text:
Today's robotic and automotive advances help American farmers provide food and fiber to the world. (NAPS)
(NAPSI)—According to the Census Bureau, there are 3.2 million
farmers operating 2.1 million farms covering 915 million acres. Each U.S. farmer,
reports the Farm Journal Foundation, produces enough food to feed 155 people
and is the leading producer of more than 50 foods of importance to diets
throughout the world.
How They Do It
Fortunately, farmers don't have to do it all alone. They get big
help in this from sophisticated technologies such as robots, temperature and
moisture sensors, aerial images, and GPS technology. These advanced devices
and precision agriculture and robotic systems let farmers be more profitable,
efficient, safer, and more environmentally friendly.
For example, as the Department of Agriculture reports, farmers no longer
have to apply water, fertilizers and pesticides uniformly across entire
fields. Instead, they can use the minimum quantities required and target very
specific areas, or even treat individual plants differently. Benefits
• Higher crop productivity
• Decreased use of water, fertilizer and pesticides, which in turn
keeps food prices down
• Reduced impact on natural ecosystems
• Less runoff of chemicals into rivers and groundwater
• Increased worker safety.
Robotic technologies enable more reliable monitoring and management of
natural resources, such as air and water quality. They also mean more control
over plant and animal production, processing, distribution and storage, which
results in:
• Greater efficiencies and lower prices
• Safer growing conditions and safer foods
• Reduced environmental and ecological impact.
Utility vehicles are a popular tool on the farm due to the efficiency,
ease of maintenance and maneuverability they offer. To make farm life (as
well as hunting and recreation) even better, there is now a new and improved
version of the best-selling utility side-by-side (SxS) of all time. More than
100 owner-inspired innovations make the new RANGER XP 1000 the
hardest-working, smoothest-riding version ever built.
A powerful ProStar 1000 engine and 82 horsepower provide unmatched power
and more towing capacity for an industry-leading 2,500 lbs. (1,134 kgs) to
power through the toughest farm tasks.
A massive front bumper and full-body skid plate give it added protection,
whether in the barn, out in the brush or traversing tough trails. An all-new
dumping cargo box carries 11.5 percent more volume and has welded steel
corners for increased stiffness to get the job done quicker and faster. For
precision handling, the vehicle has a reduced steering ratio and provides a
tighter turning radius, making it ideal for traversing fields or maneuvering
in tight spaces. Meanwhile, the Polaris engine braking system (EBS) ensures
smooth, controlled descents on steep inclines with or without a load.
It comes in Sage Green, Sunset Red, Suede Metallic, Matte Titanium
Metallic and Polaris Pursuit Camo.
Learn More
For further facts, visit www.Polaris.com.
On the Net:North American Precis Syndicate, Inc.(NAPSI)


text:
Sign In
Save and Track Your Favourite Properties
Find out in the next 10 minutes by using the free analysis below. You will be asked to answer a series of questions. Our online tool will evaluate your answers to see if you have what it takes to sell real estate and to be successful in a real estate career.

subset: commoncrawl


text: Set up your new Deer Feeder and enjoy your very own nature viewing party. Sportsman's Guide has great deals on Wildlife Feeders and Deer Feeders for every need and budget. Whether you're looking for Automatic Feeders with timers and feed regulators, or a standard Tripod Feeder, your search is over! Browse your favorite brands as American Hunter Feeders and Moultrie Feeders and many more, at the lowest prices... guaranteed!


text:
Receive updates and compelling news on VisionFund International and the network
of microfinance institutions by email.
Outstanding articles, news stories, and achievements are regularly highlighted with
captivating photos and media. Sign up today.
Media Elements
Microfinance loans help change the face of poverty especially in developing countries like the Philippines. More and more people benefit from our loans as well as the micro-insurance coverage that we provide.
We serve the poor through provision of appropriate microfinance products and services that meet clients needs. Please click through the drop-down menus below to find out more about our products.
CEVI has 9 different loan products with 3 major categories: 1) Business Loans, 2) Agriculture Loans and 3) Recovery Loans. All of these products intend to impact children indirectly by providing opportunities to parents to start and grow a business to sustain the needs of their children. Most of the loans disbursed by CEVI are business loans amounting to over 68% of its clients and 54% of its loan portfolio.
Loan Products
©2014 World Vision International. All photos are the property of World Vision.


text:
SAN FRANCISCO – The Stockton Tunnel, excavated in 1914, lets San Francisco drivers get between downtown and Fisherman's Wharf without having to ascend the scarily steep grades of Nob Hill. The tunnel is bordered on the west side by the famous cable cars and on the east by the Chinatown gate, so no tourists need ever walk near it. Accordingly, the tunnel entrance is a dingy block crammed with aging tenements and seedy shops. Junkies tweak out on the sidewalk; a grimy massage parlor called The Green Door advertises "A Touch of Ecstacy."
Late every Saturday evening, the massage parlor, the tiny taqueria and the assorted other shops all close up, but one is still bustling. A gaggle of young men wearing Street Fighter T-shirts and toting their own massive arcade-style game joysticks mingle inside the tiny Southtown Arcade, jammed wall to wall with arcade cabinets. They're throwing down in friendly matches for now; later tonight they play for cash.
Here in this dingy alleyway is the leading edge of what Seth Killian, director of online and community strategy at Street Fighter maker Capcom, calls the "second wave" of video arcades – run not by businessmen looking to make a buck, but by those with a passion for communal gaming.
"The second wave was the people that grew up in the arcades and dreamed of starting places of their own, maybe a bit like Flynn from Tron or something, or just because they – like me – had so many intensely happy memories of that kind of place," Killian said.
In the late '70s, during the heyday of Atari, one of its sales managers trumpeted the new family-friendly video arcade: "Many arcades used to be in rat-hole locations. Now they have turned into family amusement centers where you can take your wife and six-year-old daughter," he said, as quoted in the book Replay.
Now, the big family arcades are closing and the gamers are moving back into the rat-holes. In San Francisco, New York, Austin and elsewhere, these gritty little storefronts hearken back to the days when arcade cabinets mostly lived in bars, pool halls and run-down amusement parks. They are a place for gamers to test their skills against like-minded enthusiasts, a digital Fight Club for those looking for something more than Skee-Ball and Dance Dance Revolution. It's in these packed alleyways and basements that video arcades are staying alive.
"You can always drink a beer at home, but that's not what you're looking for, right? You're looking for that communal interaction," says arcade owner Myung Kim.
You Should Practice More ————————
When Jared Rea was eight years old, he nearly got stabbed playing Street Fighter II: Champion Edition.
His dad bowled in the local league in East San Jose, and he'd sit his son down in the little arcade with a roll of quarters while he played. Rea was opening a can of whoop-ass on the local teens, demolishing them with his pint-sized dragon punching technique.
"You should practice more," he said to his opponent, a "thuggish Asian kid" about twice his age. The kid responded by pulling a switchblade.
"You think you're funny? You think you're tough?" he said, scaring the pants off Rea. "Give me your quarters," he said. Rea handed over the whole roll. But he didn't tell anybody it had happened.
"I went back the next week because I wanted to play Street Fighter," he said. He'd risk getting knifed if it meant he could still go to the arcade. Street Fighter at home wasn't nearly as good.
The emergence of the fighting game genre in the early 1990s was the second coming of the video arcade. The days of Pac-Man and Asteroids, primarily single-player contests, had given way to games like Street Fighter II in which the object was not setting a high score but defeating the human opponent next to you.
Capcom sold over 200,000 units of the original game and the Champion Edition update, but Street Fighter's success would be short-lived. Myung Kim, who operates the indie arcade Game Center in San Mateo, California, says that sources at Capcom told him that starting around 1988, the company's international division went from having about 300,000 arcade games in circulation to about 8,000 in just two years' time.
"There was just a massive culling of the market," Kim said. "That's when the troubles really began."
Once fighting games stopped bringing in the quarters, most arcades turned to redemption games and other amusement machines. Finding an actual videogame in a Chuck E. Cheese today is an exercise in futility. That's what inspired arcade entrepreneurs like Kim to build places like Game Center, where real videogames still rule.
He used the money from his first job out of college writing financial planning software to purchase his first cabinet, a Japanese "Neo Candy" unit – "beautiful cab, built like a tank." As his personal collection grew, Kim started to wonder if he could open an arcade that was like the ones he knew as a kid. It was taking a trip to Japan, where blaring video arcades still live in every shopping center, that cemented his decision.
"As you've seen arcades become ... almost non-existent, you've seen people take up the mantle and try and do it themselves," says Kim, who modeled his arcade after those vibrant gaming halls in Tokyo. "And that can be [attributed to] nothing more than a love of the work."
"God knows there are very few other incentives to do it," he says with a fatalistic laugh.
Fight Club ———-
Every weekend day, Southtown hosts "ranbats," an abbreviation of the Janglish term "ranking battle," or tournament. Ranbat nights pack the tiny arcade with regulars who take part in fighting game tourneys. The lure of cash prizes gets players in the door. What makes them stick around is the community.
In the age of gigabit ethernet and Xbox Live, most multiplayer gaming has moved online. But as Southtown regular Jared Rea puts it, playing Street Fighter over the net is like "playing [against] a ghost."
"We as a fighting game community grew up playing side by side," he says. "You're not even looking at one another; you're just staring at the screen, but you can tell how your opponent is being affected by the actions in the game."
"So let's say I've got you in the corner and I'm trying a mix-up, and you jerk [your body]," he says. "I can see it out of the corner of my eye, and that tells me that you don't like whatever I'm doing to you. So I'm going to keep pressuring and pushing your buttons in that kind of way."
"The fighting community still has this rough edge to it," he says. "There's a saying that some people aren't in it to win tournaments. They're in it to ruin your day."
Parker Butynski, a tall, solidly built 29-year-old with glasses and a Giants cap, has become a Southtown regular as of late. He's never finished higher than fourth in a tournament, but he's recognized as being one of the better players. Tonight, though, things aren't going his way. After losing his first match in Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3, Butynski goes to the losers' bracket to square off against a team that includes Phoenix Wright – the lawyer from the Ace Attorney puzzle games, considered something of a joke character in a game whose roster also includes Spider-Man and Thor.
"Oh my god! One hit!" screams the Southtown kid doing the play-by-play as Butynski loses to his rival, the skinny defense attorney improbably slapping down the hulking robot Sentinel.
In the back of the room, Southtown co-owner Arturo Angulo tenses up a bit as he watches. Butynski has a bit of a reputation for getting a little too pissed off when he loses. This time he keeps his cool, although he stands up and leaves the cabinet before Phoenix's super move is even finished dealing its fatal damage.
"Unfortunately, [getting upset] is one of the things I'm known for," he says later. "Kind of getting salty or getting upset when I lose. I try and work on that because it's not a very good trait, but my coping mechanism is to get really angry and blow up.... You hate someone when they beat you; but you're there every day, you see them, and you start respecting them. After a while you get a friendship out of it, or maybe a friendly rivalry," he says.
Just Trying to Stay Afloat ————————–
Ranbats are the best of times for Southtown. But indie arcades are still small potatoes, so small that some arcade game makers in Japan don't even want to deal with them.
"I don't want to call any [companies] out, but they've been less than responsive to say the least," says Southtown Arcade co-owner Angulo, who opened the arcade in 2011 with partners Simong Truong and Cameron Berkenpas. "And I know we're not the only ones to have reached out. Ryan Harvey from Arcade UFO [in Austin, Texas] has talked to Namco ... but never heard back."
"It's an opportunity for these companies to make more money," he says. "It's a lost opportunity for guys like us, who are just trying to stay afloat. And we can't even do that because we can't get the games."
Even when gamemakers are willing to deal with indies in America, the expense can be astronomical. Game Center's Kim says a simple upgrade kit for Super Street Fighter IV, just the circuit boards with no cabinet, can cost $12,000. Other popular games are only accessible through digital distribution services that don't work outside Japan.
Luckily, the American branches of these companies are often happy to help attempt to sway their indifferent Japanese parents. "We have been able to do some exhibitions of new titles at the Southtown Arcade recently, and I would like to do more of that. It's just a great time," says Capcom's Seth Killian, who is himself a fighting game master.
"[The U.S. branches of] Capcom and Namco have both been really, really helpful," says Angulo. "Namco last weekend brought over Soulcalibur V to the arcade, and that was really cool." Capcom came through with a Super Street Fighter IV upgrade. "We were like the first arcade in America that had the actual arcade board installed," he says.
One money-saving move that many indie arcades are making is playing games on home machines like Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 instead of buying full cabinets. At Game Center, Myung Kim sells one-hour PlayStation passes for three bucks, which he describes as "pretty popular."
Arturo Angulo would rather not fill his arcade with Xboxes, if he had the choice. "We're trying to keep that arcade scene alive. So for us, it's not something we really wanna do just yet," he says. But reality is a harsh thing. Capcom didn't even create an arcade cabinet version of Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3, which is why gamers tote their own joysticks to Southtown if they want to play the popular crossover game.
"I think long term, as much as I want it to be, it's probably not sustainable" to run a small arcade, Angulo says. "But I do think there's ways that you can make it work. You might have to do things you might not associate with an arcade ... integrate it with a bar, a restaurant or a night club. But just having it be an arcade, I don't think it's possible just based solely on the fact that it's impossible to get new games these days."
"Things are hard for U.S. independents already, but if new games – which are mostly made primarily for the Japanese market – stop being produced, that would be a very difficult situation," says Capcom's Killian. "With the Japanese scene still successful at the moment, I hope arcades and the magic they create will be around forever."
For Angulo and Kim, running an arcade is a daily grind of maintaining equipment, promoting events, and simply trying to stay profitable. But any sense of fatalism or frustration seems to fall away when night falls and the regulars pack the house for a night of ranbats. They move easily through the crowds, chatting with the regulars between matches. Angulo's and Kim's personal touch is what separates an indie arcade from a massive Dave and Buster's.
In many ways, Southtown and other arcades like it remain a well-kept secret. In North America at least, the popular perception continues to be that the arcade business is completely dead and buried. But it's only mostly dead. When a gamer stumbles upon that little alcove wedged between the tunnel and the Green Door, he can scarcely believe his eyes.
One night, a couple wandered past Southtown Arcade. The guy gawked at the scene, staring at Angulo, seeing some memory from his childhood come to life. "Let's go," said his girlfriend, pulling him away from the lights and sounds and banging and yelling.
The next afternoon, the guy came back to Southtown, just to make sure what he had seen was real.


