Iran's supreme leader predicts Israel's end in sharpest comments in years on Jewish state

Interesting for several reasons!

Aurora Mystery Solved?

By Ian O'Neill | Tue Jan 26, 2010 01:58 PM ET

The mystery shape in the aurora over Andenes, Norway (photograph by Per-Arne Mikalsen)

On Jan. 20, 2010, Per-Arne Mikalsen was photographing a vast aurora erupting over the northern Norwegian town of Andenes.
Because solar activity is on the increase, aurora spotters have many opportunities to see the Northern Lights. On this particular night the aurora was intense, stretching toward the southern latitudes of Norway.
In one of the photographs taken by Mikalsen was an "object" that couldn't be identified. Although Mikalsen had taken several images at the same location, just one photo showed a mysterious green parachute-like object hanging with the main aurora. (This time, it appears that the Russian military was not involved in the making of this strange shape in the sky.)

At first it seemed easy to dismiss the object as a lens flare or a spot on the camera lens, but after further study it became clear that the answer wasn't that simple.

The mystery shape in the aurora over Andenes, Norway, wider angle (photograph by Per-Arne Mikalsen)

Also, Mikalsen is no stranger to aurorae, having worked on Andøya Rocket Range (on the island of Andøya) for many years. He's seen aurorae of all shapes and sizes, but he'd never before seen a structure like this hanging in the sky.
"I have been working the Andøya Rocket Range for 25 years (the 20 last years in the management) and I have become more and more fascinated by the aurora," Mikalsen told Discovery News. "Photography is a hobby for me."
According to Mikalsen, as soon as he posted his aurora photographs on the Spaceweather.com Northern Lights Gallery, he received dozens of emails from all over the world requesting more information about the mysterious shape.
So what could it be? In correspondence with Truls Lynne Hansen, lead scientist at the Tromsø Geophysical Observatory, he doubts that the mystery object can be explained by a technical fault.
"Usually such aberrations appear when there is a small and intense source of light in the field of view, or at least so close that the light from it hits the lens," Hansen explained to me via email. "That seems not to be the case here."
"Additionally the color of the 'phenomenon' is the same as the color in the aurora, the auroral green line from atomic oxygen," Hansen continued, "so the 'phenomenon' is either a genuine auroral feature or a reflection of auroral light somewhere in space."
Hold on. A reflection of auroral light... in space? That's impossible.
Or is it?

How an Iridium flare works with sunlight, but the same should be true for other light sources, such as aurorae (astrosat.net)

The structured shape of the phenomenon, plus its distance from any light sources, seems to indicate that this isn't an equipment problem. There is also no known aurora that could do this naturally. So that leaves the "reflection from space" argument. What do we have in space that could possibly reflect the green light being emitted by the aurora?
"I agree with Pål Brekke [Senior Advisor at the Norwegian Space Centre] that a reflection from a satellite is a candidate," said Hansen. "It reminds of the so-called 'Iridium flares' -- reflections of sunlight from the regularly shaped Iridium satellites."
Satellite flares are well known by astronomers. As a satellite passes overhead, the conditions may be right for the spacecraft's solar panels or antennae to reflect sunlight down to the ground. The result is a short-lived burst of light, known as a "flare."
The network of Iridium communication satellites are best known for their flares, since they have three huge door-sized antennae that act as orbital mirrors. Witnessing an Iridium flare is immensely rewarding; the event can be predicted beforehand because these satellites have orbits that can be tracked.
My personal concern about the satellite flare theory is the question about auroral light intensity. Is the light from a large aurora bright enough to bounce off a satellite and appear as an auroral satellite flare as a point? And in turn produce a parachute-shaped, lens flare-like projection in the photo? I couldn't imagine even an Iridium satellite amplifying auroral light that much (although a stonking-huge orbital solar power array of the future might do a better job).
"The intensity of an intense aurora is not far from the intensity of moonlight, which is 1/100,000 of sun's light, and the solar Iridium flares apparently are several orders of magnitude stronger than this 'auroral flare,' so the intensity does not immediately exclude the satellite reflection hypothesis," said Hansen.

BIG PIC: See the whole scene as captured by Per-Arne Mikalsen.

A weak auroral flare seems feasible, but as pointed out by astronomer Daniel Fischer via Twitter, the green flare might not have anything to do with reflected aurora light, it could just be the color of the lens coating. The lens flare was therefore the result of internal reflections inside the camera lens caused by the bright lights in the lower left-hand corner of the frame.
"It has the typical caustic shape and it is opposite several bright point lights," Fischer observed. "Green color could be caused by lens coatings."
Although more research will need to be done, it certainly seems plausible that Per-Arne Mikalsen serendipitously took a photograph of a satellite flare (possibly an Iridium satellite).
What makes this revelation even more exciting is that we've never seen an auroral reflection from a satellite before (if it's not a lens flare, that is).
"I have, by the way, never seen or heard of a similar phenomenon," Hansen said.
Special thanks to Avi Joseph for bringing my attention to the strange shape in the aurora and thanks to Margit Dyrland, research fellow at Kjell Henriksen Observatory (Svalbard) who helped me track down the experts.

