Emperor's lock of hair anyone?

Frohe Weihnachten und gesegnete Feiertage!

Merry Christmas.

@Imperious:

That guy who owns that site is crazy. He is always on Art Bell’s radio show and late Night coast to coast.

He inferred that it was “the death star”…waiting for the right time to head to earth and blow it up. Rediculious

That’s the issue with pseudo-science. Peoples need to make outrageous and never eared announcements to get attention and eventually money.

This guy puts a lot of interesting facts on his site but when it put them together,
he is like Richard Castle telling a murder story to Lt Becket who’s trying to figure the puzzle out of a bunch of facts.
Castle’s story remains false but it provides new hints to get further in the investigation of the case.

In the first video, at 55 minutes and 00 second, Hoagland talk about this Saturn’s moon (Iapetus) and about artificial moon.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/videos.html

This moon was in the book of Arthur C. Clark, as the goal while it was change in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey for a Jupiter’s moon:

In the background to the story in the book, an ancient and unseen alien race uses a device with the appearance of a large crystalline monolith to investigate worlds all across the galaxy and, if possible, to encourage the development of intelligent life. The book shows one such monolith appearing in ancient Africa, 3 million years B.C. (in the movie, 4 million years), where it inspires a starving group of hominids to develop tools. The ape-men use their tools to kill animals and eat meat, ending their starvation. They then use the tools to kill a leopard preying on them; the next day, the main ape character, Moon-Watcher, uses a club to kill the leader of a rival tribe. The book suggests that the monolith was instrumental in awakening intelligence.

The book then shows the year C.E. 1999, detailing Dr. Heywood Floyd’s travel to Clavius Base on the Moon. Upon his arrival, Floyd attends a meeting, where a lead scientist explains that they have found a magnetic disturbance in Tycho, one of the Moon’s craters, designated Tycho Magnetic Anomaly One, or TMA-1. An excavation of the area has revealed a large black slab, precisely fashioned to a ratio of exactly 1:4:9, or 1�:2�:3�, and therefore believed the work of intelligence. Floyd and a team of scientists travel across the Moon to view TMA-1, and arrive as sunlight falls upon it for the first time in three million years. It then sends a piercing radio transmission to one of the moons of Saturn, Japetus (Iapetus),[2] where an expedition is then planned to investigate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:A_Space_Odyssey%28novel%29

I am not sure Napoleon was ever really himself after the Russian campaign. What he expected after his victory at Borodino and what really turned out was very different. Expecting the Russians to surrender only having them chase him all the way back to France may have put some doubt in his mind. Maybe that doubt is what affected his decisions at a place like Waterloo. I know in sports that if you loose your confidence it can be hard to get back. I imagine the same could be said about war generals. Just a thought. Enjoyed the post.

They actually scoured the field with metal detectors to find an arrow tip point from that battle. They wanted to be sure what type of arrows the English were using. When they found it they tested a arrow built the same way and saw if it could penetrate the French armour. I won’t say anymore you need to see it what they surmise about the battle will surprise you. Really cool.

@Deaths:

It’s all over but the crying in Philly…… Go Devs, Eastern conf. Finals Baby, Lord Stanley, here we come… yippeeee

Nice… my predictions were wildly off the mark.

yes, thats exactly the episode i already mentioned.

I think most of the backing came due to two facts:
(1) the USSR needed reforms, that was obvious.
Still, they probably wanted a long term leader that could be influenced => a younger one, after the two short reigns of Andropov and what-was-his-name… Probably, the influentials wanted some change, but surely not that much that it would threaten their power-base, one of the reasons for the coup that failed due to Jelzins help for Gorbachev.
(2) The general secretary and all the other positions he fills made him the most powerful man in the USSR. Probably, whoever put Gorbachev into place, underestimated him. Pretty much the same underestimation that Hitler faced when he was appointed Chancellor, but luckily Gorbachev used that to reform positively, and i consider the new freedom of information, the right to ask wether the party is right and that the crucial reform.

So, I don’t think that there was “real” backing, i believe Gorbachev was kind of a compromise candidate, kind of a makeshift. Of course, once he was into power, you ccouldn’t remove instantly, that would have meant that the party made a mistake (which was not “allowed” before Gorbachev). And he was clever enough to stay into power, and use his popularity at the beginning (which soon, after the economy started to collapse openly, was reduced to more or less nothing) to enforece the reforms.

Well, we can. It’s just that I have an incredible amount of assignments and reports I have to make up on the computer (I’m a terrible speller – so sue me). I haven’t been able to read a lot of TM’s post, so is their anything in particular you would like her to respond to?