text:
Google+ is still a sausage party -- or at least according to one report.
Website-Monitoring.com released a study on Google+ which said that 66.6 percent of Google+ users are men, according to NetworkWorld. That number isn't very different from the number used last July, which said that women were approximately 33.6 percent of Google+.
So the question remains, is Website-Monitoring using that old figure or has it found the figure on its own? We will keep you posted. Until then, however, here are some interesting tidbits about Google+, including how Britney Spears is still Google+'s undisputed queen.
U.S. & World
News from around the country and around the globe
-Students are by far the most popular occupation for Google+ users, accounting for just over 20% those sampled. Other popular professions for Google+ users included software engineers (2.65%), consultants (1.99%) and managers (1.72%).-The United States and India are the two countries with the most Google+ users, as the U.S. accounts for 31.5% while India accounts for 13.7%. The Indian city of Bangalore has the most Google+ users of any individual city, accounting for 3.86% of all Google+ users.-A 42% plurality of Google+ users are single, while 27.45% are married and 19.3% are in a relationship. Just 4.4% of Google+ users list themselves as engaged, little more than the 3.4% of users who list "it's complicated" as their relationship status.-Britney Spears, Snoop Dogg and Google CEO Larry Page are the three most popular individuals on Google+ in terms of total numbers of followers. The three most popular brands on Google+ are H&M, Samsung USA and Pepsi, while the three most popular media pages on the site are ESPN, BBC News and Mashable.
The takeaway here is that most of Google+ users are single, male and relatively young. What kind of demographic is that? Get ready for the video game ads. For women, you may just want to head over to Pinterest and get crafty.


text:
|Jepson Flora Project: Jepson Interchange
previous taxon |
next taxon
Jepson Interchange (more information)
©Copyright 1993 by the Regents of the University of California
Annual to tree
Leaves generally compound, alternate, stipuled; leaflets generally entire
Inflorescence: generally raceme, spike, umbel or head; flowers sometime 12 in axils
Flowers generally bisexual, generally bilateral; hypanthium generally flat or cup-like; sepals generally 5, fused; petals generally 5, free, or the 2 lower ± fused; stamens 1many, often 10 with 9 filaments at least partly fused, 1 (uppermost) free; pistil 1, ovary superior, generally 1-chambered, ovules 1many, style, stigma 1
Fruit: legume, sometimes including a stalk-like base above receptacle, dehiscent, or indehiscent and breaking into 1-seeded segments, or indehiscent, 1-seeded, and achene-like
Seeds 1several, often ± reniform, generally hard, smooth
Genera in family: ± 650 genera, 18,000 species: worldwide; with grasses, requisite in agriculture and most natural ecosystems. Many cultivated, most importantly Arachis , peanut; Glycine , soybean; Phaseolus , beans; Medicago ; Trifolium ; and many orns
Reference: [Polhill & Raven (eds) 1981 Advances in legume systematics; Allen & Allen 1981 Leguminosae]
Family description and key to genera by Duane Isely.
Annual or perennial herb from crown, glabrous to hairy; hairs sometimes forked at base, branches parallel with leaf surface, sometimes very unequal
Stem 0 or prostrate to erect
Leaves odd-1-pinnate; leaflets generally jointed to midrib; stipules membranous, sometimes fused around stem at stem base
Inflorescence: raceme, axillary, sometimes head- or umbel-like; flowers 2many
Flower bilateral; calyx 5-lobed; banner outside wings in bud, keel blades with small protrusion at base locking into pit on adjacent wing; 9 filaments fused, 1 free; ovary (and fruit) generally sessile, style slender, stigma minute
Fruit generally 1- or ± 2-chambered, often mottled, generally becoming ± dry; placenta on upper suture
Seeds 2many, smooth, compressed, ± notched at attachment scar
Species in genus: > 2000 species: ± worldwide (380 in North America, 94 in CA including many rare taxa)
Etymology: (Greek: ankle-bone or dice, perhaps from rattling of seeds within fruit)
Reference: [Barneby 1964 Mem NY Bot Gard 20:11188; Isely 1986 Iowa State J Res 61:157289]
Very difficult; both flower and fruit needed for identification; many good species appear similar; some species complexes need study. Taxa near province boundaries may appear in > 1 key. Varieties keyed under species for simplicity; species with vars. so identified in key. Fr length includes beak and any stalk-like base unless fruit body specified.
Perennial; hairs grayish, dense, stiff, some short, ± wavySee the CNPS Inventory for information about endangerment and rarity.
Stems prostrate, loosely tufted, 28 cm
Leaf 2.57 cm; leaflets 717, ± crowded, 312 mm, obovate, tips blunt or notched
Inflorescence: flowers 310, ascending
Flower: calyx hairs black or mixed black, white; petals pink-purple, banner 2229 mm, recurved ± 40°, keel 2128 mm
Fruit ascending, 2550 mm, 1015 mm wide, ± lanceolate in side view, straight, ± strongly compressed top-to-bottom at base, gently incurved near tip, leathery; hairs dense, 1.52.5 mm, wavy, white; chamber 1
Ecology: Gravelly, clayey, or rocky areas
Elevation: 13001500 m.
Bioregional distribution: ne Desert Mountains (Grapevine Mtns, e of Death Valley)
Flowering time: AprMay
Synonyms: A. purshii Hook. var. f. Jeps


