Retired Green Beret Warns: "There Could Be A Nuclear Strike Against The United States Coming Soon"
comment:
Once upon a time, I made a video about this. Well, well, well.
Anyway, if such were the case, it is long past the point in which we could save ourselves.
I think this society depends way, way too much on electronics. Electronics are susceptible to this kind of attack. If an enemy wanted to do great harm, this is how it could be done. Allowing this kind of vulnerability only proves to me that the people running this country do not care anything about the people they are supposed to serve.
We should be preparing for the aftermath of such an attack. The way this administration is behaving, they do not believe that the Norks have this capability. What if they do? Would you bet the nation's existence upon that?
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, July 15, 2017
Lynch said to have ordered illegal wiretap on Jr.
A sting operation was said to have initiated during the last administration in order to get at the Trump campaign.
Highlights:
Highlights:
- Claims to have been put in place by Russian attorney, who met with Jr. to talk about adoptions
- Special exemption to travel to USA given to her
- Further "facilitated" by another Russian born citizen, who was instrumental in putting together anti-Trump dossier
- On basis of the upcoming meeting with Jr., Lynch ordered a FISA wiretap, in order to try to ensnare Trump through his son
- The Russian attorney was initially refused a visa, but Lynch allowed it
In the meantime, there was a murder in Washington DC of a DNC staffer, Seth Rich. The crime has not been solved. Moreover, the investigation seems to have been stood down.
And we're still hearing talk against Trump?
The political establishment is in la-la land. So is the news media.
I have long suspected that the Obama administration had its nose up Trump's ass, and they still couldn't get anything. Therefore, there isn't anything. Never was. Never going to be.
I think they want to run this story until election day on the hopes that they can make it all stick. It isn't working.
My assumptions are not always correct ( how the sun moves through the sky )
Originally posted on 7.14.15, updated on,
7.15.17
The sun goes from north to south, then north again during the day. It makes an arc. What this arc is , is not known by me, but it may be related to latitude. In fact, I think it must be related to latitude.
If I am at 30 degrees north latitude, does that mean that it tracks 30 degrees? No, because during the seasonal change, the arc changes. It must change daily, as the season progresses. Each day get shorter as the summer progresses, until the first day of fall, when the day and night are of equal length.
Perhaps the arc gets shallower? No, because the sun would stay overhead all day, and that would cause the days to be hotter.
How can I look up answers to this question? Or, what is the question?
Try this: where does the sun track in the sky as the day progresses, and how does that change as the season progresses?
Actually, the old navigators of ancient time knew how the sun moves in the sky. You can use the sun to tell time, for example.
I will leave this update, and study the questions.
15:15
This video doesn't answer the questions, but it does show how to use a pocket sundial. The practical usefulness of this is not readily determined by moi. Velly eenterstink, but shtupid.
15:24
What about navigational aids, like a sextant? With the aid of a filter, it can make solar observations.
I'm thinking this will determine latitude.
15:50
A useful term may be referred to as the sun path. A solargraph can be made for any location, or based upon the latitude of a location.
The original post follows:
So, that is why they should be tested to make sure that they are correct.
What's this crazy Texan saying this time?
Well, the sun doesn't move in the sky in a way that I assumed. It moves in something of an arc with respect to east and west. My assumption was that it moved in pretty much a straight line.
Now, the thing that I did expect was indeed true. The sun rises north of the east-west line, and sets the same way. But it does not stay on the north side of that east-west line. This surprised me a little.
It makes an arc, taking it south across the east-west line, then turning back north towards the noon hour. At that time, it is nearly directly overhead. It gradually works back north to set well north of the east-west line.
So, what's the point?
With the sun being so hot and all, it might be well to consider how to align it with the expected movement of the sun in relation to your position. In the summer months, you would like for the sun to be blocked in a way that gives maximum shade. The opposite applies in the winter.
