Ancient Horse's Arses Control Almost Everything - History Lesson

Railroad  tracks. The  US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4  feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why  was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in  England , and English expatriates designed the US  railroads. Why  did the English build them like that? Because the first rail  lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad  tramways, and that's the gauge they  used. Why  did 'they' use that gauge then? Because the people who built  the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they had used  for building wagons, which used that wheel  spacing.    Why  did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Well,  if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would  break on some of the old, long distance roads in England ,  because that's the spacing of the wheel  ruts. So  who built those old rutted roads? Imperial Rome built the  first long distance roads in Europe (including England ) for  their legions. Those roads have been used ever  since. And  the ruts in the roads? Roman war chariots formed the initial  ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying  their wagon  wheels.    Since  the chariots were made for Imperial Rome , they were all alike  in the matter of wheel spacing. Therefore the United States  standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from  the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot.  Bureaucracies live  forever.   So  the next time you are handed a specification/procedure/process  and wonder 'What horse's arse came up with this?' , you may be  exactly right. Imperial Roman army chariots were made just  wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses.  (Two horses'  arses.)        Now,  the twist to the  story:When  you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are  two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel  tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are  made by Thiokol at their factory in  Utah        The  engineers  who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit  fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the  factory to the launch site.  The railroad line from the factory  happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRBs  had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider  than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now  know, is about as wide as two horses'  behinds.        So,  a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the  world's most advanced transportation system was determined  over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's arse.  And you thought being a horse's arse wasn't important? Ancient  horse's arses control almost  everything... Source: email, author unknown

Fabrication of Snowden Story on Mind Altering HAARP

Fabrication of Snowden Story on Mind Altering HAARP

The link to the fabricated Snowden story:

http://www.chronicle.su/news/snowden-reveals-haarps-global-assassination-agenda/

It appears to be a complete fabrication.

Check out the similarity in these two photos:
The left pic is from a recent YouTube video.
The right pic is from the fabricated article but reversed.

The photo of him outside the building, yet somehow at the same time "in his custom faraday cage", shows moles on his face which are on the opposite side to where they appeared in the original Greenwald interview. And if you reverse the image, they line up nicely. In fact it looks uncannily like a photoshopped screenshot from that same interview. See my attachment. Notice the same light reflecting in his glasses and the same refracted image at the side of his glasses.
I don't think Snowden is giving interviews to anybody who comes along; certainly not some two-bit internet news site like that one. Just look it over - the "About" page is wild reading. It looks more like "The Onion" than anything else.

I think they're just  trying to cash in on his popularity and credibility to further their own weird agenda. Either that or they're trying to nullify his revelations by branding him a "tin foil hat".

As events unfold I'm becoming more convinced that Snowden is the real deal. I still can't quite shake the reservation though that he looks so much like Neo in "the Matrix". If they were wanting to present him as a "hero", that would be a great way to groom him.

This was sourced from an email from a colleague who will remain anonymous for now.

Viewbank Solar Monitor

Viewbank Solar Monitor

Introduction

The intention of this blog is to record my solar system performance.
I record five meter readings weekly into an Excel spread sheet and from that I can track system performance and solar trend data.

System Description

The system comprises a 4.8KW "on grid" and a 3.2KW "off grid" system.
There are 47 PV panels in a near perfect situation with no shading except at very low sun angles.
The system was installed at Viewbank Australia in Feb 2011. Viewbank latitude is -37.74 deg.
The predicted solar power, which was used to justify the installation, was calculated using a small PV panel over a 3 month period.

