View allAll Photos Tagged extrapolated
Aspen, Colorado
September 5, 1980
2020 - Visions of the Future - Roaring Fork Valley (Page 1 of 7)
Nick's 1980 predictions for the year 2020
Document courtesy of:
Aspen Historical Society, IDCA Time Capsule Collection
Text:
1
2020 - VISIONS OF THE FUTURE - ROARING FORK VALLEY
By Nick DeWolf, Friday, September 5 1980
I hope we’ll take seriously the concept of burying the results of this conference in a time capsule because forty years from now most of [us] will still be alive so we will enjoy seeing what fools we were. I originally intended to give you a jazzy slide show of pictures from OMNI Magazine of wonderful machines and inventions from the future, but such fun excursions into fantasy will prevent all of us from truly thinking about tomorrow. We picked 2020 because that’s perfect vision, knowing full well that we don’t even have a chance to be close. The only forecast we can make safely is that we will be wrong, but more importantly, looking at other seasoned forecasts, we will almost certainly completely miss the most important issues forty years from now. I’ve been in the fast changing semiconductor business and thirty years ago we made all kinds of forecasts, the most optimistic of us making our most bizarre and kookiest guesses were fifteen times too low. The explosive growth just plain blew up in our faces.
In 2020 most of us will be a mere 85. By then, however, many of us will still be in our prime, with 20 years to go. But 2020 is relatively a twink away.
The earth is 4,600 million years old.
Cellular life has been here most of that time.
Photosynthesis for 2,000 million years.
Quasi-man 2 million years.
Erectus a tenth of a million years.
The last glacier coincided roughly with the birth of
consciousness (some believe), agriculture, the Church, cities, factories
- all five to ten thousand years old.
Books, schools, divorces, Hell and democracy were invented between two and five thousand years ago.
We’ve been capable of self destruction for only about thirty years.
Half of our published literature is only six years old.
Futurists of the past have held to cyclical views, a convolution
thing, such as sunspot cycles (my Father’s favorite way of predicting the stock market), but the kind of rollercoaster we’re on now makes the cyclical view seem kind of silly.
Others are evolutionists, who think about trends, and extrapolate Pitkin County growth forty years from now via percentage growth rates.
But I believe in catastrophe theory - that the future will come by lurches and leaps and creaks up and down, and changes will be more revolutionary.
Above all, more than at any other time in the history of man, we control our own destiny. The incredible number of options we have are really within our control instead of nature’s.
Many of those who want to plot charts are stuck in measuring the quality of life with measurements like:
Air pollution; Gross National Product; Nuclear Radiation levels;
Bacteria counts.
I find that those measures of the quality of life don’t interest me much - what counts to me are things like:
Rewards; Happiness; Freedom; Spark; Elan; Spirit; Privacy; Self
Expression; Fulfillment - those kinds of things.
Therefore most are incapable of attacking the subject scientifically - three cheers!
part of an archival project, featuring the work of nick dewolf
© the Nick DeWolf Foundation
Requests for use are welcome via flickrmail or nickdewolfphotoarchive [at] gmail [dot] com
Clearly, trucks are my forte among minifig scale automobiles. This one started life with the intention of just extrapolating my farm truck. I wanted to try a different hood, though. Ultimately, this forced the inner structure in some different directions, so other than the wheelbase and front grill, it was mostly re-engineered.
+++ 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.
On another experimental foray, but with 35mm Arista and use of Rodinal followed by Xtol. Not alot of experience using this film with different developers so had to do some extrapolation. Unfortunately, freezing rain, overcast skies, and temps below 20 degrees F made it more challenging. I did appreciate more sharpness with this combo, but can't really tell about dynamic range given the blah weather. Thanks for the continued inspiration from my fellow flickeranians. Be safe out there.
Modeling small railroads can often be a challenge. What source materials are available, are there pieces of surviving equipment? Are there former employees to contact? The Central Vermont Railway Historical Society (CVRHS) is a fantastic resource. Started by Marty McGuirk, who has had multiple HO and N scale models of the CV, the CVRHS publishes quarterly magazines that cover operations, equipment and have excellent photographs to draw from. They also available on their website a book of principle diagrams and dimensions for locomotives from the turn of the century up to the GP9s that saw steam off the line. Rolling stock on the other hand is tricky.
Being a small road primarily existing as a bridge line, the CV operated most of its passenger trains jointly, and thus did not invest heavily in its own passenger fleet. By 1950, they only had five coaches when compared with dozens of head end cars and miscellaneous equipment. I have selected eight cars to model, seven of which have been published four of those being identical coaches. But where to find information? CV 41 was relatively easy. The car was purchased from the Pennsy and knowing the class it was under PRR ownership was easy enough to find the original schematics and modify the externals, doors, color, roof, etc.
The plain coaches were another problem. Originally, I took some poetic license - I used a schematic from a similar truss rod MEC coach and the interior shots of a "Canadian Flyer" coach to extrapolate what I thought the interior looked like. A few months ago while researching Canadian passenger equipment, I had an idea. I knew that CV 387, a coach-smoker, was steel plated and sold to the CN in 1940. I knew the number the CN gave it, so I simply searched that number in an online database and sure enough found several drawings of the car, one right after purchase from the CV and the rest from later in life when the car entered work service. I then had a basis to draw from for what the coaches looked like internally.
The smoking compartment was not a simple patrician down the middle as I had thought, but a separate cabin on one side of the car. Other details, like the men's wash basin being located outside the lavatory and between it and the smoking section. The location of the door between the cabins was something else I hadn't anticipate, as well as the placement of the seats. Obviously there is some selective compression here. Fewer windows and lights than the real coaches had, fewer seats as well, but I think it's a reasonable approximation. Lights were a new addition, and boy was that way more difficult than I thought it would be. Generally when I change a design, I go back and update the digital design. This time I opted not to because of the difficulty in adding these lights. I also changed the interior doors. Originally I used Lego train doors since I have a good amount of them and no use for them, but I decided to adopt the BMR doors to have commonality across my rolling stock. Not sure if those were Glenn or Cale, but they're awesome either way.
All told, I think I'm ready to take proper photos of these cars and add them back to my album of complete rolling stock. Generally, I never consider anything complete - there's always something to go back and tinker with, but I now really enjoy these cars and the journey I took to get them to the state they are in.
The progressive, evolution story
is one huge MISTAKE
which, ironically,
depends on MISTAKES
as its mechanism ...
Mistake
- upon mistake
- upon mistake
- upon mistake
So that the whole human genome
is created from billions of mistakes.
If, after reading this, you still believe in the progressive evolution story - you will believe anything.
EVOLUTION .....
What is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?
Although we are told it is an irrefutable, scientific fact .....
the real fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for such progressive evolution.
So what was the evolutionary 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 body parts ... anatomical structures, biological systems, organs etc. (macro-evolution).
Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over an alleged multi-million year timescale.
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.
Darwin's idea that a single, celled microbe could transform itself into a human and every other living thing, through natural selection over millions of years, had always been totally bonkers. That it is, or ever could have been, regarded as a great 'scientific' theory, beggars belief.
However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.
A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.
That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... literally, genetic, copying MISTAKES.
The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.
The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been right all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment. Ideology and vested interests took precedence over common sense and proper science.
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 incredible idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected and preserved 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 the total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, accumulated over millions of years.
However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability, the law of cause and effect and Information Theory.
Mutations are not good, they are something to be feared, not celebrated as an agent of improvement or progression.
The vast majority of mutations are harmful, they cause illness, cancer and deformities, which is not at all surprising. It is precisely what we would expect from mistakes.
If you throw a spanner into the works of a machine, you would be daft to expect it to improve the operation of the machine. However, evolutionists ignore such common sense and propose that something (which, similarly, would be expected to cause damage) caused billions of constructive improvements in complexity, design and function, ultimately transforming microbes into men, and every other, living thing.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating ....
Ironically, evolutionists fear mutations just as much as everyone else. You can bet your bottom dollar that you won't get evolutionists volunteering to subject themselves or their families to mutagenic agents in order to 'improve' humanity. You certainly won't get evolutionists deliberately going to live near chemical or nuclear plants - in order to give their idea of progressive evolution by mutations a helping hand. No way!
Evolutionists know perfectly well that mutations are very risky and are most likely to be harmful, certainly not something anyone should desire.
Yet, perversely, they still present them as the (magical) agent responsible for creating the constructive, genetic information which, they claim, progressively transformed the first living cells into every living thing that has ever lived, including humans. They present and teach that extraordinary belief as though it is an irrefutable fact.
If we don't believe the progressive evolution fantasy, or dare to question it, we are branded as unscientific, ignorant, uneducated, backward thinking cranks or fanatics.
Incredible!
I suppose, one way to try to stifle opposition to a crazy idea, is to insult or ridicule those who oppose it. The story of the 'Emperor's New Clothes' comes to mind.
It is understandable that, people are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. Disgracefully, evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.
Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked and lied to, 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, anatomical structures, organs etc. and that really 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 (existing, genetic imformation). 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.
A dog will always remain a dog, it can never be selectively bred into some other creature, the extent of variation is constrained by the limitations of the existing, genetic information in the gene pool of the dog genus, and evolutionists know that.
To clarify further ...
Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ludicrous 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 an accumulation of billions of random, genetic copying mistakes..... mutations accruing upon previous mutations .... 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, or that has ever lived, was created by an incredibly, long series of random mistakes adding to previous, random mistakes.
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 how that original information magically arose?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - the biological features, anatomical 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, complementary 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 and randomly, occurring mistakes ... i.e. a random mistake accruing upon a previous, random mistake - upon a previous, random mistake - upon a previous, random mistake - over and over again, billions of times.
This notion is so incredible, we must emphasise once again what it actually means -
It means that all the body parts, systems and biological processes of all living things are the result of literally billions of random, genetic MISTAKES, accumulated over many (alleged) millions of years. This amazing thing occurred from one, original, living cell, which, it is claimed (without any evidence), spontaneously arose, entirely of its own volition, from sterile matter, in some imagined, primordial, soup scenario (contrary to the well established and unfalsified Law of Biogenesis).
Consider this ...
If, for example, there is no genetic information (constructional instructions) for bones (or any other body part) in the alleged, original, living cell, how could copying mistakes of the limited information in such a single cell produce such entirely, new constructive information? That's right, it simply couldn't, it is sheer fantasy.
Incredibly, 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. Utterly 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.
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 progressive, evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.
However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question the new 'improved', neo-Darwinian version of progressive evolution 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?
What do laboratory experiments and field studies of recent, sedimentation events show? sedimentology.fr/
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 - some recent, field 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.
When no evidence is cited as 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)
Ida - the newly discovered (2009), hominid, 'missing link' (an extinct lemur),
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
Want to publish a science paper?
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7036/full/nature03653...
www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gib...
Piltdown Man was even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.
Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of evidence 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 followed by long periods of stasis) 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..
A pig, a horse and a donkey ...
Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary (a type of pig). It was trumpeted as evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. All based on a single tooth. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, scientist weep.
South West Colorado Man, was based on another single tooth ... of a horse this time! ... also presented as 'scientific' evidence for human evolution.
The Orce Man saga - a tiny fragment of skullcap was presented to the media as a human ancestor, accompanied by the familiar hype and hullaballoo. Embarrassingly, a symposium planned to discuss this supposed, ape-man had to be cancelled at short notice when it was 'discovered' that it was most likely from a donkey!
But, even if it was human, such a tiny fragment of skull is certainly not any evidence of human evolution, as had been claimed.
Embryonic Recapitulation - The 19th century, evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who inspired Hitler's, Darwinian, master race policies) published fraudulent drawings of embryos, and his theory was enthusiastically accepted by evolutionists as proof of progressive 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 ..... eventually admitted 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. It later turned out that Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention he had 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 - fossils of 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 in order 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 an example of 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 (abiogenesis), 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 hence, abiogenesis could be declared by evolutionists as a scientific fact.
'Missing link' Ida - Hyped up by evolutionists (including the renowned, wildlife documentary, presenter Sir David Attenborough) in 2009 as a newly discovered, “missing link” of human evolution. This allegedly, 47-million-year-old fossil was discovered in Germany. However, it is now obvious that Ida is not evidence of primate (or human) evolution at all, it is simply an extinct type of lemur.
Is macro evolution even science? The honest answer to that question has to be an emphatic - NO!
The accepted definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Progressive 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, based primarily on preconceptions.
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 (so-called abiogenesis). They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Progressive 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
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.”
DNA.
The discovery of DNA should have been the death knell for evolution. It is only because evolutionists tend to manipulate and interpret evidence to suit their own preconceptions that makes them believe DNA is evidence FOR evolution.
It is clear that there is no natural mechanism which can produce constructional, biological information, such as that encoded in DNA.
Information Theory (and common sense) tells us that the unguided interaction of matter and energy cannot produce constructive information.
Do evolutionists even know where the very first, genetic information in the alleged Primordial Soup came from?
Of course they don't, but with the usual bravado, they bluff it out, and regardless, they rashly present the spontaneous generation of life as a scientific fact.
However, a fact, it certainly isn't .... and good science it certainly isn't.
Even though evolutionists have no idea whatsoever about how the first, genetic information originated, they still claim that the spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) is an established scientific fact, but this is completely disingenuous. Apart from the fact that abiogenesis violates the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Cause and Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it also violates Information Theory.
Evolutionists have an enormous problem with explaining how the DNA code itself originated. However that is not even the major problem. The impression is given to the public by evolutionists that they only have to find an explanation for the origin of DNA by natural processes - and the problem of the origin of genetic information will have been solved.
That is a confusion in the minds of many people that evolutionists cynically exploit,
Explaining how DNA was formed by chemical processes, explains only how the information storage medium was formed, it tells us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.
To clarify this it helps to compare DNA to other information, storage mediums.
For example, if we compare DNA to the written word, we understand that the alphabet is a tangible medium for storing, recording and expressing information, it is not information in itself. The information is recorded in the sequence of letters, forming meaningful words.
You could say that the alphabet is the 'hardware' created from paper and ink, and the sequential arrangement of the letters is the software. The software is a mental construct, not a physical one.
The same applies to DNA. DNA is not information of itself, just like the alphabet it is the medium for storing and expressing information. It is an amazingly efficient storage medium. However, it is the sequence or arrangement of the amino acids which is the actual information, not the DNA code.
So, if evolutionists are ever able to explain how DNA was formed by chemical processes, it would explain only how the information storage medium was formed. It will tell us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.
Thus, when atheists and evolutionists tell us it is only a matter of time before 'science' will be able to fill the 'gaps' in our knowledge and explain the origin of genetic information, they are not being honest. Explaining the origin of the 'hardware' by natural processes is an entirely different matter to explaining the origin of the software.
Next time you hear evolutionists skating over the problem of the origin of genetic information with their usual bluff and bluster, and parroting their usual nonsense about science being able to fill such gaps in knowledge in the future, don't be fooled. They cannot explain the origin of genetic information, and never will be able to. The software cannot be created by chemical processes or the interaction of energy and matter, it is not possible. If you don't believe that. then by all means put it to the test, by challenging any evolutionist to explain how genetic information (not DNA) can originate by natural means? I can guarantee they won't be able to do so.
It is true to say - the evolution cupboard is bare when it come to real, tangible evidence.
For example:
1. The origin of life is still a mystery, evolutionists have failed to demonstrate that the Law of Biogenesis (which rules out the spontaneous generation of life), and has never been falsified, is not universally valid.
2. They have no explanation of where the first, genetic information came from. Information Theory rules out an orign of such, constructive information by natural processes.
3. They assume (without any evidence) that matter is somehow intrinsically predisposed to produce life whenever the environmental conditions for life permit.
4. They deny that there is any purpose in the universe, yet completely contradict that premise by assuming the above intrinsic predisposition of matter to produce life, as though matter is somehow endowed with a 'blueprint' for the creation of life.
5. They have no credible mechanism for the increase of genetic information required for progressive evolution and increasing complexity.
6. They have failed to produce any credible, intermediate, fossil examples, in spite of searching for over 150 years. There should be millions of examples, yet there is not a single one which is a watertight example.
7. They regularly publish so-called evidence which, when properly examined, is discovered to be nothing of the sort: Example ... Orce Man (the skullcap of a donkey!).
8. They use dubious dating techniques, such as circular reasoning in the dating of fossils and rocks.
9. They discard any evidence - radiocarbon dating, sedimentation experiments, fossils etc. that doesn't fit the preconceptions.
10. They frequently make the claim that there has to be life on other planets, simply on the assumption (without evidence) that life spontaneously generated and evolved on Earth which they take it for granted is a proven fact.
11. They cannot produce a single, credible example of a genuinely, beneficial mutation, yet billions would be required for microbes to human evolution.
There is much more, but that should suffice to debunk the incessant hype and propaganda that microbes-to-human evolution is an established, irrefutable fact.
It should be enough to put an end to the greatest fraud that has been foisted on the public in scientific history.
Evolutionism is not science.
Science is the method through which theories are tested and re-tested. However, today evolution is guarded against such scrutiny and taught uncritically in our public schools. This pervasive defense of naturalism has led students to view Darwinism as the only accepted explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. This presentation will encourage critical thinking of scientific interpretations, and examine the bedrock evidence for the theory of evolution. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE6hm2kpYiY&list=TLGGI4E1iBi7...
We are constantly told by evolutionists that the majority of scientists accept progressive evolution (as though that gives it credence) ... but most scientists, don't actually study evolution in any depth, because it is outside their field of expertise. They simply trust what they are taught in school, and mistakenly trust the integrity of evolutionists to present evidence objectively.
That is another great MISTAKE!
Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXF0S6D_Ts&list=TLqiH-mJoVPB...
EUbabel. The shocking occult symbolism of the European Union.
peuplesobservateursblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/togo-all...
Re-edited 31 Jan 2021.
I'm just about catching up with my D800E and getting better at extracting more out of the files. (That was what I thought then, 2 years later, the original edit looked rather bad!).
New gear if chosen well opens up new creative opportunities. New gear alone is pointless if one is unable to extract its potential. It's pointless to say that this or that lens is sharper, this or that camera is better when the greater limitation lay in our lack of skills and worse still our inability to discern what is good with our own eyes beyond all the sharpness and MTF charts.
Trust not the gear reviewer who takes mediocre photos!
Now for a bit of crystal ball gazing......
There’s a good chance that the weight of an eventual Nikon 600mm f5.6 PF VR will be under 2kg and perhaps even closer to 1.8kg just looking at the normal 500mm vs 600mm f4.0 lenses.
We can’t extrapolate from the 300mm PF VR (only 755gms) weight to the 500mm PF VR (1.46kg w/o tripod collar) because once we get to 400mm, the front element needs to be very large and exponentially heavier, look at Canon’s 400mm f4.0 DO II.
Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 is 2.3kg while the Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm are 1.9-2kg. If Sony can shave off 1kg on their future 500mm f4.0 like they did on their 400mm f2.8, this may come in at under 2kg as well!
Assuming both future Nikon 600mm f5.6 PF VR and Sony 500mm f4.0 are around 1.9kg, preference is for the one without fresnel element but the Nikon 600mm f5.6 PF VR should be more affordable being a stop slower.
The new Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF VR is not prohibitively expensive but the time to buy it is when the 600mm f5.6 PF VR is officially announced.
Those with the 200-500mm f5.6 are better off using that for now and wait for the 600mm f5.6 PF VR instead.
Perfectly handholdable superteles, this is what the 500mm and 600mm f5.6 PF VR are about. Nikon Z8 with 600mm f5.6mm PF VR will be a dream combo!
