AccuTron

Details of the case aren't known, don't matter, it's a generalized issue. Nothing much happened. The locals were Native American, on reservation land. Tribe known but not mentioned since it would be unfair. My conversational impression was that if violence started, it was going to be from the natives. We can only guess at reasons. The only point is that the natives were able to tell each other where the guns were (in a boot, under the seat, etc.), and plan who was to shoot who. The officers were not speakers of that language, and thus unable to understand their danger. While learning a vastly different language is not called for, several words could be vital. For example: thirty-eight, forty-four, pistol, knife, etc. Someone might say "thirty eight" in Spanish or German, and an officer might guess. But tribal languages are completely unintelligible to outsiders. Just enough training that the officers' ears perk up if they hear certain syllable combinations. What police/security/military have in common is that they are the professions that may be in a dangerous situation around people who speak a language they don't understand.

Many of you are in police/security/military work, or know someone who is. It seems to me that the following true incident should be distributed through law enforcement bulletins. I'm also curious what type of this training already exists. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was speaking with a man who spoke English. He had spent time socially visiting specific tribal reservation areas within the U.S.A. He relayed the following incident. He was with at least three locals, and it sounds like raucous partying might have been involved, at some outdoor location. A law enforcement vehicle arrived with two officers. The group of perhaps four men were placed with their hands on a pickup truck. There was apparently nothing further to report from the now non-incident, and the officers left the scene. With the officers gone, the locals were now all speaking English, with the English speaker present. They were recounting their version of the incident. While with hands on the truck, perhaps at whisper level, they were speaking in their native language. They were checking locations of known handguns, including a .38 in a boot, and were assigning their targets. I have nothing further to report. I have no idea if those officers knew what was happening. It seems to me that any officer any place should know the local language for weapons. -end-

Good one. Helps plot the course as it were.

Mike, you are right about burn out. It's a learning curve, to know what can be done. As jpahmad said, it's about one or two people at a time, if we're lucky. I sometimes think that WW2 was fought one bullet, one building, at a time. Can't really act beyond that.

Sorry, I was vague. Trying to summarize a conversation, not very well. In addition to some jaw-dropping moments in that conversation, I've had a few people now, literally run away rather than listen to factual recitation or look at actual easy to view graphs. In virtually every case, these are people with strong ego-identity as liberals, self-proclaimed as morally superior, and very jittery if anything threatens that. Simple discussion is impossible. Fraudsters love people who will not listen, who value themselves based on presumed moral superiority. That sort of behavior greases the Devil's rails. I have spoken or written quite easily with others, who don't have such ego identity, and they simply listen, and honestly say thank you.

Wuzzums, great line. Oddly grounding. Man in pink bunny suit: Very good points. Right now, I'm still exhausted after a conversation that....arrgh, making pirate sounds, don't get me started again. A large amount of pizza might help, but over the longer haul, I feel like I just have to pull out of the metaphorical river of political life, fighting it, and just rest on the riverbank and stare at the flow of nonsense and crime. I'll continue to make attempts at truth, but it's discouraging. I need to be more a spectator or I'll be damaged. I see the danger of defeatism, but also of simply being defeated.

A fair reparte, yet as reported elsewhere in a post, I just talked to someone utterly determined to avoid critical thinking, denying rules of math as sort of optional. So with very deep feelings of disgust and dismay, I must agree with the remark by MartV. I never knew how bad it was until I tried communicating directly about climate fraud. Wow, stubborn. Egos are involved, and you know how that goes. The Devil has the easiest job.