My assumption, once again, was that if you place your residence on the east-west line, and have the sun hit the north side in the summer, and the south side in the winter. You can plan the building accordingly. Keep as much of the building that you would like to get sun, like plants being grown for food, in the sun. At the same time, keep as much of the sun off your building as possible, so as to help in climate control indoors.
An overhang can be in place in lieu of a building. I would want a greenhouse to the north of my residence. I think this plan will still work, but this gave me a result that I did not expect.
To protect in the morning, a wall may be necessary on the east side. It may be desirable to have a wall on the west side too.
Not too much wall. You want sun in the winter in order to warm up the place.
Learn something new every day.
7.15.17
The sun goes from north to south, then north again during the day. It makes an arc. What this arc is , is not known by me, but it may be related to latitude. In fact, I think it must be related to latitude.
If I am at 30 degrees north latitude, does that mean that it tracks 30 degrees? No, because during the seasonal change, the arc changes. It must change daily, as the season progresses. Each day get shorter as the summer progresses, until the first day of fall, when the day and night are of equal length.
Perhaps the arc gets shallower? No, because the sun would stay overhead all day, and that would cause the days to be hotter.
How can I look up answers to this question? Or, what is the question?
Try this: where does the sun track in the sky as the day progresses, and how does that change as the season progresses?
Actually, the old navigators of ancient time knew how the sun moves in the sky. You can use the sun to tell time, for example.
I will leave this update, and study the questions.
15:15
This video doesn't answer the questions, but it does show how to use a pocket sundial. The practical usefulness of this is not readily determined by moi. Velly eenterstink, but shtupid.
15:24
What about navigational aids, like a sextant? With the aid of a filter, it can make solar observations.
I'm thinking this will determine latitude.
15:50
A useful term may be referred to as the sun path. A solargraph can be made for any location, or based upon the latitude of a location.
.jpg){kind=link}
The original post follows:
So, that is why they should be tested to make sure that they are correct.
What's this crazy Texan saying this time?
Well, the sun doesn't move in the sky in a way that I assumed. It moves in something of an arc with respect to east and west. My assumption was that it moved in pretty much a straight line.
Now, the thing that I did expect was indeed true. The sun rises north of the east-west line, and sets the same way. But it does not stay on the north side of that east-west line. This surprised me a little.
It makes an arc, taking it south across the east-west line, then turning back north towards the noon hour. At that time, it is nearly directly overhead. It gradually works back north to set well north of the east-west line.
So, what's the point?
With the sun being so hot and all, it might be well to consider how to align it with the expected movement of the sun in relation to your position. In the summer months, you would like for the sun to be blocked in a way that gives maximum shade. The opposite applies in the winter.
My assumption, once again, was that if you place your residence on the east-west line, and have the sun hit the north side in the summer, and the south side in the winter. You can plan the building accordingly. Keep as much of the building that you would like to get sun, like plants being grown for food, in the sun. At the same time, keep as much of the sun off your building as possible, so as to help in climate control indoors.
An overhang can be in place in lieu of a building. I would want a greenhouse to the north of my residence. I think this plan will still work, but this gave me a result that I did not expect.
To protect in the morning, a wall may be necessary on the east side. It may be desirable to have a wall on the west side too.
Not too much wall. You want sun in the winter in order to warm up the place.
Learn something new every day.
Friday, July 14, 2017
Dems Get No Traction From Russian Scandal: Polls Are Flat – Lunch Alert!
Dems Get No Traction From Russian Scandal: Polls Are Flat – Lunch Alert!
commentsky:
Boris Badenov says he consulted with Fearless Leader, who said that Dems need to reach into new bag of tricks. This one not working.
commentsky:
Boris Badenov says he consulted with Fearless Leader, who said that Dems need to reach into new bag of tricks. This one not working.
 |
| Find squirrel and moose. They have secret we need. |
Thursday, July 13, 2017
The political left is crazy
Patricia McCarthy
comment
She wouldn't be the only one who thought so. Michael Savage seems to think the left is nuts. Besides McCarthy and Savage, there was a Doctor who also thought so. She wrote in a blog called Dr. Sanity.
