Sunday, December 14, 2014

Exodus : Gods and Kings. A cliquier.

Moses in the Scott film leads his Egyptian warriors to
battle dressed as Mongols .
There are good films that have been made in the past that are about the Bible . I have to do a review of the biblical narrative that  Ridley Scott tried so hard to re-imagine : Exodus: Gods and Kings.  If you are a fan of DeMille's The Ten Commandments  (1956) , or John Huston's The Bible : In the Beginning (1963) , and you grew up  watching those faith inspiring movies . You are likely to find this new adaption of the story of Moses a bit difficult. Scott's movie is a mish-mash — part half-committed melodrama, part half-thought-out political provocation. The good news is that strengths of this film eventually win out; the bad news is all the awkward storytelling and botched character interactions we have to wade through to get to the good stuff. The worst part is that no one who was counseled on Egyptian history in regards to costumes in film did not in detail study Egyptian art , most of the costumes seem to be a mix of periods of history of different cultures other than ancient Egyptian , with special attention during some battle scenes in Scott's film .  There was a  film if you remember that has some similarity to the new Moses film , it was called the  13th Warrior,  that was made over a decade ago , some critics of that film have  noted that the 13 Viking warrior's were fitted with 13 to 16th century armor . Remember the film  The 13th Warrior was supposed to be set in the 9th century AD .
Some "costumes" are accurate, but this
film can't convince me. 
So Ridley Scott's film falls to the same pitfall in regrades to this , but the average movie goers are not so well versed in this . So this new story of Moses is supposed to take place in the 19th Egyptian Dynasty  which is about 
 (1292–1190 BCE ) we see the same problem of trying to recreate a setting the ancient past . I have to agree that doing period films can be difficult , with most specialty ancient Egypt  which is in Africa . The Scott film suffers from another problem , its so Whitewashed that some would call racist . We've known since the moment the full cast was announced: nearly every major role in the movie is played by a white actor.What makes it worse for many observers is that, on the flip side, virtually every black actor in the movie is playing a part called "Egyptian thief" or "assassin" or "royal servant" or "Egyptian lower class civilian." The movie can be vary insulating since most of the actors are white , blue eyed and have British accents . Another equally disturbing thing about the film is how theologically wrong it is . It seems that that movie was made for people who don't know their bible as much as the non-religious , it caters to secular views . I am assuming that it is the vary reason that the film is more of a sword and sandal special with vary little regard to accuracy . I find it strange that this film was not so well patched as  Gladiator which was Scott's best work . The Moses tale is familiar to pretty much everybody, but leave it to Scott, who has always favored mood and imagery over narrative and character, to mess up the initial story beats. We begin with Moses (Christian Bale) and his adoptive brother Ramses (Joel Edgerton) preparing to attack the army of the Hittites. On the eve of battle, their father, the current pharaoh (John Turturro, ), learns of a prophecy that says that someone will save someone’s life, and that the person who did the saving will become king. That’s about as vague as a prophecy can get, but it’s enough to send Ramses spiraling into paranoia as soon as Moses saves him during the bloody melee with the Hittites. The theology problem of the film is the introduction of God as a "creepy child" to Moses, this one might remind you of horror films  like The Ring . There is no BURNING BUSH in This film .Here he (God) comes to Moses in the form of a young boy, Malak (Isaac Andrews). Their interactions are curious, almost hostile, as Malak pushes Moses toward greater extremism in his effort to free the Jews from enslavement. Moses stands up to Malak and even expresses disagreement with the deity’s ruthless tactics. Their exchanges at times feel like a debate between equals, and God even suggests that Moses is free to leave whenever he wants.It's not theologically unsound, but it is an odd idea that the film can't quite develop. Is the casting meant to suggest a God full of a child's openness and idealism? Or of a small boy's willfulness and violence? (Mostly the latter, it seems; Scott's deity comes off as a bit of a brat.) This is again because of secularism , which is reinventing the biblical story to suit modern tastes , it fails much like the film Noah directed by   Darren Aronofsky, where Despite references to "The Creator", some still disliked the movie because God is not mentioned by name. Jerry Johnson, president of the National Religious Broadcasters, did not like the director’s description of Noah as the “first environmentalist”. Johnson called the film’s “insertion of the extremist environmental agenda” a major concern. The movie is 150 minutes and at times you feel every single one. The film starts off strong and includes one of the best battle scenes I’ve seen since “Gladiator,” another Ridley Scott film, but once the plagues hit Egypt things start to drag. Granted, some of the plagues are a sight to behold on the big screen, but they can become as tedious on the audience as the frogs were to the Egyptians.The deeper problem is one of conflating whiteness with heroism and power. Is it so hard to imagine our biblical heroes as being nonwhite? Is it beyond belief that one of the greatest empires in world history had authentically dark skin, rather than being white folks just wearing a ton of makeup?

