Spyman wrote: Shut up, Ted.
My idea with the pipe as it stands now and if we where wanting more seating or terracing is to build around it and the actual space where the pipe is utilise that space by placing the portable toilet blocks at each end. So one at the side of the seating area now and one at the away end, that way it minimises the cost of moving the pitch.
He never left. Except that bit around 2011 when he pretended he'd died or something.
Undertones of violence?? There's only only person throwing abuse about on here. I'm worried that you are planning on being as abusive at the fans forum to those who wish to voice an opinion.
Yarblockos wrote: I think we have a stable future at BM alright, but not the kind of stability you'll like.
If we ever got promoted to the FL, we would have three seasons by which we would have to reach a capacity of 5,000 which must include at least 2,000 seats.
Where are we going to fit 2000 seats at BM?
I know we have to progress and see the possibilities but the club are working at this long term plan, lets just hear what they have to say before worrying too much.
The thing is Les, I don't think they actually are working on a feasible plan allowing a return to the FL. All they had was a plan to get back to Darlo, to have a ground suitable for NLN and eventually NLP, but there isn't a plan for the FL. I say this, because if there was, they wouldn't have started by raising money to build structures that will have to be knocked down. If they had a long term plan that simply would not have happened.
At the AGM they said that going full-time was nowhere near possible in the near future, so I think they have taken the approach that getting into the FL won't happen for a very, very long time. Essentially, we'll worry about it when it happens (beacuse it won't).
I think it might be time for the board to admit at the Fans Forum that don't have any realistic plans on getting back to the FL. Without a miracle or a very rich investor of course.
If there is not feasible plan to get back into the football league then surely the club is going to stagnate in these lower leagues.... We can all sing from the terraces that we are "darlo till we die", and so on, but, if the club do not even have ambition to even attempt a long term plan of us getting back into the football league. without ambition of ever getting back into the football league what do the fans have to look forward too? another top half finish in some poxy league where sky sports news can't even be bothered to do the half time scores for... because of this attendance will fall to such a state where we won't have the financial capability to even compete in this league and will end up exactly where we started four years ago and end up being a similarly standard of the likes of bishop auckland, shildon ect. I understand that the club at the moment do not have the realistic funding to build a ground anywhere near football league standards, but at least give the fans some hope and optimism instead of leaving us in the dark.
So, if your theory is correct, those clubs that are currently flourishing in League 2 are only doing so because of their declared ambitions to reach the Premiership. I seem to recall that Darlington FC was once in that position with a certain Mr. Reynolds and look where that got us in the end.
There is no magic wand here - based on the accounts in recent years we've continually overspent and had to make the cash back from fans at the end of the season. Crowds haven't improved relative to the move up in levels and therefore additional playing budget needed we've seen.
The board running the club although astute business men have only done so using the cash that the operation has brought in plus donations from fans, all the while we've had to build a new ground by mortgaging our future operational income in the form of 5 year season tickets and community shares. Save for what goes in the B2D buckets and the money from FSIF everything will have come from operational receipts over the next 20 years.
A heavy dose of reality is needed by many and a re-assessment of where we can get to, especially in the short to mid term without huge external investment, and by that I mean donations we'll need to plod along now we've reached a level where teams have similar resources and don't have to build their own ground from scratch. A very good cup run most years is the only way I see currently of really banking the types of sums that will take us to the next level.
Either we have a new generation of fans who only know success or many have short memories of what's gone before in the past. As was stated at the outset of this journey, the fans will get the club that they can afford to build. At the moment and for the next 3 years at least I see this as a NLN club with the aspiration and ability to move up to NL once the 5 year ST are paid off. From there the step back into the league is huge, not only from and infrastructure point of view but from a playing budget point of view which has been stated is at least 2 times what we have now. That's another £300K per season needed.
The ultimate ambition of the football club is to get back into the Football League.
The ultimate ambition of Martin Gray is to be the person that takes DFC back into the football league. I believe he's shown over the last 5 seasons he has the ability to do that.
Do we need lots more £££ to be invested into BM infrastructure? Yes. We're are going to have to dig deep & raise it ourselves or fund it through exceptional income (cup runs, player sales).
We have demonstrated this season that we have the football management team & the finances to compete in this league. If the board, the supporters group & the fans can provide MG with a similar level of finances next season whilst at the same time funding an additional 200+ seats then there is every chance we can go up to the National League in 2018.
The challenge now is to grow the football club revenues to match Martin Gray's ambition. The initial aim must be to get crowds consistently over 2k. We need to maximise our commercial revenue & grow all other revenue streams. Off the pitch we're going to need fresh ideas, additional volunteers, an effective strategy & strong leadership.
Agree 100% with your post Robbie, it is imperative MG has a budget to compete with the big boys in this league, will be tough with the pitch and ground issues to finance as well but we have the basis of a very good side and a couple of quality additions will make us a big threat next season.The fans forum will be interesting, roll on.
It has been said that part of the money from the FSIF grant was for pitch works.
The FSIF grant is fund matching ( as I understand it). Thus Darlington must have already raised their share of the money for the pitch works to have been able access that part of the grant.
b) does this mean the club are in breach of the FSIF grant because they do not have the funds to match the grant at the time the grant was received?
c) if the club are then in breach of grant, does that money have to be repaid?
"are you going to hit them" would suggest that you have violent intent buried somewhere.
Thanks for your concern, however let me worry about myself. Clearly the "back of a fag packet" designs and long term strategy ready for your presentation Friday night. Will you have a remote link to your backers ?
No Spen. This has clearly been published I'd have thought someone as qualified as you would be a capable of understanding it. Surely this is a required competence for your role - I have concern for your clients at the moment.
> The ground went over budget.
> The FSIF gave permission that as it was too late in the season we could improve the pitch this year instead of last year.
Because he's been having sleepless nights worrying about our predicament.
The FSIF permission you describe seems to relate to timing, not to funding.
The timing point is pretty irrelevant as the pitch could not be improved mid season..
The more worrying point is that for matched funding, you have to have the funding BEFORE you get the grant.
If the funding is being raised now, then it appears the terms of he FSIF grant may not have been complied with. This would result potentially in the grant ( or that part of it) being repayable to the FSIF.
Attack me all you like. I am not the one who prima facie appears not to have complied with the terms of the FSIF grant.
Oh and for your information- not only did I get windscreen replaced, a free courtesy vehicle for over a month. Depreciation free motoring for a month for me) and a cash profit of several hundred pounds as a result of a very generous compensation deal from the windscreen company.
Can't argue with any of that. Whilst the playing squad has had lots of investment, off the field has had nothing. We have filled that space with willing and passionate fans who have volunteered but many just don't have the key skills or time needed to take the club to the next level in terms of bringing in incremental revenue.
There is only one pot of money so bringing in the people will skills and time off the pitch will reduce the playing budget, however they should also be able to bring in incremental funds through their role - of course that's not guaranteed.
tezza wrote: "are you going to hit them" would suggest that you have violent intent buried somewhere.
spen666 wrote: The FSIF permission you describe seems to relate to timing, not to funding.
We raised however much which was matched by a grant to do works on the pitch. This may have been £10k (matched to £20k) or whatever. We then received that grant money into a 'bank account' and the ground development went over budget.
If we do not spend said amount of money on the pitch as per our plans then we would need to pay that element of the grant money back.
I don't think that the FSIF brought us a case of £20 notes and stated that those specific notes had to be spent on pitch improvements. They gave us an overall grant to improve the ground of which £x amount was allocated to pitch improvements - and we have until this summer to make said pitch improvements.
Part of the grant was for pitch improvements ( timescale is irrelevant for this point). It was a grant to match the funding raised by the club.
The club have not got that funding it appears. Hence why there may be an issue with the matching element of the FSIF funding.
The money from the FSIF is specifically allocated for specific works. and is to match funding the club claim to have. The club now apparently do not have that matching funding.
"However, its not my problem. I merely raise a potential concern that may come back to bite later."
"Yeah I know it's got nowt to do with me but I've been frantically bashing the bishop for two weeks now and I don't intend to stop now."


