GORGEOUS CORONAS at 1hr. 28min.!!!
Month: March 2015
AWESOME NEW CHEESE AT COSTCO!
Costco has product similar to this one, called “Smoked Sharp White Cheddar.” It must be a brand new product for Tillamook, because I can’t find it on the net. It looks like this one, but is aged 9 months instead of 2 years.
Made from milk from cows NOT treated with artificial growth hormone.
WONDERFUL! Highly recommended. Really strong natural wood smoke flavor!
“Get it while you can.”
$11.49 for 2 lbs.
What a great guy!
Clint’s heart stopped after a skiing accident when his ski pole punctured his heart. The still, small Voice had warned him….
“I should have paid attention to the warning. And I can tell you right now that when the Voice says something to me now, I listen. I pay attention.”
– Clint Walker
* * *
Uploaded on Jul 11, 2009
Clint Walker is interviewed for the Extraordinary TV series, which includes an inspirational true life event. Clint has always been one of my favourite US actors. I particularly enjoyed his performance as Samson Posey in The Dirty Dozen, alongside Lee Marvin and Charles Bronson, and Sam Whiskey with Burt Reynolds. I am so pleased posting this interview with Clint has been enjoyed and been so inspirational for many of you.
In his nearly three hour Archive interview, actor Clint Walker talks about the many odd jobs he held before embarking on a film and television career. He tells how he ventured out to Hollywood and landed a role in Cecil B. DeMille’s “The Ten Commandments”, and how the role led to other film projects and eventually a contract with Warner Brothers. Walker then details the series for which he’s best know, Cheyenne, in which he played the title character, “Cheyenne Bodie.” He describes auditioning for the role, how he kept in shape, and the many stunts he performed on the program. He outlines the show’s production schedule, speaks about his co-stars and famous guest-stars, and explains the importance of Cheyenne as television’s first hour-long Western. He explains why he believes Westerns were so popular in the 1950s…. He talks about other film and television appearances, including those in “The Night of the Grizzly,” the made-for-television movie Yuma, and the series Kodiak. Stephen J. Abramson conducted the interview in Beverly Hills, CA on September 21, 2012. (source)
* * *
CORRECTION 7/12/15: apparently, this article is mostly untrue.
25% of the people have a 4th cone and see colors as they are ;p
The color nuances we see depend on the number and distribution of cones (=color receptors) in our eye. You can check this rainbow: how many color nuances do you count?
You see less than 20 color nuances: you are a dichromats, like dogs, which means you have 2 types of cones only. You are likely to wear black, beige, and blue. 25% of the population is dichromat.
You see between 20 and 32 color nuances: you are a trichromat, you have 3 types of cones (in the purple/blue, green and red area). You enjoy different colors as you can appreciate them. 50% of the population is trichromat.
You see between 33 and 39 colors: you are a tetrachromat, like bees, and have 4 types of cones (in the purple/blue, green, red plus yellow area). You are irritated by yellow, so this color will be nowhere to be found in your wardrobe. 25% of the population is tetrachromat.
Published on Apr 26, 2013
In this special edition of Genesis Week, we examine the Paluxy fossil human footprints and interview Dr. Carl Baugh, founder of Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas, whose life was radically changed when he discovered fossil human footprints among dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy.
Complete transcript available here: http://ianjuby.org/newsletter/?p=657
Creation Evidence Museum:
And David Lines’ YouTube channel which hosts CEM’s videos:
“In quest of the African Dinosaur,” Dr. Louis Jacobs, page 261
Dr. Don Patton’s exhaustive page on his research on the Paluxy tracks:
CT scans of the “Delk Track”
A little movie review:
I’ve been watching a lot of golf for the first time in my life, starting with the PGA tournament at Torrey Pines in early February (partly to see the paragliders — and the got hooked!). My mom loves to watch probably as much! The colors are so vivid on our new widescreen TV, which helps a lot — especially towards the end of another long Alaskan winter!
I played golf with my friend Steve during our University of Minnesota days, after high school — but haven’t since.
And I just watched this movie too, which was mostly delightful, and based on a true story; though, Disney made the father the bad guy, as they often do, or they present the father as a wimp. Disney is definitely pushing an anti-family agenda.
The Walt Disney Picture The Greatest Game Ever Played is the story of Francis Ouimet, a young man who is invited to compete in the 1913 US Open Golf Tournament despite his poor socio-economic. (source)
The young lady Francis is understandably stunned by wasn’t in the original story either; though, this probably does enhance the movie.
What is true and unexpected (and delightful in the movie!!) is that Francis’ caddy, Eddie was only 10-years-old, and they stayed lifelong friends. In the movie, however, Francis’ original caddy is bought off by one of the pros. But in real life, he was Eddie’s older brother, and was caught skipping school. So Eddie took his place, because he was somehow more successful in skipping school.