text:
Darling is a terrifying, story driven adventure game set in the fictional northern Montana town of Darling. The main focus is an attempt at recreating and expanding upon the kind of atmosphere and ambiance of our most beloved horror games, while driving a plot with a very dedicated story that will leave players crushed and shaking. The world will seem to come alive around you as relics from a not long forgotten past tell a story overlooked by the outside world. An expansive game world will draw you in with plenty of discover-able locations. Node based gameplay will allow you to explore your world before being shut inside of one of Darlings many now-decrepit buildings which groan self-pityingly at their forgotten past while you discover what secrets lie within. The story of Josh and the town around him have been, and are continually being, rewritten to be as influential as possible and to stand out to players as having true depth and complexity, a feat which will create immersion.
Darling was developed by healforlulz
Darling was Released on Windows
Darling is a Single Player game


text:
Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi
Tim Hebert wrote:James, it's a good read, one of your best pieces to date!
Gilles F. wrote:
Greetings Lost-Shaman,
Hum ? I think with all your respects you are totaly interpreting my attention and goal here, sincerly. The choice of the word and in quotes "lost" have nothing to do with you. No one direct or indirect intention of my part to attack your character or to make a "words game", a "private joke" or "mockery" or dunno what against you and Lost-Shaman character. It is for sure a misunderstanding.
I hope you understand now, as I demonstrated, that the choice of this word "lost" is not an attack to your character But a pure coïncidence. Misunderstanding solved or you always have a doubt?
Gilles Fernandez
James Carlson wrote:
Don't be too disturbed over the above miscommunications -- paranoia goes with the territory, and as a result it's natural that some folks are more comfortable in the role of the eternal victim than others.
Sent 23 December 2010 - 03:04 AM
I've been looking over a number of posts from the past few days, and I've concluded that I owe you an apology. My behavior was needlessly hostile, and as a result, I neglected to give your arguments the respect they deserve. In my defense, I can only say that I've been subjected to more intolerant abuse by more people than was deserved -- abuse that I don't intend to discuss with anybody outside of a courtroom except to say that there a reason for my defensive posture, albeit not a very good or admirable one. In any case, the intolerance I exhibited toward you is exactly the kind of thing I despise in others when it's directed towards me; I regret that, and I'm sorry. Feel free to post this if you like as a public exoneration, as I will likely not logon for a bit.
James Carlson wrote:Actually, I was very sincere. I assumed that if I made a gesture we could put that nastiness behind us, and get back to a normal conversation. Unfortunately, you proved yourself incapable of that, and I eventually concluded that you represent a waste of such efforts. Your conduct has since convinced me that my conclusions are sound, which is why I didn't address my comments to you.
bewildered wrote:Thanks for the research and the update, James. I would say that I feel embarrassed for Hastings, but that embarrassment is only reserved for those who actually deserve it. In his case, it is not deserved. I'm former military myself and there is a certain level of familiarity that comes along with being trained and exposed to procedure and protocol that sticks with you for the rest of your life, even long after you depart from the service. Some of that is universal to every branch and virtually every kind of assignment. My last assignment was a Patriot Missile Battery in the Air Defense Artillery (within a now-deactivated division, the 9th out of Ft. Lewis, WA). I was not part of such a critical and sensitive outfit as the one at Malmstrom, but being familiar with the standards the artillery personnel adhered to (I was in Communications), I can only imagine the level of readiness and exacting standards the service members at Malmstrom had to meet. In (then West) Germany in 1989, I was assigned to a post that housed a storage facility for tactical nuclear weapons. That was a pretty big deal, and I knew many of the MPs from the company assigned to that facility. The procedures and protocols are clear, concise, and very demanding. Any deviation stands out like a sore thumb.
These guys would know if someone was blowing smoke out of their rear. There's nothing quite like having "been there," and if the service members who serve (or served) in units responsible for these kinds of missiles smell B.S., I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that's precisely what it is.
James Carlson wrote:You're dead on about military procedures and protocols. It's alsmost immediately notable upon reading Hastings' analysis of almost anything that he has no real knowledge of how the military resolves problems. It strikes me as a bit vainglorious that someone who presumes to redefine the measurement of military interaction with UFOs refuses to learn anything at all about life in the military, but it goes so much further than that in Hastings' case. Here's a guy who deals almost exclusively with classified materials finally released via FOIA, and yet he knows nothing at all about the classification system. It's absolutely hilarious to read his attempts to wrap his brain around an idea like "need-to-know", because it's so immediately apparent that he's reaching conclusions and dictating procedure as evidence regarding a complete fiction, this being his assumption of what "need-to-know" actually entails.
I see this "prejudiced ignorance" all the time throughout UFOlogy involving almost every issue, and as far as I'm concerned it's evidence of only one thing: intellectual laziness. These people are basically guessing, using as their only resource civilian knowledge and procedures, and frankly, they're not worth much in regard to issues involving the Department of Defense. It's immediately apparent whenever, for instance, someone actually believes that Robert Salas is telling the truth when he says that Col. Lewis Chase was lying to FTD when he sent them a written memo stating that there were no equipment failures at Malmstrom AFB March 24-25, 1967. Given that FTD, a powerful, DoD intelligence hub in charge of technical issues throughout the USAF, was responsible at the time for everything having to do with UFOs, including their investigation and resolution, any implication that Chase, the Malmstrom AFB UFO officer, was lying to them is patently ridiculous. I've never met a veteran with any real service time who agrees with this claim or is willing to accept it as having some real basis. It's just silly from a military point of view. Who the Hell lies to their own chain of command? That's the sort of thing you go to jail for -- but to actually write out your lies in an open memorandum? It's stupid, and it's an amazing measure of the man's hubris, that Salas would expect anybody in the world to believe it. It's obvious nonsense to anyone who has more than one enlistment under their belt. And Hastings has none -- he was a janitor at Malmstrom, for God's sake.
The emphasis that these supposed UFOlogists place on the Bollender Memo is another good example. They say the memo is proof that there was a completely different system for reporting UFOs that wasn't actually part of the Blue Book system, as if the USAF would create more than one method for investigating UFOs that ignored the system already in place! I can't believe that many people have actually read that memo, because it's very clear -- there's no mystery to it at all. It's basically little more than a collection of recommendations concerning how best to establish an investigation of UFOs after Blue Book was shut down, so it wasn't even a regulation -- it was just his thoughts on what regs should cover. Bollender recognized that after Blue Book was gone, there would be a hole in our ability to investigation enemy aircraft if such aircraft were only reported as UFOs. You're probably aware that Blue Book was intended to organize the investigation of all UFOs reported, even by civilian resources. The USAF was always interested in investigating validated reports of UFOs, but most of the UFOs reported to Blue Book didn't even come close to meeting that qualification, so the USAF got rid of it, and told everybody to quit reporting UFOs to the USAF. That doesn't mean that valid reports would be ignored; they were simply investigated under different grounds having little to do with the garbage that most civilians were reporting as UFOs. His recommendations detailed what should be done about UFOs that the USAF recognized as problematic -- they weren't going to ignore UFOs, as almost every civilian apparently believes; that would be ridiculous and amazingly stupid for any Department of Defense! And since none of it was ever intended to be used while Blue Book was still in effect, it's recognition of reporting outside of the Blue Book system has no real meaning as an additional system -- it's a replacement system being recommended.
Your comment that "These guys would know if someone was blowing smoke out of their rear" is absolutely the truth -- I'm pretty well convinced that's why so much of Hastings' "work" is anonymous. Every time he wants to "pull a Roswell" he starts off with anonymous reports, until he convinces someone to join his little club -- but look at his pattern: it's easy to see and it's easy to see how it works. Tim Hebert (check out his blog at http://timhebert.blogspot.com/) has been working on a series of analyses in regard to the technical and professional aspects of Echo Flight, and because of that point of view, he can be very convincing; it's a learning process that Hastings has proven himself unable to reliably counter, and it's primarily due to that "prejudiced ignorance" I mentioned above. As you say, "There's nothing quite like having 'been there'". Because of that degree of essential knowledge that Tim possesses, he can discuss matters head and shoulders above Hastings and his buddies, and do so with a cool head and a polite rejoinder to everything they try to toss at him. It's almost painful for me to watch him get the same results as I do at times by calmly discussing the facts, something that I don't have much of a reputation for accomplishing in regard to the same subject. Of course, our initial motivations are a bit different.
There's something very admirable to note in Tim Hebert's measured and politely structured responses to Hastings, but I believe that in addition to that, someone who's willing to comment on the issue has to come right out and very strongly insist (not merely suggest) that he and Salas are just bad liars who have consciously designed and supported a UFO hoax; I not only believe strongly that this is the case, I also don't mind doing it in the least, primarily because I don't give a damn what they think of me as long as they get the message. Part of me considers this to be a fairly effective strategy when associated with Hebert's methods -- it comes out to some extent as a good-cop, bad-cop system, one that I don't mind being a part of in the least, just as I don't mind honestly discussing it. I think the dichotomy our approaches represent is good for the issue and will eventually resolve the entire controversy. His point of view, particularly in regard to the more experiential technical matters only someone in the system can speak of with any real authority, meshes well with my own approach. He's a very reasonable man who understands the issue because of his past experience, whereas I'm a very angry man who understands the issue because my father was involved deeply with it, and I knew exactly what happened. As a result, both Tim and I were strongly motivated to conduct more research than Hastings and Salas have proven themselves capable of. In addition, we've both had a lot of experience with classified materials, and that too has been helpful.
The fact that both of us hold ourselves to a higher standard of honesty and trust is also important. I can't speak for Tim, but as for me, my military service and the trust the U.S. Navy had in me is an important part of that, and many civilians don't grasp that concept very well. They actually believe it when Hastings insists that ex-military personnel are taking the "more honorable" approach by lying about UFOs as a means to keep the matter secret, as they've been supposedly ordered to do. Anybody who has ever served in the military, regardless at what level, should be as pissed off about these slanders as I am. The military has never asked me or my father to lie about anything, and we don't do it. Anybody who has ever worked with classified materials is taught before anything else that lying about any subject, classified or not, is injurious -- it's a breach of security. You don't lie. You don't talk or discuss at all -- period. This is something that Hastings knows nothing about, and that means that once again, he's just "guessing", something he does a lot. I consider it an insult. And if you compare Hastings' approach to this entire issue to the approach used by both Tim and me, it's immediately apparent that what he's doing is an insult to both our military and our nation, and a painful one at that. Hastings doesn't possess any of the knowledge necessary to speak with authority in regard to those matters that Tim speaks with so fluently because Hastings is ignorant of the means and lacks the motivation to properly assess the details that define the issue; and he refuses, apparently, to educate himself any further in regard to his ignorance. I don't see that as a viable strategy at all, and I'm firmly convinced that his eventual failures will be due, at least in part, to that same conceit and handicap.
I've found it's a fairly easy point to make when I'm discussing the matter with others who have served in the military, even, in many cases, with civilian employees who served the Department of Defense on an administrative level. As you say, "if the service members who serve (or served) in units responsible for these kinds of missiles smell B.S., I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that's precisely what it is." It's a little more difficult explaining it to those who don't have the experience, but I'm very fortunate that I'm not the only one working at it. As a result, I'm pretty confident that we'll succeed. Most people are willing to accept the truth if you're willing to take the time to explain it, and most of us have that dedication, having been dedicated in the past to ideals that we believed were important and necessary to our service, whatever that may have been.
bewildered wrote:However, it has been my experience that most civilians really have no clue when it comes to the military...none at all. The naivete I have encountered at times has been flabbergasting. When I deployed to West Germany, an important part of my inprocessing dealt with the very real and present threat of Soviet intelligence efforts targeting young service members around installations and popular recreational spots on the economy, such as bars and night clubs. They were infamous for employing attractive members of either sex to wheedle information from vulnerable young men and women. It was more than a mere threat; it happened often enough to be a very real promise.
bewildered wrote:The anonymous aspect has always struck me as foul, to be honest. There's no way to back up nor verify the claims these people supposedly make...so why the heck should anyone in their right mind even entertain these claims beyond one second of their life? Anything beyond one second is time irretrievably lost, in my opinion. What's to prevent anyone from claiming anything they so desire when there's no avenue of establishing veracity? Absolutely nothing, as we know. That's how people fall for cons...they don't think.
bewildered wrote:One characteristic of pathology is the inability to distinguish the difference between fantasy and reality. It's interesting how psychological pathology behaves in a manner that mirrors physical pathology. Much like the common cold, if one does not take the necessary precautions to inoculate themselves against psychological manipulation, then one might find themselves the host of a psychological pathology. Memes are infectious, just like the flu is. Anyone can find themselves the victim of such a thing if they aren't careful - none of us are immune.
