SPECIAL SECTION: Message For Our “Friends” In The Middle Kingdom
I normally save this for near the end, but…basically…up your shit-kicking barbarian asses. Yes, barbarian! It took a bunch of sailors in Western Asia to invent a real alphabet instead of badly drawn cartoons to write with. So much for your “civilization.”
Yeah, the WORLD noticed you had to borrow the Latin alphabet to make Pinyin. Like with every other idea you had to steal from us “Foreign Devils” since you rammed your heads up your asses five centuries ago, you sure managed to bastardize it badly in the process.
Have you stopped eating bats yet? Are you shit-kickers still sleeping with farm animals?
Or maybe even just had the slightest inkling of treating lives as something you don’t just casually dispose of?
Zhōngguò shì gè hùndàn !!!
China is asshoe !!!
And here’s my response to barbarian “asshoes” like you:
OK, with that rant out of my system…
I think in some cases people on our side misuse False Flag. Unless, of course “FF” stands for something else.
This became apparent to me when I had a very valuable conversation with DePat and FG&C about the notion that the Arizona Audit people were waiting for a “FF” before dropping their results. Once FG&C explained what he meant by FF, it made a LOT more sense than it did with my reading of the term.
I first heard the term False Flag many, many years ago in an intelligence context. It’s a method of recruiting spies. The signature example is the KGB “handler” who finds someone in his host country who has access to classified information and is sympathetic to Israel, then arranges to meet the Israel sympathizer “by chance.” Once he does so he lets slip that he is an agent…but not for the USSR, rather for the Mossad. He’ll even explain that he knows government employees aren’t supposed to leak sensitive stuff but if the sympathizer could just alert him to harmless stuff, it’d help Israel out.
Before the Israel sympathizer knows it, he’s “helping Israel” a lot more than that, but in fact he’s really passing stuff on to the Soviet Union.
The thing that makes it “false flag” is that the Soviet agent, whose flag SHOULD be red with a yellow hammer and sickle in the upper left, is (figuratively) displaying a false flag–that of Israel.
In the more modern United States Cold Civil War context, a false flag is when some leftist does something while pretending to be on the Right, in the hopes that it will damage the Right politically. This is everything from posting a bunch of stereotypical “right wing hate” on the internet then going off and shooting up a black church (to prove “right wingers are racists”) to…well, January 6 with Antifa pretending to be “right wing militia” types–which was very damaging to us.
Just like the Soviet agent was pretending to be an Israeli agent, the leftist douchebag(s) is (are) pretending to be on the Right politically.
I can’t be certain but I suspect some conflate this with something different: A big spectacular event staged to distract from something they don’t want you to notice. False flags can certainly do this (have some “right wing nut” shoot up a school and that will indeed saturate the media for a few days) but not all such things are “false flags” because many of these events don’t try to discredit the Right.
Now the Opposition does pull that trick too, and quite often, but when they do so, it’s not a “false flag,” it’s something else with a name that may just be best described as “distraction” or “misdirection” (the magician’s term for such a tactic). Basically the staged event sucks all of the oxygen out of the media room and nothing else gets looked at for some short period of time (a day to a week). It doesn’t matter if it ends up making the Right look bad (though if it does, bonus!!!), if it keeps people from noticing something else that happened, the operation was a success.
In this particular instance, the suggestion was that the Audit Results We Have All Been Waiting For are being timed to drop when disgust with Biden reaches a (new) all time high. This is certainly plausible though I would have a multitude of detail questions about it before I’d go beyond that. But what this scenario does NOT describe is a “false flag.”
OK, that off my chest…lets hope that Arizona Audit drops soon. If that implies something else must happen first, then let THAT happen, already! Too much death and destruction is being meted out by the Biden Facade Administration and the people behind it.
Justice Must Be Done.
The prior election must be acknowledged as fraudulent, and steps must be taken to prosecute the fraudsters and restore integrity to the system.
Lawyer Appeasement Section
OK now for the fine print.
This is the WQTH Daily Thread. You know the drill. There’s no Poltical correctness, but civility is a requirement. There are Important Guidelines, here, with an addendum on 20191110.
We have a new board – called The U Tree – where people can take each other to the woodshed without fear of censorship or moderation.
And remember Wheatie’s Rules:
1. No food fights
2. No running with scissors.
3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
4. Zeroth rule of gun safety: Don’t let the government get your guns.
5. Rule one of gun safety: The gun is always loaded.
5a. If you actually want the gun to be loaded, like because you’re checking out a bump in the night, then it’s empty.
6. Rule two of gun safety: Never point the gun at anything you’re not willing to destroy.
7. Rule three: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
8. Rule the fourth: Be sure of your target and what is behind it.
(Hmm a few extras seem to have crept in.)
All prices are Kitco Ask, 3PM MT Friday (at that time the markets close for the weekend).
This week, markets closed for the weekend at 3:00 PM Mountain Time
Gold broke out and up into the 1830s this week but much of that gain was lost by close on Friday. Silver is up a bit too, the PGMs however are down (or steady).
I attended a talk about the silver market last week; the speaker actually alluded to the folks who pushed the price of the gaming company in order to try to bankrupt a bunch of institutional traders, and then went on to try the same with silver. He described their effort as a failure (and from what I’ve seen so far, their effect on silver prices was, in fact, minimal). However one effect that they did have was they got me to post articles on the nine precious metals AND give these updates every week.
Part XVII: Nuclear Physics Finds A Hammer
Today, there is a subdiscipline of physics called “nuclear physics.” It deals with the nucleus of the atom, but does not typically dive any deeper than that (and there is most assuredly a “deeper than that” today known as “particle physics,” though there was no hint of its existence in the 1920s).
The sorts of investigations Rutherford and Co. performed in the first two decades of the 20th century were the very beginning of nuclear physics, though it’s often not considered to have been founded until 1932.
Why 1932? That’s the subject of today’s story.
There’s a modern trope among nuclear physicists. Someone asks “how do you find out what’s inside an atom” and the response is: “Just like a toddler trying to figure out what’s inside an alarm clock. He gets a hammer, smacks it, and sees what flies out of it.”
When we left off the physicist’s best subatomic hammer was the alpha particle, known to be a bare helium nucleus, mass number A = 4, electric charge +2. This would come flying out of certain atoms (like those of uranium and thorium) when they underwent what is called “alpha decay.” This process would reduce the atomic number (i.e., the element number, Z) of the parent nucleus by 2, and reduce its mass number, A, by 4. So uranium-238 (the isotope of uranium, Z=92, A=238) would become thorium-234; the mass number has decreased by four, and thorium is element #90, so the atomic number has dropped by 2.
Physicists used these alpha particles with some limited success as hammers to hurl at nuclei. In fact, that was how the nucleus had actually been discovered; Rutherford used alpha particles as a hammer on gold atoms and found there was a lot of empty space in an atom, but a very small hard kernel in the middle that would cause the alpha particles to ricochet. Physicists had even figured out how to give alpha particles more energy, by using electrically charged plates and so forth to get them to speed up.
But here’s the problem. The nucleus has a positive electrical charge, a substantial one. And an alpha particle, also a nucleus, has its positive electrical charge, too. And like charges repel each other.
Imagine if your hammer, and the nail you were trying to hit with it, strongly repelled each other. That’s a recipe for deciding a hammer is for hitting your thumb with, isn’t it? (Or perhaps your wrist, or even your face if the hammer bounces back at a sharp angle.)
Alpha particles were, to put it mildly, suboptimal as nuclear hammers.
There was also another glaring mystery in the early 1920s. What actually held a nucleus together?
As far as they knew back then, the nucleus of (say) oxygen-16 (Z=8, A=16) held a mixture of protons and electrons, 16 relatively heavy protons to give it the 16 mass number, and eight very light electrons (1/1836th the mass of a proton) to cancel out the charge of eight of the protons, leaving a net charge of 8, which was recently understood to be the very definition of an oxygen nucleus–a charge of eight.
It certainly looked as if there were electrons in a nucleus; consider beta decay. This is when the nucleus spits out an electron and goes up one in charge. For instance, the thorium-234 I referenced will spit out an electron (in this context, it’s known as a “beta particle”), uncovering another proton, raising the atomic number, therefore. from thorium’s Z=90 to Z=91, which means it’s now a protactinium-234 nucleus. So it certainly seemed as if nuclei had electrons in them; otherwise how on earth do electrons end up coming out of the nucleus during beta decay?
So let’s consider a helium-4 nucleus; under this model it contains four protons and two electrons. Those four protons can actually all touch each other (you can convince yourself of this with marbles, ping pong balls, or billiard balls). What keeps them from flying apart? The protons are all positively charged; and there are only two electrons to cancel that repulsion out.
Well, let’s list what we know about protons:
mass = 1.672×10−27 kg
electric charge, e = 1.602×10−19 C
radius = 0.8414 fm
[e is the symbol used for the electrical charge of a proton in particular; an electron has charge –e.]
[“fm” is “femtometer,” a femtometer is 10-15 meters, or a quadrillionth of a meter. Most people have heard the “nano” prefix, meaning one billionth; fewer have heard of pico (one trillionth), femto (one quadrillionth) or atto (one quintillionth).]
We can get an appreciation of the size of the problem by simply computing the electrical repulsive force between two protons that are touching each other. Their center-to-center distance is double the radius, or 1.6828×10-15 m, so we can plug everything into Coulomb’s Law to see how big the force is:
The vertical bars stand for “magnitude” (in other words, drop the vector stuff and just deal with the scalar values, because we want a size, not a direction.)
both Q values are the charge of the proton, e, and K = 8.988×109 Nm2/C2. You can do the math.
The answer I got is 81.456 newtons.
NOT 81.456 billionths of a newton, or trillionths of a newton, but 81.456 newtons. That’s the weight of 8.3 kilograms (81.456 N/(g=9.8 m/s2)) under Earth gravity.
This much force, between two itty, bitty, teensy, tiny particles!!! It’s an actual macroscopic amount of force. It’d be as if a proton could hit you so hard it’d be like taking a 60 mph pitch on the chin.
(Actually, now that you mention it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle.)
The force is enormous compared to the size of the particles.
Since all four of the protons in the alpha particle touch each other, each proton is being repelled by three times this much force (244+ newtons). The two electrons that are attached to two of the protons attract with 167 newtons, but that still leaves 81 1/2 newtons of repulsion unbalanced, and that’s simply yuge.
Well, that’s the electromagnetic force. There’s one other force that could come into play: Gravity.
Now a physicist would know, instantly, that gravity doesn’t matter more than a mouse fart in a hurricane here, but many of you don’t, so let’s just check that.
The radius is the same, but the numbers of the masses are much lower than the numbers of the charges, roughly 1/100,000,000 as much. And G is only 6.67×10-11, much much less than K was, very roughly 1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000 as much.
I get 6.59 x 10-35 newtons.
“Drop in the bucket” doesn’t begin to describe that number in comparison to 81.456 newtons. Basically a quintillionth of a quintillionth the amount.
Nuclear physicists generally ignore gravity as a force between the objects they study. There’s no way its effect could even be measured as a fraction of the electromagnetic effect.
So, by everything known in the 1920s, nuclei should simply fly apart, in a nanojiffy. Or perhaps an attojiffy. The two fundamental forces act in opposite directions, but gravity shows up like Biden’s rally crowds showed up last year (and gravity can’t cheat to make up for that).
So by rights any nucleus bigger than hydrogen’s one-proton nucleus should simply fly apart. It should never have formed to begin with.
Since we’re still here, and not simply big Swalwellian clouds of hydrogen gas, clearly something else, something new, is at work.
And that is today’s story.
Can Nuclear Electrons Actually Exist?
Leaving aside the fact that the nuclear electrons can’t, all by themselves, keep a nucleus together, there was plenty of reason to question whether nuclear electrons even existed at all. There are, essentially, three reasons that I could explain to you. Number Three had to do with Dirac’s Equation which came along in 1928 and I want to save for another column. So going back to the other two reasons…
Issue #1: Binding Energy
In the introduction I described the prevailing model of the atomic nucleus as of the 1920s. Ernest Rutherford made the suggestion around 1919, but he decided shortly afterwards that it didn’t make sense; and this is one reason why.
One of the still-standing 1895 puzzles has to do with atomic weights. The atomic weight of, say, carbon is not quite twelve times that of hydrogen. Even after accounting for the presence of atoms with different mass numbers (uncommon isotopes of the same element), it still doesn’t quite work out; even accounting for all those nuclear electrons…it doesn’t work out.