text:
October 22, 2007 2:00 PM, EDT
HOS, Driver Shortage Top Trucking's Concerns
ATRI's Findings Will be Used to Develop Industry Strategies
Larry Smith/Trans Pixs
Hours-of-service rules and a shortage of truck drivers top the list in a new survey of more than 5,000 trucking industry executives, the American Transportation Research Institute said Monday.
Other top 10 issues include fuel prices, congestion, government regulation, tolls and highway funding, tort reform and truck driver training, the group said.
ATRI, an affiliate of American Trucking Associations, is a not-for-profit research institute for the trucking industry.
ATRI, which also solicited strategies for addressing each issue, said the ATA-commissioned survey results and proposed strategies will be utilized by ATA to better focus its advocacy role on behalf of the trucking industry.
"I have long advocated for the industry to better prepare itself to deal with change," said ATA Chairman Ray Kuntz, chief executive officer of Watkins & Shepard Trucking Co.
"One way to do so is to better anticipate the challenges ahead. The ATRI survey results are invaluable in telling us what is important to motor carriers and which strategies ATA should pursue on their behalf," he said in a statement.
The results were released at ATA's Management Conference and Exhibition in Orlando, Fla.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


In general, face recognition depends on a few regions of the temporal lobes. Shown are areas in the left brain of a right handed person.
The first few months of life appear to be critical for forming the neural framework for face recognition. Neurologist Claudio Bassetti of the University Hospital of Zurich in Switzerland has pinpointed an area essential for the processing of both faces and landmark deep inside the back half of the brain.
Memory gives us a sense of continuity. It provides a frame of reference and context for how life's events are related to us, ultimately leading to our sense of uniqueness. We remember the past and its lessons in anticipation of a certain future.
How does memory work? Where are memories stored? Let us enter the mystic land of memory by looking at the different stages and types.
Sensory information is processed through encoding (acquisition), storage (consolidation) and stabilization, before it can be recalled (retrieved).
When we encounter something new, the experience passes through the stages of short-term and long-term memory.
Short term memory acts as a note pad for temporary recall of information. This state of memory is labile and vulnerable to interference while the brain is processing the information.
Short term memory decays rapidly and has a limited capacity. For relatively meaningless information, it is limited to about 7 digits, or 4 to 5 items in a quick glimpse. But its capacity can be increased dramatically with training that forms meaningful associations with the items to be remembered.
Changing from short term to long term memory requires gene activation, protein synthesis and formation of new synapses.
Over the course of several hours after new information input, a process called cellular consolidation may occur. It stabilizes the information from short-term memory into long-term memory.
Repeated exposure to the same input information reinforces transfer into long-term memory.
Scientists now believe that there is not a single memory centre. It is most likely stored in the same areas of the brain that were involved in the perception, processing and analysis of the original input.
In short, remembering is the re-experiencing of the original event, probably reactivating the same neuronal circuit.
Memory of how to do things, such as a skilled behavior and a habit, is called procedural memory, or non-declarative memory (because it does not require us to be consciously aware of it, or speak about it), such as opening a door, or riding the bike etc.
Declarative memory includes semantic memory of dates, historical facts, telephone numbers, concepts etc.; and episodic memory of events. Procedural memory dominates the lives of animals whereas declarative memory profoundly shapes every act and thought in humans.
Brooks V. ed. (1981) The Nervous System, Handbook of Physiology, vol. 2.
Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1981.


text:
Humankind certainly has a lot on its table. After all, trying to cover the course of known human history in the span of just one game is no easy feat, but after attending attend a media event that discussed some of the finer points of Humankind, it does a good job at offering plenty of creative freedom in the course of that history. After the event, we were given a hands-on experience with Humankind that let us play a couple different of time periods and scenarios. Humankind certainly feels familiar with the Civilization series and other 4x games in that genre, but with a focus on character creation and building your own culture, it adds new caveats allowing for more creative freedom throughout the course of each playthrough.
Culture is the Key
During a question and answer session at the event, I had a chance to ask the developers what they thought the biggest element was that would differentiate Humankind from other games in the genre. The answer was simple yet complex: culture. Culture has the ability to grow, shift, and change each time you play through Humankind. During my time spent with the build, a brief 24 hours, I could see their point about culture. At the beginning of each new era, you get an opportunity to change and modify your culture. As is the case with history, cultures will change and morph, but some of the base benefits can stick with your civilization over a long period.
As I progressed into the Ancient era, I could push toward a culture such as the Zhou or the Nubians, just to name a few. While there are some aesthetic differences as you "gain" a new culture, the big impact is the various effects each culture can benefit from. Some cultures are agrarian, while others are driven by war and conquest. Benefits range from increased food to bonuses in science and technological advancement. These perks, and the fact that your culture can change over the course of time, seems like it will lead to a lot more variety each time you play Humankind.
Fame Has Its Perks
One of the more notable game mechanics presented to us was the notion of fame and its role in Humankind. Fame appears to be the metric by which you'll end up winning a game, but it's not entirely clear if there are other methods you can choose for a win condition. Really, it seems similar to a scoring system that factors in a variety of different metrics, such as science or culture, and that will ultimate determine if you "win."
Fame is an interesting concept, as it might appeal to people not interested in just waging war, but it should allow players to utilize their civilization's cultural perks. In a standard 4x game, sometimes war feels like the only or best method to win, but hopefully, fame will allow players to use the benefits for their avatar and civilization to get ahead and take home the victory through a variety of methods without feeling locked into war as the only option.
Combat feels solid and offers a bit of variety with multiple rounds per turn, and it allows you to place units prior to the battle to try to gain advantages of terrain or other types of positioning. Admittedly, most of the combat I had was against bears or animals, as it wasn't possible to get too deep into some of the more advanced units or wars that you might expect for a game such as this.
The One Ruler to Rule
Avatar creation looks to be an even more massive part of Humankind, and while we weren't able to create our own avatar in this build, the development team discussed the importance of it during the presentation. Unlike Civilization, where your creator is predetermined or loaded up with a set of already established benefits, Humankind will allow you to create and mold your avatar or leader to change at your own whim. It appears to be a fun addition, and it seems to add a bigger investment each time you play Humankind.
Choices certainly play a big part in Humankind, as at various points you will be asked to make decisions that should shape just how your civilization develops and grows. It sort of felt like the classic Bioware "morality gauge" where decisions all had significant consequences on the outcome of your civilization. Early on, I was asked how I wanted to train my soldiers, through conscription or by hiring professional soldiers, and my decision would impact whether my civilization was more prone toward liberty or rulership. It's a nice little touch, but it does have a meaningful impact on gameplay. By choosing to have professional soldiers, they gained a bonus to their fighting strength.
Big Shoes
There's no mistaking that Humankind walks into a crowded genre, particularly with the Civilization series looming overhead and a clear inspiration for the title. While it certainly has a fair bit of overlap, Humankind does try to differentiate itself by adding more customization and control of your civilization and leader. There's still a lot yet to see for Humankind, as we have yet to experience some of the later game, but it should be worth keeping an eye on as the release draws closer.
Amplitude Studios, Game, Google Stadia, Humankind, Macintosh operating systems, macOS, Microsoft Windows, Sega, Sega Europe Limited, Unity, Video Game
Oppo A5 2020, Oppo A9 2020, Oppo A73 5G, Oppo A91, Oppo Reno Z Are Receiving Stable ColorOS 11 With New Updates
Netflix Is Producing A He-Man Anime Series
Google Launches A Free App To Teach English To Kids
In Androids , Gadgets , News , Phones , Technology
Motorola Goes 'Hyper' With 64MP Camera-Focused Smartphone
Emmys 2019: The complete winners list