Francis and Eddie: 50 Years Later:
Eddie Lowery’s Golf Life & Career:
Delightful and inspiring movie that I would have given 4 stars had Disney not demonized the dad.
Shia Labouf was impressive, and his young caddy delightful (reminds me of smaller Patrick Reed, whom I was rooting on to win the Honda Classic in Palm Beach, a few weeks ago)!
From: Henry Makow
Sexual “Liberation” is Illuminati Subversion
February 19, 2005
Throughout modern history Illuminati bankers have used “sexual liberation” to subvert society and establish their subtle tyranny. As Masonic revolutionary Guiseppe Mazzini said, “we corrupt in order to rule.”
The Illuminati bankers need to introduce “world government” to translate their unjust monopoly over credit into total world control.
They realized that they couldn’t take control until they destroyed the family. This was a central plank of the Communist Manifesto in 1848.
Every major “revolution” in modern history has increased Illuminati banker control and the sexual revolution is no exception.
The bankers have encouraged sexual dissipation using their various “progressive” fronts: liberalism, feminism, socialism and communism.
The great appeal of left wing movements has always been the lure of “free” sex (i.e. free of the restraints of love & marriage.)
How is free sex subversive?
A healthy society is concerned with its survival and the propagation of its values. This requires that new generations are born and raised in a healthy manner, i.e. in a nuclear family. In a healthy society, women are honored for nurturing and educating the young, a role for which they are naturally suited.
Thus, the bankers set out to undermine and disparage women’s role as wives and mothers.
They extolled “sexual liberation” because promiscuous women are less dedicated to family, and less attractive and suitable as wives and mothers. Furthermore, if sex is freely available, men have much less incentive to marry or be faithful .
Women were brainwashed to think they were being “exploited” by their family and should seek fulfillment in career instead.
At the same time, they severed sex from marriage and procreation and exalted romance as the main source of fulfillment. Hollywood practically has angels singing hosannas when the stars have sex. It created this bogus religion.
Modern women are the victim of a monstrous hoax perpetrated by the Illuminati bankers and their lackeys in media, government and education.
Women have been defrauded of a secure and essential social role, that of wife and mother. In exchange they have accepted the role of sex objects and worker drones.
They tart it up with terms like “freedom” and “independence” but many are lonely, bitter and increasingly desperate. They have been cruelly duped by an evil power. Consequently, to varying degrees they have betrayed themselves, their husbands and their children. (I don’t object to women pursuing careers, only putting them before family, if indeed they want one.)
Sex is used by the Illuminati as a reductio ad absurdum. Everything good in life, all relationships, culture, love, caring, justice, beauty, and intelligence; is flattened by what has become a sick societal obsession.
The Illuminati use sex to corrupt and debase. The pornography that floods our in-boxes is part of a widespread campaign to degrade us. A morally degraded people are a weak people, and a weak people are easily disinherited.
UPDATED 3/11/15 — after finding an email I wrote in May of 2006, in which I shared my exact measurements
Scroll down for video
Just because the official 9/11 story has been proven false (see articles linked below) doesn’t mean a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. Many thought the incoming object in the surveillance footage was too small to be a 757, and loudly claimed it was a missile instead. My findings refute that, as well as:
When the Pentagon security camera footage was released in 2006, I had a higher resolution copy on our digital TV cable box, which I recorded from Democracy Now (online footage at minute-7:25 isn’t as clear). I measured the fuselage diameter and the height of the building with a ruler, and then compared these numbers with the known numbers of the building height and the forward portion of a 757 fuselage, using cross multiplication: replacing one of numbers on the right with ‘x’, and then comparing. It’s easy to do, especially with a wide-screen TV and better quality video, which I no longer have.
The Pentagon height is easy to find: 77 feet 3.5 inches (source)
But the 757 fuselage height is harder to find. In 2006, I thought the fuselage in front of the wing was 12 feet. But the only number I can find today is 13′ 2″ (source). No distinction is made between the forward and aft section, which is clearly taller, and it’s the forward section I measured in the video (the only part visible in the frame). So the forward fuselage height is probably 12″, but may be 13′ 2″.
This is simple cross multiplication formula I used:
known Pentagon ht. ft. v. TV Pentagon in. known Pentagon ht. ft v. TV Pentagon in.
known 757 diameter ft. v. TV projectile in. X v. TV projectile in.
My measurements put the diameter of the incoming object we see here at minute-1:26 to be 9.63 feet, a little more than 2 feet less than the known diameter of the forward portion of a 757 fuselage (using the 12′ number), which was close enough for me, because it was hard to judge where the impact really was, which is where I measured the height of the Pentagon with a ruler.
