text:
Bird Kill at West Virginia Wind Farm
(Transcript of Today's For the Birds program)
In 1970, when I was in college, we celebrated the first Earth Day. Our conservative Republican president coined the term "environmental wacko," but during his Administration, the nation banned DDT and passed the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Environmental Policy Act, and Endangered Species Act. This was also when OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Companies, initiated the 1973 oil crisis. To conserve energy, Nixon lowered the speed limit to 55. We environmentalists felt optimistic, thinking the government was finally realizing how dire our dependence on oil was, and that they'd press industry to develop alternative, cleaner energy sources and to press auto and appliance manufacturers to make products more energy efficient. In 1975, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, nicknamed the CAFE standards, took effect. Auto manufacturers suddenly had to consider the fuel efficiency of their fleet. But when Chrysler released its minivan, Lee Iacocca managed to persuade Congress to define the minivan as a light truck rather than a passenger vehicle. SUVs were also defined as light trucks, giving these vehicles a much higher gas consumption allowance. Hummers weren't even required to meet the light truck standards because of their extraordinary weight, so they got away with getting only 9 to 14 miles per gallon.
The 70s was when we should have been researching alternatives for producing electricity, too. Instead, we waited until things got dire, and then started building wind farms willy nilly, without having done the necessary research to create designs that would not kill large numbers of birds or bats. We do know that tall, lighted structures attract nocturnal migrants in large numbers, and the people operating wind farms have a mandate by the Migratory Bird Act to prevent fatalities as much as possible. Yet two weeks ago, at the Laurel Mountain wind farm near Elkins, West Virginia, there was a kill of hundreds of migrating birds by the wind turbines. I learned about this on a birding listserv on October 27, and contacted the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. I directed my call to the scientist who had confirmed the kill, and left a message, but my call was returned by someone else in the department who instructed me to contact their public relations specialist. He said although he could confirm the kill, he wasn't at liberty to disclose how many birds were killed or what species were involved until the federal investigation was closed. A couple of birding sources gave the number as either 484 or between 500 and 600, and indicated that the kill was due to a bank of bright lights used to provide illumination at a substation—apparently these lights are supposed to be turned off at night, but were left on in exactly the cloudy, low-visibility conditions associated with most bird kills.
I'm not sure why two weeks after the incident, details are still so sketchy. The optimism I felt as a college kid seeing the government respond to critical environmental issues, and the sense that government was requiring more openness and honesty, seem to have dissipated.
Sadly, reports indicate that most of the warblers killed were Blackpolls, an endangered species in nearby Pennsylvania. The Migratory Bird Act calls for a maximum $5000 fine and a six-month jail term for each violation. This act is vigorously enforced when it comes to individuals possessing feathers or individual birds, even when the people are trying to rescue a hurt bird. I know that corporations are legally considered people now, but my prediction is that Fish and Wildlife will not issue any fines or jail sentences in this case. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Conservation Big Year: 2013?
(Transcript of For the Birds for October 27, 2011)
Ever since the movie The Big Year came out, people seem more interested in the hobby of birding. I've been getting questions from people who went out to try and identify birds after seeing the film, and The Atlantic had a great story about a guy doing a Big Year this year. As of October 26, 2011, John Vanderpoel has seen 729 species, and is in third place in the American Birding Association's record book. As of last year, second place is owned by Bob Ake, with 731, and it looks like Vanderpoel will for sure reach that mark. With luck, he may even reach Sandy Komito's all-time record of 745.
I've never considered doing a Big Year—I just don't have that competitive fire in my belly to want to chase birds just to see more than anyone else even if I did have the kind of money necessary. I'm a proud member of the American Birding Association even though I never submit my lists. It's not at all that I disapprove of competitive listing. Just because I enjoy shooting baskets with my kids but never aspired to play basketball competitively doesn't mean I don't appreciate NBA level basketball.
I've been mulling over the idea of doing a different kind of Big Year that isn't competitive at all—a Conservation Big Year. What I'd like to do is spend a year trying to see all the North American species that are endangered, threatened, or of special concern. I'd try to get photos and video of each species on its breeding, staging, and/or wintering range, and write about each species and how it's doing and what kind of help it's getting from federal and state agencies and conservation organizations. I'm already too booked for 2012, so this would have to happen in 2013. This would of course involve a lot of travel, which would ironically squander a lot of energy, but I'd at least try to minimize the energy used in travel. I think the ticket one needs to do a Conservation Big Year is a Duck Stamp, because so many birds, from Whooping Cranes to Black-capped Vireos, live in National Wildlife Refuges funded by Duck Stamps. The trickiest part of course would be funding, so I'd try to get speaking gigs here and there along the way.
A year-long project like this could be a thrilling adventure, getting me into a lot of important habitats all over the country. I'd try to get to as many National Wildlife Refuges as possible, because they're such an essential part of bird conservation. I wouldn't need to go to Attu like the guys in the movie The Big Year—the rarities that turn up there are off-course migrants from Asia, most of which are doing well in their normal ranges. But it would bring me up to Alaska, some north Atlantic islands, and the Pacific coast. I'd get to spend time with Kirtland's Warblers in Michigan, Lesser Prairie Chickens in Oklahoma, Sage Grouse in Colorado, puffins off the coast of Maine, and California Gnatcatchers on the Pacific slope. And of course I'd be seeing plenty of other birds wherever I was, so would almost definitely see over 600 species during the year.
My Conservation Big Year wouldn't present the same difficulties as a competitive Big Year—I wouldn't have to race off whenever a rare bird blows in on a spring storm. I'd have 14 months to plan it out so I could be at the best places at the best times to see each species when its singing or displaying was peaking. In the coming weeks I'm going to plot out a rough itinerary and see if this kind of thing would be at all feasible. I don't know if my plans will firm up so I can really do this, but the more I think about it, the more excited I get.
Economizing on Optics
Chandler Robbins's binoculars. I took this photo in Guatemala in 2007. He's been using the same inexpensive binoculars for decades, putting his money toward conservation rather than optics. Excellent optics are wonderful—don't get me wrong. But prioritizing how we spend our money is getting more and more critical for the 90 percent of Americans who aren't wealthy.
(Transcript of today's For the Birds)
This week people got into a testy exchange of ideas on the national birding listserv regarding what kind of binoculars to recommend to people. Most serious birders tell people to buy the very best binoculars they can afford, and in this discussion, one person said it was reasonable to spend about what you pay for a month's rent or mortgage payment. I went to bed hungry as a little girl enough that I'm very aware that a hundred dollars is a lot of money for a lot of people. I've been lucky enough to have used some of the best binoculars in the world, and high-end binoculars costing over a thousand dollars really are the best, but it feels rude and presumptuous for me to tell someone that they need high-end binoculars when they can't afford health care. Now that I haven't worked for an optics company for four years, I'm completely out of touch with current binocular models. One that I recommended for years as the best binoculars for less than $100, the Leupold Yosemites, has new specifications and according to people I've talked to who have checked them out, the quality has plummeted dramatically. So I don't even know what brands or models to recommend anymore.
But a few guidelines can help people on a serious budget to make a wise purchase. First, inexpensive pocket binoculars are virtually always a waste of money. Any objective lenses smaller than 30 or 32 millimeters, which is the second number in the normal description of binoculars, like 10x20, is not going to be able to gather enough light to give you a clear image—I've tested a lot of them, and they really show birds worse than using two toilet paper tubes, and I am not making this up. I was very disturbed several years ago when Audubon started sending particularly cheap binoculars out as a premium for joining—they were plastic with plastic lenses, you couldn't adjust them for how far apart your eyes were, and looking through them actually hurt my eyes. It seemed ironic for a conservation organization to manufacture such worthless items and ship them to America from China in a container ship burning toxic bunker fuel.
Especially as more and more products, even from higher end companies, are being manufactured in China, you really can't count on quality when you purchase anything but the most expensive binoculars. For a given amount of money, you'll get a much better view with lower power glasses. I strongly recommend that if you're spending less than $300 or so that you get seven power, not 10 x—for the same size binoculars, you'll always get a brighter image and virtually always get a clearer image. And any compromises in glass grinding, alignment, or coatings will be less noticeable in lower power glasses. I usually leave my binoculars home now that I bring my camera birding, but the binoculars I do use are 6x32—they're small, focus incredibly close for butterflies or birds at the window feeder, and have a great field of view.
My first pair of binoculars was a reasonably inexpensive pair of 7x50 Bushnell Instafocuses. They were huge, but I was young and didn't mind lugging them around—those glasses gave me the first 357 species I saw on my lifelist. I'd recommend saving up to get binoculars in the $300 range or higher if you really want the added magnification of 10-power glasses. Also, make sure the eyecups push or twist in rather than being made of cheap rubber that rolls down. I don't make commercial endorsements, but I know several people who work at Eagle Optics outside Madison, Wisconsin, and know they are birders who really understand optics and the best choices at each price point. If you're on a serious budget, they're going to be very helpful in steering you toward the best affordable pair. As I learned when I began, even a fairly inexpensive pair of binoculars can bring you years of satisfaction. After you open the box and make sure they're aligned and working, forget about second guessing yourself and get out and start using them.
The Big Year: The Second Viewing
This week Russ and I went to see The Big Year for the second time, after I re-read the book. We both still thoroughly enjoyed the movie, partly because of and partly despite the differences between the movie and the real story of the 1998 Big Year that the movie was based on.
I've never met any of the three real birders who tried to break the all-time record of birds seen in a single calendar year, though I once did a phone interview with Greg Miller, the birder played in the movie by Jack Black. Greg told me about his using police radar to clock a Peregrine Falcon in downtown Cleveland going over 240 miles per hour. Greg served as the bird consultant during filming The Big Year. Based on accounts by birders who know them personally and from the book, Greg Miller's father was actually a birder himself who supported Greg's Big Year from the start, unlike Brian Dennehy's character in the movie. In the movie there was a beautiful scene with Jack Black and Brian Dennehy looking at a Great Gray Owl. This actually happened in real life much the way the movie portrayed, except the bird was actually a Long-eared Owl. The one distressing thing about that scene was that they used an animatronic owl, especially because it would have been very easy to get high definition video of a real Great Gray Owl. One thing that Duluth audiences picked up is that in the movie, Owen Wilson searches for a Snowy Owl in the Sax-Zim Bog, when serious birders would just about always search in the Duluth Harbor for the Snowy. That real life character's nemesis bird was a Great Gray Owl, which he never saw that year.
The boggy area around Meadowlands known as the Sax-Zim Bog is mentioned a couple of times in the movie, and Owen Wilson's character spends Christmas Eve in Duluth, having dinner in a Chinese restaurant. Although the scene wasn't filmed in Duluth, the man the character is based on really did spend that Christmas Eve in Duluth, eating dinner at a Chinese restaurant, the only place he could find open that night.
In the movie, Angelica Huston plays Annie Auklet, who leads tours in Monterey Bay to help birders get oceanic birds. Her character is based on a pelagic trip leader whose name is Debi Shearwater. I know Debi—she's a wonderful woman who really did have a feud with the man the Owen Wilson character is based on. She really did change her name to Shearwater because of her love for the birds, and except for her being a blonde, Angelica Huston seems to channel her in every way. Although the man Owen Wilson's character is based on is actually a year older than the man Steve Martin's character is based on, the movie did an excellent job of casting, in finding actors who bring out a lot of the characters of and dynamics between the real men that year.
The real Big Year took place in 1998, and many experts think Sandy Komito's record 745 birds will never be broken. The El Nino that year brought amazing species to Attu, the farthest Aleutian Island, which is increasingly difficult to reach. And since 9/11, increased airline security has meant that people just can't hop a jet whenever a rare bird turns up somewhere.
Although just about every birder I've talked to or seen online discussing the movie gave The Big Year a thumbs up, the movie hasn't done very well nationally. Critics are giving it only a 40% on Rotten Tomatoes, and even audiences give it only a 55%. People at Zinema2, Duluth's wonderful downtown theater, told me that although the film took in only $700 per theater nationally this past weekend, it brought in $2200 at Zinema, so they're keeping it at least another week. On opening night, the theater was filled—that included a lot of people from Duluth Audubon and Hawk Ridge. At this Monday night's showing there were still 20 people in the theater—pretty respectable for a weeknight. So oddly enough, Duluth may end up not just the place to go to see rare birds, but also to see movies about going to Duluth to see rare birds.
Chance Encounter (repeated from last year)
(This is repeated from last year's For the Birds)
[I'm headed to Philadelphia for this weekend's conference, Focus on Diversity: Changing the Face of American Birding, so pulled up a rerun for today's and tomorrow's programs]
This fall [that is, fall 2010], I've been watching flocks of all kinds of birds, from huge groups of sparrows and juncos to this year's unusually abundant Blue Jays. I tend to focus on groups of birds in autumn, and I think of migratory movements in terms of populations or species, not individuals. But this week I took notice of the particularity of one bird I came upon at the Port Wing marina.
This Snow Bunting had made a journey spanning a couple thousand miles to reach northern Wisconsin from his high arctic breeding grounds. His flickering white wing patches caught my eye as he picked off bugs clinging to the side of a bridge—a narrow but vertical structure far enough above the rocks that the bunting had to hover to snap them up. Most songbirds cannot hover for more than a few seconds, and by the time I got my camera focused, the little guy had dropped back down to the rocks.
Snow Buntings usually associate in flocks with other Snow Buntings and occasionally longspurs or Horned Larks. I see them most often on the stubble of farm fields long after harvest, the birds eking out their existence on waste seed and bugs. They're especially drawn to fields after a farmer spreads manure, a veritable cornucopia of insects and semi-digested grass seeds, often steaming with warmth. Of course, the steam also carries a certain level of odor, but songbirds aren't gifted in the olfactory department and their sensibilities not so rarified as ours, so they don't seem to mind at all. The landscape would seem barren and desolate if not for these beautiful "snow flake" birds. When a flock of Snow Buntings feeds on the ground, those at the back fly forward to the front, making the flock appear to be rolling along. This would be beautiful enough if done by any other species, but reaches ethereal heights thanks to their flickering white wing patches.