In 2009 the Australian government announced a 15 year Premium Feed In Tariff (PFIT) of $0.60/KW hr which is really $0.66/KW hr with GST feed back. Furthermore my contract included an increase in line with inflation for two years which has increased my feed-in tariff to $0.71.
At the time of installation, the cost of electricity from the grid was $0.18/KW hr "on peak" and $0.09 "off peak".
Even with that attractive PFIT, the "on grid" system was barely viable. The addition of the "off grid" system gave a slight benefit by ensuring most of the power generated actually went to the grid to maximize the payback. It also removed the temptation to not use power during the day, doing the washing etc at night. This change of lifestyle is something that many, who have installed "on grid" systems, go through once they realize their daytime power is actually costing them $0.66/KW hr.
The system is currently on track for a 10 year payback period, however this doesn't include cost of funds, insurance and maintenance. If those are included there is no payback!
For those interested in installing solar my advise is "DON'T".
The feed in tariff for new systems in Victoria is now just $0.08/KW hr. The cost of power from the grid is around $0.30/KW hr "on peak" and around $0.16/KW hr "off peak". So yes! It's a joke!

System Performance for Financial Year 2012-2013

Previous years have been very similar with solar energy steadily increasing over the three years as shown here.

Three Year Solar Power Trend

The above may seem of interest in the climate change debate, however the prediction was done toward the end of the El Niño and 2011 through 2012 were affected by the La Niña.
It will be interesting to watch that trend. The PV panels will deteriorate to around 80% after 25 years so the trend should eventually reflect this.

That's it for now. I will continue to update this post each year around July.

Original post July 2013.

The Ant and Grasshopper Fable on Socialism

Preface

A brilliant little Fable, Author Unknown. If you recognize your work please mention it in a comment and I'll add the credit.

ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER 
Two Different Versions.... Two Different Moralities

OLD VERSION 
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY:  Be responsible for yourself!


MODERN VERSION 
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

Channels 7, 9 and 10, the ABC and SBS show up to provide pictures of the shiveringgrasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

Australia is stunned by the sharp contrast. 
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'

Acorn stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing,'We shall overcome.'
Cardinal George Pell then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's  sake.

Prime Minister Gillard condemns the ant and blames John Howard, Robert Menzies, Capt James Cook, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.

Bob Brown exclaims in an interview on Today Tonight that the ant has gotten rich off the back of thegrasshopper and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, Labor in conjunction with the Greens draft the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government and given to the grasshopper. 
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorise the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighbourhood.

Climate Change Scaremongering is a Threat to our Democracy

The latest Climate Commission report on climate change is yet another joke from a farcical organization.

The claim that all scientists are now in agreement with the premise that "the climate is changing" is just so dumb. Off course they are and always have been. The climate has always changed, naturally.

Furthermore, main stream media has a lot to answer for, for their obvious scaremongering presentations.

For example:
On Apr 3rd, 2013 ABC1 news presented a graphic claiming a 40% rise in GHGs since the industrial revolution, followed immediately by a picture of the chimney stack of a coal fired power station emitting predominately steam. The associated audio stated "we need to take immediate steps to reign in emissions". The intention was to convey the though that humans had caused this 40% increase in GHGs.
We have to presume that they're referring to atmospheric CO2, unless they've found another significant human caused GHG that they are keeping from us, for fear of creating alarm. Oh yeah sure!

Reality check:
Human CO2 production is just 3% of the total. Nature is therefore responsible for the remaining 37% of the rise they've referred to.
So what their data should be telling them is that nature is responsible for 100*37/40 = 92.5% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since industrialization. Hence, if they're blaming CO2 for climate change, then they've clearly highlighted that nature is not only predominately responsible, but also that it's so dominate that any change we make to our CO2 emissions will have an undetectable impact.
So why are their conclusions the exact opposite of this?

As it happens, industrialization started around the time of the end of the little ice age. Natural CO2 production has been on the rise since that time. This is due to the warming of the seas, which causes more CO2, trapped in the oceans depths, to be released.
The thermal inertia of the seas means the temperature increases much more slowly than the surface temperatures. Hence we expect that more "old ice" in the Arctic and Antarctic will melt each summer and natural CO2 levels will continue to rise.