The "real" Moses.
The Biblical Moses shares
a common name with this
Egyptian king
Ahmose I .
Could they  be
related ?
Archaeologists  have tried to identify who Moses may have been in the biblical narrative . I have often found the biblical movies out of place as far as history . First of all the "Exodus" is always placed during the reign of Pharaoh Ramses II . Every Moses film ever made it's poor Ramses that oppressed the Israelite's ( I'll get to the Pharaoh later ) . Biblical Moses takes center stage throughout the whole Pentateuch. Who was Moses? A rather solitary leader, one with his people but set apart, even in his childhood, when he was raised by the pharaoh’s daughter as if he were an Egyptian prince. Set apart also in that he married an alien wife—Midianite or possibly Ethiopian. Even his physical characteristics—a speech defect—set him apart from others and is accommodated by God who arranges a leadership duo with Moses and his priestly brother Aaron. His role was unique—even to receiving the Law and seeing God, as evidenced by Moses’ blinding countenance. For starters the name Moses is an Egyptian name which has had several spellings through out Egyptian history . That's has been the curious overlooked item about Moses . In Egyptian Mo-SESES  means "One born of..." Who ever wrote the book of Exodus knew somewhat of  Egyptian names , he even misspelled in a way the name of the city Pi-Ramese one of the "treasure , store " cities that the Israelite slaves built . Note the spelling of Ramses in the Bible (KJV) :

“Therefore, they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh supply cities, Pithom and Raamses.

Here the name Raamses. is not even close , but it's a linguistic twist that was done in the Middle-East with Egyptian words into Semitic languages . Yet , the Exodus writer was unfamiliar with some of the geography of the Nile Delta since the City of Pi-Ramese was built in the 19th Dynasty over an earlier city . When the book of Exodus was written has been debated , Jewish  tradition ascribes it to Moses . The "geography" of the text reflects the period of the 8th century BC as far as the setting , no where is near the the Time of the real Ramses the "Great" . I don't want to go in length as what I studied about Moses , or many books on archaeology I consumed about the story . I could go on and on my theory . Plain and simple , the Exodus story has many flaws , and problems regarding the period that we have assumed the Exodus taken place . Getting to the name of ## > Moses I think that it preserves some history that was somehow spun  around . I believe Moses was a real man he existed , and was probably a real "Egyptian" not a Hebrew . Since the writer of the Exodus story drew some interesting parallels with other middle-eastern myths about the birth of Moses . For the Modern Jews Moses was their own Lawgiver , and Messiah who led them out of Egypt , out of bondage as the story goes into the "promised land".

