This post here is a continuation of the discussion in the “Incomplete Analysis” section.
I also used to think that the problem was that bishops just didn't want to deal with the problem because it is too emotionally wrenching.
But at this point it's not that simple.
Even after the lawsuits began to turn into a flood in the early 1980s, and the word spread among the bishops that THE basis of liability in the lawsuits was bishops shifting priest-wolves around to new, unwary flocks, THE BISHOPS CONTINUED SHIFTING PRIEST-WOLVES AROUND TO NEW, UNWARY FLOCKS.
MOST of the priests were being shifted MULTIPLE times. When the priest-shifting bishops look at the files following the priests being shifted, they know what the score is.
So, think: What is the difference between, on the one hand...
(a) a bishop shifting a priest, being followed by sexual predator accusations, to his third parish, with no warning to the new flock, aware that lawsuits are being filed, at that moment, to make money from the bishops decisions like that which abet other priests' sex acts;
...and, on the other hand...
(b) a bishop AGREEING WITH the predator priest, by a wink, to shift the predator priest to another location, SO THAT the predator priest will have access to a new group of innocents from which to solicit sex paid for with Church funds.
The difference is the space between these two lines...
//
...because in the first case there is no wink.
Stand back and look at the Church, panoramically.
Several years ago, to "come to grips with the problem," the Church paid for the John Jay Study.
What did the Study do? Look at available data, and use various investigative measures and statistical means to estimate the true dimensions of the problem?
No.
It counted beans.
The John Jay Study counted only:
(1) cases in which there had been an admission by the priest;
(2) cases in which there had been a criminal conviction of the non-admitting priest; and
(3) cases in which money was paid-out by the Church.
By doing this, the study found a little over 10,000 victims.
Yet, investigation after investigation by police and reporters have found that in the vast majority of cases, BISHOPS FAILED TO REPORT PARENTS' CLAIMS TO AUTHORITIES.
There are CLEARLY several tens of thousands of such instances generated by the mass production efforts of notoriously promiscuous priests. (Believe this, Tom: As I pointed out in a previous article here, the evidence is enormous that male homosexuals are innately promiscuous.)
The unreported cases were not studied at all. The bishops did not go to the John Jay people and say, "Listen, we are actually aware of about 3 times as many accusations as there are confirmed cases."
In effect, our current pope is accused of LYING about such cases.
Compare this NYT article...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/europe/27pope.html
...with this admission by the Judicial Vicar of the Munich Diocese...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/03/26/2010-03-26_before_he_became_pope_benedict_told_german_priest_accused_of_pedophilia_hed_get_.html
The New York Daily News article says that RATZINGER CHAIRED THE MEETING WHICH TRANSFERED THE SEXUALLY-ABUSIVE PRIEST, WHO HAD BEEN PLACED WITH THE MUNICH ARCHDIOCESE FOR THE PRECISE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING PSYCHOTHERAPY TO TRY TO STOP HOMOSEXUAL-STYLE ANAL AND ORAL ABUSE OF BOYS BY THE PRIEST, TO FULL DUTIES IN A NEW MUNICH PARISH WITH NO WARNING.
In effect his defense, today, is, "I got behind the wheel of the car, but I did not touch the steering wheel, and I was not even AWARE OF the steering wheel -- so don't accuse me of driving the car into that crowd."
In effect, you are looking at no change.
In effect, after DECADES of lawsuits, the same attitudes seem to be prevailing.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not ready to quit the Church.
I love the Church.
But that's the point: I love the Church.
So, read these words carefully: EVEN OUR POPE HAS ENGAGED IN THE BEHAVIOR WHICH ENABLES HOMOSEXUAL PRIESTS, WITH ZERO SELF CONTROL, TO PREY UPON NEW AND UNWARY FLOCKS.
AND HIS PRESENT MODE IS REALLY AN EXTENSION OF THE SECRET TRANSFER POLICY: RUN AND HIDE.
Don't be discouraged. Pray. God always answers prayers.
But remember: Our nasty public criticism of such behavior may be part of the answer to our own prayers.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The Mentos-Generated Diet Coke Volcano
Okay, it was inevitable. I had to get to this subject eventually.
Yes, it works wonderfully.
Take a 3 litre plastic bottle of Diet Coke outside. It's very, very important that you do this outside. And you use a diet soda to avoid attracting ants.