In fact, heavier atoms (i.e., heavier than hydrogen) are always lighter than they would be if they were simple multiples of the proton’s mass, much less including some nuclear electrons as well. Even hydrogen-2 (deuterium) is less than twice the mass of hydrogen-1 (protium).
This, it turns out is due to something called binding energy. It’s the energy required to pull the protons apart.
This is directly analogous to the binding energy between, say, you and the earth. How much energy would it take to separate you from earth? At least as much as it would take to accelerate you to escape velocity. This is gravitational binding energy, because it’s the force of gravity that creates the potential difference between you standing on the surface of the earth, and you out in interstellar space.
It takes, very roughly, 7 million electron volts (MeV) to pull a proton out of a nucleus. Alternatively, if a proton is shoved into a nucleus, 7 MeV is released (just like, as you fall from a great height, you release a lot of kinetic energy).
That energy actually shows up on the books as missing mass. E = mc2, after all. So the particles in a large nucleus are all just a bit lighter in weight than they would be if they were separated; to separate them you have to add enough energy to make up the mass deficit.
If you were able to convert an entire proton to energy, it’d yield 938 MeV. The binding energy is therefore about seven tenths of one percent of the total mass/energy of the nucleus. We can actually measure that shortage…and, it turns out, had been measuring it for decades. This is the reason for the discrepant atomic masses.
Another sort of binding energy is the electromagnetic binding energy, keeping electrons in atoms. This ranges from a fraction of a single electron volt, to a bit over a dozen electron volts, for hydrogen. Is some fraction of the mass of an atom disappearing during chemical reactions, when chemical energy is released? The theory says yes. But it’s a small enough change (roughly one millionth the size of the nuclear binding energy) we haven’t actually measured it…yet.
I tried to discover exactly when this was first explained. It was sometime before the 1920s. Wikipedia says Einstein did it in 1905, but it simply points to the fact that he derived E=mc2 that year; I can’t quite nail down that he said, in that paper, that this is why nuclei heavier than protium are all lighter than they “should” be. If he did say that then, then I should have crossed off yet another mystery the week I talked about the incredible year Einstein had in 1905. If someone else (or Einstein himself) put two and two together after the fact…well, it certainly happened by the 1920s.
The reason I bring this up right now, is that it ties to the first issue with nuclear electrons. Ny Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, an electron bouncing around in something as tiny as a nucleus must have a kinetic energy of at least 40 MeV (its position is very well defined, its momentum therefore isn’t going to be anywhere close to zero). Not only is this a lot more than the energy of beta radiation (presumed to be one of these electrons escaping the nucleus), it’s more than the binding energy of the protons; one bound electron bouncing around in there contains enough energy to kick five or six protons out of a nucleus! And what would keep it from flying out as super-energetic beta radiation?
Issue #2: Spin
Probing into quantum mechanics eventually established that protons and electrons have a spin of 1/2. Or, alternatively, -1/2.
But the term “spin” is misleading. The particles don’t actually spin like a top. They do something else that’s pretty whacky and has no sensible referent in day to day life. Nuclear and particle physicists will hijack an everyday term to describe these phenomena, however, so they speak of “spin.” They picked this word because it is measured in the same units as angular momentum. The actual value is 1/2 of ℏ, so the physicists simply label it “1/2.” It can point in two opposite directions, so the “other” direction is labeled -1/2.
If you have some even number of electrons or protons, they could be any combination of 1/2 and -1/2 spins, but since there is an even number of them, you can pair particles with 1/2 spin with particles of -1/2 spin, cancelling each other out, and some even number of particles will be an excess of 1/2 spin (or -1/2) spin particles. The excess will always be an integer, if there is no excess the total spin is zero–which is also an integer. (In practice, the + and – 1/2 spins will cancel each other as much as possible, in this case leaving a total spin of zero.)
An odd number, n of electrons or protons will always have 1/2 or -1/2 spin left over, on top of the integer spin that the even number n-1 of the particles will give.
So let us consider the nitrogen-14 nucleus (Z=7, A=14). It should have 14 protons and 7 electrons in it, which total to 21. Thus if the spin is measured, the net spin should have a 1/2 (or -1/2) fraction in it.
They did measure the spin of nitrogen-14 nuclei, and it always came out to integer spins. So there have to be an even number of protons plus electrons in that nucleus.
Therein lies an apparent contradiction, and there are no actual contradictions in reality; there must be some unknown fact or bad assumption that when identified, will resolve the apparent contradiction.
The Nuclear Force
I’ve described two issues with the concept of nuclear electrons. But I kind of skated past something in my discussion of binding energy. As I said, you are bound to the earth by gravity. Electrons are bound to atoms by the electromagnetic force. Protons are bound to a nucleus by…anyone? Anyone?
Clearly there’s some other force out there. A force strong enough to overpower the eighty newtons of force between adjacent protons. But weak enough that we’d otherwise never have noticed it–because we hadn’t noticed it. It should have been about as conspicuous as AOC in front of a TV camera, yet we never noticed it.
It seems odd to postulate a force that’s very strong at close quarters, yet unnoticeable at a distance. If were anything like electromagnetism or gravity, it should drop off as the square of the distance…twice as far away, you feel 1/4th the force, three times as far away, you feel 1/9th of the force. So if this hypothetical force is an attractive force stronger than the electromagnetic repulsion at some distance, it ought to still be stronger than the electromagnetic force twice as far away–both forces are a quarter as strong at that location as they were before, so the one that was larger before, should still be larger here.
But we all know of something that doesn’t behave that way, and that is magnets. Sure, one pole of a magnet has a force that drops off as the square of the distance, but there’s always a nearby opposite pole. If you’re right up against a north pole, the south pole of that magnet is, say ten times further away, and only cancels out 1/100th of the force. But double your distance from the north pole, and now the south pole is about five times further away and cancels out 1/25th of the force, as you move further and further away the two poles are (propotionally) closer to being the same distance away from you and cancel each other out quickly.
So magnetic forces appear to drop off as the cube of the distance from the magnet.
In order to match what we see, this hypothetical force should be almost nothing at 2.5 femtometers’ distance, strongly attractive at about 1 femtometer, and actually be repulsive at distances less than 0.7 femtometers. In other words, two protons would have to be almost touching for this force to become a factor.
The repulsion at very close distances actually puts a lower bound on the size of nuclei, since the protons can’t get closer than that without being pushed apart. That’s the effective size of a proton. And indeed these distances are roughly the size of a proton.
This force turns out to be very, very complex computationally, but it was consistent with everything they saw at the time, so, just like gravitational and electromagnetic forces, it was accepted as being true even if a lot of details needed to be ironed out. (And even though we know a lot more about it today (1920s physicists had no idea), there are still issues.)
Enter: the Neutron
I mentioned that even though Rutherford had originally suggested the nuclear electron, he grew dissatisfied with it for many of the reasons already mentioned, and a year later, in 1920, had come up with another idea. Perhaps, instead of proton/electron pairs, the extra, dead-weight mass of a nucleus that doesn’t contribute to its electrical charge was due to a neutral single particle about the mass of a proton. He even gave it a name, the neutron. This rather neatly solved the spin issue: If a nitrogen-14 nucleus contained 7 protons and 7 neutrons, the spins would add to zero. Repulsive forces would still be about the same, though: too much without positing a “nuclear force.”
But most physicists didn’t accept this conjecture. Though it solved a lot of the issues that the nuclear electron hypothesis introduced, physicists weren’t going to accept that this “neutron” thingie existed until someone actually detected one. Throughout the entire decade of the 1920s, most physicists continued to accept the nuclear electron hypothesis as being likeliest to be true, despite all the problems it seemed to raise.
If it seemed like this attitude was inconsistent with their fairly ready acceptance of the nuclear force, well…no. A force is intangible, but you can see its effects. You write some equations to build a model of how the force works, and if all of the effects match, you’ve probably got a good description of a real force, at least until you learn more. But if you posit a particle, you’ve posited something tangible that you should be able to detect in a much more direct way. And so far, the neutron had not been.
So we need to detect a neutron. But how? Protons and electrons are easy to detect, and relatively easy to manipulate, because they had electrical charges. One could see the effect of the electrostatic force, both caused by the particles, and also the effect of the force on the particles…in particular being able to deflect them to measure their mass, but also to accelerate them, like happened to electrons in a Crookes tube.
A totally neutral particle would be invisible based on these methods of detection…and impervious to being manipulated by electromagnetism.
But the first crack in this problem appeared in 1930. Walter Bothe and Herbert Becker, in Giessen, Germany, were using alpha particles from polonium (Z=94) in an experiment. They picked polonium because it spits out particularly energetic alpha particles (in other words, the alpha particles are moving faster than usual), and they wanted those energetic particles to use as a hammer on light elements, like beryllium (Z=4), boron (Z=5), and lithium (Z=3). When the alpha particles hit these light nuclei, an unusually penetrating radiation was produced. It couldn’t be deflected, so they tentatively concluded that these were very strong gamma rays. But it was hard to interpret the results definitively.Two years later, in Paris, Irene Joliot-Curie (the daughter of Marie and Pierre Curie) and her husband Frederic Joliot sicced this radiation on paraffin, a compound of carbon and hydrogen. It resulted in protons being ejected from the sample; the protons had kinetic energy of 5 MeV. This radiation, if it were gamma rays, would have to be 50MeV gamma rays, much stronger than anything seen to date.
Ettore Majorana, a young physicist in Rome, analyzed all this data and announced his conclusion: This radiation had to consist of neutral particles.
When Rutherford, and his Cavendish laboratories colleague James Chadwick had heard about the Paris experiments and they, too didn’t believe this radiation was any kind of gamma ray. Chadwick devised a bunch of experiments to prove it wasn’t gamma radiation, then went on to subject more materials to the mystery rays, and eventually demonstrated that whatever it was, it consisted of neutral particles about the mass of a proton.
In other words, Chadwick had found Rutherford’s neutron.
Now that the neutron had been found…whoosh!!! the nuclear electron hypothesis was discarded; the notion that a nucleus contained protons and (except for hydrogen-1) neutrons now made a lot of sense and we could be sure that neutrons actually existed rather than being a convenient shorthand.
Back to Binding Energy and the Nuclear Force
With the correct understanding of a nucleus consisting of protons and neutrons, things become a bit clearer. In many ways these particles are a lot alike, and collectively, they’re called nucleons. They are of almost identical mass, and both are subject to the nuclear force.
The mass number (A) of an isotope is now understood to be how many nucleons it contains. Atomic number (Z) is now strictly equal to the number of protons in the nucleus, since we no longer have additional protons masked by nuclear electrons. We now have a new number N, the number of neutrons, and N + Z = A.
Nucleons are bound together by the nuclear force, which is very short range, its maximum strength basically covers the distance from one nucleon to the next.
So picture a nucleus with (say) about sixty nucleons in it. A nucleon near the center of the nucleus is completely surrouned by other nucleons and they each exert a strong attractive force on it; the forces balance, that nucleon is pretty happy where it is. But note, this nucleon does not feel any attraction from a nucleon that is two nucleons away, rather than adjacent.
Nucleons near the surface of the nucleus only experience about half as much nuclear force, because they’re not surrounded by nucleons, they just see a few to one side of them…and again, no effect from the nucleons further away.
A very small nucleus, say carbon-12, has a large percentage of its nucleons at the surface of the nucleus, maybe a handful in the center are surrounded by other nucleons. This means that the average nuclear force on a nucleon is less than it is in larger nuclei, where most of the nucleons are surrounded by other nucleons.
Now, going to a very large nucleus, like that of uranium-238, the vast majority of nucleons are surrounded and thus tightly bound. But those near the surface, just like those on the surface of carbon-12, feel half of the nuclear force attraction. But the protons there actually feel more electrical repulsion, because that force is long range and there are a lot of other protons in that nucleus, all pushing them away. So that particular nucleus is teetering on the edge of falling apart. Indeed, given a few billion years, it will fall apart.
This is sort of a hand-wavy argument that the most stable nuclei are the medium size ones; ones where a large number of nucleons are completely surrounded (maximizing the attractive force they feel) but also where ones near the surface don’t get repelled by so many distant nucleons. Either side of that happy middle ground, the average nucleon either just feels less attractive force (smaller nuclei, fewer near neighbors on average to attract), or feels more repulsive electromagnetic force (larger nuclei, lots of protons repelling the nucleon).
The total nuclear binding energy of a nucleus can be plotted versus the number of nucleons; when you do this you get a diagonal line, down to the lower left, up to the upper right. It’s almost a straight line, but if you look closely, there’s a slight bend to it. (I’d show you but I can’t find that plot on line…and it’s not nearly as illuminating as the one I’m about to describe.)