Another example from a similar Climate Commission campaign last September.
SBS news presented the story by showing two graphics side by side. Each were satellite pics of the Arctic, one with little snow/ice cover and the other with heavy cover. The story was highlighting IPCC alarm over the rate of decay of the snow/ice cover. The final comment from the presenter was, "be aware that this was not the change over a long period. This was the change in just six months".
The tactic of that statement was twofold:
1. It was designed to be alarming for the unaware.
2. It meant that they could not be challenged for presenting misleading information.

Reality check:
Obviously the snow/ice cover of the Arctic varies bi-annually from a minimum after summer to a maximum after winter. Hence the two pics were useless for a measure of melt rates and for their associated alarming story. You would need to compare pics from one year to the next exactly 12 months apart. Furthermore, as we know from the previous example, we expect the cover to reduce as the oceans warm. So no surprises here for those that are aware. The intention of course was to alarm the unaware and there's a lot in that category. If challenged for this misleading information, their reply would be along the lines, "but we correctly reported that the two pics were taken 6 months apart".

Conclusion
The worlds climate is changing as it always does, naturally. The Climate Commission and especially the IPCC are trying to take advantage of the natural variations to support UN agendas.

They (or their earlier cohorts) tried the "coming ice age" scare back in the mid seventies and failed.
They tried the warming scare around the turn of the century and failed.
They have now perfected their tactics so that a majority of people will be convinced and hence will beg to be saved from the monster.
Panicked masses can easily be convinced to vote for anything, including the forfeiting of voting powers.

See this article from the global cooling scare of the mid seventies.

http://i1057.photobucket.com/albums/t394/VK3BBR/GlobalCoolingSolutions_zps601b07b2.jpg

This is a serious threat to our democracy.
It's up to those of us who are aware to inform others.
Spread the word!

Revised April 8th 2013

Does Human CO2 Cause Global Warming

The IPCC will have you believe that human produced CO2 is a significant driver of global warming, however a quick check of the facts shows that it's insignificant.

The problem with the IPCC is that it's a political org with a UN agenda. Their science is pseudoscience and they sell it using scaremonger tactics. Even their pseudoscience review process has been discredited see:

http://polliter.com/2013/03/19/top-warmist-scientist-we-were-wrong-no-warming/

There is no empirical scientific evidence that human CO2 has caused warming, however that’s not to say it’s ruled out. 

If we postulate that CO2 “in our lower and upper atmosphere, including its effect in the Troposphere” does have an overall uncontrolled warming effect, and given that man is responsible for approx 3% of current CO2 production, and even though this is minor, especially when compared to the normal NATURAL variation of CO2 production (approx 12%), then if that postulate is proven to be correct, it must be concluded that man does indeed add to the warming.

Proceeding with the assumption that our postulate’s true; let’s look at the magnitude of this problem. The average global surface temp for the period 1988 to 1998 rose by 0.5deg C. That’s the temp excursion that put the world in a tizzy. 

Now, if we were to stop all industry/power generation/cars etc and live in the trees using bows and arrows to catch our food, then with that 3% less CO2, the average global surface temp rise for that period would have been the same +0.5degC. We simply could not detect the change given the coarseness of our measurement accuracy. 

So we must conclude at the outset that the problem is miniscule.

Now, how do we prove our postulate valid?
If we were the IPCC we would find every possible piece of evidence that might prove our postulate true. That mountain of data would usually be enough to convince most people the postulate was indeed valid.
On the other hand, if we were a science org, we would exhaust every possible means of disproving our postulate. If after that process we still hadn't refuted it, then, under science rules, we can accept it as fact.

For this postulate, the IPCC relies heavily on the fact that CO2 can be proven to be a GHG using a relatively simple lab experiment. Unfortunately it’s impossible to simulate the atmosphere and all of its gasses/impurities/particles and concentrations right up to the troposphere in the lab. Hence, this in itself is not proof.