Snow Buntings are usually very gregarious, but their flocks are like families of squabbling children. Even during the times of year when they're not defending a territory, Snow Buntings almost continuously bicker with one another. Many flocking birds establish a hierarchy to reduce the conflicts, but Snow Buntings are too independent to submit to the rules a hierarchical society requires. Those of us who witness their skirmishes are treated to a lot of beautiful wing flashing. If we're not paying attention, we may not catch on that the birds are fighting. So being in the presence of bickering buntings is far more pleasant than being stuck in a car with bickering children.
Snow Buntings breed in one of the harshest environments on the planet—the high Arctic. They nest under boulders in boulder fields, in cracks in large rock surfaces, or cliff faces. Temperatures in these nests can be very cold, so the buntings line their nests with thick insulating layers of feathers, mosses, and grasses.
I wanted to tease out the entire history of the Snow Bunting I was watching—he moseyed about, allowing me to take 122 photographs at close range over the course of an hour—but he wasn't talking. He didn't open his wings again for me, either—Snow Buntings spend most of their lives on foot. So I couldn't verify by the size of his white wing patches that he was a male, though that is definitely the impression I got when I first saw him feeding. His cap didn't seem quite dark enough for an adult male, but even that wasn't definite in fresh fall plumage.
I was in Port Wing without my bird books, so I emailed my photos to my good friend Mike McDowell to see if he could figure out the bird's age and sex. He wasn't sure either, so he forwarded them to two top Wisconsin birders, Tom Schultz and Ryan Brady. Even though the photos show the bird very clearly, at high resolution and large size, none of us could be 100 percent certain without the bird in hand, though Ryan and Tom both had the impression of a young male, too.
This added a mysterious flair to my encounter. I'll never know if this was his first migration or whether he's a seasoned traveler, whether he got separated from others by accident or by choice, how he chanced to be at the Port Wing Marina exactly when I was there, or even if he was a "he" at all. And I'll never recognize him again if I see him, alone or in a flock. It was one of those lovely brief encounters we make as we pass through this lovely little planet. I'll always remember him—those photos turned out well enough that I'll be referencing them for decades—but I found him far more interesting than he found me, so I'm sure the moment I moved on, he breathed a sigh of relief to have that intruder out of his face and simply moved on to the rest of his life.
Bird Feeding Primer
(This is repeated from last year, podcast here.)
In autumn, a lot of people set up their old bird feeders and a lot of other people buy or build new feeders. Ever since Emily Dickinson tossed out crumbs to her sparrows, Americans have taken pleasure in feeding backyard birds. And like Emily Dickinson, the protective feelings we have toward birds are especially aroused by wintry weather.
Except for sick or injured birds that cannot leave our feeding stations, or out-of-range visitors that find themselves in habitat offering no sustenance for them, virtually every bird that visits our feeders gets most of its calories from more natural sources. People as a group are unpredictable and fickle, and even the most steadfast soul with a bird feeder might get sick or have to spend time somewhere else during winter, so birds unable to find enough natural food to survive usually migrate to where they can.
Birds really can survive perfectly well without our feeders, but they do get through the winter in better condition when they get some easy and nutritious calories every day. In one University of Wisconsin study, Black-capped Chickadees took about 21 percent of their daily calories from feeders and the rest from wild sources. That's barely a fifth of their food, and the researchers found that when they removed feeders from a woodland where birds had been fed for the previous 25 years, chickadees quickly switched to natural food sources and survived the winter as well as chickadees that lived where no feeders had ever been placed. The researchers learned that during mild winters, survival rates between chickadees in areas with bird feeders are no higher than for chickadees living entirely without feeders, but during extremely harsh conditions, feeders did raise their survival rates.
A single bird feeder seldom attracts many birds, and it can take weeks or even months for birds to discover it, especially where habitat is poor. Overall, the most successful feeding stations provide a variety of feeders in different spots. Some species, such as native sparrows and doves, prefer feeding on the ground.
Some, such as Evening Grosbeaks, prefer platform feeders without roofs.
Some, such as chickadees and finches, don't mind hanging feeders
while others prefer feeders to be firmly attached to something solid.
People often buy bird seed mixes, reasoning that the wider variety of seed choices will lure in a wider variety of species. But the bulk of inexpensive mixes is "filler" seed that few if any birds eat. These mixes cost far less per pound than sunflower, but so much is wasted that in the long run, they're more expensive. And wasted seed decays, fostering bacteria and fungi. Normally the best seed choices are black oil sunflower and, if you have a lot of ground-feeding sparrows and doves, white millet.
Finches are especially fond of nyjer seed.
Woodpeckers, titmice, and jays also feed on suet.
I never buy suet cakes that have corn or peanuts. I only buy corn or peanuts graded for human, livestock, or pet consumption—those sold for wildlife feeding don't need to pass inspection for aflatoxins—extremely dangerous byproducts of bacteria that thrive on corn and peanuts. Corn and peanuts sold for bird feeding never carry any kind of certification guaranteeing that they are free of aflatoxins, so I don't feed corn and buy peanuts for feeding chickadees, jays, and squirrels from the grocery store so I know they're safe. It would be ironic indeed to imagine myself helping my backyard birds while feeding them toxic food. Bird feeding can be wonderful for the birds and for those of us who watch them, but only if we're sure we're doing it right.
New Research on White-throated Sparrows and Dark-eyed Juncos
One of the abundant backyard birds in north country in October is our little White-throated Sparrow. Juncos are starting to outnumber them at feeders now, and by the time the first snow flies most of them will be further south, but these little stripe-headed guys are right now packing away almost as many seeds as their stripe-backed counterparts in the mammal world, the chipmunks.
White-throated Sparrows come in two color forms, one with bright white stripes on their heads,
and one with tan stripes.
Each color form makes up about 50 percent of the population, and each sex is represented by about 50 percent of each color form. Virtually 100 percent of all mated pairs include birds of opposite color as well as opposite sex—a system called negative assortative mating. Researchers find that the white-striped forms are very aggressive and territorial while the tan-striped birds are more nurturing and not particularly territorial. The human counterpart would be if Scarlett O'Hara always ended up with Ashley Wilkes while Melanie Hamilton always ended up with Rhett Butler.
All this has been known for a long time. But researchers are now finding an intriguing anomaly in White-throated Sparrow chromosomes. In mammals, the sex chromosomes X and Y match up when producing a male, and two X's match up to produce a female; while in birds, the W and Z chromosomes match up when producing a female and two Z's produce a male. Although our X and Y chromosomes or the W and Z chromosome counterparts in birds have very few genes in common, they match up during meiosis because they do have a small but critical area in common. In the exceptional case of White-throated Sparrows, another chromosome, Chromosome 2, acts like these sex chromosomes because of a weird phenomenon called a chromosomal inversion. The showy white-striped form birds have the heterozygous form, comparable to our male XY pairing, while the plainer tan-striped birds have the homozygous form like our female XX chromosome pairing. Scientists published a paper last week likening the Chromosome 2 situation to the sparrows having a second set of sex chromosomes, a fascinating possibility for a species with its unique assortative mating system. I think the media made it sound weirder and more sex-charged than it is, but it's still interesting.
In another recent study, scientists found that male juncos have two spring songs. Birds in an area apparently sort out whose land is whose via their loud territorial song, and then they pretty much ignore each other when singing that tune. But each male also has a softer, more melodic song used to attract a mate. And juncos are very suspicious of every male singing that song and get far more aggressive when they hear it. Apparently they're more concerned about defending their mate than their property.
When the October wind is rattling my windows and the leaves are piling up, my juncoes are not singing at all, and sparrow genes and chromosomes don't interest me. These sturdy little beings scratching out their meals under my feeders are a warm and gentle reminder that winter is headed our way. Even as the thought makes me shiver, these warm little birds remind me that even tiny little bodies can survive just about anything Mother Nature can dish out. Thoreau described juncos as "Leaden skies above, snow beneath," and when a flock takes off, their delicate white tail streamers moving in a flurry like so many snowflakes, I can't help but remember just how beautiful snow can be.
Movie Review: The Big Year
I wrote two For the Birds scripts about this movie, the first (For the Birds, October 18) to explain what a "Big Year" is, and the second (For the Birds, October 19) to review the movie. Following are both scripts: Ever since Christopher Guest made Best in Show, I've longed for his troupe to make a movie about competitive birding. I thought the perfect vehicle would be a movie about a Big Day—probably the World Series of Birding, which takes place in New Jersey every year. The movie would show the teams preparing and then getting through the day. I cringe at the thought of Eugene Levy using his broad physical humor to make fun of a particularly nerdy type of birder, mainly because I know one nerdy birder that he could do a spot-on imitation of. There'd be the cutthroat competitors who keep every sighting close to their vest and are invariably among the winners, and the teams who share tips about every rarity with anyone they encounter and invariably never win. There'd be the teams who hear a single note or sight a bird for barely a second and race on—one of these teams is invariably the winner—and teams who stop and admire too many beautiful birds for too long—invariably not among the winners. It would have been so fun to see what kinds of birders Guest, Levy, Bob Balaban, Parker Posey, Michael Hitchcock, Catherine O'Hara, Michael McKean, John Michael Higgens, and the rest came up with.
My fantasy movie was never realized, but something even better is in theaters right now, in the form of The Big Year. Based on the book by Mark Obmascik, this movie captures the essence of three birders roughly based on three real men who, when they each independently realized that El Nino was likely to produce conditions for an amazing array of rarities to turn up in 1998, set out to see the most species ever recorded in a single year in North America.
I'll talk specifically about the movie tomorrow, but first want to provide listeners with a bit of history about what Big Years are all about. Big Years are said to have originated in a roundabout way by Roger Tory Peterson and British ornithologist James Fisher. Peterson wanted to show off America's fabulous birdlife to his friend, and so in April 1953, the two men embarked on a 100-day, 30,000-mile road trip around the continent recounted in the book Wild America. Thanks to that stupendous experience, Peterson tallied a total of 572 species for 1953. But he had not been the first to set a record for the number of species seen in North America in a single year. Guy Emerson, a businessman, timed his business trips to coincide with ideal times for birding in various areas of the U.S. In 1939, he set a personal record of 497. This was the number Peterson set out to beat in 1953 and kept track of throughout his adventure with Fisher, apparently not realizing that in 1952, Bob Smart had already set a new record of 510 species [according to Wikipedia. According to The Pettingell Book of Birding Records, Smart saw 515.]
Peterson beat that record substantially, but his 572 only stood for three years. In 1956, a 25-year-old Englishman named Stuart Keith followed Peterson and Fisher's route and tallied 598. This record stood for 15 years. In 1969, the American Birding Association was born. Its inaugural edition of Birding magazine set ground rules for competitive birding in North America, defining the official ABA area as the 49 continental states and Canada, excluding Baja California, which Peterson and Fisher had spent time in.
In 1971, 18-year-old Ted Parker, in his last year of high school, managed to get 626 species all within the ABA area, which he announced in the 1972 issue of Birding. That was like throwing down the gauntlet. In 1973, two different birders broke his record. Floyd Murdoch got 669 in the ABA area. Kenn Kaufman got a total of 671, but his number included 5 species seen only in Baja California—his ABA list was 666. Kaufman recounted the adventure in an extraordinary book, Kingbird Highway, which is as much a coming-of-age memoir as a birding adventure book.
Murdoch's ABA area record was broken by James Vardaman, who saw 699 in 1979. That record was toppled four years later by former Duluth doctor Benton Basham, who tallied 710 in 1983, including a Boreal Owl along the Gunflint Trail. Basham had asked Kim Eckert to take him to see one, and Kim invited me and a couple of other lucky birders along. I'll never forget that night—northern lights were streaming, an American Woodcock was alighting on the road right near us during interludes in his skydance, and Boreal Owl calls rang out, a thrilling sound for all of us, and filling me with the kind of joy Basham must have felt when he topped 700.
In 1987, Sandy Komito broke that record with 721. He broke his own record with 745 in 1998—a record that still stands, and the feat recounted in Obmascik's book, The Big Year. Tomorrow I'll talk about the movie.
A couple of years ago, news came out that Peter Frankel, who directed The Devil Wears Prada and Marley and Me, was going to direct a movie about Mark Obmascik's book, The Big Year. Birders were immediately intrigued yet scared, many assuming that of course the movie would ridicule birdwatching. When the actors who would play the lead characters were announced, many birders got more scared—with Jack Black, Steve Martin, and Owen Wilson starring, the movie was clearly intended to be a comedy. The film crew hired Greg Miller as a birding consultant—he's the birder Jack Black's character was loosely based on—but many birders were increasingly certain the movie would poke fun at birding.
They needn't have worried. There are certainly secondary characters in The Big Year who think birding is stupid, and you can't blame them when these competing birders toss aside important business meetings and even one marriage when a rare bird is at stake. But the birders in The Big Year are unapologetic about their passion. To them, the joy of birding and the urge to break the record for the most birds seen in North America in a single year is as fundamental as is James Lovell's yearning to reach the moon in Apollo 13 or the passion for fine wine by the characters in the movie Sideways.
Birds and birding are integral to the movie, but the themes of the movie are more about passion and competition, the weird kinds of bonds that draw even heated contenders together, and what things are or are not worth sacrificing to reach a goal.
From the moment The Big Year starts, on New Year's Day with Owen Wilson's character in a remote park in Arizona to see a hard-to-get rarity, a Nutting's Flycatcher, I was totally engaged in the movie. Steve Martin's character celebrates a more family-oriented New Years, with toasts at midnight and then a family skiing outing, though he does stop a few times to add some birds to his year list. Jack Black's character was stuck at work, and he only got a single bird out the window of his downtown office.
As with the real men who inspired the movie characters, Steve Martin's and Owen Wilson's characters were very wealthy, and Jack Black's had very little money and was just getting over a painful divorce. You quickly discern that it takes a lot of money to do a Big Year, and that some birders are as cutthroat as some contenders in sports. When a very rare tropical hummingbird turns up at a backyard feeder, Steve Martin gets there first and dutifully rings the doorbell and patiently waits for the homeowner to give him a key to her gate, politely submitting to a minute of chit chat, while Owen Wilson simply jumps over her fence and is in and out while Martin is still stuck at the door. A great many birders in the film are deeply resentful of Wilson's character for how cutthroat he is in competition. But he is rather like the New York Yankees—he has way more money than most birders, makes the most of it, and can make life hell for some birders, yet despite their resentment, they can't help but be regaled by his amazing experiences and give him plenty of begrudging respect along with resentment and even hatred.
