It was, in its original form, a 21-litre (1,300 cu in) liquid-cooled V-12 aero engine ), delivering 885-horsepower (660 kW). The engine was housed under a streamlined cowling, driving a three blade metal propeller, and was coupled with a ventral radiator bath, reminiscent of the Hawker Fury biplane’s arrangement.
Structural improvements included an all-metal monocoque fuselage and stabilizers, as well as new wings and streamlined struts with reduced bracing. The upper wing was enlarged and of all-metal construction, too, while the lower wings were reduced in span and area, almost resulting in a sesquiplane layout. The total wing area was only marginally reduced, though.
The fixed landing gear was retained, but the main wheels were now covered with spats. The pilot still sat in a fully enclosed cockpit, the armament consisted of four machine guns, similar to the Gladiator. But for the Glaive, all Browning machine guns were synchronized and mounted in the fuselage: one pair was placed on top of the cowling, in front of the cockpit. Another pair, much like the Gladiator’s arrangement was placed in the fuselage flanks, below the exhaust outlets.
Compared with the Gladiator, the design changes were so fundamental that Gloster eventually decided to allocate a separate designation – also with a view to the type’s foreign marketing, since a new aircraft appeared more attractive than another mark of a pre-war design. For the type’s virgin flight in late 1938 the name “Glaive” was unveiled to the public, and several smaller European air forces immediately showed interest, including Greece, Croatia, Turkey, Portugal and Egypt.
Greece was one of the initial customers, and the first of a total of 24 aircraft for the Hellenic Air Force was delivered in early 1939, with 24 more on order (which were never delivered, though). The initial batch arrived just in time, since tension had been building between Greece and Italy since 7 April 1939, when Italian troops occupied Albania. On 28 October 1940, Italy issued an ultimatum to Greece, which was promptly rejected. A few hours later, Italian troops launched an invasion of Greece, initiating the Greco-Italian War.
The Hellenic Gloster Glaives were split among three Mirae Dioxeos (Fighter Squadrons): the 21st at Trikala, 22nd at Thessaloniki and 23rd at Larissa. When Italy attacked in October 1940, the British fighter was, together with the PZL 24, the Greeks' only modern type in adequate numbers. However, by late 1940, the Gloster Glaive was already no longer a front-runner despite a powerful powerplant and satisfactory armament. It had no speed advantage over the Fiat Cr.42 nor could it outfly the nimble Italian biplane, and it was much slower than the Macchi MC.200 and the Fiat G.50 it was pitted against. Its agility was the only real advantage against the Italian fighters, whose reliance on the slow firing Breda-SAFAT 12.7mm machine guns proved detrimental.
Anyway, on 5 April 1941, German forces invaded Greece and quickly established air superiority. As the Allied troops retreated, British and Hellenic forces covered them, before flying to Crete during the last week of April. There, the refugee aircraft recorded a few claims over twin-engine aircraft before being evacuated to Egypt during the Battle of Crete.
Overall, the Glaives performed gallantly during the early period of the conflict, holding their own against impossible numerical odds and despite the fact that their main target were enemy bombers which forced them to fight at a disadvantage against enemy fighters. Italian claims of easy superiority over the Albanian front were vastly over-rated and their kill claims even exceeded the total number of operational fighters on the Greek side. Total Greek fighter losses in combat came to 24 a/c with the Greek fighter pilots claiming 64 confirmed kills and 24 probables (about two third bombers).
By April 1941, however, lack of spares and attrition had forced the Hellenic Air Force to merge the surviving seven Glaives with five leftover PZL.24s into one understrength squadron supported by five Gloster Gladiators Mk I & II and the two surviving MB.151s. These fought hopelessly against the Luftwaffe onslaught, and most aircraft were eventually lost on the ground. None of the Hellenic Gloster Glaives survived the conflict.
General characteristics:
Crew: two
Length: 8.92m (29 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 34 ft 0 in (10.36 m)
Height: 11 ft 9 in (3.58 m)
Wing area: 317 ft² (29.4 m²)
Empty weight: 1,295 kg (2,855 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 1,700 kg (3,748 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls Royce Peregrine II liquid-cooled V12 inline engine, rated at 940 hp (700 kw)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 405 km/h (252 mph; 219 kn) at 4,400 m (14,436 ft)
Cruise speed: 345 km/h (214 mph; 186 kn)
Stall speed: 60 mph (52 knots, 96 km/h)
Range: 373 mi (600 km; 324 nmi)
Endurance: 2 hours
Service ceiling: 10,600 m (34,800 ft)
Rate of climb: 2,982 ft/min (15.15 m/s)
Time to altitude: 10.000 ft (3.050 m) in 3 minutes 20 seconds
Armament:
4× 0.303 calibre (7.7 mm) M1919 Browning machine guns in the fuselage
Provisions for 6× 10 kg (22 lb) or 4x 20 kg (44 lb) bombs under the lower wings
The kit and its assembly:
The fictional Gloster Glaive started quite simple with the idea of replacing the Gladiator’s radial with an inline engine. But this soon did not appear enough for an update – the Peregrine hardly delivered much more power than the former Mercury, so I considered some structural updates, too. Most of them comprised the replacement of former fabric-covered structures, and this led conceptually to a kitbash with only some Gladiator fuselage and tail parts left.
The basis is (once more) the very nice Matchbox Gloster Gladiator, but it was heavily modified. As an initial step, fuselage, fin and stabilizers (all OOB parts) lost their rib-and-fabric structure, simply sanded away. A minor detail, but it changes the overall look of the aircraft a lot, making it appear much more modern.
The fuselage was left without the OOB radial, and instead a leftover Merlin front end from an Airfix Hurricane (ca. 1cm long, left over from one of my first whif builds ever, a Hurricane with a radial engine!) was added. The lines match pretty well: the side profile looks sleek, if not elegant, but the Gladiator fuselage turned out to be wider than expected. Some major body work/PSR was necessary to integrate the new nose, but the result looks very good.
The liquid-cooled engine necessitated a radiator somewhere on the airframe…! Since I wanted the nose to remain slim and streamlined I eventually placed the radiator bath under the fuselage, much like the arrangement of the Hawker Fury biplane. The radiator itself comes from a late Spitfire (FROG kit).
The exhaust was taken from the Hurricane kit, too, and matching slits dug into the putty nose to take them. The three blade propeller is a mash-up, too: the spinner belongs, IIRC, to an early Spitfire (left over from an AZ Models kit) while the blades came from a damaged Matchbox Brewster Buffalo.
The Gladiator’s fuselage flank machine guns were kept and their “bullet channels” extrapolated along the new cowling, running under the new exhaust pipes. Another pair of machine guns were placed on top of the engine – for these, openings were carved into the upper hull and small fairings (similar to the Browning guns in the flanks) added. This arrangement appeared plausible to me, since the Gladiator’s oil cooler was not necessary anymore and the new lower wings (see below) were not big enough anymore to take the Gladiator’s underwing guns. Four MGs in the fuselage appears massive – but there were other types with such an arrangement, e.g. the Avia B-534 with four guns in the flanks and an inline engine.
The wings are complete replacements: the upper wing comes from a Heller Curtiss SBC4, while the lower wings as well as the spats (on shortened OOB Gladiator struts) come from an ICM Polikarpov I-153. All struts were scratched. Once the lower wings were in place and the relative position of the upper wing clear, the outer struts were carved from 1mm styrene sheet, using the I-153 design as benchmark. These were glued to the lower wing first, and, once totally dry after 24h, the upper wing was simply glued onto the top and the wing position adjusted. This was left to dry another 24h, and as a final step the four struts above the cowling (using the OOB struts, but as single parts and trimmed for proper fit) were placed. This way, a stable connection is guaranteed – and the result is surprisingly sturdy.
Rigging was done with heated sprue material – my personal favorite for this delicate task, and executed before painting the kit started so that the glue could cure and bond well.
Painting and markings:
The reason why this aircraft ended in Greek service is a color photograph of a crashed Hellenic Bloch M.B. 152 (coded ‘D 177’, to be specific). I guess that the picture was post-colored, though, because the aircraft of French origin sports rather weird colors: the picture shows a two-tone scheme in a deep, rather reddish chestnut brown and a light green that almost looks like teal. Unique, to say the least... Underside colors couldn’t be identified with certainty in the picture, but appeared like a pale but not too light blue grey.
Anyway, I assume that these colors are pure fiction and exaggerated Photoshop work, since the few M.B. 152s delivered to Greece carried AFAIK standard French camouflage (in French Khaki, Chestnut Brown and Blue-Grey on the upper surfaces, and a very light blue-grey from below). I’d assume that the contrast between the grey and green tones was not very obvious in the original photograph, so that the artist, not familiar with WWII paint schemes, replaced both colors with the strange teal tone and massively overmodulated the brown.
As weird as it looked, I liked this design and used it as an inspirational benchmark for my Hellenic Glaive build. After all, it’s a fictional aircraft… Upper basic colors are Humbrol 31 (RAF Slate Grey) and 160 (German Camouflage Red Brown), while the undersides became French Dark Blue Grey (ModelMaster Authentics 2105). The result looks rather odd…
Representing a combat-worn aircraft, I applied a thorough black ink wash and did heavier panel shading and dry-brushing on the leading edges, along with some visible touches of aluminum.
The Hellenic roundels come from a TL Modellbau aftermarket sheet. The tactical code was puzzled together from single letters, and the Greek “D” was created from single decal strips. For better contrast I used white decals – most Hellenic aircraft of the time had black codes, but the contrast is much better, and I found evidence that some machines actually carried white codes. The small fin flash is another free interpretation. Not every Hellenic aircraft carried these markings, and instead of painting the whole rudder in Greek colors I just applied a small fin flash. This was created with white and blue decal strips, closely matching the roundels’ colors.
Finally, after some soot stains around the guns and the exhausts, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
Modified beyond recognition, perhaps…? The fictional Gloster Glaive looks IMHO good and very modern, just like one of those final biplane designs that were about to be outrun by monoplanes at the brink of WWII.
Rule One - You will receive a body. Whether you love it or hate it, it's yours for life, so accept it. What counts is what's inside.
Rule Two - You will be presented with lessons. Life is a constant learning experience, which every day provides opportunities for you to learn more. These lessons specific to you, and learning them 'is the key to discovering and fulfilling the meaning and relevance of your own life'.
Rule Three - There are no mistakes, only lessons. Your development towards wisdom is a process of experimentation, trial and error, so it's inevitable things will not always go to plan or turn out how you'd want. Compassion is the remedy for harsh judgement - of ourselves and others. Forgiveness is not only divine - it's also 'the act of erasing an emotional debt'. Behaving ethically, with integrity, and with humour - especially the ability to laugh at yourself and your own mishaps - are central to the perspective that 'mistakes' are simply lessons we must learn.
..more-->
Rule Four - The lesson is repeated until learned. Lessons repeat until learned. What manifest as problems and challenges, irritations and frustrations are more lessons - they will repeat until you see them as such and learn from them. Your own awareness and your ability to change are requisites of executing this rule. Also fundamental is the acceptance that you are not a victim of fate or circumstance - 'causality' must be acknowledged; that is to say: things happen to you because of how you are and what you do. To blame anyone or anything else for your misfortunes is an escape and a denial; you yourself are responsible for you, and what happens to you. Patience is required - change doesn't happen overnight, so give change time to happen.
Rule Five - Learning does not end. While you are alive there are always lessons to be learned. Surrender to the 'rhythm of life', don't struggle against it. Commit to the process of constant learning and change - be humble enough to always acknowledge your own weaknesses, and be flexible enough to adapt from what you may be accustomed to, because rigidity will deny you the freedom of new possibilities.
Rule Six - "There" is no better than "here". The other side of the hill may be greener than your own, but being there is not the key to endless happiness. Be grateful for and enjoy what you have, and where you are on your journey. Appreciate the abundance of what's good in your life, rather than measure and amass things that do not actually lead to happiness. Living in the present helps you attain peace.
Rule Seven - Others are only mirrors of you. You love or hate something about another person according to what love or hate about yourself. Be tolerant; accept others as they are, and strive for clarity of self-awareness; strive to truly understand and have an objective perception of your own self, your thoughts and feelings. Negative experiences are opportunities to heal the wounds that you carry. Support others, and by doing so you support yourself. Where you are unable to support others it is a sign that you are not adequately attending to your own needs.
Rule Eight - What you make of your life is up to you. You have all the tools and resources you need. What you do with them is up to you. Take responsibility for yourself. Learn to let go when you cannot change things. Don't get angry about things - bitter memories clutter your mind. Courage resides in all of us - use it when you need to do what's right for you. We all possess a strong natural power and adventurous spirit, which you should draw on to embrace what lies ahead.
Rule Nine - Your answers lie inside of you. Trust your instincts and your innermost feelings, whether you hear them as a little voice or a flash of inspiration. Listen to feelings as well as sounds. Look, listen, and trust. Draw on your natural inspiration.
Rule Ten - You will forget all this at birth. We are all born with all of these capabilities - our early experiences lead us into a physical world, away from our spiritual selves, so that we become doubtful, cynical and lacking belief and confidence. The ten Rules are not commandments, they are universal truths that apply to us all. When you lose your way, call upon them. Have faith in the strength of your spirit. Aspire to be wise - wisdom the ultimate path of your life, and it knows no limits other than those you impose on yourself.
by Cherie Carter-Scott
accelerated acclimated accompanied accomplished achieved acquired acted activated actuated adapted added addressed adhered adjusted administered admitted adopted advanced advertised advised advocated aided aired affected allocated altered amended amplified analyzed answered anticipated appointed appraised approached approved arbitrated arranged ascertained asked assembled assigned assumed assessed assisted attained attracted audited augmented authored authorized automated awarded avail balanced bargained borrowed bought broadened budgeted built calculated canvassed capitalized captured carried out cast cataloged centralized challenged chaired changed channeled charted checked chose circulated clarified classified cleared closed co-authored cold called collaborated collected combined commissioned committed communicated compared compiled complied completed composed computed conceived conceptualized concluded condensed conducted conferred consolidated constructed consulted contracted contrasted contributed contrived controlled converted convinced coordinated corrected corresponded counseled counted created critiqued cultivated cut debugged decided decentralized decreased deferred defined delegated delivered demonstrated depreciated described designated designed determined developed devised devoted diagrammed directed disclosed discounted discovered dispatched displayed dissembled distinguished distributed diversified divested documented doubled drafted earned eased edited effected elected eliminated employed enabled encouraged endorsed enforced engaged engineered enhanced enlarged enriched entered entertained established estimated evaluated examined exceeded exchanged executed exempted exercised expanded expedited explained exposed extended extracted extrapolated facilitated familiarized fashioned fielded figured financed fit focused forecasted formalized formed formulated fortified found founded framed fulfilled functioned furnished gained gathered gauged gave generated governed graded granted greeted grouped guided handled headed hired hosted identified illustrated illuminated implemented improved improvised inaugurated indoctrinated increased incurred induced influenced informed initiated innovated inquired inspected inspired installed instigated instilled instituted instructed insured interfaced interpreted interviewed introduced invented inventoried invested investigated invited involved isolated issued joined judged launched lectured led lightened liquidated litigated lobbied localized located maintained managed mapped marketed maximized measured mediated merchandised merged met minimized modeled moderated modernized modified monitored motivated moved multiplied named narrated negotiated noticed nurtured observed obtained offered offset opened operated operationalized orchestrated ordered organized oriented originated overhauled oversaw paid participated passed patterned penalized perceived performed permitted persuaded phased out pinpointed pioneered placed planned polled prepared presented preserved presided prevented priced printed prioritized probed processed procured produced profiled programmed projected promoted promoted prompted proposed proved provided publicized published purchased pursued quantified quoted raised ranked rated reacted read received recommended reconciled recorded recovered recruited rectified redesigned reduced referred refined regained regulated rehabilitated reinforced reinstated rejected related remedied remodeled renegotiated reorganized replaced repaired reported represented requested researched resolved responded restored restructured resulted retained retrieved revamped revealed reversed reviewed revised revitalized rewarded routed safeguarded salvaged saved scheduled screened secured segmented selected sent separated served serviced settled shaped shortened showed shrank signed simplified sold solved spearheaded specified speculated spoke spread stabilized staffed staged standardized steered stimulated strategized streamlined strengthened stressed structured studied submitted substantiated substituted suggested summarized superseded supervised supplied supported surpassed surveyed synchronized synthesized systematized tabulated tailored targeted taught terminated tested testified tightened took traced traded trained transacted transferred transformed translated transported traveled treated tripled uncovered undertook unified united updated upgraded used utilized validated valued verified viewed visited weighed welcomed widened witnessed won worked wrote.
interesting fuck masturbation movie xxx adult free sex porn Man with a teen girl having sex must see porn xxx porno suck cum anal ejaculation blowjob lick oral fuck masturbation movie xxx adult free sex porn oral sex abes hot girl girls kissing kiss style fuck cock vagina pussy hard ass tit tits boobs core fucking teen sex porn xxx sexy a man and a girl fucking anal and oral sexy video porn porno xxx sex cock dick tits ass sexy nude naked fuck bikini milf pussy gangbang blowjob horny babes with man rapeing him Porn Sex and Nudity Big Butt Fucked Hard Teen Loves Cock Hot Wife Deep Babe Fucks and Sucks Slut Vids Traine Man with girl having sex anal oral blowjob sexy hardcore porno xxx porn fuck blow job cock sucker erotica anal tits breats ass naked adult nude sex xxx oral hot dirty HeavyPants sex porn xxx lesbian gay kiss fart anal hardcore adult boobs ass vagina hard Man with a teen girl having must see porn xxx porno ass tit fuck get fucked cunt dick pussy porno fucking naked lingerie xxx lesbian ejaculation sex free HOT
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Gloster Glaive was basically a modernized and re-engined variant of the successful, British-built Gloster Gladiator (or Gloster SS.37), the RAF’s final biplane fighter to enter service. The Gladiator was not only widely used by the RAF at the dawn of WWII and in almost every theatre of operations, but also by many other nations. Operators included Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania or Nationalist China, and while the RAF already opted for more modern monoplanes, Gloster saw the opportunity to sell an updated Gladiator to countries which were not as progressive.
Originally designated Gladiator Mk. IV, the machine received many aerodynamic refinements and the motor was changed from a draggy radial to a liquid-cooled inline engine. The latter was the new Rolls Royce Peregrine, a development of the Kestrel. It was, in its original form, a 21-litre (1,300 cu in) liquid-cooled V-12 aero engine ), delivering 885-horsepower (660 kW). The engine was housed under a streamlined cowling, driving a three blade metal propeller, and was coupled with a ventral radiator bath, reminiscent of the Hawker Fury biplane’s arrangement.
Structural improvements included an all-metal monocoque fuselage and stabilizers, as well as new wings and streamlined struts with reduced bracing. The upper wing was enlarged and of all-metal construction, too, while the lower wings were reduced in span and area, almost resulting in a sesquiplane layout. The total wing area was only marginally reduced, though.
The fixed landing gear was retained, but the main wheels were now covered with spats. The pilot still sat in a fully enclosed cockpit, the armament consisted of four machine guns, similar to the Gladiator. But for the Glaive, all Browning machine guns were synchronized and mounted in the fuselage: one pair was placed on top of the cowling, in front of the cockpit. Another pair, much like the Gladiator’s arrangement was placed in the fuselage flanks, below the exhaust outlets.
Compared with the Gladiator, the design changes were so fundamental that Gloster eventually decided to allocate a separate designation – also with a view to the type’s foreign marketing, since a new aircraft appeared more attractive than another mark of a pre-war design. For the type’s virgin flight in late 1938 the name “Glaive” was unveiled to the public, and several smaller European air forces immediately showed interest, including Greece, Croatia, Turkey, Portugal and Egypt.
Greece was one of the initial customers, and the first of a total of 24 aircraft for the Hellenic Air Force was delivered in early 1939, with 24 more on order (which were never delivered, though). The initial batch arrived just in time, since tension had been building between Greece and Italy since 7 April 1939, when Italian troops occupied Albania. On 28 October 1940, Italy issued an ultimatum to Greece, which was promptly rejected. A few hours later, Italian troops launched an invasion of Greece, initiating the Greco-Italian War.
The Hellenic Gloster Glaives were split among three Mirae Dioxeos (Fighter Squadrons): the 21st at Trikala, 22nd at Thessaloniki and 23rd at Larissa. When Italy attacked in October 1940, the British fighter was, together with the PZL 24, the Greeks' only modern type in adequate numbers. However, by late 1940, the Gloster Glaive was already no longer a front-runner despite a powerful powerplant and satisfactory armament. It had no speed advantage over the Fiat Cr.42 nor could it outfly the nimble Italian biplane, and it was much slower than the Macchi MC.200 and the Fiat G.50 it was pitted against. Its agility was the only real advantage against the Italian fighters, whose reliance on the slow firing Breda-SAFAT 12.7mm machine guns proved detrimental.
Anyway, on 5 April 1941, German forces invaded Greece and quickly established air superiority. As the Allied troops retreated, British and Hellenic forces covered them, before flying to Crete during the last week of April. There, the refugee aircraft recorded a few claims over twin-engine aircraft before being evacuated to Egypt during the Battle of Crete.
Overall, the Glaives performed gallantly during the early period of the conflict, holding their own against impossible numerical odds and despite the fact that their main target were enemy bombers which forced them to fight at a disadvantage against enemy fighters. Italian claims of easy superiority over the Albanian front were vastly over-rated and their kill claims even exceeded the total number of operational fighters on the Greek side. Total Greek fighter losses in combat came to 24 a/c with the Greek fighter pilots claiming 64 confirmed kills and 24 probables (about two third bombers).
By April 1941, however, lack of spares and attrition had forced the Hellenic Air Force to merge the surviving seven Glaives with five leftover PZL.24s into one understrength squadron supported by five Gloster Gladiators Mk I & II and the two surviving MB.151s. These fought hopelessly against the Luftwaffe onslaught, and most aircraft were eventually lost on the ground. None of the Hellenic Gloster Glaives survived the conflict.
General characteristics:
Crew: two
Length: 8.92m (29 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 34 ft 0 in (10.36 m)
Height: 11 ft 9 in (3.58 m)
Wing area: 317 ft² (29.4 m²)
Empty weight: 1,295 kg (2,855 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 1,700 kg (3,748 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls Royce Peregrine II liquid-cooled V12 inline engine, rated at 940 hp (700 kw)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 405 km/h (252 mph; 219 kn) at 4,400 m (14,436 ft)
Cruise speed: 345 km/h (214 mph; 186 kn)
Stall speed: 60 mph (52 knots, 96 km/h)
Range: 373 mi (600 km; 324 nmi)
Endurance: 2 hours
Service ceiling: 10,600 m (34,800 ft)
Rate of climb: 2,982 ft/min (15.15 m/s)
Time to altitude: 10.000 ft (3.050 m) in 3 minutes 20 seconds
Armament:
4× 0.303 calibre (7.7 mm) M1919 Browning machine guns in the fuselage
Provisions for 6× 10 kg (22 lb) or 4x 20 kg (44 lb) bombs under the lower wings
The kit and its assembly:
The fictional Gloster Glaive started quite simple with the idea of replacing the Gladiator’s radial with an inline engine. But this soon did not appear enough for an update – the Peregrine hardly delivered much more power than the former Mercury, so I considered some structural updates, too. Most of them comprised the replacement of former fabric-covered structures, and this led conceptually to a kitbash with only some Gladiator fuselage and tail parts left.
The basis is (once more) the very nice Matchbox Gloster Gladiator, but it was heavily modified. As an initial step, fuselage, fin and stabilizers (all OOB parts) lost their rib-and-fabric structure, simply sanded away. A minor detail, but it changes the overall look of the aircraft a lot, making it appear much more modern.
The fuselage was left without the OOB radial, and instead a leftover Merlin front end from an Airfix Hurricane (ca. 1cm long, left over from one of my first whif builds ever, a Hurricane with a radial engine!) was added. The lines match pretty well: the side profile looks sleek, if not elegant, but the Gladiator fuselage turned out to be wider than expected. Some major body work/PSR was necessary to integrate the new nose, but the result looks very good.
The liquid-cooled engine necessitated a radiator somewhere on the airframe…! Since I wanted the nose to remain slim and streamlined I eventually placed the radiator bath under the fuselage, much like the arrangement of the Hawker Fury biplane. The radiator itself comes from a late Spitfire (FROG kit).