Ultra large format photography:
scanning a 12x20 inches (30x51 cm) colour negative by Vincenzo Castella on my Dainippon Screen SG8060p Mark II.
Final output:
Large format LightJet print (180x300cm) for the exhibition:
Vincenzo Castella
"Une ville, une collection : Turin et le Musée National de l'Automobile"
Maison Européenne de la Photographie, PARIS.
www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/6327219114/in/photostream
-----
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.
Twenty Interlocking Irregular Hyperboloidal Dodecahedra 600 units
2-fold view.
This is the first working iteration of my magnum opus wireframe project for summer 2022: a supremely complex compound of 20 irregular dodecahedra. This is the icosahedral/dodecahedral symmetry extrapolation of the compound of 8 Dodecahedra I designed a month or two ago. Here, each dodecahedron corresponds to a single 3-fold axis representing the face of an icosahedron (or a vertex of a dodecahedron). This design also illustrates the importance of scaffold construction methods: assembling a model such as this a frame at a time is simply impossible, as the innermost vertices are deeply imbedded within the model. I believe that this is the largest ever compound of polyhedral frames. Designing this model was a considerable effort- this is version 4.5, and it could really use a refold.
Designed by me.
Folded out of copy paper.
Took the camera out for the first time in a while and finally got something I deemed worth posting. This shot is a long exposure, rear curtain flash picture of Muppets 3D at Disney's Hollywood Studios. I took two test shots before this, getting the exposure and shutter speed locked in. Then I timed how long it took Miss Piggy to spin one full revolution, then extrapolated out when I had to push the shutter based on that in order to capture her facing the camera when the shutter closed, and therefore when the flash went off. Enjoy!
Buy prints on SmugMug! | Like me on Facebook! | Follow me on Twitter! | Follow me on Tumblr!
Twenty Interlocking Irregular Hyperboloidal Dodecahedra 600 units
3-fold view.
This is the first working iteration of my magnum opus wireframe project for summer 2022: a supremely complex compound of 20 irregular dodecahedra. This is the icosahedral/dodecahedral symmetry extrapolation of the compound of 8 Dodecahedra I designed a month or two ago. Here, each dodecahedron corresponds to a single 3-fold axis representing the face of an icosahedron (or a vertex of a dodecahedron). This design also illustrates the importance of scaffold construction methods: assembling a model such as this a frame at a time is simply impossible, as the innermost vertices are deeply imbedded within the model. I believe that this is the largest ever compound of polyhedral frames. Designing this model was a considerable effort- this is version 4.5, and it could really use a refold.
Designed by me.
Folded out of copy paper.
Gullfoss (Golden Falls) is undoubtedly the most visited waterfall in Iceland, a highlight of the 'must do' Golden Circle day trip from Reykjavík.
The main source of the Hvítá (simply 'White') River, is Langjökull, Iceland´s second largest glacier. The river is entirely unregulated at this point; in fact, it was abortive attempts to exploit Gullfoss for hydropower that eventually resulted in the waterfall being donated to the state for protection. Flow over the waterfall is therefore natural, averaging 140 m³/s in the summer and 80 m³/s in winter, though the peak recorded flood was an incredible 2,000 m³/s.
The drop, spanning the full 175 m width of the river, is 32 m in two stages which, unusually, are perpendicular to one another. The first , to the left of the crowd, cascades 11 m, roughly north to south, then the river plummets east to west over a cliff into Gullfossgjúfur, a gorge 20 m wide and 2.5 km long, with walls up to 70 m in height, probably formed by a glacial burst flood. This second drop is 'only' 21 m, but from the most popular viewpoint, at the upper right of the image, one can't see into Gullfossgjúfur, tempting imagination to extrapolate.
Even in May air temperatures were low, with spray settling on the surrounding area as frost.
The purpose of the transposition and docking maneuver, the extraction of the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) by the Apollo Command/Service Module (CSM), is depicted. Note the hinged, open Spacecraft/Lunar Module Adapter (SLA) panels. The final configuration...and I believe some prior to this, consisted of panels that were jettisoned.
Look at the span of the landing gear! Note also the yagi high-gain antenna on the Service Module.
By extrapolation - this striking work - is possibly - by Gary Meyer?
It’s 320 lbs of heavy metal from the Aletai meteorite found in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, first in 1898 and then this additional masses as recently as 2021. (I call it 2021 A Space Oddity)
It was the molten iron-nickel core of a shattered planet, presumably from the early epoch of our solar system’s formation. The long crystals you see throughout were formed in space, and requiring cooling rates of a couple degrees Celsius per million years!
The composition of Aletai is so unique that no other samples in the world’s meteorite collection are comparable. It is one of two meteorites classified as Iron IIIE-anomalous (with higher gold, cobalt and iridium than typical).
The composition of Aletai is so unique that no other samples in the world’s meteorite collection are comparable. It is one of two meteorites classified as Iron, IIIE-anomalous. Aletai irons are characterized by higher Au and Co contents and unexpected Ir contents that do not fall on extrapolation of the Au-Ir trend of the other IIIE irons.
In aggregate, the mass of Atelai found so far, 74,480kg, is the largest known on Earth. And it is by far and away the largest meteorite debris scattering field found on the planet, believed to be due to its unique stone-skipping-like trajectory off the atmosphere on entry (see diagram below).
It took months of work to cut and stabilize by the masterful Craig Zilmen (see below for action shots). Exposing the crystal patterns in the smooth metal takes an HF acid etch. Craig: “The weight is a major factor in everything from cutting to finishing and makes etching particularly challenging because there’s no way to access all sides simultaneously and etching requires an incredibly uniform application of acid or any runs/streaks will be obvious.”
Then, the monolith was stabilized using reverse electrolysis for over 6 months to make it highly resistant to rust. The base is the untreated rough exterior of Atelai as it has looked for ~ 2 million years.
This composite image from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and Hubble Space Telescope (HST) combines the deepest X-ray, optical and infrared views of the sky. Using these images, astronomers have obtained the first direct evidence that black holes are common in the early Universe and shown that very young black holes grew more aggressively than previously thought.
Astronomers obtained what is known as the Chandra Deep Field South (CDFS) by pointing the telescope at the same patch of sky for over six weeks of time. The composite image shows a small section of the CDFS, where the Chandra sources are blue, the optical HST data are shown in green and blue, and the infrared data from Hubble are in red and green.
The new Chandra data allowed astronomers to search for black holes in 200 distant galaxies, from when the Universe was between about 800 million and 950 million years old. These distant galaxies were detected using the HST data and the positions of a subset of them are marked with the yellow circles (roll your mouse over the image above).
The rest of the 200 galaxies were found in other deep HST observations located either elsewhere in the CDFS or the Chandra Deep Field North, a second ultra- deep Chandra field in a different part of the sky.
None of the galaxies was individually detected with Chandra, so the team used a technique that relied on Chandra's ability to very accurately determine the direction from which the X-rays came to add up all the X-ray counts near the positions of these distant galaxies. The two "stacked" images resulting from this analysis are on the right side of the graphic, where the bottom image shows the low-energy X- rays and the top image has the high-energy X-rays. Statistically significant signals are found in both images.
These results imply that between 30% and 100% of the distant galaxies contain growing supermassive black holes. Extrapolating these results from the relatively small field of view that was observed to the full sky, there are at least 30 million supermassive black holes in the early Universe. This is a factor of 10,000 larger than the estimated number of quasars in the early Universe.
The stronger signal in high-energy X-rays implies that the black holes are nearly all enshrouded in thick clouds of gas and dust. Although copious amounts of optical light are generated by material falling onto the black holes, this light is blocked within the core of the black hole's host galaxy and is undetectable by optical telescopes. However, the high energies of X-ray light can penetrate these veils, allowing the black holes inside to be studied.
Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/U.Hawaii/E.Treister et al; Infrared: NASA/STScI/UC Santa Cruz/G.Illingworth et al; Optical: NASA/STScI/S.Beckwith et al
Read entire caption/view more images: chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2011/cdfs/
Caption credit: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Read more about Chandra:
p.s. You can see all of our Chandra photos in the Chandra Group in Flickr at: www.flickr.com/groups/chandranasa/ We'd love to have you as a member!
TYPE HISTORY
When it flew its Model 367-80 ‘Dash 80’ prototype for the first time on July 15, 1954, Boeing hoped the aircraft would take the airlines by storm. Extrapolating technology used on the B-47 and B-52 jet bombers, the aircraft represented a quantum leap directly into the jet age compared to the company’s piston-engined Model 367 Stratocruiser. With its swept wing and fourjet powerplant, carried in discrete underwing nacelles, the Dash 80 was the most modern commercial transport available.
Yet the airlines were left unimpressed and it was the US Air Force, realising it needed a jet tanker to support its jet bombers, that saw the Dash 80 into production. In September 1955 it ordered its first KC-135A Stratotanker, Boeing modifying the Dash 80 to trial a ‘flying boom’ refuelling system. The Stratotanker entered service on June 28, 1957 and Boeing continued development along this military line under the company designation Model 717.
The airlines had been unimpressed by the Dash 80’s cabin width, which was too narrow for six-abreast seating, and Boeing therefore returned to the Dash 80 concept, widening the cabin and developing a series of successful airliners as the Model 707.
Boeing built 732 KC-135s in different variants, many of them ultimately re-engined with the modern CFM56 turbofan, known as the F108 in military service. These aircraft are designated KC-135R. There was also a line of C-135 transports, EC-135 command posts, RC-135 intelligence gatherers and a host of other variants, with the KC and RC remaining in widespread service.
Developed under Boeing’s Model 739 series, the first of a long line of RC-135 variants was ordered in 1962. This photographic reconnaissance RC-135A entered service during the mid-1960s, followed by the first of the electronic intelligence gatherers, the RC-135B. The precedent for modifying KC airframes to RC standard was set in 1972, with the conversion of three KC-135As as RC-135Ds for the Rivet Brass mission. All subsequent RC variants were produced by conversion/upgrade, mostly from C, KC and RC standards, culminating in the RC-135V and RC-135W, operated under the Rivet Joint codename that has become internationally, and officially recognised in USAF parlance, as the type’s name.
In June 2011, 51 Sqn flew the final BAe Nimrod R.Mk 1 sortie of its 37-year association with the type. Plans were under way for the aircraft’s replacement under a project known as Airseeker, which had begun the previous March. It envisaged the acquisition of three RC-135W Rivet Joint aircraft for delivery from 2013. The machines were to be converted from USAF KC-135R airframes and L-3 Communications in Greenville, Texas was chosen to perform the work as the USAF’s experienced Rivet Joint contractor. The work began in March 2011.
On November 12, 2013, No. 51 Sqn took delivery of the UK’s first Rivet Joint, operating its maiden operational sortie on May 23, 2014. The second aircraft arrived in August 2015 and the third on June 8, 2017. For the purposes of sensor and system upgrades, the trio are considered an extension of the USAF Rivet Joint fleet, ensuring they remain at the cutting edge of capability.
Rivet Joint has been deployed extensively for Operation Shader and on other operational taskings. It had been formally named Airseeker, but is almost universally known in service as the RC-135W Rivet Joint.
An unusual feature of this layout is the interlaced sand drag, if the signalman became aware, by bell signal or otherwise, that a train descending from Woodhead was out of control he could divert it via the 'sand drag' hopefully assisting the driver to stop!
An office copy of Valehouse sbd from www.lymmobservatory.net/railways/sbdiagrams/sbdiagrams.htm coloured by me with information extrapolated from a drawing on that site kindly made available by Trevor Moseley and Simon Foster.
An exceedingly rare, unicorn actually, black & white 1967 Polaroid photograph of the earth, taken by the Department of Defense Gravity Experiment (DODGE) satellite.
I’m certain this was taken from/off a monitor at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHUAPL), possibly within the Satellite Communications Facility (SCF), where it was likely received.
The photograph's field of view ICW Fig. 1, page 3 at the following site, confirms it to have been taken by the “60° - FIELD B & W CAMERA”. You can even see two parallel antennas(?) to the left, maybe even one to the right, just like in the diagram:
www.jhuapl.edu/Content/techdigest/pdf/APL-V06-N05/APL-06-...
Credit: JHUAPL website
Most of the lower border of the dark linear swath across the upper portion of the earth’s disk is actually the northwest & northern Mediterranean coast of the African continent.
For those unfamiliar with the DODGE satellite, the smaller sphere is not the moon. It's a color calibration/chart sphere, attached to a boom extending out from the 'nose' of the satellite.
4.25” x ~7.5” (at its maximum dimension). Actual image size is 3.5” x 4.5”. You can see where the required, hand-applied glossy/protective ‘print coater’ ends. I can almost smell the pungent acidic aroma…brings back fond memories of a simpler time.
The following wonderful site confirms the ‘originality’ of the photo, with the manufacturing code of F708J5C on the verso breaking out to July 1967. So it was indeed fresh film in the camera:
gawainweaver.com/images/uploads/file/Polaroid_ID.pdf
Credit: GAWAIN WEAVER ART CONSERVATION website
Although I know neither jack nor squat about meteorology, I believe creative extrapolation of the cloud patterns/movement places this and all following/below photographs within at least a week of each other. Or not:
twitter.com/jhuapl/status/1121399208089661441
Credit: Johns Hopkins APL/Twitter
And:
www.jhuapl.edu/Content/techdigest/images/issues/APL-cover...
And these bastards’ “contribution”:
www.gettyimages.ie/detail/news-photo/view-of-the-first-co...
No credit due.
Launched 1 July 1967, aboard a Titan III-C, the United States Navy's DODGE satellite was primarily intended to explore gravity-gradient stabilization at near-geosynchronous altitude. DODGE carried 10 booms that were radio-commanded to extend or retract along three different axes. Data from in-orbit experiments provided fundamental constants for use in controlling future high-altitude spacecraft. DODGE also carried a number of commandable magnetic-damping devices and two TV cameras to determine satellite alignment. One of the cameras also provided the first color pictures of the full Earth.
Slightly paraphrased description, credit: David Darling/The Worlds of David Darling
Excellent information:
www.jhuapl.edu/TechDigest/Detail?Journal=A&VolumeID=6...
Credit: “JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, APPLIED PHYSICS LABORATORY” website
Also:
“The DODGE (Department of Defense Gravity Experiment) satellite was orbited primarily to study a number of advanced biaxial and triaxial gravity-gradient stabilization techniques at near-synchronous altitudes. Secondary objectives included obtaining measurements of the earth's magnetic field at near-synchronous altitudes and black-and-white and color TV photography of the entire earth disk. DODGE was launched as part of a multiple DOD satellite payload that included DATS 1, LES 5, and IDCSP 16, 17, and 18. The satellite was in the form of an octagonal aluminum shell with a truncated pyramid at the top and a 25.4-cm-diameter cylindrical mast extending 1.57 m from the satellite base. The satellite body was 2.41 m long and 1.22 m in diameter. A total of 10 knobbed booms were carried on board. Upon radio command, these booms could be independently extended or retracted along three axes to various limits out to 45.75 m. The cylindrical mast housed a 4.6-m boom that extended through the end of the mast, two 15.25-m-long damper booms that extended in the x-y plane, and triaxial vector magnetometer sensors. The remaining seven booms were contained in the satellite body along with a two-camera (one color and one black-and-white) vidicon camera system. The command system consisted of a dual command receiver, dual command logic, and power switching circuitry. The telemetry system included two directional antennas mounted on the mast, two 38-channel commutators for housekeeping data, and a dual transmitter system that transmitted analog data at a frequency of 240 MHz and TV data at 136.8 MHz. The satellite was successfully stabilized 12 days after launch by means of the gravity-gradient booms and libration dampening systems. It was oriented with its base and mast directed toward the center of the earth's disk. The mission was a success and proved the feasibility of achieving triaxial gravity-gradient stabilization at synchronous altitudes using passive and semipassive techniques. The satellite operated for over 3 yr and took thousands of black-and-white and color pictures of the earth. Early in 1971, problems with the batteries on board limited operation to only solar acquisition periods. The satellite was placed in an operational off mode in early 1971.”
Credit the NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive (NSSDCA) website, at:
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=1967...
This pic was shot years ago with an "Agfa Ephoto 1280" - My first digital camera with 0,7 Mpix effective pixels (with the on-camera extrapolation, it could even be called a megapixel camera...)
It was a simple camera, but I found it great for learning.
ISS038-E-047324 (13 Feb. 2014) --- This grand panorama of the Southern Patagonia Icefield (center) was imaged by an Expedition 38 crew member on the International Space Station on one of the rare clear days in the southern Andes Mountains. With an area of 13,000 square kilometers, the icefield is the largest temperate ice sheet in the Southern Hemisphere. Storms that swirl into the region from the southern Pacific Ocean (top) bring rain and snow (equivalent to a total of 2-11 meters of rainfall per year) resulting in the buildup of the ice sheet shown here (center). During the ice ages the glaciers were far larger. Geologists now know that ice tongues extended far onto the plains in the foreground, completely filling the great Patagonian lakes on repeated occasions. Similarly, ice tongues extended into the dense network of fjords (arms of the sea) on the Pacific side of the icefield. Ice tongues today appear tiny compared to the view that an "ice age" astronaut would have seen. A study of the surface topography of sixty-three glaciers, based on Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) data, compared data from 2000 to data from studies going back about 30 years (1968-1975). Many glacier tongues showed significant annual "retreat" of their ice fronts, a familiar signal of climate change. The study also revealed that the almost invisible loss by glacier thinning is far more significant in explaining ice loss. The researchers concluded that volume loss by frontal collapse is 4-10 times smaller than that caused by thinning. Scaled over the entire icefield, including frontal loss (so-called calving when ice masses collapse into the lakes), it was calculated that 13.5 cubic kilometers of ice was lost each year over the study period. This number becomes more meaningful compared with the rate measured in the last five years of the study (1995-2000), when the rate increased almost threefold, averaging 38.7 cubic kilometers per year. Extrapolating results from the low altitude glacier tongues implies that the high plateau ice on the spine of the Andes is thinning as well. In the decade since this study the often-imaged Upsala Glacier has retreated a further three kilometers, as shown recently in images taken by crew members aboard the space station. Glacier Pio X, named for Pope Pius X, is the only large glacier that is growing in length.
In this street, Eiffel meets a scientist with "bizarre paces", alchemist or reader of grimoires, a dressmaker's workshop, a gym (where he often went to maintain his sports fibre, he will draw the sword until more than 80 years old) and a wasteland (which was used as a depot for the supply of materials and materials...
THE BUILDERS: FERDINAND DE LESSEPS, GUSTAVE EIFFEL, FULCANELLI: Heliopolis explained: while reading this second part, we will enter the mythical Heliopolis which made the Master consecrate and carried to posterity these three initials F. C. H..Perhaps you were wondering why this pyramid shape, these three levels? Quite simply because Eiffel was brother the trowel and his tower represented an alchemical pyramid with the three levels of initiation of the blue lodges (Apprentice, companion and hierophant). It's easy to see. Is it useful to recall the ugliness of this modern construction, this big unsightly bolt in the middle of Paris? This did not stop her from becoming the world symbol of France! Now we know that he was Egyptologist, remains to make the link with a possible frankist ancestry... In fact Heliopolis was both a myth and a reality, as explained in the chapter devoted to the Lesseps circle, one of the founders of the famous cabaret "Le Chat Noir". In the second part, the intimate circle of friends of the Adept opens up to you and the actors put themselves in place for an ultimate representation under the enigmatic moustaches of the Black Cat. This book will allow you to get acquainted with the artistic and literary environment of the follower. There are many of them marching before you. Shadow theatre comes to life but who pulls the strings? What is this "high and secret diplomacy" evoked by Fulcanelli? These are many questions to which the author gives some answers because they were numerous outside of the disciple of Savignies to know to frequent the alchemist and you will be surprised to learn who belonged to this very closed circle whose center radiated from a mound with the sign of a moonlight... The walk to the star was in the program of the famous cabaret.