The movie has some beautiful and touching moments. All three contenders stop, spellbound, gazing as courting Bald Eagles clasp talons in their aerial dance. And the movie has the sweetest scene involving a Great Gray Owl that I could imagine, though the owl moves more like an animatronic rather than a real flesh-and-blood owl.
The movie ends with photos of birds in rapid fire to the accompaniment of the song "This Could All Be Yours"—as lovely an invitation to start birding as I could imagine. The Big Year is a splendid movie for birders, and based on comments of non-birders I've talked to who saw it, plenty fun for regular people, too.
Robin Spectacle
Transcript of today's For the Birds
A lot of people have been talking about lower numbers of a lot of species of songbirds, but one species no one is particularly worried about is the American Robin. Providing manicured lawns and ornamental fruit trees help robins to thrive. Their numbers are often the highest of any bird species wintering in the U.S. based on the Great Backyard Bird Count, which occurs in February.
A week or so ago, robins were so thick in my neighborhood that in a single day they devoured every single berry out of my neighbors' yard—and they had at least three heavily-bearing trees. Hawks were also thick that day—while I was working at my desk, a Cooper's Hawk chased one gorgeous adult male robin directly into my window at high speed. The poor bird hit so hard it crashed to the ground, but the hawk just moved on, leaving it in its death throes. After it died, I moved it to the back of the yard where something ate it within an hour, leaving nothing but a pile of feathers. Not once all day was there a single moment that I couldn't hear robins everywhere. The next day they were gone, and I thought the biggest wave of them had passed through. It was close to the anniversary of October 1, 1988, when I was counting birds at the Lakewood Pumping Station up the shore a bit from Duluth and counted over 60,000 robins in five hours, along with 30,000 warblers and various other birds. I was in such a numerical daze when I got home that I walked smack into a bag of sunflower seeds and was up to something like 738 before I realized I was counting them as I swept them up.
But the big flight a week ago wasn't the end of this year's robin migration—this week another huge flood rushed though. On the first hour of counting at Hawk Ridge on October 9, the counters tallied over 12,000 robins migrating over the ridge and down in my neighborhood, which is between the main overlook and the lake. Robins rushed through all morning, and by noon, the counters simply put 30,000+ on the count board. They had plenty of other things to be paying attention to: on October 9, they also counted 478 raptors.
Meanwhile, down in my neighborhood, robins and Cedar Waxwings stripped the berries from my own mountain ash trees, dogwoods, and grapevine.
And the flight on October 9 had another witness. I got an email from Patty Mayer who wrote:
I live just above Skyline on the Duluth/ Proctor/ Hermantown border. At dusk I happened to glance out the window in the eastern sky and noticed a bunch of birds flying over. Not an uncommon sight this time of year, but they just kept coming. I ran outside to see them better: robins, and maybe some of their cousins. I watched what had to be THOUSANDS of birds fly over (heading SW). Too many to count as they flew, (1/2 block wide distribution) but there was a constant barrage flying overhead for literally five minutes or more. It was just so cool to see SO MANY flying right at dusk I wanted to share.
American Robins are abundant enough that a lot of us take them for granted. But this kind of breathtaking spectacle right in Duluth is one of the things that makes this city uniquely special. People grow ever more removed from nature with so many other things drawing our attention to the technological and economic. But anyone who didn't stop and look up this week missed a thrilling experience.
Where are the birds?
(Transcript of today's and tomorrow's For the Birds.)
People have been asking me for years why they seem to see fewer birds than they used to. This year I've heard from more people, from more places, asking this question than ever before.
To non-birders, birds seem plenty common—often too abundant. Canada Geese, Ring-billed Gulls, and American Robins have undergone something of a population explosion in recent decades. City pigeons, starlings, and House Sparrows are plenty common enough, at least in North America. Wild Turkeys are now found in areas where they never had been found in past decades or centuries, though many local populations aren't truly established but continually augmented by hunting groups. I'm afraid in the future, Wild Turkeys may become every bit as much of an ecological hazard as white-tailed deer are now.
But meanwhile, a great many other birds are declining, some so significantly that we may face extinctions and dramatic extirpations in coming decades unless something is done. Sadly, the birds declining are species never mentioned in school science programs, and many educated adults have never heard of them, so Midwestern children have a more visceral reaction when they hear about impending extinctions of polar bears or penguins or the rainforest than they do about the plight of prairie-chickens or Upland Sandpipers.
But those of us who have been watching birds for a few decades can't help but have noticed that before the 80s, we'd see spring warbler waves just about anytime we went out in May, while now even in major migration areas we just don't see them as often as we used to. Evening Grosbeaks were abundant in the northland during the 70s and 80s—I used to get hundreds every day in late summer every year. This year I had a flock of about 16 stay in my area for almost 6 weeks. This was the first time in over a decade that I had more than one at my feeder at a time, and the first time in at least 15 years that grosbeaks remained here for longer than a few minutes. It was so exceptional that it literally made the newspaper.
With many declines, we have no idea what's going on. In the case of Evening Grosbeaks, there is no hard and fast data about their abundance before the 70s, so we don't know if populations may undergo long term cyclic declines and surges, or if the widespread decline since the 90s, documented over the entire eastern half of the continent, has been truly cataclysmic.
Species by species, we have to tease out the real losses from the apparent losses, to ensure that birds that are missing from one area haven't simply moved on to another area. There have always been hurricanes, fires, and other catastrophes, and during human history, most species have rebounded after declines. Is it possible that some birds will reach the tipping point due to some combination of the changes in climate, pesticide loads and levels of other toxins, loss of habitat, outright mortality to windows, lighted communications towers, domesticated cats, and all the other changes people have wrought? And will we have enough warning to be able to prevent species losses?
That's all impossible to say. But tomorrow I'll be talking about how difficult it is for scientists to quantify how many birds have already disappeared.
Yesterday I talked about declines in birds that used to be common in the upper Midwest. Our best tool for quantifying breeding birds is the Breeding Bird Survey, which was started in 1966 by one of my heroes, Chandler Robbins of the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
There are 3700 roadside survey routes in the United States and Canada. Each one is 24.5 miles long, with 50 stops, each exactly one half mile apart. Participants run their route beginning at a set time before dawn on a reasonably calm, non-rainy day in June, pulling over at each stop to count every bird they see or hear in a three-minute period. Usually the participant has an assistant who writes down all the data. Obviously, some of the birds seen or heard are simply passing through, and many birds aren't detected at all, but over time, because each route is run in the same sequence by the same experienced counters, these routes provide an excellent index of the number of birds holding territories along each route.
But the Breeding Bird Survey has some serious drawbacks. First, these roadside surveys are rerouted when necessary as various roads become more heavily used and thus more dangerous. My own route was rerouted as the dirt road it originally ran along was paved and got too busy. As necessary as this was, little by little rerouting compromises the data, because the routes were originally selected randomly, but now are skewing toward less developed areas and bird species less likely to associate with people.
Equally troublesome, the Breeding Bird Survey protocol is to count every singing bird, so a very high percentage of all the birds counted are breeding males on territory. This is exactly what the survey is designed to do, but there is no way of assessing how many floaters—that is, "extra" birds that don't have available territories so aren't singing—are out there. Of course, those birds quietly waiting in the wings are pretty much impossible to detect no matter what we do. But there is really good evidence that there used to be a lot of these floaters out there, and there probably aren't nearly as many anymore. In his 1945 text, Modern Bird Study, Ludlow Griscom wrote:
An acquaintance of mine made a very interesting but somewhat cruel experiment some years ago with the Indigo Bunting. Finding a nesting pair near his house, he proceeded to shoot the male. The next day, the female had secured another male that sang in the same territory claimed by the first mate. He proceeded to shoot the second male. This kept on until he had shot nine different male Indigo Buntings, and he left the tenth male to help the female raise her family.
Griscom's report predates the modern study of floaters—he was simply using this as an example of female songbirds being fickle. But it is an excellent example of a small study area in which at least nine males were present who were not detected until the male on the territory was removed.
Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing how old these males were. Current studies of Indigo Buntings indicate that virtually all males more than a year old have mates. Did there used to be a lot more males in the 1940s than there are now? There is no way of knowing for sure.
But Sydney Gauthreaux of Clemson University learned to analyze NEXRAD radar data to detect bird movements. He found that between the mid 1960s and the mid 1980s, the number of significant spring migration flights detected from his study area along the Gulf of Mexico had declined by almost 50 percent. He found a similar loss between the 80s and the new millennium. Although these are astounding numbers, and some scientists have questioned his techniques because the numbers don't jibe with Breeding Bird Survey results, the truth is that his is the only objective data we have quantifying raw numbers of trans-Gulf migrants, including both floaters and breeding birds. Floaters provide an essential backup reserve population. I'm afraid we may be losing far more than people want to face. I hate doomsday reports, but unless we face bird declines square on, how can we possibly avert doomsday?
Beautiful cat needs a home
Russ and I brought this beautiful cat home from Port Wing, where he had been hunting for birds and mice at my mother-in-law's, not very effectively judging from the fact that he's been declawed and is very emaciated. He's being treated for worms, got a rabies shot, and is overall healthy, except for one thing--he tested positive for FIV. That's the feline version of HIV, an immuno-response thing that can kill him, and is very transmissible to other cats (but not humans or dogs). So at our house he must be kept entirely separate from Kitty and Kasey. I have him in my office with me when I'm home, but it seems to stress Archimedes, so he can't be left in here when I'm not in the room.
What he desperately needs is a quiet loving home with no other cats (or only FIV+ cats) and probably no dogs, because even Photon frightens him--who knows what foxes, coyotes, bears, and even wolves he may have encountered before we found him. I've paid for his rabies shot, and will pay for distemper when he's up to it (he wasn't very cooperative at the vet yesterday), and will throw in a kitty gym that he likes if you have room for it. I sure hope I can find him a good home soon.
Over the years, a lot of people have asked me what I consider to be the fundamental difference between birds or other animals and human beings. Some religious philosophers have said we're the only animals with souls. I'm not sure about that—some birds I've rehabbed, lived with, or watched in the wild have seemed genuinely soulful, and some sociopathic humans seem genuinely soulless, but either way, who am I to judge what a soul is? Some scientists have said birds have no emotions, but ironically, that is a profoundly unscientific belief. Animals share our biochemistry and the vast majority of our genome. To claim that every one of these non-human beings lacks emotions without experimental proof is not scientific. When we define love or fear or frustration or anger as uniquely human emotions, that's linguistics, not science.
Some people say we differ from animals in our intelligence. On every measure of every form of intelligence, humans vary wildly. Our species includes rocket scientists, and we take pride in that although in my entire life I've only personally known one rocket scientist. As a species, we've certainly developed tools to a far more complex level than any other species on this planet has ever done, but I for one could never design and build a helicopter, and don't have a clue how to use a lot of the tools my kids mastered in junior high school shop class. As far as technology goes, a lot of the things we've developed have in the long run done more to foul our nests or while away our hours in games that focus our intelligence on pointless exercises than to serve a useful end.
Some people say we're the only species capable of altruism. They pooh-pooh cases of birds feeding nestlings that aren't their own. The cardinal who lost his mate and young and spent a week or so stuffing food into the mouths of goldfish was simply making an innate hormonal response to the color and size of their mouths, which are similar to that of baby cardinals. The screech-owl who incubated flicker eggs, brooded the nestlings, and tried to feed them chunks of mouse was just making the same kind of innate hormonal response. I'm a human, whose behavior is supposedly not dictated by biology but by something unique to us, yet I remember just how gentle and nurturing and altruistic I was when I was pumped up with maternal hormones. I think a lot of our altruism is directly connected to how dependent our species' young are for well over a decade, requiring a more consistent long-term uninterrupted nurturing impulse than species need when their young are dependent for just days, weeks, or months. Groups of Blue Jays and crows have both been known to help take care of injured or sick members of their flocks, even when not related to them. They aren't so merciful when encountering an unfamiliar injured or sick bird, but our own empathy and altruism extend more powerfully toward family and friends than strangers, too. My golden retriever Bunter would find me and anxiously lead me to whatever room baby Blue Jays were if they happened to be hungry.
I used to agree with those who say the difference between animals and humans is that we have a conscience. But what is a conscience? If we must be taught right from wrong, by parents, a religion, or other outside source, then conscience isn't intrinsic. Whether conscience is a gut feeling about what we should and should not be doing or an internal reminder of external rules, the difference between us and other animals isn't that we're the only ones with a conscience—it's that we're the only animals who can defy our conscience. We're far from the only animals who can do right, but we are the only animals who can do wrong. When we appeal to our better angels to help us do the right thing, it might help us to remember that those angels are virtually always depicted with bird wings.
Birds killed at greatest frequency at towers
This is from an American Bird Conservancy report, COMMUNICATION TOWERS: A DEADLY HAZARD TO BIRDS
List of Species Killed at Towers Documented by 47 Studies.
The first 60 species listed by number killed, in descending order:
Ovenbird 22619
Red-eyed Vireo 19707
Tennessee Warbler 17689
Common Yellowthroat 10397
Bay-breasted Warbler 10396
American Redstart 8392
Blackpoll Warbler 6304
Black-and-white Warbler 6099
Philadelphia Vireo 4317
Swainson's Thrush 3943
Palm Warbler 3441
Gray Catbird 3238
Northern Waterthrush 3148
Northern Parula 2662
Magnolia Warbler 2630
Connecticut Warbler 2624
Blackburnian Warbler 2538
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 2336
Yellow-rumped Warbler 2287
White-eyed Vireo 2222
Cape May Warbler 2199
Black-throated Blue Warbler 2061
Indigo Bunting 1892
Unidentified Birds 1833
Gray-cheeked Thrush 1793
Rose-breasted Grosbeak 1580
Veery 1511
Chestnut-sided Warbler 1426
Savannah Sparrow 1335
Black-throated Green Warbler 1330
Hooded Warbler 1245
Solitary Vireo 1220
Bobolink 1201
Nashville Warbler 1098
Golden-crowned Kinglet 1071
Prairie Warbler 1018
Orange-crowned Warbler 959
Marsh Wren 888
Swamp Sparrow 850
Mourning Warbler 814
House Wren 804
Yellow-throated Vireo 801
White-throated Sparrow 797
Chipping Sparrow 733
Canada Warbler 689
Wood Thrush 684
Sora Rail 657
Scarlet Tanager 615
Grasshopper Sparrow 582
Yellow-billed Cuckoo 568
Kentucky Warbler 568
Traill's Flycatcher 545
Golden-winged Warbler 542
Prothonotary Warbler 476
Wilson's Warbler 466
Lincoln's Sparrow463
Song Sparrow 422
Yellow Warbler 419
Red-winged Blackbird 410
Brown Thrasher 376
Northern Oriole 362
New Research on White-throated Sparrows and Dark-e...
AT&T appeals BWCA tower case