Last year we had a solar flare event that allowed NASA scientists to do measurements in the Troposphere and those measurements concluded CO2 and NO were “natural thermostats” in as much as they emitted heat to space via radiation. Here’s the article.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

I was one of many that misinterpreted this, thinking it had repercussions on CO2, in as much as it was not only a GHG, but also provided a temperature limiting function. We got a rebuttal from “Watts up with That“ for our efforts. Here it is:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/

The point of raising this is not to show my stupidity but to highlight the comments on this post. There are a lot of very good points made. I’m not totally satisfied that we are wrong with our interpretation. One suggested some gasses present (or H2O vapour) could take the heat up into the Troposphere where it would warm the CO2 by conduction, which in turn would radiate it to space, as it did for the solar flare heat energy.

The most significant problem for our postulate is the last 16 years of real surface temperature data, which indicates temperatures remain essentially flat, even though the CO2 level continued rising. We should have more heat, so where is it? Under the rules of real science we must deem our postulate invalid unless we can come up with an explanation of where the additional heat has gone. I've seen IPCC articles on the possibilities but none have impressed me at all. Here is the most even handed article I could come up with:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/27/a-sea-change-on-climate-sensitivity-at-the-economist/

Note the sentence “Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before“

Well I’ll buy that! So maybe there’s something in our “radiation to space from CO2 in the Troposphere” theory.

Conclusion:

So does human CO2 cause global warming or not? The truth is, us humans haven't figured that out yet. 

With the current inconclusive state of climate science and our previous conclusion that it's a minuscule problem anyhow, one has to ask; why are we panicking over this and why are we putting so much effort and $$$ into it?

And a little PS while I have your attention.

Things like this don’t help the alarmist’s case at all.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/01/were-not-screwed/

So there you have it. Now I brace for the expected degrading and demeaning remarks from the alarmist lobby in line with their usual scaremonger tactics:

http://www.rationalinquiry.org.uk/health-scaremongering.php

http://www.rationalinquiry.org.uk/what-is-pseudoscience.php

Revised April 8th 2013.

THE FACEBOOK SCAM ON TWITTER USERS

The #FBscam

Note there are other similar scams popping up that do not use FB app pages (probably because it's been deactivated as detailed below). They usually start with URLs like twitlter.com and tvivvter.com and similar name lookalikes. I have added a section below for these called Twitter-lookalike scams

#FBscam Summary

BREAKING NEWS, 22 Sep 2012, Facebook have finally acted and deactivated this site. I'll leave the content for info since most new scams popping up are similar.

Tweeps there is a Facebook app scam running, which has two evil purposes.

1. It steals your Twitter account information so the perpetrators can propagate their scam using your account.

2. It downloads spyware to your computer so they can access everything you access on your computer.

Background

It’s elegant in its simplicity. It’s most powerful feature is that it’s a genuine Facebook App and hence looks harmless.

Note: Facebook are not the perpetrators, just the sponsors of the app, which is written by the perpetrators and links to the perpetrators URLs of which there are many.

When one URL is removed another pops up and the Facebook app is revised to point to the new URL.

This is all going on under Facebook’s nose and they seem unwilling or unable to do anything about it.

I have reported it to Facebook countless times and have received their emails to which I have responded with the material below. Yet they continue to do nothing about it and the scam continues unabated.

How the scam works

Using a captured account, they send Direct Messages (DMs) to all the followers of that account. Not all at once, just a few at a time, metered so as not to cause too much alarm.

The DM is intended to get your attention. It will say things like:

“Lol, I see you are famous now” or

“Lol, didn’t you see them recording you” or

“Someone is saying disgusting things about you” etc.

In each case above they provide a link to the Facebook app which has been static for several weeks now as:

http://apps.facebook.com/137822973031147/

Here is how it looks:

Note this is a genuine Facebook app page so it does have a “Report/Contact this App” feature at the bottom right of the page. I've exercised this many times to no avail.