We find there the pieces of what René Daumal would have called "the Great Game". Indeed, the mystery that hangs over Fulcanelli is also the one that envelops, like a thick fog, the whole of French society in the 19th century and the early years of the 20th. And it was around this high place that the famous cabaret Montmartre "Le Chat Noir" was held that shadow theatre which ensured its fame. We revive this magical scene by studying the worldly, artistic and political environment of the Adept, inviting you to the tour of the "Grand Dukes" evoked in the Philosophical Mansions. Moreover, the fulcanelian literary mystery is inseparable from the strangeness that can be discovered in the respective works of his contemporaries. From Jules Verne, to Alfred Jarry or Anatole France, Raymond Roussel and more.... Despite those who have appropriated Culture, there has always been an underground culture, doubling the official one and making fun of it. François Villon's gouaille, the tip of Cyrano de Bergerac, Jonathan Swift's happy neighs (all quoted by Fulcanelli) are only variants of François Rabelais's hennaurm laughter, embroideries or borders composed on a single weave, a CANEVAS. There is no doubt that we are in the presence of a school - the solar Cabal - which has passed through the centuries because it took the precaution of coming forward hidden.Eye that sees everything at the top of the pyramid Eiffel Tower Templars and Alchemists. The Eiffel Tower under the skirt of The Iron Lady... Knights Templar produce sublime works... Esotericism secret secret secret pyramid and The Secret Eye of Horus Alchemist handle illuminati witchcraft enlightenment witches spiritualism channeling satan coincidence The alchemists. “Although the brotherhood of Alchemy appears to be relatively new, it is in reality the oldest continuous network on the planet, dating back many thousands of years, beginning when stones were first dressed. ..... On the other side of the crash scene is the Eiffel Tower, another gigantic obelisk in disguise.
The terrain today called Israel is apparently interlaced with ley or dragon lines of psychic power. This article attempts to highlight another one. Besides his crucifixion, the one place
where Jesus could be said to have been at gravest risk for his physical safety was the town of Nazareth. In fact, he refused to perform miracles there . This seems to be a unique act in his story, in his ministry, in his performance of impossible feats. This article attempts to come up with a reason for this or at least provide the reader with additional information to draw their own conclusions or do further research.Eiffel Tower links Babylon to No Miracle Nazareth
BACKGROUND ON ALCHEMIC EIFFEL TOWER:
1. The Eiffel Tower was the tallest building in the world for a while. It is 324 meters in height. It was designed by an Alchemist. The obvious connection to another tall building, the Tower of Babylon is obvious.
EXTRAPOLATION OF 324 meters to 32.4 Latitude N runs through Babil Province, Iraq.
2. Babil province, south of Baghdad is where the Kingdom of Babylon and the Tower of Eiffel.and the line of latitude 32.4 runs through this area
3. The line of latitude 32.4 N runs through the biblical town of Nazareth, where the term ,Jesus of Nazareth is derived from.
4. The name Nazareth means tower - perhaps watch tower -
***It is interesting to note that the 324 number coincides with The province of Babil of the once tallest building in the world, The Tower of Babylon, then the new tallest building in the world,
The Eiffel Tower AND the name of Nazareth, wherein Jesus did not perform miracles, was nearly murdered and finally expelled by its citizens. This is where the term "No man is a
prophet in his own country" comes from. So therefore, Jesus was reviled and was expelled from the City of the Watch Tower. According to Christian belief, his father , G-d , destroyed the previous city of the Tower , Babylon. Is this coincidence? It would appear unlikely.
CONCLUSION:
Today in Alchemic History Alexandre Gustave Eiffel is born in 1832. Alexandre Gustave Eiffel was French engineer. Eiffel was born Alexandre Gustave Bönickhausen on December 15th, 1832 in Côte-d'Or, France. Eiffel's family name was Bönickhausen, although the family generally used Eiffel. It was not until 1880 that Eiffel officially changed his name from Bönickhausen. Eiffel attended classes at the Lycée Royal and was educated by various family members in a variety of sciences. He was accepted to two notable schools in Paris finally deciding to go with École Centrale des Arts et Manufactures where he graduated with a degree in chemistry. If numbers could talk, they'd say the Eiffel Tower is the most terrifying radio transmission tower in the history of the world. A quick comb-through of the darker corners of the Internet reveals a few interesting facts about the Parisian treasure. The building is said to casts a shadow of exactly 412 meters in length ...
When Eiffel graduated, family squabbles prevented him from going to work for his uncle as he planned. Eventually he went to work for Charles Nepveu. When Nepveu sold his company, he made sure to find a place for Eiffel at Compagnie Belge de Matériels de Chemin de Fer the company which acquired Nepveu's. Nepveu gave Eiffel his first major project the Bordeaux bridge.
In 1865, Eiffel departed Compagnie Belge de Matériels de Chemin de Fer as the economy had gotten bad and the company was nearing collapse. After leaving the company he became an independent consulting engineer. In 1866 he received a contract from the Egyptian government for Eiffel to oversee the construction of 33 locomotives. The job was high in profit and undemanding. Eiffel was able to travel to Egypt and visit the Suez Canal. Eiffel at the same time did work for the Exposition Universelle of 1867 by designing arch girders. He also conducted experiments to determine the modulous elasticity of cast iron.
In 1866, Eiffel was able to borrow enough money to start his own company. Although he would take on a partner at one point and time and the company would change it's name several times it would remain in existence until well after Eiffel's passing. Eiffel with the company made many innovations in metal construction. They built and designed the Maria Pia Bridge in Portugal which was the first of it's kind. Instead of pylons going into the river bed, the bridge was supported by a massive iron arch that spanned 520ft.
In 1881, Eiffel was called in to assist in the building of the Statue of Liberty. He helped to create an inner framework which supported the outer copper. The statue was erected at Eiffel's ironworks in Paris before it was disassembled and shipped to the United States.
In 1886, Eiffel was given a contract for Astronomical Observatory in Nice. In it's construction they were able to set the some in a track that floated on magnesium chloride in water. The dome was the largest at the time.
In 1884, preparations were underway for the 1889 Exposition Universelle. Eiffel had been approached with a design for what would become known as the Eiffel Tower. Eiffel was unimpressed with the plans. It was until another architect added to the existing design that Eiffel decided that he would be interested in the plans. He bought out the patents for the design and made his bid to have the tower the center piece of the Exposition Universelle. There were several competitors for the distinction of being the centerpiece. A change was made to the requirements for the competition which made Eiffel's plan the only one that would fulfill all requirements. Although many were impressed with the design, many felt that the tower was going to detract from the monuments that already existed around Paris. The Eiffel Tower was only expected to last for 20 years and somewhat ironically has become a symbol of Paris. Later Eiffel, who formed a company to manage the tower put weather monitoring stations and used the tower for experiments involving air currents.
In 1888, Eiffel was contracted to work on a French Panama Canal. Unfortunately the company that contracted with Eiffel was discovered to be misusing funds intended for the project. Despite the fact that Eiffel was a contractor and was not involved in those dealings, he was accused as well. He was convicted initially and later acquitted on appeal.
Eiffel passed away December 27th, 1923.
Despite anecdotal indications to the contrary, there is no evidence that Eiffel was ever being a prominent well connected individual is generally why people want to put him as a member of the fraternity. It is also possibly because of his connection with the Statue of Liberty.
Date: 11 Febr 2011 ( 11 - II - 11 )
Computer Mirror Image: "THE BLUE BUTTERFLY IS 33YO NOW"
The picture "Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2" made by Marcel Duchamp in 1912,
is widely regarded as a Modernist classic and has become one of the most famous of its time
Using the computer program Photoshop, we can see from the picture a face to appear.
How is it made ?
Use a Photoshop computer-program with 2 layers.
1e Layer : picture "Nude Descending a Staircase".
2e Layer : negative Mirror picture "Nude Descending a Staircase".
Use the function DIFFERENCE between the layers.
This new "Work of Art" called "THE BLUE BUTTERFLY IS 33YO NOW",
can only be made visible on a computer
~Duchamp~ Artmaking is making the invisible, visible.
~ Aristotle ~ The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.
UNMOVED MOVER
Motion is therefore "the actuality of any potentiality insofar as it is still a potentiality"
Aristotle describes the "Unmoved Mover" as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating, the Active Intellect.
1. There exists movement in the world.
2. Things that move were set into motion by something else.
3. If everything that moves were caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
4. Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
5. From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
6. From 4, there must be an "Unmoved Mover".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
Lady ”I have no sence of art” GaGa:
"I’m not fucking Duchamp but I love pissing with you”
style.com/stylefile/2010/07/r-mutt-meet-l-gaga/
"I don't want to be a part of the machine, I want the machine to be a part of me"
~AHRIMAN has the greatest possible interest in instructing men in mathematics, but not in instructing them that mathematical-mechanistic concepts of the universe are merely illusions. . . . that they are only points of view, like photographs from one side.
~Lucifer & AHRIMAN must be regarded as two scales of a balance and its we who must hold the beam in equipoise.
~'cosmic triad' - Lucifer, Christ and AHRIMAN.
~Electricity is AHRIMANIC light.
~AHRIMANIC "elemental spirits" inhabit our artificial machines.
~In the absolute sense, nothing is good in itself, but is always good or bad according to the use to which it is put.
RIP Sri Sathya Sai Baba. Aum Shanti, shanti, shanti.
"Science must confine its inquiry only to things belonging to the human senses, while spiritualism transcends the senses. If you want to understand the nature of spiritual power you can do so only through the path of spirituality and not science. What science has been able to unravel is merely a fraction of the cosmic phenomena ..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba
Date: 30 jan 2011
O(+> DEDICATED TO "science2art"
Because LOVE is Universal....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLpHdJQdhL8
Date: 11 Jan 2011 ( 11 - 1 - 11 )
Emergency Protection Sought for Disappearing Miami Blue Butterfly
biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/miam...
Date: 7 Aug 2009 ( 7 - 8 - 9 )
Human Butterfly Crop Circle Mystery
youtube.com/watch?v=MhqM7hXvX6k
Damien Hirst Butterflies
www.othercriteria.com/browse/hirst/
flickr.com/photos/daydreampilot/2628127181/
Watch my internet channels:
metacafe.com/channels/Namirha/
Copyright free download:
400x200pix
i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj508/Namirha/Butterfly400x2...
In 1912 Impressionist Marcel Duchamp exhibited a
painting entitled NUDE DESCENDING A STAIRCASE.
The painting created a sensation. Worth millions today
it is held by the Philadelphia Museum of Art.
==========================================
The explanation of exactly why this painting
is so famous has always been a mystery.
==========================================
A number of art experts have pointed out that the painting
is similar to Edward Muybridge.
He is known for his pioneering work on animal locomotion
in 1877 and 1878, which used multiple cameras to capture
motion in stop-action photographs
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Muybridge
This fact was even publicly acknowledged by Duchamp
himself according to the Wikipedia article:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude_Descending_a_Staircase
Of course Duchamp's painting "impressionistically" adds
a sense of motion to the figure which is missing in
Muybridge's still-frame photos.
=========================================
HOWEVER..... the fact that Duchamp got his inspiration
from one of Muybridge's photographs IS NOT WHY
Duchamp's painting is WORLD FAMOUS.
THERE IS ANOTHER SCIENTIFIC REASON
FOR THE WORLD FAME OF
MARCEL DUCHAMP'S PAINTING---
FACT IS...... THE PAINTING IS A DIRECT
VISUAL CONFIRMATION OF THE
EXISTENCE OF GOD.................!!!!!
AND HERE I WILL EXPLAIN WHY:
=========================================
When you look at something new and unfamiliar,
your mind tries to "logically guess" what it is.... then
your mind imagines the object and tries to fit that image
to what it is seeing to see if they can be matched.
For instance, if you are out hunting and you see a
distant object which you think might be a deer, you
must check carefully before you shoot. Your mind
tries different possibilities... is it a man?.... so you try
to fit the object to the mental image of a man.... no...
it won't work.... is it a cow?.... so you try to fit the
object to a cow.... no, can't be.... is it a large dog....
so you imagine it as a large dog.... nope.... won't
work.....is it a scarecrow...so you try to imagine it as a
scarecrow..nope.... wrong again.... wait a minute.... it
could be a motorcycle parked on the side of a dirt road....
immediately you imagine a motorcycle... with a wind shield
and handle bars......... BINGO....... turns out that's
exactly what it is......... thank God you didn't pull that
trigger!
WELL.... it turns out almost all objects are "partially
invisible"..... as I have explained before, in fact about
20% of true reality is INVISIBLE to the average person
due to the Secular Trend Braingrowth Deficit... and
this is known as the "Invisible World" of Religion
(commonly called "Heaven").
What this means is that we are constantly using the
above described "GUESS AND COMPARE" method
of recognizing objects (and persons too by the way).
In fact it is this fundamental "guess and compare"
method which is what eventually leads the average person
to begin to suspect that there is an "unseen world"..
at least historically that is where Religion comes from.
Now... in fact.... the human visual system does this
automatically and very rapidly... trying in some
cases 3, 4 or half a dozen "guesses" before it
recognizes an unfamiliar object or person.
This (subconscious) process looks very much
like one of Muybridges "freeze motion" photos...
or like Duchamp's Nude Descending the Staircase
for that matter.
AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY
the average person gets an overwhelming
sense of DEJA VUE the minute he first see's
Marcel Duchamp's famous painting.... he says to
himself... "hey..I've see that somewhere before.."
... and guess what.... he has.. in his subconscious mind,
and what it is is :
TWO PICTURES... ONE OF HEAVEN
(an extrapolated possibility) AND ONE OF
EARTH (a known reality).... BEING
QUICLY ALTERNATED FOR COMPARISON
BACK AND FORTH IN THE MIND !!!!
........... and that is
EXACTLY HOW
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS DISCOVERED
NOT ONLY HISTORICALLY,
BUT BY AVERAGE PEOPLE
EVERY SINGLE DAY !
Of course Duchamp is also a pop psychologist and
that is why the figure is "descending a staircase"
because the vision of God is all about ascending
and descending (perceptually) and "stairs" are
a well known historical symbology (ladders too).
also... a "nude" is used to involve the basic
"perceptual ascension" involved in sexual
desire and attraction.
However... the "movie film sequence"
of the jittery "glimpses of heaven" that
we undergoe daily when perceiving
unfamiliar objects or scenes is BRILLIANTLY
captured by Duchamp's famous painting.
and that is why Marcel Duchamp's
painting is world famous !
Now George Hammond has proved all of this using
the Fusion Frequency of movie films to
prove the existence of the invisible world,
and has confirmed the proof to two decimal point
accuracy using 100 years of published Psychometry
data and showing that it is IDENTICAL to
Linearized Gravity and thus that the "invisible world"
is a simple classical Einsteinian Time and Space
dilation which makes as much as 20% of reality
INVISIBLE to the average person, thus explaining
both "God" and the "Invisible World" (Heaven).
HOWEVER..... a GENIUS like Marcel Duchamp
doesn't need theoretical Physics to explain God...
he can "paint God with a paint brush" and the
opinion of world has now confirmed the enduring
validity of his "1912 portrait of God
www.archivum.info/sci.psychology.theory/2006-09/00000/GOD...
Thomas argued that God, while perfectly united, also is perfectly described by Three Interrelated Persons. These three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are constituted by their relations within the essence of God. Thomas wrote that the term "Trinity" "does not mean the relations themselves of the Persons, but rather the number of persons related to each other; and hence it is that the word in itself does not express regard to another."[88] The Father generates the Son (or the Word) by the relation of self-awareness. This eternal generation then produces an eternal Spirit "who enjoys the divine nature as the Love of God, the Love of the Father for the Word."
This Trinity exists independently from the world. It transcends the created world, but the Trinity also decided to give grace to human beings. This takes place through the Incarnation of the Word in the person of Jesus Christ and through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within those who have experienced salvation by God; according to Aidan Nichols.
(Nature of the Trinity)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas#Nature_of_the_Trinity
Substantial form (the human soul) configures prime matter (the physical body) and is the form by which a material composite belongs to that species it does; in the case of human beings, that species is rational animal. So, a human being is a matter-form composite that is organized to be a rational animal. Matter cannot exist without being configured by form, but form can exist without matter—which allows for the separation of soul from body. Aquinas says that the soul shares in the material and spiritual worlds, and so has some features of matter and other, immaterial, features (such as access to universals). The human soul is different from other material and spiritual things; it is created by God, but also only comes into existence in the material body.
Aquinas’s account of the soul focuses on epistemology and metaphysics, and because of this he believes it gives a clear account of the immaterial nature of the soul.
(The afterlife and resurrection)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas#The_afterlife_and_re...
In recent years, the cognitive neuroscientist Walter Freeman proposes that Thomism is the philosophical system explaining cognition that is most compatible with neurodynamics, in a 2008 article in the journal Mind and Matter entitled "Nonlinear Brain Dynamics and Intention According to Aquinas."
(Impact of Thomism)
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In October 1951, a heavy tank project was underway to mount an oscillating turret with an automatically loading 120mm Gun on the hull of the 120mm Gun Tank T43. (The T43 would later be serialized as the 120mm Gun Tank M103, America’s last heavy tank.). This was the T57, and the Rheem Manufacturing Company were granted a contract to design and build two pilot turrets and autoloading systems.
During the T57’s development, it became clear that it was feasible to mount a lighter armored version of the T57 turret on the hull of the 90mm Gun Tank T48 (The T48 later became the 90mm Gun Tank M48 Patton). This combination granted the possibility of creating a ‘heavy gun tank’ that was considerably lighter (and therefore more agile and tactically flexible) than any previously designed.
In May 1953, a development project was started to create such a tank. It would be designated the 120mm Gun Tank T77, and another contract was signed with Rheem to create two pilot tanks. The T77 weighed about 50 tons, with armor of the hull being up to 110mm thick. It was originally powered by a 650 hp Continental AVSI-1790-6 V12, air-cooled twin-turbo gasoline engine. This would propel the tank to a speed of 30 mph (48 km/h). The tank was supported on a torsion bar suspension, attached to six road wheels. The drive sprocket was at the rear, while the idler was at the front. The idler wheel was of the compensating type, meaning it was attached to the closest roadwheel by an actuating arm. When the roadwheel reacted to terrain, the idler was pushed out or pulled in, keeping constant track tension. The return of the track was supported by five rollers.
The T77 had a crew of four: The driver’s position was standard for M48 hulls, located centrally in the bow at the front of the hull. Arrangements inside the turret were standard, too: The loader was positioned to the left of the gun, the gunner was on the right with the commander behind him.
The T77’s oscillating turret could be easily mounted to the unmodified 2.1 m (85 inch) turret ring of the M48 hull, and on other tanks, too. It consisted of two actuating parts: a collar that was attached to the turret ring, allowing 360° horizontal traverse, and a pivoting upper part with a long cylindrical ‘nose’ and a low profile flat bustle that held the gun, which could elevate to a maximum of 15 degrees, and depress 8 degrees. It also held the complex loading mechanism and the turret crew.