text:
Civilization VI Is Out On iPad, And It's $60
Hahahah, a $60 iPad game, in 2017, would you get a look at that. Only in this case, it's not as insane as it sounds.
With the series having endured a half-assed history on mobile devices, Aspyr (long-time porters of Firaxis' series to Apple computers) has surprisingly dropped Civilization VI on the App Store for the latest models of iPads.
Civilization VI: The Kotaku Review
The trouble with reviewing a Civilization game is that they're always good.
And it's like...the full, complete version of Civ VI that you get on the PC. Same maps, same leaders, same tech, same combat, the works. It's just, instead of having to play it on a PC, you can now install it on an iPad and play it anywhere.
A handful of compromises have been made, of course. Leader screens are no longer animated, and there's no more strategic view mode, but as far as everything else goes, this is Civ VI as you know it, you now just to get to touch it instead of drag it with a mouse.
It's free to install, and then you get 60 turns for free, but after that, the game costs $60 to unlock ($30 at the moment as a launch special until January 4). That sounds apocalyptic for an iPad game, but since it's essentially the exact same product as you'd get on PC for that price, tha'ts...OK?
Of course Civ VI is rarely $60 on PC anymore, so I wouldn't be surprised to see that launch special become a permanent pricepoint. Which might be fairer, especially when you consider that the iPad version lacks any of the DLC packs (mostly extra leaders and scenarios) that have been released on PC since 2016, and that the PC version is about to get a great big proper expansion.
If you've got questions about Android, multiplayer or compatibility, here's some relevant parts from the game's FAQ:
Q: What about DLC or the new Rise and Fall expansion?
A: We hope to support DLC and expansions in the future but cannot confirm timing or availability at this time.
Q: Does Civilization VI on iPad have multiplayer?
A: Yes. It is important to note that as of this point, multiplayer is LAN only.
Q: Is Civilization VI coming to Android or iPhone?
A: As of today, Civilization VI is only available on iPad. However, we are continuing to evaluate opportunities to eventually bring Civilization VI to other platforms.
Q: Which iPads does this work on?
A: Civilization VI requires iOS 11.1.2 on an iPad Air 2, iPad 2017, or any iPad Pro.
cowfish13
Remember, the alternative could be so much worse:
Buy 60 Turns for 5.99!
300 Turns for 49.99! Best Value!
Buy a Civilization for 4.99!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Danville, KY/Bloomington, IN: Centre College in Association with Indiana University Press, 1985. cloth, hard cover in dust jacket., has neat library stamp to top edge. no other markings of any sort. clean. no writing or labels. no tears, chips, creases or bumps. strong tight binding.; vii-192pp., 162 illustrations, including 42 color plates. the author wrote extensively on alexander archipenko, russian-born emigre modern sculptor.. First Edition /First Printing. Hard Cover. Near Fine Plus/Near Fine Plus. 4to - over 9¾" - 12" tall.
Keywords: Alexander Archipenko.; Russian Emigre Artists.; Modern Sculptors.; 20th Century Sculpture.