The suspicious Tweep will close down this app and ignore it. After all the only URL that should ever ask you for this information is "https://twitter.com"  If it's any other URL then it’s fraudulent.

The investigative Tweep may try entering any false account and password.

They’ll discover it doesn’t complain about the bad account/password. Hence they have confirmed the scam.

The false details will be sent on and things will progress per “The unsuspecting Tweep” below except that nobody’s account is hacked.

Incidentally a smart trick here is to enter the account name of that from which you got the DM and enter a junk password. If their logs are automated, which they probably are, this will overwrite the previously correct password, so that account may now be safe.

The cheeky Tweep will give them hell by sending them messages via the account and password fields. This is good for the ego but it’s not going to make much difference to the perpetrators.

The unsuspecting Tweep blissfully enters their account and password details at which point this information is sent to the perpetrators, thus their account is now hacked and available for use in further propagating the scam.

You are then passed to a page on their URL which has varied over the past weeks from

http://songmo.omgtweetprofit.org/tmb/zoom/newvideo.php

or

http://funson.twittergangs.info/tmb/zoom/newvideo.php

or

http://woot.tweetelf.info/tmb/zoom/newvideo.php

or

http://hume.funnietweets.info/tmb/zoom/newvideo.php

and others

***BEWARE THESE SITES TRY TO BREAK THROUGH YOUR FIREWALL***

The page is always the same and looks like this:

Now we are down to the main purpose of the scam which is to get you to install their spyware onto your computer.

The unsuspecting Tweep with hit the “Install” button at which time the spyware installer is downloaded, disguised to look like a Flash Player update. Then they will proceed with the install and the spyware is now loaded to their computer.

The BullGuard report

So that I could report the file to BullGuard I did hit the “Install”, took note of the file name being downloaded and aborted the download. The file was “FlashPlayerV10.1.57.1---.exe”

On checking with Adobe I found my Flash Player was currently version 11, so their scam is looking a little out of date. I wonder if they will fix that!

BullGuard confirmed the file contained “malicious code” meaning "Virus" or "Spyware". Nobody is going to go to this much trouble to play around with a virus, so you can bet on it being spyware, which is probably making them a living; else they wouldn’t be doing it

So here is the BullGuard Email/Report in full:

QUOTE

Subj: [116-17E58413-024A] BullGuard Support Inquiry‏
Date: 16/9/2012

Dear Robert,


Thank you for contacting BullGuard Support.

I am contacting you with regards to the Facebook application renamed as "FlashPlayerV10.1.57.1---.exe that you submitted to our attention. The result of our virus lab is indeed positive: the app does contain malicious code and it will be detected by our Antivirus engine with the next update.

I would like to thank you for drawing our attention to this security issue.

Do not hesitate to contact us if you require any additional assistance or information. 

Please remember our Support Service is available 24/7 at support@bullguard.com andhttps://www.bullguard.com/support/live-support.aspx, or through the BullGuard application > Support section.

Thank you for your cooperation. 

Best regards, 

Cristiana Cucu
BullGuard Support Team
support@bullguard.com 
http://www.bullguard.com

UNQUOTE

Finale

Enjoy playing with this scam Tweeps. Give them hell !!
Spread the word so we starve these crooks out of it and if we all keep reporting the App to Facebook via the “Report/Contact this App” (Bottom right of the App screen) it may just wake them up from their apparent slumber.

Twitter-lookalike scams

Scammers spotted thus far are using URL tvivvter.com (now disappeared) and twitlter.com.
The latter has been reported to Google via http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/report_phish/ and is now trapped by Google chrome. Other browsers may not do so. It links you to a similar page to the #FBscam. Here's their scam page:

This scam appears to be in a development phase as it links to Twitter to try and authenticate the account/password detail. This is what you get currently:

All they will achieve with this scam so far is to steal your account and password details.

Unbelievable as it may seem but dare I say it "I think we are winning the Twitter scammers war". No maybe I won't say it. Should know better! It will go on forever so watch out for them!