Both turret halves utilized cast homogeneous steel armor. The sides of the collar were made to be round and bulbous in shape to protect the trunnions that the upper half pivoted on. Armor around the face was 127mm (5 inches) thick, angled at 60 degrees, what meant an effective 10 in (254 mm) equivalent of RHA at the turret front. Maximum armor strength was 137mm (5.3 inches) on the convex sides of the turret, and this dropped to 51 mm (2 inches) on the bustle.
Though it looked like two, there were actually three hatches in the turret’s roof: There was a small hatch on the left for the loader, and the slightly raised cupola for the commander on the right, which featured six periscopes. These two standard hatches were part of a third large, powered hatch, which took up most of the middle of the roof, granting a larger escape route for the crew but also allowed internal turret equipment to be removed easily. It was also a convenient way to replenish the ammunition storage, even though a use under battle conditions was prohibitive. In front of the loader’s hatch was a periscope, housings for a stereoscopic rangefinder were mounted on the sides of the swiveling turret part, and there was another periscope above the gunner’s position, too. Behind the large hatch was the ejection port for spent cartridges, to its right was the armored housing for the ventilator.
The initial Rheem Company turret concept had the gun rigidly mounted to the turret without a recoil system, and the long gun barrel protruded from a narrow nose. The gun featured a quick change barrel but was otherwise basically identical to the 120mm Gun T123E1, the gun being trialed on the T43/M103. However, for the T57/77 turret and the autoloader, it was modified to accept single piece ammunition, unlike the T43/M103, which used separately loading ammo due to the round’s high weight. This new gun was attached to the turret via a conical adapter that surrounded the breech end of the gun. One end screwed directly into the breech, while the front half extended through the ‘nose’ and was secured in place by a large nut. The force created by the firing of the gun and the projectile traveling down the rifled barrel was resisted by rooting the adapter both the breech block and turret ring. As there was no inertia from recoil to automatically open the horizontally sliding breech block, a hydraulic cylinder was introduced. Upon firing the main gun, this hydraulic cylinder was triggered via an electric switch. This new variant of the T123 cannon was designated the 120mm Gun T179. It was fitted with a bore evacuator (fume extractor) and a simple, T-shaped muzzle brake.
A single .30 Caliber (7.62mm) machine gun was mounted coaxially, and another such weapon or a medium 0.5” machine gun could be attached to a mount on the commander’s cupola.
Using standard Armor-Piercing Ballistic Cap Tracer Rounds, the T179 was capable of penetrating 221-millimetre (8.7 in) of 30-degree sloped rolled-homogenous armor at 1,000 yards and 196-millimetre (7.7 in) at 2,000 yards. It could also penetrate 124-millimetre (4.9 in) 60-degree sloped rolled-homogenous armor at 1,000 yards and 114-millimetre (4.5 in) at 2,000 yards.
The T179’s automatic loader was located below the gun and it gave the weapon a projected rate of fire of 30 rounds per minute, even though this was only of theoretical nature because its cylinder magazine only held 8 rounds. After these had been expended, it had to be manually re-loaded by the crew from the inside, and the cannon could not be operated at that time. Ammunition types such as High-Explosive (HE), High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT), Armor Piercing (AP), or Armor-Piercing Ballistic-Capped (APBC) could be fired and be selected from the magazine via a control panel by either the gunner or the tank commander, so that it was possible to quickly adapt to a changing tactical situation – as long as the right rounds had been loaded into the magazine beforehand.
The cannon itself was fed by a ramming arm that actuated between positions relative to the breech and magazine, operating in five major steps:
1) The hydraulically operated ramming arm withdrew a round and aligned it with the breach.
2) The rammer then pushed the round into the breach, triggering it to close.
3) Gun was fired.
4) Effect of gun firing trips the electric switch that opens the breech.
5) Rammer picks up a fresh round, at the same time ejecting the spent cartridge through a trap door in the roof of the turret bustle.
Beyond the 8 rounds ready-for fire in the magazine, the main gun had only a very limited ammunition supply due to the large size of the 1-piece rounds: only 21 more 120 mm rounds could be stored in the hull and at the base of the turret.
After thorough trials, the T77 was, powered by a more fuel-efficient Continental AVDS-1790-2 V12, air-cooled twin-turbo diesel engine with 750 bhp (560 kW), accepted as a replacement for the U.S. Army‘s unloved heavy M103 and introduced as the M77. The first M77s were assembled at the Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant in March 1964. However, the M77 was primarily a support vehicle for standard tank units and reserved for special operations. Therefore, the type’s production numbers remained low: only 173 tanks were eventually built until 1968 and exclusively allocated to U.S. Army units in Western Germany, with a focus on West Berlin and Southern Germany (e.g. in the Fulda Gap), where they were to repel assaults from Eastern Germany and defend vital installations or critical bottlenecks.
Due to its high rate of fire and long range, the M77 was ideally suited for defensive tasks and hit-and-run tactics. But this was, unfortunately, the type’s only selling point: The oscillating turret turned out to be complex, concerning both handling as well as maintenance, and in practice it did not offer the same weapon stability as the M48’s or the later M60’s conventional design, especially when firing during movement. The cramped interior and the many mechanical parts of the bulky autoloader inside of the turret did not make the tank popular among its crews, either. Several accidents occurred during manoeuvers while the loader tried to refill the magazine under combat pressure. A further weakness was the type’s low ammunition stock and the fact that, despite the autoloader, there was still a loader necessary to feed the magazine. The low ammunition stock also heavily limited the tactical value of the tank: typically, the M77 had to leave its position after expending all of its ammunition and move to a second line position, where the huge one-piece rounds could be replenished under safer conditions. But this bound other resources, e. g. support vehicles, and typically the former position had to be given up or supplanted by another vehicle. Operating the M77 effectively turned out to be a logistic nightmare.
During its career, the M77 saw only one major upgrade in the mid-Seventies: The M77A1 was outfitted with a new multi-chamber muzzle brake, muzzle reference and crosswind sensors (the latter was mounted in a small mast on the rear of the turret) and an improved turret stabilization system along with an upgraded turret electrical system. All of these measures were intended to improve the tank’s 1st shot kill probability, esp. at long range. A large AN/VSS-1(V)1 white/IR searchlight was added above the gun barrel, too. All tanks in service were upgraded in this fashion, no new tanks were built. Unlike the M48, neither the M77 nor the Rheem turret or its autoloader system were cleared for export, even though Israel showed interest.
In the early Eighties, there were further plans for another upgrade of the M77 fleet to a potential A2 status. This would have introduced a laser rangefinder (instead of the purely optical device) and a solid state M21 ballistic computer with a digital databus. The M21 would have allowed a pre-programmed selection and fire sequence of different ammunition types from the magazine’s chambers, plus better range and super-elevation correction. However, this did not happen because the M77 had become obsolete through the simple depletion of its exotic 120 mm ammunition from the army’s stocks. Therefore, another plan examined the possibilities of replacing the T179 gun with the 105 mm M68 rifled anti-tank gun, a license-built version of the British L7 gun, which had, despite the smaller caliber, a performance comparable to the bigger 120 mm T179. But since the M48 chassis and its armor concept had become outdated by the time, too, the M77A1 fleet was by 1986 fully replaced by the M60A3, the US Army’s new standard MBT.
Specifications:
Crew: 4 (commander, driver, loader, gunner)
Weight: 51 tons
Length: 6.946 m (22 ft 9.5 in) hull only, 10,66 m (34 ft 11 in) overall w. gun forward
Width: 3.63 m (11 ft 11 in)
Height: 3.08 m (10 ft 1 in)
Suspension: Torsion-bar
Ground clearance: 1 ft 6.2 in (0.46 m)
Fuel capacity: 385 US gal (1,457 l)
Armor:
0.5 – 5.3 in (13 – 137 mm)
Performance:
Speed:
- Maximum, road: 30 mph (48 km/h)
- Sustained, road: 25 mph (40 km/h)
- Cross country: 9.3 to 15.5 mph (15 to 25 km/h)
Climbing capability:
- 40% side slope and 60% max grade
- Vertical obstacle of 36 inches (91 cm)
- 102 inches (2.59 m) trench crossing
Fording depth: Unprepared: 4 ft (1.219 m), prepared: 8 ft (2.438 m)
Operational range: 287 ml (463 km) on road
Power/weight: 16.6 hp (12.4 kW)/tonne
Engine:
1× Continental AVDS-1790-2 V12, air-cooled twin-turbo diesel engine, 750 bhp (560 kW)
Transmission:
General Motors CD-850-3, 2-Fw/1-Rv speed GB
Armament:
1× 120 mm T179 L/60 rifled anti-tank gun with an autoloader and a total of 29 rounds
1× co-axial 7.62 mm M240C machine gun with 3.000 rounds
1× .50 cal (12.7 mm) M2 Browning (600 rounds) or .30 cal (7.62 mm) M73 machine
anti-aircraft machine gun (1.000 rounds) on the commander’s cupola with 600 rounds
The kit and its assembly:
This is another fictional creation, but, like many of my whif builds, it is rooted in reality and an extrapolation of what could have been. The oscillating tower with the M103’s 120 mm cannon and an autoloader was actually developed, and there were several tank projects that made use of it. The T77 was the final proposal, but, like the T57 on the M103 basis and other designs from the Rheem Company, the T77’s development was arduously slow, so that the project was finally canceled in 1957 by the US Ordnance Department. Two turrets were actually built, though, but they were scrapped in February 1958, and the T77 only existed on paper or in model form.
The impulse for this build actually came from a 1:72 resin turret for the T57 project from ModelTrans/Silesian Models. I found the concept cool and the turret had a very futuristic look, so that I bought a set with the vague intention to use it for a mecha conversion someday. Then it gathered dust in the stash, until I recently stumbled upon the 1:72 M103 kit from Dragon and considered a T57 build. But this kit is very rare and expensive, at least here in Germany, so I shelved this plan again. However, I started to play with the idea of a U.S. Army vehicle with a Rheem Company turret. Then I found a Revell M60 kit in the stash and considered it for a whiffy build, but eventually rejected the idea because a turret concept from the late Fifties would hardly make its way onto a tank from the late Seventies or later. When I did further research concerning the Rheem turret, I came across the real T77 project on the basis of the M48, and dug out an ESCI M48A5 from the pile (realizing that I had already hoarded three of them…!), so the M77 project was finally born.
Otherwise, the build was a straightforward affair. The T57 turret is a massive resin piece with a separate barrel and very fine surface details. Some of them, delicate lugs, were unfortunately broken off, already OOB but also by me while handling the pieces. They could be easily replaced with brass wire, though, which was also used to add small rails to the collar. The very long and thin barrel was replaced with a white metal aftermarket piece. It’s actually a barrel for a Soviet T-10 with a complex muzzle brake (made from brass), but the size was just fine and looks very good on this fictional tank.
Some details were added to the turret or transplanted from the M48 kit, e. g. the prominent IR searchlight or the machine gun on the commander cupola. Furthermore, I added a textile seal to the gap between the turret sections and to the barrel’s root, made from paper tissue drenched in thinned white glue. The same method was used to create the searchlight cover, too.
Since the turret base had a smaller diameter than the M48’s attachment opening, I had to improvise a suitable adapter with styrene strips. The M48A5 hull itself was taken OOB.
Painting and markings:
I was happy that I could place this model into a later time frame, so that the U.S. Army’s uniform Olive Drab times were already over. In the 1970s, the US Mobility Equipment Research & Design Command (MERDC) developed a system of camouflage patterns for US Army vehicles. These consisted of a set of standardized patterns for each vehicle, to be used with a set of twelve colours. The local terrain conditions and colours decided which of the paints were to be used, and on which parts of a vehicle. Then, if conditions altered, for example by a change in the weather, or by the unit moving into a new area of operations, the scheme could be quickly adjusted to suit them by replacing only one or two colours by different ones.
For example, if a vehicle was painted in the US & European winter scheme, which had a dark green and a medium brown as its predominant colours, and it started to snow, by overpainting either the green or the brown with white, one of the two snow schemes could be created. This gave a high degree of flexibility, though in practice it was hardly ever actually made use of—most vehicles were painted in one scheme and kept that.
I gave the M77 the “Winter Verdant” MERDC scheme, which was frequently used in Germany. It consists of Forest Green (FS 34079), Earth Red (FS 30117), Sand (FS 30277) and Black (FS 37038). The pattern itself was adapted from the standardized M60 MERDC scheme. Colors used were ModelMaster 1701 and 1710, plus Humbrol 238 and Revell 06. The seals on the turret and the searchlight cover were painted in a faded olive drab, the track segments with a mix of iron, dark grey and red brown.
After basic painting with brushes, the kit received a washing with thinned black and red brown acrylic paint. Decals (taken from the ESCI kit) came next, then the model received an overall dry brushing treatment with Humbrol 72 (Khaki Drill) and 168 (Hemp). Finally, everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish from the rattle can and the lower hull areas were dusted with mineral pigments, simulating dust and mud.
Another relatively simple conversion, since only the (oscillating) turret was swapped. However, I was skeptical at first because the turret was originally intended for an M103 hull - but mounting it on a smaller M48 chassis worked well, just like in real life!
A left of field look at the extermination of aboriginal or indigenous woman. The genocide of their genetics, their culture, and its extended application to the extermination of the woman of the west, and their genocide. A look into the meta data of a Canadian genocide in progress, and its reflection on the USA, and the west. Looking at statistically applied genocide again, using an analysis of meta data, and gross numbers, with a good dose of just join the dots, thrown in for good measure.
Number for number, the extermination of woman is the most effective way to galvanise genocide, within a group or population. Either via VD (venereal disease), social engineering, or otherwise… The murder of female blood lines, via sterilization using germ warfare and social engineering, is and has been extraordinarily effective. The effectiveness relies on three major points, one, a woman getting VD that terminates her ability to have children, the second is that since an in-utero baby and or non-conceived foetus is classified as not human yet, there can be no charge of murder, and the third point is, that a woman who chooses a childless existence after indoctrination are seen to be exerting her own free will, in a process of self-determination.
How would I know, or have a right to comment? At one stage I was approached to work in the Biosecurity facility in Victoria, Australia, an offer I declined. Why head hunt me? I had been doing theorisation at university on the logic patterns for treatments and curing of HIV, as a 19-year-old, it must have resonated with someone, for them to send someone to the university to see me. So, no, I am not some uneducated crack pot conspiracy theorist, and I hate to shatter some people’s little world or bubble, but people work at this type of horrid work both in defence and offence all the time. The other reason I am commenting is, I went behind, what some would call enemy lines, into the Arts humanities and observed firsthand, racist, and sexist indoctrination, of people just outside of their childhood. No, it should not have been seen as enemy lines or so I thought, as I am a feminist. But the level of misandry for white males was quite profound, and ironically misogynist behaviour conducted by females was quite shocking. Additionally, I feel at liberty to write, as I have studied and written about genocide at university.
So let’s get into it. Why murder or sterilize aboriginal or indigenous woman? One of the things I looked at was that men can impregnate hundreds in a lifetime, but a woman’s uterus is only so capable, it is in fact highly limited. I observed through finger printing or meta data and extrapolation that some abhorrent groups males and or females, are doing maths on how many women do they need to kill of aboriginal decent, before they get rid of all those that can be considered aboriginal. Why would someone or a group do something so horrible? This scenario will greatly aid foreign interests in the taking of countries like Australia and the Americas, in the future.
We are going to have a little look at a field of study that for some is unfortunately very large, and for some is a horrifically very creative field of endeavour, so my considerations and observations will be limited in scope, to keep this writing manageable.
My considerations of indigenous genocide raised many questions such as. Does giving up your land coincide or correlate with a reduction in a woman’s chance of genocide or an increase? And if so in either case why? If a woman will give up her uterus to outsiders, does she suffer a lower rate of genocide, or is it more? The techno YouTube hit by The Halluci Nation “Burn your village to the ground” help make me ponder similar questions, here is a link to the YouTube video www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNi__fnadTM&list=WL&index=82 It can be argued between warriors and wise men about the process of colonisation, its effect, and the motives for that colonization other than, the at times, murderous acquisition of land. But when it comes to the act of murderous colonisation, its effectiveness is amplified to an accelerated final solution of sorts. When you exterminate a woman’s genetics with the eradication of their unborn babies or foetuses before they are even conceived, it leaves no legal recourse. Murdering woman, and sterilizing them are potent weapons, when performing the act of genocide. When woman are used as breeding vessels, for foreign genetics, or sterilized via VD (venereal disease), or sterilized with anti-feminist dogma masquerading as feminist mantras, the result is a loss of land and resources. Before I go further, I will go on the record, that I have no issues with mixed race relationships, as I have been in a few. I have always found them enlightening, and culturally enriching, and it is my sincere hope that those relationships were mutually beneficial.
The relatively recent insertion into humanity and the debate about the purity of races goes back to a period most of us but not all of us wish had not happened, the second world war. And unusually it was a conundrum for those that argued it, and what would be the future outcomes in the west, if it had of been achieved globally. It presented a legal consideration that I have identified, and its possible application for many indigenous, and their extended families. In one respect it is not a complex one and is unusually of benefit to all nations who have an indigenous culture and or peoples. Provided an indigenous cultures and peoples still exist, it can be argued that under international law the west has a failsafe or caveat for future attempts of colonization via foreign powers. ie. if someone comes to our countries with colonialist intent trying to divide the tribes as it where, and says we, as in those considered nonindigenous have no write to be here, and that we, whoever we are, or may be have stolen the land, we politely ask our indigenous relatives, some of which need to be overtly aboriginal, to tell them to go away. They then say these are my blood relatives and this is not your land to comment on. For the new world order colonist, it is a slap in the face, and they are left eating their own words. It is a polite conversation, one that should end the colonialist’s verbal pursuit in its tracks, and it can only go further, if that foreign power, turns to violence, or a forced acquisition of the land through murder and or subjugation. It is simple legally, but a big ask emotionally, and politically, for all the family’s involved. As members of our families have murdered, other members of our families, and stolen land from them. It is like a doom’s day sentence of language, to get out of hell, one that relies on forgiveness, but not forgetting our at times horrific past. This approach helps failsafe against future forced or coerced loss of land. It was a principle based on a piece of mathematics an Australian soldier did on the synchronisation of fireflies’ flashes, and was popularised by the movie six degrees of separation. I just applied it to our families in OZ and the US when it came to the connections between blood relatives that are aboriginal or indigenous, and the rest of us, instead of social connections as was depicted in the original piece of math.
Although the theft of land and unhonored treaties is without question a horrific tragedy, and for some it is a Rorschach ink blot and not a legal contract, it presents us as in those in the west of all descriptions and spiritualties a means of great opportunity to stifle New World Order colonialist colonization of our shared family land. Regardless of race, if no one tries to politically capitalise on the process of the recognition of our family as a nation, and go outside of genuine good will, it is an utterly profound, legal, and social statement. Essentially it aids countries in the west like Australia and the US. Nations essentially made up of family, a family that includes aboriginal natives and or the indigenous. Like it or not. This legal consideration led me to consider if I could see this benefit as an individual, maybe, think tanks full of psychopaths brighter than me, who are hell bent on the acquisition of our land could too. And thus, we, or at least me, can see a motive for modern day colonialist destabilization of the west, along race, and spirituality lines, one that ends in a process of genocide. This scenario has been publicly debated and raised in a myriad of fashions, on a myriad of platforms, so my interpretation is just and extension of that open discourse. The dark part to the consideration is as far as I can statistically observe, though meta data, is it has resulted in current day murder or genocide, of aboriginal people, and their mixed-race relatives, who are bridges between the different races or family groups of people.