I am an Extremist. Whom do YOU serve? Re-Post

I'm an extremist.

At least according to the standards outlined by the Department of Homeland Security, I will proudly wear that title in the name of Jesus Christ. I have said it before and I will say it again, this country has fallen and I believe the hand of God is now off this country. Politically, we are now looking like 1930s Germany and Obama is our Hitler! And we, as a country and as Christians, refuse to do anything about it... just like the German people of the 1940s.

Are you so suppressed by and scared of our own Government that you wont stand up for righteousness? I tell you, the home of the brave was not intended to be a place of fear. If you fear man then you fear the world and the Father of Lies. FEAR NO MAN and speak out about injustice let your voice be heard as a lion! If you sit and do nothing, then I ask you: who are you serving?


The following article can be found at:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090417.html


DHS -"Disgruntled Military Veterans"-"Rightwing Extremists"

On the heels of the now infamous Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has just released an "assessment" report entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." With virtually no references, documentation, or annotations, the report, which was released to all branches of American law enforcement, demonizes a host of citizens as having the capacity to become violent "rightwing extremists."

The DHS report warns law enforcement to be on guard against anyone who opposes illegal immigration, same-sex marriage, "free trade agreements," gun control, the "New World Order," "One World Government," the outsourcing of American jobs, the "perceived" threat to U.S. sovereignty by foreign powers, abortion, "declarations of martial law," "the creation of citizen detention camps," "suspension of the U.S. Constitution," or the abridgement of State authority. Also branded are people who believe in "end times" prophecies, and who "stockpile" food, ammunition, or firearms.


I dare say that at least 75% (or more) of the American people have beliefs that fall into one or more categories of the above list. If you are one of them, DHS suspects you of being a "rightwing extremist." But there is more.


The DHS report specifically warns law enforcement to be on guard against "disgruntled military veterans," especially veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You read it right.


Well, if anyone has a legitimate reason to be disgruntled, it is America's veterans. After taking an oath to defend and support America and the U.S. Constitution, they were ordered to fight a preemptive war of aggression in Iraq; they were ordered to fight without a Declaration of War; they were ordered to put their lives on the line, not for the safety and security of the American people, but for international bankers, the United Nations, and the "global economy." Then they returned home to a Department of Veteran's Affairs that treats them as second-class citizens: VA hospitals are often dirty and out-of-date; medical treatments are postponed; medications often take months to arrive; and much of the promised care is never delivered at all. If anyone has a right to be disgruntled, it is a military veteran.


That said, where is the evidence in the DHS report to substantiate the necessity for American law enforcement to be on guard against potential violence committed by military veterans? It doesn't exist. It is a blanket charge without any substantiation whatsoever. The same is true for the rest of the report. Without documentation, substantiation, or annotation, the report broadly brushes a host of American citizens as being potential "extremists" simply because of their political opinions. This is the same kind of political profiling that we saw in the Missouri report.


Veterans groups nationwide are rightfully "up in arms" over the DHS report. Feeling the wrath of public opinion, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano yesterday "apologized" for "offending" veterans.


Fox News reported, "American Legion National Commander David Rehbein, who blasted the report earlier this week as incomplete and politically-biased, said he was pleased with Napolitano's apology." But not all veterans groups share Rehbein's spirit of forgiveness.


Pete Hegseth, chairman of Vets for Freedom, snarled, "It wasn't an apology in my view. It was one of those non-apology apologies. She was sorry that veterans were offended. She should either apologize for the content of the report as it stands or they should rewrite the report and reissue it." Hegseth has it right!

Napolitano did not apologize for the report; she only said she was sorry that vets were "offended" by the report. There is a vast difference. This is the typical cow manure that we are accustomed to from non-elected bureaucrats, especially federal bureaucrats.


And please notice that Napolitano offered no "apology" to pro-lifers, proponents of the Second Amendment, constitutionalists, Christians, or anyone else. She couldn't care less if any of these folks were offended. She was only sorry that veterans were offended.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) also rightly blasted the DHS report, saying its portrayal of veterans was "offensive and unacceptable."

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said, "The rightwing report uses broad generalizations about veterans, pro-life groups, federalists and supporters of gun rights. That's like saying if you love puppies, you might be susceptible to recruitment by the Animal Liberation Front. It is ridiculous and deeply offensive to millions of Americans."