If you then go through and plot the average binding energy per nucleon, you now get a very striking curve, like this:
Now you can see that at about 56 nucleons, the binding energy per nucleon is highest; it takes more to pull one of those nuclei apart than any other nucleus. There’s a huge jump from hydrogen-1 (zero binding energy) to helium-4 (alpha particle).
Conversely, if you can build up to iron-56, you can release about 8 1/2 MeV per nucleon, which is a huge amount of energy. You can get most of that just going from hydrogen to helium-4.
Alternatively, if you can pull nucleons away from uranium-238, you can release about 1 MeV for each nucleon by the time you bring it down to iron-56. Uranium will actually help you get started on this by undergoing five alpha decays spontaneously as it decays to lead.
This was to have explosive implications. Quite literally.
But in the meantime, in 1920 Arthur Eddington–the same astronomer/physicist/mathematician who had measured the sun’s bending of the light from distant stars to prove general relativity correct just the year before–put forward the suggestion that perhaps this is what powered the stars…specifically the fusion of hydrogen into helium-4. In 1928 George Gamow did a lot of the math to figure out just what it would take to get this to happen. But hydrogen wasn’t thought to be any more common on stars than it is on earth. (The earth as a whole has little hydrogen in it; we think it’s common because there’s a lot of water up here on the surface). Cecilia Payne-Gaposhkin had, in her doctoral thesis in 1925, proposed that the sun was mostly hydrogen, but this was largely ignored because the prevailing theory was that the sun’s composition was similar to that of the earth. Eventually she was proved right, and Eddington, too was proved right. Most of the energy of stars does indeed come from hydrogen fusion; the rest comes from fusion of helium and heavier nuclei, releasing 7 MeV per nucleon. Further fusion happens in heavier stars to get that last 1 1/2 MeV / nucleon out of the “stuff” stars are made of. I discuss this in my older articles on stars, and we’ll be coming back to this in a future installation of this series.
[Semi-personal note: Gamow spent the last part of his career, 1956-1968, at the University of Colorado in Boulder (a/k/a “Berkeley by the Mountains”). This tower (physics faculty offices, one of the two or three tallest structures on the main campus with eight floors)…
…is named after him. (The physics lecture halls and labs are in the building at the bottom, and it looks like the picture was taken from a similar looking tower within which a lot of work is done for NASA–perhaps including the New Horizons probe that visited Pluto. I would cut through these buildings often going from one end of the campus to the other, particularly in bad weather. Football stadium in the background.)
The Neutron Hammer
Imagine that you are a lone proton, a/k/a an H+ ion, and you are headed directly towards, say, a carbon-12 nucleus. As you approach, you are slowed down by the repulsion of the six positively charged protons in that nucleus. If you aren’t moving very fast, you will eventually stop and be pushed away. If you are moving quite fast, you will get very close to that nucleus before stopping. If you are moving fast enough, you’ll manage to get close enough that suddenly, you’ll feel the nuclear force and now you’re caught–you just became part of a nitrogen-13 nucleus (which, by the way, is unstable and will want to decay–but not by either of the radioactive decay modes known so far).
Now imagine you are a neutron. You don’t feel any force at all, either repulsive or attractive, until just before impact, you feel the nuclear force, and now you’re caught like a fly on flypaper…you are now part of a carbon-13 nucleus (which is stable).
If you are a scientist looking to hit atomic nuclei with things, do you see that it might be fairly easy to hit nuclei with neutrons? Both protons and neutrons need to hit almost head on, but at least the neutron doesn’t need to be given a good hard shove just to get past the electrostatic repulsion.
Suddenly, it became very easy to take some perfectly ordinary, stable nucleus, like, for instance, calcium-42 (Z=20, A=42) and hit it with neutrons to make Ca-43, Ca-44 and so on. Eventually, you’ll get to a nucleus that’s unstable, Ca-45, which will beta decay to scandium-45 (Z=21, A=44).
There’s no calcium-45 found in nature on earth. It has to be made in a laboratory. But by irradiating various things with neutrons, isotopes like this, and literally thousands of others, were discovered, and their radioactivity studied. It turns out that every isotope that beta-decays releases a characteristic amount of energy when it beta decays, and usually the half lives are fairly short (days or years at most).
(Occasionally it turns out the half life is ridiculously long–quintillions of years, trillions of times the age of the universe, and it’s very hard to even tell that that isotope is radioactive. Only fairly recently, in fact, has it been proved that bismuth 209 (Z-83) is actually radioactive with a half life of 20 quintillion years; it had been considered a stable element, the heaviest one in fact, before then.)
In fact, you can turn this around. If you have a sample of unknown composition that has a lot of beta decay going on in it, you can measure the beta decay energy (or energies) and get a good idea what’s in the sample.
Which is well and good, but in most cases, your unknown sample will not consist of a bunch of these short-lived beta-decaying isotopes. They don’t exist in nature, unless they’re part of a uranium or thorium decay chain.
There’s a way around this. You can expose your sample to a strong beam of neutrons. Some of the atoms in it will capture the neutrons, become unstable isotopes, and reveal what they are. For instance, if you irradiate a sample with neutrons, and then detect Ca-45 decays, you know the sample must have a lot of Ca-44 in it (some of which captured neutrons and became Ca-45). Only a vanishingly tiny fraction of the atoms are altered by this treatment, but you do have the issue of your sample being radioactive for a while after the analysis is performed. This technique is effectively non-destructive since only a small fraction of the nuclei end up moving to the right one on the periodic table, and does see use, it’s called “Neutron Activation Analysis” (the neutrons are deemed to “activate” the nuclei by making them radioactive).
Neutron activation analysis will not tell you about what molecules a sample is made of, only what elements. So, for instance, if it detects some small amount of lead in a rock, you can’t know which ore of lead it is (though you might be able to infer it from what else is in the sample). An atom’s being in or out of a molecule has no effect on its radioactivity, which is what this analysis looks at.
The nuclear force is, today, considered the force that governs alpha decay, as well as nuclear fusion. As well as nuclear fission, but that had not been discovered yet. The neutron was going to be a very useful tool for nuclear physicists, and only thirteen years after it was discovered, the world would be slapped across the face with the realization that it had very practical applications as well.
We can cross a few 1894 mysteries off our list. But we have a new one to take their places.
If there are no electrons in the nucleus, what the heck is up with beta decay? Where does that zippy little beta particle, i.e., electron, come from?
Plus the mystery of the current age: Who the hell actually intentionally voted for Biden?
Obligatory PSAs and Reminders
China is Lower than Whale Shit
Remember Hong Kong!!!
Zhōngguò shì gè hùndàn !!!
China is asshoe !!!
China is in the White House
Since Wednesday, January 20 at Noon EST, the bought-and-paid for His Fraudulency Joseph Biden has been in the White House. It’s as good as having China in the Oval Office.
Joe Biden is Asshoe
China is in the White House, because Joe Biden is in the White House, and Joe Biden is identically equal to China. China is Asshoe. Therefore, Joe Biden is Asshoe.
But of course the much more important thing to realize:
Joe Biden Didn’t Win
Qiáo Bài dēng méi yíng !!!
Joe Biden didn’t win !!!
we tied actually… so, we’re both FIRST!
I read the post.
If you say so. 😍
Hello to you! Hope you’re doing well! 🙂
A: No one. Votes for Biden were actually votes against Trump.
BIG difference between those two things.
A damned fine point.
So why was everyone voting against Trump.
A. The ruling class media made him out as an illiberal authoritarian demon, which he never was or is, to ensure their continued authoritarian illiberal control over the population. Trump was only in their way.
Actually many of the voters didn’t even vote against Trump, China and other foreigners, with collusion of the ruling traitors, did this through manipulating the voting machines.
No one will admit they voted for Biden they are embarrass.
I’ve been saving this one for a Steve thread. I went to a local coin shop recently. That might not sound like much, but it was my first time ever visiting one and a new experience for me. Anyways, the reason why I’m writing about it here is because, despite the store being located in a super Lefty area, there was NO COVID BULLSHIT. None. No masks, no funny looks or questions about the lack of masks, and I shook the owner’s hand afterward without anyone being concerned about germs. It was a perfectly normal pre-2020 interaction. And it really put into perspective how crazy things are when perfectly normal interactions like that are now “unique” and stand out as something different (or at least they do over here in this shitty blue prison state).
The local shop here still has the plastic spit screens, though the masks got ditched. If you call them you get a message that they’re not required but you are welcome to wear one if you need to.
The shop was robbed a bit over two years ago; now the owner openly carries a gun.
“An armed society is a polite society.” — RAH, PBUH.
Actually, I find it super relaxing to be hanging out in gun stores ranges, or at gun conventions — I’d probably do well at your local coin shop. A sizable percentage of people there are carrying, and most of them want to improve their skills and improve everyone’s safety.
I don’t know if any other employee is carrying.
Another covid change I forgot to mention is that they are limiting the number of people in the store at any one time. I’ve had to wait outside for fifteen minutes or so, even though I had four-figure business with them. I wouldn’t be surprised if security were an unacknowledged (publicly at any rate) motivation for it, too.
As for the Armed Society point, a gunshop in a nearby small town held an “Open Carry Appreciation Barbecue” once–open carry and get free food. So I was in a crowd of about 30 people, all quite visibly armed. I didn’t know any of them but it was the safest I ever felt.
Yep, every time I enter a doorway that says “no firearms allowed”, I feel like I’m wearing a bullseye on my back.
My kinda town!!!
“An armed society is a polite society.”
That reminds me of cats. A declawed cat most likely bite a person more than a cat with clows.
I have never been bitten by a cat that had long clews but have seen other peoples cats without clews bite.
BTW, from your OP:
It’s funny you mention this because the entire reason I was even visiting a coin shop in the first place is because of the attempted silver squeeze earlier this year. The “failed” silver squeeze is what finally got me into buying precious metals. I knew all of the arguments to buy it prior to that, but never could get myself to actually put the cash down until it became part of an organized political movement. Maybe the price didn’t go as expected, but it certain encouraged many others and I to become new customers. Is that really a “failure”?
Yes, in that the main goal didn’t get achieved.
That doesn’t mean it cannot have had positive side effects, and I am happy for the tiny role I played in helping them along.
I hope your new bit of white metal gives you some satisfaction! I bought quite a bit when it was much cheaper (ten ounce bars were 50 – 70 bucks), so I’m basically out of the bullion biz now; or I enjoy it vicariously at coin shows. (It’s nice to walk up to a dealer case full of yellow stuff.) Of course as a collector, I end up buying small pieces of silver for a LOT more than the silver is worth, but I consider that a very different thing.
You call it “tiny,” but your advice genuinely helped me out, so thank you again. I got a small Engelhard silver bar from the coin shop, which I realize doesn’t sound like much, but it’s the first time I’ve personally seen one in real life and not on a computer screen. It was an exciting find (and purchase) to me.
Yeah, I remember my first silver purchase…I was in high school, just before the 1980 Hunt Brothers squeeze.
It was a round called a “Universaro” (which I don’t think they make any more). I once had some very grizzled vet (thanks to him for his service) show me a very worn one he had as a pocket piece; he insisted it was a silver dollar but I knew it was a “universaro” round; the five faces were still visible.
My first gold was a half ounce credit suisse bar, which I eventually sold for a modest (about $10) profit; I held onto it through the bubble when I should have cashed out and at least doubled my money. I bought one ounce of palladium when it was an $80 item; it got burglarized a long time ago, shortly after it “spiked” to $120 because of the cold fusion announcement.
Okay, I had to look up a Universaro. I think this is it.
Sorry about your palladium.
In the grand scheme of things, a minor tragedy (It’s possible the universaro disappeared at the same time, by the way).
And yes, that’s what they look like. I don’t think they’re still being made; for all I know they have collector value now.
I was actually trying to find a video of the 400 oz standard gold bar that Apmex once brought to a coin show. They put it in a big clear plastic box with holes you could reach through to pick it up (which I did, but my pictures would dox me).
This present video just pans across some business’s cases, unfortunately a lot of the first cases were filled with Asshoe-issued pandas (which some people collect–I do not).
POOP ON PANDAS!!!
Just because they’re smelted from political prisoners’ dental implants…..
POOP ON CHINAZI REICHSPANDAS!!!
I just decided I’m going to go with “Asshoe gold” for brevity. You’ve come up with a good “long form” though!
I don’t honestly know where asshoe gold comes from, but I know the Nazis got much from Jews’ dental work. (Do the asshoes have mines, or are they just buying the stuff with money we send them buying their shit?)
Barbarians try hard to ruin it…but in the end it is gold, 79 protons and 118 neutrons (if I did my math right, A=197).