Pour-off the soda carefully, without shaking, until the top of the soda in the bottle is below the narrower part of the bottle. You don't shake the bottle to avoid losing fizz. And you lower the level of the liquid in the bottle because we are going to be dropping in multiple Mentos, and having the soda a little bit below the neck minimizes the odds that any of the Mentos will be fired-out of the bottle.
Put the bottle in the middle of the lawn, away from people, away from the house. You put it on the lawn so that the ground will absord the fountain, and away from the house that that you won't discolor anyone's property, and away from people so that they won't be wet, or hurt by the fountain. (I doubt that soda in the eyes is a good thing.)
Make sure your hands are very dry. Take 5 Mentos out of the package, and stack them carefully between your thumb and index finger. You make sure that your hands are dry, so that the Mentos won't stick to your skin. You stack them carefully so that yon can make all 5 fall at the same moment into the soda.
Position the stack of Mentos over the bottle opening, drop them all in at once, and run.
WHOOOOOOOSH!
The soda will come surging-up out of the bottle and shoot about 12 feet into the air.
The reason why this works seems to be that calcium "pills" like Mentos are covered with "zillions" of microscopic nooks and crannies called "nucleation sites" which form "nucleuses" or center points for gas trapped in the soda to begin escaping and forming bubbles.
Yes, it works wonderfully.
Take a 3 litre plastic bottle of Diet Coke outside. It's very, very important that you do this outside. And you use a diet soda to avoid attracting ants.
Pour-off the soda carefully, without shaking, until the top of the soda in the bottle is below the narrower part of the bottle. You don't shake the bottle to avoid losing fizz. And you lower the level of the liquid in the bottle because we are going to be dropping in multiple Mentos, and having the soda a little bit below the neck minimizes the odds that any of the Mentos will be fired-out of the bottle.
Put the bottle in the middle of the lawn, away from people, away from the house. You put it on the lawn so that the ground will absord the fountain, and away from the house that that you won't discolor anyone's property, and away from people so that they won't be wet, or hurt by the fountain. (I doubt that soda in the eyes is a good thing.)
Make sure your hands are very dry. Take 5 Mentos out of the package, and stack them carefully between your thumb and index finger. You make sure that your hands are dry, so that the Mentos won't stick to your skin. You stack them carefully so that yon can make all 5 fall at the same moment into the soda.
Position the stack of Mentos over the bottle opening, drop them all in at once, and run.
WHOOOOOOOSH!
The soda will come surging-up out of the bottle and shoot about 12 feet into the air.
The reason why this works seems to be that calcium "pills" like Mentos are covered with "zillions" of microscopic nooks and crannies called "nucleation sites" which form "nucleuses" or center points for gas trapped in the soda to begin escaping and forming bubbles.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Part 3 of the UFO Abduction Phenomenon and Revelation 13
After telling us that this "beast" he saw in his vision "was like a leopard," the author John says, "but it had feet like a bear's." Revelation 13:2b.
In other words, there was something about this "beast" in John's vision which made his feet less like leopard feet and more like bear feet.
How about non-retractable claws?
Victim after victim of the Abduction Phenomenon reports that the almond-eyed Abductor has long, sharp claws for nails, not ordinary nails. Even the author of "Communion," Whitley Strieber, observes this, in his book. See P. 168, 1987 hardcover edition.
In other words, it has non-retractable claws, like a bear.
Here is the sketch of one UFOlogist, Leonard H. Stringfield, of the clawed fingers of the almond-eyed UFO occupants...
In other words, there was something about this "beast" in John's vision which made his feet less like leopard feet and more like bear feet.
How about non-retractable claws?
Victim after victim of the Abduction Phenomenon reports that the almond-eyed Abductor has long, sharp claws for nails, not ordinary nails. Even the author of "Communion," Whitley Strieber, observes this, in his book. See P. 168, 1987 hardcover edition.
In other words, it has non-retractable claws, like a bear.
Here is the sketch of one UFOlogist, Leonard H. Stringfield, of the clawed fingers of the almond-eyed UFO occupants...
Incomplete Analysis of Gay Scout or Gay Priest Issue = "Lying"
Years ago, when The Philadelphia Inquirer first began to rail against priests molesting young men and boys, Inquirer articles would persistently call the priests "pedophiles." One would always see the word "pedophiles" 10 or 20 times in any given article -- but never, ever the word "homosexuals."