text:
Get Stotan! from Amazon.com
Order our Stotan! Study Guide
Social Sensitivity
Literary Qualities
Themes/Characters
Ideas for Reports and Papers
Stotan! Characters & Themes
Chris Crutcher
This Study Guide consists of approximately 40 pages of chapter summaries, quotes, character analysis, themes, and more - everything you need to sharpen your knowledge of Stotan!.
This section contains 649 words
Stotan! is as an ensemble novel, one in which characters are more important than plot. Indeed, Crutcher himself suggests that he begins writing by first creating characters and only then worrying about the story. While Stotan! is narrated by Walker Dupree, the captain of the swim team, it is more about the team than individual people. Most of the novel centers on each team member's attempt to become a "Stotan," which is "a cross between a Stoic and a Spartan."
The novel is presented as a series of Walker's journal entries. As he describes himself, Walker is both a budding journalist and a storyteller. It is Walker who grows the most during the novel, as he begins to recognize the uncertainty of life and realize that many of his questions do not have answers. His friend, Lionel "Lion" Serbousek, has already proved he is a Stotan...
More summaries and resources for teaching or studying Stotan!.
Stotan! from Gale. ©2005-2006 Thomson Gale, a part of the Thomson Corporation. All rights reserved.


text:
Browse: Home » Collaborative writing is not about who wrote what and how much each of us are responsible for.
Collaborative writing is not about who wrote what and how much each of us are responsible for.
Natalie Griffiths October 4, 2018 Respond
Written by Simon Groth | #NoOneSucceedsAlone
Infinite Blue is a collaboration between me and my brother, Darren. We are separated by an ocean: he lives in Vancouver; I live in Brisbane. Maybe that's why we can work together. People often ask us how it's possible to write collaboratively, especially with a sibling. The rules we settled on go something like this:
· One of us has the story at any given time.
· We agree on who has the final say over any creative decisions.
· We step back from it between drafts and chat about how it's going.
· We're not afraid to dive in and really mess things up.
When I suggested, really quite late in the editing, that we should switch the genders of our two main characters, it led to a series of skype calls and emails debating the merits of the change. Then it was up to me to actually make it happen. This was a significant moment for me with Infinite Blue. With that one draft, I had a hand in changing every single sentence. With this draft, I began to feel greater ownership over Ashley and Clayton's relationship: to ground them in reality, to give them their own private world that the story allows you to glimpse.
Collaborative writing is not about who wrote what and how much each of us are responsible for. With Infinite Blue, Darren and I are both responsible for 100%, which is why we're words-guys, not numbers-guys.
See Simon at the 2018 Whistler Writers Festival
READING EVENT 7: On the Edge: The Ingredients for Riveting Children's and YA Literature | Saturday, October 13, 2018 | 11:00 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. | Whistler Public Library | Sponsored by: The Grocery Store
Groth, Simon