No doubt things are a bit nutty right now.
Getting 300 million people on the psychiatrist's couch may be a problem.
comment
She wouldn't be the only one who thought so. Michael Savage seems to think the left is nuts. Besides McCarthy and Savage, there was a Doctor who also thought so. She wrote in a blog called Dr. Sanity.
No doubt things are a bit nutty right now.
Getting 300 million people on the psychiatrist's couch may be a problem.
At what concentration does CO2 become toxic to humans?
Originally posted on 7.3.17, updated on:
7.13.17 :
Perhaps you have to have fancy terms to get your point across. "Dadaist Science"? It makes me think of Daddy's Science. Or today's science is not your daddy's science.
Yeah, that's the ticket. Our science isn't as good as it was in our father's time.
Things continue to go down the poop chute.
Please Mr. President. Dropkick the Paris Accord, and make America sane again. It is hard being great when your nuts.
The original post follows:
You may be interested in the following post:
At what concentration does CO2 become toxic to humans?
http://principia-scientific.org/at-what-concentration-does-co2-becomes-toxic-to-humans/
comment:
At about 6% of the atmosphere, or 150 times as much as there is now.
The Earth's atmosphere cannot become like Venus' for this reason. In order to become like Venus, the Earth's atmosphere must become 100 times thicker overall, not just its concentration in the atmosphere. That means the atmospheric pressure must be like the pressure under several thousand feet of water! It is simply not possible to do that. There is not enough fossil fuel, nor oxygen to burn it all, even if it existed.
Moreover, if you were to increase the concentration of the Earth's atmosphere to 6%, it would no longer support humans on this planet.
Would the so-called 'greenhouse effect' be like Venus then, if the atmosphere is nowhere near like Venus, yet toxic to humans?
Of course, the answer is no. There would be a valid reason to be concerned long before the 6% number is reached, should that ever become a threat. It is not likely to ever do that, in my opinion. Nor should there ever be a reason for burning so much fossil fuel, even if such were possible.
The moral is that anytime someone brings up the comparison with Venus, it is meant as a scare tactic. It simply cannot happen here on Earth.
7.13.17 :
Perhaps you have to have fancy terms to get your point across. "Dadaist Science"? It makes me think of Daddy's Science. Or today's science is not your daddy's science.
Yeah, that's the ticket. Our science isn't as good as it was in our father's time.
Things continue to go down the poop chute.
Please Mr. President. Dropkick the Paris Accord, and make America sane again. It is hard being great when your nuts.
The original post follows:
You may be interested in the following post:
At what concentration does CO2 become toxic to humans?
http://principia-scientific.org/at-what-concentration-does-co2-becomes-toxic-to-humans/
comment:
At about 6% of the atmosphere, or 150 times as much as there is now.
The Earth's atmosphere cannot become like Venus' for this reason. In order to become like Venus, the Earth's atmosphere must become 100 times thicker overall, not just its concentration in the atmosphere. That means the atmospheric pressure must be like the pressure under several thousand feet of water! It is simply not possible to do that. There is not enough fossil fuel, nor oxygen to burn it all, even if it existed.
Moreover, if you were to increase the concentration of the Earth's atmosphere to 6%, it would no longer support humans on this planet.
Would the so-called 'greenhouse effect' be like Venus then, if the atmosphere is nowhere near like Venus, yet toxic to humans?
Of course, the answer is no. There would be a valid reason to be concerned long before the 6% number is reached, should that ever become a threat. It is not likely to ever do that, in my opinion. Nor should there ever be a reason for burning so much fossil fuel, even if such were possible.
The moral is that anytime someone brings up the comparison with Venus, it is meant as a scare tactic. It simply cannot happen here on Earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)