In 2017, Google alone had recorded over one trillion searches. This whopping statistic is just showing this search engine's influence and popularity crystal-clear. With its strict algorithm, it's completely understandable that you must know the rules before you join the game. Fortunately, there are ways you can do on how to let Google's search results work on your favor. This is where Local SEO comes into the light.
How can your business benefit from Local SEO strategies?
Based on studies, there are 64% of Internet users who rely on Google and other search engines to find local businesses near them. Out of this, 50% actually end up visiting the local business that they've seen on the search results page on the very same day. So if your business is working on face to face transaction, then can you imagine the number of views and potential customers that you are losing on a day to day basis?
Google's SERP used to respond to local searches by showing the top 7 most popular businesses that are related to the search query. The results are displayed in the form of snippets. Searchers will be able to see the contact number, addresses and even direction links to each local business. However, as the online market evolves and had reached a time where it is strongly dominated by mobile users, Google reduced the first list of results to three. Now, it is the famously known as local 3-pack. And as you might have guessed, these spots are the most highly sought after by digital marketers.
Local SEO improves your ranking in local search engine results.
You might not be able to control what would appear in the local 3-pack. However, you can heavily influence the results using Local SEO strategies. By working on the presence and consistency of your business' keywords and domain authority, you can strengthen the on-page signals, a big factor that affects localized organic rankings.
Google and other search engines overlook a business with an inconsistent NAP. They only show results that are relevant to the search term used by the searchers, as well as to the geographic vicinity, if, and only if, the name of your business, phone number and address are consistent. By having Local SEO experts who will make sure that your NAP is accurate and consistent not only on your website but all across the web, the higher chance you have of boosting your local search rankings.
Local SEO can help you get to the top of "Near Me" searches.
These days, people are more inclined to search for local businesses that are near them. Of course, Google and other search engines only return three results and mostly, they are the most relevant result for a geographic location like a city and not really for the convenience of the user performing the search.
As a result, people tend to specify their searches using the "near me" term. Google takes into account the location of the user who is doing the search and then returns the results that are most relevant to them.
Local SEO can help you position your business on the top three results in your locality through these various optimization strategies.
Optimizing Local SEO for your business can be extremely rewarding. Even if you are a small business owner, you must not overlook these strategies. There are digital marketing companies like MojoSEO that offer SEO solutions both for small and big companies at a fraction of a price. Our precise, tested and affordable Local SEO services can be applied in all industries and fields.


During the past few weeks I just totally lost my motivation to do anything in the new house. I needed a break from the dirt, the paint and the tiles. I worked on my knitting projects, trained for the 5 km city-run (coming up in october), managed to read the new Dan Brown book and Karin Slaughter books and worked a lot of hours in the hospital.
In the meantime BF was almost obsessively going on with the tileing the bathroom. The last room that really needs to be finished before we can move in. Yesterday we've finished the last bits (above) together. Now there is one tiny spot left to correct, which is becoming my obsession as he doesn't want to touch any tiles anymore. Now that I have a few days off I can do what I want!
I already prepared a few posts on 1940's war-time knitting, with a fun little project which is also perfect for beginners! In the meantime I'm working on my first 1940's sweater (or jumper) making a lot of pics and making notes on every trick and change along the way! I'm planning to post them separately, as the most of it can be used for knitting any vintage pattern.
Just for fun: I love how green our street is!


text:
Shealyn Paulis, News Journalist
In America, almost all schools offer sports programs and teams. These teams are seen as an opportunity to build friendships and gain qualities such as responsibility and time management. While this is an ordinary thing in America, they are not as common in other parts of the world.
Senior Gianna Goldschmid is a foreign exchange student from Switzerland and sports here are very different than her own country. There are many we do not take part in.
"At home, I really enjoyed skiing, but here, that is not really an option." says Goldschmid, "In Switzerland, American football isn't really played anywhere, let alone as a school sport. We play soccer a lot more, it is very popular."
Athletics and school can easily be dictated by climate and scheduling. While a nine-to-five job and schedule is normal in America, it is not as common in other places.
This restriction applies to senior Taiga Koshimizu, from Japan. There, school begins at 8 a.m and ends at 8 p.m. This does not give a lot of time, if any, to participate in extracurricular activities such as clubs and such outside of school. Even though this is true, sports are still a popular activity in Japan, though.
"Sports are like a class in my high school. It can get confusing, though, as some sports do not have a time limit, like baseball." said Koshimizu, "Both in Japan and America, sports are good overall, like health and keeping busy. In America, competitors are very aggressive with rivalries. It is exciting to watch and play."
Economics teacher Elizabeth Hoffbauer was born and raised in America, but often visits other countries. She, too, has noted some differences in sports in America and athletics around the world
"The sport and region that sticks out to me the most is defininantly the United Kingdom." says Hoffbauer, "There, I saw a rugby match take place, and it was unlike anything I have ever seen before. It was so much more aggressive, and I noticed the lack of player gear, like helmets. Over there, extracurricular activities are a privilege, so the people who play really love it and really want to be there, and I think it definitely shows in their performance as well."
The desire to be social and build relationships through similar passions can be found within anyone. Sports and customs may differ from country to country, but athletics continue to interest people from all around the world.
"You're exactly where you should...
In The Clutch: Depth proves successful for both Varsity basketball teams
First year football coach brings success, change in culture
Bowling prodigy inspired by father's example
Wrestling success built on high standards, future drive toward teamwork
Winter sports preparation is underway
Senior Owen Khon leads athletes while playing two Fall varsity sports
Freshman finishes 9th at Regionals, qualifies for state meet
Golf Team Overcomes Slow Start
Seniors generate tennis success
All The Moxie Mountie Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest
Argelia • Mar 9, 2018 at 10:02 pm
Thank you Merci Dee!
https://moxiemountie.com/6453/sports/differences-in-sports-around-the-world/#comment-65