Finally, the Inquirer began to (a) criticize the Catholic Church for "pedophile priests," AT THE SAME TIME it (b) criticized the Catholic Church for adopting a policy of banning "homosexuals" from the seminary.
I thought, "That's it! I'm sick of this!"
I e-mailed the writer of an article criticizing "pedophile priests," telling him that pedophiles prefer female victims 9-to-1, whereas the guilty priests clearly preferred male victims 9-to-1, which made it 9 x 9 or 81 times more likely that the average priest WASN'T a "pedophile," but simply "gay" -- a homosexual. I cited him two on-line investigations verifying that the priest who was the subject of the writer's most recent article was "doing" an ADULT male while he "did" juvenile males, and I said, "Do you know what that is called? That is called 'homosexual.'" I then pointed-out ANOTHER prominent case where investigation showed that the priest offender was "doing" ADULT males WHILE he "did" juvenile males, and I said, "Do you know what you'll find if you investigate every priest? You'll find that virtually ALL of them are simply homosexual.
"So," I continued, "When the Inquirer runs articles CRITICIZING the Church for banning homosexuals from the seminaries, and then CRITICIZES the existence of 'pedophile priests,' it is really telling the Catholic Church to go 'north' and 'south' at the same time."
The Inquirer article writer responded, "Gee! Good point! I never thought of that!," and then he continued calling offender priests "pedophiles" without ever mentioning the word "homosexuals" or "homosexual conduct" in future articles.
The Court system is in on the contradiction, too, in the case of Boy Scouts of America.
Both the media and the courts also go after the Boy Scouts from both ends of the issue.
Suppose the Scouts were to announce a policy of Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts in the same tents at night during camping trips.
The country would justifiably go wild. People would ask, in anger, "Have they flipped? Are they crazy?"
Simple question: Why isn't knowingly putting a gay boy or a gay Scout leader in the same tent with another male THE EXACT SAME THING?
There's good evidence that putting gays in tents with other males is even worse than mixing boys and girls in tents. Various studies have found that male homosexuals are enormously promiscuous. A 2004 University of Chicago study recorded a promiscuity problem that was so bad that "chaste" was defined as "15 partners or less." Only 12.3% of those questioned had had 15 partners or less. 60% had had more than 30 partners. More than 40% had had more than 60 partners. Sex with 60 people of the same gender.
One psychologist proposed that male-male sex involved "two grazers," whereas male-female sex involved "one grazer and one person seeking a stable relationship."
The media and the courts, after they support lawsuits against the Boy Scouts for "bias against gays," support lawsuits for sexual molestation of boys and young men in the Scouts, the same way they go after the Church on this.
The American media, and the courts, need to get their policies straight.
Even this morning, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an article criticizing the Boy Scouts for feeding into bias against homosexuals, but, as usual, says nothing -- not a single word -- about the problem of mixing heterosexuals and promiscuity-prone effeminate males in the same tents.
Right now, when the media and the courts refuse to talk about male homosexual promiscuity, and support infusion of homosexuals into the position of priest or Scout leaders or Scouts, in effect they are lying, lying, lying, lying, lying.
Stop the lying.
Finally, the Inquirer began to (a) criticize the Catholic Church for "pedophile priests," AT THE SAME TIME it (b) criticized the Catholic Church for adopting a policy of banning "homosexuals" from the seminary.
I thought, "That's it! I'm sick of this!"
I e-mailed the writer of an article criticizing "pedophile priests," telling him that pedophiles prefer female victims 9-to-1, whereas the guilty priests clearly preferred male victims 9-to-1, which made it 9 x 9 or 81 times more likely that the average priest WASN'T a "pedophile," but simply "gay" -- a homosexual. I cited him two on-line investigations verifying that the priest who was the subject of the writer's most recent article was "doing" an ADULT male while he "did" juvenile males, and I said, "Do you know what that is called? That is called 'homosexual.'" I then pointed-out ANOTHER prominent case where investigation showed that the priest offender was "doing" ADULT males WHILE he "did" juvenile males, and I said, "Do you know what you'll find if you investigate every priest? You'll find that virtually ALL of them are simply homosexual.
"So," I continued, "When the Inquirer runs articles CRITICIZING the Church for banning homosexuals from the seminaries, and then CRITICIZES the existence of 'pedophile priests,' it is really telling the Catholic Church to go 'north' and 'south' at the same time."
The Inquirer article writer responded, "Gee! Good point! I never thought of that!," and then he continued calling offender priests "pedophiles" without ever mentioning the word "homosexuals" or "homosexual conduct" in future articles.