Nice one Daniel. I happen to somewhat know one of the so-called climate scientists that all agree with each other. It's very clear that he has no real scientific mind (and is basing his own research paper on Mann's fraudulent data). The little chance I had to ask him a thing or two revealed that he had no idea that the Copenhagen Diagnosis had a clearly bogus solar graph, or that the Wegman Report even existed. Two nuggets out of so many, chosen as test questions for a brief opportunity. He was educated at a Canadian university and is now teaching at a US university. My impression of personality profile is that he, and many others, were moved by heartfelt urge to save the planet. (More accurately: various lifeforms on the planet, which are under assault from quite a range of things, real things.) But not a scientific mind of inquiry, a mind with critical thinking skills. They are very easy to dupe, and indeed, who would otherwise expect the range of fraud, altered data, illegal math, etc? It's so huge, who would think? Which is the problem, he clearly didn't look at all. They likely also have group emotional bonding, warriors for justice in their minds, fighting evil Big Oil. (There is also a real climate scientist who wrote a letter to the local paper, using the words "scandal" and "not science" about the alarmist fraudsters. So some climate scientists are good guys, check their work, it's sometimes clear in seconds if they're legit or not.)

I live in a Highly Groovy City, where critical thinking skills are, how should I say, at a minimum. I just talked to a neighbor defiantly try to explain that the rule of significant digits in math doesn't really exist or matter. It has left me shaken. Alas, I'm not surprised, but ya' just keep hoping for a sound mind.... Recently I stumbled upon an interview with George Carlin in his older years. (Don't have link.) He was asked how he mentally managed, being aware of endless corruption and stupidity. Carlin's reply was that he chose to just be a spectator (his word), more or less in awe (my words) of the total circus. I'm thinking there's something to this. What do you think?

I would be curious to see a Venn diagram including the factions referenced above, plus those who do/don't believe in human global warming. I'd bet that no Russian falls for it, since the origins of the fraud are in the USA and UK. (Get details here. Start partway down at the orange flower, and it will be a long read, but in an easy format. Global Warming Pause never true? - Current Events - Freedomain Radio Message Board ) The Western Ukrainians are more likely to have been soaked in the liberal media where global warming (and it's power The Truth about Global Warming Alarmism - Current Events - Freedomain Radio Message Board ) are sacred dogma. The WSJ recently reported that in a meeting with State Dept. staff, Kerry specifically instructed that global warming a highest priority. I think he said it was the number one priority. Which I translate as, pressure tactics to favor Democratic Party goals, manipulating liberal factions in any other country. And he has the audacity to call Russia corrupt. Which it is, but Kerry has no room to point fingers.

Thanks Magnus for starting this, and the rest of you for showing clear thinking. It is welcome medicine, living in an egotistically liberal town. I just found this here topic. I was looking for an earlier topic, so in case anyone here didn't catch the first one, it has plenty of hard info about fraud and data manipulation, plus plenty of easy to read graphs showing the original fraud, plus the real science for convenient rebuttal. Start partway down where the pretty orange flower is, and after a looong but easy read, you'll know better how to read the first part of the thread. Keep it bookmarked for parties (heh, heh)... Global Warming Pause never true? - Current Events - Freedomain Radio Message Board

It's ironic that the USA and most EU countries obtained their present borders more or less by the same mechanisms as Putin in Crimea. The vote was probably rigged. It may have played out a win anyway if legit, just at lower numbers...we'll never know. It's easy to see why Baltic nations might get nervous; I think one or two of them have Russian majority or large minority. That's probably where the "losing their minds" much comes from. And hooboy, have you seen some publicity photos of Kerry, or a US/EU commission facing the Russians? -- the most hangdog faces I've ever seen. I mean, really people, if you know already that you're losing, bring a yo-yo or something just to get a better look on your face.

Lots of countries bordering Russia fear Russia, no mystery there. We also note how large countries and empires always gobble up neighbors. (Lithuania used to be huge.) The USA had Manifest Destiny. I'm sure I'd be quite upset if I'd been anyone on the receiving end. One geographic reality sticks out, regarding Crimea. Anyone in charge of Russia, any decade or century, would see the Crimea as essential access to the Black Sea. I looked at Google Map and the Don River doesn't, so to speak, hold water to Sevastopol for shipping. Access to Crimea utterly requires the possession of what is now called eastern Ukraine. The Russian bear may have eyes on Baltic countries, but the Crimea is vital to Russia, making a separate category of sorts. A friend of mine said it would be like the USA not having California. How does that geographic reality weigh against everything else?