Who the "Pharaoh was ".
Several years ago I read a book called "TEST OF TIME" *** by Egyptologist David Rohl . Rohl advanced an Idea that the Chronology of Egypt was wrong , and that is why it never fit the Bible . I REALLY believed many ideas that David Rohl postulated . Some of the ideas that I embraced from him was that @ Ramses II was not the "pharaoh" of the Exodus story , that basis is that Ramses II was Shishak of the bible who sacked Jerusalem in the 8th year of his reign . (1 Kings 14:252 Chronicles 12:1-12). This case puts the chronology of the Exodus story in question . Turning aside from Rohl's theory , his own revised chronology is chaotic it places the Exodus in the 13 dynasty . Rohl's theory misses one crucial point in the investigation the name Moses . The name Mose is shared by several ancient Egyptians of the 17th and early 18th dynasty . Two Egyptian pharaoh's also were named 'Moses' , One of them was Ah-mose I who led revolution against the invaders called  Hyksos whose 'capital' city was the vary city Avaris by name that was later "rebuilt" in the 20 dynasty as Pi-Ramses of the bible .In his Against Apion, the 1st-century AD historian Josephus Flavius debates the synchronism between the Biblical account of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, and two Exodus-like events that the Egyptian historian Manetho apparently mentions. It is difficult to distinguish between what Manetho himself recounted, and how Josephus or Apion  interpret him. Josephus identifies the Israelite Exodus with the first exodus mentioned by Manetho,  when some 480,000 Hyksos "shepherd kings" (also referred to as just 'shepherds', as 'kings' and as 'captive shepherds' in his discussion of Manetho) left Egypt for Jerusalem.[15] The mention of "Hyksos" identifies this first exodus with the Hyksos period (16th century BC).Josephus provides the earliest recoded instance of the much-repeated false etymology of the term Hyksos, as a Hellenised form of the Egyptian phrase Hekw Shasu meaning Shepherd Kings. Scholars have only recently shown that the term derives from heqa-khase, a phrase meaning "rulers of foreign lands".The Pharaoh of the Exodus appears pretty much at the start of the 18th dynasty , the royal family that adopted the baby Moses was the family of Kamose. The war of liberating the north from the Hyksos , and the final battle captured Avaris , and set the stage for the Israelite captivity sailed north from Thebes at the head of his army in his third regnal year. He surprised and overran the southernmost garrison of the Hyksos at Nefrusy, just north of Cusae [near modern Asyut], and Kamose then led his army as far north as the neighborhood of Avaris itself. Though the city was not taken, the fields around it were devastated by the Thebans. A second stele discovered at Thebes continues the account of the war broken off on the Carnarvon Tablet I, and mentions the interception and capture of a courier bearing a message from the Hyksos king Aawoserra Apophis at Avaris to his ally the ruler of Kush (modern Sudan), requesting the latter's urgent support against the threat posed by Kamose's activities against both their kingdoms. Kamose promptly ordered a detachment of his troops to occupy the Bahriya Oasis in the Western Desert to control and block the desert route to the south. Kamose, called "the Strong," then sailed back up the Nile to Thebes for a joyous victory celebration, after what was probably not much more than a surprise spoiling raid in force that caught the Hyksos off guard.[citation needed] His Year 3 is the only date attested for Kamose and he may have died shortly after the battle from wounds.[29]Ahmose I, who is regarded as the first king of the Eighteenth Dynasty may have been on the Theban throne for some time before he resumed the war against the Hyksos. Ahmose became the king who enslaved the Hebrews made Moses a prince and was the subject of countless legends  . The Exodus may not have been such a spectacle as we have seen in numerous Hollywood films that I love . The true "exodus" happed when the Hyksos was expelled from Egypt , and yes it did involve plagues . Around the time this happened   Egyptian pharaoh Ahmose ruled at a time closer to the Thera eruption than previously thought – a finding that could change scholars’ understanding of a critical juncture in human history as Bronze Age empires realigned.If the stela does describe the aftermath of the  (1)> Thera catastrophe, the correct dating of the stela itself and Ahmose’s reign, currently thought to be about 1550 BC, could actually be 30 to 50 years earlier. Some of the biblical plagues we read in Exodus look like after effects of a volcanic eruption . The Ahmose tempest  Stela, The stela’s text describes the ‘sky being in storm’ with ‘a tempest of rain’ for a period of days; the passages also describe bodies floating down the Nile like ‘skiffs of papyrus;’ importantly, the text refers to events affecting both the delta region and the area of Egypt further south along the Nile. (2)> From the Papyrus Ipuwer, "The river is blood....Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere" From Exodus (7:20) "All the waters that were in the river were turned to blood."Exodus(7:21) The blood was all throughout the land of Egypt....And all the Egyptians digged round about the river for water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the river." While the Bible says that 600,000 Israelite left Egypt led by Moses . What the truth is that only 6000 may have left on foot , all though not in the bible , the evidence shows that the Israelites were living in Caanaan ( the promised land ) long before Moses , and the mythical Joshua  supposedly conquered it  . There is another curious thing about the Moses story , why  it occupies only a few "chapters" in Exodus . Question here is , what was cut of the bible that has left scholars confused over the last 3000 years? 
Poor Ramses II always
gets a bad wrap .



NOTES AND COMMENTS: 