I found the video I wanted, finally:
400 ounce bar…and this is the show I was at where I saw it. 2014, American Numismatic Association World’s Fair of Money.
In fact I actually recognized a couple of people who walked by the camera.
That looks like so much fun!
Another one, not about gold and silver, per se, but discussing the show itself (from a different year, one I didn’t attend).
I don’t know what it is but that potential diagram doesn’t want to post. When I went in to touch things up, not only would it not show up again, I couldn’t change it out for another diagram–I had to create a new block for a graphic.
I guess I need to just find another one.
Are you talking about this diagram?
That’s the replacement to the one I originally had.
That original one would show when I edited, then not show when I went back to edit. I couldn’t replace it with anything, either, without creating a new block. I finally decided it was just some weird glitch and created a new block with the original diagram, but then after the post went live I noticed it was not displaying again, hence I replaced it with this diagram here.
Were you able to upload the one you wanted to the media bin? That would make it show for sure, IMO, provided it’s an image WordPress will accept.
I didn’t even think to try that, to be honest.
The error it gives me in the post editor when I go back to it is just weird, it’s complaining there’s no alternate tag (what shows when the pic doesn’t display). Doesn’t explain why the picture displays at first then never again…and other substitute pictures won’t display in that block either and I had to start over.
Yeah, the “image” URL over on U Tree has a token and an expiration – these NEVER work. The only way out is to download it as something with an image extension and then upload THAT somewhere.
The original diagram is still (not) showing up on the Utree edition of this daily, I believe.
Satisfying rant, nicely done! 💣🧨
America did not elect Joe Biden!
Wolf, new minor prob for fyi. When i login, come to page, i am not logged in. Have to tap login again, then it appears ok. Every time i post or refresh, my likes disappear.
Never had this b4.
Are your likes disappearing in the notifier or on the page?
Indeed, a good question, that’s two totally independent “like” mechanisms. I tend to be better about using the notifier like; in fact I almost reflexively hit Like on any comment I reply to in the notifier–including ones where the person is attacking me.
Yeah. IMO the two separate like systems are the result of lazy design. There could easily be a partial integration with wpDiscuz “like” data.
So, ive liked your post a few times now, and then poof its gone.
Believe me I’d much rather get your comments intact than a like. I literally have to be reminded to go look. Don’t worry about it!
Yes. I remember being chastised ot for commenting. Supposed to use the button instead of simple commenting. But we arent ot so…..
You have occasionally written comments about how much you liked something I wrote; those are a lot more meaningful.
There was a lady OT back when I was there who “liked” everything I wrote, including things where I was pushing back against something most people there agreed with. I was wondering if she had a crush on me, or at least I was managing to persuade at least one person…then I realized she was simply going through and liking *every single comment*.
Clicking the button can be so habitual that I’ve done it when someone was attacking me (asininely) just out of sheer habit, before I start to reply–and then I got attacked for *that*.
Ahhh. Yes. Like vs acknowledging via the button. I 👍 with your confusion. I do like your content, no matter if i dont understand, bc i am able to ask as needed. 😃
Is the notifier the bell? Just asking. I had that then for a day and lost it again. I feel like a five year old whose kind uncle gives them a half dollar (big moolah for a squirt) then it in my pocket then it falls out and you’re disappointed … 😞
I’ll figure it out … it was an awesome day though 😜
On the page. As soon as i like todays post for example, then i made a comment, when it refreshed the like for the post was gone.
Its not that i cannot like, i can. I can each time to daily post and comments, and in my bell…but then it disappears.
Just to check, ive liked on the page and on this response to you via the 🔔. If you can see a like stay that is.
OK – first of all, the page likes and the bell likes are completely different and unrelated. The bell likes will disappear in real time, because they don’t go to the page (they would be the OLD likes, like you see on The U Tree). You can click bell likes TWICE and sometimes they will stay around, but they’re finicky because we don’t store them on the page. The page likes that we do use, work only through the new commenting mechanism ON THE PAGE.
Does all that make sense?
I installed a 2nd browser on my phone. Will play w it a bit and see how it goes.
Ah – you’re on a phone. You may have to use “site in desktop mode” to get the bell notifier to work.
Bell is working. So at top of pist for today i like it, my avatar is there, it says i liked it. When i refresh, both are gone. Same for like on a comment. Bell notifier is different here vs at maricas. Here, i have to put on desktop as you said. At maricas its integrated in mobile mode.
Since the big take down my login on the site is not persisting. When I change pages/posts it often is just gone. Still see myself logged into the mother ship WP, but have to use “Log In” on this site to get the local niceties.
Nice rant, Steve. 😄
Re: False Flag
I think this term has morphed into…’any event that is not what it seems and was manufactured for some nefarious purpose’.
Well we will see if I poked the (panda) bear.
Another meaning for FF.
That’s not an unreasonable stab at it, but I can’t see it applying in this case. In other words, if that’s the new (mis) definition of “False Flag” I don’t see how it can apply to what’s going on in Afghanistan, whereas I *can* see it as an attempt to simply distract.
Yeah, I don’t see it applying to Afghanistan either. But 9/11 is a different story. The people who got blamed for that probably weren’t the ones who did it, and a whole war got started on false pretenses. I always think of the Reichstag fire when talking about false flags.
Yeah, that’s another perfect example!
I think it’s mainly for lack of a better term…to describe something that is fishy and contrived.
Oh yeah to distract, but it has also been demoralizing, embarrassing and has devalued us as an ally.
Who would want to trust us now…with this current regime in power.
It’s like this whole Afghanistan withdrawal was orchestrated to do the maximum amount of harm to our standing in the world.
And it has the ChiComs fingerprints all over it.
All this is true.
But no one is blaming anyone but the Biden Administration for it…so at least there’s some justice in the situation. (And if the DePat-FG&C suggestion is right, that’s exactly what WE need it to be, tactically speaking, but it’s about as satisfying as giving a queen and a rook away in chess, right now.)
I think it went beyond Right versus Left a long while ago.
One cabal who uses our ignorance and belief that there is a R v. L to do distractive stuff.
Let me take a stab at it.
A false flag is a splashy event – in the case of sinking the Titanic, it really was – that makes headlines and sets a narrative that says XYZ happened, when really that’s a cover for ABCDEFG with a little MNO thrown in, 9/11 being the most successful. “Terrorists crashed planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon killing thousands of Americans” were the headlines. Eventually, that led to starting up the war machine, and a generation of alpha males lost to it. Again.
In reality, what was destroyed, were the audit operation office and team in the Pentagon, the Marsh McClennan data center in the North Tower where irregularities in a new AIG billing system had been discovered (the team was in a meeting when that bomb went off, and the person who called it and the original whistleblower weren’t there), and the legal records in Cantor Fitzgerald having something to do with the government bonds being worthless. In Building 7 that collapsed right into its footprint 20 minutes after it was said to have fallen due to fire and damage which doesn’t appear on any video of the event, was a Securities and Exchange Commission office with all evidence in an anti-trust case being built against the Rockefellers.
There’s more, but you get the gist. One of the objectives was a gigantic cover up and evidence destruction operation to cover tracks by the powers that wanna be.
The Titanic was sunk to get 10 men out of the way so that a central bank could be installed with little vocal opposition. Only four of the ten were on it, though (Guggenheim, Strauss, Astor, and I forget the other one at ten minutes to six in the morning).
School shootings are supposed to play into the anti 2nd Amendment movement, but so far, that hasn’t happened.
Does that make sense? What we are waiting on is a Titanic or Murrah Building or 9/11 sort of FF that will stoke an emotional response so that the truth can be told. It’s looking like a big game of chicken at the moment.
Ah, but if it’s a false flag, the immediate emotional response will be to blame US for the event. With the normies mad at us, if we drop the audit results they will IGNORE them or worse, assume we’re dropping it to distract from the nasty shit that they think we just did.
What we want is a nasty event that’s clearly THEIR fault, then drop the Audit results.
I might also include in the definition that the event was intentionally caused, but made to look like it occurred organically.
The purpose of all “False Flags” is to misrepresent the AUTHOR – the true culprit, the real party responsible.
I believe the phrase originated at sea, when a ship falsely portrayed its allegiance (by raising a bogus ensign/flag), and they were oftentimes mistaken as an ally, rather than the foe that they were.
In all cases, the blame / responsibility for such an act is attempted to be misattributed.
THAT’s what a “False Flag” is – a lie of misattribution, of blame.
I think that this fits all of the various definitions that posters have submitted.
“False Flags” are a pretense, a deke – a lie.
In whatever form / manifestation …
That makes all the sense in the world. I’ve seen that trick used in many a book about the past. Stuff like Captain Blood.
That’s a very reasonable etymology for the term. I knew about the use in spycraft, but the term doesn’t fit as well there (no actual flags), but with ships, there are literal flags involved.
Another example would be the burning of the Reichstag, which helped launch the NAZI party. Similar to what the DEMONRATS do, a “vast conspiracy” was blamed (ironically, communists) when only months later it was established that the arsonist acted along… (n.b. source for that is Wacky, so it might be *cough* biased and inaccurate)…
New Political Moonshine:
Flatten the Curve Forever
September 3, 2021
Intro: “The full scope of Moonshine work dedicated to COVID-19 can be characterized as a wide-spectrum forensic examination of deep, complex, enmeshed and entangled open-source evidence. Every investigation culminates in a written report containing summary findings. The summary findings in any such report present in a variety of contexts and categories.
Introduction and ConstructThe fraudulent construct itself requires understanding in order to consume and position this historical analysis appropriately. The lens for comprehension is provided by RICO statue, which affords legal definitions and qualifies individuals, entities, the Criminal Enterprise, et al for prosecution.
RICO is the U.S. code for high-value fraud and racketeering crimes and it applies to the COVID construct and its purveyors. Under RICO, the fraudulent construct is organized and operated by a Criminal Enterprise that is a basic analog for President Trump’s COVID-19 Task Force extended.
The Criminal Enterprise exploits an organizational and closed-loop system of data curation and propagation that compartmentalizes criminality and culpability to propagate fraudulently constructed data for gain.
The data is specifically derived by harvesting it from a data reservoir of co-morbidity pathogens and illnesses that mostly occur on an annual and seasonal basis: flu/pnuemo, diabetes, heart disease and obesity.
To propagate a fraudulent pandemic capitalizing on data harvested mostly from a flu and pneumonia reservoir, the Criminal Enterprise is required to introduce a new pathogen for two specific purposes.
The first purpose for the Criminal Enterprise to introduce a new pathogen was to introduce one that mirrored the symptoms of the primary co-morbidities being harvesting. Think of this as apples to apples and further that it would be more difficult to sell stolen oranges as apples.”
[continued at the link above]
From the article, which (so far, I haven’t finished it yet) also seems to be an excellent broad overview for normies to understand the bigger picture:
“Recall that Mr. Wood spent roughly a week with attorney Sydney Powell and Lt. General Michael Flynn and was privy to an abundance of evidence.
In those meetings he learned of two retaliatory threats that were on the table should the Trump administration push back on the stolen election: 1) a viral compromise of the nation’s water supply and 2) the detonation of an EMP over the Midwest that would collapse supply chains and according to reliable research, would eventually result in 90% of the population perishing.”
1) the way to defeat such threats is to immediately go public with them, making it impossible for the blackmailers to carry out the threat without exposing themselves and making themselves legitimate targets of War by all of humanity.
In other words, the POTUS, upon revealing the Threat and identifying the blackmailers by name, occupation, tax ID number, bank account numbers, home and business telephone numbers, email addresses and every home address — a comprehensive and complete doxxing of every bad actor — could also authorize public retaliation against all of the same.
Essentially deputizing humanity and giving humanity the lawful Authority to eradicate the Threat.
And post a $10 million tax-free bounty on the head of every single blackmailer who is threatening the world with their proposed crimes against humanity.
It’s hard to imagine how much BETTER of a world that would be — honest, in the light of Truth, REAL, and STANDING UP — rather than the &^^%hole we live in NOW, crawling around on our knees in the dark.
2) the United States military could and would be mobilized to counteract any proposed EMP detonation.
If you’re gonna WASTE $6 trillion dollars on bio-weapon Covid mitigation after the fact, or on infrastructure preparation for an EMP before the fact, let it be the latter and not the former.
Call their bluff.
They issued a declaration of WAR on humanity.
While you’re informing the People of Earth about the Threat delivered by a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent of the world’s population, and justifiably demonizing and identifying them by name and photograph to the entire world, there is no reason to sit around and wait for the monsters to act.
Instead, seize every single asset related in even the smallest way to the U.S. banking system (which will be the large majority), and have every special forces unit in the U.S. military actively eliminating every identified member involved with making the Threat against humanity.