The exhaust was taken from the Hurricane kit, too, and matching slits dug into the putty nose to take them. The three blade propeller is a mash-up, too: the spinner belongs, IIRC, to an early Spitfire (left over from an AZ Models kit) while the blades came from a damaged Matchbox Brewster Buffalo.
The Gladiator’s fuselage flank machine guns were kept and their “bullet channels” extrapolated along the new cowling, running under the new exhaust pipes. Another pair of machine guns were placed on top of the engine – for these, openings were carved into the upper hull and small fairings (similar to the Browning guns in the flanks) added. This arrangement appeared plausible to me, since the Gladiator’s oil cooler was not necessary anymore and the new lower wings (see below) were not big enough anymore to take the Gladiator’s underwing guns. Four MGs in the fuselage appears massive – but there were other types with such an arrangement, e.g. the Avia B-534 with four guns in the flanks and an inline engine.
The wings are complete replacements: the upper wing comes from a Heller Curtiss SBC4, while the lower wings as well as the spats (on shortened OOB Gladiator struts) come from an ICM Polikarpov I-153. All struts were scratched. Once the lower wings were in place and the relative position of the upper wing clear, the outer struts were carved from 1mm styrene sheet, using the I-153 design as benchmark. These were glued to the lower wing first, and, once totally dry after 24h, the upper wing was simply glued onto the top and the wing position adjusted. This was left to dry another 24h, and as a final step the four struts above the cowling (using the OOB struts, but as single parts and trimmed for proper fit) were placed. This way, a stable connection is guaranteed – and the result is surprisingly sturdy.
Rigging was done with heated sprue material – my personal favorite for this delicate task, and executed before painting the kit started so that the glue could cure and bond well.
Painting and markings:
The reason why this aircraft ended in Greek service is a color photograph of a crashed Hellenic Bloch M.B. 152 (coded ‘D 177’, to be specific). I guess that the picture was post-colored, though, because the aircraft of French origin sports rather weird colors: the picture shows a two-tone scheme in a deep, rather reddish chestnut brown and a light green that almost looks like teal. Unique, to say the least... Underside colors couldn’t be identified with certainty in the picture, but appeared like a pale but not too light blue grey.
Anyway, I assume that these colors are pure fiction and exaggerated Photoshop work, since the few M.B. 152s delivered to Greece carried AFAIK standard French camouflage (in French Khaki, Chestnut Brown and Blue-Grey on the upper surfaces, and a very light blue-grey from below). I’d assume that the contrast between the grey and green tones was not very obvious in the original photograph, so that the artist, not familiar with WWII paint schemes, replaced both colors with the strange teal tone and massively overmodulated the brown.
As weird as it looked, I liked this design and used it as an inspirational benchmark for my Hellenic Glaive build. After all, it’s a fictional aircraft… Upper basic colors are Humbrol 31 (RAF Slate Grey) and 160 (German Camouflage Red Brown), while the undersides became French Dark Blue Grey (ModelMaster Authentics 2105). The result looks rather odd…
Representing a combat-worn aircraft, I applied a thorough black ink wash and did heavier panel shading and dry-brushing on the leading edges, along with some visible touches of aluminum.
The Hellenic roundels come from a TL Modellbau aftermarket sheet. The tactical code was puzzled together from single letters, and the Greek “D” was created from single decal strips. For better contrast I used white decals – most Hellenic aircraft of the time had black codes, but the contrast is much better, and I found evidence that some machines actually carried white codes. The small fin flash is another free interpretation. Not every Hellenic aircraft carried these markings, and instead of painting the whole rudder in Greek colors I just applied a small fin flash. This was created with white and blue decal strips, closely matching the roundels’ colors.
Finally, after some soot stains around the guns and the exhausts, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
Modified beyond recognition, perhaps…? The fictional Gloster Glaive looks IMHO good and very modern, just like one of those final biplane designs that were about to be outrun by monoplanes at the brink of WWII.
BRLSI: 25 October 2018
The slides from the talk are available at:
www.brlsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/BRLSI_2018-10-25...
Design and layout, courtesy John Law: by appointment, BRLSI, The Lunaticks.
The following is my background text which gives general subject matter to be addressed.
The Formation of the Universe, the Chemical Elements and Life
A story told in colour
Bob Fosbury
European Space Agency (ESA)
European Southern Observatory (ESO)
Institute of Advanced Study, University of Durham
Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London
This is a broad-brush history of the Universe — from the Big Bang until the present epoch — using colour
as a guide to the narrative.
Why give such an important role to colour? The answer lies in the richness of the physical relationship between matter and radiation. Light carries the story of this relationship from near to far, indeed from all the way back to the time when the Universe was just a few hundred thousand years old — an infant in its nearly 14,000,000,000 year history. This light-matter interaction provides us with a most powerful window onto the physics, chemistry and, ultimately, the biology of the events that mark the evolution of the Universe through its transitions towards increasing richness and complexity.
The Big Bang
There is a large and a diverse array of observational evidence, much of it assembled over the last few decades, that the Universe started in a very hot, dense state. For the first tiny fraction of a second [10^(-32)s] it expanded extremely rapidly in an early 'inflationary' phase after which it slowed and proceeded at a much more pedestrian pace continuing for the next 13.8 billion years to where we are now. After the first minute or two, the atomic nuclei of the first two chemical elements, hydrogen and helium had emerged. This process has given rise to everything we are and know, and we are now piecing the story together using the curiosity-driven, evidence-based method of science.
Using a wide variety of instruments on the Earth and in space, we have access to light coming from right back until the expanding fireball of the Big Bang became transparent after the first 380,000 years. Before this point, the nascent Universe was packed full of light which could only travel minute distances before it was absorbed by or scattered from an elementary particle. The initial temperature was extremely high but continuously decreased as the expansion proceeded until the temperature was low enough for the hydrogen nuclei (protons) to find electrons and combine with them to become neutral hydrogen atoms. Unlike the lone electrons, these atoms interact only weakly with light. This event happened at a temperature very close to 3000 Kelvin (see below for a definition of the Kelvin temperature scale) when the light emitted from the gas could neither be absorbed nor easily scattered. Freed from its ties to the matter, it set off on its very long journey through the increasingly tenuous universal void. These photons (particles or quanta of light) are still by far the predominant form of radiation in the Universe.
Can we detect this light now and can we deduce what it was like when it was emitted? The answer is yes to both and it has been provided by an increasingly sophisticated and precise series of observations carried out since the mid-1960s, supported by theoretical models which were already being constructed before the discovery of the radiation was announced in 1966. The Nobel Prize for physics in 1978 was awarded to Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson "for their discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation". Searching for the source of excess noise in their microwave communications equipment at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in the USA, Penzias and Wilson eventually realised that they were detecting a source of high frequency radio radiation emitted uniformly from the entire sphere of the sky. This was identified as the "echo of the Big Bang" that had been predicted initially by George Gamow and his associates in the 1940s, emitted as a consequence of an early, hot phase of the Universe.
Since its discovery, many observations of what became known as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) have been made from the ground and from space, most comprehensively from a series of dedicated satellites, two launched by NASA into Earth orbit (COBE–1989 — Nobel Prize to Mather & Smoot in 2006; and WMAP–2001), and the most recent by ESA into a more distant orbit at the second Lagrangian Point of the Earth–Moon system (Planck–2009). These measurements have together mapped out the early history of the Universe with exquisite precision.
When the radiation was emitted, the Universe was in a state of almost perfect thermodynamic equilibrium [constant temperature everywhere] which results in a form of radiation spectrum [variation of radiation intensity with wavelength] first successfully described mathematically in 1900 by Max Planck (Nobel Prize 1918) and was soon to become one of the foundations of Quantum Physics. Such equilibrium radiation has a form that depends only on temperature, usually measured in Kelvin rather than °C [Zero Kelvin = –273°.15 Centigrade], and is commonly known as black-body (a term introduced by Gustav Kirchhoff in 1860) or cavity radiation as described by Planck's law. The cumulative measurements of all these observations have homed in on the temperature of the CMBR now at 2.72548±0.00057 K which is the most precise measurement ever made of a black-body. The spectrum emitted at this temperature lies within the radio microwave region and so, with a peak intensity close to a wavelength of 1mm, is entirely invisible to our eyes, but can be marginally detected as noise in an old de-tuned TV-set. [This temperature decreases with the age of the Universe and has been measured at many lookback times [time measured backwards from now] using astrophysical measurements.]
The mathematical models of the expansion of the Universe tell us that, when it was emitted as the Universe became transparent, the CMBR had a temperature of almost exactly 3000K. This is the temperature of a cool M-star (half the temperature of the Sun and a more orange-tinted colour) and also of the type of quartz-halogen filament lamp bulb commonly used in scientific and medical instruments. Such a lamp emits a good, but not perfect, black-body spectrum. What would it actually look like should you be able to transport yourself back to then in a very well-insulated time machine? Imagine covering the entire sphere of the sky around you with edge-to-edge tungsten lamp filaments with no gaps between the glowing metal. It would be blindingly bright and hot and it would appear white to your eyes (which have an automatic 'white balance' setting) rather than the orange tint it would have if compared directly with the Sun.
So, the first colour to appear in the Universe would have been very close to that of a simple light bulb! [Show demo.] But you could not have been around to actually see it, not least because the chemical elements you are made of had not yet been synthesised. This brings us neatly to the next topic.
The Formation and Distribution of the Chemical Elements
During the expansion of the cosmic fireball after the Big Bang, the first of the chemical elements appeared after about one minute. These were hydrogen, helium and a little lithium and even less beryllium: the first four elements in the Periodic Table. During the next minute, the Universe had expanded and cooled beyond the conditions that would enable any further nuclear reactions to occur: it became too cool and too tenuous for protons and neutrons to assemble themselves into heavier elements. There was also the problem that there were no stable nuclei with masses of 5 or 8, a gap that had to be jumped over in order to make carbon. It meant a wait of some few hundreds of million of years — called the Cosmic Dark Ages before the expanding mass of hydrogen and helium was able to fragment into clouds which could collapse under their own gravity to form the first generation of stars.
It was in the cores of these stars that the temperature and density again reached sufficiently high values for the transmutation of the lighter elements into heavier ones, a fusion process which releases huge amounts of energy that eventually escapes from the surface of the star in the form of starlight. In order to construct the Universe we see around us today, new elements must not only be made, they must also be distributed in such a way that they can form new generations of stars and, ultimately, planets like the Earth and animals like us. The formation and the distribution of new elements (lazy astronomers tend to call elements other than hydrogen and helium metals) happens differently in stars of different total mass. Relatively lightweight stars like our Sun evolve quite slowly and reach an age comparable to almost the current age of the Universe before their nuclear fuel runs out. Very massive stars however shine extremely brightly and age much more rapidly, the most massive reaching only a few million years before exploding with a violence that, for a few months, will outshine a whole galaxy of 100 billion stars.
It is the relatively massive stars, more than ten or so times the mass of our Sun, that manage to both make and export large yields of metals. Lower mass stars do however make significant amounts of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, magnesium, silicon and iron. Understanding the processes by which this nucleosynthesis occurs started in 1920 when Arthur Eddington proposed that stars obtained their energy by fusing hydrogen into helium. It was not until the 1930s that the nuclear reactions that achieved this were first elaborated, but it was during the Second World War — the Manhattan Project — that the interest in nuclear physics became intense and meaningful calculations became possible.
It was Fred Hoyle in 1946 who first considered the synthesis of elements beyond helium. In 1953, Hoyle made a prediction that the carbon nucleus must have a particular property that would allow there to be as much carbon in stars as is observed — perhaps the first anthropic argument: we could not exist without carbon. Such a resonance in the carbon nucleus had not been observed at that time and Hoyle had to pester the Caltech nuclear physicist William Fowler and his team to reassemble a heavy piece of equipment in his lab to make a measurement. Fowler’s colleagues strenuously resisted but they were eventually worn down by this persistent Yorkshireman and did it. They were was astonished to find that Hoyle was exactly right and he was thereafter considered to be a “clever chap”.
Hoyle, Fowler and Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge subsequently wrote one of the most remarkable articles in the history of science when, in a 107-page paper in the Reviews of Modern Physics in 1957, they set out a detailed scheme describing the formation of essentially the entire Periodic Table of the elements using a tour de force of nuclear physics. Although this work has subsequently been greatly extended and refined, it stands as one of the keystones of astrophysics and has become widely known as B-squared-FH after the authors' names. The fact that Hoyle's contribution was never as widely recognised as it deserved to be (he did not share the Nobel Prize in 1983 with Willy Fowler) has been attributed to a poor knowledge amongst astrophysicists of his earlier (1954) paper in which a fundamental equation representing his original ideas was described in words rather than in mathematical symbols and so somehow missed by most of the eager young theorists.
The detailed picture is complex but but basically consists of three different mechanisms:
1. The gradual fusion of hydrogen into helium (associated with a very large release of energy, essentially a continuous, diffuse, slow burning hydrogen bomb!) followed by a series of further fusion stages: helium -> carbon and oxygen and then on to neon, magnesium, silicon, sulphur to iron. Once a core of iron has been created, there is no way to continue generating energy from fusion reactions: iron has the most firmly bound nucleus containing 26 protons and, most commonly, 30 neutrons and there is no more energy to be found from fusion by trying to add protons or neutrons to it. Iron (actually 56Ni and 56Co which are radioactive and decay within weeks to 56Fe, heating the debris as they do) is therefore the heaviest element that can be made during this slow, gentle nuclear fusion in the cores of stars [although some heavier elements can still be made through slow neutron capture, or s-process reactions, see below].
In stars like the Sun, this chain does not proceed very far and few of the products get exported to the interstellar medium. It is the more massive stars that generate the bulk of the export yield, partly because of their ability to reach the high core temperatures needed to drive the nuclear reactions at the end of the chain and partly due to the nature of their export mechanism — namely a violent explosion!
2. During the gradual, sequential process of fusion reactions over millions or billions of years, free neutrons can attach themselves to atomic nuclei to build heavier and heavier elements. The time gaps between these neutron captures can be much longer than the time taken for a neutron-rich nucleus to undergo a radioactive decay to a more stable element 'isotope'. In this way, called slow neutron capture or s-process, gaps in the series of elements produced by fusion reactions can be filled in and some of the heavier elements produced.
3. Where then do the heavier elements such as gold, platinum, uranium etc. come from? At the end of its life, one of these massive stars will catastrophically disintegrate when the fall in energy production from its iron-rich core leads to failure of pressure support for the star against the inexorable inward pull of gravity [there is also an increasing leakage of energy from the iron core by neutrino emission which further reduces the supporting pressure]. The core suddenly collapses and this results in an enormous explosion, called a supernova. It can expel a lot of the processed stellar material into interstellar space at high speeds: this can mix with and sweep up surrounding interstellar gas to form the raw material, enriched in heavier elements, for the next generation of stars and planets.
In the very early stages of this explosion there is first of all a region (a radial wave) of very high temperature sweeping through the star produced by the shock of collapsing material bouncing from an unyielding core. This sudden elevation in temperature results in a dramatic but momentary increase in the rate of fusion reactions, called explosive nucleosynthesis. This is followed by another very short period during which additional neutrons can be captured by the existing heavy nuclei to build unstable isotopes of all the heavy elements on a timescale so fast that there is no time for any of them to undergo radioactive decay during the accumulation. This last process is called rapid neutron capture or r-process and it produces the material that subsequently radioactively decays to form the more stable elements of the upper part of the Periodic Table, including the gold, platinum and uranium! Hints of the existence of this process came from studies of the heavy elements produced by H-bombs in the post-war nuclear testing programmes.
How do we know that this happens? The debris from the exploding supernova is initially, for a few months or so, made to glow by the radioactive elements so recently made. As this light fades, the expanding gas clouds will plough into any surrounding interstellar gas and be heated by the shock waves generated by the supersonically high-speed collisions between the gas clouds. Each chemical element in the mixture will emit light in many colours that can be identified with our spectrometers. By using physical (mathematical) models of these hot gas clouds, we can make a quantitative estimate of the amounts of each element, including the newly minted ones coming from the supernova. These multi-coloured wisps and filaments of gas are quite remarkably beautiful in appearance and contain a wealth of information about the gradual increase in the 'metal' content of the Universe as it ages. It is these structures that once contained much of the material that made our planet and the things on and in it, including our bodies.
Until quite recently, it was thought that these supernovae were responsible for the synthesis of most or all of these exotic, massive elements. Theoretical work, however, had suggested that there could be a further type of event, following from the massive star supernovae, where there were lots of neutrons waiting to build heavy elements via the r-process.
On the 17th of August 2017, the two gravitational wave detectors, LIGO in the USA and its sister facility Virgo, near Pisa in Italy, witnessed the unmistakable signs of two neutron stars — the remnants of two separate supernovae in a binary system — spiralling towards and then smashing into each other. Within seconds, this news was distributed to astronomical observatories around the world and in space resulting in the identification of the source of the spacetime disturbance with an object 130 million light years away in the constellation of Hydra. Within the following few weeks, the aftermath of the merging event had been observed across the electromagnetic spectrum from gamma-rays to radio waves marking the birth of what has become known as "Multi-Messenger Astronomy". This discovery was spectacularly relevant to the question of the sites of origin of the heavy chemical elements since the visible and infrared measurements with the large groundbased telescopes actually showed the radioactively heated glow from the newly forged r-process elements. If you glance at the gold ring on your finger, you can now be sure that half or more of the gold atoms in it were born in the collision of a pair of neutron stars at some time in the distant past. An exotic material indeed! If any of you have some emerald jewellery, you can look at that in a new light since the beryllium in the crystal is synthesised when an energetic cosmic ray collides with the nucleus of heavy element in interstellar space and splits it into two parts, one of which is in your gem.
So what is a neutron star and where do they come from? Well, it is basically the collapsed remnant of the supernova explosion of our massive star [although very massive stars can collapse directly to a black hole]. It contains a large fraction of the r-process heavy elements produced in the explosion but with the atomic nuclei totally dissembled to a mass of close-packed neutrons, a matchbox full of which would weigh some three billion tonnes: that's about the weight of half a cubic km of rock. Neutron stars are well known to us as pulsars, discovered by Dame Susan Jocelyn Bell Burnell [DBE FRS FRSE FRAS FInstP] who discovered the first radio pulsar (initially called a Little Green Man because of its extremely regular radio bleeps) in 1967. [She was Dean of Science in the University of Bath from 2001 until 2004 and has just donated her Breakthrough Prize of £2.3 million to a fellowship programme.] It now seems that some of those neutrons get converted to heavy elements by suffering the r-process for the SECOND time when two neutron stars in a binary system eventually collide! This kind of event leaves a black hole and a cloud of neutron-rich heavy elements.
Having populated most* of the Periodic table with elements, the Universe is now poised to build even more exotic stuff. This starts with the building of molecules from atoms, a construction process that can happen in (cool) stars, on planets and in interstellar and interplanetary space.
* The heaviest elements we have seen are so short-lived that we do not find them in nature, that have to be made in machines like particle colliders or nuclear reactors.
The origin and appearance of early life
There have been numerous attempts to define what life actually is. NASA, in its pragmatic way, has come up with the phrase “Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution”. This is a notion that helps astrobiologists to think about life elsewhere in the Universe and how to find it.
A scientist with a single data point is reluctant to draw universal conclusions. With two data points, however, an extrapolation can sometimes be justified. In spite of considerable efforts, directed mostly towards the planet Mars, life beyond the Earth has not yet been found and so we still have no way of knowing whether it originated just once — choosing our fortunate planet as a location — or whether it is indeed a common phenomenon spread throughout the Universe with its hundreds of billions of galaxies. We now know enough to realise that the manifestations of life are deeply embedded in our planet and not just in a thin crust near the surface. We are also realising how profoundly the processes of life have influenced the rocks, the oceans and the atmosphere of Earth over the last four billion years. A lifeless planet would look very different.
We tend to think of planets or their satellites (moons) as favoured locations for life since we know that some fraction of them could, like Earth, host liquid water on or near their surfaces. We may well discover that other, perhaps unexpected, locations host a process that we would consider to be life.
Since the determination of the structure of DNA in the early 1950s, the first synthesis of this molecule has somehow become synonymous with the origin of life. But DeoxyriboNucleic Acid is, after all, just a super efficient, easily replicated data storage medium that must have developed after the self-organising process that was to result in life was already well-underway in the young Earth.
Recent research on the biochemistry of the emergence of life has therefore begun to focus on the environments within which the raw materials could be concentrated and provided with the available energy necessary to drive the synthesis of the organic molecules needed for life to take off. From what is known at the moment, it seems that the most likely location for this to occur is within deep sea structures known as alkaline hydrothermal vents. These are not associated with volcanic activity and are distinct from the 'black smokers' that puff out very hot (250–400°C) black clouds of water and which are unstable and relatively short-lived (~decades). The alkaline vents are much gentler and longer living (hundreds of thousands of years) structures containing flows of mineral-rich warm (60–90°C) water, providing networks of sheltered narrow channels with plenty of time for biochemistry to operate.
It is proposed that it was within these structures that the proteins were built that would evolve to become the basic toolkit from which life in all its diverse forms would be built. One of these molecules would be able to harvest electrons to fuel the process of building sugars from carbon dioxide. Being in the Stygian depths of the ocean, this molecule would get its energy from the available chemicals such as iron and sulphur. When it finally emerged into daylight, however, it was able to harvest the abundant water and sunlight to manufacture its sugars by a process called photosynthesis. We call this molecule chlorophyll and it has many relatives in nature, most of which are highly coloured. We call them porphyrins and they provide a large fraction of nature's palette of colours, especially the green of plants and the red of animal blood.
It is photosynthesis that ultimately provides almost all of the food we eat and a very large fraction of the energy that our civilisation consumes (the latter we hope to continue for not much longer!).
So, what colour is chlorophyll really and why is it important to know this?
To normal trichromatic (ie. human) vision, chlorophyll looks green. This is because — and this is a general property of porphyrins — it absorbs very strongly in the deep blue part of the spectrum. It also strongly absorbs deep red light and it is these red photons that the molecule uses to perform its remarkable trick of splitting water to provide the electrons that kick off the chain of events resulting in the building of sugars using the carbon from carbon dioxide in the air. The free oxygen that has transformed our planet is simply a waste-product of this process and one that was extremely toxic to the life that existed when it was first produced!
When you remove both the red and the blue from the visible spectrum you are left with green. Therefore the light reflected from, or transmitted through, a leaf looks green. Green is the colour that the plants don't need and cannot readily use and so they just get rid of as much of it as they can.
However, when you go just a little further into the red than our eyes can see, the chlorophyll becomes almost perfectly transparent. To this far red light the leaf appears like a white skeleton of structural elements that hold the leaf together. This makes it highly transparent and it also reflects (scatters) like a thin layer of very clean snow. So, in fact, far from being just green, vegetation is extremely red as can be seen in near- infrared photographs of the landscape. It is just that the red cone detectors in our eyes narrowly avoid extending their sensitivity far enough into the red to allow us to see this.
Removing this far red light energy, which is useless for photosynthesis, from the leaf is biologically valuable since it could otherwise overheat the leaf and result in a catastrophic and unnecessary loss of water, especially in hot climates.
The extremely sharp jump in transmission/reflectivity in the deep red (700nm wavelength) is a very strong and unambiguous signature of chlorophyll and it can readily be detected on Earth from distant spacecraft that have been commanded to examine their home planet. It has been given the name of the Chlorophyll 'Red Edge' by astrobiologists.
Since it is quite possible that photosynthesis has evolved on other suitable planets hosting liquid water, the colour of chlorophyll may serve as a key biomarker for the remote detection of life and the next generation of large astronomical telescopes in space and on the ground will open up the possibility of detecting it should it exist.
The colours of living things do not only result from chemical pigments like chlorophyll and haemoglobin, the most brilliant colours — notably blues and greens — often arise form nano-scale structures that are built by both plants and animals. We call these 'structural colours' and recent detailed investigations of the intricate regularities which produce them are eagerly studied by engineers that can then reproduce the physical effects that have been optimised by a long evolutionary process. This is a process called biomimetics: a human harvest of the products of hundreds of millions of years of Darwinian evolution.
This active use by intelligent life of the complex building blocks that have evolved and been optimised over a period of more than a quarter of the time since the Big Bang may well usher in the next major transition to a yet more complex phase of the Universe.