bewildered wrote:The internet and an empowered media are both a blessing and a curse. The dissemination of knowledge proceeds at a pace never matched before, but with a price. Snake-oil salesmen have been with us for a terribly long time. When market squares were invented, you would find them there plying their wares. They were ready and waiting when the printing press was invented. Radio was a fantastic way for them to reach more and more potential "customers." Television was arguably the greatest invention to fall into their hands until the advent of the internet. The bigger the crowd, the more successful their con could be. You can count on the deceivers to use whatever means necessary to spread their virulent disease to as many as possible. In a way, the Ufologists and their bedfellows, the conspiracy theorists, are the "Typhoid Mary" of our day and age. Some know they are full of it, and are simply out to make a buck. Others are the unfortunate carriers of psychological pathology and are unwitting "Johnny Appleseeds" of deceit.
James Carlson Says:
March 22nd, 2012 at 4:10 am
Robert Hastings' insistence that this issue is a UFO-related matter is not surprising. Any well-conceived intention to research this man's history will very quickly uncover a mass of evidence revealing his financial dependence on such claims, his fraudulent behavior in the support of such claims, and his habitual reliance on lies and subterfuge to popularize such idiotic claims. What is surprising is that this publication would actually seek him out as a well-intentioned resource instead of developing its own. Determining Robert Hastings' take on any issue under the sun is a waste of time and effort. He cannot be trusted to present a balanced view or even a well-thought out review of the issues involved. He has repeatedly lied to the press in regard to UFO-related matters, and his reputation as a man who can claims some expertise on such matters is a result of his own easily revealed lies, his support of numerous UFO hoax stories, and his dishonest attempts to discuss these issues wherever and whenever possible. This publication should perhaps attempt a little research before publishing this tripe.
James Carlson
Albuquerque, NM
19.Yawn Says:
March 22nd, 2012 at 8:09 am
You'd like to think that they saw them move if they watched for 45 minutes, but maybe they were too excited at the supposed UFO's that they missed that bit. Put it this way, if it looks exactly like what we saw on several occasions, in the same local area, with the same assets in the air, and the same ongoing conflict area… Yeah, it must be UFO's because apparently these VERY SIMILAR floating objects didn't move…
20.Robert Hastings Says:
March 22nd, 2012 at 9:23 am
James Carlson's father, Eric, is a former U.S. Air Force ICBM launch officer who was involved, decades ago, in a UFO incident at a missile site operated by Malmstrom AFB, Montana—although the elder Carlson continues to deny it.
Nevertheless, I've interviewed other former/retired officers and enlisted men who've stated that a UFO had indeed been hovering over one of the Echo Flight ICBMs early on the morning of March 16, 1967, when the entire flight of ten mysteriously malfunctioned.
I subsequently published those persons' testimony and, still later, some of the actual tape recordings of their conversations with me—thereby convincingly contradicting Eric Carlson's claims of no UFO-involvement in the incident.
In response, son James has been libeling me all over cyberspace ever since. His father is telling the truth, he claims, and all of those other officers are full of it.
My taped conversations with Eric Carlson's former Deputy Missile Combat Crew Commander, now-retired Col. Walter Figel, may be heard at:
http://www.ufohastings.com/articles/the ... m-incident
Figel states that he did indeed receive a report from one of his guards of a "large, round object" hovering "directly over" one of the Echo ICBMs seconds after it dropped-off alert status and became unlaunchable. Figel further says that he and Eric Carlson were told not to talk about the incident by their squadron commander.
James Carlson continues to claim that Figel and others I have interviewed have disputed my published remarks, however, he never posts those supposed objections online. Gee, I wonder why?
Indeed, despite my repeated challenges to him, Carlson has failed to produce a single email or affidavit from Figel (or anyone else) in which he disavows my written summary of our conversations or, more importantly, my posting of our taped conversations.
Carlson has claimed that I doctored the tapes. If so, why hasn't Figel said that online, in an affidavit, etc.?
The reason is because the tapes are legitimate and unaltered. I have recently challenged Carlson to pay for a professional analysis of the tapes, to verify all of this. He, of course, ignores my offer. It's much easier to go on making unfounded claims about me and my work.
21.James Carlson Says:
March 22nd, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Robert, you are so full of it. Your own witnesses have repeatedly come out to say that you've mutilated their statements to suggest the presence of a UFO that was never present. You've point blank refused to discuss the many, many fallacies in your work, just as you've failed to explain why your witnesses have either disowned your intentions completely or have changed their stories so many times that their accounts cannot be trusted. You've mislead your audience on so many occasions that it is now an expected response whenever you come out of your hole to comment on these stains of the ridiculous. As far as your "doctoring" of tapes, you always fail to mention that it is your own witnesses, the topic of those recordings, who insist that they've been doctored and that you have left out portions of the interviews, failed to discuss in any way their own conclusions, and have gone so as to lie about their own claims! I'm not the only one making these assertions — your own witnesses have done this, and you repeatedly neglect to mention that little fact.
You're a fraud and a liar, Robert. Your own emails prove that fact handily, as do your numerous pathetic attempts to defend your "theories". Not once have you been able to make a claim that couldn't be easily dismissed as fraudulent. The only thing people have to do to recognize the character of the garbage you spew is to talk to your own witnesses. In every case, they can't prove a jot of their testimony, they resort to changing their stories when close and exact examination is applied, or they back off completely and insist that you're a liar who can't be trusted to publish their own accounts as they were originally given. And when critics point that out, your only response is to attack their credibility by publishing morbid lies about them, by making up stories that reflect poorly on your objectivity and your honesty, and by attempting to manipulate your audience sufficient to prevent any examination of the ridiculous stories you're literally selling to them. You don't have a port in a storm, pal, because you have told so many provable lies in the past that there is no reason for anyone familiar with that record to read any further once your name has been attached to the issues!
These are easy charges to prove. Take Echo Flight for instance: if you really think you can substantiate a UFO that nobody saw or reported or investigated on the basis of claims made by a man who was not there, who bases his conclusions on the confirmations of men who insist not only that he is wrong, but that he has been lying about the claims asserted since the very beginning of his warped little ministry, then knock yourself out, sport. It will solidify your reputation as an ignorant lunatic who lacks the ability to properly weigh the evidence provided in order to defend men who have perpetrated a UFO hoax. And the fact that you do it for money is just obscene! I still can't help but laugh out loud every time I think about the article you published claiming that Fred Meiwald confirms that a UFO took out the missiles at Oscar Flight in 1967 when the transcripts of his comments in the same frigging article have him stating very clearly that he has no memory of a UFO at Oscar Flight! I swear, the first time I read it I was in tears. I couldn't figure out if you were dangerously insane or just a complete idiot!
I would recommend that those who are truly interested in understanding something about Robert Hastings' credibility go to the following URLs, where they can download for free several supporting articles discussing in some detail exactly how far he should be trusted:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26641522/Amer ... es-Carlson
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42303580/Echo ... es-Carlson
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49495918/The- ... es-Carlson
http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/20 ... c-editing/
I would also recommend that you examine the numerous interviews and articles at the Reality Uncovered website: http://www.realityuncovered.net/ — many of the articles discuss the events and responses that Robert Hastings has tried to con the world into believing.
Robert Hastings refuses entirely to discuss the matter or answer any questions regarding the testimonies of the only men who were present during some of the alleged UFO incidents he has discussed, preferring instead to attack the integrity and credibility of those raising such issues. He refuses to offer anything substantial in the way of evidence, and fails entirely to explain the details of his claims or to answer any of the valid questions raised by his insistence. What he has done is rely on the craven use of blatant lies and baseless insults in regard to his critics without once managing to refute or even discuss their criticisms.
Hastings has even gone so far as to invent entirely the medical histories of his critics to suggest mental illness that has never existed! Meanwhile, he refuses to answer necessary questions regarding his numerous, proven lies, and has neglected as well to defend his own theories against numerous accusations of massive fraud and profiteering on a scale UFO proponent communities have only rarely been subjected to.
A lot information regarding these matters can be found at the Reality Uncovered forum, in particular the Echo Flight Incident thread: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1688. Every single detail, digression, discussion or subject of argument asserted by him has been explained and discussed in great detail in the documents and on the websites you've been directed to. Not one question has been left unanswered, a statement that Hastings could never honestly affirm for himself. He has created fiction and called it fact, something anyone willing to actually do the research can determine very readily for himself, as some of the events he discusses — contrary to his claims — have been declassified since before 1980.
Tim Hebert, an ex-USAF missileer himself, has also written some enlightening articles regarding the case on his blog at: http://timhebert.blogspot.com/. You should take the time to read them.
The folk tales currently being spread by Robert Hastings have not merely been dismissed as one possible interpretation of the claims, they have been repeatedly dismantled and shredded — proven as lies by witness testimony and documented evidence that he is unwilling to discuss or explain. Witnesses that he has presented to the public have actually come forward to dispute the claims made. They insist that their statements were taken out of context and distorted purposely in order to suggest the presence of UFOs where no such presence could otherwise be established. Hastings has helped to perpetrate a UFO hoax of the worst sort, and has attempted to destroy the reputations and career service of better men than himself, all to sell his books and enable him to charge outrageous prices for his lectures.
He has told numerous lies to support his assertions, and that should be taken into consideration whenever he presents such doubtful claims as those above that have been repeatedly consigned to the public trough.
22.James Carlson Says:
March 22nd, 2012 at 12:47 pm
IRT Walt Figel's alleged testimony: why does he insist that Hastings has lied about his claims? Why does he very clearly assert that there was no UFO at Echo Flight? Robert, you're just another con man who can't get his story right. There is not one single withness who was at Echo Flight who says there was a UFO present — not one!! Walt Figel insists that you're a liar and that he never made any UFO claims to you. How do you explain that? I urge anybody interested in these cases to do a little research for yourself before accepting what Robert says as factual. Every statement he has made above has been challenged by the same people he is using as a source! He says Figel reported a UFO, while Figel says he's a lunatic and a liar. If you can explain that, you'll go a long way to proving the point, I assure you. I suspect, however, that the only valid conclusion you'll ever be able to reach is that Robert Hastings is a fraud, a liar, and a UFO hoaxer of rare repute. And that's all…
23.Jeepster Says:
March 22nd, 2012 at 2:31 pm
seems some people will forever keep their heads buried in the sand….makes "disclosure" more difficult, but not impossible since there are more of us who do believe we are not alone in the vast universe. Kudos to you Robert. Keep up the good work!
24.James Carlson Says:
March 22nd, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Buried in the sand? That's pretty insignificant given that Hastings' own witnesses are the ones who have established his dishonesty, his reliance on partial evidence, his refusal or inability to argue the many criticisms that have been aligned against his claims, and his complete refusal to examine 95% of the evidence available. Tell me, does Walt Figel also have his head buried in the sand? What about Fred Meiwald? And if they do have their heads buried in the sand, why would Hastings rely on them to establish his UFO claims? The facts of this case are very easily affirmed: Figel insists that Hastings has purposely and consciously distorted his testimony to suggest the presence of a UFO that was not there; he insists that both Hastings and Salas have lied in regard to this case; Figel has repeatedly insisted that Hastings' and Salas' UFO claims are false, and that he told them this — a revelation that Hastings and Salas have chosen to ignore, just as they've ignored the many errors in their accounts that Figel pointed out to them. Was Fred Meiwald mistaken when he insisted that he remembers nothing about a UFO at Oscar Flight? Was his head buried in the sand when he denied completely a number of acts affirmed by both Hastings and Salas? I dare say your conclusions — like Robert Hastings' — are useless when weighed against actual fact, and that it is you who has his buried in the sand, a position easily proven by your refusal to properly examine the evidence available. You've adopted a UFO stance that refuses to account for witness testimony, ignores the actual charges made by the very men Hastings has used as a resource to "prove" his theories. You have apparently decided to neglect most of the evidence available; I guess that makes your conclusions irrelevant in regard to this issue. Perhaps you should educate yourself before dismissing the claims of Hastings' own witness program; until you do, your opinions and conclusions are ineffectual and a wasted effort to consider.
25.Yawn Says:
March 22nd, 2012 at 4:46 pm
I'm not even thinking of getting involved in the bun fight over the Carlson vs. Hastings crap. And disclosure cannot come soon enough, I am a firm believer what all the evidence points to… but unfortunately here there is no doubt for me. I have seen this happen first hand! It's not a UFO if it can be explained, and certainly not mysterious if it slowly descends to terra firma guttering and burning out on the wind as high altitude flares have a tendancy of doing.
26.Robert Hastings Says:
March 22nd, 2012 at 9:52 pm
As I said, James Carlson has not, and can not, produce one email or one affidavit from the officers I have interviewed to support what he says.
Not one…
Listen to the Figel tapes, folks, if you want the facts.
27.James Carlson Says:
March 23rd, 2012 at 12:36 pm
That evidence and those emails have been published at Reality Uncovered for over a year, as you know very well, Robert. In fact, the first of those emails was sent to you as well, exactly as I requested of Walt Figel. You are so willing to lie about these matters that you don't even bother to think about them any more. Your flagrant dishonesty, your reliance on slander, and your refusal to discuss these matters or even recognize their existence has added much to your reputation as possibly the single most incontinent researcher in this field.