If what is alleged in the article is true, then all of that and much more was an option.
A much better option, than to go down on your knees with a hypodermic in your arm.
“1) a viral compromise of the nation’s water supply”
Pretty &^%$ing sure no virus in water can withstand being BOILED.
Oh, how could we EVAH survive.
We’d have to BOIL WATER.
Who has the recipe, or the mad skills for that kind of aqua-fiery science?
Probably have to wait for a lightning strike to start a fire somewhere, and then use the fire to ignite kindling under giant cast iron vats of viral-infected water, but I think we could do it.
Or if we somehow managed to retain the knowledge of how to create fire, then just like after every other disaster that affects the water supply, we boil water as needed, until the water supply could be cleansed.
It would even give the military something to do, since they don’t fight anymore and surrendered their weapons.
How would we EVER have gotten by… I might have even had to cancel my hair appointments and my pedicures and that big party where I was going to rub elbows with all the muckety-mucks…
But this is much better, living in a dystopian Nazi Covid-apocalypse… 🙄 😂 🤣 😂
Your way too optimistic. How are we ever going to move the fire to the cast iron vat place? Chasing after lightning strikes in a thunderstorm while lugging around cast iron vats is not my thing. Maybe if the cast iron vats were like pumpkin sized and had handles.. I could see that.
Have you ever lifted something pumpkin-sized made out of cast iron???
A lot of the engine blocks for the club are made out of cast iron, and they are not light and svelte.
Let us younger guys figure out the logistics on this boiling water thing, while you get back to Rasberry PI stuff. Half the Panda’s want to know how its done, so they can circumvent their free speech problems, while the other half are wondering if Q-tree is trying to build a laser or a nuke device.
Well played, sir.
“….Pretty &^%$ing sure no virus in water can withstand being BOILED…..”
I do not think it would be a virus, more likely a POISON.
Many, many decades ago I was talking to a chemist about a chemical that could poison a reservoir. I do not know if he was blowing smoke, or if the material exists, but that would be a better option
Tore recently was encouraging her people to make sure water purification was part of their plan. Activated charcoal specifically. Not a full Berkey system, but getting pouches of the activated charcoal to pour your water through. And she specifically said to watch for funny business out in the countryside where poisoning well water could happen.
From the article:
“Evidence therefore suggests that in combination with bad advisement from a wide slate of counsel and cabinet members, Trump determined that it was in the nation’s best interest for him to diverge from plans and then vacate the Executive. This decision accounts for how the status quo has been reached.”
Does not compute.
If DJT was advised of a threat to poison the national water supply with a virus and detonation of an EMP, that is a declaration of War.
It is not possible for it to be in the nation’s best interest, to surrender, to any such threat.
Worse, it’s like agreeing to get into a car with someone who pulls a gun on you. You are better off attacking or making a run for it, because if you get in the car, you’re dead.
Likewise, if you hand over the country to people who threatened to poison the water supply and detonate and EMP, the COUNTRY is dead.
Surrender is never an option.
The complete and total obliteration of whoever made the Threat, on the other hand, is.
VSGPOTUSDJT always charges INTO and THROUGH ambushes. This story doesn’t hold water.
Well, the overall map PM lays out, of how things developed and the connections between all the major players appears to be airtight.
The problem is, repeatedly, trying to reconcile Trump’s actions with his apparent objectives.
That is the “what is wrong with this picture?” problem.
It reminds me of a similar problem Zero presented, which confused so many people. Once someone accepted the premise (either of his own accord or by introduction from someone else) that Zero’s purposes and objectives were always and only to subvert and undermine America, everything he did began to make sense.
Before the recognition and acceptance of that premise, nothing he did made sense, because in that case, the general assumption (and perspective) is that though we may disagree with Zero politically, certainly he must want America to be successful, and yet every single action he took was obviously harmful to America.
It was never possible to reconcile Zero’s actions with the assumed perception of his objectives.
In order to reconcile the two, either Zero’s actions had to change from destructive to productive, or our perceptions of his motives and objectives had to change in order to comprehend his actions.
Zero wasn’t about to change his destructive actions, so the perception of his motives and intentions therefore had to change, and did, in order to reconcile and harmonize his actions with his destructive objectives.
His actions were destructive because his objectives were destructive. Cognitive dissonance disappears when the harmony between Zero’s actions and objectives is recognized.
I very much hope we are not required to reach a similar conclusion in order reconcile Trump’s actions with his objectives.
“Airtight” may not be the right word, but if there is a more thorough and well documented examination of the China virus construct and how it was developed and laid out, I’m not aware of it.
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
And where there’s that much smoke, it’s a lot more than just a simple brush fire.
I agree. It is either pure speculation or disinformation of some sort.
I’m not finished with the article yet, but as usual, it is so packed with detail and confident assertions that we are to take at face value. Makes me skeptical.
IMO, he’s reinventing the wheel. Most of the info he brings forward, like Amazing Polly’s, is already out there. They just package it differently.
“IMO, he’s reinventing the wheel. Most of the info he brings forward, like Amazing Polly’s, is already out there. They just package it differently.”
This is more of a summation or overview article, unlike most, where he gets down to the “granular” details.
But it is true that nearly all of his articles are based on publicly available documentation, which is good for two reasons:
1) it can be easily verified (and he usually provides links)
2) rarely does he convey any ‘insider’ information he has received, because either he can’t reveal the source or it can’t be publicly verified
This is in wild contradiction to most of the gurus, who provide little or no publicly verifiable documentation, and relate unverifiable “insider” information out the wazoo.
Reading PM is fine. When those charts appear, I’m done.
No disrespect surely. I can’t digest those charts with bubbles and arrows. I gave up on one from Dr. McCullough yesterday.
“Another presidential transit factor, Flynn transited from the Obama administration to the Trump administration bringing with him a full catalog of evidence and intelligence that stood to inform the incoming President Trump at the precise moment the outlier president was positioned to capitalize on his Title II Executive authority position as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer and the military’s Commander in Chief.
Therefore, un-tethering Flynn from Trump and compartmentalizing him with a constructed and fraudulent case managed by a corrupt and installed Judge Emmet Sullivan became the Criminal Enterprise’s highest and most critical priority.”
These kinds of deductions always seem to depend on living in a fantasy construct of perfect ‘following the rules’ logic (which only ‘our side’ is ever required to do), i.e., in order to prevent Trump from finding out what Flynn knows, they had to separate Flynn from Trump via the Russia hoax, and that would create an impenetrable firewall between Trump and Flynn which could never be breached, so long as corrupt Judge Emmet Sullivan delays proceedings infinitely.
Except it’s a ridiculous ‘conceit’ that would be laughed out of any book or movie script premise, because in the real world, if the fate of the nation hung in the balance, Flynn and Trump would find some way to overcome the insurmountable Hoyle’s Book of Rules and Marquess of Queensberry rules.
It’s a joke.
You don’t forfeit the NATION over a technicality.
Because if you DO, then you were never really fighting for the country in the first place.
“This caused Flynn to supersede Trump in the Criminal Enterprise’s targeting priority making him the highest priority threat. Flynn represented a complete set of receipts standing to inform the President’s desire to target, prosecute and eliminate the Criminal Enterprise writ large and all of its complicit functionaries, entities and individuals. This is represented by his patented and publicly well-known “drain the swamp” promise.
Flynn was critical to the “drain the swamp” vector in all ways criminal, political, intelligence and military. Without Flynn and his full set of receipts, Trump’s ability to enforce the law was greatly impeded and that in and of itself explains the intent of the fraud behind the Flynn intersection.
This also explains why the Criminal Enterprise kept Flynn mired in litigation and indisposed for the entire first term.”
And DJT, along with the best legal minds on the planet, the resources of a billionaire, and the power of the Executive Branch of government were unable to come up with a way to foil this B-movie plot?
In the words of the illegitimate occupier: “Come on, man!”
Trump could have pardoned Flynn on day one (or any point thereafter) and exposed the entire plot. There must have been a hundred different options that were better than the path taken.
Unless the destination we assumed was never where DJT was going in the first place.
At every fork in the road, where you could simply EXPOSE the truth to the light of day or continue further into darkness, the choice was only and ever made to continue further into the darkness.
And who could ever have predicted how that would turn out…
Agreed. I think PM’s position can be fixed in this way.
Trump and Flynn needed Flynn in an ACTUAL official position of leadership in order to have TRACTION and PUBLIC recommendations with AUTHORITY.
THAT was the reason to keep Flynn down and out.
Whatever the reason was, what was the reason for DJT to LEAVE him down and out, for the entire 4 years of his presidency?
He didn’t have to.
He could have pardoned Flynn the same day he was charged.
And the squirrel hunting media would have been past it as soon as the next impeachment trial or natural disaster or G7/8 meeting took place, or whatever moves the news cycle.
From the article:
“Notably, ongoing work on a forensic copy of the Hunter Biden hard drive is just beginning by Garrett Zeigler, a former Trump White House Official under Peter Navarro.”
Okay, let’s think about that for a moment.
That hard drive, if Garrett Zeigler really has it, contains information that could and would determine the fate of the world.
No less than the Manhattan Project during WWII.
Hopefully… HOPEFULLY, more resources are being poured into the examination of the hard drive, than just some guy working out of his basement.
I mean, it’s like slapstick tragicomedy.
There is no sense of scale or proportion or urgency or importance.
“Those findings should be used to further inform this work and with the understanding that the hard drive also contains a full slate of compromising evidence on Vice President Kamala Harris.”
Which is why it will never see the light of day.
It’s too valuable as leverage, and if it was ever actually used, the game would end.
And the players in this game love the game.
They love the game far too much to ever let it end, no different than all the never ending wars — which are likewise part of the game.
There are so many things which could and would end the game, in victory for humankind, that the hardest job of all is making sure that never happens, i.e., to make sure the game keeps going.
To make sure the wars keep going.
To make sure the industries and power structures that depend on the game that requires all the wars to keep going.
The information on Hunter’s laptop, if it was ever exposed, would end all of that.
And that can never, ever be allowed to happen — not by anyone on either side — if indeed there actually are two opposing sides, as opposed to one side presenting a false / controlled opposition to itself
From the article:
“Monaco’s 2015 memo is positioned as the mechanism to envelop the compromised gain of function work so it could be extracted and exported to China and specifically to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The memo was signed 29 Oct 15. It was also in 2015 that Obama made an exception to U.S. policy and permitted U.S. funding of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China in the amount $3.7 million.”
This has always stuck out to me, from the first time I heard about it.
The United States and China have the two largest economies on the planet. Discounting national debts, they must be the two wealthiest nations on the planet, at least in fiat currency terms.
$3.7 million dollars, between two superpower nations, is less than a pair of micro-deposits or charges (e.g., $0.01, $0.05) to verify the linking of John Q. Public’s bank account or credit card to an external account.
So why does China require Zero to do it, to make this token pittance of funding, which China could afford a trillion times over, except to establish the link, to establish Zero’s ownership of the transfer to Wuhan?
And, assuming Zero isn’t actually as stupid as he looks or sounds, why would Zero ever agree to put himself in that position?
It’s a token, a symbolic amount, representative of absolutely nothing in terms of actual/nominal value to either party, but it positively links Zero to the transfer of GOF research to Wuhan.
That is the only apparent ‘value’ — leverage / blackmail power over Zero.
And to answer ‘Cui bono?’, the only apparent benefit is to China.
What consideration did Zero get in exchange for putting himself under China’s panda paw?
It must have been something truly enormous, for a POTUS to compromise himself in that manner.
That is a nice observation.
Also if the threat was made, they had to LEAVE FOOT PRINTS and those could be traced.
The presidency was the only strength his position had. Why voluntarily give it up?
He got skunked. I don’t know why there’s such a huge strain of people who cannot accept that Trump might fail to do something he set out to do (win the election) and never has a genuine setback.
This is incorrect.
For example, it is glaringly ridiculous to attempt to blame Trump for anything happening at present. Yet when they inevitably attempt to do so, more and more people ”wake up” to see and realize PDJT was NOT the problem.
The presidency was the only strength his position had. Why voluntarily give it up?
He got skunked. I don’t know why there’s such a huge strain of people who cannot accept that Trump might fail to do something he set out to do (win the election) and never has a genuine setback.”
That is the question.
We know that the 2018 midterms were monitored to figure out anything they didn’t already know about Dominion and Hammer, etc., which they already knew enough about to defeat the attempted rigging of the election in 2016 anyway.
And as DJT has told us dozens and dozens of times, “We have it all”, it was all recorded, he even watched the real numbers and the theft in progress from a SCIF on election night.