The extermination of woman and that process’s ability to kill nations is unquestionable. The question is not are they trying to kill off huge sections of the West’s population, as that is both a measurable and an observable given, the question is, is it non-discriminatory population control, or is it just straight-out genocide of targeted groups in the west? Meta data leads me to believe it is a statistical driven or targeted genocide. But who started it, and who perpetrates it now. Was this a process of neo feminism or woman’s science, to exterminate the uteruses, ovaries, and fallopian tubes of childbearing persons, or as they were historically called woman? Had they, whoever they are, othered people, until a state sanctioned and funded enterprise was created? Producing a sociological statistically driven apparatus to perpetrate genocide. There is no more effective way to terminate a culture than kill off its woman or sterilize them on mass, especially when their numbers are low to begin with. Why sterilize and neuter the woman? Because I presume, they have found out that murdering children is not well looked upon! You don’t have to kill the babies and children if they are not conceived. Sexually transmitted disease, and progressive ideology, have done an amazing job at exterminating female blood lines in the west, a highly ironic event for some feminists to learn, but not for this one to observe. How did I come up with this hypothesis, I extrapolated from Margret Sanger’s work. Margret Sangers work would and has enable mass baby elimination. Later others would extend on her eugenics train of thought in the west, and it would become adult murder as people went down the slippery slope of euthanasia, to the outright murder of healthy adults, via public health care, or a state sponsored system. From her work, she would go onto produce a statistically targeting medical industrial complex apparatus, that would extinguish or kill millions of unborn or not yet conceived foetuses, or as they were historically called babies. Her work was aided with the use of group speak and group think. In what could only be described as a state funded and sanctioned genocidal murder machine. Her ability and desire to exterminate the existence of black foetuses, historically called babies by some, is legendary on the net, and a little look into her motives should leave the hairs on every black, or mixed-race woman, on the planet standing on end. With her revealing in a letter, that and to quote, “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population..." in a Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939, p. 2
How prophetic it was that at 4:48 in the YouTube techno hit, “Burn your village to the ground” by The Halluci Nation, a man says, and to quote, “…they have to kill us, they have to kill us, because they can’t break our spirit…” that man was John Trudell. Here is a link to that YouTube music video. www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNi__fnadTM (Please note, there are graphic depictions of genocide, or mass murder shown, and it can be argued that those images should be viewed by adults only, or at least by a mature audience under supervision, and with wise adult guidance). When I first heard him say this, I was genuinely shocked, but on consideration, and with a little look at what happened to the indigenous around the world… I believe he had full, and firsthand knowledge, of the situation at hand. Looking at what Margeret Sanger had planned for black Americans, I can only concur with Trudell. And after a few months of letting it sink in, I had concluded my contemplation on what he had said, and, although still being shocked or confronted by his words, what he said I concluded in his short sentence, was utterly, and profoundly, true.
I like to do extrapolations both mathematical, and all manner of types of correlation and causations within my capabilities, because they generate subsequent considerations of interest in me. To trigger a few people, I do my own research. When I come across things that interest me, and I become inquisitive about things I deem as important, I look further. I had a look at what Mr Trudell said and its application and or implications to other groups of Americans, Black and White. It seemed almost like a dogma being applied currently on many fronts for all Americans, regardless of race, due to their resilience and adaptability. It had been tried before openly, and in wide open public view on the indigenous Americans and the black Americans. Whoever they are, seems to have just kept on going, finding new methods, and new groups, to apply genocide to, for the process to continue. That process is measurable, and identifiable genocide.
Part of the webster definition of what is an American, is and to quote “...a native or inhabitant of North America or South America…”. For me at least the key word is native, and the question it raises in me, is when and who does this apply to, or where does it start and end? Is it all Americans? I have written about writing from a distance about America in isolation here in Australia, and how sometimes it is beneficial. I can write in hindsight, unincumbered by the pressure to respond instantly to events, and it is especially advantages when contemplating the differences and similarities between Australia and the US. I concur and extend on John Trudell, the American, and or, its native or American spirit cannot be exterminated, someone is going to have to kill the owners of it, if they want to overthrow America. So, they, whoever they are, are giving it a good shot. Mr Trudell nailed it. Whoever is perpetrating genocide in the west and killing off Americans or “…we the people… “is doing it, because their spirit cannot be quashed. It should be noted that they are not discriminating on race now, when it comes to who they kill, as they are now killing blacks, whites, and natives, in what appears to be a demographically selective process. Boy have they been busy and gotten to work.
Previously the killing of the west could not be accomplished externally, so lest all thank the American military industrial complex for that. It could only be destroyed from within, but that is not the case anymore. How do they exterminate the people of the Americas, North and South. Via their own hands and words. The elephant in the room is, who could now move Americans against Americans and who are they? It is not a question of if it is happening, it is a question of who is doing it, and how are they manipulating the people, as in “…we the people…”, to be complicit, in such a diabolical series of events. A series of events, that have ended, and end, in Americans murdering other Americans. And where on further observation in the west, westerners now murder each other, for their own perceived safety and good?
Is Germ warfare being used on our own people? It is a horrible question, but I am going to ask it anyway. And I am going to have a look at the water shed moment of the 60s sexual revolution. The 60s saw the spread of enough VD to kill millions of US and western children or babies before they were born regardless of race. Yes, I just approached the where does life begin paradigm, or the conundrum, and found genocide. Ironically it is not murder under the now common definitions of group think, and group speak. Genocide has been rebranded as sexual liberation and not statistical sterilization, ending, and or, enabling genocide. Doubly ironic, is it effected the intellectuals mostly, in the summer of love. Latter it would spread through their use of drugs and the indoctrination of their children into an orgy of mass fornication. The whole process was aided by drugs that promoted hyper sexualization of the liberal left. From there it was a domino effect to the greater number, but less educated, and more religious, lower socioeconomic groups, essentially encompassing “…we the people…” Raising the question, who needs smallpox infested blankets to murder the Americans regardless of their race, when you can get them to hump themselves into a disease riddled oblivion? Martin Niemöller is utterly quotable in this instance, and a read of his most prophetic statement or poem can be a source of inspiration and insight for many, in my belief. It leaves you asking the question who are they, or who were they? It was a question posed by this very wise man, and interestingly he never directly says who they are.
This is his poem.
First, they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
Looking at the American indigenous. First, they came for the warriors regardless of colour creed or denomination, taking their guns. They then came for the religious or spiritual people and tried to exterminate those religious or spiritual people. They tried in vain to destroy their beliefs and teachings. Then they went after the woman and children. When that wasn’t aloud, they then got the woman and children to go after themselves, in an act of induced insanity. Like Martin Niemöller, I cannot identify the instigators, but I can see their effect. To insert some black humour, and in general I was never a fan of the show, this seen in the Simpsons, can be viewed www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFCgz959ARY. Just imagine, visualize, think, or insert different groups of Americans into the Simpsons family’s seats. Kind of like the Milgram experiment, on satirical steroids. Here is a wiki link to a description of the Milgram experiment en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_ It was an experiment where people were duped into believing they were doing good when they were not. The university system may not have looked at this paper in a long while or forgotten it. But I have not forgotten the principle once it was introduced to me. Ironically the universities may have felt immune or above the results of the experiment. But they have become the perpetrators, or vector, for the very thing they said they were there to stop, ie. harm.
We can list, or go through massacre, after massacre, of people during the colonization of the Americas, but I will not. Instead, I will take a closer look at a small number of murdered people. At university in a subject dedicated to the topic of genocide, I looked at and wept, at the mass murder of my family, by other members of my family. The part that made me weep was the consideration of mathematics and physics related to the event, and the consideration that every life is of immeasurable and unquantifiable value. The consideration was done via the extended theorisation and analysis of a small number. I wept off and on for days at what I saw, as I came to grips with what had happened to my family, but despite that I will take another look here too.
By looking at what appears to be a small number of women and children that were wounded, but then died of their injuries. These woman and children were seen as subhuman, but were not, they were very human. Just what happened to them was inhuman. Those people are the 47 woman and children that died of their wounds during the massacre at Wounded Knee. Consideration of these woman and children produces some shocking and chilling considerations in maths, as to how many people their families would have produced today. I will qualify my statement before going on, by saying when I use the words small number, that it is in no way a reflection of the cost, suffering, and misery their slaughter would have caused. And I hope to show that that, relatively small number when amplified over time produces a horrific number, that no human should feel emotionally immune or isolated from. When considering this number, I looked at Shindler. Shindler was a German industrialist, here is a link to the wiki page, for the movie that immortalised him in the west, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler%27s_List Shindler had saved about 1200 jews from the German gas chambers of world war two, and today their descendants are in the order of 7000. With exponential population growth this number, and all things not considered, this relatively small number, should become a larger number over time with more babies. That number will or should increase exponentially to a point. And the mathematics of the dead and their progeny when time is considered infinite becomes a very large number. It is a flawed, and highly simplistic isolated theoretical look, at the growth of a population of people. But the consideration of large numbers can help a person, get a grasp of the potential magnitude, of an event, or events. A small number of humans in this case can become a large number over time.
Despite these acts of genocide being a war crime, that is commemorated for all to see, people have recently in the west committed two things on mass. One, the error in thought that it would not happen again, let alone in the west. And two, the error in hubris that it could not happen to them, and or, that they would be the perpetrators of that genocide. But it has happened on both counts with modern techniques. How did it happen so fast? The west has now become tribal under university or higher education teaching, and or the dogma, spread by the influence, of the pseudo intellectual left. The group taught on mass not to other, now others everyone they can. They the left, left us all wide open for a blindside of colonial techniques to be used on us, and thus they let it spread to the greater community, or “…we the people…” What causes it was selective outrage on genocide and selective outrage on sex-based abuses. It was compounded by the ignorance of not being able to see, that foreign actors would profit or capitalize from that selective outrage. As it turned out by pitting citizen against citizen, apparently, “…we the people of the west where not people…” “…with unalienable rights...” we were not “…one nation…” of “…indivisible…” people, we were not people “…with liberty and justice for all…”.” We the people” of western nations turned out instead to be a rabble. But I can only hope it is at least hopefully, for a transient period.
Part of the old tried and true processes of colonialism is othering. Essentially 101 of colonialism. To enable othering, first you find the tribes that had a history of conflict between each other. The example of wounded knee comes back into play in the discussion of othering. As not to be left out are serval relevant sociological points on othering can be found in the above incident at Wounded Knee. One is that people can be conditioned to consider some groups of people to be of so little value that you can murder them on mass, the other is that these people can be conditioned to kill woman and children in cold blood, then take their photos so as to celebrate the incident, as if what they had did was something wonderful. The MO, or modus operandi, of othering a person or group to murder was and is to stoke that fire, or conflict, between groups or tribes, give them weapons to fight each other, but not enough power to be independent. The result is thus, get the tribes to murder each other, while you sit by and profit from that murder. Essentially the first rule of colonial conquest as taught in class 101 of colonialism at university. Furthermore, get them to divulge secrets about the other tribes, so that those secrets, could be capitalized on, when it came to their subjugation, or murder. This type of selective outrage or outright genocidal hypocrisy generated by othering was very observable in the me to movement when it comes to their hypocrisy in the treatment of indigenous woman and the treatment of Judaeo Christian children or woman. Later it spread or come from the UN or United Nations. They othered what could essentially be described as white men in an indiscriminate, blatant contradiction empowered by absolute contempt for due process, a fundamental of the law. Harvey Weinstein sexualized female adults with psychological manipulation and went to jail for it, but the left or the me to movement seem to be silent when it comes to sexualization of children, and the manipulation of those children into performing sex acts by the pseudo intellectual left, for their social profit. In an almost parallel of Weinstein, they the left substituted adult woman for children and they did it on mass. It appears some females and children are worth more than others, and we are not all created equal before the law, or to be precise, at least under the new leftist pseudo morality.
They the leftists then applied themselves against the nations that they should have been there to protect, the ones that had subsidised or funded their educations, or indoctrination. Colonialism continues in different forms, through divide and conquer, and the lies used to achieve it are aided by psychological manipulation. Mark Twain wrote and to quote "The glory which is built upon a lie soon becomes a most unpleasant incumbrance. ... How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!" according to my copilot.
Another case I found of great interest was the disappearance of, or the outright murder, or worse of 174 Canadian indigenous women, who have just vanished into thin air. It got some air play but didn’t seem to draw much worldwide scrutiny and even less critical thought from the international white left and right, especially when compared to other more recent but smaller white atheist tragedies, like the misgendering of children. All they the left seemed to do, was politized the horror story for media exploitation, while doing nothing, not to mention not report their potential proactive role in the process, that caused those women to be vanished into thin air. It did not end there as running parallel to these disappearances was the political move by the Canadian left to reintroduced and rebirth past atrocities from Canadian history. How did they do it? They did it with the aid of the modern-day arts humanity’s faculty. Somehow, despite all the waffling talk, and the best efforts of everyone, they managed to reconstruct the effects and processes of Canadian residential schools.
Like in Macbeth, the bloody hands cannot be washed clean, and it just seems to keep on cascading further out of control, and deeper into madness. We have an expression here in Australia and it is called a shit stain, in this case the abuse of woman and children is an utter shit stain on humanity that will and would not go away. Canada should not feel alone as here in the land of OZ, non-Christian atheists have used the public school system as indoctrination centres, or daytime social re-education camps for children. Just like the residential schools where the objective was to take the Indian out of the Indian, or to commit cultural genocide. The new school curriculum was designed here in Australia and the west to strip the Christians of the last vestiges of their religion or spirituality. It ended the same way as it did when the aboriginal protectorate board here in Australia took mixed race children from their parents and stripped them of any chance of their traditional teachings. People ended up hiding their children in bushes, so they were not taken away from their parents and or families. Or in the modern-day iteration of a repeat of history, they the persecuted would try to home school their children to protect and hide them from cultural and spiritual genocide.
The old Australian aboriginal protectorate board was responsible for the sexual farming out of some female children to some white Australians as domestic servants. And ironically the new age new world order atheists, would sexualize children and indoctrinate them on mass, in a process of state sanctioned and legally enforced grooming. A sexualization of children, that what would unfortunately leave the Australian numbers of raped indigenous girls used for sexual gratification in the homes that were meant to protect them to shame. Moving back to Canada, Despite or possibly outright because of it, it seems like residential schools were used as a smoke screen for the left, as they practiced and reintroduce the process of state sanctioned child obduction, and cultural genocide for selected white and black Canadians. Part of that process was to try to reengineer Canadian’s children on the biochemical level, manipulate their psychology and or disfigure them with scalpels. It was and is a process that leaves the promises of not repeating the residential school’s horrific results, to an utter shameless lie. The state turned into Jack the ripper, and Dr Frankenstein in the space of less than one generation, with social sciences that had taken generations to build and apply. While the public or “…we the people…” became the mob chasing all of the above, with torches into the night. It was all achieved, as the leaders of democratic countries, and a republic, did not obey the wills of their people, or the new age plebians, as some would have you believe they are. Fundamental human rights of children, and woman, to be protected from harm’s way, where “Gone with the Wind”, in a pollical battle for a populist win at the ballot box.
The left in its zealot like zeal to do good, or at least that is what they are saying they are consciously doing “…pathed a way to hell, with good intentions….” (to quote a Portuguese proverb) for millions of families. With what have been called good intentions, members of the government and the supposed higher educated or intellectual classes once again used the schools to do it. No Catholics required it seems this time. In fact, in total irony of the media propagated and promoted big government narrative, Catholics where and are being arrested for trying to stop the travesty. So, if it cannot be blamed on the Catholics this time, what or who is the common denominator? And what is the common objective for those adding and abetting the genocide. The common objective was as far as I can see is unaccountable murder, and the desire for unaccountable control. And to achieve that power grab it was aided and abetted via university or peer approved definitions of words. It enabled them to butcher little kids with blades, and sterilizing many with puberty blockers, under state encourage and enforced programs, created by the leftist state. They enforced it by legal orders. But what was the motive? Do they even know? How does this relate to a discussion on the genocide of woman? Well, if you can’t sterilize or murder the mother, you may as well sterilize her kids under state sanction and legal order, it appears?
Via university definitions of language, the atrocities didn’t end there. In a populist echo chamber the pseudointellectual left at universities worked out not just how to redefine a baby as an embryo up to full term, but they also worked out how to sell it with propaganda, in a fallacy of logic. This sale of a utopian existence for woman that encapsulated a childless, partnerless, future for millions, was like selling KFC shares to chickens in battery pens, (to verbally adapt one of the funniest Facebook memes I have ever seen). Whoever did it deserve a Nobel prize in advertising. Or at least a person of the year picture on the front of Time magazine. With VD being left untreated and or uncured in many cases, woman where both sterilized and neutered in a process that could be easily described as nothing other than genocide with no one to be held accountable, but the woman themselves. Some on the right blamed the women’s lax morals but they were wrong. It had been promoted and indoctrinated by the groups that withheld treatment or cure to those women. Although baby murder may be permitted on a word technicality, as far as I know genocide of blood lines and cultures are not. And to be noted the technicality that enabled the execution of both events via a few degrees of separation was the use of group think and group speak.
Canada produces a gold mine of inquiry, into the processes of state sanctioned genocide, and it is a very interesting case study when looking at the legislation for the euthanasia of the poor, or the people that had been selectively made poor by them, the leftist Canadian government. Who would question the ability of the left after that, to not offer euthanasia for women suffering depression for their childless, partnerless, existences. All the while they the pseudo intellectual left and their allies of diverse descriptions, perpetrated cultural genocide on Christianity and Christians. Where did or do they perpetrate it? The process occurs globally or all over the world, but it gets very little mainstream media air play. Not ironically, the leftists don’t block streets for months in unison with Christians, to protest mass murder, that is almost unmentionable outside of Christian chat pages. Chat pages now deemed as Christian nationalist hot beds of anti-democratic gatherings. Gatherings said to be against the state, by some in the pseudo leftist media, and weaponised law enforcement agencies.
I have a shirt that says “…if the government says you don’t need a gun, you need a gun!!!”. It had an American Indian man on it. I presume it was in reference to the slaughter of disarmed Aboriginal Americans murdered in cold blood by government forces, on their own land, once they had been disarmed. For me it is a very pro-American constitution or bill of rights statement. The shirt is a few sizes too big as I ordered an American size from here in Oz, so it looks like a skirt on me. I never wear it much if at all because of that. Despite that, I think it is very profound. Now it seems that if the government and pseudo left wing media, say, you should not have a media outlet, I would argue, to paraphrase my shirt, you need a media outlet. And you need them both for the same reason, your protection. Not so ironically both things are covered for in the American bill of rights. They were deemed so important that they the founding non birthing people, or as they were historically known the founding fathers, put them number one and two.
It appears that aboriginal Canadians and Christians now have something in common, and it is their attempted genocide. Attempted genocide of both of their blood lines and of their cultures. With someone or something instigating that process and sitting outside of the murderous anarchy. The left falls silent when it comes to the cultural and actual genetic genocide of Christians on a global scale. Why? Isn’t all life worth saving? Or is it that only the left, and the lefts supposed allies are worthy of life, and a self-determined existence, determined by the left. Apparently, all life is not worth saving, and we don’t all have “…unalienable rights…”
The numbers show the slow but sure death or stagnation of western populations, and a rapid genocide of its culture. But they are not alone, it had been perpetrated on the natives first, now it is applied to all north Americans, and to varying degrees most countries in the West. Where is the outcry from other feminists against the sterilization of millions of women and girls liberated of their sexual constraints? Where is the outcry for woman and girls of all races, denominations, and demographics in the west by the left? Why are these deaths of unborn children or babies not seen to be of the same value as colonized Americans or the murdered indigenous, by the left? Or hideously not ironic, in this inquiry, it can be asked, are they all considered on the same subhuman level by some? After having their woman murdered, their children stolen, sexualized, groomed, raped, and sterilized what will be the response of” …we the people...”???