Excellent link. Great to actually get to know the guy, which is how it feels. More content than I was expecting.

One big problem: Whoever says it, the "Be A Man" or it's variants, it's usually not supplied with instructions. A lack of role models is a big problem. Like telling someone to go catch a fish, yet they've never even seen a knot tied. Tell them how! One sentence is usually enough to get a good start.

Here's a link to a non-political site (a non-gory game site), where in the misc. forum, the question is asked about how people in other countries feel about their health care. It's just started, with only a few replies so far, but might be something to monitor purely for information. How do you feel about medical insurance in YOUR country? - UberStrike

One of the best paragraphs I've read. I have a wee bit'o'pudge which is perfect for a mammal in a cold season. Alas, our culture has come up with something called "pants sizes." I've always admired old cultures with ballooning pants, which allow perfect freedom of movement, very healthy for the joints, and a belt or sash defining the waist without constriction, healthy for almost everything. I didn't know about the storing of fat soluble vitamins, and have researched it further.

I have no idea where I saw this link some months ago, but it was a brief clip from an older looking video interview with Gorbachev, speaking in Russian, subtitled in English. His remark was something like "Everyone knows it was Chernobyl that collapsed the Soviet Union." I have no other context, and assume the subtitle was legit. I assume that everything else mentioned here also collapsed the USSR, and maybe Chernobyl was the very large log that broke the camel's back. It will be sadly interesting to see what Fukushima ultimately does to Japan.

I removed that statement. Page number, good idea, will do so in the future. I got the impression that they could not remove smoking conclusively since the original miner data from 11 studies was rather incomplete regarding smoking data for those miners. Perhaps I should not be so conclusive. The original point was that there was not back then data on residential levels normally encountered, so it was a "guessing" zone, and that seems to be true in the BEIR study. The "don't worry" claim from the original link seemed to say it was from residential studies done after the report we're discussing here. I'm looking into more recent studies...which I should've done before even starting this. Humble pie moment. This one supports the radon risk idea: THE IOWA RADON LUNG CANCER STUDY (They also say that controlling for other factors, lung cancer could be lessened by less red meat and more yellow-green veggies.) This link, late nineties, says that the negative correlation results should be discounted because of mistaken or confusing factors. http://www.ladep.es/ficheros/documentos Bottom of first page in link, actually p. 49 from original journal. I downgrade my original conviction, to intrigued confusion. I'm noticing that 1990's residential studies show weak or no radon risks, but that 2000's studies do. Homes are not laboratories, difficult to control for factors.

The story so far.... This seems written by responsible people, nice to see. The body of evidence is from 11 studies of underground miners, for uranium, or tin, or other things. "...And all inhale dust and other pollutants...." Only 6 of the 11 studies had "some" smoking information, so it sounds like cigarette smoking effects are strongly mixed in. There were 8 residential studies; and "the estimates obtained...are very imprecise...." "Other weaknesses...are errors in estimating exposure and the limited potential for studying modifying factors...." The residential studies were not included in analysis due to "very limited statistical power" but seemed to agree with linear downward extrapolation of miner data. Animal studies were "very limited" and seem mostly to be about comparing radon with and without cigarette smoke; they gave "conflicting" results. Responses to radon may vary markedly by animal species. NOTE: the miners showed a NEGATIVE cancer correlation when radon exposures were highest. (This is PDF and not easy to cut and paste, forgive my blurry eyes if I can't find it again.) I think they are referring to much higher exposures than even a high residential reading, but it's a curious thing to note. The exposure/effects curve is not purely linear. Elsewhere, the committee admits that they are assuming there is not a low-level threshold that is not dangerous, that they are extrapolating downward from high miner exposures. They freely admit it might be there, which is to say, the low level exposure data is unknown at the time. They also state that the linear model is an assumption, and it may be true that it's not linear, but was not within the limits of then-current studies to know. The committee felt that if there was a threshold below 4pC/l, it didn't change benefits from mitigating higher levels. Thus the "4" as a safe limit is introduced. They state that a given human lung epithelial cell, at low radon levels, would get only one alpha particle hit per human lifespan. They also point out that the miner data is from an environment in which multiple cell hits are the norm, and it is comparing two different things. The committee supports the notion that only a single hit can cause a cancer, and that single cells can become cancerous. I wonder how many of those single hits actually are carcinogenic. There must be a bunch of ways to damage a cell, and it's damaged in a way that doesn't involve runaway replication. I'll still read, but what I'm seeing is what the original link suggested: it's extrapolated from underground miners and leaves gaps and honest questions about residential exposure. To quote from a Harry Nilsson work, The Point, "You see what you want to see, and you hear what you want to hear." After that, the character speaking went soundly to sleep, and now maybe you want to.

