Since it has been clearly established that Obama's long form birth certificate is a fake, the implication is that there is no actual birth certificate to be found.
The article reference to "hiding place" makes sense only in connection to wherever the documentation is hidden. No reference to whether or where he in person is hidden.
I've designed these systems, so what "arm waving" are you talking about? I notice you don't dispute 10 W/cm2 being an intolerable intensity at the collector.
Or sedition. Treason is defined in the Constitution. We set ourselves up for disappointment by thinking "treason" is a catchall for whatever offends us. The law may think otherwise.
A story in dailymail.com headlined 25 July. It is a waste of time.
Powell et al. doubtless take the view that, "Since we are an independent body, these laws don't apply to us. Let us proceed."
No. But even trying to do that might be terminally catastrophic. It would be on the level of an ant colony deciding to attack the Orkin man.
Totally overblown. Just one astrophysicist associated with Harvard, not speaking on Harvard's behalf, together with some colleagues. Just a bonkers article published in an online journal, not yet peer-reviewed, and already denounced as nonsense by the rest of the astrophysics community. https://nypost.com/2025/07/25/science/possibly-hostile-alien-threat-detected-in-unknown-interstellar-object-study/
Not being "pushed" by anyone serious or having influence. We can unload our rifles and take off our uniforms.
This is the sort of thing that puts me off Benny Johnson, commenting on SOMEONE ELSE"S "Breaking News" as though he had anything to add. It reminds me of a crow, prancing around on a pile of cow poop, flapping its wings and cawing.
And "giving up" 100 people is far from what was reported. She only answered questions about ~100 people. Who were the people? What were the questions? What were the answers? No information. This is where "breaking news" is more like breaking wind.
Bogus implication. He didn't raise the subject. His answer wasn't functionally different from "no comment."
It would be bad journalism. Which is why I would like to see some sauce on the existence of a set of previous 18 versions. There is a documented history for the origin of "Covid-19." Where is her documentation?
I know Lara Logan is on the right side and the WHO is on the wrong side, but that has nothing to do with the truth of statements and the existence of documentation. (We have the cautionary example of Candace Owens, who has gone off the deep end about NASA space hoaxing.)
Well, the fact of the matter is that the first cases were identified in very early December of 2019. On 11 February 2020, the WHO issued identifiers of "Coronavirus Disease 2019" (COVID-19) and "SARS-CoV-2." Where is any evidence for 18 previously named variants? You can't just presume them into retroactive existence to prove an assertion. I'm afraid this seriously impeaches Logan's reliability.
"Real gangsters" move in silence because they do not want to draw the attention of the law. When they ARE the law and the communication media, it is a different story. And when they succeed in depraving a near-majority of society, they are confident in their blatancy. When they are lecturing us on TV and stealing our children it is not silence; it is success. What have we done to stop it? Nothing. Until Trump.
I hope that is true. The picture is mixed from my viewpoint. A lot of discontent, but a real lack of informed criticism and understanding of the phenomenology. A lot of the supposedly technical dispute is missing the points.
Really? Boeing is one of the nation's largest exporters. You can be sure that we have dual dimensioning, at least. We have to compete head-to-head with the metric world and be interoperable with all the ground equipment. The market does not care about an enclave of a special system of units.
Everywhere I've seen, it is kph.
UV blocking is deliberate in the design. Same thing for intraocular lenses, although when I was working with them it was probably an inherent trait of the material we were making them from (polymethyl methacrylate).
How would it know that any pattern is a "failure"? What you are describing is "template matching." Can't happen without a template first being identified by a human being. In the case of the MCAS software, blatant problems went by without notice because of tunnel thinking.
With a big benefit of being able to sell to a world market that uses metric units. And be compatible with science that is dominantly conducted in metric units.
You are missing the fact that energy units are easily obtained by using metric units. The English system has foot-pounds, calories, British Thermal Units. How many calories in a foot-pound? You cannot easily convert English energy units across physical domains of application. And all of our electrical technology is metric, without any English counterpart.
The only approach considered for power satellite beaming was microwave, because the production and conversion to electricity were high efficiency and there is little atmospheric absorption or interference. Focusing the beam requires a large aperture. Radiant intensity levels would be too high for safety in this application.
The military is not using any such thing. There are fanciful ideas about doing it, but people are just wasting their time dreaming up a complication that is more of a logistic nightmare than providing chemical fuel.
The atmosphere does not amplify power beams. There is no way to produce a self-focusing "tunnel" for EM radiation. At the megawatt level, the atmosphere likes to spread the beam by negative lens effects from thermal absorption.
Power is power. You tell me how much power (watts) your "high bandwidth data" is pushing and we can talk.
Not by much, and with the same effects. Which is why communicating power by directed radiation is the most dangerous approach.
Easy to do when the power involved is trivial and the beam footprint is larger than the car. Try to do that with a 100 kW beam focused on a 1 sq. meter collector and you will melt it. It is all in the numbers. Arm-waving doesn't count.
Caution is still a good idea. Too much UV causes sunburn and can lead to eye problems if you brave bright sunlight without sunglasses. Glare off snowfields is damaging to sight. The sunlight cycle stimulates the production of melatonin by triggering the pineal gland. UV does not get to the retina; it is mostly absorbed by the internal fluids of the eye---and in any case, our retina cannot detect it.
Since judges are not randomly assigned, this is a meaningless calculation. And I would like to see his work to justify such a number.
And if you would bother to read the article, the headline lives up to its claim. What do you expect of a headline? A thesis?