They the left don’t seem to like, or use guns very much, as they I presume, know they are outnumbered on that front, well for the moment at least. Like any good army in that situation, they have chosen to out flank their opponents. Their opponents the constitutionalists, and their pesky second amendment, where outflanked by the left abusing the first amendment on mass. Not satisfied there, and enamoured by a blitzkrieg of success, they tried, or are trying it appears to reword, rewrite, or destroy the whole document, that has protected their families for several centuries. That document is the American constitution. The pseudo intellectual left has been involved at every point. They have think tanks, think tanks where they weaponize their own words, then ironically call others words violence. It is like a gorilla action, or pincer movement on the first amendment. Words that are used to attack it, the constitution, are part of language constructs, produced for the logic gating of people. They the left are involved in inciting violence with words, (as words are not violence per say), then said they were using them to create peace… They produced language constructs that logic gated people into doing things that are not in their favour. The right where duped or out flanked when they argued words where not violence, forgetting to add, that they can incite violence. They the intellectual left, logic gated millions of women into childlessness, and neutered them to boot, with the statistical outcomes via their use of language, at universities. Language recited verbatim by the reporters who did not report, and a mainstream media, that did not apply critical thought to what they were saying. Like cattle they were led to the slaughter for following the lefts new age new world order mantras.
It leaves the question as to who is prompting these people of the left to press the electric shocker until the person or peoples they are meant to be helping die? Or to be more literal and not use an analogy, based on the Milgram experiment, who prompts these people to commit genocide, on mass, for the perceived greater good? Who gets these people to commit Hara-kiri before the idol of the left. And why cannot they see what they are doing? Like good Zero pilots in a kamikaze act for the empire, the left sacrifice millions of woman’s breeding power, for a shadow emperor that is nowhere to be seen. There cannot be to many degrees of separation between the instigators and the perpetrators. So, who are they? Why is the death or nonexistence of so many babies, or children, caused by the neutering and or murder of their mothers, not up for constant public debate and scrutiny. Maybe because the left will not be critical of itself, as it can do no wrong. These considerations are not far right-wing propaganda, they are the very thing that the left use as mantras for their group speak and group think, but don’t do. Where is their commitment to a universal stance against genocide, that isn’t a selective biased application, or literally a front to commit the very act itself? Many white North Americans may have forgotten something, that something, is they are part of nations, and those nations help make up the people of the Americas.
How does the current or past genocide help any American? And as a feminist I must ask openly are American and the wests females under attack regardless of race? Are they weeding out the intellectuals first, with VD and old age childlessness, as their ovaries shrivel up? These are rhetorical questions. And it must be noted that I once said that the only people who can bring down an American president are the American people, and I latter extrapolated that the same could be said for its society. And to leave with yet another set of questions as always. Who, or what, stokes these tragedies to occur, and or, who is profiting from these current day colonialist like internal conflicts in the West?
Gullfoss (Golden Falls) is undoubtedly the most visited waterfall in Iceland, a highlight of the 'must do' Golden Circle day trip from Reykjavík.
The main source of the Hvítá (simply 'White') River, is Langjökull, Iceland´s second largest glacier. The river is entirely unregulated at this point; in fact, it was abortive attempts to exploit Gullfoss for hydropower that eventually resulted in the waterfall being donated to the state for protection. Flow over the waterfall is therefore natural, averaging 140 m³/s in the summer and 80 m³/s in winter, though the peak recorded flood was an incredible 2,000 m³/s.
The drop, spanning the full 175 m width of the river, is 32 m in two stages which, unusually, are perpendicular to one another. The first, off the left of the image, cascades 11 m, roughly north to south, then the river plummets east to west over this cliff into Gullfossgjúfur, a gorge 20 m wide and 2.5 km long, with walls up to 70 m in height, probably formed by a glacial burst flood. This second drop is 'only' 21 m, but from the most popular viewpoint, at the upper right of this image, or when spray hides the plunge pool, one can't see into Gullfossgjúfur, tempting imagination to extrapolate.
.
Here is the screenshot displaying the Layers Panel and the Channels Panel of the completed image in Ps.
The original is in the first comment box below and the differences are a bit dramatic.
First in Lr, I had played with the color temperature slider and tint slider. I slud Clarity all the way to +100. Vibrance went to +72 and Saturation went to +15.
The HSL sliders went toward more saturation in some of the hues.
Sharpening was brought higher, but masked to edges.
Then into Ps it went. But a lot of experimenting occurred and not all of it was used in the final image. Of course, the first thing done was to create all those Lights and Darks Channels in the Channels panel. Google for luminosity masking by Tony Kuyper for more info.
The background was duplicated and a high pass filter was run at extreme strength, layer set to overlay blend mode and masked using a selection of a Darks channel.
Dodging was accomplished on the layer that says overlay paint. That layer is set to overlay blend mode and I painted through a Lights selection onto it with white.
Burning was accomplished in the layer that says vignette, as one can see in the original image below, the bottom right quarter of the image didn't push the eye toward center. With that vignette layer set to softlight blend mode, I painted through a mid tone selection with black. This balanced the darks from left side of image with right side.
These layers were merged up. And duplicated. The lower one was set to screen blend mode and the other was set to softlight blend mode and gaussian blur applied. A curves layer above to bring back the lightness was used. This is the way I read to create an Orton effect from the magazine Practical Photography.
But, for sliders sunday we want extremes.
So above that, a curves layer set to screen mode was applied. Then I merged everything up through it, set it to Multiply blend mode and used gaussian blur. That's the Tony Kuyper way of applying an Orton effect.
And a Vibrance/Saturation layer was used above that, to drastically reduce saturation. These were then grouped and called Ortonish TK. That let me toggle the whole effect on and off, or reduce opacity of the whole effect.
From there, I again merged everything up. And brought the image into Topaz Adjust 5, where I kept trying various presets, ending up in the HDR collection using something called Ghostly, and adjusting some of those sliders a bit.
Back in Ps after applying the edits in topaz, I realized that the bits I liked from the topaz edit were essentially what I often do using overlay and softlight blurs.
So I turned off visibility of the topaz edited layer and merged everything up again.
I placed that merged layer above the topaz edit. Set it to softlight blend mode. Blurred it. Merged through it and then set that layer to color blend mode. And masked the heck out of it by putting it into its own group and putting a mask with gradients on the group. The softlight layer was then deleted.
I went back to the topaz edit layer and made it visible again, and adjusted its opacity to where its textures could just be made out, enhancing some of what I had done above.
Because everything above is in a blend mode which is partly transparent, the topaz edit layer could be seen to have an effect.
But of course, I then felt that there needed to be more balance of blue, and merged up through everything again, lasso-ed a bit of blue in one part of the image, dragged it to the other part of the image, changed its blend mode to Hue, and selectively applied curves and saturation adjustments to it. And put it in its own group.
And that was that!
:-)
“Artist drawing of the Mercury spacecraft, Freedom 7 showing the escape tower and retro rockets. The Project Mercury spacecraft was designed, developed and built by the McDonnell Aircraft Corp. in collaboration with NASA’s Space Task Group. The capsule has a height of nine feet and a seventy-four inch width at the base. Its weight is approximately one ton. The basic structural materials and titanium, beryllium, and nickel-base alloys. The escape tower is composed of a 14-foot tubular system attached to the top of the capsule by explosive bolts. Three retrorockets enclosed in a housing on the blunt end of the capsule, are designed to provide reverse propulsion and slow the capsule in orbit by about 500 feet per second speed so that it will drop out of orbit.”
Above per the NASA-appropriated (photo no. M-183C, dated August 1961) version of the image.
By extension/extrapolation of other McDonnell Aircraft Corporation artist’s concepts of the time, possibly by Mr. Arnold Pierce. Maybe not, but I think worth putting out there. And if it’s not, who’s going to care/contradict, right?
Cool:
www.collectspace.com/news/news-050521a-shepard-freedom-7-...
Credit: collectSPACE website
See also. A great website that I thought was no longer maintained. I'm glad I was wrong:
www.spaceline.org/united-states-manned-space-flight/mercu...
Credit: Cliff Lethbridge/Spaceline Inc. website
Vincenzo Castella
"Une ville, une collection : Turin et le Musée National de l'Automobile"
Maison Européenne de la Photographie, PARIS.
Large format LightJet prints (180x300cm) from large format color negatives (20x25 cm) and ultra large format color negatives (11x14" and 12x20").
Files from high-res drum scans by CastorScan
www.lecourrierdelarchitecte.co ... 39d4caffe86169105f5f9c447
www.officiel-galeries-musees.c ... -une-ville-une-collection
-----
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.
(EXPLORED - September 10, 2012)
First let me tell you that I'm very proud to have been awarded with Honorable Mentions at the International Photography Awards IPA 2012 for both my series “Like a Harp's Strings” and “A Path to the Sky” in both Categories Bridges and Buildings.
Then let my announce you that I'm also proud to be organizing the FIRST ARCHITECTURAL WORKSHOP & PHOTOWALK in Athens, in November 23-26/27, 2012. If you are interested or just curious, have a look at the FULL description here: goo.gl/wd4Gh and if you want to sign up, you can do it here: goo.gl/cgIoc . If you want to shoot the best modern architecture of a famous city (and not only) and to learn about long exposure and B&W photography, then this workshop is for you.
And now about the image...
_Mexican Embassy, Berlin – architects Teodoro González de León & J. Francisco Serrano Cacho_
My series "A Path to the Sky" is continuing with the 6th image that is dedicated to the people of the Mexican Embassy in Berlin, as a thank you for their wonderful gesture to offer the conference room for the Berlin Google Photowalk instructional sessions in May and for being so amazing, helpful and warm with all the participants. This was yet another beautiful experience along with all the other wonderful moments in this charming city.
As for the image itself, I had a very clear idea of what I wanted with this shot from the very beginning, but to get there I had to try a hundred things, and experiment with different ways of approach in order to find the best solution. ...what I do on every image actually, but this time my goal was very clear from the beginning, even from before shooting the photo. I've spent though a large amount of time in PP to make it look like what I had in mind: looking at it, tweaking it, playing with every detail till it took its place in the hierarchy and I was able to say OK, this is how it should be. To get the tones I wanted I worked on each pillar separately and played with light and shadow till I brought them to the right intensity. I did more than 40 selections for different areas of the image (and 2 for each pillar), I put light where there wasn't any and took away from where there was too much of it, and again, I had to make everything fit together and mold the result into the image I was keeping as a guide in my imagination. The icing on the cake was the highlight in the middle where I spent a few hours just to get a smooth transition from light to dark. Sometimes when I work with this kind of tonal transitions I have the impression that there are just not enough tones available for what I try to do...
And this whole process of working at the file made me wonder ...when all is said and done, what's easier: to find an idea or to put it in practice? Lately I tend to believe that the hardest to achieve is to bring something from the state of idea to it's realization and final shape. And I could extrapolate and say that this stands for pretty much everything, not only for photography or art. My experiences from the last period of time say just that: you never know what you're going to find when you bring an idea into the world and try to make it reality. No matter how much you know, or how well prepared you are, life will always surprise you when you try to create something. There is not such a thing as certainty in life...
But hey, finding the way might not be easy, but that's what I like about photography (and about life too), is that I learn something from every image I make (and also from every experience I have), from shooting till processing and setting the photo free into the world. And that's so fulfilling!
Testing inside the DTU-ESA Spherical Near-Field Antenna Test Facility (SNFTF) at the Technical University of Denmark. This is one of ESA’s external laboratories, specialist centres of excellence located across Europe, supplementing the Agency’s in-house facilities. The SNFTF can sample an antenna’s surrounding electrical field in close-up on a highly accurate basis in all directions, then extrapolate these values to its far-off performance.
This photo, taken around the end of 2005, shows testing to part of the MIRAS antenna, flown in space in 2009 aboard ESA's SMOS mission. Associate Professor Sergey N. Pivnenko, manager of the DTU-ESA Facility, is seen in the foreground, with Jerzy Lemanczyk, ESA’s then technical officer for the SMOS antenna, directing down the light upon it.
Credit: DTU/ESA
"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 of creating a virtual straitjacket, for any field of research that is likely to have any adverse implications for Darwinism.
So, what is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?
The fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.
What exactly was the erroneous idea that Darwin popularised?
Darwin believed that there is unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants. And that this unlimited variabilty has, over vast time, transformed an original, living cell into humans (and every other living thing) through natural selection of beneficial and advantageous traits.
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), or to create the massive amount of new information required to transform an original, single living cell into all the complex, life forms (including humans) that exist.
Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over millions of years.
Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale.
That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were 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 can be confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. However, evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by frequently 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 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 incredible notion 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 the accumulation of millions of genetic, copying mistakes..... mutations accruing upon previous mutations .... on and, 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 long series ... of mistakes upon 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 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... 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 used as supposed, irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial (subject of the film 'Inherit the Wind').
Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as scientific evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep. Having been found 3 years earlier, it was 'resurrected' by evolutionists just before the Scopes Trial in order to influence public opinion in advance of the trial.
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
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.”
Video clip:
Famous, militant atheist, Richard Dawkins tries to define 'nothing' as 'something', and is surprised and shocked when the audience sensibly reacts with laughter.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6H9XirkhZY
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
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."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions
circa 2006
This necklace features some of my favourite design motifs, made with a few of the different patterning techniques I've developed in my studio. I was looking to explore the illusory possibilities of polymer clay, in a strand of domed beads.
Bullseyes are a motif I've been using in my work for a long time. They first appeared in canework, as simple graphic components in early millefiori beads. When mica clay came along, bullseyes were a big part of my exploration of Texture Without Texture, appearing as ‘holographic’ illusions in veneers that were actually perfectly smooth. My Nine of Hearts necklace shows other examples.
When I made this necklace, I’d been experimenting a lot with Skinner Blends, looking for another way to create bullseyes in veneers that were flat but looked three-dimensional. Extrapolating on traditional millefiori techniques, I developed what I call my Dimensional Canework, creating the illusion of ridges and valleys through a more illustrated trompe de l'oeil approach. This dimensional effect was inspired by beads that Pier Voulkos had made years earlier that featured little canework bumps with highlights and shadows, where carefully placed changes in value gave each piece an implied light source, and the illusion of depth. I had always really liked these beads, and I enjoyed putting my own spin on the concept.
To create the illusion of dimension in this necklace the imaginary 'light source' illuminating each Dimensional Bead needed to come from the same direction. Once I’d decided on the order of the beads, each one was rotated to communicate its proper position relative to the implied light source (coming from the top left) and the holes were drilled accordingly.
As is typical for me, I spent a lot of time developing the colour palette. For this necklace, I used one of my favorites: analogous complementary. I mixed the blues and greens in a wide range of hues, shades, and tints, in both metallic (mica) and opaque clays, then added some orange as an accent. I think this complementary hue really brought the strand to life.
This necklace is featured in the book Polymer Clay Color Inspirations by Maggie Maggio and Lindly Haunani, and in Masters: Polymer Clay: Major Works by Leading Artists, a book curated by Rachel Carren.
photo by Robert Diamante
Celeste is from Guadalajara, currently an intern at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington DC.
Part of the Organisation of American States, their work addresses human rights issues including equality and poverty across the Americas. Discussing it with her and her friend Adriana (an intern at the Organisation of American States) as they walked through downtown DC, they gave an interesting insight into the challenges that the two continents face, it becomes clear why a separate organisation to the UN is needed. Life in America, as Celeste explained, is so extremely polarised.
Compared to Europe especially, the sheer extremes of rich and poor are more dramatic. Moreover, the lack of social safety net, the context of risk, reward and natural resources, drive the extremes disproportionately further than one might imagine.
Despite the serious content, it was enjoyable conversion - if only for the fierceness of energy Celeste brought to her explanation of the challenges facing the Americas, and how they differed from those in Europe.
Celeste's tattoo, appropriately, represents togetherness. She and cousins all got one, and it seems too serendipitous not to extrapolate the feeling out to the broader American family who's world she is working to improve.
We shot outside the World Bank - that's the sweep of blurred concrete you see behind. This is one of our first frames, with Adriana kindly holding a 1.2m golden reflector to the left of shot, and Celeste holding the smaller sunfire reflector.
Just after we shot this frame, a passerby came up to ask me for a card (!), and Celeste took a moment to apply lipstick. You can see that in this alternative close up portrait. However, something about the earlier shot seemed to better capture her spirit, hence my sharing this one first.
This is portrait #71 of my 100 Strangers Project - check out the group page and get involved.
Finally, I'm now live on Facebook; www.facebook.com/Flatworldsedge.
This image shows an extrapolation of the magnetic field lines emanating from the magnetic structures into the upper solar atmosphere.
Credits: Solar Orbiter/PHI Team/ESA & NASA
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Char B1 was a French heavy tank manufactured before World War II. It was conceived as a specialized offensive vehicle, armed with a 75 mm howitzer in the hull. Later a 47 mm gun in a turret was added, to allow it to function also as a Char de Bataille, a ‘battle tank’ fighting enemy armour, equipping the armoured divisions of the Infantry Arm. Starting in the early twenties, its development and production were repeatedly delayed, resulting in a vehicle that was both technologically complex and expensive, and already obsolescent when real mass-production of a derived version, the Char B1 "bis", started in the late thirties.
The outer appearance of the Char B1 reflected the fact that development started in the twenties: like the very first tank, the British Mark I tank of World War I, it still had large tracks going around the entire hull and large armour plates protecting the suspension—and like all tanks of that decade it had no welded or cast hull armour. The similarity resulted partly from the fact that the Char B1 was a specialized offensive weapon, a break-through tank optimized for punching a hole into strong defensive entrenchments, so it was designed with good trench-crossing capabilities and therefore the hull and the tracks had considerable length. The French Army thought that dislodging the enemy from a key front sector would decide a campaign, and it prided itself on being the only army in the world having a sufficient number of adequately protected heavy tanks. The exploitation phase of a battle was seen as secondary and best carried out by controlled and methodical movement to ensure superiority in numbers, so that the heavy tank’s mobility was of secondary concern. Although the Char B1 had a reasonably good speed for the time of its conception, no serious efforts were made to improve it when much faster tanks appeared.
More important than the tank's limitations in tactical mobility, however, were its limitations in strategic mobility. The low practical range implied the need to refuel very often, limiting its operational capabilities. This again implied that the armoured divisions of the Infantry, the Divisions Cuirassées, were not very effective as a mobile reserve and thus lacked strategic flexibility. They were not created to fulfill such a role in the first place, which was reflected in the small size of the artillery and infantry components of the divisions.
Another explanation of the similarity to the British Mark I lies in the Char B1's original specification to create a self-propelled gun able to destroy enemy infantry and artillery. The main weapon of the tank was its 75 mm howitzer, and the entire design of the vehicle was directed to making this gun as effective as possible. When in the early 1930s it became obvious that the Char B1 also had to defeat counterattacking enemy armour, it was too late for a complete redesign. The solution was to add the standard cast APX-1 turret which also equipped the Char D2 and the Somua S35. Like most French tanks of the period the Char B thus had a small one-man turret. The commander not only had to command the tank, but also to aim and load the anti-tank gun, and if he was a unit leader, he had to command his other tanks as well. This was in contrast with the contemporary German, British and to a lesser extent Soviet policy to use two or three-man turret crews, in which these duties were divided amongst several men, or to use dedicated command vehicles.