Thanks for the link. Another detective book! I'll take time on it. I first notice that it's a 1999 publication. The other source implied a growing body of data, so that's over a dozen years of research not yet done. What parts did you read? There are many pages, and some of them are omitted from this online sampler. (I may have not followed my own advice about digging and digging more. I probably should have put a question mark in the topic title, don't see how to edit that.) As I'm reading up on radon in general, before getting to your link, a question pops into my head. I've been following Fukushima closely at ENENews.com – Energy News and somewhere in the blizzard of info there, I was reading links from readers, and there seems to be a reasonable suspicion that if we have strong radiation doses, we're more or less done for, no surprise there -- but for minor doses, it may have some value regarding cellular repair mechanisms staying tuned up, similar to an immune system. We are reminded that all life has evolved with levels of natural background radiation, be it ground, solar, or galactic types. The fear from radon, as I make it so far, is the lodging in the lungs of what are minor doses with relatively short half lives. Short half life means it keeps going off rapidly, a down side, but not for long periods. Could that be considered a minor dose? The BEIR Introduction references miner studies as it's major input, along with animal studies, and follow up residential studies. I'm curious about the details. A miner is surrounded by rock with possible natural radiation.

Still searching those URL's...here's an example of how data is manipulated at top levels. A bit thick to read, but the writer has several examples of how original data has serious collection issues, and then may be manipulated later: PJ Media » Climategate: Something’s Rotten in Denmark … and East Anglia, Asheville, and New York City (PJM Exclusive) Here's another. A thick read, but that's how detective work is. It's all about manipulations in publishing bogus research papers. - Bishop Hill blog - Caspar and the Jesus paper (Called Jesus Paper because the frauds keep trying to resurrect it.) About the IPCC claim regarding disappearing Himalayan glaciers: No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy | Environment | The Guardian And here's a real sweetheart if ya' know how to look: Climate Reconstruction | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) It's from NOAA. What are those little -- unlinked -- graphs at the top? I recognize the left one. I have it's link!: fig613.png 692×756 pixels The gray areas represent "Overlap of reconstructed temperatures." Darker gray means more agreement. You'd think that recent years would be almost black. But they're not, in fact they're as poor as from a thousand years ago! And what span is the worst? -- the 20th century, what the alarmists are claiming as the main problem. And you can just look at the colored lines -- for the 20th century, they're spread wider than any other period. If everyone is doing good honest science, how is that possible? The closest I got to Briffa and the tree rings: Examining the validity of the published RCS Yamal tree-ring chronology Briffa makes a defense here, and seems to make some points, and most of us will give up before reading very much. But the essence to note is seen in his graph about midway down. The upper portion shows the results of NOT using some tree ring data, as seen by the smaller gray zone, which shows how much total data was used; it shows the hockeystick. The lower graph, using more data, shown by the much larger gray zone, Ta-Da!, no hockeystick! Just a gradual rise since about 1850, which was already generally known. So Briffa, in his own defense, ends up completely validating the skepticism of his results. But if you don't really work your brain, you'll not see this. On this page is a link to Canadian hero McIntyre's original criticism (Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem « Climate Audit). Graphs 2 and 3 show the before/after of adding data back in. You guessed it, the hockeystick disappears. (As I sort through this stuff, I'm adding links to my earlier posts. I also have made clarifications or corrections. I also discovered this link, about an hour, which really shows the mechanics of how the upper levels of the IPCC twist the truth: The Corbett Report | The IPCC Exposed (video) )