text:
UFC Fight Night: Rodríguez vs. Stephens (also known as UFC Fight Night 159 or UFC on ESPN+ 17) was a mixed martial arts event produced by the Ultimate Fighting Championship that took place on September 21, 2019 at Mexico City Arena in Mexico City, Mexico.

Background
While not officially announced by the organization, the promotion was initially targeting a featherweight bout between former title challengers Brian Ortega and Chan Sung Jung to serve as the event headliner. However, promotion officials elected to go in another direction and a featherweight bout between The Ultimate Fighter: Latin America featherweight winner Yair Rodríguez and Jeremy Stephens served as the main event.

A women's strawweight bout between Istela Nunes and former Invicta FC Strawweight Champion Angela Hill was scheduled for the event. However, on August 12, it was reported that Nunes was removed from the card due to a failed drug test. She was replaced by Ariane Carnelossi.

Alex Perez was scheduled to face Sergio Pettis at the event. However, Perez pulled out of the bout on August 26 citing an injury. He was replaced by promotional newcomer Tyson Nam.

Marion Reneau was scheduled to face Irene Aldana at the event. However, Reneau pulled out of the bout on September 11 for undisclosed reasons. She was replaced by promotional newcomer Vanessa Melo. At the weigh-ins, Melo weighed in at 140 pounds, 4 pounds over the bantamweight non-title fight limit of 136. She was fined 30% of her purse and her bout with Aldana proceeded at a catchweight.

Results

Bonus awards
The following fighters received $50,000 bonuses.
Fight of the Night: Carla Esparza vs. Alexa Grasso
Performance of the Night: Steven Peterson and Paul Craig

See also

 2019 in UFC
 List of current UFC fighters

References

UFC Fight Night
2019 in mixed martial arts
Mixed martial arts in Mexico
Sport in Mexico
Sports competitions in Mexico City
2019 in Mexican sports

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Do you want to attract recruiters and your next job opportunity with your LinkedIn profile? Make your LinkedIn profile awesome by going through the list below.
Choose a professional, high-quality headshot for your photograph. A profile with a photo receives up to 21x more profile views and 9x more connection requests according to LinkedIn.
List all the email addresses you use. You can set the default email which will be viewable by your connections and the account that receives InMail and updates from LinkedIn.
Consider this section a mini bio or the answer to "tell me about yourself." Highlight the best of your background, experience and skills. You could also provide insight into your leadership style, personality, values, longer-term goals, or outside interests. Keep the reader's attention by using short paragraphs. And make it more personal by writing in the first person by using "I", "Me" or "My". Add a specialties section to incorporate important keywords, skills and technology. You may even want to include your email address to make it easy for people to reach you who are not connected.
Include all the significant work history and include strong, keyword rich descriptions and accomplishments under each position. Your work experience should be the same as listed on your resume. You may choose to include more or less detail for each job.
List all the skills (up to 50) which are most important to your profession. Keep in mind work processes and procedures and other keywords companies ask for in job descriptions. LinkedIn users with 5+ skills listed are contacted (messaged) up to 33x more & receive up to 17x more profile views (according to LinkedIn).
Include all the institutions you attended. List your concentration, major, and/or minor. If you are a recent graduate, include clubs committees and groups you were active in.
These sections are particularly helpful for new graduates. List the most relevant and important information.
You can reference class projects, special work assignments and side gigs as a project. This is another way to showcase skills and experience.
Complete these sections with as much detail as necessary to highlight why it is important.
Provide details about your involvement in professional associations and the organizations you belong to or committees you serve on. You may also choose to list the volunteer work you do and causes you support. Use discretion when choosing to include any religious or political affiliations.
Your birth date and marital status are the least important details. You may choose not to include this information on your profile.
Regularly update your status so your network can see what you are up to. A status update could include a link to an article, information about a presentation you are attending, or it might be a question you would like feedback from your contacts.
LinkedIn users can see your activity. It's sometimes an indication of whether or not your use LinkedIn.
Join college alumni groups, professional associations, and any industry related groups. Participate by answering questions, sharing links to interesting articles and engaging in conversation with other like-minded professionals.
By default, LinkedIn sets your profile to be viewable to the public. For active job seekers this is the best option.
If you've ever asked "How can I get in front of more hiring managers?" you're not alone. This is a common challenge for job seekers. Use the tips above to convert your LinkedIn profile into one that is interesting, keyword rich and shows your abilities. Most importantly, being active on LinkedIn will help you stand out!
This is your chance! Show off your super, awesome, amazing LinkedIn profile!


text:
Isopatagus obovatus is een zee-egel uit de familie Micrasteridae.

De wetenschappelijke naam van de soort werd in 1948 gepubliceerd door Theodor Mortensen.

Irregularia


text:
Stem Cells Regenerate Tissue in an Uninjured Mammal
TOPICS:DiseaseGeneticsStem CellsTissueYale University
By Bill Hathaway, Yale University News July 2, 2012
Yale researchers captured these images of hair follicles of a mouse, with nuclei of epithelial cells stained in green and mesenchymal cells, which are active in early development, in red. Yale scientists found that mesenchymal cells were crucial to hair growth. (Image courtesy of Dr. Pantelis Rompolas, Greco Lab, Yale School of Medicine)
Using 2-photon intravital microscopy and focusing on the stem cell behavior in the hair follicle of a mouse, researchers at Yale were able to study the interaction between stem cells and their progeny, watching as stem cells regenerate tissue in real-time.
Scientists have for the first time watched and manipulated stem cells as they regenerate tissue in an uninjured mammal, Yale researchers report July 1 online in the journal Nature.
Using a sophisticated imaging technique, the researchers also demonstrated that mice lacking a certain type of cell do not regrow hair. The same technique could shed light on how stem cells interact with other cells and trigger repairs in a variety of other organs, including lung and heart tissue.
"This tells us a lot about how the tissue regeneration process works," said Valentina Greco, assistant professor of genetics and of dermatology at the Yale Stem Cell Center, researcher for the Yale Cancer Center and senior author of the study.
Greco and her team focused on stem cell behavior in the hair follicle of the mouse. The accessibility of the hair follicle allowed real-time and non-invasive imaging through a technology called 2-photon intravital microscopy.
Using this method, Panteleimon Rompolas, a post-doctoral fellow in Greco's lab and lead author of this paper, was able to study the interaction between stem cells and their progeny, which produce all the different types of cells in the tissue. The interaction of these cells with the immediate environment determines how cells divide, where they migrate and which specialized cells they become.
The technology allowed the team to discover that hair growth in mice cannot take place in the absence of connective tissue called mesenchyme, which appears early in embryonic development.
Stem cells not only spur growth of hair in mammals including humans, but also can serve to regenerate many other types of tissues.
"Understanding how stem cell behavior is regulated by the microenvironment can advance our use of stem cells for therapeutic purposes and uncover mechanisms that go wrong in cancer and other diseases," Greco said.
The study was funded by an Alexander Brown Coxe postdoctoral fellowship. This work was supported in part by the American Skin Association and the American Cancer Society and the Yale Rheumatologic Disease Research Core Center and the National Institutes of Health.
Other Yale authors include Elizabeth Deschene, Giovanni Zito, David G. Gonzalez, Ichiko Saotome and Ann M. Haberman.
Image: Dr. Pantelis Rompolas, Greco Lab, Yale School of Medicine
A Possible New Treatment for Baldness, Regulatory T Cells Facilitate Hair Growth
Hair Restoration Method Generates New Human Hair Growth
Yale Researchers Identify a Key Link between Tumors and Healthy Tissue
New Porous Hydrogel Could Improve the Success of Stem Cell Tissue Regeneration
Study Points to a Way to Treat Wounds and Grow Hair
Researchers Generate Blood-Forming Stem Cells in the Lab Using Pluripotent Stem Cells
For the First Time, Cancer Stem Cells Tracked, May Inform Treatment Strategies
Researchers Generate Immune Responses from Stem Cell Grown Thymus Tissue
Be the first to comment on "Stem Cells Regenerate Tissue in an Uninjured Mammal"