And he certainly wasn’t watching alone, so he is not the only witness to the crime, and they certainly didn’t forget to hit the ‘record’ button on the VCR 👍😁
So if they have it all, if they have the evidence to prove DJT won in a landslide, and the evidence to prove that Cabal stole the election and installed a criminal, then as you point out, Why voluntarily give it up?
So far, there is no good answer of which I am aware, or that I can even speculate about, unless it involves space aliens and time travel and Rod Serling.
Now that I’ve actually read this, the threat was supposedly ClubKs and/or biological weapons. One of the latter was removed from a building in downtown Los Angeles by special forces a couple years ago. ClubKs and other missiles have been found on trains. We don’t hear about them other than after the fact, but, yes, they do exist.
Ask yourself, then, did he REALLY just walk away and hand over the nation to those hellbent on destroying it?
Of course not.
This whole sub-thread is stupid.
“Of course not.”
What evidence do you have, to support your belief that Donald J. Trump is still POTUS and running the country in secret, while JB pretends to be the president?
What evidence do you have?
Or must you concede that it is pure blind faith?
And if it was even possible for DJT to pull such a thing off, why would he do it?
If you know, then certainly the world’s best intelligence agencies (including our enemies) also know, so the only people being ‘fooled’ are civilians, the People of the world.
Why do it?
What’s the purpose?
And if ‘reality’ is ever reinstated, how will we know?
“This whole sub-thread is stupid.”
Is it stupid because you are afraid of the answers?
Or is it stupid because you don’t know the answers?
Or is it stupid because you don’t understand the questions?
Asking them hard questions again. Lookin’ for trouble. 😉
I’m just lookin’ for TRUTH, and I’m tryin’ SO HARD!!!
But they won’t help at all!
Over and over, I ask basic, simple, direct questions for WHY they believe what they believe.
It’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
And in response, they just run away!
It’s really kind of amazing.
Some “thing” is asserted, with great conviction, a naked assertion without any foundation provided, but strongly asserted.
So I simply ask, why do you believe this thing?
No reply at all. they just run away.
That’s kind of weird, isn’t it?
I mean, when I ask you why you think something is true, you just tell me. When you ask me why I think something is true, I just tell you.
But there are several people on this board, who make what in any other context (besides this board) would be some pretty outlandish assertions.
And that’s fine, a lot of what we discuss here would seem outlandish to people who don’t pay attention to these things.
But when someone asks you WHY you think this particular thing, or that particular thing, the NORMAL thing to do is to ANSWER the question.
But there are a few people here who simply will not do that.
The just won’t.
They assert with great conviction, but apparently, if you want to end the discussion quickly, ask them WHY they believe what they do.
That shuts them up INSTANTLY.
They VANISH… 😂🤣😂
And I’m not even trying to get them to shut up, I’m trying to do the opposite, to get them to explain WHY they believe some particular thing.
But asking that question shuts them up tighter than the Tootsie roll at the center of a Tootsie Pop.
Now that I think of it, that might be an affectionate nickname for some of them. Toots… 😂 🤣 😂
Of course, doubting the scenario (which they can’t support) is doomfagging.
Apparently it’s more important to believe some scenario that doesn’t end poorly, than to believe a scenario which is actually true.
“Of course, doubting the scenario (which they can’t support) is doomfagging.”
Which is insane.
Whatever the truth really is, if we don’t know it (or figure it out), then there is no chance that this ends any other way but poorly.
It is not possible to make informed decisions without verifiable information.
Assertions without foundation or substantiation (i.e., naked assertions) are unverifiable by definition.
It’s like standing on the edge of a cliff and believing you can fly.
You better be sure. You better have a *&^% good reason to believe it, and one test of whether you have a really good reason (or not) is if you can explain it to someone else in a way that can withstand at least casual scrutiny.
But that never happens.
Instead, it always goes like this:
Person A: “I think if I walk off the edge of this cliff, that I will fly.”
Person B: “Okay, why do you believe that? Maybe you can fly, but you must have a really good reason to believe you can fly, because it’s a long way down if it turns out you can’t. Why do you think you can fly?”
Person A: “I SAID I THINK I CAN FLY!!! Didn’t you hear me? I believe this very strongly, you should know.”
Person B: “Yes, I just asked a simple question, why do you believe you can fly? There must be a good reason.”
Person A: “Don’t you know anything about statistics and if you hear a bunch of things from different sources, even if they don’t make sense individually, if you put them all together, they make sense collectively?”
Person B: “uhh… wouldn’t it… wouldn’t it be a good idea, to, uhh, maybe have a little better answer than that, before you… you know… walk off the edge of a cliff?”
Person A: “Are you calling me a liar? Are you evil? Are you one of the black hats? WTF?”
Person B: “You know, this is pretty simple really. You believe you can fly, if you walk off the edge of that cliff. I’m just asking if you have a really good reason to believe you actually will fly, if you walk off the edge of that cliff.”
Person A: “I do!”
Person B: “Good, excellent, I was hoping that was the case. What is that reason?”
Person A: “I’m not talking to you anymore!”
Person A comes back again: “And you’re probably a bad person!
I am a highly rational person. I have to have some reason for everything I believe. Even if it is a spiritual belief, I can give you my reasoning for believing it.
I think we are in such DIRE times right now that people CAN’T accept the possibility that what they desperately WANT to believe (Trump isn’t really gone, Biden is a mirage, the country is in the hands of the military, devolution, etc.) isn’t true.
I am willing to admit and LIVE WITH the very uncomfortable feelings generated by “I DON’T KNOW.” It is terrifying to me to consider, but I am willing to live with terrified, because the alternative is irrationality. And I am not irrational.
Anyway, belief in something there is no evidence of is inherently difficult to explain to anyone. Atheists would claim there is no evidence of God, but that is irrational on its face. There is INCREDIBLE evidence of God all around us. Some would say there is evidence of what they think is happening in the U.S. right now, but as you say, when asked to provide same, they can’t. Or the evidence provided is just more hopium from the likes of X22 and others. People are making their fortunes on this stuff, just like prognosticators, “seers,” fortune-tellers and others have for centuries.
Meanwhile, it sure looks to me like Biden is in my White House, soldiers are dying, hostages sit in planes on the tarmac in Afghanistan, child brides are arriving in America with their Afghan-pervert husbands, the economy is crashing, and on and on and on.
I would love nothing on this earth so much as to wake up tomorrow and find out that the “believers” have been right while my rational mind has been deceived all along. But do I think that will happen? Sadly for us all, no I don’t.
What I do think will happen is a real mid-term election, because I don’t think they can pull it off again, at least not this close to the last one. Too many people are watching. How many poll watchers on our side do you think will just go home at midnight if they are told to? How many will consent to having the windows to the counting room covered? There would be a riot. The next election will have to be real, or the country will explode. The real people in charge will let the pendulum swing back, I am fairly certain, because they won’t have a choice.
So, we are, in my opinion, in the hands of the demented enemy until then. If we can survive it. God help us all.
Very much agreed 👍
“Anyway, belief in something there is no evidence of is inherently difficult to explain to anyone.”
Yes it can be, but that also helps us to determine whether we ought to believe what we believe.
As an example, suppose I believe DJT is still in control and Biden is filming press conferences from some studio in California.
Okay, that’s fair enough, there has certainly been plenty of chatter to that effect.
But can it withstand scrutiny?
We don’t know until we try.
Trying to explain what we believe to others is a very helpful exercise in understanding what we think ourselves, because it forces us to organize our thoughts and present them in a way that other people can grasp.
And in the process, we can anticipate obvious questions, and either answer them preemptively, or if we don’t know the answers, do a little research beforehand, so we get the answers first.
And if the answer is what we thought it was, then answer that question preemptively as planned.
But if the answer does not match what we thought, that’s good news. We discovered something new, which to at least some extent, may alter or impact the rest of what we believed was true, bringing us closer to the truth than we were before.
It’s a process.
Explaining what we believe to others (and why) is a valuable exercise, because it forces us to engage in that process.
So back to the example.
How could we prove, or at least get a much clearer picture, whether DJT was still running the country, and whether JB was goofing around with Red Jen in a California studio somewhere?
For one thing, there are generally only six degrees of separation between ourselves and anyone else, and considering the number of people on the Chans and places like here, somebody knows somebody who knows somebody who knows the people we’re interested in.
For example, it would help to know who JB’s secret service detail is. That should be public information. We all knew who Zero’s SS detail love muffin was, Reggie Love.
Suppose Reggie was JB’s secret service guy. There must be hundreds of people who know Reggie’s family.
His family probably wouldn’t divulge his whereabouts, either because of security or privacy concerns, but the hundreds of people who must know someone that high profile would know (or could find out) whether Reggie was living in California or Washington D.C., or at least whether he was in Washington D.C., or whether he was out of town somewhere ALL the time.
If he is in charge of JB’s secret service detail, and he is out of town ALL the time, then there is a much better (realistic) chance that JB must be out of town ALL the time too, which supports the idea that JB isn’t actually at the WH at all.
The people on the Chans were able to track down Shia Lebuffy’s silly flag, anywhere in the world. Certainly they have people who live in D.C., with cameras, that watch the WH. Do presidential motorcades come and go every day, or is it a ghost town?
If you had to, you could GO to D.C., get a hotel room, and WATCH the WH yourself for a week or two. Watch TV, see the WH press conference going on with Red Jen, and then look out your window with binoculars and see if any Press Corpses and their entourage are actually at the WH, or not.
If it’s an outdoor Rose Garden press conference, is there anybody standing in the actual Rose Garden when you look out your window, like there is when you look at your TV?
This ain’t rocket science.
It’s a pain in the $%#, but it’s not rocket science, you don’t need to be a master spy to figure out whether JB is in D.C. or not.
There are LOTS of ways to figure this out, the above are just the first two that came to me.
Next, do the same for DJT. Where is his secret service detail all the time? Are they always in FL?
Where does DJT’s plane go? The flight plan watchers certainly know TrumpForce 1’s call signs and ground watchers certainly know when TrumpForce 1 takes off and where it lands, and when.
It’s hard to hide a Boeing 737.
Who is DJT meeting with, on a daily basis?
Who goes to his compound?
VIPs don’t drive old Toyotas through the gates of Mar Lago, and even if they did, they still have license plates.
And pro-sumer grade optics make it easy to get license plate numbers from plenty of distance, so what are the plate numbers of the people going into Mar Lago every day?
Certainly with all the people on the Chans, there must be dozens of people who have access to databases to run license plate numbers.
This is all the kind of stuff JOURNALISTS used to do, or would do, if the object of their interest was trying to hide something (like Gary Hart pants, who claimed he wasn’t having an affair, and dared the media prove otherwise).
Is DJT meeting with world leaders? Journalists (citizen or otherwise) have every right to try to figure that out, and every other thing mentioned above.
The point is, there are lots of ways to gather information, to support or deny a given hypothesis.
Most of the time, it wouldn’t make sense to try, because the amount of time and effort is too much, and because you may be the only person who cares enough to find out.
But this is different.
MILLIONS of people want to find out, so it would be a group effort, like crowdsourcing, and at least tens of THOUSANDS are already actively involved in this exact process, because that is where MOST of these hypotheses come from in the first place.
So instead of living in rumor-driven land of doubt and hope, why not direct the efforts of the world-class crowd-sourcing investigators on the Chans and elsewhere to do what they do best, and NAIL THIS STUFF DOWN, instead of creating a fantasy world full of hopium?
They LIVE for this stuff.
They could do it EASILY.
Why haven’t they?
What are we believing, and why?
We will never get the answers to those questions and others, without asking the questions.
And that’s all I’m doing.
Asking simple, basic, logical questions which would get to the heart of the matter, and reveal, one way or the other, WTH is going on, so we’re not hostages to a hypothesis that no one has bothered to explore or investigate to find out whether there is any actual good cause to believe it.
Either there is, or there ain’t.
It has been 7+ months already.
We should know by now.
There ARE people who do exactly all the things you are writing about.
The reason we don’t hear or read the answers they have found is because the answers are NOT hopium.
That is the simple answer. It is not the one I would like.
“It has been 7+ months already. We should know by now.”
I personally think we DO know.
Boy, would I LOVE to be wrong.
“There ARE people who do exactly all the things you are writing about.
The reason we don’t hear or read the answers they have found is because the answers are NOT hopium.”
Okay, this is good news.
Do you have access to any of these sources? I never even heard of the Chans until Q came along, and the Chans are not very user friendly to newbies, which is by design, if I understand correctly.
If there are people doing this stuff, then it should be easy to find their research, at least for people like Emeraldstar and DP who seem to have access to the latest info from the Chans and similar places, where exactly this kind of information would be found.