The Court system is in on the contradiction, too, in the case of Boy Scouts of America.
Both the media and the courts also go after the Boy Scouts from both ends of the issue.
Suppose the Scouts were to announce a policy of Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts in the same tents at night during camping trips.
The country would justifiably go wild. People would ask, in anger, "Have they flipped? Are they crazy?"
Simple question: Why isn't knowingly putting a gay boy or a gay Scout leader in the same tent with another male THE EXACT SAME THING?
There's good evidence that putting gays in tents with other males is even worse than mixing boys and girls in tents. Various studies have found that male homosexuals are enormously promiscuous. A 2004 University of Chicago study recorded a promiscuity problem that was so bad that "chaste" was defined as "15 partners or less." Only 12.3% of those questioned had had 15 partners or less. 60% had had more than 30 partners. More than 40% had had more than 60 partners. Sex with 60 people of the same gender.
One psychologist proposed that male-male sex involved "two grazers," whereas male-female sex involved "one grazer and one person seeking a stable relationship."
The media and the courts, after they support lawsuits against the Boy Scouts for "bias against gays," support lawsuits for sexual molestation of boys and young men in the Scouts, the same way they go after the Church on this.
The American media, and the courts, need to get their policies straight.
Even this morning, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an article criticizing the Boy Scouts for feeding into bias against homosexuals, but, as usual, says nothing -- not a single word -- about the problem of mixing heterosexuals and promiscuity-prone effeminate males in the same tents.
Right now, when the media and the courts refuse to talk about male homosexual promiscuity, and support infusion of homosexuals into the position of priest or Scout leaders or Scouts, in effect they are lying, lying, lying, lying, lying.
Stop the lying.
Why Do Rockets Go Up?
The title to this article seems simple enough. And everyone gives the same answer: Because of the fire which comes out of the bottom of the rocket.
But if they are asked the next question -- "Why does the fire coming out of the bottom make the rocket go up?" -- most people draw a blank, or they have an odd misconception that the fire coming out of the bottom pushes against the ground to make the rocket go up.
But if you address the "pushing against the ground or pushing against the air" idea by asking, "Oh, so in space where there is no ground or air to push against rockets have no effect?," suddenly they are very puzzled because it dawns on them that they have no idea why rockets go up.
In fact, it's not the fire pushing down which makes the rocket go up, but rather the fire pushing up against the rocket which makes the rocket go up. The fire pushes up against the rocket at two places -- inside the combustion chamber, where the fuel explodes, and the explosion of the fuel pushes up against the top of the inside of the combustion chamber.
And the exploding fuel molecules coming out of the bottom of the rocket push up against the exhaust cone.
The idea is this: When the rocket fuel explodes, explodes, explodes in a constant stream of activity, the molecules in the explosion bounce around inside that combustion chamber with extraordinary violence. They bounce against the left side of the combustion chamber -- but because they bounce against the right side, too, those bounces cancel each other out and have no impact of rocket motion.
The firey, bouncing molecules also bounce against the TOP of the inside of the combustion chamber, very hard, and they would bounce against the bottom and cancel-out the bouncing against the top -- except that there is no bottom -- there is a hole, there. As a consequence, the upward push of the bouncing fuel explosion molecules is unopposed, and not canceled-out, and so those molecules succeed in pushing the rocket up.
The same hot molecules get to push the rocket up a second time, when they bounce against the sides of the rocket exhaust cone. When they pound sideways against the cone, because the cone is angled the molecules bounce down off the cone sides, pushing the rocket up again.
So, those two surface -- the top of the inside of the combustion chamber, and the angled sides of the exhaust cone -- are the two places whwere the rocket's fiery exhaust, even though it is coming DOWN out of the rocket, pushes UP.
What the firey exhaust "hits" outside the rocket does not affect rocket motion.
But if they are asked the next question -- "Why does the fire coming out of the bottom make the rocket go up?" -- most people draw a blank, or they have an odd misconception that the fire coming out of the bottom pushes against the ground to make the rocket go up.
But if you address the "pushing against the ground or pushing against the air" idea by asking, "Oh, so in space where there is no ground or air to push against rockets have no effect?," suddenly they are very puzzled because it dawns on them that they have no idea why rockets go up.