text:
Extradural spinal lipomas. Report of two cases and review of the literature
G. Butti, P. Gaetani, M. Scelsi, S. Pezzotta
IRCCS Fondazione Policlinico San Matteo
The authors present two cases of extradural spinal lipomas causing spinal cord compression, not associated with spinal dysraphism. Sixty-nine cases of such tumours have been reported in the literature. It is important to distinguish between two histological types of these neoplasms: angiolipoma and true lipoma. They have a different distribution in relation to age and site of occurrence. The outcome can be quite variable considering the greater surgical problems that true lipomas can cause.
Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Extradural spinal lipomas. Report of two cases and review of the literature'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
Lipoma Medicine & Life Sciences
Neoplasms by Histologic Type Medicine & Life Sciences
Angiolipoma Medicine & Life Sciences
Spinal Dysraphism Medicine & Life Sciences
Spinal Cord Compression Medicine & Life Sciences
Butti, G., Gaetani, P., Scelsi, M., & Pezzotta, S. (1984). Extradural spinal lipomas. Report of two cases and review of the literature. Neurochirurgia, 27(1), 28-30.
Extradural spinal lipomas. Report of two cases and review of the literature. / Butti, G.; Gaetani, P.; Scelsi, M.; Pezzotta, S.
In: Neurochirurgia, Vol. 27, No. 1, 1984, p. 28-30.
Butti, G, Gaetani, P, Scelsi, M & Pezzotta, S 1984, 'Extradural spinal lipomas. Report of two cases and review of the literature', Neurochirurgia, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 28-30.
Butti G, Gaetani P, Scelsi M, Pezzotta S. Extradural spinal lipomas. Report of two cases and review of the literature. Neurochirurgia. 1984;27(1):28-30.
Butti, G. ; Gaetani, P. ; Scelsi, M. ; Pezzotta, S. / Extradural spinal lipomas. Report of two cases and review of the literature. In: Neurochirurgia. 1984 ; Vol. 27, No. 1. pp. 28-30.
@article{dc559e773d6f4a139fc9005c86e2454e,
title = "Extradural spinal lipomas. Report of two cases and review of the literature",
abstract = "The authors present two cases of extradural spinal lipomas causing spinal cord compression, not associated with spinal dysraphism. Sixty-nine cases of such tumours have been reported in the literature. It is important to distinguish between two histological types of these neoplasms: angiolipoma and true lipoma. They have a different distribution in relation to age and site of occurrence. The outcome can be quite variable considering the greater surgical problems that true lipomas can cause.",
author = "G. Butti and P. Gaetani and M. Scelsi and S. Pezzotta",
journal = "Neurochirurgia",
publisher = "Georg Thieme Verlag",
T1 - Extradural spinal lipomas. Report of two cases and review of the literature
AU - Butti, G.
AU - Gaetani, P.
AU - Scelsi, M.
AU - Pezzotta, S.
N2 - The authors present two cases of extradural spinal lipomas causing spinal cord compression, not associated with spinal dysraphism. Sixty-nine cases of such tumours have been reported in the literature. It is important to distinguish between two histological types of these neoplasms: angiolipoma and true lipoma. They have a different distribution in relation to age and site of occurrence. The outcome can be quite variable considering the greater surgical problems that true lipomas can cause.
AB - The authors present two cases of extradural spinal lipomas causing spinal cord compression, not associated with spinal dysraphism. Sixty-nine cases of such tumours have been reported in the literature. It is important to distinguish between two histological types of these neoplasms: angiolipoma and true lipoma. They have a different distribution in relation to age and site of occurrence. The outcome can be quite variable considering the greater surgical problems that true lipomas can cause.
JO - Neurochirurgia
JF - Neurochirurgia


Low-top canvas and buffed leather sneakers featuring camouflage pattern in black. Tonal leather star appliqués throughout. Tonal suede trim throughout. Round toe. Tonal lace-up closure. Textile logo flag at padded tongue. Padded collar. Hemisphere stud and stone detailing at heel tab. Suede trim and signature rubberized pyramid stud detailing in burgundy at heel counter. Tonal mesh lining. Foam rubber midsole in beige. Treaded rubber sole in black. Tonal stitching.Upper : leather,textile. Sole : rubber.Made in Italy.