And it’s not the kind of thing that would not be vigorously contested if there was doubt about the authenticity of the reporting.
And considering that the information would be coming from many multiple sources, on different aspects of both DJT’s and JB’s daily activities (or lack thereof), it wouldn’t take long for at least a general picture to emerge, answering some basic questions and ruling in OR ruling out some strongly held hypotheses about what is really going on, and what isn’t.
And certainly DP and Emeraldstar (and others) would be as interested in that information as all of us. 👍
Or, if it’s not to their liking, they will simply say it’s fake.
We’re unfortunately caught arguing against an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is literally NOTHING that they would accept as proof at this point. Contrary evidence has been faked by the deep state.
And since the Date Of Restoration is indefinite, there’s literally no date at which they will finally give up and say “gee, I guess I was wrong about that.” (Whereas we can be proven wrong by having Restoration Day actually happen.)
If Trump were to drop dead tomorrow, they’d simply claim he faked his death as part of the plan.
If we actually had a spontaneous civil unrest issue that toppled the government in this country, and Trump became president by acclamation (rather than some sort of military coup like they seem to be expecting); they would simply claim that THAT was the plan all along.
There’s no winning that argument. None.
“Or, if it’s not to their liking, they will simply say it’s fake.”
I would expect that of our adversaries, and of those who have no intention of ever awakening, but people like DP and ES are on our side, on the side of patriots, and they’re definitely not sleeping. So I think if they saw something which flatly contradicted what they thought, their natural curiosity would compel them to investigate further, to find out where that rabbit hole goes.
So that’s one aspect, and I would not anticipate disagreement about that.
Where it seems the dispute occurs is when things are asserted which, while there may be nothing which flatly contradicts what is being claimed, there is likewise nothing which flatly supports it, either.
Or if there is something to support it, it isn’t presented, there is no ‘sauce’ provided to explain the “why” for the belief which has been claimed.
It is the absence of the ability to put one’s finger on the reason why we believe a particular thing that should be a warning sign (to ourselves), that we are entering uncertain territory.
There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself, we pretty much have to enter uncertain territory in order to make new discoveries.
But some caution must be taken as well, because if we are exploring unknown and uncertain territory, if we start ascribing certainty or factual status to things which have not been established, very quickly that can lead us away from the truth instead of towards it.
And if we start linking various conclusions together which have not been established, to form a narrative that is appealing to us (because it is unlikely, though not impossible, that we would internally create a narrative that is not appealing to us), we can easily begin to deceive ourselves.
And if we are wrong, and unaware that we are wrong, and we assert these conclusions to others, without established foundations, be begin to gaslight others.
Gaslighting does not require any dishonesty on the part of the gaslighter — it can happen either innocently or with malice:
“Gaslighting is a colloquialism that is loosely defined as making someone question their reality.
The term is also used informally to describe someone (a “gaslighter”) who persistently puts forth a false narrative which leads another person (or a group of people) to doubt their own perceptions to the extent that they become disoriented and distressed.
This dynamic is generally only possible when the audience is vulnerable such as in unequal power relationships or when the audience is fearful of the losses associated with challenging the false narrative.
Gaslighting is not necessarily malicious or intentional, although in some cases it is.” — Wiki
Look at each of the elements in the definition above:
1) “Gaslighting is a colloquialism that is loosely defined as making someone question their reality.”
That is exactly what is being disputed here, every day — reality — and our perception of it, and to the extent that one view or the other is in ascendance, it has the effect of causing those who disagree to question their own perception of reality.
2) “The term is also used informally to describe someone (a “gaslighter”) who persistently puts forth a false narrative which leads another person (or a group of people) to doubt their own perceptions to the extent that they become disoriented and distressed.”
The members here at Qtree are the ‘group of people’. The conflicting views certainly lead to confusion and distress.
The fact that such starkly conflicting views exist indicates that while it is possible that both views could be wrong, they cannot both be right, and be in contradiction to one another.
The way out of the conflict is to track down the various elements in dispute, openly and together if possible, and examine the various elements, to determine which are true based on evidence and fact, and which may be suspected but cannot be firmly established one way or the other.
It is possible to reason our way out of the conflict. In fact, if there is any other way besides reason, I don’t know what it would be.
3) “This dynamic is generally only possible when the audience is vulnerable such as in unequal power relationships or when the audience is fearful of the losses associated with challenging the false narrative.”
This one is not a tight fit to our circumstance, but there are enough elements to have at least a loose fit.
We have ‘authors’ who regularly compose the daily thread, and contribute various other articles on interesting subject matter as time and inclination permit.
And we have the rest of us, lurkers and those who regularly take part in the discussions.
I wouldn’t consider it as an unequal power relationship, but the authors certainly do have at least some influence over the tone of the resulting discussion, and influence over the subject matter they choose to discuss, naturally.
In other words, the authors ‘set the stage’. What happens after that is anyone’s guess, I’m just trying to show how each of the elements in the definition of gaslighting could be applicable.
With regard to fear, the fear of the unknown is likely one of the most common and discomforting fears there is or can be, which is exactly why the DS plays on our fears of the ‘unknown’. Fauci has even stated directly that fear of the unknown is Man’s greatest fear, if I remember correctly.
With regard to “challenging the false narrative“, we don’t know for certain if a narrative is actually false yet or not, that is what is in dispute, that is what yet remains to be determined and established.
4) “Gaslighting is not necessarily malicious or intentional, although in some cases it is.”
While anything is possible, I don’t suspect any malice or intent to deceive is taking place here.
But as the definition points out, intent is not required in order for Gaslighting to take place.
“We’re unfortunately caught arguing against an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is literally NOTHING that they would accept as proof at this point.”
Possibly, but I don’t want to be so skeptical on that point. Generally speaking I agree, but the people who come to places like Qtree are not representative of the general public, at least in the sense that we self-select (by being here) and invest a fair amount of time into educating ourselves about an interrelated group of subjects which the general population does not.
And it is an active undertaking, born of intellectual curiosity, requiring the investment of time and effort, to read, investigate, search, think about, process, reach conclusions, and compare them to what our fellow patriots here are thinking.
That involves a combination of mental processes which necessarily attract or to some extent produce (both) a mindset that is open to considering things which others may never think about, or dismiss out of hand.
So it would seem that anyone regularly reading or commenting here shares some strong characteristics. Such people care about truth, they are invested enough to be more than familiar regarding the universe of subjects regularly discussed here, and positively driven by intellectual curiosity.
Those same traits (and others common to our little asylum) seem to push us towards the truth. Not always quickly, not usually in a straight line, frequently with detours and blind alleys, but that’s the nature of investigation and discovery.
We end up closing in on the truth, inexorably, because of the nature of ‘crowdsourcing’ and the personal characteristics of the kind of people who participate in the process (i.e., all of us).
We are all fallible and imperfect people, so we can all be wrong about different things along the way, and that’s normal, that’s how we learn, by being wrong and then figuring out what is right.
Hypothesize, test, draw conclusions, repeat.
As a group, we are figuring things out, and making decisions, based on the discovery of real and verifiable information.
To a certain extent, the things which we dispute, which cannot be verified or established, will eventually get left behind, because future events may render them irrelevant.
We face such circumstances all the time, and we manage to find workarounds or other ways to mitigate or compensate for them, until circumstances change and the thing about which we disagreed no longer matters.
What is different from usual (though certainly not unique) is that the things we are disagreeing about here are, by design, intended to divide.
Not by the people arguing them in good faith, but by whomever created the false or disinformation to begin with.
And something (probably multiple somethings) must be false, in order for a dispute of the kind we are discussing to exist.
“Contrary evidence has been faked by the deep state.”
Unlike a naturally occurring dispute, the kind of disputes we are having here were carefully calibrated and designed to create this exact kind of division.
And sadly, both sides (if there are two sides) are engaging in this disinformation activity. And since the people we think of as ‘the good guys’ never EVER speak the truth plainly, everything is intentionally left open to interpretation.
And the other side (if there are actually two sides) then has an open invitation to call any interpretation into question by calibrating their own disinfo to counter the other side’s message.
And round and round and round we go.
“And since the Date Of Restoration is indefinite, there’s literally no date at which they will finally give up and say “gee, I guess I was wrong about that.” (Whereas we can be proven wrong by having Restoration Day actually happen.)”
Yes, that is a practically a test for intellectual honesty.
Because even if one was right in their assessment, if so much time passes (e.g., a decade), or events take place (e.g., genocide, enslavement) that being right in the early going is no longer relevant, intellectual honesty requires a reassessment.
From an ‘event based’ model, one who favors the narrative which cannot be proven or established could still argue that their assessment is potentially correct, it is still possible that things could turn out as they anticipate.
From a ‘time based’ model, that window is always closing, little by little, day by day.
When it closes shut will only be truly known in hindsight, and since we cannot afford to wait that long if we are wrong (we must always allow for the possibility that we are wrong), then a cut off time, a drop dead date has to at least be considered.
Each individual will have to come up with their own deadline, but the hard part is not moving the goal posts as our own internally set deadline approaches.
I hope that I’m wrong, I want to be wrong, but the consequences of being right are too great to ignore, and the longer whatever this is goes on, the less likely it appears that my understanding is wrong.
Which, of course, is distressing! 😂
“If Trump were to drop dead tomorrow, they’d simply claim he faked his death as part of the plan.”
And the ‘good guys’ would make sure, absolutely sure, to provide enough doubt, that such an interpretation was at least plausible, and would catch on, in the larger Trumposphere.
Because if Trump did drop dead, the war would not stop, it would continue, and if anyone is actually on our side, it would be in their interest to ‘keep hope alive’, or at least they would see it that way, because they have demonstrated time and time (and time) again that manipulation is always preferred over truth.
I’m not sure why, probably some bogus ‘game theory’ angle which has become a comfortable box that both sides are now trapped in, because it serves the interests of both sides, who lost sight long ago of what they were actually fighting for.
But I don’t doubt that so-called ‘white hats’ would insinuate and ‘leak’ that DJT faked his death as part of the plan, and that the casket was empty, or contained a body double, or whatever.
And then would come the endless Trump sightings, like Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster, only far more frequent, with an endless supply of blurry or altered photos purporting to show Trump engaged in various every day activities.
Because of course.
“If we actually had a spontaneous civil unrest issue that toppled the government in this country, and Trump became president by acclamation (rather than some sort of military coup like they seem to be expecting); they would simply claim that THAT was the plan all along.”
And in that case, no one would argue, because we would all be happy and relieved, and the point would have become moot — except to us and people like us, because even if things turned out well, we still gotsta know… 😂 🤣 😂
“There’s no winning that argument. None.”
Well there’s no winning anything with a closed mind.
Assuming all of the minds here are far from closed, it does not seem to be asking too much for substantiation of various assertions which are made.
Assuming everyone is legitimately interested in discovering the truth (I think everyone here is), I don’t know what the downside is to laying our cards on the table as a matter of habit, and seeing which cards are winners and which cards are not.
I don’t know what advantage there is to being wrong, and since we are all fallible and prone to mistake, a meaningful safeguard against our own propensity for error is to present our views or points or assumptions — along with our reasons for believing them — to be tested and examined by other like-minded people.
If our beliefs as presented can withstand scrutiny, our confidence is necessarily increased.
If our beliefs as presented are correct in some ways and incorrect in others (which will more often be the case), we benefit from learning which parts can withstand scrutiny (our conviction is strengthened), and we benefit from eliminating or changing the aspects which could not withstand scrutiny, tightening our position and making it better and stronger and more defensible.
I can’t think of any good reason not to test what we believe. To present what we think, and just as importantly, the reason(s) why we think it.
Then let the team here have at it, tear it apart from stem to stern, and see what survives when they’re done.
If truth is what we seek, then we have nothing to lose by doing so, and everything to gain. 👍
“Assuming all of the minds here are far from closed, it does not seem to be asking too much for substantiation of various assertions which are made.”
And yet, it apparently IS too much, as far as they are concerned.
They are behaving *exactly* like the bad Hollywood stereotype of religious. (They can push that stereotype forward, of course, because in many cases–present company excepted–it does fit.)
Remember when someone was so positive that The Moment would be the end of the ten days of darkness, that when it failed to come, that individual behaved like they had just been kicked in the teeth?
That’s having blind, unreasoning faith collapse.
Goalpost moving is simply a defense mechanism against this. Thus, you’re not going to get them to stop doing it.
Trying to remember names…
There’s some guy ____Citizen Journalist who films outside the White House and in D.C. all the time.