##> Jewish Sources say that According to Chizkuni,1 it was actually Moses’ biological mother, Jochebed, who gave Moses (משה) his name. Jochebed later told Pharaoh’s daughter, Bithiah, the child’s Hebrew name, and so Bithiah also called him by this name, remarking that this name was indeed appropriate, since she had drawn2 him out of the water.Ibn Ezra3 says that Bithiah gave Moses the Egyptian name Munius, which theTorah translates into Hebrew as Moshe (Moses). Alternatively, Ibn Ezrasuggests the possibility that Bithiah actually had learnt to speak Hebrew, and it was she who gave Moses his Hebrew name. This latter explanation is also given by other commentators.Then, of course, there is the Hebrew verb משה (masha), which is identical to the name save for the Masoretic . HOWEVER the word Moses connection to Ah-Mose and Ka-Mose two kings and founders of the 18th Dynasty can be attested.  Theological Dictionary relates it to the Egyptian word mesmesu, meaning child, son. (Born of...) like This was usually combined with the name of a god (eg Thuth-moses or Ra-messes).The Evolution of the word Mose (Mes) to Mese over a 300 year period shows the Egyptian language changed over time from one Dynasty to another . (1)>There was a lot more than a simple volcanic eruption going on 3500 years ago.According to the writings of Hevelius, the Jewish Exodus took place 3506 years ago. This same time frame was given in 1602 works of Abraham Rockenbach, De cometis tractatus novus methodicus, "In the year of our world 2453 - as many trustworthy authors, on the basis of many conjectures, have determined - a comet appeared which Pliny also mentioned in his second book. It was fiery red, of irregular circular form, with a wrapped head; it was in the shape of a globe and was of terrible aspect. It is said that the King Typhon ruled at the time in Egypt. Certain authorities assert the comet was seen in Syria, Babylonia, India, in the sign of Capricorn, in the form of a disc, at the time when the children of Israel advanced from Egypt toward the Promised Land, led on their way by a pillar of cloud during the day and apillar of fire at night."(2)> A few days ago, Simcha Jacobovici made the claim that ‘there’s a dramatic scholarly breakthrough linking archeology to the Biblical Exodus.’ Jacobovici asserts that this new interpretation proves the biblical Exodus because the natural disaster that the ‘Tempest Stela’ describes matches up with the plague of darkness described in the Exodus narrative (Exod 10.21–29). Jacobovici claimed back in 2006 that this stela was a key piece of evidence for finding the Exodus in the archaeological records of Egypt.***The New Chronology is an unconventional revised Chronology of the ancient Near East created by Rohl. It involves a major revision of the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt, in particular by redating Egyptian kings of the 19th through 25th Dynasties. Rohl asserts that the New Chronology allows scholars to identify some of the main characters in the Old Testament with people whose names appear in archaeological finds. The New Chronology has not gained acceptance among Egyptologists. Rohl had previously remarked in A Test of Time (1995) that he "did not originally set out to challenge our current understanding of the Old Testament narratives. This has come about simply because of the need to explore the ramifications of my TIP [Egyptian Third Intermediate Period] research. I have no religious axe to grind – I am simply an historian in search of some historical truth."[7] @ King Shishak of the Bible. Ramses II (hypocoristicon = Shysha) with Shishaq in the Bible.Shishak (HebrewשישקShīʼshaḵGreekΣουσακείμSousakeīm), an Egyptian pharaoh mentioned in the Biblical books of 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles and a contemporary of the Israelite kings Solomon and Rehoboam. Majority consensus of historical scholars and archaeologists identify Shishak with Pharaoh Shoshenq I, although more recently historian David Rohl has claimed Rameses II as Shishak, based on a variety of circumstantial evidence.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

CIA , Feinstein and Torture.

 It's a surprise to see Sen.  Dianne Feinstein, condemn
torture in the report released
today.
Was not going to post for a while , but the CIA report on "torture" MADE ME NOT SKIP A DAY. It deserves some critical comment , and the news agencies are pulling this apart as the STATE DEPARTMENT issues warning of possible retaliation . My two cents on this, is that this old news that some one wanted to dig up out of the Bush era . WE all know that there was 'water-boarding" going on Guantanamo Bay detention camp in  Cuba  , we all saw the pictures where Army Specialist Lynndie England holds a leash attached to a prisoner inside the Abu-ghraib prison in Iraq. Those images "leaked" out all because of 'WikiLeaks'  way before this Tuesday CIA report.Here’s a look at some of the techniques the CIA used to interrogate detainees that were included in *** a Senate Intelligence Committee report released Tuesday. It's a bit graphic , but also a bit laughable as well  on what methods were used by the Americans as being 'torture', it's no
Remember this ? It's old news folks.
way medieval with thumbscrews , and rack . I this  remember the controversy that was stirring up during the Bush presidency ,  it was from the onslaught much supported then  by all  those  Senators on the Democratic side to use these so called 'interrogation methods'.  Who now are some what forgetful and are condemning it washing their hands of it. Seeing 
Ms. Feinstein, the California Democrat who is the chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, say that “brutality in stark contrast to our values as a nation” during the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation of terrorism detainees after the Sept. 11 attacks. I hate to say this, but it stands out as hypocrisy all these senators were briefed and they agreed to it. both republicans and democrats. even HillaryClinton ,  now they are grandstanding. The CIA officers who did this lost their jobs had to spend to hire their own lawyers for what? so that they can protect us? they are heroes. they kept our country safe.the same intel was used by Obama to get bin laden....and Obama now shoots Americans using drones without due process and liberals are OK  with that. BIG TIME HYPOCRISY . I for one am seeing how apologetic it sounds to the world and the public , (2)>  but sorry these elected officials knew about it for a long time from the Bush era to the Obama era . (1)> There is also another question as of why are they releasing this information that is so sensitive , that it could set off the Muslims ? It's speaks  in theory that the government just wants all hell to break loose . It's just something that some desperate democrat is trying to do as a tactic that is not tactful .Obama was silent on the issues of whether the CIA misled outsiders about the program and about whether it produced important intelligence but he emphasized that he banned the harsh techniques soon after he took office. Her speech, coming as the summary of a 6,000-page report on the interrogation program was made public, marked a signal moment both for Ms. Feinstein, the California Democrat who is the chairwoman of the Intelligence ++ Committee, and for the committee, which faced strong resistance from the intelligence community in compiling the report and seeking to make it public.“My words give me no pleasure,” said Ms. Feinstein, who spoke as many committee staff members watched from the floor. But she said history would judge the nation by its commitment to a “just society, a government of law and the willingness to face an ugly truth and say never again.” Oh ya . I don't buy not a word she said . 