text:
Deciphering The 911 Distractions
Modified on: December 28th, 2004
The government's lies are obvious, but some skeptics are far more subtle...
By John Kaminski
skylax [at] comcast [dot] net
People ask me about 9/11, understandably enough, since I've written many articles about it, and I do a lot of radio interviews - all for free - to try to warn people that the government's explanation is not true.
I invariably tell them that the most damning pieces of evidence are the government's own provable lies, which include the failure to conduct a legitimate investigation into the events of that tragic day, the instantaneous blaming of terrorists in caves in Afghanistan, and the preposterously phony commission that took its place in history along with the Warren Commission as a glaring political swindle.
The best piece of evidence that shows the U.S. government was involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 disasters is simply the responses uttered by Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and military chief of staff Myers immediately after the attacks.
(See http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm)
They all feigned surprise, and said they hadn't realized this kind of disaster could happen.
Yet, their lies were exposed mere hours later when the FBI released the 19 names of the alleged hijackers, indicating the government had been tracking these individuals for months. If they didn't know it could happen, how did they know the names of the hijackers?
These lies were further amplified more recently with the revelation outlined by "October Surprise" author Barbara Honegger
(See the bottom of http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html#coincidence)
that the government was running various drills on Sept. 11, 2001 using airplanes as weapons, so when top government officials denied they knew of the threat of fuel-laden planes slamming into buildings could actually happen, they were actually running multiple drills to prevent this very thing from happening - ON THAT VERY DAY. How's that for chutzpah?
So, despite the total mainstream media news blackout on these facts, and the apparent unwillingness of a majority of Americans (especially elected officials and law enforcement officers) to confront their government over these obvious lies, virtually everyone else in the world knows the real story, that the U.S. government has lied continually about what happened on 9/11, and this is what gave birth to the worldwide 9/11 skeptics movement.
Three other obvious items also have contributed to this widespread disbelief in anything the American government says about terrorism in general or 9/11 in particular:
1. In addition to the failure to objectively investigate what happened on 9/11, President Bush and his sycophants did everything possible to stonewall investigators they themselves appointed from gathering relevant information, AND, ordered the destruction and/or suppression of evidence (primarily audio and video evidence) extremely germane to an accurate judgment of what actually happened.
2. To this day, the American government has never produced a shred of evidence (other than fabricated and unconvincing so-called intelligence on the order of some of the infamous Iraq fictions) linking either Osama bin Laden or so-called Islamic terrorists to the attacks.
3. The military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that followed 9/11 and were advertised as a response to 9/11 "terror" were actually planned PRIOR to 9/11.
So, despite all the coverups and the cynical blackout of these skeptical contentions by mainstream media, the whole world knows what the American people do not - that the American government is undoubtedly responsible for the mass murders of 9/11, the lives of nearly 3,000 American citizens sacrificed for the secretive financial planning of those who wished to foment a permanent war against the Muslims and profit mightily from this evil enterprise.
That this conclusion has not swept through the collective American mind and resulted in mass arrests of rich bureaucrats in Washington is primarily due to two factors:
* The corporate censorship of the Zionist-controlled mainstream media, which are as complicit as treasonous government officials in suppressing facts that would reveal the real story ...
* And the American people themselves, who have been dumbed down into a frightened coma by the combination of a mind-dulling educational system in which critical thinking is discouraged; a food supply infected with debilitating additives that diminish alertness; a medical system eager to administer vaccines that create hidden afflictions that has been corrupted by pharmaceutical giants eager to peddle mind-numbing antidepressants; and mind-controlling, hateful religions which preach fear and advocate the mass murder of strangers as a way to demonstrate one's righteousness.
And that brings us to today.
At this very moment, a larger number of Americans than ever before is ready to embrace the idea that something is very wrong with their government's explanation about the curious disasters in New York, Washington, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and how these disasters have been exploited into a convenient excuse to attack oil-producing nations around the world as well as curtail traditional civil liberties at home.
But what happens when these finally brave individuals go looking for alternative information about the unspeakable tragedy and cynical deception that followed?
Total confusion is what.
Those who finally screw up their courage and say, "What I have heard is not right," are met with a bewildering array of competing theories, endless arguments over technical minutia, and even some claims that rely on high-tech film analysis that other skeptics, equally qualified and ardent in their belief about government lies, dismiss as suspicious fiction.
What is a person who seeks real answers to do?
Since I am person in that category, I have lately advised sticking to the core issues that can be proven (rather than striving for a mind-blowing smoking gun that no one could deny). Too many skeptics are claiming they have "the" smoking gun, only to be ridiculed by others who say they don't.
I myself have been subject to this ridicule, simply for advocating sticking to the provable lies of the situation. My attitude led one well-known so-called film analyst, Phil Jayhan of the infamous missile theory featured in a very popular video now making the rounds, to declaim that I didn't care about the people who died on 9/11.
It's good to know where people stand. Now there's no chance I'll ever believe anything he says again, and it also makes it easier for me to decide about the veracity of the film footage he has collected.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Sorry to take so long to unfold this. I've spent many months thinking about these things. Most of all, I don't want to disparage someone who doesn't deserve it. I am not a principal 9/11 researcher. I am only a writer and an average citizen trying to figure things out. It is with these mundane qualifications that I, above all, try to keep my eye on the ball.
Number one is: try to catch the real perps. Every other revelation must be subordinate to that goal. Many so-called 9/11 skeptics have admitted by their actions that this is not their goal. They would rather promote their particular theories than work toward catching the culprits.
OK, on with the analysis.
Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" provided the first real crack in the mainstream media mindlock about the coverup, and brought President Bush's odd behavior to the attention of millions who wouldn't otherwise have been forced to peruse it. This alone was of inestimable value. But as time went on, critics noticed that Moore really didn't touch on any of the core 9/11 issues, and worse, that he deflected attention toward the Saudis and away from the Israelis. I think today the prevailing opinion of the film is that it is merely Democratic campaign propaganda which nevertheless at least brought attention to the rapid erosion of American civil liberties, but didn't really get to the meat of the 9/11 lies.
A subsequent video, "9/11 In Plane Site," has take over the lead in popularity from the Moore film among those who wish to know about the real facts of 9/11, and I shall return to this subject in a moment.
At present (late October 2004), the highest hopes for revealing the true 9/11 story are vested in the new book, "Crossing the Rubicon," by Mike Ruppert, who since day one after the tragedy has established himself as the No. 1 9/11 researcher through his From The Wilderness website. Perhaps because of competitive jealousy, perhaps through legitimate concern, Ruppert has become the target of criticism from many other 9/11 researchers because of his decision to link his research focus to Peak Oil, a concept that insists the real problem is that the world is running out of oil, and that will create unprecedented chaos and disaster in the very near future. It is an issue which many people do not regard as legitimately connected to 9/11. Hence, some people feel Ruppert is creating a distraction where none need exist.
This was certainly the case at a major 9/11 conference held recently in San Francisco, which Ruppert's dominating presence managed to turn into a conference on Peak Oil. Few deny that Peak Oil is an important subject to talk about. But many, including me, don't see its relevance to catching the 9/11 crooks, and hence regard it as a distraction from the investigation.
Nevertheless, many people hold out hope that Ruppert's fingering of Vice President Dick Cheney as the mastermind of the confusion that allowed the terrorists to accomplish their evil objectives on 9/11 will lead to his prosecution for dereliction of duty and abetting the terrorist enterprise.
However, others believe this line of inquiry is, in itself, a limited hangout, because, in addition to maintaining the fiction that actual hijackers flew the planes, it focuses on allowing the events to happen rather than Cheney, Bush et all being responsible for the whole attack scenario themselves.
So who can tell? Is Ruppert's effort a legitimate attempt to uncover the real truth or a sophisticated labyrinth meant to limit damage and deflect culpability?
And you can't say "only time will tell" because we're still debating what happened in the assassinations of both Lincoln and Kennedy. The fact is: sometimes we never do find out what happened.
A second hopeful sign in the public arena lately is the lawsuit filed by San Francisco lawyer Stanley Hilton alleging that President Bush and numerous other public officials conspired to let the 9/11 attacks happen. This action is seeking billions of dollars in damages on behalf of relatives of the 14 victims, and asserts Bush and his pals stood to profit billions from the changed political atmosphere of the United States that enabled them to wage profitable wars wherever and whenever they wanted.
The Hilton lawsuit contains many legitimate criticisms of the 9/11 non-investigation and coverup that all make very interesting reading for the unenlightened (see for a basic roundup http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/06.21A.pitt.watchtower.htm),
but like Ruppert's angle of attack, it begs the question of who planned it, and hence has similarly been critiqued as a limited hangout meant to conceal the real planners of the event even as it aims to sacrifice some truly big names to the wheels of justice.
So, both of these well-known endeavors fail to address the heart of the matter: who really did it? Who were the fat cats who run Bush and Cheney (and Kerry and Edwards, for that matter) from the deep, dark shadows of incredible wealth that put together this demonic plan to change the character of American civilization from nominally insular innocence to outwardly aggressive depravity?
Though the efforts by Ruppert and Hilton are generating a lot of hope amongst those who believe in their hearts that America has become an evil corporate cyborg eliminating as many actually honest humans as possible, the deeper possibility exists that they are exotic, extremely well-thought-out parts of the greater coverup designed to sacrifice a few high-level patsies in order to protect the demonic billionaires who thought the whole thing up in the first place.
Which leads us back to the popular video, "9/11 In Plane Site," which has probably recruited more people to the 9/11 skeptics cause than any other single maneuver. But the big question - and the giant shadow that it casts over the whole 9/11 skeptics movement - is: Is it real? And more importantly? What happens if it isn't?
Effective disinformation always contains large amounts of factual truth contaminated with small but devastating germs of falsehood, which when discovered, undermine the credibility of all the facts in the package.
According to some observers, notably Brian Salter of the respected website questionquestions.net, "9/11 In Plane Site" contains a factual inaccuracy in a segment known as "the plume footage." Narrator Dave Von Kleist states in the film that this plume of smoke began rising from the base of the Twin Towers BEFORE either of the towers began to fall. Salter, using the previous work of researcher Jim Hoffman, noted that the film had been fudged, and that in fact, the South Tower had already begun to fall.
Von Kleist, when confronted with this news at a recent 9/11 skeptics conference in New York City, told several different stories about the issue to different people. A few days later, he cobbled together a defense of his footage on his website, but has since refused to respond to anyone with questions about the incident.
In addition, Salter's questionsquestions.net produced a story that regards Jayhan's spectacular video analysis of missiles apparently being fired from the planes that hit the towers as subject to interpretation.
When the subject was brought up in a recent e-mail debate triggered by a question asked by serendipity.li's webmaster Peter Meyer, it resulted in an incredibly abusive barrage of insults from all those 9/11 skeptics who are committed to the "no-plane theory" (which theorizes that based on their intense video analysis that no planes hit the Twin Towers on 9/11). Principally, these irate no-planers include The Webfairy, Gerard Holmgren, and Scott Loughrey, all of whom have distinguished themselves with various discoveries of the 9/11 puzzle. Jayhan is not a no-planer, because he believes the planes fired missiles.
The incredible scattershot barrage of accusations against all those who merely asked questions was culminated by Jayhan's remark that I didn't care about the 9/11 victims because I disagreed with what he was saying, and was typical of the level of abuse being spewed by all of them. So on the basis of their personal behavior, I would tend to distrust anything any of them said.
However, we all say things in the heat of proving our arguments that we wish we hadn't, so I don't base my opinion of the evidence they have produced (and in Holmgren's case, it is undeniably compelling and apparently authentic, particularly in regard to proving at least two of the 9/11 flights never really existed) on how stupidly or rudely they behave when challenged.
What remains at issue is the plume footage in "9/11 In Plane Site" and the apparently false claim made by Von Kleist. My concern about the film has always been that if part of it is proven false, will all those who are converted to 9/11 skepticism as a result of the film abandon their judgments when they realize they were not told the truth?
That has always been my concern about the film. As some of you may remember from my previous review, I enthusiastically endorsed the Pentagon segment of the film and left it up to the viewer to decide about the rest of it.
Now, after VonKleist's initial dissembling and subsequent silence, I would advise the film be viewed paying particular attention to his claim about the plume and the especially subjective interpretation of the planes firing missiles.
That I don't believe any of those parts should not be accepted by viewers. I would like you to decide for yourselves.
So ... the principal reason I have reaped so much scorn from those who prefer their own exotic interpretations of what happened on 9/11 is that I have suddenly gone conservative in what I choose to believe about that fateful day.
No, not conservative as in "neocon" or "fundamental Zionist." Conservative as in wanting to point only those 9/11 questions which I know can be proven, or as Peter Meyer asked in that original e-mail, the "incontestable" 9/11 issues.
First and foremost, as I outlined above, are the government lies, the heaps of them which prove to any reasonable skeptic that uncountable officials have simply not told the truth about that sad day, and that numerous crimes have been committed, including obstruction of justice, treason, and mass murder.
Second, I believe the government has failed to produce any evidence that the so-called hijackers were responsible for the tragedy, that there is no evidence they were even on the planes and no demonstrable proof they could fly such planes if they were, and that since they undoubtedly used false IDs, there is no way to affix blame on any country (except the one that specializes in stealing people's identities), so that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were monstrous mistakes, as is blaming the Saudis.
Third, I like the phrase "the time the towers took to fall." When you realize that debris ejected off to the side of the falling Twin Towers fell at the same rate as the towers themselves, you realize there was no resistance to the towers falling, which means they were demolished. Otherwise, they wouldn't have come down so smoothly; each floor, as well as the very strong 47 core columns, would not have collapsed evenly had they not been blown up. Combined with the mysterious, on-demand collapse of WTC7 later in the day, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the Twin Towers were demolished and the plane crashes were merely staged to cover up the demolition and then conveniently used an excuse for the corporate power elite to make war on the whole world.
Fourth, the clearest path to me to determining who was responsible for this horrible celebration of greed is identifying the pre-9/11 investors who reaped billions with their savvy financial bets based on foreknowledge of the events to come. That the FBI has declared these investments not to be suspicious is simply more evidence that the FBI does not work for the American people, but for the billionaires who control the government, the media, and the jeopardized lives of everyone in the world.
And fifth is the great unspoken "elephant in the living room." It is the aspect of 9/11 least mentioned, and recently prohibited by law from even being discussed.
Yes, Israeli involvement. Jewish influence on the political process, undeniable, yet mostly unspoken out of fear of financial ruin, or being murdered. Israel is the country running around the world, killing tourists and stealing their IDs. Israel is the country that gets billions in U.S. foreign aid every year and never pays back a penny. Israel is the country that controls the American media, so that you don't get any news about its continuing butchery of Palestinian children, or Zionist fingerprints on the church bombings and bloody beheadings in Iraq. Israel is the country that completely owns George W. Bush and John Kerry.
So ... in deciphering the 9/11 distractions, I prefer to stick to the core issues, that I can tell people right off the top of my head and convince them that the government has not told the truth.
You can keep your missiles and holograms (and your shallow insults, too). The government lied and the world is in grave jeopardy as a result of it.
It's easy to prove that 9/11 was an inside job devised, executed, and then covered up by the highest levels of the American government. We don't need exotic film footage that may or may not have been doctored to prove it. My great worry is, as with the VonKleist video, that when aspects of these theories are disproven, it will actually hurt the 9/11 skeptics movement much more it could possibly help it.
Enough ordinary evidence already exists to indict and convict thousands. America's wholly corrupt judicial system is another question entirely.
The real problem now is an American populace that is hell-bent on denying what I've just said. This continuing denial on the part of those who refuse to listen and understand will take both them and us to exactly where their denial is headed - straight to the hell of widespread slavery, poverty, disease, more acts of suspicious terror, and ultimately to World War III and the end of human society as we know it.
John Kaminski is the author of numerous Internet essays, many about 9/11, that have been collected into several anthologies. The most recent collection is titled "The Perfect Enemy," which is available at http://www.johnkaminski.com/
An Evening In Pursuit Of The Truth
Why the 911 Dispute?
9/11 Ripple Effect
Eye Witness Hears Explosions at WTC; Scientific Group SPINE Provides Sophisticated Analysis
Americans No Longer Believe It Important To Be Honest
America's Lying, Dishonest Leadership...
Bombs Inside World Trade Center and the Pentagon
911 - in Plane Site
U.S. Government Accused in 9-11 Terrorist Attacks


Understood - From the National Center on Learning Disabilities, this site is a resource for parents that includes a wide variety of topics related to learning and attention issues.
The State of Learning Disabilities (2017) - The National Center for Learning Disabilities has created a groundbreaking report on the "state" of learning disabilities in the United States.
ReadWriteThink - Professional development and resources for teachers, and games, tips and podcasts for parents, focused on reading and language arts.
C.H.A.D.D. - The National Resource on ADHD – Provides information and resources for ADHD for parent, caregivers, adults, and professionals.