Among the most powerfully armed and armoured tanks of its day, the Char B1 was very effective in direct confrontations with early German armour during the Battle of France. The 60 mm (2.36 in) frontal armor was sloped, giving it an effective strength of near 80 mm (3.15 in), and it proved to be almost invulnerable to the 1940 Panzer II and III as well as the early Panzer IV with its short 75mm close-support gun. There were no real weak spots, and this invulnerability helped the B1 to close on targets, then destroy them with the turret 47 mm (1.85 in) or the brute force of the howitzer HE shells. However, its slow speed and high fuel consumption made it ill-adapted to the war of movement then being fought.
In the meantime, plans had taken shape to improve the Char B1, and this led to two developments that eventually entered the hardware stage: A further up-armoured version, the Char B1 "ter", was designed with sloped and welded 70 mm armour, weighing 36.6 tonnes and powered by a 350 hp (260 kW) engine. It was meant to replace the B1 bis to accelerate mass production, a change first intended for the summer of 1940 but later postponed to March 1941 and finally abandoned.
In the course of the redesign, space was provided for a fifth crew member, a "mechanic". Cost was reduced by omitting the complex Neader transmission for aiming the howitzer and giving the hull gun a traverse of five degrees to each side instead. The first prototype was shown in 1937, but only three prototypes could be partly finished before the defeat of France. Serial production was rejected due to the need to build totally new production lines for the much-modified Char B1 ter, so that this development was a dead end, even more so because it did not really cure the vehicle’s weakness of the overburdened commander and the split armament.
The latter issues were addressed with another development, a modernized variant of the existing Char B1 bis with a new weapon layout, the Char B1 “tetre”. Work on this variant started in 1936, as an alternative concept to the one-man turret and as an experimental carrier for a new high velocity semi-automatic 75 mm multi-purpose gun with a long barrel. Such a weapon was direly needed, because the biggest caliber of an anti-tank gun was a mere 47 mm, the SA 35 gun. The only recent alternative was the infantry’s 47 mm APX anti-tank gun from 1937, which could pierce 60 mm (2.4 in) at 550 meters (600 yd) or 80 mm (3.1 in) at 180 meters (200 yd), but it had not been adapted to vehicle use yet and was not regarded to be powerful enough to cope with tanks like the Char B1 itself.
This new 75 mm tank gun was already under development at the Atelier de Construction de Rueil (ARL) for a new medium 20-ton-tank, the Char G1 from Renault, that was to replace the Char B1. The gun, called “ARL 37”, would be mounted in a new three-man turret, and ARL was developing prototypes of both a turret that could be taken by the Char B1’s and S35’s limited turret ring, as well as the gun itself, which was based on the 75 mm high velocity gun with hydro-pneumatic recoil compensation from the vintage heavy FCM 2C tank
The ARL 37 had a mass of 750 kg (1,653.5 lb) and a barrel length of 3,281 mm (129.2 in) with a bore of 43 calibers. Maximum muzzle velocity was 740 m/s (2,400 ft/s). The gun was fitted with an electric firing mechanism and the breech operated semi-automatically. Only one-piece ammunition was used, and both HE and AP rounds could be fired – even though the latter had to developed, too, because no such round was available in 1937/38 yet. However, with early experimental Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap (APCBC) rounds, the ARL 37 was able to penetrate 133 mm (5.2 in) of vertical steel plate at 100 m range, 107 mm (4.2 in) at 1.000 m and still 85 mm (3.3 in) at 2.000 m, making it a powerful anti-tank weapon of its era.
Since the new weapon was expected to fire both HE and AP rounds, the Char B1’s howitzer in the hull was omitted, its opening faired over and instead a movable 7.5 mm Reibel machine gun was added in a ball mount, operated by a radio operator who sat next to the driver. Another 7.5mm machine gun was mounted co-axially to the main gun in the turret, which had a cupola and offered space for the rest of the crew: a dedicated commander as well as a gunner and loader team.
The hexagonal turret was cast and had a welded roof as well as a gun mantlet. With its 70 mm frontal armor as well as the tank’s new hull front section, the conversions added a total of four net tons of weight, so that the Char B1 tetre weighed 36 tons. To prevent its performance from deteriorating further, it received the Char B1 ter’s uprated 350 hp (260 kW) engine. The running gear remained unchanged, even though the fully rotating turret made the complex and expensive Neader transmission superfluous, so that it was replaced by a standard heavy-duty piece.
Although promising, the Char B1 tetre’s development was slow, delayed by the lack of resources and many teething troubles with the new 75 mm cannon and the turret. When the war broke out in September 1939, production was cleared and began slowly, but focus remained on existing vehicles and weapons. By the time there were perhaps 180 operational B1 and B1 bis in all. They were used for the Sarre offensive, a short-lived burst without serious opposition, with a massive force of 41 divisions and 2.400 tanks. The Char B1 served with the armoured divisions of the infantry, the Divisions Cuirassées (DCr). The First and Second DCR had 69 Char B1s each, the Third 68. These were highly specialized offensive units, to break through fortified positions. The mobile phase of a battle was to be carried out by the Divisions Légères Mécaniques (mechanised light divisions) of the cavalry, equipped with the SOMUA S35.
After the German invasion several ad hoc units were formed: the 4e DCr with 52 Char B1s and five autonomous companies (347e, 348e, 349e, 352e and 353e Compagnie Autonome de Chars) with in total 56 tanks: 12 B1s and 44 B1 bis; 28e BCC was reconstituted with 34 tanks. By that time, a very limited number of Char B1 tetre had been produced and delivered to operational units, but their tactical value was low since sufficient 75 mm AP rounds were not available – the tanks had to use primarily the same HE rounds that were fired with the Char B1’s howitzer, and these posed only a limited threat to German tanks, esp. the upgraded Panzer III and IVs. The Char B1 tertre’s potential was never fully exploited, even though most of the tanks were used as command vehicles.
The regular French divisions destroyed quite a few German tanks but lacked enough organic infantry and artillery to function as an effective mobile reserve. After the defeat of France, captured Char B1 of all variants would be used by Germany, with some rebuilt as flamethrowers, Munitionspanzer, or mechanized artillery.
Specifications:
Crew: Five (driver, radio operator/machine gunner, commander, gunner, loader)
Weight: 36 tonnes (40 short tons, 35 long tons)
Length: 6.98 m (22 ft 10½ in) overall with gun forward
6.37 m (20 ft 11 in) hull only
Width: 2.46 m (8 ft 1 in)
Height: 2.84 m (9 ft 3¾ in)
Ground clearance: 40 cm (1 ft 3¾ in)
Climbing: 93 cm (3 ft ½ in)
Trench crossing: 2,4 m (7 ft 10½ in)
Suspension: Bogies with a mixture of vertical coil and leaf springs
Steering: Double differential
Fuel capacity: 400 liters
Armour:
14 to 70 mm (0.55 to 2.75 in)
Performance:
28 km/h (17 mph) on road
21 km/h (13 mph) off-road
Operational range: 200 km (124 mi) on road
Power/weight: 9.7 hp/ton
Engine:
1× Renault inline 6 cylinder 16.5 litre petrol engine with 350 hp (260 kW)
Transmission:
5 forward and 1 rear gear
Armament:
1x 75 ARL 37 high-velocity cannon with 94 rounds
2x 7.5 mm (0.295 in) Reibel machine guns with a total of 5,250 rounds
The kit and its assembly:.
This fictional Char B1 variant was based on the question what the tank could have looked like if there had been a suitable 75 mm gun available that could replace both its howitzer in the hull and the rather light anti-tank gun in the turret? No such weapon existed in France, but I tried to extrapolate the concept based on the standard Char B1 hull.
Two big changes were made: the first concerned the hull howitzer, which was deleted, and its recessed opening faired over with 1 mm styrene sheet and putty. This sound easier as it turned out to be because the suspension for the front right idler wheel had to be retained, and the complex shape of the glacis plate and the opening called for patchwork. A fairing for the co-driver was added as well as a ball mount for the new hull machine gun. New shackles were added to the lower front and, finally, new rows of bolt heads (created with white glue).
The turret was completely replaced with a cast turret from a 1943 T-34/76 (Zvezda kit). While its shape and gun mantlet are quite characteristic, I still used it mostly OOB because its size and shape turned out to be a very good match to contemporary French tank turrets. However, the gun barrel was moved and a fairing for a hydro-pneumatic recoil damper was added, as well as a French commander cupola. And an adapter had to be scratched to attach the new turret to the hull, together with small fairings for the wider turret ring.
Painting and markings:
I wanted a rather unusual paint scheme for this Char B1 derivative, and found inspiration in an operational museum tank that depicts vehicle “311/Rhin”: it carries a three-tone livery in two greens and brown, instead of the more common sand, dark green and earth brown tones or just two-tone schemes.
The colors were adapted to an irregular pattern, and the paints I used were Humbrol 120 (FS 34227, a rather pale interpretation of the tone), 10 (Gloss Dark Brown) and ModelMaster 1764 (FS 34092). As a personal twist, the colors were edged in black, enhancing the contrast.
The markings were puzzled together from various sources in an attempt to create suitable tactical codes of the early 1940 era. The “Ace of Spades” emblem on the turret is, for example, are a marking of the 1st section. The dot in front of the “K” probably indicated a command vehicle, but I am not certain.
Some post-shading was done as well as dry-brushing with light earth brown to emphasize edges and details. Then the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and received some dusting with grey-brown artist pigments, simulating dust around the running gear.
Well, not too much was changed, but the new, bigger turret changes the Char B1’s look considerably – it looks somewhat smaller now? Its new silhouette also reminds me of a duck? Weird, but the conversion worked out well – esp. the modified glacis plate without the howitzer’s recessed opening looks very natural.
Domingo Milella, Brancolini Grimaldi Gallery.
180 x 220 cm LightJet prints from CastorScan's drum scans.
scanner:
Dainippon Screen SG-8060P Mark II
Film:
Kodak Portra 160, 8x10".
-----
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.
-----
Il servizio offerto da CastorScan è completamente orientato
a fornire la massima qualità di scansione e postproduzione sul
mercato internazionale.
Lavoriamo con artisti, fotografi, agenzie e laboratori che richiedono
una qualità allo Stato dell'Arte a prezzi ragionevoli.
Il nostro flusso di lavoro è completamente manuale ed estremamente meticoloso
in ogni sua fase.
Abbiamo sviluppato workflows e sistemi di profilatura esclusivi che ci consentono
di ottenere risultati impareggiabili dai nostri scanners, non raggiungibili
attraverso workflows semiautomatici e/o convenzionali.
----
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.
The very first sizable Classic Space set I had as a kid was 6928 Uranium Search Vehicle, which I loved. I decided to build an updated version.
I made a few intentional changes to the design, but they're all extrapolated from the original. Specifically, the two sections are joined with an articulated tunnel rather than a hinge, and there are modest living quarters (including two beds) inside.
Be sure to check out the full set of photos!
n2 Kodak Portra 8x10" color negatives.
Scan on our Dainippon Screen drum scanner.
-----
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.
“A LOOK AT A LUNAR LAB--This is a rear view of Boeing’s full-scale wooden mockup of MOLAB (mobile lunar laboratory) showing astronaut in pressurized, Apollo-type space suit entering cabin’s main hatch. The six-wheeled vehicle will be used to trundle astronauts over moon’s surface. Birdcage-like, circular structures in left foreground represent cryogenic fuel tanks.”
Per usual, my driveling:
- Extrapolating from a previous related photo I've posted, the ‘astronaut’ may be Haydon Grubbs. Note also his closed visor and what appears to be connected oxygen/life support umbilical, amongst other connections. So, I’m assuming the photograph was taken during actual evaluations/training. However, if you “train as you fight”, there really shouldn’t be a wooden step stool, regardless of whether stepping onto or off it. Unless…maybe the ‘flight version’ rungs/steps had yet to be fabricated.
- Note also the pronounced scuffing off his helmet & exposed/uncovered PLSS oxygen(?) tank, due to the close tolerances of the hatch opening I presume. It does look cramped.
- Additionally, the sort of cylindrical boom at the upper left, to which the upper cyrogenic tank is attached, is labeled “WATER TANK”. If not for that, I would’ve assumed it, along with the other stuff behind & to the left of the tanks to NOT have been part of the vehicle. The rarity of other photos or diagrams of this vehicle make it difficult to ascertain its external configuration.
- Finally, the snazzy, yet understated NASA hubcaps really complete the look. I believe they were only available either at the MSFC or KSC VAB parts counters.
One of the very few images - that I’ve seen - of the overall Boeing MOLAB design:
www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/boeing-molab-model-photo...
Credit: Donald McKelvy/aka user “Triton”, Sep. 10, 2012 post/SECRET PROJECTS Forum website
Regarding the suit being worn:
www.facebook.com/share/p/xxYnuMXrFcANijZY/?mibextid=K35XfP
Credit: Ken Thomas/Facebook
Pictures by Massimo Vitali
Drum scan by CastorScan
n4 Kodak Portra 8x10" color negatives.
-----
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.
Washington, D.C. (est. 1790, pop. ~690,000)
• Ford’s Theatre ( left of traffic light w/gable roof) [photo] • site of assassination of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln
• onlookers gather around reporters & actors at red carpet preview of the movie, “The Conspirator” (2010), story of Mary Surratt, lone female charged as a co-conspirator in Lincoln assassination
• theater’s site previously occupied by First Baptist Church of Washington (1834) [photo] • services held until 1859 • John Thompson Ford, Baltimore theatrical manager, leased the church bldg., converted it into a theatre • inaugurated Dec., 1861 as The "George Christy Opera House," presenting popular blackface troupe, Christy’s Minstrels
• following their final performance 27 Feb., 1862, further renovations made for presentation of theatrical (rather than musical) plays • 3 wks. later venue, renamed “Ford’s Atheneum,” entered Washington’s Civil War theater scene • presented excellent companies & first rate stars • Pres. Lincoln first attended Ford's on 28 May, 1862 • venue was profitable until the evening of 30 Dec, 1862, when it burned
• 2 mos.later, the cornerstone of a new theater was laid on this site by James J. Gifford, chief carpenter, architect & builder • the brick structure, modeled after the Late Victorian-style design of Baltimore’s Holliday Street Theatre [photo], seated ~1,700 w/ 8 private boxes, two upper, two lower, located on either side of stage
• opened evening of 27 Aug., 1863 with “The Naiad Queen,” a "Fairy Opera" [photo] presented to a capacity audience • became one of the most successful entertainment venues in Washington —Ford’s Theatre, National Historic Site
• as Ford’s ventures prospered, a future competitor was making history • Mary Francis Moss was born, 1826, in Winchester, England • during childhood was a frequent visitor to the studio of "old man" J.M.W, Turner, the celebrated painter —The Life of Laura Keene [photo]
• married at age 18 to former British Army officer, Henry Wellington Taylor • 7 yr. marriage produced 2 daughters • husband was arrested for an undocumented crime, sent to Australia on a prison ship • to support her family, Mary Taylor became British stage actress Laura Keene, who made her professional debut in London, Oct., 1851 —Wikipedia
• in 1852, less than a year into her acting career, accepted an offer from impresario J.W. Wallack to travel to New York City, to audition for leading lady of the Wallack’s Theater stock company • became a popular star performer [photo] • began considering a move into an entrepreneurial role
• took over Baltimore's Charles Street Theatre, 24 Dec, 1853, w/ financial assistance from wealthy Washingtonian, John Lutz • managed it for 2 months, qualifying her as USA’s first female theater manager • Lutz became her business manager & by some unverifiable accounts, her husband, though she was still married to Taylor — Androom Archives
• moved to San Francisco & the Metropolitan Theatre [photo] • played opposite Edwin Booth, brother of John Wilkes Booth • toured Australia with Edwin, 1854
• by 1855 she had returned to NYC • retained architect, John M. Trimble, a theater specialist • the new theater, built to her specifications, was named the Laura Keene’s Varieties [photo], aka Laura Keene’s Theatre [photo], or Third Olympic Theatre • opened at 622 Broadway on 18 Nov., 1856 • managed by Keene until 1863 when she assumed the lease & took over D.C.’s Washington Theatre [photo] [ad] from lessee, manager & self-proclaimed “People’s Favorite Tragedian,” John Wilkes Booth
• in 1858, having returned to Laura Keene's Theatre in NYC, premiered Our American Cousin,” [script] a 3-act farce starring Laura Keene [photo], written by English playwright Tom Taylor, U.S./Canada rights owned by Keene • with a run of 150 nights, set new standards for New York theater
• synopsis: a coarse but honest American, Asa Trenchard, arrives at the British Trenchard estate to claim an inheritance as the last named heir • meets Lord Dundreary & other snooty relatives who are trying to keep up appearances & marry off daughters • servants gossip, villains emerge from the shadows, true love conquers all in the end, a farce satirizing pretension & manners —Helytimes
• this is the play Laura Keene chose for her 14 Apr., 1865 Ford’s Theatre engagement, a benefit & farewell performance [ad] for the beloved star [playbill] • “Our Leading Lady,” is a 2007 comedy inspired by Keene’s role in the events surrounding this performance
• Laura Keene would play her usual role as Trenchard’s wife, Florence • Harry Hawk [photo], a member of Keene’s NY company, was to play the boorish American, Asa Trenchard • the classic role of brainless aristocrat Lord Dundreary was given to Edwin "Ned" Emerson [photo], leading man in the Ford Stock Company, brother of a Confederate soldier killed in action in 1862 & close friend of John Wilkes Booth
"I knew John Wilkes Booth well," wrote Edwin Emerson, "having played with him in dozens of cities, throughout the East and Middle West. He was a kind-hearted, genial person, and no cleverer gentleman ever lived. Everybody loved him on the stage, though he was a little excitable and eccentric."
• while Ford's was presenting Keene's famous play, arch-rival Grover's Theatre aka Grover’s National Theatre, offered “Aladin and The Wonderful Lamp” • Leonard Grover advertised his theatre as the capital’s only “Union” playhouse, highlighting John Ford’s more “Secesh” (secessionist) sentiments • “Doubtless [Ford’s] personal sympathies were with his State and with that portion of the country in which he was born and reared.” —Leonard Grover
• according to Grover, during the four years of [Lincoln’s] administration, he visited his theater “probably more than a hundred times. He often came alone, many times brought his little son Tad, and on special occasions, Mrs. Lincoln.” The President also once told Grover, ”I really enjoy a minstrel show," • when Grover responded that Hooley's Minstrels [photo] were soon to appear, Lincoln laughed. "Well, that was thoughtful of you." • “[Lincoln] was exceedingly conversant with Shakespeare. He enjoyed a classical representation, of which I gave many” —Lincoln's Interest in the Theater, Leonard Grover
• the National’s policy of segregating blacks began when it opened in 1835 • a portion of the gallery was set apart for "persons of color" • it is not known how many black theatergoers were in the 5 Mar., 1845 audience for “Beauty & the Beast,” “Stage Struck Nigger” & the Congo Melodists, a Boston blackface minstrel group [photo], but Washington’s 7 Mar. “National lntelligencer” reported that the cause of the fire which had demolished the theatre on the 5th was "a candle without a stick left burning on a table by a negro...."