NOTES AND COMMENTS:
*** The report concluded that the CIA's interrogation of detainees after the 9/11 attacks was far more brutal than the agency disclosed and that top officials misled Congress, the George W. Bush administration and the public about what they were doing.A 500-page summary of the 6,700-page report detailed the CIA's use of waterboarding  and sleep deprivation on prisoners and described how detainees were chained in painful positions in cold, dark dungeons in secret overseas prisons. It said those tactics did little to elicit valuable information or save American lives. (1)> In Washington, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said America's allies are predicting "this will cause violence and deaths." He said U.S. intelligence agencies and foreign governments have said privately that the release of the Senate intelligence panel report on CIA interrogations a decade ago will be used by extremists to incite violence that is likely to cost lives. (2)> The report says Bush/Cheney didn't know. In fact, they knew just as much as Hillary Clinton did. Let's send them all to the slammer. Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Pelosi, and Reid. They knew as much as Bush did.++I don't doubt that releasing this report has to do with politics (everything our government officials do has to do with advancing one party over the other).I understand the benefits of having a government agency "do the dirty work" to keep us save. But I also understand the threat that comes with not having proper oversight of that agency.So then, who does the agency answer to? The government officials that do everything for political reasons? 

Monday, December 8, 2014

Stephen Hawking's Orion.

Could the greatest mind since Albert
Einstein be wrong?
 Stephen Hawking is one of the world most "famous scientists" ( and one of the great minds of genius) that sits high among the "science gods" like Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan .  I am not trying to be critical of this guy here , you know that a movie has been made about his life called " The Theory of Everything " . Its a great film by standards . I have also  read his book called the " The Brief   History of Time"  an attempt to bring cosmology to the average man like what Sagan did for *** COSMOS. Honestly this scientist has made some outrageous statements treading on ground that Sagan tried to avoid such as religion and black holes . ( I'll explain that later)  The film about Hawking's life had run into problems I read that film's script was based on Jane's ( Hawking's wife ) memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen, and she had specific ideas about what the film should and shouldn't be. The movie does allude to the couple's sex life -- they have children together, after all -- but Marsh said he decided to follow Jane's guidelines despite his interest in depicting what sex would look like for someone with ALS, the disease behind Stephen Hawking's physical disability. There are a lot more disabled people, who are not a "Hawking", who are considered, to be without the ability to have a physical relationship.  Hawking's is a lucky man indeed ,both still alive and one of them quite famous - I think it was best to leave out any depictions of sex. You have a point about showing that disabled people are also sexual, but I think any on screen depiction would be best in relation to fictional characters.Millions of people and science fans who have read Dr. Hawking’s books, flocked to his lectures and watched him on “The Simpsons,” “Star Trek” and “The Big Bang Theory” have never known him except as a wheel-chaired figure speaking in a robotic voice; for all they know he was always that way and floated down to Earth on a comet, like Venus drifting in on a half-shell. Otherwise Hawking can say things as in theory that obviously would put him at odds with the religious community For a time, it was thought that astrophysicist Stephen Hawking had also left a tiny gap in his credo window for a magical deity. However, he has now come out and declared that there is no God.Yep, he'd said something that he himself has no proof as well , I mean how does he know for a matter of fact ? . After all we don't either? , but there could many gods and things that we don't understand fully in this universe .  Yet I never accepted that as my view when I was studying physics , never have I accepted most scientists like  (3)>  Stephen J Gould, and Richard Dawkins's who are hard core evolutionists statements as bona fide  gospel . Oddly enough Hawking's has a narrow view of life on other planets as well . I think with all the statistical calculus Hawking's patched up his numbers may not add up as well as  Einstein 's theory of relativity. Hawking's been tending toward such an absolute pronouncement for a while. (1)>  In a speech last year, he offered an explanation of how the world came to being without God. He mused: "What was God doing before the divine creation? Was he preparing hell for people who asked such questions?"Scientists can only trace the Universe back about 13 billion years. They have no idea what happened before that. Most of the Universe is made of dark matter and dark energy. Calling it dark is just a way of saying we have no clue what it is. With most of everything unknown, it seems kind of arrogant to claim positively that there is no God. A lot hinges on how God is defined. If God is defined as the creator or whatever there was in the beginning then God is real by definition. Whatever that was is God. If it turns out to be just a ball of energy or compressed matter or whatever then that's God. Perhaps God is a spirit like school spirit or March Madness. That spirit certainly exists and if that's how one defines God then God is quite real. Hawking simply seems to have chosen to define God in a way that makes him not real. That's pretty arbitrary. Hawking's also made another statement that threw the scientific community in a tail spin he said that (2)> Black holes do not exist—at least, not as we know them. Black holes are just numerical "theories" , no one has yet seen a black hole even with the best scientific instruments . Again this statement from Hawking's is arbitrary as well . Since God and Black holes are both invisible .  