Biological lifeforms as the carrier of advanced intelligence could then pass into history.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Gloster Glaive was basically a modernized and re-engined variant of the successful, British-built Gloster Gladiator (or Gloster SS.37), the RAF’s final biplane fighter to enter service. The Gladiator was not only widely used by the RAF at the dawn of WWII and in almost every theatre of operations, but also by many other nations. Operators included Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania or Nationalist China, and while the RAF already opted for more modern monoplanes, Gloster saw the opportunity to sell an updated Gladiator to countries which were not as progressive.
Originally designated Gladiator Mk. IV, the machine received many aerodynamic refinements and the motor was changed from a draggy radial to a liquid-cooled inline engine. The latter was the new Rolls Royce Peregrine, a development of the Kestrel. It was, in its original form, a 21-litre (1,300 cu in) liquid-cooled V-12 aero engine ), delivering 885-horsepower (660 kW). The engine was housed under a streamlined cowling, driving a three blade metal propeller, and was coupled with a ventral radiator bath, reminiscent of the Hawker Fury biplane’s arrangement.
Structural improvements included an all-metal monocoque fuselage and stabilizers, as well as new wings and streamlined struts with reduced bracing. The upper wing was enlarged and of all-metal construction, too, while the lower wings were reduced in span and area, almost resulting in a sesquiplane layout. The total wing area was only marginally reduced, though.
The fixed landing gear was retained, but the main wheels were now covered with spats. The pilot still sat in a fully enclosed cockpit, the armament consisted of four machine guns, similar to the Gladiator. But for the Glaive, all Browning machine guns were synchronized and mounted in the fuselage: one pair was placed on top of the cowling, in front of the cockpit. Another pair, much like the Gladiator’s arrangement was placed in the fuselage flanks, below the exhaust outlets.
Compared with the Gladiator, the design changes were so fundamental that Gloster eventually decided to allocate a separate designation – also with a view to the type’s foreign marketing, since a new aircraft appeared more attractive than another mark of a pre-war design. For the type’s virgin flight in late 1938 the name “Glaive” was unveiled to the public, and several smaller European air forces immediately showed interest, including Greece, Croatia, Turkey, Portugal and Egypt.
Greece was one of the initial customers, and the first of a total of 24 aircraft for the Hellenic Air Force was delivered in early 1939, with 24 more on order (which were never delivered, though). The initial batch arrived just in time, since tension had been building between Greece and Italy since 7 April 1939, when Italian troops occupied Albania. On 28 October 1940, Italy issued an ultimatum to Greece, which was promptly rejected. A few hours later, Italian troops launched an invasion of Greece, initiating the Greco-Italian War.
The Hellenic Gloster Glaives were split among three Mirae Dioxeos (Fighter Squadrons): the 21st at Trikala, 22nd at Thessaloniki and 23rd at Larissa. When Italy attacked in October 1940, the British fighter was, together with the PZL 24, the Greeks' only modern type in adequate numbers. However, by late 1940, the Gloster Glaive was already no longer a front-runner despite a powerful powerplant and satisfactory armament. It had no speed advantage over the Fiat Cr.42 nor could it outfly the nimble Italian biplane, and it was much slower than the Macchi MC.200 and the Fiat G.50 it was pitted against. Its agility was the only real advantage against the Italian fighters, whose reliance on the slow firing Breda-SAFAT 12.7mm machine guns proved detrimental.
Anyway, on 5 April 1941, German forces invaded Greece and quickly established air superiority. As the Allied troops retreated, British and Hellenic forces covered them, before flying to Crete during the last week of April. There, the refugee aircraft recorded a few claims over twin-engine aircraft before being evacuated to Egypt during the Battle of Crete.
Overall, the Glaives performed gallantly during the early period of the conflict, holding their own against impossible numerical odds and despite the fact that their main target were enemy bombers which forced them to fight at a disadvantage against enemy fighters. Italian claims of easy superiority over the Albanian front were vastly over-rated and their kill claims even exceeded the total number of operational fighters on the Greek side. Total Greek fighter losses in combat came to 24 a/c with the Greek fighter pilots claiming 64 confirmed kills and 24 probables (about two third bombers).
By April 1941, however, lack of spares and attrition had forced the Hellenic Air Force to merge the surviving seven Glaives with five leftover PZL.24s into one understrength squadron supported by five Gloster Gladiators Mk I & II and the two surviving MB.151s. These fought hopelessly against the Luftwaffe onslaught, and most aircraft were eventually lost on the ground. None of the Hellenic Gloster Glaives survived the conflict.
General characteristics:
Crew: two
Length: 8.92m (29 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 34 ft 0 in (10.36 m)
Height: 11 ft 9 in (3.58 m)
Wing area: 317 ft² (29.4 m²)
Empty weight: 1,295 kg (2,855 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 1,700 kg (3,748 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls Royce Peregrine II liquid-cooled V12 inline engine, rated at 940 hp (700 kw)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 405 km/h (252 mph; 219 kn) at 4,400 m (14,436 ft)
Cruise speed: 345 km/h (214 mph; 186 kn)
Stall speed: 60 mph (52 knots, 96 km/h)
Range: 373 mi (600 km; 324 nmi)
Endurance: 2 hours
Service ceiling: 10,600 m (34,800 ft)
Rate of climb: 2,982 ft/min (15.15 m/s)
Time to altitude: 10.000 ft (3.050 m) in 3 minutes 20 seconds
Armament:
4× 0.303 calibre (7.7 mm) M1919 Browning machine guns in the fuselage
Provisions for 6× 10 kg (22 lb) or 4x 20 kg (44 lb) bombs under the lower wings
The kit and its assembly:
The fictional Gloster Glaive started quite simple with the idea of replacing the Gladiator’s radial with an inline engine. But this soon did not appear enough for an update – the Peregrine hardly delivered much more power than the former Mercury, so I considered some structural updates, too. Most of them comprised the replacement of former fabric-covered structures, and this led conceptually to a kitbash with only some Gladiator fuselage and tail parts left.
The basis is (once more) the very nice Matchbox Gloster Gladiator, but it was heavily modified. As an initial step, fuselage, fin and stabilizers (all OOB parts) lost their rib-and-fabric structure, simply sanded away. A minor detail, but it changes the overall look of the aircraft a lot, making it appear much more modern.
The fuselage was left without the OOB radial, and instead a leftover Merlin front end from an Airfix Hurricane (ca. 1cm long, left over from one of my first whif builds ever, a Hurricane with a radial engine!) was added. The lines match pretty well: the side profile looks sleek, if not elegant, but the Gladiator fuselage turned out to be wider than expected. Some major body work/PSR was necessary to integrate the new nose, but the result looks very good.
The liquid-cooled engine necessitated a radiator somewhere on the airframe…! Since I wanted the nose to remain slim and streamlined I eventually placed the radiator bath under the fuselage, much like the arrangement of the Hawker Fury biplane. The radiator itself comes from a late Spitfire (FROG kit).
The exhaust was taken from the Hurricane kit, too, and matching slits dug into the putty nose to take them. The three blade propeller is a mash-up, too: the spinner belongs, IIRC, to an early Spitfire (left over from an AZ Models kit) while the blades came from a damaged Matchbox Brewster Buffalo.
The Gladiator’s fuselage flank machine guns were kept and their “bullet channels” extrapolated along the new cowling, running under the new exhaust pipes. Another pair of machine guns were placed on top of the engine – for these, openings were carved into the upper hull and small fairings (similar to the Browning guns in the flanks) added. This arrangement appeared plausible to me, since the Gladiator’s oil cooler was not necessary anymore and the new lower wings (see below) were not big enough anymore to take the Gladiator’s underwing guns. Four MGs in the fuselage appears massive – but there were other types with such an arrangement, e.g. the Avia B-534 with four guns in the flanks and an inline engine.
The wings are complete replacements: the upper wing comes from a Heller Curtiss SBC4, while the lower wings as well as the spats (on shortened OOB Gladiator struts) come from an ICM Polikarpov I-153. All struts were scratched. Once the lower wings were in place and the relative position of the upper wing clear, the outer struts were carved from 1mm styrene sheet, using the I-153 design as benchmark. These were glued to the lower wing first, and, once totally dry after 24h, the upper wing was simply glued onto the top and the wing position adjusted. This was left to dry another 24h, and as a final step the four struts above the cowling (using the OOB struts, but as single parts and trimmed for proper fit) were placed. This way, a stable connection is guaranteed – and the result is surprisingly sturdy.
Rigging was done with heated sprue material – my personal favorite for this delicate task, and executed before painting the kit started so that the glue could cure and bond well.
Painting and markings:
The reason why this aircraft ended in Greek service is a color photograph of a crashed Hellenic Bloch M.B. 152 (coded ‘D 177’, to be specific). I guess that the picture was post-colored, though, because the aircraft of French origin sports rather weird colors: the picture shows a two-tone scheme in a deep, rather reddish chestnut brown and a light green that almost looks like teal. Unique, to say the least... Underside colors couldn’t be identified with certainty in the picture, but appeared like a pale but not too light blue grey.
Anyway, I assume that these colors are pure fiction and exaggerated Photoshop work, since the few M.B. 152s delivered to Greece carried AFAIK standard French camouflage (in French Khaki, Chestnut Brown and Blue-Grey on the upper surfaces, and a very light blue-grey from below). I’d assume that the contrast between the grey and green tones was not very obvious in the original photograph, so that the artist, not familiar with WWII paint schemes, replaced both colors with the strange teal tone and massively overmodulated the brown.
As weird as it looked, I liked this design and used it as an inspirational benchmark for my Hellenic Glaive build. After all, it’s a fictional aircraft… Upper basic colors are Humbrol 31 (RAF Slate Grey) and 160 (German Camouflage Red Brown), while the undersides became French Dark Blue Grey (ModelMaster Authentics 2105). The result looks rather odd…
Representing a combat-worn aircraft, I applied a thorough black ink wash and did heavier panel shading and dry-brushing on the leading edges, along with some visible touches of aluminum.
The Hellenic roundels come from a TL Modellbau aftermarket sheet. The tactical code was puzzled together from single letters, and the Greek “D” was created from single decal strips. For better contrast I used white decals – most Hellenic aircraft of the time had black codes, but the contrast is much better, and I found evidence that some machines actually carried white codes. The small fin flash is another free interpretation. Not every Hellenic aircraft carried these markings, and instead of painting the whole rudder in Greek colors I just applied a small fin flash. This was created with white and blue decal strips, closely matching the roundels’ colors.
Finally, after some soot stains around the guns and the exhausts, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
Modified beyond recognition, perhaps…? The fictional Gloster Glaive looks IMHO good and very modern, just like one of those final biplane designs that were about to be outrun by monoplanes at the brink of WWII.
A complete fossil fish in a small piece of rock.
In this example, micro strata or layers, can be seen in the edge view of the rock.
It used to be thought that these were something like tree rings, each stratum or layer superimposed upon the previous one over time, with each layer representing a particular chronological period. But field studies and experimental work have shown that - all types of strata are actually formed by the action of moving water, segregating particles. It can also happen with airborne particles. This means that strata have nothing to do with the age of rocks, and multiple strata can be laid down rapidly. Sometimes in a few hours in a single deposition event.
See other examples of fossil fish www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12683911855/in/photos...
And:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12684146323/in/photos...
Notable features:
The excellent detail, and the fact that numerous fish were buried simultaneously, indicates very rapid burial of the fish. And it also indicates that the formation of the micro strata seen in the rock, was not created by slow superimposition, but by the grading of particles into layers in a single event.
This is true of all fossiliferous rock, where good intact fossils are found. The very existence of fossils in a rock indicates that the deposit was laid down rapidly, and not over thousands, or millions of years.
The sedimentary deposit from which this is a tiny sample, can be considered a fish graveyard, where literally hundreds of fish were overwhelmed by a catastrophic event, which buried them instantly in a substantial depth of sediment.
Under normal conditions of slow deposition of sediment, such a mass burial and remarkable preservation, would not occur. The evidence is that a great number of fish were suddenly inundated by a mass of sediment in turbulent water, and buried alive.
The creation of intact fossils almost always requires rapid burial in a substantial depth of sediment. This has to take place before they can be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decomposition. If you find a well preserved or intact fossil, it is most unlikely to have been buried gradually. Although that is the way it is usually presented in text book descriptions of how fossils are formed. www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Evolutionists claim that: because soft parts of fossils are rare, the fossil record is incomplete, and that is why there are so few fossils with intermediate features, required for evolution. But, as can be seen in this example, soft parts of the fish, such as the fins and tail are very well preserved.
Although it would be claimed, by evolutionists, that such fossils are many millions of years old, these fossilised fish are identical to any regular fish alive today. Which means they have not evolved at all in tens of millions of years.
The life span of such small fish would be very short. There would be many billions of generations of such fish in even one million years. That no evolution at all has taken place throughout all the vast number of generations of fish that there would have been in tens of millions of years, is a serious problem for evolutionists.
However this is not exceptional, it is the general rule.
For example, Insects found in amber, which is claimed to be many millions of years old, are the same as insects alive today. An insect's life span is even shorter than most fish, and the number of generations in a million years even greater. But still no sign of any evolutionary change. So-called living fossils, such as the Horseshoe Crab also remain un-evolved, some of them after an alleged hundred or more million years, What many people don't know is ... that whenever a creature/plant alive today is found as a fossil, there is no major difference between the fossil version and the present one. In other words, no evidence of any evolutionary change
See fossil of a crab, also unchanged after many millions of years:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
There is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.
Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.
However, the changes possible through selective breeding were known by 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 structures and features (macro-evolution).
Darwin 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 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 limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism had 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 ... 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 right 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 ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro evolution based on a belief in a total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.
However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it is should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.
People are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. However, evolutionists often 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 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 new structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that 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.
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 millions 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 ... of mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc. 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, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in 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 ... 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 literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated 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 converted 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 rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.
The very existence of intact fossils is a 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's, 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 even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.
Rapid formation of strata - latest evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
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.
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 and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.
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 used as 'scientific' evidence for evolution in 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.
So much for the credibility of evolution, but what about atheism?
If there is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution, that has very serious implications for atheist beliefs, which depend heavily on microbes-to-man evolution being a fact. You don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution, but it is very difficult to be an atheist if you don't accept evolution as true. So the exposure of evolution as an unscientific, fairy story seriously undermines atheism. However, even if progressive evolution could be shown to be credible, atheism cannot.
Because.....
If people would only think for themselves - there would be no atheists.
Atheism is anti-logic and anti-science ......
Atheism is the rejection of one of the only 2 origins options.
The only two options are:
1. An uncaused, supernatural first cause.
2. An uncaused, natural first cause.
Atheists categorically reject option one, therefore they believe in option two - by default.
Option two (an uncaused, natural first cause) is impossible according to logic, natural laws and the scientific method.
Every natural event/effect/entity has to have an adequate cause.
All material/natural entities/events are contingent, they rely on preceding causes.
A natural first cause, cannot be a very FIRST cause because something (which didn't need a cause) must have caused it.
A natural first cause also cannot be the very first cause of the universe because it is woefully inadequate for the effect. An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
So atheism is a set of beliefs which violate the scientific method, ignore logic and defy natural laws.
Atheism is akin to a religion because it credits matter/energy with similar creative powers and attributes as those applied to a creator God, which is really just a more sophisticated version of pagan naturalism, which imbued natural entities such as Mother Nature, The Sun or Moon god etc. with creative and magical powers.
To explain further ....
If there are only 2 options and one is ruled out as 'impossible' by logic, natural law and the scientific method, then it is safe, indeed sensible, to deduce that the other option is the only possible, and likely one.
Anyone who believes in science should know - that the basis of the scientific method is looking for adequate causes for every natural event/effect.
An 'uncaused' natural event is an anathema to science, it cannot even contemplate such a prospect.
If someone was to propose a natural first cause of everything, science would have to ask - what caused it? You cannot claim it was uncaused - that defies the scientific method.
However, if it was caused - if it had a preceding cause, ... then it cannot be the FIRST cause. Because FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
So the very first cause of everything must be UNCAUSED ... which means, according to science, it CANNOT be a NATURAL cause.
In other words ... it cannot be a contingent entity, it can only be an eternally self-existent, self-reliant, autonomous, infinite, omnipotent entity which is entirely independent of causes, and the limitations that causes impose.
Furthermore, the first cause also has to be completely adequate for the effect, the effect cannot be greater than the cause ... so the first cause has to have adequate powers, properties and potentiality to create the entirety of the universe, i.e. nothing in the universe can be superior in any respect to the first cause.
That means the first cause must embody, or be able to create, every property and quality that exists, which includes: natural laws, information, life, intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, design, skill, moral values, sense of beauty, justice etc.
All proposed, natural first causes - Big Bang's, Singularities, quantum mechanics etc. are not only ruled out because, as contingent events, they cannot be uncaused, they are also grossly inferior to the effect, which definitively rules them all out as credible first causes.
To put it more simply ... all effects/events/entities are the result of a combination of numerous, preceding causes, but the very first cause is unique, inasmuch as it is a lone cause of everything.
Everything can be traced back to that single cause, it is responsible for every other cause, entity and effect that follows it. Unlike other lesser or subsequent causes it has to account for the totality of everything that exists. So it cannot be inferior in any respect to any particular property, entity, event, effect, or to the totality of them all.
If we have intelligence then, that which caused us cannot be non-intelligent.
Atheists assume that we are greater in that respect than that which caused us .... that is ridiculous and it defies logic and natural law.
What about infinite time?
Time is simply a chronology of natural events. Time began with the origin of the material realm. No natural events ...means - no time. All natural entities, events/effects are contingent, they cannot be self-existent, they rely on causes and the limitations that causes impose. they are not autonomous entities, to propose that is anti-science.
Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.
But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
Why do atheists have such a problem with it?
Atheists seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.
Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.
Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
Such as it arising from nothing of its own volition, for no reason.
Or even the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!
Incredible!
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
― G.K. Chesterton ..... SO TRUE!
www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existen...
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...
Some background:
The VF-1 was developed by Stonewell/Bellcom/Shinnakasu for the U.N. Spacy by using alien Overtechnology obtained from the SDF-1 Macross alien spaceship. Its production was preceded by an aerodynamic proving version of its airframe, the VF-X. Unlike all later VF vehicles, the VF-X was strictly a jet aircraft, built to demonstrate that a jet fighter with the features necessary to convert to Battroid mode was aerodynamically feasible. After the VF-X's testing was finished, an advanced concept atmospheric-only prototype, the VF-0 Phoenix, was flight-tested from 2005 to 2007 and briefly served as an active-duty fighter from 2007 to the VF-1's rollout in late 2008, while the bugs were being worked out of the fully functional VF-1 prototype (the VF-X-1).
Introduced in 2008, the VF-1 would be produced en masse within a short period of time, a total of 5,459 airframes were delivered until 2013. The space-capable VF-1's combat debut was on February 7, 2009, during the Battle of South Ataria Island - the first battle of Space War I - and remained the mainstay fighter of the U.N. Spacy for the entire conflict. From the start the VF-1 proved to be an extremely capable and versatile craft, successfully combating a variety of Zentraedi mecha even in most sorties which saw UN Spacy forces significantly outnumbered. The versatility of the Valkyrie design enabled the variable fighter to act as both large-scale infantry and as air/space superiority fighter. The signature skills of U.N. Spacy ace pilot Maximilian Jenius exemplified the effectiveness of the variable systems as he near-constantly transformed the Valkyrie in battle to seize advantages of each mode as combat conditions changed from moment to moment.
The basic VF-1 was deployed in four sub-variants (designated A, D, J, and S) and its success was increased by continued development of various enhancements and upgrades. The VF-1 was a single-seater, but the VF-1D was a two-seater with a slightly extended cockpit section, originally developed as a trainer for conversion duties. It shared almost all systems of the single-seaters, though, was fully combat-capable, and only differed through an extended cockpit section that offered space for a second seat behind the standard pilot seat.
The VF-1 was operated by many operational U.N. Spacy units - initially by fighter/interceptor units, but when more and more aircraft became available or early production models were replaced by new and improved later machines, VF-1s were also operated by strike units like the "Manjisai". This unit was formed in early 2009 to defend the southern regions of the Japanese mainland from Zentraedi attacks. Its home base became Naha, and in honor of the Japanese air force unit that had been based in the Okinawa region during WWII to defend the country against american bomber raids, the unit adopted the "144" (which later became the more famous IJA 244th Hikotai) number and carried the old unit marking on the VF-1s' fins. SVA-144 machines were furthermore noteworthy for their experimental paint schemes, which were tested to replace the U.N. Spacy's standard livery of sand and white for the VF-1As. Several color combinations were tested, including pale blue and teal hues, and some flight commanders decorated their machines further with colorful trim and cheatlines to add an individual touch - a feature that was normally reserved to commanding officers.
After the end of Space War I, production on Earth was stopped but the VF-1 continued to be manufactured both in the Sol system and throughout the UNG space colonies. Although the VF-1 would be replaced in 2020 as the primary Variable Fighter of the U.N. Spacy by the more capable, but also much bigger, VF-4 Lightning III, a long service record and its persistent production after the war in many space sectors proved the lasting worth of the design.
The VF-1 was without doubt the most recognizable variable fighter of Space War I and was seen as a vibrant symbol of the U.N. Spacy. At the end of 2015 the final rollout of the VF-1 was celebrated at a special ceremony, commemorating this most famous of variable fighters. The VF-1 Valkryie was built from 2006 to 2013 with several major variants (VF-1A = 5,093, VF-1D = 85, VF-1J = 49, VF-1S = 30), sub-variants (VF-1G = 12, VE-1 = 122, VT-1 = 68) and upgrades of existing airframes (like the VF-1P).
Despite its relatively short and intense production run the fighter remained active in many second line units and continued to show its worthiness even years later, e. g. through Milia Jenius who would use her old VF-1 fighter in defense of the colonization fleet - 35 years after the type's service introduction!
General characteristics:
All-environment variable fighter and tactical combat Battroid,
used by U.N. Spacy, U.N. Navy, U.N. Space Air Force and U.N.S. Marine Corps
Accommodation:
Pilot and trainee in Marty & Beck Mk-7 zero/zero ejection seats
Dimensions:
Fighter Mode:
Length 14.23 meters
Wingspan 14.78 meters (at 20° minimum sweep)
Height 3.84 meters
Battroid Mode:
Height 12.68 meters
Width 7.3 meters
Length 4.0 meters
Empty weight: 13.25 metric tons
Standard T-O mass: 18.5 metric tons
MTOW: 37.0 metric tons
Power Plant:
2x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2001 thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, output 650 MW each, rated at 11,500 kg in standard or 225.63 kN in overboost
4x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry NBS-1 high-thrust vernier thrusters (1 x counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle mounted on the side of each leg nacelle/air intake, 1 x wing thruster roll control system on each wingtip)
18x P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles
Performance:
Battroid Mode: maximum walking speed 160 km/h
Fighter Mode: at 10,000 m Mach 2.71; at 30,000+ m Mach 3.87
g limit: in space +7
Thrust-to-weight ratio: empty 3.47; standard T-O 2.49; maximum T-O 1.24
Design Features:
3-mode variable transformation; variable geometry wing; vertical take-off and landing; control-configurable vehicle; single-axis thrust vectoring; three "magic hand" manipulators for maintenance use; retractable canopy shield for Battroid mode and atmospheric reentry; option of GBP-1S system, atmospheric-escape booster, or FAST Pack system
Transformation:
Standard time from Fighter to Battroid (automated): under 5 sec.
Min. time from Fighter to Battroid (manual): 0.9 sec.
Armament:
2x Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon, firing 6,000 ppm
1x Howard GU-11 55 mm three-barrel Gatling gun pod with 200 RPG, fired at 1,200 rpm
4x underwing hard points for a wide variety of ordnance, including…
12x AMM-1 hybrid guided multipurpose missiles (3/point), or
12x MK-82 LDGB conventional bombs (3/point), or
6x RMS-1 large anti-ship reaction missiles (2/outboard point, 1/inboard point), or
4x UUM-7 micro-missile pods (1/point) each carrying 15 x Bifors HMM-01 micro-missiles,
or a combination of above load-outs
The kit and its assembly:
Once again, a vintage 1:100 VF-1 model, no idea how many I have built of these - probably more than 30... But I still find inspriration for canonical, fictional and even converted/fictional variants. This project was spontaneously inspired by a photograph of a car that I had recently come upon while browsing the WWW: an individualized McLaren, taken somewhere in the Persian Gulf region. I just had a front view, though, but it showed that the car had been re-painted or foil-wrapped in two teal colors, with thin yellow contrast lines between these tones. Sounds horrible, but actually worked for me, also because of the color contrasts. I
The kit was built OOB, with the landing gear down and with an open canopy. As a standard upgrade I added some typical small blade antennae on the nose and on the spine. As an extra I provided this VF-1 with radar warning antenna fairlings at the top of the fins, too. The four underwing hardpoints were retained, but the armament was changed from twelve original AMM-1 missiles to four cluster bomb units on the outer pair of pylons (these are actually 1:100 scale, from a toylike Revell A-10 snap-fit kit) and two fictional GBUs on the inner stations - modified (poor) Kh-23/AS-7 "Kerry" ASMs in 1:72 from a Kangam/Revell Yak-38 kit. Furthermore, the VF-1's standard GU-11 gun pod was retained, modified to hold a scratched wire display for in-flight pictures.