• although the Grover-managed version of the National also had its "colored parterre,” Ford's Theatre, excluded blacks entirely from its performances • the exclusion of black Washingtonians from public places in the nation’s capital helped secure the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which, in 1889, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional. —The National Theatre in Washington: Buildings and Audiences, 1835-1972
• Mary Lincoln had tickets to Grover’s but preferred seeing Laura Keene in “Our American Cousin” • with little interest, the president said he would take care of the tickets • a messenger was sent to the theatre around 10:30 A.M. to secure the state box for the evening • the Lincolns’ son, Tad, opted for Grover’s, thus would not be with his parents at Ford’s that night
• General Grant accepted Lincoln’s invitation to join them in the Presidential box, but when Julia Grant objected to spending the evening with the sharp-tongued First Lady, he canceled • Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, Speaker of the House Schuyler Colfax & son Robert Todd Lincoln also declined before Clara Harris (1834-1883), daughter of New York Senator Ira Harris (1802-1875), and her fiancé, Major Henry Rathbone (1837-1911), accepted. —History Channel
The theatre as it appeared the night of Lincoln's assassination:
• the stage
• “Laura Keene was on stage with E, A. Emerson when the Presidents' party entered the theatre. As the party made its way, Miss Keene halted the play, Conductor William Withers [photo] led the orchestra in Hail to the Chief,'
and the audience rose and greeted the President with 'vociferous cheering.' President Lincoln came to the front of the box, acknowledged the reception, [set his silk hat on the floor], and the actors resumed where they had left off.
“The fatal shot was fired during the second scene of the third act. Laura Keene was standing in the first entrance (wing), stage right, facing the audience, awaiting her cue for the next scene
“On stage, just prior to the shooting, Mrs. Mountchessington was squelching Asa Trenchard: I am aware, Mr. Trenchard, you are not used to the manners of good society, and that alone will excuse the impertinence of which you have been guilty. (Exit)
“This left Asa Trenchard (Harry Hawk) alone on the stage… The audience was silent, expectantly awaiting the punch line from Asa. Miss Harris and Major Rathbone were ‘intently observing’ the scene on stage.The President ‘was leaning upon one hand, and with the other was adjusting a portion of the drapery‘ which hung at the side of the box opening. [photo]
“At this moment John Wilkes Booth stood silently in the shadows of the state box, four or five feet directly behind the President. Probably the last words heard by Lincoln were spoken by Harry Hawk:
“ASA: Don’t know the manners of good society, eh? Wal, I guess I know enough to turn you inside out, old gal — you sockdologizing old mantrap.
“The audience roared. Then penetrating the laughter was the distinct sound of a shot. A puff of smoke drifted from the box, and Major Rathbone “saw through the smoke, a man between the door and the President. He ‘instantly sprang toward him,’ but the assassin wrested from his grasp and slashed Rathbone with a dagger across the left arm. Meanwhile, Harry Hawk looked up from the stage to see a man, knife in hand, leaping over the balustrade of the President's box onto the stage apron. Fearing he would be attacked Hawk ran off the stage.’ Booth ran across the stage, [illustration] brushed past Miss Keene in the wings…
—Harbin, Billy J. “Laura Keene at the Lincoln Assassination,” Educational Theatre Journal 18, no. 1 (1966): 47–54
• Edwin Emerson: “…near the beginning of the third act… I was standing in the wings, just behind a piece of scenery, waiting for my cue to go on, when I heard a shot. I was not surprised, nor was anyone else behind the scenes. Such sounds are too common during the shifting of the various sets to surprise an actor. For a good many seconds after that sound nothing happened behind the footlights. Then, as I stood there in the dimness, a man rushed by me, making for the stage door. I did not recognize Booth at the time, nor did anyone else, I think, unless, someone out on the stage, when he stood a moment and shouted with theatrical gesture, ‘Sic Semper Tyrannis!' (So perish all tyrants!) Even after he flashed by, there was quiet for a few moments among the actors and the stage hands. No one knew what had happened.”—Find a Grave
• running from the stage Booth exited the building into Baptist Alley, a public alleyway laid out in 1792 • grabbed the reins of his horse & rode off, turning right on F Street to head for the safety of of the Maryland night
• James S. Knox, witness: “…The shrill cry of murder from Mrs. Lincoln first roused the horrified audience, and in an instant the uproar was terrible. The silence of death was broken by shouts of "kill him," "hang him" and strong men wept, and cursed, and tore the seats in the impotence of their anger, while Mrs. Lincoln, on her knees uttered shriek after shriek at the feet of the dying President.” —Library of Congress
• video: Charles L. Willis, J.W. Epperson eyewitness accounts of the assassination
• according to legend, Laura Keene rushed to Lincoln’s box w/a pitcher of water • cradled his head, staining her cuff w/ his blood.
• The Night Lincoln Was Shot: Minute-by-Minute Backstage With John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theatre
“In the lobby of Grover’s, as Tad Lincoln awaited his parents' carriage to take him back to the White House, he learned that his father had been shot • Grover, who was in New York, received a telegram from his associate manager: President shot tonight at Ford's Theatre. Thank God it wasn't ours. C. D. Hess."
“[two doctors] now arrived and after a moments consultation we agreed to have him removed to the nearest house… I called out twice 'Guards clear the passage,' which was so soon done that we proceeded… with the President and were not in the slightest interrupted until he was placed in bed in the house of Mr. Peterson… During the night the room was visited by many of his friends. Mrs Lincoln with Mrs. Senator Dixon came into the room three or four times during the night. The Presidents son Captn R. Lincoln, remained with his father during the greater part of the night.
“At 7.20 a.m. he breathed his last and “the spirit fled to God who gave it… Immediately after death had taken place, we all bowed and the Rev. Dr. Gurley supplicated to God in behalf of the bereaved family and our afflicted country.” —Report on the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln by Dr. Charles Leale [photo]
• Secy. of War Stanton ordered guards posted at the building [photo] & future dramatic productions canceled • later that year, attempts by Ford to reopen the theatre aroused public indignation • War Dept. ordered it closed, Ford threatened legal action, federal government responded by leasing & later purchasing the bldg.
• American newspapers report the shocking news in a country still younger than some of its citizens
• Willie Clark, the Petersen House boarder who lived in the room in which President Lincoln died, wrote to his sister four days after Lincoln's death...
“The past few days have been of intense excitement. Arrests are numerously made, of any party heard to utter secesh sentiments. The time has come when people cannot say what they please, the people are awfully indignant. Leinency is no longer to be thought of. A new code must be adopted.
“They talk of the tyranical administration of Mr. Lincoln, but we have a man now for a president who will teach the south a lesson they will know well how to appreciate…
“…Everybody has a great desire to obtain some memento from my room so that whoever comes in has to be closely watched for fear they will steal something.
“I have a lock of his hair which I have had neatly framed, also a piece of linen with a portion of his brain, the pillow and case upon which he lay when he died and nearly all his wearing apparel but the latter I intend to send to Robt. Lincoln as soon as the funeral is over, as I consider him the one most justly entitled to them.
“The same matrass (sic.) is on my bed, and the same coverlit (sic.) covers me nightly that covered him while dying.
“Enclosed you will find a piece of lace that Mrs. Lincoln wore on her head during the evening and was dropped by her while entering my room to see her dying husband It is worth keeping for its historical value.
“The cap worked by Clara and the cushion by you, you little dreamed would be so historically connected with such an event.”
“They talk of the tyranical administration of Mr. Lincoln, but we have a man now for a president who will teach the south a lesson they will know well how to appreciate. — Remembering Lincoln
• Lincoln's death was not universally mourned by Northeners even though his decision to resupply Ft. Sumter forced the Confederates into firing the 1st shots, an attack that triggered anger, patriotism & widespread support from Northerners • nevertheless, some who thought him too dictatorial & some Radical Republicans who thought him too lenient toward the enemy welcomed his assassination • Congressman George Julian recorded in his diary that the “universal feeling among radical men here is that his death is a godsend” Michigan Senator Zachariah Chandler wrote to his wife that God had permitted Lincoln to live only “as long as he was useful and then substituted a better man (Johnson) to finish the work.”—History Channel
• In the 2 wks. following the assassination, hundreds were detained, questioned, & some imprisoned • nearly all the personnel at Ford’s (actors, stage hands, musicians, etc.) were arrested & questioned • John T. Ford was visiting Richmond the night of the assassination • he & 2 brothers spent 39 days in the Old Capitol Prison before being cleared & released
• the Old Capitol Prison [photo] gained an association with the Lincoln assassination when it lodged several (but not all) suspected Lincoln assassination conspirators who, by order of the Secty. Of War, wore cotton hoods —Smithsonian
.
• 5 days after the assassination, Laura Keene & 2 other cast members arrested in Harrisburg PA, returned to Washington & released by order of the Secretary of War the moment he heard of their unauthorized detention
• Louis J. Weichmann often stayed at the Surratt Boarding House, in contact with the Surratts, & John Wilkes Booth • arrested as a potential accomplice but became a star witness for the prosecution, his testimony helping to convict Mary Surratt
• Pres. Andrew Johnson & Secy. of War Edwin M. Stanton insisted on trying the conspirators before a nine-member military commission, where 5 of the 9 judges—rather than a unanimous vote like in a civilian trial—were required to establish guilt. 6 votes could impose the death penalty
• Federal authorities argued that because Washington, D.C., was a war zone in April 1865—Confederate troops were still in the field—the assassination was an act of war • opponents argued that a civilian court would allow for a fairer trial [photo]
• for 7 weeks in May & June 1865, nation’s attention riveted on the 3rd floor of Old Arsenal Penitentiary (now Fort McNair) [photo], where the alleged conspirators were on trial for their lives [photo]
• one of the first U.S. trials where “colored” Americans, e.g. Ford’s stagehand Joe Simms & cleaner Mary Anderson, were allowed to testify against white Americans in open court • their testimony was included throughout the trial —Ford’s Theatre
• accused were allowed by attorneys to question the 366 witnesses, but not permitted to speak on their own behalf —Ford’s Theatre
• All defendants found guilty, 30 June, 1865 • Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, David Herold, & George Atzerodt sentenced to death by hanging [photo]
• Samuel Mudd, Samuel Arnold, & Michael O'Laughlen sentenced to life in prison • Ford’s stagehand Edmund Spangler sentenced to 6 yrs. in prison •all incarcerated at Fort Jefferson, off of Key West, Florida, pardoned by Pres. Johnson, 1869.
• following the assassination, [photo]Ford attempted to reopen on 7 July, 1865 but public outcry & threats forced him to cancel the performance, issue refunds & close the still-unfinished theater • bldg. seized July, 1865 by order of the Secretary of War
• interior torn out in August, 1865 • converted into 3-story office bldg housing the Army Medical Museum & Surgeon General • used for govt. purposes for several decades. —Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site
• 40-foot section of the facade collapsed from the 3rd floor, killing 22 War Department personnel, 1893 • alterations, including the facade, 1894 • building repaired, continued as government warehouse & storeroom until 1911 • vacant until taken over by Office of Public Buildings & Public Parks of the National Capital, 1928 • Lincoln museum opened 12 Feb., 1932, 123rd anniversary of Lincoln’s birth
• bldg. transferred to National Parks Service through executive order, 1933 —Ford’s Theatre, Washington, D.C.
• funding for restoration approved, 1964 • original building plans lost • relied on investigative work to extrapolate floor levels & wall locations from known “good” points in the building, w/ photographs & drawings providing supplementary detail • project supervised by Charles W. Lessig • restoration to its 1865 appearance completed, 1968 • theatre reopened 30 Jan., 1968 • following restoration, Presidential Box never occupied. —Ford’s Theatre
• externally west facade & north & south walls remain of the original theatre, although subject to modification, repair & remodeling over time • rear (east) wall, site of Booth’s escape door, is completely rebuilt—Restoration of Ford’s Theatre, Washington
• now a popular tourist destination & working theatre presenting a varied schedule of theatrical & live entertainment events • over 650,000 visitors/yr.
• Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site National Register # 66000865, 1966
• Ford’s Theatre National Historic site, National Register # 66000034, 1966
In built up areas around Australia there are street-signs to notify traffic about concrete islands in the middle of the road for pedestrians. The diamond shape sign with a simple graphic of people crossing, the tall person leading the smaller one by the arm, is accompanied by a rectangular sign just under, which reads ‘REFUGE ISLAND’.
These concrete safe havens, or ‘Refuge Islands’ are provided for the ‘public’ by our ‘authorities’ to alleviate concerns about taking our vulnerable bodies across treacherous roadways to our destination on the other side. Meanwhile, those peoples making a treacherous journey to seek asylum here when fleeing from persecution overseas are greeted with further persecution by our armed forces. Instead of a safe-haven, the refugees are left stranded in concrete camps.
So, in light of this, many of the street-signs receive a simple alteration using custom-made stickers, so that a machine gun appears in the free hand of the tall person, with the gun pointing towards the head of the smaller person. Underneath, the slightly altered text now reads ‘REFUGEE ISLAND’.
The use of guns and gun-ships to turn back leaky boats full of people exercising their human right to seek asylum, demonstrates the incredible inhumanity of our government and armed forces. And the REFUGEE ISLAND sign aims to mirror this inhumanity. It consists simply of black shapes on a yellow background. The shapes form the recognizable universal modern symbol of the human body. There are two of them. They look different but equal until you notice that one human is pointing a machine-gun at the other human. The human with the gun is also grabbing the other human by the arm and leading them somewhere by force. To their detention, is the implication. Which is, as we know, what happens to refugees here when they seek our compassion, humanity, and asylum from their oppressors.
An altered streetsign preys on the easy slippage within public images and messages, tweaking ‘neutral’ official symbols and codes to uncover the potent undercurrent of public feeling and knowledge. In public and by the public.
It is unclear whether the author of the alteration belongs to any particular ‘side’ of politics. Too often all that remains to do for spectators of political art is to accept or reject what they see, thereby making the political artist about as socially divisive as the Howard government. The hands behind this alteration leave no trace of the personal, but instead, generic images and matching fonts reproduced on a photocopier simply tweak existing public code so that the focus is bounced back away from the opinion of the artist and onto extrapolating public opinion. This is especially important when the actions that the altered sign illustrates are carried out on behalf of the public.
I don't know if that's literally true, but it's a great way of reminding us of loved ones who are no longer with us in this physical world. So I like the saying, and I always love it when I get the chance to see the cardinals.
And the subject of Heaven is always intriguing. Of course, I have always tried to have faith, but I've always left a foot in the door because the reasoning side of my brain is quite stubborn. It's the same reason I doubt 'Climate Change' is caused by man, or controllable by man without wholesale annihilation of the human race. Numbers don't lie, but men do. And numbers can be and often are manipulated to say whatever someone wants them to say. But that's a story for another day.. I was talking about Heaven.
If there's anything we should know about Science, it's that there is precious little scientific fact that isn't always evolving. The more we know, the more we realize what we don't know, and what we thought we knew, was all wrong. Especially in the realm of astronomy, where so much of what we know is actually conjecture and extrapolation from what we *do* know.
Science has just learned that the physical world we see, feel, touch, smell, hear, and touch all around us is only a tiny percentage of the mass in the universe. All the stars in the galaxy, all the planets, moons, and quasars in the sky.. All the collections of galaxies and the trillions of worlds they contain.. All the fishes in the sea, and the seas they swim in, are all crumbs upon the table of what truly exists..
The rest, which they are calling Dark Matter and Dark Energy is in a form that Science can't explain. They can't see it, although they believe it is all around and in us all the time. They can't detect it in any yet known way, but they know it's there. Essentially they are saying that this Dark Energy, this Dark Matter is in another dimension that exists in the same space as ordinary matter, and has demonstrable effects on ordinary matter, but is in a form we can't see, hear, feel, or be detected by our finest instruments..
So, that stubborn side of my brain that needs to see to believe, wonders.. is there some reason Heaven can't be in another dimension? Is there some reason that our spirits couldn't in fact real be real, made of that "dark energy", and simply dwell in our bodies for a time, and for the reasons we're taught when we're babies?
Perhaps this is the reason we can't see spirits, or communicate directly with those who have passed. Perhaps they are in fact all around us when they have the time to visit. And who knows.. Perhaps sometimes they *do* give us a sign that they are there to give us hope, faith, and comfort..
And if it's not true, what harm does it do, to believe? What harm does it do to smile when a cardinal winks at me from his perch?
Have you been led up the garden path of lies?
EVOLUTION .....
What is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?
Although we are told it is an irrefutable, scientific fact .....
the real fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for such progressive evolution.
So what was the evolutionary 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 body parts ... anatomical structures, biological systems, organs etc. (macro-evolution).
Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over an alleged multi-million year timescale.
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 ... literally, genetic, copying MISTAKES.
The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.
The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been 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 the 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. Disgracefully, evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.
Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked and lied to, 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 anatomical 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.
A dog will always remain a dog, it can never be selectively bred into some other creature, the extent of variation is constrained by the limitations of the existing, genetic information in the gene pool of the dog genus, and evolutionists know 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 long series ... of mistakes ... upon previous mistakes .... upon previous mistakes .... upon previous 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 how that original information magically arose?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - the biological features, anatomical 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 body 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?
What do laboratory experiments and field studies of recent, sedimentation events show? sedimentology.fr/
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 - some recent, field 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.
When no evidence is cited as 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
Want to publish a science paper?
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7036/full/nature03653...
www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gib...
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
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.”
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
To end with a more jocular quote, it has been said that:
"If Classical Darwinism is evolution by creeps and punctuated equilibrium is evolution by jerks, then neo Darwinism is evolution by freaks".
Science versus Darwinism.
EVOLUTION .....
What is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?
Although we are told it is an irrefutable, scientific fact .....
the real fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for such progressive evolution.
So, what was the evolutionary 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 body parts ... anatomical structures, biological systems, organs etc. (macro-evolution).
Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over an alleged multi-million year timescale.
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.
The information deficit....
Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.
This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history,
However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.
A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.
That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... literally, genetic, copying MISTAKES.
The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.
The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been 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 the 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. Disgracefully, evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.
Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked and lied to, 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 anatomical 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.
A dog will always remain a dog, it can never be selectively bred into some other creature, the extent of variation is constrained by the limitations of the existing, genetic information in the gene pool of the dog genus, and evolutionists know 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 entirely by a long, incremental series of mistakes ... ongoing mistakes added to billions of previous mistakes.
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 how that original information magically arose?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - the biological features, anatomical 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 body 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?
What do laboratory experiments and field studies of recent, sedimentation events show? sedimentology.fr/
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 - some recent, field 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.
When no evidence is cited as 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
Want to publish a science paper?
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7036/full/nature03653...
www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gib...
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 ‘scientific’ evidence for the evolution of humans. And artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. Although this was published about 3 years before the Scopes Trial. It was publicly revived, a few weeks prior to the trial, in order to influence it. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.
South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... Trumpeted as evidence for human evolution, before it was discovered to be just the tooth of a horse.
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
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.”
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
To end with a more jocular quote, it has been said that:
"If Classical Darwinism is evolution by creeps and punctuated equilibrium is evolution by jerks, then neo Darwinism is evolution by freaks"
Film: Orwo NP55 expired motion picture film @EI80, production date unknown
Process: Orwo A49, 12.5 mins @ 20*C
Camera: Leica IIIa (1936), uncoated Elmar 5cm Lens (1936), yellow (021) filter
Scanner: Optronics ColorGetter Falcon drum scanner, wet-mounted scan
Orwo NP55 was a motion picture film which produced very old-style pictures. I was happy to get a can which I then shot at its box speed of EI80. Orwo A49 is a specified developer in Orwo Rezepte, and I extrapolated development time from the continuous-processing time given. Luckily, the film appears to be in very good condition.
This shot has nice contrast, and the uncoated Elmar helps to produce the vintage look.