In fact, it's not the fire pushing down which makes the rocket go up, but rather the fire pushing up against the rocket which makes the rocket go up. The fire pushes up against the rocket at two places -- inside the combustion chamber, where the fuel explodes, and the explosion of the fuel pushes up against the top of the inside of the combustion chamber.
And the exploding fuel molecules coming out of the bottom of the rocket push up against the exhaust cone.
The idea is this: When the rocket fuel explodes, explodes, explodes in a constant stream of activity, the molecules in the explosion bounce around inside that combustion chamber with extraordinary violence. They bounce against the left side of the combustion chamber -- but because they bounce against the right side, too, those bounces cancel each other out and have no impact of rocket motion.
The firey, bouncing molecules also bounce against the TOP of the inside of the combustion chamber, very hard, and they would bounce against the bottom and cancel-out the bouncing against the top -- except that there is no bottom -- there is a hole, there. As a consequence, the upward push of the bouncing fuel explosion molecules is unopposed, and not canceled-out, and so those molecules succeed in pushing the rocket up.
The same hot molecules get to push the rocket up a second time, when they bounce against the sides of the rocket exhaust cone. When they pound sideways against the cone, because the cone is angled the molecules bounce down off the cone sides, pushing the rocket up again.
So, those two surface -- the top of the inside of the combustion chamber, and the angled sides of the exhaust cone -- are the two places whwere the rocket's fiery exhaust, even though it is coming DOWN out of the rocket, pushes UP.
What the firey exhaust "hits" outside the rocket does not affect rocket motion.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Message to His Holiness Pope Benedicy XVI
Holy Father,
Look at what they have you doing ... hiding behind the words of Cardinals, like Eve hiding in the trees after she realizes that she is naked, after you transfered wolves to new, unwary flocks.
Wake up, Holy Father, wake up.
You can do better than that.
Shock the world. Shock the Devil.
Look at what they have you doing ... hiding behind the words of Cardinals, like Eve hiding in the trees after she realizes that she is naked, after you transfered wolves to new, unwary flocks.
Wake up, Holy Father, wake up.
You can do better than that.
Shock the world. Shock the Devil.
...But, Sometimes, It Is Just the Weather and People's Imagination
In Conisholme, Lincolnshire, England last year, witnesses reported seeing a brilliantly-lighted UFO attacking a wind turbine farm with tentacles, causing a turbine to lose a blade which was dropped to the ground.
Here are some eyewitness reports...
1. County councilor for the area Robert Palmer said he had seen a “round, white light that seemed to be hovering”. Mr Palmer said: “I actually saw a white light – a round, white light that seemed to be hovering. “That is the only way I can explain it – it wasn’t a flare-like light – it was just round, white light with a slight red edge to it that seemed to be over the wind turbines.”
2. John Harrison, a local witness, described how he looked out of his landing window and saw a massive ball of light with tentacles going right down to the ground over the wind farm. He said: "It was huge. With the tentacles it looked just like an octopus."
3. Witness named as ‘Shelia’ commented, ‘I’m a very light sleeper and I didn’t hear or see a thing on Sunday night,’ said the 67 year old householder, ‘I hope that one day we will see aliens, but I doubt it will happen in that field. I’ve lived here for 20 years and nothing interesting has ever happened here. Except them building the wind farm, of course.’
4. Dorothy Willows, who lives a mile and a half from the crash site, commented: “The lights were moving across the sky towards the wind farm. Then I saw a low flying object. It was skimming across the sky towards the turbines.”
5. John Harrison, a local resident described looking at the farm out of his window and seeing “a massive ball of light with tentacles going right down to the ground”.
I should add this interesting detail...
6. Ecotricity, the Stroud, England-based power provider has recovered substantial wreckage from the site including the missing turbine blade (contrary to earlier reports of it being ‘missing’ from the site) and smaller fragments.
The following was my analysis, a version of which I e-mailed to the insurance carrier for the wind farm...
When we sit in our little homes in our little towns surround by trees and fences and so forth, we have one view of the environment and weather. We think, "That's what the weather is like," and we make a second mental jump: "That's what the weather is like in all environments."
But it doesn't really work that way.
When you have a 200 foot high structure isolated on a flat ocean or flat plain, we find that things are different. Isolated high objects can generate lightning in clear weather -- even under cloudless skies!
What is happening is that when air moves the air molecules rubbing against one another "steal" one another's electrons. Imbalances in the molecules in the air masses -- weight differences, differences in "shaking" speed, or Brownian motion velocity, cause imbalances in the mass which tend to feed on themselves -- heavier molecules which have had their electrons "stolen" from them end up on the bottoms of air masses, while lighter ones with too many electrons end up on top of the air mass.