Painting and markings:
Quite challenging, and to ease things I jused an Arii VF-1J kit molded in pale green plastic. The cockpit became canonical medium grey with brown seat cushions, air intakes and some other areas were painted in a dark grey tone. The two teal tones were a bit challenging, though, and the scheme itself evolved gradually, because I adapted the inspiring car's front section with a darker shade in front of the windscreen and along the lower front bumper, and extrapolated it further back on the VF-1.
The light tone would be the primary color, with darker accents and thin yellow stripes/lines differentiating them. This led early to dark "shank flanks" and an extended spine, as well as dark folded arms and a dark head unit underneath. However, wings, fins and dorsal area were challenging, and I actually made some design tests with computer aid to eventually come up with "breast chevrons", and extended spine and simple dark slats and flaps on the wings - instead of dark teal wings with a single lighter stripe, what I had initially favored. But it would not have worked and disrupted the overall elegant look.
The dark teal turquoise is ModelMaster's "Soviet Cockpit Teal", while the light tone is Humbrol 65 (RLM 65, Lichtblau), later panel-shaded with ModelColor's acrylic 70.832 "Patina Verdin", a markedly lighter and more greenish tone, which was applied with a glazing technique. Together it works quite well. The yellow lines were all created with 0.5mm decal stripes from TL Modellbau - a tedious job, because the stripes had partly to be carefully bent into shape, but much easier than trying to do this stunt with paint. And the result is a rather subtle yet decorative livery, almost a low-viz livery, thanks to the subdued teal tones and the thin yellow lines which differ only a little in brightness from their surroundings.
The decals came mostly from the OOB sheet, just the "kite" roundels and the yellow "U.N. Spacy" tags on legs and gun pod were procured from a VF-1A sheet. The "ER" code comes from an Academy OV-10 Bronco while the yellow 244th Hikotai emblem on the outer fins' surface came from a Printscale aftermarket sheet. After the decals had been completed the model was sealed with a coat of not-100%-matt acrylic varnish. Position and other lights were painted with translucent acrylic paint on chrome silver vases, and the model was finally completed.
A pretty VF-1, and it looks (to me) better than expected, despite the strange color combination of teal and yellow. It appears to be quite effective, too, since the teal tones are rather subdued and only the kite roundels really stand out. It even looks elegant, even though the livery is totally fictional?!
The Total Perspective Vortex
"Since every piece of matter in the Universe is in someway affected by every other piece of matter in the Universe, it is in theory possible to extrapolate the whole of creation - every Galaxy, every sun, every planet, their orbits, their composition, and their economic and social history from, say, one small piece of fairy cake. When you are put into the Vortex you are given just one momentary glimpse of the entire unimaginable infinity of creation, and somewhere in it a tiny little mark, a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot, which says, "You are here."
The Total Perspective Vortex was invented by Trin Tragula. Trin Tragula was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher or, as his wife would have it, an idiot. She would nag him incessantly about the utterly inordinate amount of time he spent staring out into space, or mulling over the mechanics of safety pins, or doing spectrographic analyses of pieces of fairy cake.
“Have some sense of proportion!” she would say, sometimes as often as thirty-eight times in a single day.
And so he built the Total Perspective Vortex, just to show her. Into one end he plugged the whole of reality (as extrapolated from a piece of fairy cake) and into the other end he plugged his wife: so that when he turned it on she saw in one instant the whole infinity of creation and herself in relation to it.
To Trin Tragula’s horror, the shock completely annihilated her brain; but to his satisfaction he realized that he had conclusively proved that if life is going to exist in a Universe of this size, then the one thing it cannot afford to have is... a sense of proportion."
Footnote:
Later, the Total Perspective Vortex was used as a form of capital punishment on the Planet Frogstar B. Ex-president Zaphod Beeblebrox was the only person to survive; supposedly because his ego was larger than the entire universe. He concluded his visit by eating the fairycake...
Massimo Vitali looking his enormous diptych, a LightJet print from a 2.7 Gb drum scan provided by CastorScan.
When the Lightjet and scan operator of Grieger opened our 2.7 Gb file he exclaimed "WOW" and he told us that he never saw such an high quality of file and scan.
The final LightJet print was amazing, and it matched perfectly the colors and the natural smothness of an analogue print: the color fidelity was absolutely incredible. Also, it showed a detail, a precision, a contrast and a flatness of field much better than any possible analogue print.
Honestly, it's extremely difficult to find a print of comparable quality anywhere.
Considering that Grieger is probably the most famous photo lab in the world and there every day they print pictures by Gursky, Struth, Ruff, Demand, etc etc...not bad.
(Original shot taken in Sicily, Italy)
-----
CastorScan's philosophy is completely oriented to provide the highest scan and postproduction
quality on the globe.
We work with artists, photographers, agencies, laboratories etc. who demand a state-of-the-art quality at reasonable prices.
Our workflow is fully manual and extremely meticulous in any stage.
We developed exclusive workflows and profilation systems to obtain unparallel results from our scanners not achievable through semi-automatic and usual workflows.
-----
CastorScan uses the best scanners in circulation, Dainippon Screen SG-8060P Mark II, the best and most advanced scanner ever made, Kodak-Creo IQSmart 3, a high-end flatbed scanner, and Imacon 848.
The image quality offered by our Dainippon Screen 8060 scanner is much higher than that achievable with the best flatbed scanners or filmscanners dedicated and superior to that of scanners so-called "virtual drum" (Imacon – Hasselblad,) and, of course, vastly superior to that amateur or prosumer obtained with scanners such as Epson V750 etc .
Dainippon Screen SG-8060P Mark II exceeds in quality any other scanner, including Aztek Premier and ICG 380 (in the results, not just in the technical specifications).
8060's main features: 12000 dpi, Hi-Q Xenon lamp, 25 apertures, 2 micron
Aztek Premier's main features: 8000 dpi, halogen lamp, 18 apertures, 3 micron
ICG 380's main features: 12000 dpi, halogen lamp, 9 apertures, 4 micron
Some of the features that make the quality of our drum scanners better than any other existing scan system include:
The scans performed on a drum scanner are famous for their detail, depth and realism.
Scans are much cleaner and show fewer imperfections than scans obtained from CCD scanners, and thus save many hours of cleaning and spotting in postproduction.
Image acquisition by the drum scanner is optically similar to using a microscopic lens that scans the image point by point with extreme precision and without deformation or distortion of any kind, while other scanners use enlarger lenses (such as the Rodenstock-Linos Magnagon 75mm f8 used in the Hasselblad-Imacon scanners) and have transmission systems with rubber bands: this involves mild but effective micro-strain and micro-geometric image distortions and quality is not uniform between the center and edges.
Drum scanners are exempt from problems of flatness of the originals, since the same are mounted on a perfectly balanced transparent acrylic drum; on the contrary, the dedicated film scanners that scan slides or negatives in their plastic frames are subject to quite significant inaccuracies, as well as the Imacon-Hasselblad scanners, which have their own rubber and plastic holders: they do not guarantee the perfect flatness of the original and therefore a uniform definition between center and edge, especially with medium and large size originals, which instead are guaranteed by drum scanners.
Again, drum scanners allow scanning at high resolution over the entire surface of the cylinder, while for example the Hasselblad Imacon scans are limited to 3200 dpi in 120 format and 2000 dpi in 4x5" format (the resolution of nearly every CCD scanner in the market drops as the size of the original scanned is increased).
Drum scanners allow complete scanning of the whole negative, including the black-orange mask, perforations etc, while using many other scanners a certain percentage of the image is lost because it is covered by frames or holders.
Drum scanners use photomultiplier tubes to record the light signal, which are much more sensitive than CCDs and can record many more nuances and variations in contrast with a lower digital noise.
If you look at a monitor at 100% the detail in shadows and darker areas of a scan made with a CCD scanner, you will notice that the details are not recorded in a clear and clean way, and the colors are more opaque and less differentiated. Additionally the overall tones are much less rich and differentiated.
We would like to say a few words about an unscrupulous and deceitful use of technical specifications reported by many manufacturers of consumer and prosumer scanners; very often we read of scanners that promise cheap or relatively cheap “drum scanner” resolutions, 16 bits of color depth, extremely high DMAX: we would like to say that these “nominal” resolutions do not correspond to an actual optical resolution, so that even in low-resolution scanning you can see an enormous gap between drum scanners and these scanners in terms of detail, as well as in terms of DMAX, color range, realism, “quality” of grain. So very often when using these consumer-prosumer scanners at high resolutions, it is normal to get a disproportionate increase of file size in MB but not an increase of detail and quality.
To give a concrete example: a drum scan of a 24x36mm color negative film at 3500 dpi is much more defined than a scan made with mostly CCD scanner at 8000 dpi and a drum scan at 2500 dpi is dramatically clearer than a scan at 2500 dpi provided by a CCD scanner. So be aware and careful with incorrect advertisement.
Scans can be performed either dry or liquid-mounted. The wet mounting further improves cleanliness (helps to hide dirt, scratches and blemishes) and plasticity of the image without compromising the original, and in addition by mounting with liquid the film grain is greatly reduced and it looks much softer and more pleasant than the usual "harsh" grain resulting from dry scans.
We use Kami SMF 2001 liquid to mount the transparencies and Kami RC 2001 for cleaning the same. Kami SMF 2001 evaporates without leaving traces, unlike the traditional oil scans, ensuring maximum protection for your film. Out of ignorance some people prefer to avoid liquid scanning because they fear that their films will be dirty or damaged: this argument may be plausible only in reference to scans made using mineral oils, which have nothing to do with the specific professional products we use.
We strongly reiterate that your original is in no way compromised by our scanning liquid and will return as you have shipped it, if not cleaner.
With respect to scanning from slides:
Our scanners are carefully calibrated with the finest IT8 calibration targets in circulation and with special customized targets in order to ensure that each scan faithfully reproduces the original color richness even in the most subtle nuances, opening and maintaining detail in shadows and highlights. These color profiles allow our scanners to realize their full potential, so we guarantee our customers that even from a chromatic point of view our scans are noticeably better than similar scans made by mostly other scan services in the market.
In addition, we remind you that our 8060 drum scanner is able to read the deepest shadows of slides without digital noise and with much more detail than CCD scanners; also, the color range and color realism are far better.
With respect to scanning from color and bw negatives: we want to emphasize the superiority of our drum scans not only in scanning slides, but also in color and bw negative scanning (because of the orange mask and of very low contrast is extremely difficult for any ccd scanner to read the very slight tonal and contrast nuances in the color negative, while a perfectly profiled 8060 drum scanner – also through the analog gain/white calibration - can give back much more realistic images and true colors, sharper and more three-dimensional).
In spite of what many claim, a meticulous color profiling is essential not only for scanning slides, but also, and even more, for color negatives. Without it the scan of a color negative will produce chromatic errors rather significant, thus affecting the tonal balance and then the naturalness-pleasantness of the images.
More unique than rare, we do not use standardized profiles provided by the software to invert each specific negative film, because they do not take into account parameters and variables such as the type of development, the level of exposure, the type of light etc.,; at the same time we also avoid systems of "artificial intelligence" or other functions provided by semi-automatic scanning softwares, but instead we carry out the inversion in a full manual workflow for each individual picture.
In addition, scanning with Imacon-Hasselblad scanners we do not use their proprietary software - Flexcolor – to make color management and color inversion because we strongly believe that our alternative workflow provides much better results, and we are able to prove it with absolute clarity.
At each stage of the process we take care of meticulously adjusting the scanning parameters to the characteristics of the originals, to extrapolate the whole range of information possible from any image without "burning" or reductions in the tonal range, and strictly according to our customer's need and taste.
By default, we do not apply unsharp mask (USM) in our scans, except on request.
To scan reflective originals we follow the same guidelines and guarantee the same quality standard.
We guarantee the utmost thoroughness and expertise in the work of scanning and handling of the originals and we provide scans up to 12,000 dpi of resolution, at 16-bit, in RGB, GRAYSCALE, LAB or CMYK color mode; unless otherwise indicated, files are saved with Adobe RGB 1998 or ProPhoto RGB color profile.
"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 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. This is very damaging to genuine scientific endeavour, and has the effect 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 structures and features (macro-evolution).
Darwin 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 limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism had 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 ... 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 right 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 ludicrous 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 a belief in a total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.
However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it is should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability, the law of cause and effect and Information Theory.
People are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. However, evolutionists often 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 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 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 millions 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 ... of mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc. 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, 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 ... 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 literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated 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 converted 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 rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.
The very existence of intact fossils is a 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's, 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 even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.
Rapid formation of strata - latest evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
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 and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.
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 used as 'scientific' evidence for evolution in 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.”
Moscow. Poklonnaya Gora WWII Museum
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 6.13 m (20 ft 1 in)
Wingspan: 9 m (29 ft 6 in)
Height: 3.25 m (10 ft 8 in)
Wing area: 14.5 m² (156.1 ft²)
Empty weight: 1,490 kg (3,285 lb)
Loaded weight: 1,941 kg (4,279 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 2,095 kg (4,619 lb)
Powerplant: 1× Shvetsov M-63 supercharged air-cooled radial engine, 820 kW (1,100 hp) driving a two-blade propeller
Performance
Maximum speed: 525 km/h (283 kn, 326 mph) at 3,000 m (9,845 ft)
Range: 700 km (378 nmi, 435 mi (with drop tanks))
Service ceiling: 9,700 m (31,825 ft)
Rate of climb: 14.7 m/s (2,900 ft/min)
Wing loading: 134 kg/m² (27 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 346 W/kg (0.21 hp/lb)
Time to altitude: 5.8 minutes to 5,000 m (16,405 ft)
Armament
2 × fixed forward-firing 7.62 mm (0.30 in) ShKAS machine guns in upper cowling
2 × fixed forward-firing 20 mm (0.79 in) ShVAK cannons in the wings
6 × unguided RS-82 rockets or up to 500 kg (1,102 lb) of bombs
The Polikarpov I-16 was a Soviet fighter aircraft of revolutionary design; it was the world's first cantilever-winged monoplane fighter with retractable landing gear. The I-16 was introduced in the mid-1930s and formed the backbone of the Soviet Air Force at the beginning of World War II. The diminutive fighter, nicknamed "Ishak" by Soviet pilots, prominently featured in the Second Sino-Japanese War,[1] the Battle of Khalkhin Gol and the Spanish Civil War—where it was called the Rata ("rat") by the Nationalists or Mosca ("fly") by the Republicans. The Finnish nickname for I-16 was Siipiorava ("Flying Squirrel").
Design and development
While working on the Polikarpov I-15 biplane, Nikolai Nikolaevich Polikarpov began designing an advanced monoplane fighter. It featured cutting-edge innovations such as retractable landing gear and a fully enclosed cockpit, and was optimized for speed with a short stubby fuselage (similar to Gee Bee R-1) and a Wright Cyclone radial engine in a NACA cowling. The aircraft was small, light and simple to build.
Full scale work on the TsKB-12 prototype began in June 1933 and the aircraft was accepted into production on 22 November 1933, a month before it took to the air. The TsKB-12 was of mixed construction using a wooden monocoque fuselage and wings based around a KhMA chrome-molybdenum steel alloy wing spar, dural ribs and D1 aluminum alloy skinning on the center and leading edges, with the remaining portions of the wings fabric covered. Another modern feature were the ailerons which ran almost the entire trailing edge of the wing and also operated as flaps (in the manner of more modern flaperons) by drooping 15°. The cockpit was covered by a 40 cm (16 in) wide canopy which featured an Aldis tubular gun sight which could slide back and forth on runners fitted with bungee cords of rubber. A 225 l (59.4 US gal) fuel tank was fitted directly in front of the cockpit. The main gear was fully retractable by a hand-crank. The armament consisted of a pair of 7.62 mm (0.30 in) ShKAS machine guns in the wings, mounted on the outboard side of the main gear and carried 900 rounds of ammo.
These features were proposed at first by Andrei N. Tupolev, however the NII VVS was more concerned about the stresses a typical combat aircraft was subjected to in combat, and initially considered the risk too great. However TsAGI, with the help of the 3rd Design Brigade under the leadership of Pavel O. Sukhoi and Aleksandr P. Putylov eventually convinced NII VVS that what was being proposed was not only feasible, but would enhance the aircraft's performance.
The TsKB-12 was designed around the Wright Cyclone SR-1820-F-3 nine cylinder radial engine (rated at 529 kW/710 hp); a license to build this engine was being negotiated. As the license was not yet approved, Polikarpov was asked to settle for the less powerful M-22 (Soviet-built version of the Gnome-Rhone Jupiter 9ASB which itself was a licensed version of the Bristol Jupiter VI ) with 358 kW (480 hp). This was deemed acceptable because the projected top speed still exceeded 300 km/h (185 mph).
The M-22 powered TsKB-12 first took to the air on 30 December 1933 with the famous Soviet test pilot Valery Chkalov at the controls. The second TsKB-12 with a Cyclone engine and three-bladed propeller flew in January of the following year. Initial government trials in February 1934 revealed very good maneuverability but the aircraft did not tolerate abrupt control inputs. Thus the TsKB-12 was deemed dangerous to fly and all aerobatics were forbidden. The M-22 version was preferred due to vibration of the Cyclone-powered aircraft. Pilots commented early on about difficulty in climbing into the cockpit, a trait that persisted through I-16's service life. Before continuing test flights the designers had to answer the question of spin behavior. Wind tunnel testing suggested that TsKB-12 with its short tail would enter an unrecoverable flat spin, but real-life trials were necessary to confirm this. Since Cyclone engines were rare it was decided to risk the M-22 prototype for this purpose. On 1 March and 2 March 1934, Chkalov performed 75 spins and discovered that the aircraft had very benign stall behavior (dipping a wing and recovering without input from the pilot when airspeed increased) and intentional spins could be easily terminated by placing controls in the neutral position. The stories of vicious spin behavior of the I-16 perpetuated in modern literature is unfounded (perhaps extrapolated from Gee Bee experience). In fact, the I-16's stablemate, the biplane Polikarpov I-153, exhibited much worse spin characteristics.
Service trials of the new fighter, designated I-16, began on 22 March 1934. The M-22 prototype reached 359 km/h (223 mph). The manually-retracted landing gear was prone to jamming and required considerable strength from the pilot. Most of the test flights were performed with the gear extended. On 1 May 1934, the M-22 prototype participated in the flyover of the Red Square. Approximately 30 I-16 Type 1 aircraft were delivered, but were not assigned to any V-VS fighter squadron. Most pilots who flew the I-16 Type 1 for evaluation purposes did not find the aircraft to have many redeeming characteristics. Regardless of pilot opinion, much attention was focused on the Cyclone powered aircraft and the M-25 (the license built Cyclone). On 14 April 1934, the Cyclone prototype was damaged when one of the landing gear legs collapsed while it was taxiing.
The third prototype with a Cyclone engine incorporated a series of aerodynamic improvements and was delivered for government trials on 7 September 1934. The top speed of 437 km/h (270 mph) no longer satisfied the Air Force, who now wanted the experimental Nazarov M-58 engine and 470 km/h (290 mph). Subsequently, the M-22 powered version entered production at Factory 21 in Nizhny Novgorod and Factory 39 in Moscow. Because it was the fourth aircraft produced by these factories, it received the designation I-16 Type 4. Aircraft fitted with these new engines required a slightly changed airframe, including armor plating for the pilot and changes to the landing gear doors to allow for complete closure.
The M-25 fitted I-16, the I-16 Type 5, featured a new engine cowling which was slightly smaller in diameter and featured nine forward facing shuttered openings to control cooling airflow, a redesigned exhaust with eight individual outlet stubs, and other changes. The M-25 was rated at 474 kW (635 hp) at sea level and 522 kW (700 hp) at 2,300 m (7,546 ft). Due to the poor quality of the canopy glazing, the I-16 Type 5 pilots typically left the canopy open or removed the rear portion completely. By the time the Type 5 arrived, it was the world's lightest production fighter (1,460 kg/3,219 lb), as well as the worlds fastest, able to reach speeds of 454 km/h (282 mph) at altitude and 395 km/h (245 mph) at sea level. While the Type 5 could not perform the high-g maneuvers of other fighters, it possessed superior speed and climb rates, and had extremely responsive aileron control which gave the Type 5 a very good roll rate which lead to precision maneuvers in loops and split-Ss.
A total of 7,005 single-seat and 1,639 two-seat trainer variants were produced.
Operational history
Initial service experience revealed that the ShKAS machine guns had a tendency to jam. This was the result of the guns being installed in the wings upside-down to facilitate the fit. The problem was addressed in later modifications. Evaluations from pilots confirmed the experience with prototypes. Controls were light and very sensitive, abrupt maneuvers resulted in spins, and spin behavior was excellent. A barrel roll could be performed in under 1.5 seconds (roll rate over 240 degrees/second). The machine guns were fired via a cable and the required effort, coupled with sensitive controls, made precision aiming difficult. The rear weight bias made I-16 easy to handle on unprepared airfields because the aircraft was rather unlikely to flip over the nose even if the front wheels dug in.
The pilots had poor visibility and the canopy tended to become fouled with engine oil and the moving portion was prone to slamming shut during hard maneuvers which caused many pilots to fix it in the open position. The I-16 was a difficult fighter to fly. The front section of the fuselage, with the engine, was too close to the centre of gravity, and the pilot's cockpit too far to the rear. The Polikarpov had insufficient longitudinal stability and it was impossible to fly the aircraft "hand off".
Spanish Civil WarAt the start of Spanish Civil War in 1936, Republican forces pleaded for fighter aircraft. After receiving payment in gold, Joseph Stalin dispatched around 475[6] I-16 Type 5s and Type 6s. The first I-16s appeared in Spanish skies in November 1936.[7] The Polikarpov monoplanes had their baptism of fire on the 13 November 1936, when 12 I-16s intercepted a Nationalist bombing raid on Madrid. Soviet pilots claimed four air victories. Two Germans Heinkel He 51 pilots were indeed killed. But the Soviets suffered losses too; the group commander collided with an enemy aircraft and another I-16 pilot crash landed.[8] The Polikarpovs immediately began dominating the enemy He 51s, Arado Ar 68 and Fiat CR.32 biplanes, and remained unchallenged until the introduction of the Messerschmitt Bf 109. The arrival of the newest Bf 109Bs and the Nationalist overwhelming quantitative superiority of fighters were the primary cause of the heavy combat losses suffered by I-15s and I-16s throughout 1937.[9] A number of aviation publications called the new Soviet fighter a "Boeing" due to the incorrect assumption that it was based on the Boeing P-26's design. The Nationalists nicknamed the stubby fighter Rata (Rat), while the Republicans affectionately called it Mosca (Fly).
Combat experience showed that the I-16 had deficiencies; several aircraft were lost after structural failure of the wings which was quickly remedied by reinforced structures. Heavy machine gun bullets could sometimes penetrate the armored backrest and fuel tanks occasionally caught fire in spite of being protected. The hot Spanish climate required the addition of oil radiators, and dust adversely affected the life of the engines. Although some aircraft accumulated up to 400 hours of flying time, the average life of an I-16 was 87 days, of which one sixth was spent on maintenance. The biggest complaint in service was the light armament of only two 7.62 mm (0.30 in) machine guns. This was urgently addressed with Type 6 which added a third ShKAS in the bottom of the fuselage. The four-gun Type 10 was nicknamed "Super Mosca" or simply "Super". The total number of I-16s delivered to Spain in 1936-1938 amounted to 276. When the war ended, on 1 April 1939, 187 Ratas had been lost in Spain: 112 lost in combat, one shot down by anti-aircraft fire, 11 destroyed on the ground, one force-landed and 62 lost in accidents.