The ORION SPACE CRAFT.
America's return to space this week with the triumphant launch of ORION made a  splash down was amazing . Yes Orion has better computers and such, but primitive though they were the Apollo computers were adequate; we didn't not go to the moon because of computers. The overall capabilities of the Orion capsule and its launch system are more or less the same as Apollo, almost 50 years ago. Yet this is a heavy launch vehicle that replaces somewhat the space shuttle , but in my view not exactly as Saturn Rocket of the 1960's The Saturn V (spoken as "Saturn five") was an American human-rated expendable rocket used by NASA between 1966 and 1973. That old rocket was the largest ever made. Then it was the largest small step ever made to put man on the moon . ORION is built according to scientists to send a human crew to Mars. Why are they relying on a 50 year old design? Wouldn't it be more efficient to leave the re-entry portion attached to the ISS, go drive around the moon in the "space" portion, come back to the ISS, dock, and reenter? Doesn't seem very advanced to me....It's not a Star Trek design either. The purpose of ORION is to send human's to mars by 2030 AD. It's a long shot , and it's going to take two more decades before any attempt for Mars is going to happen. I speculate that it might be much longer , as far as my own observation of ORION its just a moon shuttle , it has almost the same design of the Apollo system , it has a similar capsule . NASA has big plans for ORION ; the space agency says the capsule will one day get astronauts to an asteroid, Mars and perhaps other destinations in deep space. But the first of those manned missions is at least seven years away, and an unmanned Orion won't take flight again until
2017 at the earliest.The unpiloted test flight of Orion on the Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1) mission carried the capsule farther away from Earth than any spacecraft designed for astronauts has traveled in more than four decades.Humans have not ventured beyond low Earth orbit since the launch of Apollo 17 on NASA’s final moon landing mission on Dec. 7, 1972. Will it really go to Mars – or is that a job for the next generation model? The Apollo command module had around a decade of useful life. Are we really going to get to Mars in Orion by 2025 ?  – and in a craft with no serious consideration of radiation shielding or room for exercise to stave of bone and muscle wasting? Going to Mars is vary much dangerous . Imagine 3 or more people stuck in a large room where each of them have to do 2 hours of exercise per day in gym shorts, not to mention… you know. They would all go bat-s crazy within 3 months (if the radiation doesn’t kill them first). Mars is 7 months, one way.  <> A scientific report published this year stated that humans would only survive on Mars for 68 days , According to researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, there is one problem: if they did make the trip, they would all die off within a couple months.Drawing on data from the Mars One group, the team used computer modeling to determine the required amounts of oxygen, food and technology needed for the project. Otherwise ORION is just another small step "backwards" . Mars is a difficult goal that would have to require 22nd Century technology , not 21st Century .