text:
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}

At the end of their lives, all massive ($\gtorder 8M_\odot$) stars
must undergo core collapse once their iron cores become too
massive to be stable.  In most cases, this leads to a supernova
(SN) explosion probably driven by some combination of neutrino heating
and the effects of turbulence and convection (see the recent review
by \cite{Muller2016} and, e.g., recent
results by \citealt{Couch2015}, \citealt{Dolence2015}, \citealt{Wongwathanarat2015}).  The visible
properties of the successful SNe then depend on the degree
of mass loss, ranging from Type~IIP SN which have retained
most of their hydrogen envelopes, to Type~Ic SN which appear
to have been stripped even of helium (e.g., \citealt{Filippenko1997}).  The mass loss is
controlled by some combination of intrinsic effects such
as winds and extrinsic effects such as binary mass transfer (see the
review by \citealt{Smith2014b}).

There is no strong requirement that more than roughly 50\% of core
collapses lead to successful SN (e.g., neutrino backgrounds, \citealt{Lien2010};
star formation rates, \citealt{Horiuchi2011}; nucleosynthesis, \citealt{Brown2013},
\citealt{Clausen2015})
and a 10-30\% fraction of failed SN producing black holes
without a dramatic external
explosion is both expected in many modern analyses of the
``explodability'' of stars (e.g., \citealt{Ugliano2012},
\citealt{OConnor2013},
\citealt{Pejcha2015}, \citealt{Ertl2016}, \citealt{Sukhbold2016})
and would provide a natural
explanation of the compact remnant mass function (\citealt{Kochanek2014},
\citealt{Kochanek2015}, \citealt{Clausen2015}).  Indeed,
scenarios for the recent gravitational wave detection of
a merging black hole binary (\citealt{Abbott2016})
all invoke at least one failed SN (e.g., \citealt{Belczynski2016},
\citealt{Woosley2016}).

A powerful means of probing these issues is to work out the
mapping between successful SNe and their progenitor stars.
This is a challenging observational program (see the reviews
by \citealt{Smartt2009} and  \citealt{Smartt2015})
which has slowly been carried out over the last
20 years (e.g., \citealt{VanDyk2003},
\citealt{Smartt2004}, \citealt{Li2006},
\citealt{Smartt2009b}, \citealt{EliasRosa2009}, \citealt{EliasRosa2011},
\citealt{Maund2011}, \citealt{VanDyk2011}, \citealt{Fraser2012},
\citealt{Fraser2014}).
With one possible exception (\citealt{Cao2013}, \citealt{Folatelli2016}, see \cite{Eldridge2013}
for a discussion of limits), all the
identified progenitors are of Type~II (IIP, IIL, IIb, or IIn).

As first pointed out by \cite{Kochanek2008} and then
better quantified by \cite{Smartt2009b}, there appears
to be a deficit of higher mass SN progenitors.  In particular,
\cite{Smartt2009b} only identified Type~IIP progenitors with
masses of $\ltorder 17M_\odot$ even though stars up to $25$-$30M_\odot$
are expected to explode as red supergiants with most of their
hydrogen envelopes.  While attempts have been made to explain
this using extinction by winds (\citealt{Walmswell2012}, but
see \citealt{Kochanek2012}) or by modifying stellar
evolution (e.g. \citealt{Groh2013}), the same problem of missing, higher mass progenitors
is seen in examinations of the stellar populations near local
group SN remnants (\citealt{Jennings2014}).  \cite{Jerkstrand2014}
also argue that no Type~IIP SN have shown nucleosynthetic evidence
for a higher mass ($M_*>20M_\odot$) progenitor. Following the proposal
of \cite{Kochanek2008}, \cite{Gerke2015}
have been carrying out a search for failed SN with the
Large Binocular Telescope (LBT), identifying one
promising candidate (see also \citealt{Reynolds2015}).  The progenitor of this candidate for
a failed SN appears to be a red supergiant in exactly the
mass range missing from searches for the progenitors of
successful SN (Adams et al. 2016, in preparation).

\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig1.ps}
\caption{Final nuclear burning stages as a function of progenitor mass based on the
standard, non-rotating, $12$-$100M_\odot$, solar metallicity models of \protect\cite{Sukhbold2014} and
\protect\cite{Woosley2007}.  The gray bands show, from
top to bottom, the periods of core carbon, oxygen and silicon burning, separated by periods of
shell burning.
The points associated with SN~2009ip indicate the timing of its outbursts relative to its
presumed explosion along with its estimated mass range.  The sub-panel to the right shows
16 thin vertical lines for the (control) time periods sampled by PTF for 16 Type~IIn SN,
with heavy black points and lines for the time periods associated with outbursts
(\protect\citealt{Ofek2014}).  The masses of the progenitors of these stars are unknown
but they are generally assumed to be large.  For comparison, the sub-panel also
indicates the present day lower limits for the 1840 and 1655 outbursts of $\eta$~Car
and P~Cyg.   The boxes at lower masses show the progenitor mass ranges
and the time periods that can be surveyed for progenitor variability for SN~1987A, SN~1993J,
SN~2008cn, SN~2011dh, SN~2013ej, and ASASSN-16fq.  For a Salpeter IMF with SN occurring in
the mass range from $8$ to $100M_\odot$, 50\% of SN arise from the mass range from $8$ to
$13.1M_\odot$.
  }
\label{fig:bigpicture}
\end{figure*}