The Far East
Another 250 I-16 Type 10 were supplied to China. This model added a second set of 7.62 mm (0.30 in) ShKAS machine guns, armor behind the pilot, and had a slightly upgraded 560 kW (750 hp) M-25 engine. In 1939, these aircraft fought against the Japanese, fighting the fixed-landing gear equipped Nakajima Ki-27 Nate of the IJAAF and IJNAF's Mitsubishi A5M Claude. Further large scale action took place in fighting between the Soviet Union and Japan in the Battle of Khalkhin Gol in 1939. The next year, the Imperial Japanese Navy introduced the A6M Zero which was more than a match for the I-16.
Further attempts were made to upgrade the firepower of the aircraft using 20 mm (0.79 in) ShVAK cannons, making the I-16 one of the most heavily armed fighters of that moment,[11] able to fire 28 pounds of ammunition in three seconds. Pilots loved the results, but the cannons were in short supply and only a small number of I-16 Type 12, 17, 27, and 28 were built. The cannons adversely affected performance with the 360° circle time increasing from 15 seconds in Type 5 to 18 seconds. Type 24 replaced the skid with a tailwheel and featured the much more powerful 670 kW (900 hp) Shvetsov M-63 engine. Type 29 replaced two of the ShKAS guns with a single 12.7 mm (.50 in) UBS. Types 18, 24, 27, 28, and 29 could be equipped to carry RS-82 unguided rockets.
A 1939 government study found that I-16 had exhausted its performance potential. Addition of armor, radio, battery, and flaps during the aircraft's evolution exacerbated the rear weight distribution to the point where the aircraft required considerable forward pressure on the stick to maintain level flight and at the same time developed a tendency to enter uncontrolled dives. Extension and retraction of the landing flaps caused a dramatic change in the aircraft attitude. Accurate gunfire was difficult.
Russia
The pilots nicknamed the aircraft Ishak (Russian: Ишак, Donkey/Hinny) because it was similar to the Russian pronunciation of "I-16". When the Great Patriotic War erupted on 22 June 1941, 1,635 of 4,226 VVS aircraft were I-16s of all variants, fielded by 57 fighter regiments in frontier areas.[12] Then main assault delivered by Luftwaffe's Luftflotte 2 (in support of Wehrmacht Army Group Centre) was directed against the Soviet Western Special Mililtary district, that deployed 361 (424, according to other sources) I-16s. [13] During the early phase of the campaign the I-16 bases were main targets for the German aircraft and after 48 hours of combat, of the 1,635 Polikarpov monoplanes in service on 21 June 1941, only 937 were left.[14] By 30 June the number of I-16s of western frontline units had dropped to 873, including 99 that required repairs.[15] To stem the Luftwaffe aerial assault several I-16 pilots adopted the Taran tactic and sacrified their lives, ramming German aircraft.[15]
Its main opponent in the sky of 1941 was the German Messerschmitt Bf 109.[16] The I-16 was slightly more maneuverable than the early Bf 109s and could fight the Messerschmitt Bf 109 '"Emil" on equal terms in turns. Soviet skilled pilots took advantage of Polikarpov's superior horizontal maneuverability and liked it enough to resist the switch to more modern fighters. The German aircraft, however, outclassed its Russian opponent in service ceiling, rate of climb, acceleration and, crucially, in horizontal and diving speed, due to better aerodynamics and a more powerful engine. The main versions of the I-16 had a maximum speed of 450–470 km/h (279-291 mph), while the Bf 109E had a maximum speed of 560–570 km/h (347-353 mph), and the Bf109F, of 600 km/h (372 mph). Superior speed was the decisive factor in a dogfight so German pilots held the initiative and could decide if chasing their opponents, attacking them from above and behind and then gaining altitude for an eventual new attack. Meanwhile Polikarpovs could only defend each other by forming a defensive circle or via horizontal maneuverability.[16] Moreover, in terms of armament, Messerschmitts had a slight edge on the I-16. The "Emile" carried two wing-mounted 20 mm MG FF cannon and two synchronyzed 7.92 mm MG-17 with a weight of a one-second salvo of 2.37 Kg, while the most common version of the I-16 - armed with just two synchronized and two wing-mounted 7.62 ShKAS - could deliver 1.43 kg of bullets each second.[17] Finallly, the ammunition storage on a Messerschmitt exceeded that of the I-16, carrying 1,000 bullets for each machine guns (plus 60 rounds for each cannon), while the Polikarpov carried just 450 rounds for each ShKAS.[18]
The I-16 and had a more durable engine than the liquid-cooled engine of the Bf 109. Around half of all produced I-16s were still in service in 1943, when they were finally replaced.
Specially modified I-16s were used in the Zveno parasite aircraft experiments using the Tupolev TB-3 mothership.
The Luftwaffe was known to have captured some I-16s and UTI-4s two-place trainers (two of which were marked with the Stammkennzeichen codes DM+HC and DM+HD) and flown from Rechlin by Kampfgeschwader 200 (KG 200).[19] The Luftwaffe was not the only air force able to test its fighters against the I-16; the Japanese captured a few I-16s as well.[1] and the Romanian Air Force also got one when a Soviet pilot defected.[20] The Finnish Air Force (FAF) captured along with several other Soviet types, some I-16s. During the Winter War and the Continuation War, the Finns captured six I-16s and one I-16UTI. Two of the captured I-16s and I-16UTIs were put back into flying condition and flight tested.
From Wikipedia
"Una Prospettiva Italiana". Gabriele Basilico, Vincenzo Castella, Massimo Vitali – Feb 2011 - Galleria Studio La Città, Verona, IT
-----
CastorScan's philosophy is completely oriented to provide the highest scan and postproduction
quality on the globe.
We work with artists, photographers, agencies, laboratories etc. who demand a state-of-the-art quality at reasonable prices.
Our workflow is fully manual and extremely meticulous in any stage.
We developed exclusive workflows and profilation systems to obtain unparallel results from our scanners not achievable through semi-automatic and usual workflows.
-----
CastorScan uses the best scanners in circulation, Dainippon Screen SG-8060P Mark II, the best and most advanced scanner ever made, Kodak-Creo IQSmart 3, a high-end flatbed scanner, and Imacon 848.
The image quality offered by our Dainippon Screen 8060 scanner is much higher than that achievable with the best flatbed scanners or filmscanners dedicated and superior to that of scanners so-called "virtual drum" (Imacon – Hasselblad,) and, of course, vastly superior to that amateur or prosumer obtained with scanners such as Epson V750 etc .
Dainippon Screen SG-8060P Mark II exceeds in quality any other scanner, including Aztek Premier and ICG 380 (in the results, not just in the technical specifications).
8060's main features: 12000 dpi, Hi-Q Xenon lamp, 25 apertures, 2 micron
Aztek Premier's main features: 8000 dpi, halogen lamp, 18 apertures, 3 micron
ICG 380's main features: 12000 dpi, halogen lamp, 9 apertures, 4 micron
Some of the features that make the quality of our drum scanners better than any other existing scan system include:
The scans performed on a drum scanner are famous for their detail, depth and realism.
Scans are much cleaner and show fewer imperfections than scans obtained from CCD scanners, and thus save many hours of cleaning and spotting in postproduction.
Image acquisition by the drum scanner is optically similar to using a microscopic lens that scans the image point by point with extreme precision and without deformation or distortion of any kind, while other scanners use enlarger lenses (such as the Rodenstock-Linos Magnagon 75mm f8 used in the Hasselblad-Imacon scanners) and have transmission systems with rubber bands: this involves mild but effective micro-strain and micro-geometric image distortions and quality is not uniform between the center and edges.
Drum scanners are exempt from problems of flatness of the originals, since the same are mounted on a perfectly balanced transparent acrylic drum; on the contrary, the dedicated film scanners that scan slides or negatives in their plastic frames are subject to quite significant inaccuracies, as well as the Imacon-Hasselblad scanners, which have their own rubber and plastic holders: they do not guarantee the perfect flatness of the original and therefore a uniform definition between center and edge, especially with medium and large size originals, which instead are guaranteed by drum scanners.
Again, drum scanners allow scanning at high resolution over the entire surface of the cylinder, while for example the Hasselblad Imacon scans are limited to 3200 dpi in 120 format and 2000 dpi in 4x5" format (the resolution of nearly every CCD scanner in the market drops as the size of the original scanned is increased).
Drum scanners allow complete scanning of the whole negative, including the black-orange mask, perforations etc, while using many other scanners a certain percentage of the image is lost because it is covered by frames or holders.
Drum scanners use photomultiplier tubes to record the light signal, which are much more sensitive than CCDs and can record many more nuances and variations in contrast with a lower digital noise.
If you look at a monitor at 100% the detail in shadows and darker areas of a scan made with a CCD scanner, you will notice that the details are not recorded in a clear and clean way, and the colors are more opaque and less differentiated. Additionally the overall tones are much less rich and differentiated.
We would like to say a few words about an unscrupulous and deceitful use of technical specifications reported by many manufacturers of consumer and prosumer scanners; very often we read of scanners that promise cheap or relatively cheap “drum scanner” resolutions, 16 bits of color depth, extremely high DMAX: we would like to say that these “nominal” resolutions do not correspond to an actual optical resolution, so that even in low-resolution scanning you can see an enormous gap between drum scanners and these scanners in terms of detail, as well as in terms of DMAX, color range, realism, “quality” of grain. So very often when using these consumer-prosumer scanners at high resolutions, it is normal to get a disproportionate increase of file size in MB but not an increase of detail and quality.
To give a concrete example: a drum scan of a 24x36mm color negative film at 3500 dpi is much more defined than a scan made with mostly CCD scanner at 8000 dpi and a drum scan at 2500 dpi is dramatically clearer than a scan at 2500 dpi provided by a CCD scanner. So be aware and careful with incorrect advertisement.
Scans can be performed either dry or liquid-mounted. The wet mounting further improves cleanliness (helps to hide dirt, scratches and blemishes) and plasticity of the image without compromising the original, and in addition by mounting with liquid the film grain is greatly reduced and it looks much softer and more pleasant than the usual "harsh" grain resulting from dry scans.
We use Kami SMF 2001 liquid to mount the transparencies and Kami RC 2001 for cleaning the same. Kami SMF 2001 evaporates without leaving traces, unlike the traditional oil scans, ensuring maximum protection for your film. Out of ignorance some people prefer to avoid liquid scanning because they fear that their films will be dirty or damaged: this argument may be plausible only in reference to scans made using mineral oils, which have nothing to do with the specific professional products we use.
We strongly reiterate that your original is in no way compromised by our scanning liquid and will return as you have shipped it, if not cleaner.
With respect to scanning from slides:
Our scanners are carefully calibrated with the finest IT8 calibration targets in circulation and with special customized targets in order to ensure that each scan faithfully reproduces the original color richness even in the most subtle nuances, opening and maintaining detail in shadows and highlights. These color profiles allow our scanners to realize their full potential, so we guarantee our customers that even from a chromatic point of view our scans are noticeably better than similar scans made by mostly other scan services in the market.
In addition, we remind you that our 8060 drum scanner is able to read the deepest shadows of slides without digital noise and with much more detail than CCD scanners; also, the color range and color realism are far better.
With respect to scanning from color and bw negatives: we want to emphasize the superiority of our drum scans not only in scanning slides, but also in color and bw negative scanning (because of the orange mask and of very low contrast is extremely difficult for any ccd scanner to read the very slight tonal and contrast nuances in the color negative, while a perfectly profiled 8060 drum scanner – also through the analog gain/white calibration - can give back much more realistic images and true colors, sharper and more three-dimensional).
In spite of what many claim, a meticulous color profiling is essential not only for scanning slides, but also, and even more, for color negatives. Without it the scan of a color negative will produce chromatic errors rather significant, thus affecting the tonal balance and then the naturalness-pleasantness of the images.
More unique than rare, we do not use standardized profiles provided by the software to invert each specific negative film, because they do not take into account parameters and variables such as the type of development, the level of exposure, the type of light etc.,; at the same time we also avoid systems of "artificial intelligence" or other functions provided by semi-automatic scanning softwares, but instead we carry out the inversion in a full manual workflow for each individual picture.
In addition, scanning with Imacon-Hasselblad scanners we do not use their proprietary software - Flexcolor – to make color management and color inversion because we strongly believe that our alternative workflow provides much better results, and we are able to prove it with absolute clarity.
At each stage of the process we take care of meticulously adjusting the scanning parameters to the characteristics of the originals, to extrapolate the whole range of information possible from any image without "burning" or reductions in the tonal range, and strictly according to our customer's need and taste.
By default, we do not apply unsharp mask (USM) in our scans, except on request.
To scan reflective originals we follow the same guidelines and guarantee the same quality standard.
We guarantee the utmost thoroughness and expertise in the work of scanning and handling of the originals and we provide scans up to 12,000 dpi of resolution, at 16-bit, in RGB, GRAYSCALE, LAB or CMYK color mode; unless otherwise indicated, files are saved with Adobe RGB 1998 or ProPhoto RGB color profile.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Gloster Glaive was basically a modernized and re-engined variant of the successful, British-built Gloster Gladiator (or Gloster SS.37), the RAF’s final biplane fighter to enter service. The Gladiator was not only widely used by the RAF at the dawn of WWII and in almost every theatre of operations, but also by many other nations. Operators included Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania or Nationalist China, and while the RAF already opted for more modern monoplanes, Gloster saw the opportunity to sell an updated Gladiator to countries which were not as progressive.
Originally designated Gladiator Mk. IV, the machine received many aerodynamic refinements and the motor was changed from a draggy radial to a liquid-cooled inline engine. The latter was the new Rolls Royce Peregrine, a development of the Kestrel. It was, in its original form, a 21-litre (1,300 cu in) liquid-cooled V-12 aero engine ), delivering 885-horsepower (660 kW). The engine was housed under a streamlined cowling, driving a three blade metal propeller, and was coupled with a ventral radiator bath, reminiscent of the Hawker Fury biplane’s arrangement.
Structural improvements included an all-metal monocoque fuselage and stabilizers, as well as new wings and streamlined struts with reduced bracing. The upper wing was enlarged and of all-metal construction, too, while the lower wings were reduced in span and area, almost resulting in a sesquiplane layout. The total wing area was only marginally reduced, though.
The fixed landing gear was retained, but the main wheels were now covered with spats. The pilot still sat in a fully enclosed cockpit, the armament consisted of four machine guns, similar to the Gladiator. But for the Glaive, all Browning machine guns were synchronized and mounted in the fuselage: one pair was placed on top of the cowling, in front of the cockpit. Another pair, much like the Gladiator’s arrangement was placed in the fuselage flanks, below the exhaust outlets.
Compared with the Gladiator, the design changes were so fundamental that Gloster eventually decided to allocate a separate designation – also with a view to the type’s foreign marketing, since a new aircraft appeared more attractive than another mark of a pre-war design. For the type’s virgin flight in late 1938 the name “Glaive” was unveiled to the public, and several smaller European air forces immediately showed interest, including Greece, Croatia, Turkey, Portugal and Egypt.
Greece was one of the initial customers, and the first of a total of 24 aircraft for the Hellenic Air Force was delivered in early 1939, with 24 more on order (which were never delivered, though). The initial batch arrived just in time, since tension had been building between Greece and Italy since 7 April 1939, when Italian troops occupied Albania. On 28 October 1940, Italy issued an ultimatum to Greece, which was promptly rejected. A few hours later, Italian troops launched an invasion of Greece, initiating the Greco-Italian War.
The Hellenic Gloster Glaives were split among three Mirae Dioxeos (Fighter Squadrons): the 21st at Trikala, 22nd at Thessaloniki and 23rd at Larissa. When Italy attacked in October 1940, the British fighter was, together with the PZL 24, the Greeks' only modern type in adequate numbers. However, by late 1940, the Gloster Glaive was already no longer a front-runner despite a powerful powerplant and satisfactory armament. It had no speed advantage over the Fiat Cr.42 nor could it outfly the nimble Italian biplane, and it was much slower than the Macchi MC.200 and the Fiat G.50 it was pitted against. Its agility was the only real advantage against the Italian fighters, whose reliance on the slow firing Breda-SAFAT 12.7mm machine guns proved detrimental.
Anyway, on 5 April 1941, German forces invaded Greece and quickly established air superiority. As the Allied troops retreated, British and Hellenic forces covered them, before flying to Crete during the last week of April. There, the refugee aircraft recorded a few claims over twin-engine aircraft before being evacuated to Egypt during the Battle of Crete.
Overall, the Glaives performed gallantly during the early period of the conflict, holding their own against impossible numerical odds and despite the fact that their main target were enemy bombers which forced them to fight at a disadvantage against enemy fighters. Italian claims of easy superiority over the Albanian front were vastly over-rated and their kill claims even exceeded the total number of operational fighters on the Greek side. Total Greek fighter losses in combat came to 24 a/c with the Greek fighter pilots claiming 64 confirmed kills and 24 probables (about two third bombers).
By April 1941, however, lack of spares and attrition had forced the Hellenic Air Force to merge the surviving seven Glaives with five leftover PZL.24s into one understrength squadron supported by five Gloster Gladiators Mk I & II and the two surviving MB.151s. These fought hopelessly against the Luftwaffe onslaught, and most aircraft were eventually lost on the ground. None of the Hellenic Gloster Glaives survived the conflict.
General characteristics:
Crew: two
Length: 8.92m (29 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 34 ft 0 in (10.36 m)
Height: 11 ft 9 in (3.58 m)
Wing area: 317 ft² (29.4 m²)
Empty weight: 1,295 kg (2,855 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 1,700 kg (3,748 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls Royce Peregrine II liquid-cooled V12 inline engine, rated at 940 hp (700 kw)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 405 km/h (252 mph; 219 kn) at 4,400 m (14,436 ft)
Cruise speed: 345 km/h (214 mph; 186 kn)
Stall speed: 60 mph (52 knots, 96 km/h)
Range: 373 mi (600 km; 324 nmi)
Endurance: 2 hours
Service ceiling: 10,600 m (34,800 ft)
Rate of climb: 2,982 ft/min (15.15 m/s)
Time to altitude: 10.000 ft (3.050 m) in 3 minutes 20 seconds
Armament:
4× 0.303 calibre (7.7 mm) M1919 Browning machine guns in the fuselage
Provisions for 6× 10 kg (22 lb) or 4x 20 kg (44 lb) bombs under the lower wings
The kit and its assembly:
The fictional Gloster Glaive started quite simple with the idea of replacing the Gladiator’s radial with an inline engine. But this soon did not appear enough for an update – the Peregrine hardly delivered much more power than the former Mercury, so I considered some structural updates, too. Most of them comprised the replacement of former fabric-covered structures, and this led conceptually to a kitbash with only some Gladiator fuselage and tail parts left.
The basis is (once more) the very nice Matchbox Gloster Gladiator, but it was heavily modified. As an initial step, fuselage, fin and stabilizers (all OOB parts) lost their rib-and-fabric structure, simply sanded away. A minor detail, but it changes the overall look of the aircraft a lot, making it appear much more modern.
The fuselage was left without the OOB radial, and instead a leftover Merlin front end from an Airfix Hurricane (ca. 1cm long, left over from one of my first whif builds ever, a Hurricane with a radial engine!) was added. The lines match pretty well: the side profile looks sleek, if not elegant, but the Gladiator fuselage turned out to be wider than expected. Some major body work/PSR was necessary to integrate the new nose, but the result looks very good.
The liquid-cooled engine necessitated a radiator somewhere on the airframe…! Since I wanted the nose to remain slim and streamlined I eventually placed the radiator bath under the fuselage, much like the arrangement of the Hawker Fury biplane. The radiator itself comes from a late Spitfire (FROG kit).
The exhaust was taken from the Hurricane kit, too, and matching slits dug into the putty nose to take them. The three blade propeller is a mash-up, too: the spinner belongs, IIRC, to an early Spitfire (left over from an AZ Models kit) while the blades came from a damaged Matchbox Brewster Buffalo.
The Gladiator’s fuselage flank machine guns were kept and their “bullet channels” extrapolated along the new cowling, running under the new exhaust pipes. Another pair of machine guns were placed on top of the engine – for these, openings were carved into the upper hull and small fairings (similar to the Browning guns in the flanks) added. This arrangement appeared plausible to me, since the Gladiator’s oil cooler was not necessary anymore and the new lower wings (see below) were not big enough anymore to take the Gladiator’s underwing guns. Four MGs in the fuselage appears massive – but there were other types with such an arrangement, e.g. the Avia B-534 with four guns in the flanks and an inline engine.
The wings are complete replacements: the upper wing comes from a Heller Curtiss SBC4, while the lower wings as well as the spats (on shortened OOB Gladiator struts) come from an ICM Polikarpov I-153. All struts were scratched. Once the lower wings were in place and the relative position of the upper wing clear, the outer struts were carved from 1mm styrene sheet, using the I-153 design as benchmark. These were glued to the lower wing first, and, once totally dry after 24h, the upper wing was simply glued onto the top and the wing position adjusted. This was left to dry another 24h, and as a final step the four struts above the cowling (using the OOB struts, but as single parts and trimmed for proper fit) were placed. This way, a stable connection is guaranteed – and the result is surprisingly sturdy.
Rigging was done with heated sprue material – my personal favorite for this delicate task, and executed before painting the kit started so that the glue could cure and bond well.
Painting and markings:
The reason why this aircraft ended in Greek service is a color photograph of a crashed Hellenic Bloch M.B. 152 (coded ‘D 177’, to be specific). I guess that the picture was post-colored, though, because the aircraft of French origin sports rather weird colors: the picture shows a two-tone scheme in a deep, rather reddish chestnut brown and a light green that almost looks like teal. Unique, to say the least... Underside colors couldn’t be identified with certainty in the picture, but appeared like a pale but not too light blue grey.
Anyway, I assume that these colors are pure fiction and exaggerated Photoshop work, since the few M.B. 152s delivered to Greece carried AFAIK standard French camouflage (in French Khaki, Chestnut Brown and Blue-Grey on the upper surfaces, and a very light blue-grey from below). I’d assume that the contrast between the grey and green tones was not very obvious in the original photograph, so that the artist, not familiar with WWII paint schemes, replaced both colors with the strange teal tone and massively overmodulated the brown.
As weird as it looked, I liked this design and used it as an inspirational benchmark for my Hellenic Glaive build. After all, it’s a fictional aircraft… Upper basic colors are Humbrol 31 (RAF Slate Grey) and 160 (German Camouflage Red Brown), while the undersides became French Dark Blue Grey (ModelMaster Authentics 2105). The result looks rather odd…
Representing a combat-worn aircraft, I applied a thorough black ink wash and did heavier panel shading and dry-brushing on the leading edges, along with some visible touches of aluminum.
The Hellenic roundels come from a TL Modellbau aftermarket sheet. The tactical code was puzzled together from single letters, and the Greek “D” was created from single decal strips. For better contrast I used white decals – most Hellenic aircraft of the time had black codes, but the contrast is much better, and I found evidence that some machines actually carried white codes. The small fin flash is another free interpretation. Not every Hellenic aircraft carried these markings, and instead of painting the whole rudder in Greek colors I just applied a small fin flash. This was created with white and blue decal strips, closely matching the roundels’ colors.
Finally, after some soot stains around the guns and the exhausts, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
Modified beyond recognition, perhaps…? The fictional Gloster Glaive looks IMHO good and very modern, just like one of those final biplane designs that were about to be outrun by monoplanes at the brink of WWII.
Oyster
Lower Jurassic.
What many people don't realise is that - most bivalve fossils are found (like this one) tightly closed.
Bivalves open when they die, that is why you will find many open bivalves or half shells on the beach. If you find any closed ones they are likely to still be alive.
A closed fossil bivalve indicates that it was rapidly buried whilst still alive, in a sufficient weight of sediment to prevent the bivalve opening.
The fact that the majority of fossil bivalves are found tightly closed, indicates that most were buried rapidly. This goes against the popular idea that fossils are formed by gradual burial in a slow build up of sediment.
Rapid formation of strata, recent evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
There is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.
Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.
However, the changes possible through selective breeding were known by 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 structures and features (macro-evolution).
Darwin 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 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 limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism had 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 ... 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 right 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 ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro evolution based on a belief in a total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.
However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it is should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.
People are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. However, evolutionists often 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 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 new structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that 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.