NOTES AND COMMENTS:
*** Just where is the movie about Dr. Carl Sagan ? (1)> To have anything - a universe, a multiverse, the law of gravity, "finely-tuned" physical laws, anything - you have to first have Creation.  And they've shown pretty effectively that "spontaneous" creation is impossible, since it requires physical laws like the law of gravity. So we've established that there was Creation, and that the universe/multiverse didn't (and couldn't) create itself.On this view, it seems the only two possibilities are "God" or "circular irrational nonsense."  Hawking and Mlodinow may be brilliant physicists, they present themselves as poor philosophers and logicians. Their futile efforts to outline an atheistic creation story lend more credence to theism than atheism.(2)> BLACK HOLES occupy a thin line in scientific theology , their just as hard to explain as much as the existence of a god . The ONLY known true black hole that has been proven to exist is in Cygnus X-1 (abbreviated Cyg X-1)[12] is a well-known galactic X-ray source and black hole candidate[13] in the constellation Cygnus. It was discovered in 1964 during a rocket flight and is one of the strongest X-ray sources seen from Earth, producing a peak X-ray flux density of 2.3×10−23 W m−2 Hz−1(2.3×103 Jansky).[14][15] Cygnus X-1 was the first X-ray source widely accepted to be a black hole candidate and it remains among the most studied astronomical objects in its class. It is now estimated to have a mass about 14.8 times the mass of the Sun[7] and has been shown to be too compact to be any known kind of normal star or other likely object besides a black hole. If so, the radius of its event horizon is about 44 km.[16] <> Those hoping to send humans to Mars in just over a decade might have to wait. According to a new study, humans living on the Red Planet would begin dying off within 68 days of landing on the fourth rock from the sun.The Mars One plan to send humans to Mars by 2025 has certainly captured a lot of imaginations. After the application deadline came and passed earlier this month, more than 200,000 people from 140 countries had applied to make mankind’s maiden voyage to the Red Planet. The Report here  35-page report, the problem, ironically, is not too little oxygen, but rather, too much of it. So far, Mars One plans to grow its crops in the same space where people live. According to the data, the first wheat crop would reach maturity at around 68 days, causing a spike in oxygen.(3)> Stephen J Gould, & Richard Dawkins's have a memorable fancy of being hard core evolutionists . Gould was mostly opposed to an adaptationist view of evolution. One of the main reasons he favored a multi-level view of selection is that he didn't believe that all traits are adaptations, but rather that some are byproducts of others, or exaptations, or results of physical and chemical constraints. Dawkins, on the other hand, embraced adaptationism, in a way that many people would consider extreme today.Dawkins takes a gene-centric view, arguing that organisms can be seen as vehicles for the genes they contain. In this view, genes are the subjects of selective pressure, whether natural selection or sexual. Dawkins is also an adaptationist (unlike Gould), seeing more elements of physiology or behaviour as being the result of selection pressure in some way. 

Saturday, December 6, 2014

The Cosby Dilemma , an opinion.