A second recent puzzle about SN progenitors is that some
appear to have outbursts (\citealt{Pastorello2007}, \citealt{Fraser2013},
\citealt{Mauerhan2013},
\citealt{Ofek2014}, \citealt{Ofek2016}) and/or eject significant amounts
of mass (see \citealt{Galyam2012}, \citealt{Smith2014b}) shortly before
they explode.  The most extreme mass-loss events ($\dot{M} \sim M_\odot$/year)
likely explain the rare, superluminous Type~IIn SNe (\citealt{Smith2007}),
but the inferred mass loss rates are frequently $\dot{M} \gtorder 10^{-3}M_\odot$/year
even for normal Type IIn SNe (see, e.g., \citealt{Kiewe2012}).  The local
systems known to reach such extreme mass loss rates are the
Luminous Blue Variables (LBVs), with $\eta$~Carinae as the
most spectacular example (see \citealt{Humphreys1994}).
The rate of $\eta$~Carinae-like events is roughly 10\% of the SN
rate (\citealt{Kochanek2011}, \citealt{Khan2015a}, \citealt{Khan2015b}),
which is sufficient to explain the occurrence of the extreme
Type~IIn superluminous SN.  Any association of LBV eruptions
with the very late phases of stellar evolution would roughly
require the typical $M_* \gtorder 50 M_\odot$ star to have
at least one eruption in the $\sim 10^3$~year period
after carbon ignition (\citealt{Kochanek2011}). On the other hand,
theoretical models to explain pre-SN outbursts and
Type~IIn SNe have favored mechanisms associated with
the last few years, corresponding to the neon/oxygen burning phases or later
(\citealt{Quataert2012}, \citealt{Shiode2014}, \citealt{Smith2014},
\citealt{Woosley2015}).
In this picture, massive stars must have two separate mechanisms for
triggering outbursts, one to explain
the LBVs and a second to explain the pre-SN outbursts.

The existence of any transients associated with
the last $\ltorder 10^3$~years (or less) of stellar life
requires a causal mechanism associated with these final phases
(see the discussion in \citealt{Kochanek2011}). Figure~\ref{fig:bigpicture}
shows the dependence of the final nuclear burning stages on
progenitor mass for the standard, non-rotating, $12$-$100M_\odot$,
solar metallicity models of \cite{Sukhbold2014} and
\protect\cite{Woosley2007}.  We show the periods of core
and shell carbon, oxygen
and silicon burning -- the neon burning phase is not as energetically
important.  The large scale structure
in Figure~\ref{fig:bigpicture}, with the shortest time scales for
intermediate masses, is driven by the rapid increase in mass loss for
the higher mass stars.  The smaller scale variations in the mass-dependence
of the post-carbon burning phases are due to the complex interplay of the burning phases
and their consequences for structure of the stellar core
(see \cite{Sukhbold2014} for a detailed discussion).

We illustrate the outbursts associated with Type~IIn SN
in Figure~\ref{fig:bigpicture} by SN~2009ip and the Palomar
Transient Factory (PTF) sample of Type~IIn SN considered by
\cite{Ofek2014}.  SN~2009ip has an estimated progenitor mass
of $50$-$80M_\odot$ (\citealt{Smith2010}) and showed a series
of outbursts before the apparent explosion (see, e.g., \citealt{Smith2010},
\citealt{Foley2011}, \citealt{Mauerhan2013}, \citealt{Pastorello2013},
\citealt{Margutti2014}).  For the PTF sample, the progenitor
masses are unknown.  PTF data are available for the last few years
before the SN, as shown by the lines spanning the survey times
for each SN. \cite{Ofek2014} detect 5 outbursts and argue that
it is highly probable that all Type~IIn SN experience outbursts
and that many are simply missed due to the survey
depth and cadence.  The outbursts shown in Figure~\ref{fig:bigpicture}
are associated with the very last phases of carbon shell burning
through the early phases of oxygen shell burning.  It seems
probable, particularly in the case of SN~2009ip, that outbursts
cannot be restricted to the time period after the initiation of
core oxygen burning.  As a contrast,
if the eruption mechanism of LBVs had any correlation with these
last phases, it would have to be associated with the carbon
burning phase, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:bigpicture} by
the 1840 and 1655 outbursts of $\eta$ Car and P Cygni (see
\citealt{Humphreys1994}).

Broadly speaking, there are two possible scenarios associated
with these pre-SN transients.  The first option is that only the high amplitude
events seen in the SN surveys or implied by the
Type~IIn SNe exist and they are associated with a very narrow range
of progenitor parameter space (e.g. mass, metallicity, rotation).
The second option is that the outburst mechanism is relatively generic,
and the existing events simply represent the high amplitude
tail of a much broader distribution. Unfortunately,
the existing systematic searches for outbursts
(e.g. \citealt{Ofek2014},
\citealt{Bilinski2015}, \citealt{Strotjohann2015})
are all part of searches
for supernovae and essentially cannot detect significantly
lower amplitude transients.

Like building the mapping between
SN and progenitors, building the mapping between pre-SN
outbursts and progenitors requires surveys of much greater
sensitivity than searches for SN.  Unfortunately, where data deep enough to
observe progenitors are already rare, having multiple epochs
of such data to study progenitor variability is rarer still.
At present, such data only exists for the progenitors
of SN~1987A (see \cite{Plotkin2004} and references
therein), SN~1993J (\citealt{Cohen1995}),
SN~2008cn (\citealt{EliasRosa2009}, \citealt{Maund2015}),
SN~2011dh (\citealt{Szczygiel2012}), and SN~2013ej (\citealt{Fraser2014}).
These sources all have progenitor detections and mass estimates, placing
them below $20 M_\odot$. Figure~\ref{fig:bigpicture} shows the
region of progenitor mass and remaining life time the data can probe.
The variability constraints
for SN~1987A and SN~1993J are relatively poor
and only SN~2011dh shows clear evidence for low levels of variability.
All these systems are also in the $\ltorder 20M_\odot$ mass range
suggested by \cite{Shiode2014} for wave-driven mass loss at solar
metallicity and some are likely near the $\sim 10M_\odot$ mass range
associated with the explosive silicon burning mechanism of
\cite{Woosley2015}.

\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig2a.ps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig2b.ps}\llap{\raisebox{0.0cm}{\includegraphics[width=2.5cm,height=2.5cm]{fig2c.ps}}}
\end{center}
\caption{Identification of a progenitor candidate for ASASSN-16fq. The left panel shows an image of the
SN taken with LBT, aligned to the pre-explosion HST ACS/WFC F814W image shown in the right panel.
The position of the SN is indicated in both panels. The inset in the right, pre-explosion panel
shows a 3\farcs0$\times$3\farcs0 region centered on the progenitor candidate, with the derived
SN position indicated.}
\label{fig:progenitor}
\end{figure*}

Here we report on the properties of the progenitor of
ASASSN-16fq (SN~2016cok).  ASASSN-16fq was discovered
(\citealt{Bock2016}) in NGC~3627 (M~66) by the All-Sky Automated Survey for
Supernovae (ASAS-SN, \citealt{Shappee2014}) on 28 May 2016 and was spectroscopically
classified as a Type~IIP SN (\citealt{Zhang2016}).  There are multiple
epochs of HST data because of the debated transient
SN~1997bs (\citealt{VanDyk2000}, \citealt{Smith2011},
\citealt{Kochanek2012b}, \citealt{Adams2015})
and the Type~IIL SN~2009hd (\citealt{EliasRosa2011},
\citealt{Tinyanont2016}).  It
is also one of the galaxies monitored as part of the
search for failed supernovae with the LBT
(\citealt{Kochanek2008}, \citealt{Gerke2015}), allowing a
deep search for progenitor variability over its last
8 years (see Figure~\ref{fig:bigpicture}).
In \S2 we identify and describe the
progenitor primarily based on archival HST data to
make a rough estimate of its luminosity
and initial mass.  In \S3, we search for variability
from the progenitor
using the data from the LBT.  We discuss the results in \S4,
focusing on an extended discussion of supernova progenitor variability.
Following \cite{Gerke2015}, we adopt a distance of
$10.62$~Mpc from \cite{Kanbur2003} and a Galactic extinction of
of $E(B-V)=0.03$~mag from \cite{Schlafly2011}.