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 millions 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 ... of mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc. 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, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in 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 ... 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 literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated 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 converted 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 rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.
The very existence of intact fossils is a 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's, 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 even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.
Rapid formation of strata - latest evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
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.
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 and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.
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 used as 'scientific' evidence for evolution in 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.
So much for the credibility of evolution, but what about atheism?
If there is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution, that has very serious implications for atheist beliefs, which depend heavily on microbes-to-man evolution being a fact. You don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution, but it is very difficult to be an atheist if you don't accept evolution as true. So the exposure of evolution as an unscientific, fairy story seriously undermines atheism. However, even if progressive evolution could be shown to be credible, atheism cannot.
Because.....
If people would only think for themselves - there would be no atheists.
Atheism is anti-logic and anti-science ......
Atheism is the rejection of one of the only 2 origins options.
The only two options are:
1. An uncaused, supernatural first cause.
2. An uncaused, natural first cause.
Atheists categorically reject option one, therefore they believe in option two - by default.
Option two (an uncaused, natural first cause) is impossible according to logic, natural laws and the scientific method.
Every natural event/effect/entity has to have an adequate cause.
All material/natural entities/events are contingent, they rely on preceding causes.
A natural first cause, cannot be a very FIRST cause because something (which didn't need a cause) must have caused it.
A natural first cause also cannot be the very first cause of the universe because it is woefully inadequate for the effect. An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
So atheism is a set of beliefs which violate the scientific method, ignore logic and defy natural laws.
Atheism is akin to a religion because it credits matter/energy with similar creative powers and attributes as those applied to a creator God, which is really just a more sophisticated version of pagan naturalism, which imbued natural entities such as Mother Nature, The Sun or Moon god etc. with creative and magical powers.
To explain further ....
If there are only 2 options and one is ruled out as 'impossible' by logic, natural law and the scientific method, then it is safe, indeed sensible, to deduce that the other option is the only possible, and likely one.
Anyone who believes in science should know - that the basis of the scientific method is looking for adequate causes for every natural event/effect.
An 'uncaused' natural event is an anathema to science, it cannot even contemplate such a prospect.
If someone was to propose a natural first cause of everything, science would have to ask - what caused it? You cannot claim it was uncaused - that defies the scientific method.
However, if it was caused - if it had a preceding cause, ... then it cannot be the FIRST cause. Because FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
So the very first cause of everything must be UNCAUSED ... which means, according to science, it CANNOT be a NATURAL cause.
In other words ... it cannot be a contingent entity, it can only be an eternally self-existent, self-reliant, autonomous, infinite, omnipotent entity which is entirely independent of causes, and the limitations that causes impose.
Furthermore, the first cause also has to be completely adequate for the effect, the effect cannot be greater than the cause ... so the first cause has to have adequate powers, properties and potentiality to create the entirety of the universe, i.e. nothing in the universe can be superior in any respect to the first cause.
That means the first cause must embody, or be able to create, every property and quality that exists, which includes: natural laws, information, life, intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, design, skill, moral values, sense of beauty, justice etc.
All proposed, natural first causes - Big Bang's, Singularities, quantum mechanics etc. are not only ruled out because, as contingent events, they cannot be uncaused, they are also grossly inferior to the effect, which definitively rules them all out as credible first causes.
To put it more simply ... all effects/events/entities are the result of a combination of numerous, preceding causes, but the very first cause is unique, inasmuch as it is a lone cause of everything.
Everything can be traced back to that single cause, it is responsible for every other cause, entity and effect that follows it. Unlike other lesser or subsequent causes it has to account for the totality of everything that exists. So it cannot be inferior in any respect to any particular property, entity, event, effect, or to the totality of them all.
If we have intelligence then, that which caused us cannot be non-intelligent.
Atheists assume that we are greater in that respect than that which caused us .... that is ridiculous and it defies logic and natural law.
What about infinite time?
Time is simply a chronology of natural events. Time began with the origin of the material realm. No natural events ...means - no time. All natural entities, events/effects are contingent, they cannot be self-existent, they rely on causes and the limitations that causes impose. they are not autonomous entities, to propose that is anti-science.
Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.
But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
Why do atheists have such a problem with it?
Atheists seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.
Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.
Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
Such as it arising from nothing of its own volition, for no reason.
Or even the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!
Incredible!
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
― G.K. Chesterton ..... SO TRUE!
www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existen...
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...
Atheism = NOTHING created EVERYTHING, for NO REASON.
Makes perfect sense .... NOT!
www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existen...
If people would only think for themselves - there would be no atheists.
Atheism is anti-logic and anti-science ......
Atheism is the rejection of one of the only 2 origins options.
The only two options are:
1. An uncaused, supernatural first cause.
2. An uncaused, natural first cause.
Atheists categorically reject option one, therefore they believe in option two - by default.
Option two (an uncaused, natural first cause) is impossible according to logic, natural laws and the scientific method.
Every natural event/effect/entity has to have an adequate cause.
All material/natural entities/events are contingent, they rely on preceding causes.
A natural first cause, cannot be a very FIRST cause because something (which didn't need a cause) must have caused it.
A natural first cause also cannot be the very first cause of the universe because it is woefully inadequate for the effect. An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
So atheism is a set of beliefs which violate the scientific method, ignore logic and defy natural laws.
Atheism is akin to a religion because it credits matter/energy with similar creative powers and attributes as those applied to a creator God, which is really just a more sophisticated version of pagan naturalism, which imbued natural entities such as Mother Nature, The Sun or Moon god etc. with creative and magical powers.
To explain further ....
If there are only 2 options and one is ruled out as 'impossible' by logic, natural law and the scientific method, then it is safe, indeed sensible, to deduce that the other option is the only possible, and likely one.
Anyone who believes in science should know - that the basis of the scientific method is looking for adequate causes for every natural event/effect.
An 'uncaused' natural event is an anathema to science, it cannot even contemplate such a prospect.
If someone was to propose a natural first cause of everything, science would have to ask - what caused it? You cannot claim it was uncaused - that defies the scientific method.
However, if it was caused - if it had a preceding cause, ... then it cannot be the FIRST cause. Because FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
So the very first cause of everything must be UNCAUSED ... which means, according to science, it CANNOT be a NATURAL cause.
In other words ... it cannot be a contingent entity, it can only be an eternally self-existent, self-reliant, autonomous, infinite, omnipotent entity which is entirely independent of causes, and the limitations that causes impose.
Furthermore, the first cause also has to be completely adequate for the effect, the effect cannot be greater than the cause ... so the first cause has to have adequate powers, properties and potentiality to create the entirety of the universe, i.e. nothing in the universe can be superior in any respect to the first cause.
That means the first cause must embody, or be able to create, every property and quality that exists, which includes: natural laws, information, life, intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, design, skill, moral values, sense of beauty, justice etc.
All proposed, natural first causes - Big Bang's, Singularities, quantum mechanics etc. are not only ruled out because, as contingent events, they cannot be uncaused, they are also grossly inferior to the effect, which definitively rules them all out as credible first causes.
To put it more simply ... all effects/events/entities are the result of a combination of numerous, preceding causes, but the very first cause is unique, inasmuch as it is a lone cause of everything.
Everything can be traced back to that single cause, it is responsible for every other cause, entity and effect that follows it. Unlike other lesser or subsequent causes it has to account for the totality of everything that exists. So it cannot be inferior in any respect to any particular property, entity, event, effect, or to the totality of them all.
If we have intelligence then, that which caused us cannot be non-intelligent.
Atheists assume that we are greater in that respect than that which caused us .... that is ridiculous and it defies logic and natural law.
What about infinite time?
Time is simply a chronology of natural events. Time began with the origin of the material realm. No natural events ...means - no time. All natural entities, events/effects are contingent, they cannot be self-existent, they rely on causes and the limitations that causes impose. they are not autonomous entities, to propose that is anti-science.
Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.
But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
Why do atheists have such a problem with it?
Atheists seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.
Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.
Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
Such as it arising from nothing of its own volition, for no reason.
Or even the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!
Another idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never ending cycle.
However, the idea that the universe can simply rewind itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is complete, unscientific nonsense.
It seems atheists will try anything to justify their naturalist ideology. They apparently have no compunction about completely disregarding natural laws.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out such atheist, pie-in-the-sky, origins mythology.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.
Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord. The Second Law (not to mention common sense) rules it out. Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from? If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped. The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.
Such ridiculous atheist musings are just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion of logic, and the Law of Cause and Effect which are the real enemies of atheist ideology.
Atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion. Atheists can’t refute the Law of Cause and Effect which is so devastating to their naturalist agenda, so they regularly invent bizarre scenarios which ignore natural laws, and hope people won’t notice. If anyone does they just brush it off with remarks like “we just don’t know ”.
Sorry, atheists apologists may not know …. but we do know, we certainly know what is impossible …. And we certainly know that you cannot blithely step outside the constraints of natural laws and scientific principles, as atheists do, and remain credible.
Atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, while they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.
A further nail in the coffin of atheist pseudoscience is existence of order.
The development of order requires an organizational element. To do useful work, or to counter the effects of entropy, energy needs to be directed or guided. Raw energy alone actually tends to increase the effects of entropy, it doesn't increase order.
The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.
Natural laws are a type of information which guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it. They are an inherent property of matter/energy, natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws. They cannot exceed the parameters of those laws.
A major problem for atheists is to explain where natural laws came from? In a purposeless universe there should be no regulatory principle at all.
Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure and we would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy scream …. ‘purpose’. Atheists say the exact opposite.
Furthermore, if we add the accepted, atheist belief; that matter is inherently predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive.
The atheist idea of a random, purposeless, universe is left completely in tatters.
It is the atheist ideology that is anti-science, not necessarily individual scientists.
There may be sincere, atheist scientists who respect the scientific method and natural laws, but they are wedded to an ideology that - when push comes to shove, does not respect natural laws.
It is evident that whenever natural laws interfere with atheist naturalist beliefs, the beliefs take precedence over the rigorous, scientific method. It is then that natural laws are disregarded by atheists in favour of unscientific fantasies which are conducive to their ideology.
Of course, in much day-to-day practical science and technology, the question of violating laws doesn't even arise, and we cannot deny that in the course of such work, atheists will respect the scientific method of experiment and observation within the framework of the Law of Cause and Effect and other established laws of science.
Bizarrely, It is a different matter entirely, when it comes to hypotheses about origins. It then becomes an 'anything goes' situation. The main criteria then seems to be that it doesn’t matter whether your hypothesis violates natural laws (all sorts of excuses can be made as to why natural laws need not apply), all that matters is that it is entirely naturalistic, and can be made to sound plausible to the public.
However, the same atheist scientists would not entertain anything in general, day-to-day science, that is not completely in accordance with the scientific method, they make an exception ONLY with anything to do with origins, whether it be the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of species.
Atheism is not simply passive non-belief, you can only be a ‘genuine’ atheist if you proactively believe in the following illogical and unscientific notions:
A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.
A natural, first cause of the universe that was patently not adequate for the effect, (a cause which was able to produce an effect far greater than itself and superior to its own abilities).
That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.
That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.
That energy potential at the start of everything material was able to wind itself up from absolute zero, of its own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.
That the effect of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) was somehow suspended or didn’t operate to permit the development of order in the universe.
That life spontaneously generated itself, of its own volition, from sterile matter, contrary to: the Law of Biogenesis, the laws of probability, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Information Theory and common sense.
That the complete human genome was created by means of a long chain of copying mistakes of the original, genetic information in the first living cell, (mutations of mutations of mutations, etc. etc.).
That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.
That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.
That matter is somehow inherently predisposed to develop into living cells, whenever conditions are conducive to life. But such a predisposition for life just arose of its own accord, with no purpose and with no apparent cause.
That an ordered structure of atoms, guiding laws of physics, order in the cosmos, order in the living cell and complex information, are what we would expect to occur naturally in a purposeless universe.
The claim of Dawkins and other atheists to be the champions of science and reason is clearly bogus. They think they can get away with it by pretending to have no beliefs. However, when challenged, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause. Whenever possible, they avoid declaring those beliefs explicitly, but you don’t need to be very astute to realize that relying on those beliefs is the unavoidable conclusion of their arguments. That is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is doomed to the dustbin of history.
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."
Evolution is on the rocks - some recent evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/7215 7635944904973/
Fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/7215 7641367196613/
So much for atheism .... What about progressive (macro) evolution?
There is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.
Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.
However, the changes possible through selective breeding were known by 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 structures and features (macro-evolution).
Darwin 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 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 limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism had 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 ... 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 right 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 ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro evolution based on a belief in a total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.
However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it is should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.
People are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. However, evolutionists often 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 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 new structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that 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.
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 millions 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 ... of mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc. 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, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in 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 ... 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 literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated 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 converted 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 rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.
The very existence of intact fossils is a 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's, 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 even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.
Rapid formation of strata - latest evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
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.
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 and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.
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 used as 'scientific' evidence for evolution in 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.
Is macro evolution 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.
Having survived relatively unchanged for millions of years, nautiluses represent the only living members of the subclass Nautiloidea, and are often considered "living fossils.
They are yet another creature for which there is no evidence of any evolution.
Rapid formation of strata - latest evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
See fossil of a crab, also 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/
There is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.
Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.
However, the changes possible through selective breeding were known by 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 structures and features (macro-evolution).
Darwin 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 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 limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism had 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 ... 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 right 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 ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro evolution based on a belief in a total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.
However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it is should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.
People are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. However, evolutionists often 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 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 new structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that 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.
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 millions 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 ... of mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc. 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, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in 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 ... 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 literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated 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 converted 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 rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.
The very existence of intact fossils is a 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's, 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 even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.
Rapid formation of strata - latest evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
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.
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 and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.
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 used as 'scientific' evidence for evolution in 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.
So much for the credibility of evolution, but what about atheism?
If there is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution, that has very serious implications for atheist beliefs, which depend heavily on microbes-to-man evolution being a fact. You don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution, but it is very difficult to be an atheist if you don't accept evolution as true. So the exposure of evolution as an unscientific, fairy story seriously undermines atheism. However, even if progressive evolution could be shown to be credible, atheism cannot.
Because.....
If people would only think for themselves - there would be no atheists.
Atheism is anti-logic and anti-science ......
Atheism is the rejection of one of the only 2 origins options.
The only two options are:
1. An uncaused, supernatural first cause.
2. An uncaused, natural first cause.
Atheists categorically reject option one, therefore they believe in option two - by default.
Option two (an uncaused, natural first cause) is impossible according to logic, natural laws and the scientific method.
Every natural event/effect/entity has to have an adequate cause.
All material/natural entities/events are contingent, they rely on preceding causes.
A natural first cause, cannot be a very FIRST cause because something (which didn't need a cause) must have caused it.
A natural first cause also cannot be the very first cause of the universe because it is woefully inadequate for the effect. An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
So atheism is a set of beliefs which violate the scientific method, ignore logic and defy natural laws.
Atheism is akin to a religion because it credits matter/energy with similar creative powers and attributes as those applied to a creator God, which is really just a more sophisticated version of pagan naturalism, which imbued natural entities such as Mother Nature, The Sun or Moon god etc. with creative and magical powers.
To explain further ....
If there are only 2 options and one is ruled out as 'impossible' by logic, natural law and the scientific method, then it is safe, indeed sensible, to deduce that the other option is the only possible, and likely one.
Anyone who believes in science should know - that the basis of the scientific method is looking for adequate causes for every natural event/effect.
An 'uncaused' natural event is an anathema to science, it cannot even contemplate such a prospect.
If someone was to propose a natural first cause of everything, science would have to ask - what caused it? You cannot claim it was uncaused - that defies the scientific method.
However, if it was caused - if it had a preceding cause, ... then it cannot be the FIRST cause. Because FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
So the very first cause of everything must be UNCAUSED ... which means, according to science, it CANNOT be a NATURAL cause.
In other words ... it cannot be a contingent entity, it can only be an eternally self-existent, self-reliant, autonomous, infinite, omnipotent entity which is entirely independent of causes, and the limitations that causes impose.
Furthermore, the first cause also has to be completely adequate for the effect, the effect cannot be greater than the cause ... so the first cause has to have adequate powers, properties and potentiality to create the entirety of the universe, i.e. nothing in the universe can be superior in any respect to the first cause.
That means the first cause must embody, or be able to create, every property and quality that exists, which includes: natural laws, information, life, intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, design, skill, moral values, sense of beauty, justice etc.
All proposed, natural first causes - Big Bang's, Singularities, quantum mechanics etc. are not only ruled out because, as contingent events, they cannot be uncaused, they are also grossly inferior to the effect, which definitively rules them all out as credible first causes.
To put it more simply ... all effects/events/entities are the result of a combination of numerous, preceding causes, but the very first cause is unique, inasmuch as it is a lone cause of everything.
Everything can be traced back to that single cause, it is responsible for every other cause, entity and effect that follows it. Unlike other lesser or subsequent causes it has to account for the totality of everything that exists. So it cannot be inferior in any respect to any particular property, entity, event, effect, or to the totality of them all.
If we have intelligence then, that which caused us cannot be non-intelligent.
Atheists assume that we are greater in that respect than that which caused us .... that is ridiculous and it defies logic and natural law.
What about infinite time?
Time is simply a chronology of natural events. Time began with the origin of the material realm. No natural events ...means - no time. All natural entities, events/effects are contingent, they cannot be self-existent, they rely on causes and the limitations that causes impose. they are not autonomous entities, to propose that is anti-science.
Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.
But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
Why do atheists have such a problem with it?
Atheists seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.
Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.
Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
Such as it arising from nothing of its own volition, for no reason.
Or even the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!
Incredible!
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
― G.K. Chesterton ..... SO TRUE!
www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existen...
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...
Rosslyn Chapel has long been a worthy attraction with its legendary aspects and its abundance of carvings, but it became that much more of a thing after the 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' publishing phenomenon in the early 90s, and the derivative DaVinci Code, and the film with its final scene with Tom Hanks that takes place here in the non-existent basement.
- When I was living in Halifax in the early 90s, I bought a copy of 'Holy Grail across the Atlantic' by Michael Bradley, a 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' wannabe that theorized that Henry Sinclair, Earl of the Orkney Islands (grandfather of William Sinclair, the owner of this chapel) was in fact Prince Zichmni, the subject of letters written @ 1400 by the brothers Zeno of Venice (and replete with a map) which gave an account of his voyages to the New World, and which were allegedly rediscovered and published in the early 16th cent. The theory that Sinclair was Zichmni dates from 1784. Bradley argued that Sinclair was Glooscap, the Mi'kmaq warrior god who arrived off the coast of Nova Scotia near Canso or in the Bay of Fundy on a floating island and taught the locals to fish with nets. Bradley states that nets appear in the archaeological record in N.S. at @ the end of the 14th cent. when Sinclair came by (according to this legend). www.flickr.com/photos/greying_geezer/1835103667/
www.flickr.com/photos/greying_geezer/1835107079/
- Bradley takes it further and writes that Sinclair was working with the Knights Templar seeking to establish a refuge for the 'Holy Blood' and did so at New Ross in N.S. (?) and that he had the 'Money Pit' dug at Oak Island as a repository for the treasure of the Knights Templar. It's claimed that there are Templar aspects in the carvings in this chapel, built by his grandson William, and that some of the carvings of plants represent Aloe and others from the new world as yet unknown to Europeans in 1486 when the chapel was built. (They could as easily be stylized depictions of wheat and strawberries). But William Sinclair testified against the Templars, a fact hardly compatible with his having sympathies with them. It's all almost certainly b.s., but fun b.s.. Scotland has its fair share of this kind of thing doesn't it, with all the ghosts, Loch Ness, Crowley's Boleskine house, the cave in which 'the Bruce' hid behind the spider-web, etc., etc.
- Henry Lincoln was the prime author of 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail'. Enjoy his clipped delivery in this 'In Search Of' episode from the 70s. Watch from the 13:15 min. pt. to 14:30 and esp. from 15:28 to 18:05. www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_nE5MBnreM&list=PL6rj1b7vga5...
- I was given a copy of 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' when I was in Halifax in the early 90s, and had my copy with me when I was working at a firm in South Africa in the summer of '92. I learned during my stay that the book was banned in the R.S.A. at that time! When my articling student host asked me if I would leave my copy with him, I said 'of course!' How could I take it out of the country and deprive him of it when it was banned there? And again, this was in 1992!
- Update: Apr. 2017 - (The following's not of much interest to anyone who's not a close relative or one on my Dad's Mom's side of the family.) 'Truth is stranger than fiction' they say, and I say 'And how!' After I returned home from this Scottish trip I ran into a guy I know with the surname Sinclair and tried to tell him about my tour at Rosslyn Chapel and my interest in the history of the Sinclairs, but he was distracted and seemed disinterested. Well a few weeks ago I tried the Mormon genealogy research site for the first time on a procrastination binge one day, and Lo. and. behold! On a trip to P.E.I. with my Dad last summer I learned about (or rediscovered) a claim that my great great grandmother (Dad's Mom's Mom's Mom) had Scots nobility with chieftains of the clan McKay in her lineage, but I learned 2 weeks ago with research online that William Sinclair, who built and owned this chapel, a man who could have succeeded the King of Norway if he hadn't preferred to be the Earl of Caithness, and who was the great great grandfather of Henry Darnley, and great x 3 grandfather of King James Stuart 1 of England, was, according to another apparently well-researched claim, my great grandfather x 15 (Dad's Mom's Mom's Mom's Dad's Mom's Dad's Dad's Dad's Dad's Dad's Dad's Dad's Mom's Mom's Dad's Dad), and his grandfather, the semi-mythical Henry Sinclair, Earl of the Orkneys, was my great-grandfather x 17. Ho. ly! (But of course we all have 65,536 great x 15 grandfathers if you do the exponential math, and just as many great x 15 grandmothers.)
- Twigs rising from that McKay branch lead down, or up, the rabbit hole to John of Islay (the hapless John MacDonald, first so-called 'Lord of the Isles', youtu.be/m7rMdO7ag88?si=Z6Y80jp2r5nbDk2Y , Dad's Mom's Mom's Mom's Dad's Mom's Dad's Dad's Dad's Dad's Dad's Dad's Dad's Dad's Dad's Dad's Mom's Dad's Dad; isn't the internet great?), his father Angus Ogg (Aonghus Og of Islay), and John of Islay's maternal grandfather King Robert II, the first Stewart king (great granddad x 19), and Robert II's maternal grandfather Robert the Bruce, twice ancestral (!! - great x 21, and great x 20 from another twig from the branch). But then we all have 2,097,152 great grandfathers x 21, and just as many great grandmothers x 21, roughly twice the population of Scotland in the early 14th cent. So nothing to see here folks, lol. That side traces back further down the widening rabbit hole to Gruoch ingen Boite ('Lady MacBeth'), Malcolm III and the Canmore dynasty (leading back to Kenneth MacAlpine himself and his roots on both parents' sides with the Kings of Dalriada on one and Irish nobility in Ulster stretching back before the days of Columba, and the Pictish royals on the other) and Malcolm's wife Queen Ste. Margaret, and Edmund Ironside and the House of Wessex back to Alfred the Great (!), as well as Margaret's grandfather Vajk aka Istvan aka King St. Stephen of Hungary. A little bit of nobility in a distant twig of your tree and the exponential math leads to everybody who was anybody in that gene-pool within a handful of centuries, all the moreso with inbred royal types.