Could Bill Cosby be part of
some conspiracy ?
A long time ago I was writing for local papers like the Metro , in my writing freelance career aside from my meager job  (6) >I found my self in an "argument" with a lipstick feminist . The subject was the word *** "hysteria" which most feminists abhor the word . I usually define the word unlike how your average dictionary defines it as. (1) > I defined it as being a "domino effect" . The case in point is about Bill Cosby Every now thinks that Bill Cosby is a sick sexual pervert . , who may have blown up his 'father figure' image on TV , he defined the the family sitcom in the same  reins of Father Know Best ( Please remember all the families that look perfect on TV are far from facts ) The latest allegations that now are coming against Cosby are becoming more bizarre. The most recent accusations are that Cosby assaulted 12 women who were at the PLAYBOY mansion of all places , yes at Heff's sex , drugs and party house back in the 1970's . This one REALLY got my fingers tying away . the new accuser another woman named Judy Huth says the comedian forced her to perform a sex act on him in a bedroom at the storied party house in 1974, when she was 15. On Wednesday, she filed a civil suit against Cosby for sexual battery. This new accuser was 15 years old , basically underage when she was at the Playboy mansion . So my brain is telling me  WTF is 15 year old girl ( at that time) doing at a place where illicit sex is going on between adults? I am assuming that all the sex was consensual . It's going to be hard to accuse Cosby of being a serial rapist as far as this stupid story gets , (2)>  that is because first of all , all these women who came forward after 40 years are going to be subject to the statute of limitations . I do believe however Cosby may have had only one victim , but still that is a long shot to the whole story. The hysteria phenomenon that is plaguing Cosby now is deeply rooted in the psychological makeup of women . Women can make up and lie , and sometimes use their own emotions as a weapon against a man , or any one ( women as well ) . I'am sorry if there are any real victims of sexual abuse . I can't frankly take all the testimony of a  (5) >bunch of women after 40 years and assume that their is not some hidden agenda against Cosby ? after all Cosby is extremely rich , yes all these women appear to be going into litigation for money . (4)> Truthfully why did not these women come forward decades ago ? What is up with this all of sudden ? 
Here is an interesting article I found from the RETURN of KING's Blog . It summarizes the whole Cosby phenomenon . I am quoting it in it's full text: (warning story explicit )
An otherwise obscure Arizona woman named Barbara Bowman was widely ridiculed a few weeks ago, after the Washington Post published her Bill-Cosby-raped-me claims. Bowman at the time of the alleged assaults had been a pretty, blonde, aspiring actress, still in her teens—prime bait for a libidinous male TV star, and probably well aware of that fact. Though strategically abbreviated to omit some of the more damning details (which appear in another first-person story in the Mail Online), her account in the Post made clear that she had willingly put herself in Cosby’s way.
In one case, I blacked out after having dinner and one glass of wine at his New York City brownstone, where he had offered to mentor me and discuss the entertainment industry. When I came to, I was in my panties and a man’s t-shirt, and Cosby was looming over me. I’m certain now that he drugged and raped me. But as a teenager, I tried to convince myself I had imagined it. I even tried to rationalize it: Bill Cosby was going to make me a star and this was part of the deal.
The final incident [after months and months of these “assaults”] was in Atlantic City, where we had traveled for an industry event. I was staying in a separate bedroom of Cosby’s hotel suite, but he pinned me down in his own bed while I screamed for help.
She offered no explanation of how she had got into Cosby’s bed.
tabloid attorney Gloria Allred is back
keeping Nancy Grace busy.
Now On Monday morning, The View opened with a frank discussion of the mounting rape allegations against Bill Cosby that came to a head this weekend when the comedian refused to address them during a radio interview with NPR. (3)>  Whoopi Goldberg, who led the conversation, expressed more than a bit of skepticism over the claims against Cosby, urging his most vocal accuser,Barbara Bowman to come on the show and explain some things. Now I so convinced that unless there is anything credible against Cosby such as tangible proof  is presented the accusations are going into the sewer drain. Signs of gold-digging  are so obvious to me , since the victims of Cosby's alleged crimes have hired high profile scandal -tabloid attorney Gloria Allred who is already demanding on Cosby  Wednesday to put $100 million in a fund for his accusers and let a panel of retired judges determine the truth about the claims. Yes, the famed Allred who decades ago was on TV starting with the O.J Simpson case , and the famed (infamous) Amber Frey was the ex-girlfriend of Scott Peterson, a California man who was convicted of murdering his wife and whose trial became a national sensation in 2004.  AGAIN Gloria Allred is a feminist who sensationalizes on scandal . She nothing but a gold-digger as well .Be suspicious of any cases filed by glory hunter Allred. Jump on the band wagon no matter how phony some of the allegations sound. In all probability none of the plaintiffs have a shred of proof. It is their word against that of Crosby but they hope that numbers will sway a jury but the fact that so many are coming out of the woodwork may work against them because a jury may believe that there are too many to make it credible.


======================================================================
NOTES AND COMMENTS:
(6)> I was in  argumentation on the fact how modern feminism is sending males the wrong message , Modern feminists say its OK for a woman to express her sexuality  by dressing provocatively , yet would such actions invite trouble? Some modern women's behavior is just as inexcusable as  men's . A good story is found in the BIBLE in the Book Of Genesis , Genesis 34:34. It's the story of Dinah.  Dinah, the daughter of Jacob and Leah, went to visit some of the Canaanite women. ***a psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior. The term has a controversial history as it was formerly regarded as a disease specific to women. (1)> Women can be good manipulators , some of them have made good tabloid material around this time, an epidemic of an MPD-like syndrome in which people—again, mostly young women—claimed to have been abducted and abused by aliens in flying saucers. In that and in all the other cases, the media of the time, and especially the book-publishing industry, helped foment the hysteria, but conveniently developed amnesia about its role when the contagion had burned itself out. (2)> These fame-whores accusing him of rape 40 years after it happened are nothing but attention grabbing hags looking for sympathy and an easy settlement check. Cosby was rich, famous and of course women were lining up to go to bed with him during his 70's heydays' which were often alcohol or drug fueled parties that were the norm for that time period. (3)> Does anyone truly believe that back in the 60's, a white woman accusing a black man of rape wouln't have been believed? It just doesn't ring true, Combine this with her explanation that he was such a beloved icon, she thought she wouldn't be believed, at that time his fan following was no where near todays. Again, something just seems off with these accusations. (4)> Under California law, people accused of the most serious sexual assaults involving minor victims can be criminally charged only if the crimes occurred in 1988 or later. (5)> Is this a reality show that is being played in the media? Women telling the media that after having sexual affairs with a high profile married man; we were raped. However, this was allegedly 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. These women range from middle to senior citizen ages. Are these women victims of rape from this man? Why have an affair with a man and then cry rape? Women, this is not the way to start or farther your career. Are these women ready to take a lie detector test? Enough is enough,...