\section{Identification and Properties of the Progenitor}

The region including ASASSN-16fq was observed by HST
on 28 December 1994 (WFPC2/F606W, GO-54456, PI Illingworth),
26 November 2001 (WFPC2/F606W, GO-8597, PI Regan),
24 February and 4 March 2001 (WFPC2/F555W and F814W, GO-8602, PI Filippenko),
30/31 December 2004 (ACS/F658N and F435W, GO-10402, PI Chandar),
14 December 2009 (ACS/F555W and F814W, GO-11575, PI Van Dyk),
and 28 November 2013 (WFC3/UVIS/F555W and F814W, GO-13477, PI Kochanek).
These data are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:hstphot}.
The region has also been observed multiple times by Spitzer at
$3.6$ and $4.5\mu$m (programs 159, 10001 and 10136/11063,
PIs Kennicutt, Kochanek and Kasliwal, respectively).

In order to determine the position of the SN in the HST images,
we obtained new LBT data including the SN consisting
of 24 five second R-band exposures with a 1\farcs05
full width at half-maximum (FWHM) and a nominal
R-band depth when combined of roughly $24.7$~mag ($S/N\simeq 5$).
We identified 39 sources
in common between the combined LBT image and the pipeline,
drizzled, CTE-corrected (charge transfer efficiency) ACS/WFC
F814W HST image taken on 2009 December 14.  A pixel
coordinate transformation allowing for rotation, translation,
independent $x$ and $y$ pixel scalings and
second order $x^2$, $xy$ and $y^2$ terms to account for
distortions ($24$ coefficients
in total) led to a geometric transformation with root-mean-square
(RMS) errors in the $x$ and $y$ HST pixel axes of $0.164$ and
$0.169$ LBT pixels, respectively.  The position of the SN in the
LBT image was measured using three different centering
algorithms which agreed to $\ltorder 0.02$ LBT pixels
(pixel scale $0\farcs226$).  The resulting estimate of the pixel position
of the SN on the F814W image is $(1658.047\pm0.734, 2014.933\pm0.757)$.
Figure~\ref{fig:progenitor} shows the
LBT image with the SN and the same region in the pre-explosion
HST image along with an inset showing a 3\farcs0-square region
centered on the estimated position of the progenitor.  A
source is readily apparent at this position.

The pixel coordinates of this pre-explosion source are measured
to be $(1657.612\pm0.094, 2014.856\pm 0.048)$ using the average
results of three different centering algorithms in {\tt IRAF PHOT}.
This is offset from our estimated position of the SN
by $(0.435,0.077)$ ACS pixels, or 0\farcs022 in total. Thus,
the SN and our progenitor candidate have formally coincident
positions given their respective uncertainties.  However,
this source also appears to be an extended blend of several
stars, with a FWHM of 3 pixels instead of the $\sim 2$ pixels
found for nearby point sources.  This proves to be a considerable
complication for our photometric measurements.

For photometry, we used {\sc hstphot} for the WFPC2 images and
{\sc dolphot} for the ACS and WFC3 images (\citealt{Dolphin2000}).  {\sc hstphot}
is designed specifically for point-spread function (PSF)-fitting photometry
on WFPC2 images, while {\sc dolphot} is a more general version of
{\sc hstphot} which can also handle ACS and WFC3 data.
ACS, WFC3 and WFPC2 all have different pixel scales, and the
observations summarized in Table~\ref{tab:hstphot} were taken
with a range of orientations and depths.  Hence, it is difficult to
directly compare observations taken with each of these cameras
particularly when the decomposition of the blended sources is not
unique.  The photometric results are reported in
Table~\ref{tab:hstphot} along with any magnitudes for the
source available from the Hubble Source Catalog (HSC, \citealt{Whitmore2016}) for
comparison.  All the reported magnitudes are in the Vega system,
with appropriate transformations from the AB magnitudes used by the HSC.

The WFPC2 images were obtained with the WF3 detector, which has a pixel scale
of 0\farcs1 that grossly under samples the PSF.  The 1994 images were
very shallow and there was a slight ($\sim 2$~pix) offset between the
two exposures, so we ran {\sc hstphot} on each frame individually. For
the WFPC2 data from 2001, there was no dithering between the exposures, so
we combined the two images available for each filter. Cosmic rays were
rejected using the paired exposures for each pointing.
{\sc hstphot} was run using its recommended parameters, performing PSF-fitting
photometry with a detection threshold of 3.5$\sigma$, and simultaneously
refitting the sky background (option 512). Aperture corrections were
derived from the data, and applied to the measured magnitudes along with
standard CTE corrections.

In all of the WFPC2 images, the progenitor candidate was detected as a
single source, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:wfpc2}.  The 1994 and 2001
F606W magnitudes differ by almost $0.5$~mag despite using identical
settings for {\sc hstphot}.  If we take 5 nearby
sources with $\hbox{F606W} \sim 22$~mag, we find that the sources
all appear to be brighter in 2001 by $0.15$ to $0.35$~mag.
The cause of the discrepancy is unclear, although the 1994 exposures
were significantly shallower and have lower backgrounds that would
worsen the effects of CTE.  We applied the {\sc hotpants} difference
imaging package to the two F606W epochs and found no significant
residuals, indicating that there was no significant variability associated
with the source.  We will not consider the 1994 data further.  The
HSC had an estimate for the source flux in the 2001 F814W image,
and the HST magnitude was consistent with our photometry
to $<$0.1 mag.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.0cm]{fig3a.ps}
\includegraphics[width=4.0cm]{fig3b.ps}
\includegraphics[width=4.0cm]{fig3c.ps}
\includegraphics[width=4.0cm]{fig3d.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{ WFPC2 images ($5\farcs0$ square, North up) from 2001 centered on the candidate progenitor.
  The progenitor candidate is marked by the yellow cross.  The white squares are bad pixels.
  }
\label{fig:wfpc2}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7.7cm,height=7.6cm]{fig4c.ps}
\includegraphics[width=7.7cm,height=7.6cm]{fig4d.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{
  ACS images (1\farcs0 square, North up) from 2009 (F555W and F814W, bottom)
  centered on the estimated position of ASASSN-16fq (yellow cross).
  The labeled red squares show the positions of {\sc dolphot} sources reported in Table~\ref{tab:hstphot}
  where the central source (C1-D1) is the brightest.
  }
\label{fig:acs}
\end{figure*}