- Further update, July 2019 - Again, the following's not of much interest to anyone who's not a close relative or one on my Dad's Mom's side.: The basis for the link to clan chieftains referred to above (specifically the nodes /b/ great grand-dad x 5 and great x 7) is now in question. I recently tried to verify the lineage that I found 2 years back in a well-written piece on-line (and published too) www.islandregister.com/mackay9.html but I haven't been able (as yet) to find the basis for that part of the tree. The writer, George Hart, doesn't cite any source(s) for it and none seem to support it at the Scottish records office (accessible online). In fact, Hart provides a list of 5 sons of Neil MacRobert MacKay, allegedly my great grand-dad x 7, each with their years of birth, which fails to include his "known issue" (his heir?) per 'The Book of MacKay', an authoritative (but not unimpeachable?) source that's more than a century old archive.org/details/bookofmackay00mack/page/260 , one Robert MacNeil MacKay. But then again, according to Mr. Hart, my alleged great grand-dad x 7 would have been @ 35 yr.s old when he married the mother of those 5 sons who were then born over 14 yr.s. Early 18th-cent. baptismal records were specific to the parish, and while some were preserved, others weren't. If Neil MacRobert sired his eldest, the 'known issue', his heir, but then lost his wife, moved, remarried and sired 5 more, the records might be incomplete or inconsistent. (Sounds like a bit of a stretch though, doesn't it?) The 'Book of MacKay' doesn't provide the year of the heir Robert MacNeil MacKay's birth, and his is the only name given for any child sired by his father. But it's certainly not unlikely that his father had more than one child, despite that the 'Book' only refers to his "known issue." Neil MacRobert certainly had forgotten siblings listed as 'Others' in the tree on p. 274 in 'The Book'. archive.org/details/bookofmackay00mack/page/274/mode/2up
- The write-up that I copied when visiting distant cousins (old Harold MacLeod & co.) at their farmhouse in '98 (and which I rediscovered in papers I brought along and read while driving out east with my Dad 3 yr.s ago) doesn't fit with Mr. Hart's account at all. Parts of it at least don't stand up to any scrutiny either. That account concerns a different lineage of clan chieftains and 'the 'Scoury MacKays', a twig from the main branch of the clan MacKay. I'd just guessed that young, recently orphaned immigrant sibling 'pioneers', the eldest in their teens, who'd sailed from Thurso to Pictou on the 'Prince William of Newcastle' and then to Prince Edward Island in 1815 with their mother (Ann Calder) and stepfather, and who lost their mother the following year, or a descendant, might have extrapolated some if they'd been told they descend from MacKay clan chieftains. With limited knowledge of clan history and clan dynamics, they might've assumed they descend from a chief of that main branch, unaware of the existence of more than one (such as the Aberach MacKays). They'd be tempted to try to substantiate that claim, but the possibility also presents that a poor, young, recently orphaned immigrant, or his or her descendant, might have invented a link to a more glamorous past than that of beleaguered crofters and fisher-folk in the hardscrabble highlands. (They left from the parish of Durness after all, near Cape Wrath, THE most remote spot on the British mainland, depopulated and repopulated in part by marauding Vikings in the late 1st mill. and early 2nd mill.) But then again, John MacKay, great grand-dad x 5, had married well, for his wife, the matriarch Ann Calder, was certainly the daughter of a somewhat famous catechist (a title by appointment, he was "The Catechist" of the parish), said to be from 'Croy and Dalcross', sufficiently reputable to be written up, eulogized and feted by Alexander Auld in his book 'Ministers and Men in the Far North' (1891) books.google.ca/books?id=ev9DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP16&sou... and again by Rev. Donald Sage A.M. in 'Prominent Persons in Sutherland', a chapter in his book 'Parish Life in the North of Scotland' (1899).: electricscotland.com/history/parishlife/chapter15.htm AND John was the blacksmith of Eriboll (Norse for 'Home on a gravel beach'). According to Paul Murton (BBC's 'Grand Tours of Scotland'), "[i]n Scotland, lovers didn't need a priest to marry them because the law recognized any marriage [officiated] by a respectable member of the community. Smiths were considered to be amongst the most respected of the members of a community and traditionally this was the blacksmith, ... 'anvil priests' as they were called." The populations of the parish of Tongue and Durness were only 1093 and 1000 in 1755, 2093 combined (per Webster's famous census of that year), and the blacksmith might've been one of the bigger fish in a small pond by virtue of his profession. Smiths were skilled tradesmen with a reliable income in the midst of subsistence farmers or crofters ('little tenants' per the register) at the mercy of the local tacksman and Eriboll's "'orrible" weather. They were the armourers in a society where every able-bodied man owned or coveted a sword, and John MacKay was the sole smith in Eriboll (or at least who sired any children) from 1794 to 1811. Only 3 other smiths are listed in the register of the parish of Durness in and @ that period; in Balinloch (1789-1801), Balnaceil in 1803 and Durin in 1812, none of whom have the surname MacKay. (While MacKay was the most common surname in that neck of the woods, ie. 'MacKay country', MacKays ruled the roost in Strathnaver and the far north then as clan chieftains and local nobility as they'd done since 1415 at the latest, when Donald, Lord of the Isles, transferred Strathnaver and Strath Halladale to Black Angus and his son Neil. [The name Mackay derives from the Gaelic 'Aoidh'. Early clan chiefs descended from the ancient Pictish rulers of Moray, 'Morair Maghrath'.])
- I've learned that as a smith, John MacKay might've been more financially secure than 'Capt. William MacKay', a blue-blooded 'Scoury MacKay' (written up at p. 299 in 'The Book') living in Kirkiboll on the outskirts of Tongue, the eldest son of a surgeon, great x 4 grandson of Iye Du XII on his patrilineal line, and great grandson of Charles MacKay, scion of the Sandwood MacKays, and whose wife Jane Scobie, the daughter of a tacksman, granddaughter of William Scobie (a famous minister to the Gaelic congregation of Assynt), was the great x 2 granddaughter of Donald, 1st Lord Reay (so a little bluer than he). William was "the tenant of the major portion of Kirkiboll and of the inn or public house [there] with a license to retail spirits along with some more distant grazings. He was due a total annual rent of almost 14 pounds, which contrasted with the average small tenant who paid a rent of from 1 to 2 pounds. The inn was in the vicinity of Lord Reay's seat at Tongue and was the public venue for conducting estate business, the collection of rents, and holding sheriff and other courts. This was a substantial holding and William’s status was indicated by the use of the title “Mr". ... He was, however, to suffer from the demand for higher rents from Lord Reay and the rearrangements which came in 1801 and following years. In Jan. 1806, Donald Forbes, a tacksman, ... raised with Lord Reay the question of what was to become of William.: “It is regretted Poor Wm Mckay in Kirkiboll gets no Holding with all his faults he was usefull among the Community & has a heavy family.” This approach appears to have been ignored and a month or so later Mackay and the other tenants of Kirkiboll were served with a summons of removal by the landlord. With no extant lease, William was decerned to remove at Whitsunday in May. ... [He] managed to emigrate to P.E.I., as he and his family are recorded in the passenger list of 'the Elizabeth and Ann' [a coincidence {a real one, lol} see below] which left from Thurso in Aug., 1806. ..." (It was on P.E.I. where he would be dubbed 'Captain'.) www.mdpi.com/2313-5778/5/2/35 The entry re this Capt. William and his son John (who would emigrate to Australia in 1838) on p. 299 is one of only 2 references made in 'The Book of MacKay' to 'Prince Edward [or 'Edward's'] Island'. (The other is to the home of an 'A. Stirling MacKay, Esqr.' in a 'List of Subscribers' in an appendix.) It seems per 'the Book' that Capt. William and his wife were the only MacKay nobility who sailed for P.E.I. in the 18th or 19th cent.s. This is interesting, for Lots 20 and 21 in Queen's Co., P.E.I. were magnets for Scots sailing from Sutherlandshire, the parish of Durness in particular, in the early 19th cent. (More relevant info. re this Capt. William below.)
- The blacksmith had moved @ 32 clicks to Eriboll from Borgie, a community on the River Borgie only @ 5 km.s SW of Farr (that river leads to Torrisdale Bay, next to Farr Bay), according to two baptismal records.: youtu.be/C8kMSwsLtck?si=ETJyyUcQBrcSkXvt (Borgie Glen is near 'The Unknown': youtu.be/UAmkxx_RSpk?si=DG2QSbtslsveSYJS youtu.be/G-6Z1ib3Mzc?si=ZU9Jgb-EOivdbdZl ) Farr had been a seat of chiefs of the Aberach MacKays, and Borgie had been home to descendants of 'James of Kirtomy', a 'Strathy MacKay' (pp.s 310-311, 318-320 in 'The Book' which doesn't include the blacksmith in that tree, but which seems to be incomplete [e.g.: James of Kirtomy->John->'John of Borgie'->'Donald of Borgie'->James {a younger brother, not the heir}->?] archive.org/details/bookofmackay00mack/page/310/mode/2up?... ). The blacksmith's alleged grandfather per George Hart, Neil MacRobert MacKay, was born at Farr in @ 1673 and hailed from Clibrig (in 'the Farr district'), and was named in a 'sasine of Eriboll' dated Nov. 3, 1709 and in another of Arnaboll (only @ 4 km.s NE of Eriboll as the crow flies) dated Dec. 16, 1709 per 'The Book'. His alleged son, the blacksmith's alleged father, was allegedly born in 1712 or 1720 at Hope, Tongue. The blacksmith himself was allegedly born in 1746. (I'm dubious as that would mean he was 28 yr.s older than his 2nd wife, great grandma x 5 AND, if his son William wasn't fibbing and if 'To Find a Grave' can be trusted, 33 yr.s older than his brother Donald. [See below.])
- The blacksmith's grandson John (1824-1914, his son William's son, my 1st cousin 5 x removed) wrote in a eulogy for his father William that the Capt. William MacKay who sailed for P.E.I. in 1806, a 'Scoury MacKay', etc. (see above) and who descends from the lineage written up in the account copied out at Old Harold MacLeod's home, was also the blacksmith's uncle! "The father of Eric [7th Lord Reay] and Alexander [8th Lord Reay] was the Hon. George McKay of Skibo, who was a brother of my great grandfather. [Nope.] My father was a grandnephew of Capt. Wm. Mckay, son of Dr. John McKay of Falsaid. ..." But per 'The Book', Capt. William didn't have a brother nor a nephew by his sisters Bessie and Jane. He was the son of one Margaret, daughter of John Polson of Rogart, and his father's father was Lt. William MacKay who had 2 sons, incl. "George, an exciseman in Greenock, @ 1818, who ... had no issue", no 'George McKay of Skibo [castle]'. One of the blacksmith's grandsons by his son William, either John or William David (1830-1905), also wrote a 'memoir' (which I copied out at the home of Old Harold MacLeod in '98 and refer to above, and which is reproduced in John C. McKay's book 'Ann Calder's children': archive.org/details/AnnCaldersChildren/page/n51/mode/2up ) which includes the following b.s..: "... [T]he subject of the present MEMOIR [his father William] was the descendant of a line that furnished such men as Capt. Wm. McKay and Donald McKay - men of distinction in the British Army. Sir Robert Calder, whose naval victories will live as long as England's history last[s]; ..." William, the subject of the 'memoir' (the blacksmith's son, not the alleged uncle who I'll refer to as 'Capt. William') wrote in an account in 1887, one year before his death, that he had an uncle Donald who had been "[a] Capt. in the army for 17 years". William's account is simple, straightforward and seems credible, but who knows if it is? (It might be interesting that William took pains to write about his uncle Donald but makes no mention of an uncle or great uncle William.) Donald became a merchant and ship captain on P.E.I. and was famously wrecked in his ship 'The Jessie' on St. Paul's Island and died there on Dec. 25, 1823 per his tombstone (an arbitrary date. It's unknown when he and his crew and passengers perished on that island that winter. One chapter each is devoted to the tale of the wreck of 'The Jessie' and the fate of all aboard in all the many books written re legendary and mysterious local shipwrecks on sale in gift shops across P.E.I. Here's a vlog of a wreck dive off the coast of that island.: youtu.be/nJYfTtOu78A?si=DQj_uC39TssVGzvK The tragedy was big news in the mid 1820s (I've read that a diary with an account of the ordeal was kept by one of the castaways), and led to construction of a long overdue lighthouse. youtu.be/uXBnDbhGD0A?si=XQ5tXZUoTDIxVsvU (I'll write more about it sometime.) Donald was born in 1779 IF 'Find a Grave' is accurate. Two Donalds were sired that year per the registry, neither with an elder brother John old enough to marry in 1792, but of course his baptism won't appear in that registry if he was born in Borgie in the parish of Tongue. A Donald Mackay is listed as a soldier in the registry in 1799 ("alias machustianmacuilammachustian [son of Hugh, son of William, son of Hugh], in the Cromarty Rangers") and another as a Lieut. and volunteer in 1802-1809 ("Tacksman of Clashneach" and "tacksman [in] Borly") in 'His Grace the Duke of Gordon's North Fencibles'. ("In 1778 the government allocated funds to raise 3 fencible regiments in 'North Britain', one of which was the 'Gordon Fencibles' or 'North Fencibles' [the 'Tartan line of defence' lenathehyena.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/the-tartan-line-of-... ] raised by Gordon for the Anglo-French War of 1778-83, [and which] was disbanded in 1783." [Wikipedia]). I doubt that either could've been my great x 6 uncle. Neither lived in Eriboll and, again, Donald won't appear in the register if he hadn't moved west across parish lines.
- Malcolm Bangor-Jones goes on to write the following re Capt. William in his study of Presbyterian cemeteries on Lot 21 and 'Markers to Emigration' from NW Sutherland (in the link above).: "[Capt. William] clearly envisaged that he should retain the status he'd enjoyed in Sutherland, and raised a company of 'Colonial Highlanders' of which he was captain. In 1809, he acquired a substantial holding of > 600 acres from Cambridge which included the site of the abandoned settlement of New London. He proceeded to enclose his land and in so doing blocked off a public roadway, thus denying a right of way for his neighbours to the “old burying place” ['Simm's Field'], the public ferry, and the harbour. A plan drawn up by the inspector of hwy.s in 1811 to report on the dispute indicates the site of Mackay’s house. The government found for his neighbours and the road remained in place, although a new cemetery was established at the 'Yankee Hill Chapel' as a direct result of MacKay's denial of passage to the old burial ground at 'Simm's Field'. William died in 1826 and was buried in Simm’s Field Cemetery with his wife and 2 of his sons. Despite a large family, only one son survived to have issue, John Mackay who married Sibla, daughter of Lt. John Mackenzie [whose son William Boyce MacKenzie is also buried at Simm's Field]. John immigrated to Australia in 1838 - the year he erected his parents’ headstone at the cemetery." 'Simm's Field', designated a 'pioneer cemetery' today, is a very small, cleared space with only 5 (or 6?) legible headstones, all of which postdate Capt. William's death in 1826. Five commemorate the following.:
1. William MacKay (b. in Armadale [?], Sutherland, d. 1826) and his wife Jane Scobie (b. in Sutherland, d. 1834), erected in 1838; www.mdpi.com/genealogy/genealogy-05-00035/article_deploy/...
2. Capt. William's daughter-in-law Sibla's brother William Boyce MacKenzie (d. Aug. 13, 1840);
3. One John Adams from Derbyshire (d. March 16, 1843);
4. Barbara MacKay (b. Nov. 4, 1796 in Eriboll, d. March 1, 1843), my legendary great x 5 aunt (see below), daughter of the blacksmith and Ann Calder, and her infant son Donald (also d. March 1, 1843). The inscription on the tombstone seems to read 'Barbary', which is how Barbara is often pronounced in the famous folk-song 'Barbara Allen' (again, see below). The discernable name 'William' refers to her widower, who remarried. www.findagrave.com/memorial/113963699/barbara-mackay ;
AND 5. Ann Calder (b. 1774 in Kilraick, Croy & Dalcross [?], d. Aug. 28, 1816), erected by her son William sometime after 1838 (I assume), my great x 5 grandmother, the blacksmith's wife. www.findagrave.com/memorial/113963471/ann-mckay
Again, Simm's Field's successor 'Yankee Hill' was established by or soon after 1811 as a result of Capt. William's initial denial of passage to the older burial ground. One John Adams Sr. (b. 1734) was buried at Yankee Hill in 1815. (I assume he was the father of the John Adams buried in Simm's Field 28 yr.s later; I wonder if Jr. opted for burial there to be next to his mother or other family interred there before 1811.) And a George MacKay (b. 1753) was buried at Yankee Hill in 1816. Ann Calder was buried in Simm's Field in 1816 although her stone post-dates 1826 or 1838, so who's to say how many people were buried in that cemetery in the 15 yr.s /b/ 1811 and the year of Capt. William's death, if any, aside from her. But her grave-site raises questions. Why wasn't she interred at Yankee Hill for the same reasons that John Adams Sr., George MacKay, et al. were buried there, so that her children could visit her gravesite without penetrating the 600 acres of the inhospitable Capt. William? Yankee Hill was established within 5 yr.s before her passing, and she had no relations buried in Simm's Field. Might Capt. William or his wife have had some interest in or sympathy for this woman and her kids who arrived on the island with her family less than a year earlier? Was there some connection /b/ them, these clannish Scots? (Btw, Barbara MacKay's interment in Simm's Field isn't so mysterious or potentially significant. Her family would've seen fit to bury her close to her mother after such an untimely death [again, see below], and in 1843 following the emigration of John MacKay, the only one of Capt. William's 10 kids to survive and sire children per 'The Book'.)
- John the eulogist wrote an interesting diary in the pioneering 1890s in British Columbia (reproduced in chap. 3 of 'Ann Calder's children' and which is in the care of the Windermere Historical Society in Invermere today) which includes this entry, dated Apr. 16, 1890.: "Day warmer and the mosquitoes are arriving. Riding all day after stock, Jim plowing, First arrival of steamboat, Wrote George McKay in Australia." Capt. William's grandson George MacKay (1821-1900), a grazier in Dungag, N.S.W., Australia (p. 300, 'Book of McKay'), was John MacKay's pen-pal. George's father John MacKay (1800-1851) emigrated with his family in 1838, when John MacKay the diarist/eulogist would've been @ 14 yr.s of age. Had they been in contact for most of the intervening 52 yr.s? It seems John the diarist considered George the grazier to be the only relation he knew of on his father's side of his tree beyond first cousins and immediate family, and possibly vice versa. John's great niece recounted that he "firmly believed in, and knew of, a [consanguineal] connection" to Capt. William. If William, the blacksmith's son, had been told in his teens that the chief of the clan MacKay was his cousin, he or his son John might've assumed that he and Capt. William's son John, both born in 1800, were closely related. (George in Dungag: "I had a great great uncle George." John the eulogist: "Oh, so 'George McKay of Skibo'? Oh! Right.") John C. McKay writes that the blacksmith couldn't have been related to 'Capt. Wm. MacKay, son of Dr. John MacKay of Falside' (p. 8), but evidence that Capt. William wasn't the blacksmith's uncle isn't evidence that they weren't related. Consider: again, Capt. William was a 'Scoury MacKay', the great x 4 grandson of Iye Du MacKay XII. (See the tree of Iye Du's son Donald Balloch and 'The Scoury MacKays', p. 287 in 'The Book'.) His wife Jane Scobie, a 'Strathy MacKay', was a great granddaughter of 'John MacKay of Borgie' and Elizabeth Sinclair and great x 4 granddaughter of Huistean Du XIII. Jane's parents were Kenneth Scobie and Margaret MacKay (first cousins [sigh]), Kenneth being the son of the famous Rev. William Scobie, minister to the Gaelic congregation of Assynt, and his wife Jane MacKay, daughter of 'John MacKay of Borgie'. It's quite coincidental (or it might be more than coincidence) that the blacksmith was a MacKay who hailed "from Borgie" in the 'parish of Tongue', the abode of some 'Strathy MacKays', descendants of Huistean Du XIII, which include Jane Scobie (although she hailed from Achimore herself), who would come to be buried next to his wife in Simm's Field. www.mdpi.com/genealogy/genealogy-05-00035/article_deploy/... If the blacksmith had been a 'Strathy MacKay' from Borgie, than John the eulogist would certainly have been cousins with his pen-pal George in Dungag, N.S.W. via George's grandmother Jane Scobie, and more distantly via Capt. William too, and their pen-pal connection would make that much more sense, notwithstanding that John could only guess as to how they were related.
- 24 other individuals and families listed in the Durness Parish Register in the latter 1/2 of the 18th cent. had moved there from @ 15 hamlets and villages in the neighbouring parish of Tongue, 3 or 4 of which (Ribigill, Melness and/or Strathmelness and Skerray) are referred to in 'The Book of MacKay', Melness in particular (see the tree for 'The Melness MacKays', p. 322), as the abode and stomping ground of inbred blue-blood types who were "of" their small realms (eg. 'Angus MacKay of Ribigill'). While some Strathy MacKays were "of Borgie", the only reference to Borgie in the Durness Parish Registry is in the baptismal records of 2 children sired by the blacksmith. Again, the population of the entire parish of Tongue was 1093 in 1755 per the census that year. Only one person "of" or "from Borgie" moved to the neighbouring parish and married or sired a child there over the 50 year duration of its registry (1764 - 1814), at least per the registry. How large could Borgie's population have been when the blacksmith moved to Eriboll in the 1780s or 90s? (The registry for the parish of Tongue from that period hasn't survived. Most haven't.)
- See the bottom of 'The Key Pedigree', the tree for 'The MacKays of Strathnaver', on p. 97 in 'The Book of MacKay' archive.org/details/bookofmackay00mack/page/96/mode/2up?q... , and that for 'The MacKays of Strathnaver, now Barons Reay', p. 197 archive.org/details/bookofmackay00mack/page/196/mode/2up?... , which illustrates that 'the Strathy MacKays' (p. 311), descendants of Huistean Du by his son John, were behind the Melness MacKays (p. 322), the Sandwood MacKays (p. 330), both descendants of Donald Dughall, 1st Lord Reay (d. 1649), and ultimately the Dutch MacKays (p. 340), descendants of John, 2nd Lord Reay (d. 1680), to whom title passed after Eric, 9th Lord Reay passed in 1875 with no male heirs from any of the 3rd to the 9th Lords Reay, nor from their male descendants (but with plenty from female descendants), and yes, they were literally Dutch, living in Holland for generations. They descend from Col. Donald MacKay, son of Aeneas (d. 1697) and grandson of John, 2nd Lord Reay, who married his cousin Arnolda Margaret, Baroness van den Steen, "commanded his father's Scots regiment in the Dutch service and fell at Tournay in 1745". His heir Col. Aeneas MacKay of MacKay's Scots regiment married another Dutch Baroness and sired Baron Barthold MacKay who was appointed Director-General of the Post at Rotterdam, married another Baroness, and died at his chateau in Guelderland in 1854, etc., etc., and 20 yr.s later his grandson, Donald James, was appointed 11th Lord Reay on the passing of his 4th cousin, although he was in the 4th generation of 'Dutch MacKays' to be raised in Holland, primogeniture at its worst.
- John MacKay, the blacksmith's grandson, had his ear to the ground and was aware that Eric, 9th Lord Reay, had passed w/o issue in 1875 and of the initiation of the process of selection of the next Lord Reay. His niece wrote that John maintained "that through deaths in the clan he became next in line to the chiefship, ... but documents had been lost and legal proof could not be established. ... The chiefship then went to a distant relative who had been created a Baron in Holland for military service." Even if the blacksmith HAD been a 'Strathy MacKay', 'The Book of MacKay' wouldn't be published for another 31 years, and John couldn't be faulted for his ignorance of the Melness and Sandwood MacKays, nor for wondering if he might have a better claim than some Baron in Holland while his own father had been born and bred in Eriboll, 'MacKay country'. It's also possible that John the diarist and/or a great x 5 uncle or another 1st cousin 5 x removed might've felt inclined to make up claims and usurp some of the blue-blood status they came to covet over the years as Capt. William's neighbours once and after his son John MacKay, "the only child [of 12 sired by the captain] who survived to have issue", set off for Australia in 1838. But that doesn't explain Ann Calder's burial in 'Simm's Field' in 1816.
- I'll add that it seems at least that in 1906 Angus MacKay sought to produce an authoritative and relatively complete work in 'The Book of MacKay', and I note that 'Strathy' descendants of James of Kirtomy were generally well-to-do with cushy lives, and that few worked with their hands (or at least none listed in the book [again: ... 'John of Borgie'->'Donald of Borgie'->James {younger brother of John, the heir} ->?], apart from those in the military and Capt. William [although his entry merely states that he "raised a co. of colonial Highlanders"] and his descendants).