So, the bottoms of turbulent air masses tend to be "electron deprived" and therefore electron hungry.
Normally, cities full of structures making the surface irregular bleed-off these electrical differences into the air constantly, so that in cities the imbalance is chronically addressed, so that city people don't get the chance to see lightning out of a clear sky because the electricity never has a chance to build up.
But out in the country or on the sea, things are different. If we sail a 100 foot high "tall ship" out into the sea, or put a 200 foot high wind turbine out on a flat plain, we have functionally erected an enormous lightning rod.
When we do that, the static charge of air masses and the difference between them and the ground suddenly become relevant, and people begin to see a phenomenon that they never knew existed.
St. Elmo's fire -- slow static build-up in a ship out on the sea, as the ship acts like a giant lightning rod, easily visible at night; and lightning without storm clouds overhead.
I think that that is what happened at the Conisholme Wind Farm.
Weather conditions and humidity were just right, one night. The air mass above the wind turbines began to slowly develop a charge different from that of the ground, as lighter molecules bumped against and stole electrons from heavier molecules in the air mass, and then zipped-up to the top of the air mass, leaving the bottom of the mass electron hungry.
Electrons in the ground beneath the turbines, attracted by the electron-hungry air mass above them, "rushed to the rescue" They gathered in the ground beneath the turbines, and rush up the turbine towers, through the hub, into the slowly-rotating blade which happened at that moment to be highest, and therefore closest to the electrically charged air mass.
As the turbine blades turned, tens of thousands of volts of static electricity rushed out of the blades turning down, and into the blades going up.
This happens again and again and again and again. The blades get hotter and hotter where they are narrowest -- at the neck near the hub.
Inside the blades, the air is also getting hotter and hotter -- and compressed.
As the electricity builds, the towers began to glow with St. Elmo's fire. The highest blade began to develop ball lightning. Voila -- a UFO -- the ball lightning -- with "tentacles," the surrounding towers glowing with St. Elmo's fire.
The UFO looked like it was moving as the blades move slowly.
Suddenly, BOOM! -- the super-heated neck of one of the fiberglass blades couldn't take the heat anymore, and split. Superheated compressed air in the blade rushed out, launching the blade like a rocket. WHOOSH! The blade rocketed from the wind farm at hundreds of miles per hour, glowing as it flew from heat of the electricity that had passed through it, and St. Elmo's fire.
The next morning, onlookers couldn't find the missing blade -- it was in someone's back yard, a mile away. So, initial reports were that the blade was missing.
Utility workers flying a helicopter spot the blade from the air. The utility did not want the public to know that their turbines can launch turbine blades like rockets at nearby homes, so they kept it hush-hush, and dispatched a truck in the wee hours of the morning to quietly retrieve that blade and drop it off at the bottom of the tower.
The utility, happy that the public is distracted by the UFO speculation, laughed at UFO reports in the press but actually included that as a possible cause in their subsaequent public analyses.
That analysis explains it all -- the UFO, the "tentacles," the UFO seen "skimming across the sky" toward the turbines -- it was actually the missing blade flying from the destroyed turbine -- and why the blade was first reported missing, but subsequently seen in plain sight at the bottom of the tower.
Here are some eyewitness reports...
1. County councilor for the area Robert Palmer said he had seen a “round, white light that seemed to be hovering”. Mr Palmer said: “I actually saw a white light – a round, white light that seemed to be hovering. “That is the only way I can explain it – it wasn’t a flare-like light – it was just round, white light with a slight red edge to it that seemed to be over the wind turbines.”
2. John Harrison, a local witness, described how he looked out of his landing window and saw a massive ball of light with tentacles going right down to the ground over the wind farm. He said: "It was huge. With the tentacles it looked just like an octopus."
3. Witness named as ‘Shelia’ commented, ‘I’m a very light sleeper and I didn’t hear or see a thing on Sunday night,’ said the 67 year old householder, ‘I hope that one day we will see aliens, but I doubt it will happen in that field. I’ve lived here for 20 years and nothing interesting has ever happened here. Except them building the wind farm, of course.’
4. Dorothy Willows, who lives a mile and a half from the crash site, commented: “The lights were moving across the sky towards the wind farm. Then I saw a low flying object. It was skimming across the sky towards the turbines.”