Ladies and gentlemen, the American people must put a stop to this burgeoning political profiling that is currently being forced upon law enforcement. I urge every reader of this column to immediately contact your U.S. House member and two U.S. Senators, demanding that they put a stop to this right now!

In the meantime, I believe we can also assume that the source of all of these reports is either Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) or the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), or both. If this is true (and we desperately need some attorneys who are willing to file lawsuits in which evidentiary material may be gleaned during discovery to substantiate these assumptions), the SPLC and ADL--and those government bureaucrats who assist them--need to be exposed and held accountable. The days of political "witch-hunting" must come to an end. Furthermore, the days of radical leftwing organizations, such as SPLC and ADL, being allowed to use federal and state police agencies to demonize and terrorize private citizens because of their political beliefs must also come to an end.


Obviously, DHS is still stinging from the embarrassment and setback of the Missouri report, in which three of last year's Presidential candidates (Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself) were personally named. In essence, people who voted for and/or supported any one of us were directly labeled as being potential dangerous "militia members." This blatant and outlandish accusation resulted in a maelstrom of protest, which concluded with the report being completely withdrawn. And this is exactly what people should demand in the case of the DHS report: it should be immediately withdrawn!

The current DHS report does not include personal names, except the name of Timothy McVeigh, who is used as an example of what any "disgruntled military veteran" could become. It does, however, regurgitate the familiar themes of the Missouri report: the same groups; the same beliefs; the same generalizations; the same innuendoes; the same broad brushing; the same warnings; the same mischaracterizations; the same political profiling.


As with the Missouri officials, Janet Napolitano has made a critical misjudgment. By including veterans in her broad sweep of "rightwing extremists," she has shown her true colors: and they are not Red, White and Blue. Veterans throughout America should insist that not only must the report be rescinded, but Ms. Napolitano must also resign.

Signs in the heavens?

Darwin Was Misguided

Hello out there. I trust that the new year finds you doing well, or at least a little better than the last twelve months.

Well tonight I was eating my dinner and enjoying a discussion about -who else- God. All of a sudden, my ten-year-old son starts talking about his day at school. Funny when you ask "how was school" you don't always get the full story right away. It seems the low-light of his day was in the library, where the librarian directed my son's class to a evolution web site. The kids had to watch a video on "his holiness" Charles Darwin. Then they were tested on what they learned (which, by the way, is a unproven theory presented as fact).

Here is my problem (and very soon to be the schools problem) with that: Don't lie to us or our kids by hiding the truth under the guise of fact. Not a shred of factual evidence has been found in 150 years! To the evolutionist I say: its time to find a new religion. But to the school I will say: don't teach my son theory in grade school and present it as fact. Even worse, not all the facts were given. Here are some quotes  from "the man" himself:

1) "False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness."


 2) "To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact."


3) "As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."


4) "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory, is it then a science or faith?" 

5) "The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a
more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

6) (From a witness at Darwin's deathbed) "He seemed greatly distressed, his fingers twitched nervously, and a look of agony came over his face as he said: 'I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.'"

I found the following on the internet. It is a saddening possibility. 

The Darwin Family Bible preserved in the Darwin Museum is unmarked except for an unattributable small, backwards pencil tick opposite the first few verses of Hebrews 6.

Now, no one can say that this tick was placed by Darwin (unless he used it elsewhere), but surely it is a surprising coincidence that the only mark in the Bible is in the very book that Lady Hope, the witness at his deathbed, said was his favorite. It was possibly the same family Bible he was reading when she entered his room.

But that is not all. If we examine these early verses of Hebrews 6, we find that they speak of those who had "tasted the heavenly gift" but fell away and could not be renewed. We give the relevant verses:

(v4) For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, (5) and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, (6) if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (7) For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringing forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: (8) But, that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected and is nigh unto cursing: whose end is to be burned.

These verses may have spoken loudly to Darwin. He failed to become a doctor as his father had wanted, so he was planning on entering the church, intending to become a country parson. He took theology at Cambridge, where he was so impressed by the logical arguments in support of creation in Paley's Natural Theology that he memorized them by heart. Following this, he embarked on a ship called the Beagle for his infamous world wildlife tour, and gradually he drew away from religion until, due to his writings on evolution and possibly the loss of a favorite daughter, he eventually became an agnostic.

His damaging legacy lives on in the hearts of non-believers. They point to a religion and say this is fact!
I point to my Bible and say, this is fact! Why aren't opposing theories taught in schools? Because the list of theories would grow as more religions would seek to have their versions of creation included in the curriculum.
The easiest way to fix this is to NOT teach evolution in schools... period!