- Another possibility occurs to me, a relatively plausible one: that Capt. William really was the eulogist's uncle, but a great uncle through marriage to his great aunt Jane Scobie. Again, the blacksmith's children were orphaned in 1816 at ages 20 and younger, and while they might have understood that Capt. William and Jane were their uncle and aunt, and as kin were encouraged to bury their mother within Capt. William's property, he and Jane might've had little to do with them what with his title, his 600 acres, the kids' relationship with or dependence on their stepfather William MacIntosh (whom I know nothing about), their poverty?, etc., and they might have misapprehended the nature of the connection. If Jane had been the blacksmith's maternal aunt, he would've been the great grandson of her maternal grandfather Robert MacKay ('the Tutor of Farr', son of Charles MacKay, scion of the Sandwood Mackays, and grandson of Donald, 1st Lord Reay), and again he would've been the great great grandson of 'John MacKay of Borgie' (Jane's Dad's Mom's Dad AND her Mom's Mom's uncle [sigh]). But Jane's siblings aren't listed in 'the Book'. Her nobility was in her mother's (very blue) line and that of her paternal grandmother, but it was the patrilineal line that counted back then. Jane's children appear at p. 299 only because their father was Capt. William. It's not unlikely that Jane had an elder sister who married a MacKay. (Her grandfather, 'the tutor', sired 16 kids. 16!) If that sister, a Scobie, had been the blacksmith's mother, she moved from Achimore to Borgie, the home of both her maternal and paternal grandmothers (sisters Janet and Jane [p. 319]). (It might be of interest that Jane had an aunt who married Donald MacKay of Skinet and bore a 'Captain Donald of the 21st foot' [p. 332].) It must be significant that George Hart includes a passage in his piece "taken from a family bible found in Ernest Dunning's barn" which quotes the 'Parry Family tree' in some detail as to Jane Scobie's pedigree, with no mention of that of Capt. William. Mr. Hart says nothing about this Mr. Dunning nor the Parrys nor any connection to them, but while Capt. William and Jane have no descendants on the island, the blacksmith certainly does, as does a fellow passenger who sailed with Ann Calder and her family on the 'Prince William of Newcastle' in 1815 who might've had some connection to the Scobies, one 'Big John MacKay'. According to George Hart, Big John's daughter Margaret MacKay named her 2nd son 'Hugh Scobie MacKay' (b. 1842). 'Big John' had been a crofter and operated 'the Tongue ferry', by which he reportedly did well. There's no indication he was related to Ann Calder's children; he certainly wouldn't have been an uncle having the same name as their father, but he might've been a cousin or the blacksmith's nephew. (He was born in @ 1781). How likely is it that his daughter Margaret would have given her son that middle name on the basis that she was just that impressed with Jane Scobie, who passed 8 yr.s earlier in 1834, and/or her pedigree? It was common in those more clannish times to give a child the name of an ancestor as a middle name. That surname was nonexistent in 'Lord Reay's country' before Jane's grandfather William immigrated from Aberdeenshire.
- 'Big John' himself was unassuming. He wrote the following in a poem.: "Now, little thanks to Sutherland's rapacious factors, we are all better off than ever we were or would be at home; for there we were little less than slaves; now I may say we are ... independent."
- I've just learned that Capt. William MacKay and Jane Scobie feature in an historical romance novel, 'This Land is Ours' by Jonathan Rush. "In 1806 William MacKay and his wife, Jane Scobie, together with their six children left the Scottish Highlands for Canada's Prince Edward Island. A reluctant Jane had finally realized that their venal clan chief would betray the MacKays. Little did she know that her family's journey would finish 70 years later in Australia, living in one of the country's grandest mansions." www.goodreads.com/book/show/36695150-this-land-is-ours www.amazon.ca/This-Land-Ours-Jonathan-Rush/dp/179277124X www.strathnavermuseum.org.uk/this-land-is-ours-a-new-book... Wow. Of course the story's a little less romantic when one considers how connected this couple was as members of the Scots nobility. My Dad passed in 2018, a year before this was published (although independently). I wish I'd bought it for him. (See below re Dad's interest in Simm's Field.)
- The jury's still out and will likely stay out. It's possible the blacksmith had been the grandson of Neil MacRobert MacKay (per George Hart), if he or his father didn't inherit and if it's not telling that Mr. Hart listed 5 sons, each with their year of birth, but not the "known issue", likely the heir, listed in 'The Book of MacKay'. (Or is Hart's tree just b.s.?) Or was Neil MacRobert the blacksmith's great uncle? (Again, see the tree on p. 274 in 'The Book'; Neil's siblings are indicated as "And others".) Neil MacRobert was 'the possessor of Achness' (and of the 'Aberach banner' www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/collection-search-r... , a legendary heirloom now in the National museum in Edinburgh books.google.ca/books?id=snE5AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA175&lp... ). Again, if the blacksmith was a 'Sandwood' and a 'Strathy MacKay', his blood would've been that much bluer. I wondered why the widow of a cousin of clan chieftains would move to 'Prince Edward's Island' with his children in the early 19th cent., a fertile place but one in which she and their stepfather would have to live and work as tenant farmers, unable to purchase land or to own their own home. But the family moved 4 yr.s after the blacksmith had died in 1811 and she'd remarried, and those were tough times in North Sutherland. And, again, Capt. William MacKay fell afoul of the tacksman and sailed for P.E.I. in 1806 although he was certainly the great x 4 grandson of Iye Du MacKay XII. The MacKay clan leadership would sell what was left of the MacKay clan lands to the fat-cat Sutherlands by 1829 in the days of the clearances, 14 years later.
- Whatever comes up next (if anything?), it's been fun to research that rabbit hole that reaches back in all directions into the mists of the 8th cent. and to the earliest kings of Scotland, northern Ireland, and even the house of Wessex, and it's been educational.
- George Hart refers to the book I mention and link to above re Clergyman of the North (pub. 1891) which includes passages re the devout William Calder, my great x 6 granddad, the "venerable catechist ... in Lord Reay's country" (who was interred "in the churchyard of Reay"), but ignores information provided therein that he "was a native of Croy, in the neighborhood of Inverness" (5 clicks west of Castle Cawdor of MacBeth fame). There's no baptismal record for an Ann Calder in the Durness registry, but there is for an 'Anne' born in 1774 to a William Calder and a Marjoram Sutherland in Kilraick in 'Croy and Dalcross'. (Ann was 42 in 1816 per her tombstone.) This was likely my ancestor, but if so William and his young family seem to have moved back and forth /b/ the Croy district and Sutherland in the 1770s, for "Wm. Calder, Charity Schoolmaster" (definitely great x 6 granddad) sired a John "in Cambusinduin" in 1776, but a William Calder and a Masery [sic?] Sutherland then sired a Margaret in Ardclach (Croy district), specifically Rimore, in 1777. Rev. Donald Sage A.M. wrote in 1899 that William Calder, the catechist "was a native of Ardclaeh, Nairnshire, and came to Strathnaver @ the year 1786." As "Charity Schoolmaster at Eriboll", he married one Grizel Ross there in 1786; in 1788 "William Calder, Charity Schoolmaster at Cambusindun, Achucharasait" and Grizel sired Barbara; in 1791 they sired Hugh "in Eriboll"; and in 1792 Ann, the "daur. of William Calder, charity schoolmaster, Achugaraside", married the blacksmith. George Hart identifies Ann Calder's father (incorrectly?) as one "William Calder, alias Francach" in Hunleam who married a Janet MacKay 'alias nin Alister' in Eriboll in 1767 and sired a John in 1769, but nothing in the registry identifies that William Calder as the catechist. A 'John Ekel, alias Calder' sired children in Hunleam in 1767 and '69, a clue that a Calder of the prior generation lived in Hunleam or in the area, or that those with the alias hailed from a hamlet named Calder in Strathmore (south of Loch Hope) and/or another nearby named Ukal. (See p. 209 in 'The Book of MacKay'.) But is the fact that a "James Macdholicustian [sic? an alias?], alias Ekel, alias Calder" was living in Achugharasait in 1776 a clue? How to reconcile the claim that William Calder moved to 'MacKay country' from the Croy district with his settlement in Achucharasait/Achugaraside, home to James, a man with the name or alias Calder, quite a coincidence if insignificant. Per 'The Book of MacKay' (p. 210), "the surname Calder but seldom occurs [in the parish of Durness], and never appears at all until after the middle of the 18th cent., when one or two of that name immigrated into Strathnaver." (How would Angus MacKay know that? There are quite a few Calders in the registry. Did he consult another registry that predates 1764? [No.] Note that he makes that statement in his derisive rebuttal to the claim that legendary Scots-Gaelic local poet Rob Donn [1714-1778], the most [the only?] famous artist from North Sutherland, was a Calder rather than a MacKay, in a debate which persists.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Donn ) Did 1 or 2 of William's relatives from Croy (assuming he did hail from Croy) settle there a generation or a decade or so before him? Naturally he'd be welcome in their village if so. But he might have been just as welcome in light of his surname.
- Mr. Hart proceeds to claim that Janet MacKay (the wife of William Calder in Hunleam [not my ancestor]) was the "grand daughter of Hector MacKay and Janet MacKay, great grand daughter of Major Iye (Hugh) MacKay [Major General Hugh MacKay III of Scoury with the huge wig? Nope. His son Hugh? Nope. Capt. Hugh {Iye} MacKay III of Borley? Nope, none sired a Hector nor a Janet] and so back through her ancestors to the 12th cent." Ok, sure, lol.
- Ann MacKay nee Calder bore a 'Johanna Thomson Mackay' baptized in Durness on June 16, 1811 (the year of the blacksmith's death) and a "William Calder alias Bain at Polla" (at the southern end of the kyle) and a Barbara MacKay sired a 'Johanna Thomson Calder' baptised only 23 days later. Those names honoured the famous Rev. John Thomson who passed away June 12, 1811. This William is also listed as "William MacKay, Calder, alias Bain", and I don't believe he was a relation to Ann, or at least not a close one.
Further addendum for close relatives or those on my Dad's Mom's side.: My great-grandmother (Dad's Mom's Mom) had royal pretensions, or I should say the pretensions of one who claims to be of royal descent. (Or you could say that she was just generally pretentious.) Once at our home in Scarborough when I was young I found an old, disintegrating photo album in the 'crawl-space' in the basement that she'd put together. It was the type with a velvet cover and an iron clasp with room for just one old photo-card per each side of the page or sleeve with oval holes to view the photo. Of the 25 photo-cards (which I kept, but not the album, the spine was gone) 20-21 are of British and European royalty (of the other 4, 2 are of composers Rossini and Verdi, 1 of an actress and 1 of soprano Adelina Patti youtu.be/w2LY6YLHn7U?si=pyi9cj1peMJW6Qdw ). She was a royalist and this was a collection she'd built up. (I safely assume those cards were sold in the stores back then, like copies of 'Majesty' on the magazine racks today.) I don't know if she'd heard of these claims to descent from clan chieftains and Scots nobility on the MacKay side of her tree (her Mom's Dad's Mom's Dad's side). All the information set out in the paragraphs above is coincidental if she hadn't.
- My Mom was curious as to my Dad's roots (of which he had barely a clue) when they were newlyweds living in Nova Scotia in the 60s and she made a point to ask questions and take notes when they would visit his grandparents in Summerside and his elderly relatives on the island. (I've seen photos of 'the 4 generations' taken in the summer of '62 or '63, with my great grandparents sitting on their porch, my grandmother [Dad's Mom] and my Mom sitting on the steps, and my eldest sister Christine [almost 1 or 2] on my Mom's lap.) They visited his great great (!) identical twin aunts Babs MacGougan and Min Campbell (nee MacLeod, Dad's Mom's Mom's Mom's sisters), widows living together in a house filled with unusual items and objects from @ the world (they had lived with a 1st cousin who I think had been adopted and raised as a sibling and who'd travelled widely - as a sailor?; Dad said Mom was intrigued and impressed with what she saw, to paraphrase), and my parents were both regaled with tales of family history including at least one account of Babs' and Min's great-aunt Barbara MacKay (nee MacKay, their Dad's Mom's sister, one of the 'pioneering' siblings who sailed from Thurso with their mother and stepfather in 1815; see the link to her tombstone in Simm's Field above) who was 'skillful in sickness' (ie. had some knowledge of medicine or health-care; she might've been a midwife). Dad recounted many times over the many years how Babs and Min had told them of a wonder woman who would swim across Malpeque Bay on occasion with a horse to deliver babies or to tend to the sick. (For years and until very recently I wondered if she might've been my great x 5 grandmother Ann Calder, the matriarch who died in 1816. I recently found this legendary aunt on the net of all places, in 'Ann Calder's Children' [check the link above, pp.s 12 and 13]). One evening, returning home with her own infant child after such a visit to the home of a neighbour with a sick child in March 1843, she was caught in a violent snowstorm and tried to take shelter with her baby boy in a haystack, but perished before morning. (Dad didn't recall or recount the death in the snowstorm.) It makes sense that Babs would speak about her at some length and in glowing terms as she was likely named after her. Babs = Barbara.
- When my folks asked about 'the other side' of their tree, which I assume was that of their mother Margaret MacPherson, Babs and Min responded "Oh, we don't talk about THAT side." It seems they had a sense of humour, but the internet helpfully reveals why they might have said that.: Their father's father and mother's mother were siblings, and so their parents were 1st cousins. This isn't in question. The witness to my great x 5 granddad Kenneth MacLeod Sr.'s signing of his will was his son-in-law Andrew MacPherson, Margaret's father. Margaret married the testator Kenneth's grandson.
- It's fair to say that that visit with Babs and Min made a big impression on my Dad. He knew nothing about his Dad's side of the family, and the only story he ever mentioned from his Mom's side that predated his grandmother's generation was this of the woman who would swim across Malpeque Bay to tend to the sick, etc. (and which he mentioned many times over the years, including several occasions in the 80s at the kitchen table in our home in Scarborough). My Mom's interest in his heritage was infectious. In his later years he would visit the 2 'pioneer' cemeteries where he knew his grandmother's ancestors were buried on at least most of his annual trips to the Island, although he wasn't sure who they were and under which stones (with the exception of that for his great x 4 grandmother Ann Calder, erected decades after her burial in 1816 by her son William, and that for his great x 4 aunt Barbara, or so I believe now). He took me there in 1998 and again in 2016.
- To add a little colour to these distant roots, I'll mention that my great x 5 grandmother, the testator's wife Ann MacLeod, aka Nancy, nee Morrison/Morison (again whose son's son married her daughter's daughter), hailed from 'Eilean Choraidh', aka 'Islandhall' today, a fertile, narrow, 1 km.-long island of dolomitic limestone at the sheltered southern end of Loch Eriboll (a 'kyle' rather; a long, narrow, 10 x 1 km. inlet) in a truly beautiful setting (when the sun shines) just south of the remote, north coast of Sutherlandshire east of 'Cape Wrath', stomping ground of unruly, 9th cent. Norse Vikings, their descendants and moreso those of the Picts who resisted them, and which must've been one of the most remote inhabited spots in all of Europe in the 18th cent. (Sailors from the company of HMS Hood in WWII spent their last shore leave there and nicknamed it 'Lock 'Orrible' for the inclement weather. [Wikipedia]) www.google.co.in/maps/@58.4820955,-4.7070711,5219m/data=!... The daughter of John Morrison and Catherine MacKay, Ann (listed in the parish registry as 'alias Nin Eanmacuilammachustian', ie. 'daughter of John, son of William, son of Hugh [Morrison]' !) was raised on the island with her many siblings and cousins. Catherine MacKay is listed as alias 'Nin Dholicustian', daughter of Dholic or Dholi (Donald), son of Hugh MacKay. (Her brother was one John MacKay, alias Macdholicustian.) Catherine was from Port Chamil (or Chamuill), no longer extant, a community at or near the head of the kyle, 8 to 10 clicks from Eriboll as the crow files. (Her brother sired a child there in 1788.)
- Kenneth MacLeod Sr. wed Ann/Nancy in 1793 and she left Islandhall to shack up with him in Sangobeg/Saingobeg, a crofting village on the north coast of Scotland less than 10 clicks up the western shore of the kyle and less than 2 east of Durness, where Kenneth was "a little tenent and fisher". But Kenneth's brother John (we can be certain they were brothers per John's will) was living as a "tenent in Islandhall" when he married Mary MacPherson (likely my great x 6 aunt twice-over [sigh], see below) @ 3 yr.s earlier in 1789. Mary left "Saingoe" (Saingobeg) to bear at least 2 kids on the island and to then move with John to Ceannabin by 1798, where John was a "farmer and boatman" that year and a "little farmer and fisher" in 1804. The only other (male) MacLeod living on Islandhall was Hugh, "alias macdholicloid [son of Donald?], fisher and boatman" (a "young lad in Islandhall" when he wed Marion MacKay, also "in Islandhall", in 1793). Hugh might've been Kenneth's brother or cousin as they were both "little tenent[s] in Saingobeg" while they served as "private[s] in the Reay Fencible Highlanders" in 1795 (neither sired any kids /b/ 1795 and 1801 while the Fencibles fought to suppress the Irish in 'the Rebellion of 1798'), and Hugh's sister Janet "alias nin Dholicloid" (daughter of Donald?) from Islandhall, married Murdoch MacPherson, a weaver in "Saingoe" in 1790. (Clannish! Siblings Murdoch and Mary married siblings or cousins Janet and John.) Kenneth, Hugh and John all sailed with their families for P.E.I. on 'the Elizabeth and Ann' in 1806, and were all buried in the 'Yankee Hill pioneer cemetery'. They were close in age: 37, 36, and 35 respectively per the passenger list, but Kenneth and Ann's gravestone claims that Kenneth was 10 yr.s older, and that Ann was 8 yr.s younger than her baptism record. The passenger list has her @ 4 yr.s younger than that record. ?! Again, John MacLeod from Islandhall married Mary MacPherson from 'Saingoe', while Janet MacLeod from Islandhall married Saingoe's Murdoch MacPherson, likely Mary's brother. (It's also likely they were the siblings of my great x 5 granddad Angus MacPherson [see below], and were children of a Hugh MacPherson who sired younger children in 'Saingo' in 1766 and 1773. [Hugh would've known Rob Donn well, as the now nationally-famous bard was living in Sango in @ 1770.] Murdoch sired a son named Hugh as did Angus, his eldest in fact. Mary didn't.) Rev. Thomson indicated patronymics for Hugh and Janet MacLeod (once each), but none for Kenneth or John, and while a candidate for Hugh was sired by a Donald in 1772 (but only per the ship's passenger list), there's none for a Janet, Kenneth or John (or no John west of Thurso) sired by a Donald. For what it's worth, John named his eldest son Donald. Neither Kenneth, Hugh nor Janet sired a Donald. These MacLeods might've moved to the parish when they were children or young people. But if Kenneth was 47 in 1806 per his tombstone, and if his siblings were born before 1764 as well (while John lies at 'Yankee Hill', an epitaph for him at Geddie Memorial indicates that he was born in 1761 [and incorrectly that he sailed for P.E.I. in 1805 on 'The Polly']), it might be significant that from 1782 to '91 another Kenneth MacLeod was the smith of Eriboll (< 2 km.s from Islandhall as the crow flies on the shore of the loch, at a point directly across from it; Kenneth's uncle or cousin? Or his father? [only if Hugh and Janet weren't Kenneth and John's siblings. This smith was John MacKay's predecessor, another coincidence]) and that a Hector McLeod was one of 2 'tenents' on Islandhall in March, 1678 per the "Judicial Rent-Roll of the Reay estate given in merks ..." ('The MacLeods of Assynt' had been evicted from legendary Ardvreck castle on Loch Assynt only 6 yr.s earlier in 1672.)
- My great grandmother or one of her relatives reported to my Mom that her mother descended from the MacLeods of Assynt, a "querulous [and] extraordinarily violent" branch of the clan, with the Devil himself for an in-law according to legend. This might've been an assumption, for Assynt's only @ 40 km.s south of Durness, 1/4 the distance to Skye. (Skye's known for its MacLeods.) A tree that's popular on ancestry.ca and other websites alleges that Kenneth's parents are a Donald MacLeod and a Catherine MacDonald from Skye with roots in Trotternish, but false trees abound online (time and again!) and I've found no sources or records that support that one. She was unreliable, but I'm inclined to believe my great grandmother (or her relatives) on this point. Then again, it could be more than coincidence that the name Donald seems to assert itself here.
- Ann Morrison's son-in-law was my great x 4 grand-dad Andrew MacPherson. It would involve quite a coincidence that an Andrew MacPherson was raised on Islandhall as well if he wasn't my ancestor, and who was so close to him in age. Great x 4 granddad Andrew passed away March 3, 1859 "aged 63 years" per his tombstone, while the Andrew of Islandhall would've turned 64 less than 3 mos. earlier. (It's not uncommon for the age of the deceased to be recorded a year too young on a tombstone.) His parents were an Angus MacPherson and a Margaret Sutherland, 'alias Nin Cainach' or 'Sainach' or 'Airiaich' (likely Cainach which is Kenneth) and/or 'alias MacKenzie' (per Margaret's marriage record. It seems that a Kenneth Sutherland was my great x 6 granddad.) Margaret had lived on the island with her first husband Hector MacKay, alias MacNeilicrory, who she married in June, 1770, and was a widow with at least 3 kids when she wed the much younger Angus in 1785. John Thomson, the famous minister of the parish of Durness, referred to Angus disapprovingly as "a single young lad" in his marriage record. ("Early marriages were not greatly approved of in Mr. Thomson's day, and now and again when a young man, probably not much out of his teens, marries, he is put down [in the register] either as a "simple young lad" or a "single young man"; single in this connection signifying that he had little or no responsibility." H. Morrison. Thomson took note of the great age difference, evidently.) I wonder what it says that Margaret bore at least 5 children with Angus (Andrew was the 5th), none of whom were named Angus Jr., but the 4th was named Hector. ("Thanks for being such a great step-dad to Hector's kids. Say, do you mind if we name one of your sons after my ex too?")
- My great x 4 grandfather Andrew married Marion, the daughter of Ann Morrison/Morison from Islandhall, and was buried with his in-laws at Yankee Hill. How many people were living on Islandhall before the Clearances, and how coincidental is the birth of another Andrew MacPherson there in 1794? John (my great x 6 granddad) and Hugh Morrison (brothers), Hector and then Angus, one Hugh MacKay, a Donald Grange who'd just arrived on the island before 1775, my uncle John MacLeod and Hugh MacLeod (John MacLeod's brother or cousin) and a John Campbell were the only tenants on Islandhall who fathered any children baptized from 1770 to 1800. While Andrew MacPherson is a common name in Scotland, the baptismal record for the Islandhall Andrew is one of only 3 extant for any Andrew MacPherson/McPherson born in the country from 1794 to '96. (The other 2 were from Inverness and 'Croy & Dalcross' which saw far fewer evictions in the Clearances than Sutherland.) Islandhall wasn't isolated, as there were habitations along the shore of the kyle readily accessible by boat, and its residents and those of Saingobeg would've visited Durness often, possibly weekly, or on special occasions (until 1804? youtu.be/KoFW2Vh5n1c?si=pyYHoiUmxpNSUP00 ) to attend the lovely old Balnakeil kirk (1617, built on the site of a church founded in the early 8th cent. by St. Maelrubha, which grew to become one of the most important Celtic monasteries in NW Scotland) just west of town, with its stunning views of headlands, the sea and of lovely coastal beaches of white sand. www.britainexpress.com/attractions.htm?attraction=1049 www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/durness/balnakeilchurch/in... The local men were fishermen and very mobile by boat. So Andrew from Islandhall would've known Ann's daughter Marion from Saingobeg well, as young as they were. He would've been 11 yr.s of age and she 10 when she and her family sailed from Thurso in 1806. It's also likely that Marion's uncle John's wife Mary was Andrew's aunt. Andrew doesn't appear on the passenger list for the 'Elizabeth and Ann' which brought Kenneth and Ann, their daughter Marion, Andrew's future wife, and her uncle John and his wife Mary, likely Andrew's aunt, to P.E.I. in 1806. (Such passenger lists are exceedingly rare in light of the level of maritime traffic with ships filled with emigrants from Scotland to the Maritimes, victims of the Clearances, in the late 18th/early 19th cent.s, so it's something that this one survived.) Highland Scots are 'clannish' and were relatively isolated by language and their lack of formal education. If my great x 4 grandfather and the Andrew MacPherson of Islandhall were one and the same (which is most likely), he would've sailed with or without his family from Thurso for the Maritimes on a different boat in the Clearances, and reconnected with Marion on the basis that they were childhood acquaintances or friends and/or affineal relatives, they spoke the very same 'Strathnaver' or 'Reay Country' dialect of Scots-Gaelic, and would've had so much more in common.
- Kenneth and Ann's son George MacLeod (who hailed from Sangobeg, sailed on the same ship in 1806, and whose sister Marion married Andrew) married my great x 4 grandmother Sophia MacKay on P.E.I., a daughter of John MacKay, the blacksmith of Eriboll, and Ann Calder (again, Scots are clannish), who I write about above.
- Continued in the write-up under the photo of the 'Green man'. ("I don't have time to be brief." [Chesterton])