5. John Harrison, a local resident described looking at the farm out of his window and seeing “a massive ball of light with tentacles going right down to the ground”.
I should add this interesting detail...
6. Ecotricity, the Stroud, England-based power provider has recovered substantial wreckage from the site including the missing turbine blade (contrary to earlier reports of it being ‘missing’ from the site) and smaller fragments.
The following was my analysis, a version of which I e-mailed to the insurance carrier for the wind farm...
When we sit in our little homes in our little towns surround by trees and fences and so forth, we have one view of the environment and weather. We think, "That's what the weather is like," and we make a second mental jump: "That's what the weather is like in all environments."
But it doesn't really work that way.
When you have a 200 foot high structure isolated on a flat ocean or flat plain, we find that things are different. Isolated high objects can generate lightning in clear weather -- even under cloudless skies!
What is happening is that when air moves the air molecules rubbing against one another "steal" one another's electrons. Imbalances in the molecules in the air masses -- weight differences, differences in "shaking" speed, or Brownian motion velocity, cause imbalances in the mass which tend to feed on themselves -- heavier molecules which have had their electrons "stolen" from them end up on the bottoms of air masses, while lighter ones with too many electrons end up on top of the air mass.
So, the bottoms of turbulent air masses tend to be "electron deprived" and therefore electron hungry.
Normally, cities full of structures making the surface irregular bleed-off these electrical differences into the air constantly, so that in cities the imbalance is chronically addressed, so that city people don't get the chance to see lightning out of a clear sky because the electricity never has a chance to build up.
But out in the country or on the sea, things are different. If we sail a 100 foot high "tall ship" out into the sea, or put a 200 foot high wind turbine out on a flat plain, we have functionally erected an enormous lightning rod.
When we do that, the static charge of air masses and the difference between them and the ground suddenly become relevant, and people begin to see a phenomenon that they never knew existed.
St. Elmo's fire -- slow static build-up in a ship out on the sea, as the ship acts like a giant lightning rod, easily visible at night; and lightning without storm clouds overhead.
I think that that is what happened at the Conisholme Wind Farm.
Weather conditions and humidity were just right, one night. The air mass above the wind turbines began to slowly develop a charge different from that of the ground, as lighter molecules bumped against and stole electrons from heavier molecules in the air mass, and then zipped-up to the top of the air mass, leaving the bottom of the mass electron hungry.
Electrons in the ground beneath the turbines, attracted by the electron-hungry air mass above them, "rushed to the rescue" They gathered in the ground beneath the turbines, and rush up the turbine towers, through the hub, into the slowly-rotating blade which happened at that moment to be highest, and therefore closest to the electrically charged air mass.
As the turbine blades turned, tens of thousands of volts of static electricity rushed out of the blades turning down, and into the blades going up.
This happens again and again and again and again. The blades get hotter and hotter where they are narrowest -- at the neck near the hub.
Inside the blades, the air is also getting hotter and hotter -- and compressed.
As the electricity builds, the towers began to glow with St. Elmo's fire. The highest blade began to develop ball lightning. Voila -- a UFO -- the ball lightning -- with "tentacles," the surrounding towers glowing with St. Elmo's fire.
The UFO looked like it was moving as the blades move slowly.
Suddenly, BOOM! -- the super-heated neck of one of the fiberglass blades couldn't take the heat anymore, and split. Superheated compressed air in the blade rushed out, launching the blade like a rocket. WHOOSH! The blade rocketed from the wind farm at hundreds of miles per hour, glowing as it flew from heat of the electricity that had passed through it, and St. Elmo's fire.
The next morning, onlookers couldn't find the missing blade -- it was in someone's back yard, a mile away. So, initial reports were that the blade was missing.
Utility workers flying a helicopter spot the blade from the air. The utility did not want the public to know that their turbines can launch turbine blades like rockets at nearby homes, so they kept it hush-hush, and dispatched a truck in the wee hours of the morning to quietly retrieve that blade and drop it off at the bottom of the tower.
The utility, happy that the public is distracted by the UFO speculation, laughed at UFO reports in the press but actually included that as a possible cause in their subsaequent public analyses.
That analysis explains it all -- the UFO, the "tentacles," the UFO seen "skimming across the sky" toward the turbines -- it was actually the missing blade flying from the destroyed turbine -- and why the blade was first reported missing, but subsequently seen in plain sight at the bottom of the tower.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)