The ACS images were analyzed with {\sc dolphot}.  The drizzled ACS
reference image (file type { \tt \_drc}) for each filter was used to
identify sources, while photometric measurements were performed on the
individual, undrizzled, { \tt \_flc} files. Both file types are
corrected for CTE losses, so no CTE corrections were applied to the
measured magnitudes.  The pipeline-reduced 2004 ACS { \tt \_flc} files
did not have a cosmic ray mask in their data quality extension.  We
processed these files with {\sc astrodrizzle} to derive a cosmic ray mask
before carrying out the remainder of the analysis.  The {\sc dolphot}
parameters, including the choice of aperture radius, were matched to those
of the ANGST survey (\citealt{Dalcanton09}).  We used a large 8 pixel
aperture, fitting each source, its neighbors and the background
simultaneously.  We used a $3\sigma$ source detection threshold
and set the { \tt force=1} parameter to force all objects to be
fit as point sources.  For the F658N image,  {\sc dolphot} failed to
detect enough sources to align the two { \tt \_flt} images to the
drizzled {\it F658N} reference image. Here we measured the positions of
many point-like sources common to each image within {\sc iraf},
and used {\sc acsfitdistort} within {\sc dolphot} to align the
frames.  The location of the SN in each of the images was found by
aligning them to the 2009 F814W image which was used to identify the progenitor.

{\sc dolphot} splits the flux from the source at the progenitor position
into a number of sources, which is not surprising given that that its
FWHM is broader than other nearby, point-like sources.  If we disable
the { \tt force=1} option, the source is modeled as a single extended
object rather than decomposed into multiple sources.  Figure~\ref{fig:acs}
shows the relevant region of each ACS image and how it has been
decomposed into the sources reported in Table~\ref{tab:hstphot}.
The HSC magnitudes agree well ($\sim 0.1$~mag) with our results for
the F435W, F555W and F658N filters.  The difference is much larger
for F814W, where {\sc dolphot} has found two sources (D1 and D2) of
similar flux.  The summed flux of these two sources, corresponding
to $22.74$~mag, agrees with the HSC flux.

We also analyzed the WFC3 images with {\sc dolphot}, where these are the images
that best sample the PSF (0\farcs04 pixels rather than the 0\farcs05 scale of ACS) and likely
produce the most reliable source decomposition.  We identified the sources on
the {\it F814W} image and then obtained photometry for the {\it F555W} and {\it F814W}
images simultaneously.  The sources identified by {\sc dolphot} are shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:wfc3} and their measured magnitudes are reported in Table~\ref{tab:hstphot}.
The position of ASASSN-16fq was again determined by aligning the WFC3 F814W image to
the ACS F814W image.

The photometry reported in Table~\ref{tab:hstphot} is not fully consistent given
the reported uncertainties.  This is not very surprising given that the source
appears to be a blend of multiple sources with a decomposition that is not unique
under changes in the instrument, camera and filter.  We tested running {\sc
dolphot} simultaneously on the ACS and WFC3 F814W images, using a single
drizzled WFC3 image for source detection.  We found systematic offsets of
$0.1$-$0.2$~mag between sources as measured on the ACS and WFC3 images.  For
isolated point sources, the differences should be much smaller (a few times
$0.01$~mag in tests with {\sc synphot}).  However, even with the source
positions fixed, the flux estimates for the blended sources likely depend
in detail on the sub-pixel scale model of the PSF in each frame.

We again used difference imaging to search for evidence that the differences
between the ACS and WFC3 magnitudes could be explained by variability.  We
focused on the F814W filter, where a red supergiant exploding as a Type~II
SN should contribute the most flux.  As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:f814w_sub},
there are no significant residuals after using {\sc hotpants} to scale and
subtract the two images.  As with the similar test on the WFCP2 F606W images
above, there is no evidence in the difference image for any variability.

We also searched the archival Spitzer data for sources related to the
progenitor following the procedures of \cite{Khan2015b}.
We used the {\sc ISIS} (\citealt{Alard1998}) difference imaging package
to align the Spitzer images of a sub-region centered on ASASSN-16fq.
Many of the images had an artifact passing close to the SN, so we
combined the epochs either missing the artifact or where the artifact
avoids its location to build a reference image.  We then produced
differenced images to search for variability.  We also differenced
the $3.5$ and $4.5\mu$m reference images to search for dusty stars.
In such a ``wavelength difference'' image, the normal stars all
vanish to leave only stars with significant hot dust emission
because they all have a common ``Rayleigh-Jeans'' spectral
energy distribution (SED) (\citealt{Khan2010}).  We found no evidence for
mid-IR variability or hot dust emission.  There is no mid-IR
source at the position of the progenitor. Our best estimates of the
$3\sigma$ upper limits on the $3.6$, $4.5$, $5.8$ and $8.0\mu$m
fluxes of any source at the position of the progenitor are  $15.9$, $15.7$, $13.3$ and
$11.4$~mag, respectively.   The shorter wavelength limits correspond
to $\nu L_\nu \ltorder 10^5 L_\odot$ (at $1\sigma$),  and provide
no strong constraints given the HST photometry.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig5.ps}
\caption{ WFC3 F814W image (1\farcs0 square, North up) from 2013 centered on the
  estimated position of ASASSN-16fq (yellow cross).
  The labeled red squares show the positions of {\sc dolphot} sources reported in Table~\ref{tab:hstphot}
  where the central source (E1) is the brightest.
   }
\label{fig:wfc3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\centerline{
  \includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{fig6a.ps}
  \includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{fig6b.ps}
  \includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{fig6c.ps}
  }
\caption{ No evidence for variability at F814W.  The 1\farcs0 square (North up)
  panels show the ACS (left) and WFC3 (middle)
  F814W images from 2009 and 2013, respectively, along
  with the {\sc hotpants} difference image (right) between them.  The position of
  the progenitor candidate for ASASSN-16fq is marked with a yellow cross in all three panels.
  In the difference image, sources which are brighter in the ACS image appear dark while those
  that are brighter in the WFC3 image appear white.
   }
\label{fig:f814w_sub}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

Clearly with the source blending and the differences between the
results for the various cameras we cannot precisely determine the
properties of the progenitor or the amount of extinction.
Our goal is simply to provide constraints on the progenitor
luminosity that can be translated into rough constraints on
the stellar mass.
ASASSN-16fq is a Type~IIP SN, and all progenitors of Type~IIP SN with
constrained stellar temperatures have been red supergiants (see
\citealt{Smartt2015}) with stellar temperatures of order
$T_*=3500$~K.  Higher temperatures of order $T_*=6000$~K have
been observed for the progenitors of Type~IIb SNe (e.g., SN~2011dh,
\citealt{Maund2011}).  Finally, we must note the still higher
temperature progenitor of the Type~IIpec SN~1987A, a blue supergiant with
$T_* \simeq 16000$~K and $L_* \simeq 10^{5.0} L_\odot$ (see the review by
\citealt{Arnett1989}).  All available evidence is that ASASSN-16fq
is a normal Type~IIP SN where we should only consider the lowest
temperature ($T_*=3500$~K), but we will present parallel results
for $T_*=6000$~K and comment on the consequences of still higher
progenitor temperatures.