Have you simply decided to ignore all these little gems?
Figel writes:
"There is no record about anything happening at November or Oscar except in people's minds that are flawed beyond imagination. Salas has created events out of the thin air and can't get the facts straight even then. My best friend to this day was the flight commander of the 10th SMS at the time. He and I have discussed this silly assertion in the past couple of years – he thinks it is all madeup nonsense for sure. I put both Salas and Hastings in touch with him and he has told them both that an incident at November or Oscar never happened. In addition he was subsequently stationed at Norton AFB where the engineers tested the possible problems. No little green men were responsible."
Or this:
"I have always maintained that I do not nor have I ever believed that UFOs exist in any form at any place at any time. I have never seen one or reported that I have seen one. I have always maintained that they had nothing to do with the shutdown of Echo flight in Montana."
How about Figel's insistence in regard to yur book and Salas' book: "I have read both of their books. There are many inaccurate statements and events in the books. I have told them both that."
Do you remember Ryan's interview with my father, the commander at Echo Flight? He was equally clear:
"Eric: I was contacted by both Salas and Hastings and would neither confirm or deny anything they told me. I really didn't want to get involved in a pissing contest with either. Hastings told me he had written a book and I told him that sounded interesting. He sent me a copy and while I cannot attest or comment on anything other than the Malmstrom incident I found that particular incident full of errors. A producer for some UFO TV series contacted me one time and a reporter from the Great Fall newspaper also contacted me one time. There were no follow-ups from either.
"Ryan: This is interesting! Hastings only called to talk to you after he'd written the book? Or was he calling you while he was writing his book in order to confirm information he'd learned from Salas?
"Eric: Hastings called after he had written the book. I don't know what his motive was."
Funny how you were able to put this whole thing together without even once talking to the commander of the flight! You must have some great psychic powers to get such a clear story from a guy who wasn't even there (i.e., Robert Salas).
My father has maintained the same story for decades, and yet people like you continue to use him as a source for this moronic UFO tale when he has very clearly insisted that there was no UFO. And then you went around telling the world that Walt Figel disputes everything my father has claimed since 1967! I asked Figel about that. You do remember his response, don't you?
"First – your dad has not lied about anything nor do believe that he is even capable of lying about anything at all. He was, is, and always will be an honorable man. You should remember that always – I will." Some refutation.
Don't act like none of this has ever been publicized. It is everywhere and easily available for anyone with internet access. Walt Figel and his friend, Dick Evans, the flight commander of the 10th SMS, both agree that the UFO nonsense about Echo Flight is imaginary — invented. He told this to both you and Salas, and said as well that an incident at November or Oscar never happened. You've never bothered to tell people that little tale, have you?
You've also never discussed Figel's insistence that when the missiles failed at Echo Flight "It was just another day with a unexpected event in our lives. It was rather underwhelming at the time. No one rushed out to see us, no one made us sign any papers, no one interrogated us for hours on end." That's a story markedly different from the one you're currently selling to people these days, isn't it, you fraudulent snake? Have you ever publically noted Figel's claim that Robert Salas "has made a 15 year career pandering about the country talking about things he has no knowledge about"? Probably not…
Walt's claims were published months ago, you clown. I guess you just decided to forget this part:
"Walt's final statement was probably the most powerful…because he makes such an excellent and revealing point, as he writes:
"I did read about a briefing on the 27th here in DC. I am here in VA about 10 miles away. Interesting." Upon seeing this comment, my eyes froze at that line. What an important point.
"Yes, indeed, why would Hastings and Salas hold a press conference on the 27th in DC, and not invite Walt Figel, one of their primary and most important witnesses to one of the allegedly largest nuclear missile silo UFO shutdowns in the history of Ufology? Why would they not have retired Lt. Walt Figel standing in front of the cameras admitting that yes, indeed, a UFO was involved at Echo Flight?
"At the time of the conference, he is located only 10 miles away, yet they didn't invite him. I wonder why?"
I don't wonder why, Robert. You're a liar and a fraud and your own witnesses have made that very clear. You can pretend that thpose emails don't exist, but you would once again be lying. I have the originals, and your name is all over them, so what you claim does not exist was actually sent to you at the time! How blatant a lie is the story you're trying to put together! Fraudulent clown is a good look for you, but I doubt it will do much for your ultimate legacy unless it also happens to be the one facet of your life that you expect to be remembered for. Let me guess: this whole thing is an act in progress, yes? I hate to break it to you, pal, but your story hasn't progressed much the past year… Although I am willing to admit that you have learned something from it all. You're now willing to make claims without the benefit of witnesses! You're a real buffoon at times, Robert! Every next step you take just about brings me to tears from laughing so much. Thanks for that!
28.James Carlson Says:
March 24th, 2012 at 4:17 am
Robert? C'mon, Robert; you're so endearing when you lie… Robert? No more fibs? You're becoming such a let down… And just when I was beginning to think that cheap entertainment of the type you have always supplied me with could be easily had on demand. *** sigh ***
29.Robert Hastings Says:
March 27th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Col. Figel, per James:
"There is no record about anything happening at November or Oscar except in people's minds that are flawed beyond imagination. Salas has created events out of the thin air and can't get the facts straight even then. My best friend to this day was the flight commander of the 10th SMS at the time. He and I have discussed this silly assertion in the past couple of years – he thinks it is all made up nonsense for sure. I put both Salas and Hastings in touch with him and he has told them both that an incident at November or Oscar never happened. In addition he was subsequently stationed at Norton AFB where the engineers tested the possible problems. No little green men were responsible."
Robert Hastings says:
So, James, *selectively* choosing your ammunition, as usual, to support your position.
Of course, you don't mention that Figel admitted on tape—as anyone can hear—that his personal anti-UFO biases (Little Green Men, yuk yuk) had no bearing on the "serious" UFO report he received from his guards, but was skeptical of, regarding the "large, round object" hovering over one of his missiles when the entire flight failed at Echo.
Nor do you mention that I have Bob Salas' former missile commander, Col. Fred Meiwald, on tape saying that Salas was entirely truthful and accurate when he reports a UFO at the other flight, Oscar, when those missiles went down.
Can you produce an email or affidavit from Meiwald, written after my May 6, 2011 conversation with him, contradicting any of this? If so, produce it here. (Don't hold your breath, folks.)
Nor have you produced an email or affidavit from Figel on any date after I posted his taped conversations with me online. Of course, the reason is because he doesn't dispute their authenticity, unlike you.
Figel, after accusing Salas of making up the UFO-related events at Oscar, as you mention above, never acknowledged that he had been wrong when he said that Salas' statements were fiction, never called Col. Meiwald (whose number I provided to him) to verify the authenticity of Meiwald's tape recorded comments in support of Salas—which contradicted his own uninformed opinions entirely—and frankly, never had the decency to apologize to Salas, even after Col. Meiwald supported Salas without reservation.
Figel's tendency to talk out of both sides of his mouth is one of the reasons he was not initially invited to participate in my press conference—where seven USAF veterans *with backbone* stuck to their stories and talked in detail about multiple UFO encounters at ICBM sites, including the Echo and Oscar shutdowns. The press conference video—streamed live by CNN—may be viewed at:
With this caliber of witness (seven of them, actually) at the press conference, why would I include Figel, who told me on tape that he didn't want to get caught up in the debate between you and me and fan the controversy further? That kind of wishy-washy attitude didn't make the cut.
(Fortunately, lots of other expert testimony is available to substantiate the reality of UFO activity at nuclear missile sites, not to mention hundreds of declassified USAF, CIA and FBI documents summarizing these dramatic incidents.)
However, Figel did at least have the courage to say on tape that you were "off-base" and had "an ax to grind" regarding the events at Echo. Of course, you never mention that very crucial fact in your ceaseless tirades. But anyone can hear Figel say it on tape, if they choose to.
And, finally, I have spent the last few days engaged in productive activities relating to getting the facts out about the UFO-Nukes Connection. Several new projects are underway that will result in an even larger global audience for my well-documented research findings in the months ahead. Stay tuned.
Please keep spending your time on these little-read blog threads. It leaves the wider field of action wide open to my efforts with a minimum of interference from you. Keep up the good work, James!
30.James Carlson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 28th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Robert, you have yet to establish that your tapes are actually of Walt Figel. Have you forgotten that? Figel has clearly asserted that your claims are meaningless. The fact that his testimony can be confirmed by the documented evidence, the testimony of my father, the testimony of the UFO officer onboard Malmstrom AFB, the summary reports of the Echo Flight investigation, all of the message traffic related to this issue, and your own published interviews with Figel and Meiwald proves pretty handily that you are either incapable of properly analyzing the incident in question, or your habit of "cherry picking" the evidence you want to use has once again gotten out of hand.
If those 1996 tapes you published are actually of Walt Figel, then perhaps you can clear a few points up for me:
(1) If Salas had tapes of Walt Figel, the deputy commander of Echo Flight, asserting the presence of a UFO at Echo Flight, why was Salas calmly telling the whole world at that time that he was the deputy commander of Echo Flight?
(2) Why did Robert Salas write in a 11/10/1996 personal email regarding the taping of "Sightings" to Ray Fowler: "I am a little concerned, however, that they won't get one of the Echo crew on tape. I have their names and phone numbers. They contacted them both and the commander agreed to be interviewed but they are more interested in the deputy who seems to be balking at an interview." We all know why they weren't inerested in the commander — he refused to support their UFO tales, and is on record with the producers of "Sightings" as saying there was no UFO. But why did Figel refuse outright? He insisted to me that he never told anyone a UFO was at Echo Flght, and yet those are the claims you've tried to establish. It's a shame that until 2010, Figel refused outright to go on the record with anybody about a UFO, and yet you've decided to ignore that. You expect people to believe this 1996 "recorded" testimony about a UFO, even when Salas has already established Figel's complete unwillingness to do so on the record — even in 1996! Do you have any kind of written testimony in which Figel makes such claims? No … but I do — a whole lot of written testimony insisting that what you've published is a lie. Funny how most of it was written by Walt Figel!
(3) Why didn't Salas use any of this 1996 information until 2010? If it was so irrefutable, why didn't he even mention Figel's name until 2000? Didn't he consider these "recorded" statements to be valid testimony? Or did he just think it wasn't very important until 2010?
(4) Why does Figel insist that he never made the claims you've established on those alleged "recordings"? Why does he insist that my father's version of the invenmts is accurate, if those statements are true?
(5) Why do you insist that none of Figel's statements are true except those that support YOUR case? It seems to me that without Figel's testimony, YOU don't have a case. But you're certainly willing to invent one for your purposes, aren't you? And you accuse me of using only partial bits of the evidence available? I've presented over 80 pages of FOIA documentation, and ICBM histories that were only declassified in 2004 to support my case. You've ignored all of that. I reinterviewed your witnesses, and they refute your claims. You've ignored all of that as well. I hardly think you're in a position to establish fact from fiction, since you've been writing fiction all along. It's a shame, I know, but you're kind of stuck with it since no other witnesses have ever come forward, and the two that have come forward insist that you're a liar and a fraud. And you're still trying to spin 1996 testimony that has NEVER been validated and that the supposed source has indicated is false or at least edited to support claims he never made? You're pathetic, Robert. Try acting like an adult for once in your life.
Let's examine your claims point-by-point, shall we?
IRT: "Of course, you don't mention that Figel admitted on tape—as anyone can hear—that his personal anti-UFO biases (Little Green Men, yuk yuk) had no bearing on the "serious" UFO report he received from his guards, but was skeptical of, regarding the "large, round object" hovering over one of his missiles when the entire flight failed at Echo."
Figel says he never made such admissions EVER. That pretty well clears your invalid claims of consisting of any real truth. I can make fake recording just as easily as you, but I don't use them. Unfortunately for you, we already know that you're willing to use fake reports from your own comments. Or don't you remember the following details?
You wrote to the owners of Reality Uncovered the following text, trying to convince them not to publish my claims, as they were untrue. This is what YOU wrote: "I re-interviewed Walt Figel on Monday evening. Salas re-interviewed him on Tuesday evening. We have both conversations on audiotape and we are currently transcribing them. We asked Figel to address James Carlson's interpretation of his statements and position on various things. James will not like what Walt had to say.
"Figel has given Salas and me permission to publicize his statements as we see fit. I will post a comprehensive rebuttal to James' flawed claims in the next few days, providing verbatim excerpts from the conversations. I may even make key portions of the original audio tape available online."
Please note, Robert, that you have done NONE of that, because you were incapable of doing it. NOTHING that you stated in the above communication was true, and that was verified strongly by Walt Figel the very next day. Since Reality Uncovered was now positive — by your own testimony — that you are a liar and a fraud, clams that were immediately verified by Col. Walt Figel, they published all of Figel's statements. Your response was not to immediately contact Figel and try to figure out where the disconnect was and how you could possibly have gotten such a clear statement from Figel so wrong — not at all! Your response was to state on the record for the next six months that I was lying, and had never even spoken to Col. Figel! You tell me what that says about your ethics and your high morals. None of these are unproven assumptions, Robert. They are facts.