There’s the guy who follows all the planes, who said for a while that “Air Force One” was not being used. I’ve seen references to him here. I don’t remember what he is called.
The point is, here is where I see the references. But the information doesn’t ever GO anywhere, at least for me. It never PROVES anything.
I would like to say I think we’re pretty much in the same camp on this.
I think getting a bunch of us to sit on our asses and wait for Trump to decide It’s Time can only benefit the other side.
Sure looks like that to me.
So that’s what the LA rooftop thing was.
It’s never been confirmed, but the video showed protocol for biological weapons pretty clearly.
It’s confirmed well enough, common-sense wise, at least.
I’ll go with that …
Good enough for me.
“Ask yourself, then, did he REALLY just walk away and hand over the nation to those hellbent on destroying it?”
I would hope not, but there is that little problem of reality that keeps proving over and over that he did.
I know it is a popular conception that DJT is still in control of a shadow government and apparently [JB] and his handlers are just putting on a daily sitcom from a movie production lot in Hollywood, and this is all a “movie” that we’re watching, and China and their entire intelligence apparatus is fooled, but we’re not.
I get that.
It’s an excellent story.
If it had gone on for 24 hours after [JB] was sworn in, it would have at least a little more plausibility.
If it had gone on for a week before JB & the Traitors were arrested, that would be less plausible.
But for it to continue on for SEVEN MONTHS and counting… how long are you going to be able to maintain this idea of a national version of Weekend at Bernie’s?
This isn’t Lichtenstein, or the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, or someplace where the world wouldn’t even notice or be paying attention if it disappeared off the map someday. It’s the United States of America.
How long could a Potemkin Village of the size you suggest — the most immense Potemkin Village, by orders of magnitude, in the history of the world — be maintained, without anyone peeking behind the curtain?
Or the (literally) millions of people (Americans, Chinese, British, French, Italian, Australian, Japanese, Saudis, Israel, Canada, New Zealand, Russia, etc., etc.) who would necessarily have to know, whose intelligence services would necessarily have to know, which includes both supposed allies and enemies?
Which brings us back to the same problem we always come back to, if what you suggest and apparently believe is true, that we’re living in a game show world, some kind of inverted Truman Show, where the leaders of the nations of the whole world know the truth of what is going on, and it’s just the People of the world who do not — cui bono?
How is ANY of it possible?
And to whose benefit is it, to deceive the entire world population, except for all the leaders of the nations of the world, and their governments and their militaries, and a few people here at the Qtree?
Now ask youself, if what you are suggesting is right, that we are living in a world of perfect deception where Trump is in charge and what we’ve all experienced for the last 7 months (or last 4 years and 7 months, or last 20 years… when does it stop?) is just a false reality construct, where does that leave us?
If the global false reality construct is so good that nobody on earth knows it’s happening (besides the people doing it, and a few people here at the Qtree), then ask yourself:
1) why would they ever stop?
2) how would we ever know?
3) if it turns out you’re right, how would we ever be able to trust or believe that we’re living in “the here and now”, in “reality” again?
What kind of life long psychological issues do you think that would have on 7+ billion people?
Imagine how the conversation would go, a year or two after Trump reveals the truth that it was all a hoax and he was in control all along:
Person A: “Hey, you remember that time when the whole world lived a lie for a whole year (or however long this goes on), when everyone on the planet except a couple people at the Qtree were fooled into thinking the master magician Donald Trump was no longer president, and Trump secretly ran the world’s most powerful country from a secret bunker, while Obama thought he was in control and using JB as his puppet?
Person B: “Yeah, that was crazy!”
Person A: “You know, if they could pull that off, if they could really deceive the entire world so completely… how do we know it isn’t still happening, right now?”
Person B: “…uh… did you just see that black cat run across the hall? It’s like the third time I’ve seen it do the same thing…”
I helped Elize talk herself into going to a Ham Radio show tomorrow on yesterday’s thread. It looked so fun, I wish I were going, too.
So … just go. Write it off as exploratory fact-finding for your upcoming relocation.
When I get there, and settled in enough, I’ll be bouncing all over the place. HAM shows, model engines, tropical fish, craft fairs, garden shows, LUGs, Toastmasters, CPA stuff…..I’ve got to keep my focus on getting out of here — even while air quality and circumstance try to throw me off.
How soon do you expect to get out? I’m getting the feeling your POSSLQ ain’t wanting to leave.
That’s a major thing — we co-own this house, and it’s a substantial part of my capital, so it limits me to cheap things until she’s willing to sell.
AYE-YI-YI. I smell HOTEL CALIFORNIA. OMG, you have my sympathy.
Oh, that reminds me! Look at the time! I should be out filing her brake lines.
“Escape From Silicon Valley”.
I can just imagine a series about filing her brake lines like working under the master bathroom sink. “Here I am, on a towel, laying on the asphalt under her car with a cheapie LED flashlight from Harbor Freight, trying to wedge my arm under her AWD axle with a needle file, seeking a brake line…..”
Oh, do TELL, complete with pictures. 🙂
You are one sick puppy!
Sell her your interest in the Silicon Valley mansion. Discounted. Then ESCAPE California.
VA employment is quite likely near your NC destination. Including contractor.
Otherwise, Hotel California appears your reality. Bt hey, there are always spiders, Linux issues…to while away the days. 🙂
Don’t forget wheezing in the smoke!
Show her how much cheaper the cost of living is out here, plus the gorgeous views!
Dh is from CA. After Hurricane Rita wiped us out we lived in CA for a year near his family until we moved to NC.
She picked the area.
Good that you keep your eye on the prize!
Looks like the so called official science experts are now sliding side ways on the thin ice.
I wonder if they understand how much trouble the Bidenese people will be in if he can’t deliver his 70% to the cabal. I’m sure, these advisors will be getting some Afghan Presidential like advice soon.
Comments are interesting.
Right about the comments. In the words of “impressive silicone avatar”…..
“nobody with a brain is getting those cursed shots.”
Also thought the Oscar De La Hoya probable ADE case was telling.
People magazine finishes off the article saying 98-99% of the hospitalized are the unvaccinated, but it’s a “trap lie”.
“impressive silicone avatar”
Gracious, is WGTT back?
Perked up a bit…WGTT. 🙂
One would agree, except for the news report heard on 77WABC radio last night, stating that “The Pfizer booster shot will be approved by September 20, with approval of the Moderna booster shot coming a couple of weeks later.”
J&J hollers, ME TOO. In on the cash bonanza! Sponsored by the Feds.
Another UK vid.
The tipping point approaches.
On to more Pi fun….
In order to make networking work, each computer on your network needs to have a name. Back in the day (pre-2015), I’d have “biglap” for the laptop with the largest screen, “traveler” for the smallest laptop, “client” for the accounting computer I’d visit clients with, “backup” for the one with all the disks hanging off, and such like. When I pulled down the 12 computers online when I got served malware and burned the network to the walls, all my computers got renamed.
I now give all my computers two character names that have nothing to do with their structure, capabilities, or function. Quite a lot of this has been because of a limitation of a Raspberry Pi — the only convenient place to write a permanent designation on a Pi is on the front and side of its network jack.
So every computer on my internal network is named “JP” or “LC” or “ZD” or “AN” — and if the little blighters are in transparent boxes within sight, I can see which Pi is what. Even the big boys have similar names, which are affixed on blue painters’ tape.
I figure that it’ll help screen hackers out of my network. In a similar way that driving a stick helps keep me from being carjacked, having “a twisty little maze of passages” network design might keep hackers too young to have mapped https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_Cave_Adventure from getting too far….
The reason this comes up is that it’s late and night and I just got a new Pi that I’m about to put in a box, and I need to give it a name. Since it’s a Pi4, I’ve already gone through the drill about writing its RAM count on top of the USB3 ports.
Which leads to another merry segue….regarding Sharpie pens.
Anyone else labelled something with a Sharpie, and found that the marking was mostly eroded away a couple of years later? Get the Sharpie Industrial….they are loads better. Sadly, only in black.
Alternatively, have you found it annoying that all your wall warts or power bricks are labelled in microscopic print? Sharpie makes a silver-colored pen that will write on black things. I use them all the time.
Anyway, while typing this I decided the new Pi’s name and wrote it, so now I can post and start putting it in its box.
In the box. Next — OS and software.
Now, I have an eventual destination for this, which will be headless…..but I also understand that the very latest version of Pi’s Linux has built-in ORCA, which I want to try. So I will initially flash the SD for Pi’s flavor of Linux, verify everything works, then come back and flash it with Ubuntu MATE later.
I’ll also try to take good notes about what I’m doing to help coach RAC through lighting his up (although they will, sadly, be different versions).
OK, I’ve got the latest version of the OS on an SD card (I think) and it’s inserted. I’ll see if I can boot it tomorrow morning.
Earlier posts in this chain were, I think, comprehensible to non-Linux people (I’ll say “normies” from now on). Then the wheels came off here.
This is full of jargon that will be impenetrable to “normies”. “Headless” (I know that one; many won’t.
What the hell is ORCA? SD? Then I got to RAC but at least there I realized that was someone’s initials but my FIRST thought was it was yet more linux shorthand that linux people don’t like to have to expand.
You flipped from trying to explain Linux to normies, to assuming you were talking to Linux people, and when I see most Linux people do this, they get very condescending when their audience asks what the alphabet soup means (you won’t be, I know), which is a gigantic turn off. Then they wonder why so many people use Micro$haft and CrApple products.
[add: OK, SD is the “SD Card” but that wasn’t obvious. It could have stood for literally anything.]
Some Dude eating Pi?? Huh, Wut? 🥴🥴🤕
Yup, raspberry Pi. 🙂
Rather sure Linux is a good thing to learn with the Pi, Raspberry and all of that. Sort of intriguing.
Then the endless, endless, endless details, hiccups, burps… Going through operating details, versions, looking for some obscure nugget, critical to accomplishing a set up / operating task.
Nah. IMO, not worth the trouble to figure out. At least not in my circumstances, my lifetime.
BUT, for thse inclined and smart enough, enjoy.
ALL of that can be avoided.
All one needs to “get into” Linux is this:
(1) an old Windows or Mac computer with a DVD drive that runs or almost runs, and you don’t need any of the stuff on it
(2) a Linux magazine with a DVD of Ubuntu
That’s it. Breathe new life into the old computer and use it for politics.
You don’t even need to read the magazine. Just pop in the DVD.
One needs to know only as much about Linux as one does about Windows programming (most people know NOTHING about Windows programming).
Putting in a DVD.
Giving it your WiFi password.
That’s it. Enjoy Linux.
^^^ That I can do. Likely give it a try. Thanks.
I’ve watched Linux change from the early days, when it was on floppy disks, and only the brave and geeky could deal with it, to now, when I can install it from a thumb drive and anybody can figure it out. It’s very good now. It’s “grandma-friendly”!
Again, that depends on the desktop installed.
Gnome is opaque and I can’t understand the appeal.
But I do remember linux off floppies. I knew it was a different world when I saw the prompt “please insert disk two in /dev/fd0” (instead of “A:”) Fortunately I had been on linux systems enough (via work) to understand that.
Eh, gnome ain’t no biggie. It can be configured in some peculiar ways, however….
The “typical user” had better have a desktop they can understand. Otherwise it’s useless to them.
I’m not sure what the name of the desktop is I am using but it’s the XFCE default. Over on my laptop running pure OS I had to just download KDE becasue THEY have the fucking Gnome fetish and after three days of that I still wanted to put my fist through the screen when I had to go digging for shit it makes a fetish of hiding.
I can do this. I have an old gaming computer someone gave me.
Perfect. And the great thing about this situation (a tosser computer) is that if you don’t like your set-up, or you think you messed it up, just REINSTALL.
You don’t have to remember some key or registration – it’s all FREE. Well, the DVD magazine will be 10-15 bucks.
The Ubuntu may be in a Ubuntu magazine, but it could be in a different mag. Ubuntu is popular because it’s so easy.
I recommend creating (for a number “N” of people) N+1 accounts. Create 1 master (administrator) account who never surfs or does anything except install programs. Then create 1 *standard* account for each person. Write down all the account names and passwords.
That’s it. That’s all you have to do. And it’s FREE.
During setup you’ll create the master (admin) account. From that account you can create all the users.
Total setup time under an hour.
The $10-15 is now $15-18, post-plague. The Ubuntu mag went bankrupt and is no longer publishing — so the two mags left will each do 2 Ubuntu issues per year. And Ubuntu dropped 32-bit.
All of which is recoverable, but not if someone is expecting that everything is going to be a slam-dunk.
Actually, I’m glad someone finally had the stones to drop 32 bit. That was becoming obsolete in XP days.