I said in my email that:
“the object in the photo is at least (probably more, because I chose the closest possible impact point) 10 feet….”
On our TV, the plane measures about 3/8 inch high, while the building measures about 3 inches; though, I’m not sure where the point of impact actually was. It could have been where the building would measure even 2.5 inches or so.
I remember measuring behind the helicopter pad, but not far behind. If I put the 2.5 inch figure into the equation instead of 3 inches, the result is 11.55 feet, which is really close to the known 12 foot number [and even the 13′ 2″ number, if that is the correct height of the forward fuselage].
77 v. 3 or 77 v. 3
x v. .375 x v. .375
Cross multiplied, the results are 9.63 and 11.55 feet, respectively.
Many who have seen this video surmised that this object is far too small to be a 757, but that’s because this is shot with a wide angle lens which makes distant objects appear smaller than they really are, including the height of the Pentagon in the distance, as it radically tapers off in size.
My conclusion was that this footage shows an object the size of a large jet did hit the Pentagon. Of course, the video could have been doctored, but the Democracy Now TV image on our wide screen TV was clear enough to pretty easily measure. Many theorized that this object was far too small to be a 757, but it really isn’t. Many said this was a missile, but it’s way too large. A Tomahawk missile is only 20.4 inches in diameter, less than 2 feet!
The official story on 9/11 has been proven to be a fraud and an inside job (see my links below), but that doesn’t mean that planes didn’t hit these buildings, except for Building 7. It’s very possible they weren’t the American and United Airlines planes claimed, though.
If anyone knows of a higher res video or really clear still I’m interested. Some I’ve seen online look like the plane has been removed. The object was easily seen in the Democracy Now TV video, similar to what we see here, but clearer.
* * *
More of my 2006 email:
There are other reasons why I think a 757 hit the Pentagon, but the main one I’d like to share here is what I discovered by taking some measurements of the footage that Democracy Now recently aired; therefore, I was able to check it out on my widescreen TV. I’ll send you some of the things I sent Joel, this morning, which I think proves that what we see in this video is much larger than a missile or a Global Hawk, and is consistent with the size of a 757 fuselage.
This is kind of a hodgepodge, but the bottom line is that the diameter of the plane can be determined by measuring the height of the building at the point of impact and measuring the object (plane or missile). Because we know the building is 77 feet high, the diameter of the aircraft can also be determined, which is just about exactly the 12 feet that a 757 is. […]
On our TV, the plane measures about 3/8 inch high, while the building measures about 3 inches; though, I’m not sure where the point of impact actually was. It could have been where the building would measure even 2.5 inches or so. […]
This is the equation I used to determine the object in the photo is at least (probably more, because I chose the closest possible impact point) 10 feet in diameter, just two feet smaller than a 757.
Pentagon height (77 feet) / height of plane (unknown) = 3 inch TV measurement) / .375 inches TV measurement
77 times .375, divided by 3 equals 10 feet
Pause the video at minute-1:26
Uploaded on Jan 26, 2008
This is video footage from a security camera at the Pentagon made on 9/11 (first of 2). It shows an explosion, apparently when the building is impacted by an airliner. Relevant event in the History Commons database: May 16, 2006: Pentagon Releases Two Videos of Pentagon Crash, But Quality is Poor. Link: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/co…
(video) A&E for 9/11 Truth Architect Richard Gage on C-SPAN 8/1/14 — “The ends of the BEAMS were partially EVAPORATED! That takes 4000 DEGREE temperatures. The only thing we’re aware of that can create that is thermite”
(video) Top architect explains why 9/11 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition and Al Qaeda didn’t have the technology or access to do it. Who did? Two months before the ELEVATOR MODERNIZATION PROJECT, Nick ROCKEFELLER predicted a 9/11-like event to trigger war!
(audio) Airline Captain Philip Marshall with John B. Wells on ‘Coast to Coast AM’ 9/8/12: “The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror” — Fasten your seatbelt — the sad truth is that all of the solid evidence points to a dark collaboration between members of the Bush Administration and a covert group of Saudi government officials. The hijackers were trained at a CIA-operated airport in Arizona.
(audio) The Other 9/11 Suspects: Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. — Insider, Kevin Ryan on ‘Coast to Coast AM’ with John B. Wells, 8/31/13 — WTC was designed to survive an impact of airliners and certified to withstand intense fires!
Architect Richard Gage on 9/11 truth: “98% of those who watch this presentation end up agreeing with us…. We really only get called conspiracy theorists and kooks by those who are UNWILLING TO LOOK at the evidence.”
All of my 9/11 truth posts in reverse chronological order (latest posts appear first, 10 posts per page)