Do you remember what Figel wrote when I told him about the above comments from you? Keep in mind that you were claiming "I re-interviewed Walt Figel on Monday evening. … We have both conversations on audiotape … We asked Figel to address James Carlson's interpretation of his statements and position on various things. James will not like what Walt had to say. … I will post a comprehensive rebuttal to James' flawed claims in the next few days, providing verbatim excerpts from the conversations. I may even make key portions of the original audio tape available online." Try your best to remember that you never published anything from that conversation with Figel, while promising for six months to do so, thereby proving your honesty and my lies. You posted none of it.
Figel wrote the following regarding this conversation with you: "I reasserted that I personally never did see a UFO at any time. I do not personally believe that UFOs had anything to do with Echo flight shutting down that year. I repeated that I never heard about an incident at November or Oscar flight and have no knowledge that they ever happened and that I doubted they did."
He added, "I told him that when someone mentioned UFOs, I just laughed it off as a joke and assumed someone was just kidding around. I never took it seriously. I also told them that no one from any UFO office in the Air Force ever interviewed/deriefed your dad and/or me and that I do not remember ever signing any papers about anything. In fact, I told them that until he mentioned it, I did not even know there was an office that monitored sightings of "UFOs" in the Air Force.
"When your dad and I came topside the next day – no one ever said anything about UFOs and there was no 'large gathering' of people on site that morning."
Tell me, Robert, are these the claims that I allegedly would not like?
You never did post "a comprehensive rebuttal to James' flawed claims in the next few days, providing verbatim excerpts from the conversations." You promised to do so for another six months, but published nothing except your insistence that I had never spoken to Figel. On the day before your September 27 dog and pony show at the Press Club in Washington, DC you FINALLY published a rebuttal of sorts, what you and Salas claim are recordings of Figel from 1996, only doing so, I believe, because you had been promising for so long to publish something, some form of rebuttal to what Figel and my father had been insisting upon for so long.
None of your assertions in that communication of yours are true, and yet you told Reality Uncovered that you would post transcripts and recordings of Figel making statements that were provably NEVER made, and you very likely would have done so had not we beat you to the punch by releasing Figel's actual claims first. The point is, you threatened to do exactly what you are now denying in full knowledge that those statements would not be true, statements that Figel insists he NEVER made to you.
Why would you insist that "Figel has given Salas and me permission to publicize his statements as we see fit. I will post a comprehensive rebuttal to James' flawed claims in the next few days, providing verbatim excerpts from the conversations. I may even make key portions of the original audio tape available online", if you were not prepared to do so? And yet, we have absolute proof that Figel never made the claims YOU insisted that he made. I think it's reasonable to assume that a man preparing to publish "a comprehensive rebuttal to James' flawed claims in the next few days, providing verbatim excerpts from the conversations" that never actually existed would have to forge a fake recording in order to do so.
Figel did not merely insist that he does not believe in UFOs. Every aspect of his claims refutes the presence of a real UFO, the sighting of a real UFO, the report of a real UFO, and the subsequent investigation of a real UFO, as does all of the remaining evidence, which you have shown a remarkable propensity to ignore. The fact that nobody on the planet has ever produced a UFO report in regard to this case is merely another of many reasons we have to consider you and Salas to be a couple of shamelessly dishonest cranks. And don't think for a moment that I haven't noted your tendency to ignore 95% of the evidence available, to argue only those little bits of the subject that you think you can actually get your head around — a supposition that disappears entirely when we take into account the well-substantiated fact that you have absolutely no real understanding of this case. After all, you've never defended it — you just attack those making contrary claims, while failing utterly to explain most of the facts that Tim Hebert, Tim Printy, Reality Uncovered and I have presented, choosing instead to say "everybody's lying but me", and "Figel's testimony is crap — all except that little part that supports my claims!" You can't possibly explain all of the facts of this case, because you don't give a damn about facts in general!
IRT: "Nor do you mention that I have Bob Salas' former missile commander, Col. Fred Meiwald, on tape saying that Salas was entirely truthful and accurate when he reports a UFO at the other flight, Oscar, when those missiles went down."
I've mentioned it on numerous occasions, which you've decided to ignore. In fact, I've already published an in-depth article establishing your deceit in regard to Meiwlad's claims entitled "Strategic Editing". You might want to look at it before insisting that I've neglected to take his commentaries into account. You can find it at http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/20 ... c-editing/ . More to the point, however, your own transcripts of the interview you had with Col. Meiwald establish pretty definitively that Fredf Meiwald has no memory at all of a UFO at Oscar Flight! Have you simply decided to ignore that aspect of his claims? Did you just forget the following part of your transcripts?
RH: Okay. Now, when Bob, I think moments [after] he woke you up, or you got up and sat down at the commander's console—he of course had received a call from the Flight Security Controller, saying that there was a bright red, oval-shaped object hovering over the security fence gate—my understanding is that is what he told you as soon as you were at your console, that he had received this call and, uh, that of course coincided with the missiles beginning to malfunction. Do you recall him telling you that?
FM: I really don't remember that portion of it, relative to the bright object. I remember an unusual condition [but] as far as the details, uh, I can't elaborate on that.
I like this part, too, since it shows how remarkably clumsy you can be when trying to establish fiction as fact:
RH: Okay. He of course has also said that you two were, uh, when you were back at Malmstrom, you were debriefed by OSI and required to sign non-disclosure statements. Do you remember that?
FM: I remember being directed to do that. But that was no problem. I've been one of these people, when told to forget something, I forget it—eventually [inaudible].
RH: Right, well, is that a polite way of saying that you really don't want to discuss this, even though you know more than you're saying?
FM: No, I'm saying I don't remember.
Pretty remarkable, even for you, Robert. One question: do you remember the comments you left at Reality Uncovered? Because they establish pretty clearly as well just how far Meiwald is willing to go in ordfer to link missile failures at Oscar Flight with a UFO:
"Meiwald then elaborated and said that he couldn't support everything Salas has said about the incident because he had been resting/sleeping when the first missile or two dropped offline -— which occurred moments after Salas received a report from the Oscar Flight Security Controller about a UFO hovering over the Launch Control Facility's front gate.
"Although Salas had quickly told Meiwald about that telephone conversation, Meiwald says that he can't remember it."
It seems to me that the only person here who is neglecting to examine evidence is YOU. But I established that years ago, claims that you shine a spotlight on every time you publish another set of easily proven lies and conclusions reached without evidence to back them up!
IRT: "Can you produce an email or affidavit from Meiwald, written after my May 6, 2011 conversation with him, contradicting any of this? If so, produce it here. (Don't hold your breath, folks.)"
Trying reading your own article you incontinent fake! And try reading "Strategic Editing" at http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/20 ... c-editing/ ; it shows exactly how far you will go to publish a lie as having any basis in fact. I don't have to produce anything from Meiwald. You've already done it, for chrissake. You just aren't bright enough to realize that! More importantly, you've failed completely to link any missile failures with a UFO! Meiwald discusses two separate incidents: missile failures (which were common in 1967), and a UFO sighting that he only learned about second-hand. No where have you managed to link these two incidents, while I've published a large amount of materials indicating that they cannot be linked. You have been completely unable to get a statement from Meiwald stating very clearly "we had 8-10 missiles fail at the same time a UFO was reported at Oscar Flight". How hard is it to get these simple, cohesive statements? You couldn't get it with Figel, and you can't get it with Meiwald. All you can get is a discussion of 2-4 missiles failing and a second-hand report of a UFO that he clearly doesn't remember, which is a long way from 8-10 missiles failing due to a UFO incursion! It's no wonder people don't trust you; you're either obtuse with little ability to conduct a simple interview, you're a complete idiot, or you're lying! No other outcome can be supported by the claims you've made. Maybe you should get the substantiation of your claims from your witnesses first, before trying to manipulate their testimony to suggest claims that haven't actually been made.
IRT: "Nor have you produced an email or affidavit from Figel on any date after I posted his taped conversations with me online. Of course, the reason is because he doesn't dispute their authenticity, unlike you."
You are brain-dead. I've published numerous articles establishing exactly that, while you've failed to produce anything at all that was actually recorded after April 2011. In fact, the above letter that he wrote to me was drafted after you posted the alleged 1996 testimony! It is a response to your claims of what he supposedly said in 1996! You've ignored completely Figel's own insistence that you're a liar and a fraud. You can't twist these dates around — I have the originals, and I know he sent you the same accounts he sent me. Your "evidence" is nothing more than your rehashing of old materials that he has already refuted! All you've done since then is publish lies that are little more than warped accounts of the original statements! For God's sake, the last thing you posted was allegedly recorded in 1996! And Figel has already refuted all of it. I don't need any more statements to prove you a liar and a buffoon. You do that quite well enough on your own.
IRT: "Figel, after accusing Salas of making up the UFO-related events at Oscar, as you mention above, never acknowledged that he had been wrong when he said that Salas' statements were fiction, never called Col. Meiwald (whose number I provided to him) to verify the authenticity of Meiwald's tape recorded comments in support of Salas—which contradicted his own uninformed opinions entirely—and frankly, never had the decency to apologize to Salas, even after Col. Meiwald supported Salas without reservation."
He wasn't wrong! Salas lied and you'v emanipulated evidence to try and back it up, failing miserably, I might add. And as I've already established, Meiwald didn't contradict anything Figel has asserted, and his comments are not a vindication of Salas. Calling an elephant a giraffe, doesn't make it a giraffe. The fact is simple: you have not established any vindication of Salas, not through Meiwald, not through Figel, and not with your vivid imagination. You're apparently too stupid to see that! Meiwald has clearly stated that he doesn't remember anything about a UFO, but you're so convoluted in your efforts of logic, that you see the denial of a UFO as a confirmation of a UFO. Try reading the testimony before judging its worth! Col. Meiwald supports Salas without reservation? You're a fool if you believe that. Do you so quickly deny your own words? You wrote:
"Meiwald then elaborated and said that he couldn't support everything Salas has said about the incident because he had been resting/sleeping when the first missile or two dropped offline -— which occurred moments after Salas received a report from the Oscar Flight Security Controller about a UFO hovering over the Launch Control Facility's front gate.
"Although Salas had quickly told Meiwald about that telephone conversation, Meiwald says that he can't remember it."
How do you get from "Meiwald then elaborated and said that he couldn't support everything Salas has said" to "Col. Meiwald supported Salas without reservation"? You're a head-case, pal. Personally, I think you're just making all of this up and sounding like a total lunatic, because you would prefer that people think you're delusional instead of a dishonest hoaxer and a conscious fraud, but either way, your case is unsupportable, and your witnesses will not salvage that loss. They either don't remember a UFO or they deny that a UFO was ever reported. Your own deceit supports that conclusion.
IRT: "Figel's tendency to talk out of both sides of his mouth is one of the reasons he was not initially invited to participate in my press conference—where seven USAF veterans *with backbone* stuck to their stories and talked in detail about multiple UFO encounters at ICBM sites, including the Echo and Oscar shutdowns. The press conference video—streamed live by CNN—may be viewed at: [Blah, blah, blah].
"With this caliber of witness (seven of them, actually) at the press conference, why would I include Figel, who told me on tape that he didn't want to get caught up in the debate between you and me and fan the controversy further? That kind of wishy-washy attitude didn't make the cut."
So you finally admit that Figel's testimony is tainted. And yet, you insist that the portion allegedly supporting YOUR claims is true, while everything else is not. Perhaps you missed the part where Figel claims he never made those earlier assertions? What you call "Figel's tendency to talk out of both sides of his mouth", Figel makes very clear is his claims being warped and abused by you and Salas. He says he's been consistent. You say he's lying now that your tendency to mutilate witness claims has been established. Either way, you have still failed to establish your claims as having any basis in reality. As for those USAF veterans who "stuck to their stories", I have to ask, which ones? Because they've very provably changed those stories on numerous occasions, which is one of the many reasons so many people dismiss your claims, and their "little folk tales".
I'm glad, however, that you've finally admitted that Figel was not invited to your press conference. If you remember, the first time I asked you "why", you told me he had been invited, and would have been welcome. I guess that's just one more example of your habitual reliance on lies and subterfuge.
IRT: "However, Figel did at least have the courage to say on tape that you were "off-base" and had "an ax to grind" regarding the events at Echo. Of course, you never mention that very crucial fact in your ceaseless tirades. But anyone can hear Figel say it on tape, if they choose to."
As if that's relevant. You've told so many lies about what Figel and my father have allegedly told you on tape that you've failed to ever produce, that I just don't care anymore. You always lie first, and you always end with irrelevant insults that can't be supported by anything. You have a notable habit for discussing all of the evidence you have yet to produce. With some of it, as in the letter to Reality Uncovered above, we've been able to prove that it's just more of your lies. It is this characteristic of your strategies that proves the ultimately worthless nature of your word. I know you're lying, because I've been able to prove so many of your lies so easily.
IRT: "Keep up the good work, James!"
Count on it, pal. It's my policy. Your credibility declines every time I answer your ridiculous claims with well-established facts. And every time you attempt to defend your claims, you fail, because at their core is the base dishonesty you have always relied upon. And I truly enjoy pointing that out to anybody who might otherwise want to give your claims an honest appraisal.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