The other night I was curious. My home had a radon test twenty years ago when it was purchased. The test struck me as a joke at the time. I was to seal off one room for a day, no people coming through, doors and windows closed. It is a converted garage that sits directly upon soil, under the flooring is a concrete pad without a crawlspace. The rest of the house has a crawlspace with limited ventilation, but in the winter the furnace is flushing it by using combustion air. In the summer, the windows are open. So what was being measured by this score of 11 pCi/liter? The first dozen sites said the same thing, radon causes residential lung cancer, and such and such are the desired radon levels. They were all repeating the same info from the EPA. (With this and climate fraud, I'm seeing why some conservatives want to defund the EPA.) Then I found this link at wiki.answers. When I first viewed this, it was a text slideshow, but now it's not. Maybe I got my links confused. Either way, it's the text we need. What is a dangerous level of radon Excerpts: "What we do know is that, contrary to popular belief, there is no known additional risk of cancer associated with radon levels as normally seen in houses. In fact, there is no science to support the common practice of radon measurement and radon mitigation in homes. The common practice is a "policy practice" not supported by science." and "...there is a growing body of data from epidemiological (case-control) studies showing a correlation between lung cancer and radon exposures in homes, that "correlation" to which they are referring is actually a NEGATIVE correlation. In other words, the correlation is inversely related to the radon concentration - This means that the growing body of data from epidemiological (case-control) studies are showing that the lung cancer rate DECREASES with increasing radon concentrations seen in residential settings." (Original boldface.) (Visitors: read further down this thread for more depth of topic.)

Always good to ask. I don't remember. I'd have to search a list of 116 bookmarked URL's, and it may not even be there since I only bookmarked a small fraction (~10-20%) and didn't bother to label them. At first, I didn't realize how deep this was and how far in I'd get, so I didn't bookmark as much early on. I vaguely recall that it was supplied by a reader comment, probably to another link. I provide links when I know them, and much of the rest is from a huge pile of resultant info in my head. Thus, references are lacking in places, but I write only what I believe to be true, so it had what I considered a solid source to begin with. I am a picky person when it comes to not repeating unreliable reports or half-truths, since it corrupts reporting of valid reports, which are in abundance and self-consistent. I'll do a quick search and see what I find. There's so much info, it really is like a needle in a haystack. Still searching, but here's a random link: The Reference Frame: Craig Loehle: trouble with tree-ring reconstructions It's short. Even if you don't follow the math, see the cautionary note--if a researcher doesn't really really really understand the topic, it's easy to be thrown off by data. The main article cautions that there may be an upper limit to tree ring growth which varies by species, and not knowing that, a researcher might assume that the environment had stopped changing. In the short comments section, someone cautions that a process (not involved with the climate topic) of measuring electrolytes might max out on it's own, and a person without full understanding of that might assume something else had maxed out. Beware of quick claims, since a poor quality researcher will often not have a clue about different layers of subtlety. They may also be referencing a source which is clearly debunked, like Mann's hockeystick, but they don't know it and it totally messes up any subsequent math. (I'll start another thread topic in the Current Events forum, related to that bad-original-source process, about scary Radon. Found out last night--it's hokum! Saddened but not surprised. Don't worry about radon in your home. - Current Events - Freedomain Radio Message Board ) Were you or anyone else able to open my google.doc link? Briffa is mentioned again on page 10, in a Climategate email. Gotta give him credit there, since he admitted that a medieval warm period was probably like today's weather.

Uhhhh...so the outside sources of income are: --robbery --metalworking in a land already full of unemployed, probably including metalworkers Did I miss something?