text:
Carys Davies
Carys Davies's short stories have been widely published in magazines and journals, and broadcast on BBC Radio 4. She has won the Jerwood Fiction Uncovered Prize, the Society of Authors' Olive Cook Award, the Royal Society of Literature's V S Pritchett Prize, and a Northern Writers' Award, and her second collection, The Redemption of Galen Pike, won the Frank O'Connor International Short Story Award 2015. She was longlisted for the 2014 Sunday Times EFG Short Story Award, and shortlisted for the 2015 Wales Book of the Year. She lives in Lancaster. www.carysdavies.net


text:
Courtesy photo
Members of the Dover Fire and Rescue Department are welcomed by Bellamy & Watson Fields residents and staff while collecting toys for the Dover Fire & Rescue Toy Bank Drive. Owner of Bellamy & Watson Fields, Dr. John Hopkins, challenged staff to donate by offering to match any donations made. The Fields collected five boxes of toys, four bicycles and over $500 in cash and gift card donations from employees, residents and families.
All for the Toy Bank
Courtesy photo


text:
valentine's day origin and meaning
Origin of Valentine s Day What is the background of Valentine s Day? How did it start? Why do we celebrate it today? When is Valentines Day 2017? Valentine s Day is a time to celebrate romance and love and kissy-face fealty shop for valentine s day gifts 2016 for men and for women at nordstrom. But the origins of this festival of candy and cupids are actually dark com. Special seasonal gourmet chocolate truffle collections by Christopher Elbow Chocolates including Christmas, Easter, Valentine s Day Halloween and Mother s Day find luxury gifts and cute gifts for your boyfriend or girlfriend. love petals We have the Valentine s Day solution for the tea lover in your life - the Love Petals set totally free shipping. Three exclusive blends, packaged loose in festive floral tins ministry resources for valentine s day: children s ministry ideas, devotionals, programs, sermons, teaching, history, traditions, church supplies and more valentine s day - view romatic love quotes, messages, poems, wallpapers, wishes, greeting cards, gifts and many more. St find out more about valentine s day, including the story of its origin, symbols, and traditions. Valentine get all the facts on history. Help support New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download com. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa white day (ホワイトデー, howaito dē?) is a day that is marked in japan, south korea, taiwan, and china on march 14, one month after valentine s day. Valentine s Day Candy from CandyWarehouse valentine s day this is a festival to express romantic love through giving cards, letters, flowers. com, America s favorite online Bulk Candy Super Store! it is a day to celebrate the spirit of love. Tempt the heart with sweet, romantic candies! Browse a huge from its bloody origins to its sweet, chocolaty modern day traditions, these are 25 interesting facts you didn t know about valentine s day. Sweetest Day is a holiday that is celebrated in the Midwestern United States, and parts of the Northeastern United States, on the third Saturday in October the celebrating of valentine s day ranks number in the united states in chocolate candy sales. It is a annual spending in 2014 for the holiday was more than 13 billion dollars. Valentine s Day February 14 Love, Cupid, hearts, chocolates, cards and flowers are everywhere--it s Valentine s Day! On February 14, Americans find out more about the history of history of valentine's day, including videos, interesting articles, pictures, historical features and more. Though we know hundreds of years of history behind Valentine s day, the origins of the holiday are a mystery get all the facts on. HISTORY®, now reaching more than 98 million 3. Printables, coloring pages, recipes, crafts, and more from your child's favorite Nickelodeon and Nick Jr which one of the following did introduce groundhog day customs in america? history of valentine s day. shows valentine s day - the popular festival of love and romances traces its origin to ancient roman festival and has not been created by card. Shop for Valentine s Day gifts 2016 for men and for women at Nordstrom


text: Weather warning issued for Yorkshire as 75mph winds are expected to hit county The Met Office has issued a Yellow Warning for high winds across Yorkshire. The Met Office has issued a warning for Yorkshire and Humber as high winds of up to 75mph are expected to hit the county on Tuesday evening. Here is what we know so far. IN PICTURES: seven snakes and lizards that could be hiding in your garden


text:
It's Valentine's Day. To offer you a sugar-free, non-commercialised way of celebrating here are our top ten reasons to LOVE the ocean.
1. A whole lotta heart
Octopuses have three hearts. That's good news when you're a sucker for tangling your tentacles. They have lots of heart and arms to share.
2. Totally devoted
Many seabirds mate for life, returning faithfully to nests and partners, sometimes halfway around the globe. Other ocean critters are so devoted to their offspring that they give up their life to give them a good start, like the awesome Giant Pacific Octopus which guards its brood with its last breath.
3. Fatherly love
The ocean is an equal opportunities environment, and 'traditional' parenting roles are turned upside down by those curly tailed cuties, the seahorses. Not content with sharing the baby-sitting duties, it is the male seahorses who brood the eggs and give birth to the small fry too.
4. Sharing is caring
Symbiosis is when opposites attract. Different creatures have a mutually beneficial arrangement that involves them sticking together. Perhaps the cutest and most colourful of these are anemone / crab bromances that not only benefit both animals, but also make it look like the crab has some funky fashion sense.
5. Heart shaped reminders
Not only are some islands and coral reefs shaped like hearts, but some less ostentatious ocean dwellers are too. Heart urchins are spiky seabed dwellers. Confusingly they are often also called sea potatoes … not quite so romantic!
6. Big Bang
Many ocean critters take procreation very seriously, and make it into a big, messy group affair. When coral get amorous, or shoals of fish spawn all at once the sea becomes cloudy with er, passion, and in turn provides a feast for filter-feeders like manta rays and whale sharks.
7. Love chain
Underwater love doesn't always seem so straightforward. Hermaphroditic sea hares, a type of sea slug, form long chains to share the love, acting as both males and females to different partners at the same time. In Facebook terms, that would probably fall under the 'it's complicated' relationship status.
8. Stoned love
Adelie penguins in Antarctica don't go in for fancy schmancy presents, instead they show their adoration by presenting gifts of pebbles to their mate. Worth knowing if you've been caught short and the shops are shut.
9. Deep sea serenade
Whale songs travel enormous distances, if they don't get drowned out by man made noises. Sometimes these salty serenades can be heard half way across ocean basins, and in humpbacks they have been found to be constantly evolving, and very intricate songs.
10. Kiss of life
Every second breath we take originates in the oceans. Take a big, deep breath and be grateful.
This Valentine's Day – make sure you show the ocean some love back.
Willie Mackenzie is an Oceans Campaigner at Greenpeace UK.
(Unregistered) wcyranose
I love life not humans. What GOOD are they anyway? The claim to love yet are always killing and not get along for each other. Have a fatal gene it app...
I love life not humans. What GOOD are they anyway? The claim to love yet are always killing and not get along for each other. Have a fatal gene it appears. Speciocentricity is a disease of these animals.
15 February, 2014 at 20:40
Flag abuse
To post a comment you need to be signed in.
Are you sure to remove this comment?
Are you sure to report this comment as abuse?


text:
Loading Map....
Date(s) - 09/12/2018
9:00 am - 12:30 pm
New Syston Syclers HQ
Beginners Ride
For those that want to work up to the Saturday rides in an unpressured and most importantly flat environment then this group is for you! Meeting at Syston HQ – the Old Chapel on Chapel Street with a coffee at Martini's in Abbey Park.
Contact: Della
Email: Beginners [at] systonsyclers [dot] com