Rodriguez et al. (2016, in preparation)
modeled the early, near-UV/optical/near-IR photometry
(from {\it Swift}, LCOGT~1m, the Iowa Observatory~0.5m, and
the REM~0.6m) and photospheric expansion velocities of ASASSN-16fq
(obtained from optical spectra obtained with FLWO~1.5m+FAST and
MDM~2.4m+OSMOS) following \cite{Pejcha2015b}. This
phenomenological model describes the multicolor light curves and
photospheric velocity evolution of normal Type~II SNe, decoupling
changes in effective temperature from changes in the photospheric
radius at different epochs since explosion. These fits lead
to an estimated explosion time of $\rm JD=2457532.2 \pm 2.0$~days, a total
extinction (including Galactic) of $\rm E(B-V)=0.53 \pm 0.02$~mag,
and a distance modulus of $29.72 \pm 0.44$~mag. This distance
estimate of $8.8 \pm 1.8$~Mpc is consistent with our adopted
value of $10.62$~Mpc.  For roughly estimating the properties
of the progenitor, we will assume either Galactic
$\rm E(B-V)= 0.03$ or $\rm E(B-V)= 0.53$ of foreground
extinction.  The results assuming circumstellar
extinction would be moderately different (see \citealt{Kochanek2012}
for a discussion of this issue).

\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig7a.ps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig7b.ps}
\caption{Spectral energy distributions with low ($\rm E(B-V)=0.03$, left) and
high ($\rm E(B-V)=0.53$, right) extinction.  The open (filled) squares show the WFC3
photometry for the brightest source (total of all sources) in Table~\ref{tab:hstphot}.
The open (filled) triangles show the ACS photometry for the brightest
source (total of all sources) in Table~\ref{tab:hstphot}.  The solid
red (dashed blue) curves show the $T_*=3500$~K ($T_*=6000$~K) stellar
SEDs with the lowest and highest luminosities that fit one of the
broad band photometric points and do not significantly exceed the
brightest, total broad band fluxes (the total ACS fluxes for the
broad band filters).
}
\label{fig:sed}
\end{figure*}

We corrected the photometry for the assumed
amount of foreground extinction and then used the {\sc DUSTY} dust
radiation transport code (\citealt{Ivezic1997}, \citealt{Ivezic1999},
\citealt{Elitzur2001}) combined with \cite{Castelli2004} model
atmospheres of solar metallicity and embedded in a Monte Carlo
Markov Chain (MCMC) driver to match the model to the data
(see \citealt{Adams2015}, \citealt{Adams2016} for details).
For the experiments we carry out here, much of this machinery
is not necessary but can be trivially applied to the problem.
For a fixed stellar temperature and foreground extinction we
determined the stellar luminosity based on one of the broad
band ACS or WFC3 total or brightest component magnitudes. The
brightest, total broad band magnitudes (those from ACS) were
used as $1\sigma$ upper limits on the luminosity unless
the magnitude was being used to determine the luminosity.
In essence, we will not attempt to extract any color information
from the photometry, but no model can be significantly brighter
than the brightest observed ACS/WFC3 broad band magnitudes.

Figure~\ref{fig:sed} shows the ``SED'' of the source combining
the ACS and WFC3 photometry.
All else being equal and ignoring the narrow band
F658N photometry, the luminosity estimate will vary by roughly
a factor of two between a model based on the fluxes of the
brightest components (A1-E1) and the summed fluxes of all
the components.  For example, using $T_*=3500$~K and
Galactic extinction, only models normalized at I-band (F814W)
are also consistent with the relevant upper limits.  They
have luminosities in the range from $L_* = 10^{4.5}$ to
$10^{4.9}L_\odot$.  Essentially, the cool models are too
luminous for the observed F814W fluxes if they are normalized
at shorter wavelengths.  For the hotter $T_*=6000$~K model,
all permutations are allowed, and they have luminosities
spanning a very similar range from $L_*=10^{4.5}$ to $10^{4.8}L_\odot$.
At the hotter temperature, the stellar SED is not dropping
rapidly in the bluer bands and so it is easier to be
consistent with all the constraints.
When we raise the extinction to $\rm E(B-V)=0.53$, the
changes in the results are modest.  For $T_*=3500$~K,
only the F814W normalizations are again allowed but
with a shift to moderately higher luminosities of
$10^{4.8}$ to $10^{5.2}L_\odot$.  For $T_*=6000$~K
the F814W and F555W normalizations are allowed and
they have the same luminosity range as for the
$T_*=3500$~K models.

A hot star, albeit one still
hotter than the progenitor of SN~1987A, might also explain
the discrepant F658N magnitudes as H$\alpha$ emission
from an associated HII region.  With the large
$\rm E(B-V)=0.53$ extinction correction, the implied
SED also rises rapidly to shorter wavelengths as might
be expected for a hot star.  Since the SED rises rapidly
to shorter wavelengths, these hot star models are very
luminous, with $L_* = 10^{5.5}$  to $10^{6.0}L_\odot$
for $T_*=16000$~K  and still higher luminosities for
higher temperatures.  We will not consider this
possibility further, although it would make ASASSN-16fq
a unique and fascinating new example of the SN
phenomenon were it to prove to be true.

If we use the endpoints of the PARSEC (\citealt{Bressan2012})
isochrones to map luminosities into masses, luminosities of
$L_*=10^{4.5}$, $10^{4.8}$, $10^{4.9}$ and $10^{5.2}L_\odot$
translate into initial masses of $M_* \simeq 8.6$, $11.2$,
$11.6$ and $17 M_\odot$.  Since the higher luminosity
limits correspond to the cases normalized by the total
flux of all the detected sources rather than just that of
the brightest source found by {\sc dolphot}, they should
probably be treated as upper limits.  In short, despite
the chaotic nature of the photometry, the progenitor of
ASASSN-16fq was probably a red supergiant with an initial
mass of $8$-$12M_\odot$.  This estimate of the mass range
is fairly robust to changes in temperature, unless the star
is significantly hotter than expected ($T_* > 6000$~K), and
holds for a fairly broad range of extinctions.  It probably does
require that some of the blended stars are significantly
hotter and bluer, which would be natural if they are also
younger.

\section{LBT and the Variability of the Progenitor}

As part of the LBT search for failed SN (\citealt{Kochanek2008},
\citealt{Gerke2015}), NGC~3627 was observed
sixteen times in the U, B, V and R-bands between 4 May 2008 and
7 February 2016.  NGC~3627 lies on chip 3 of the Large
Binocular Camera (LBC, \citealt{Giallongo2008}) images. The LBT data are analyzed
using the ISIS (\citealt{Alard1998}) difference imaging package.  First, all
the images are aligned to a common R-band astrometric reference
image.  The best images (noise, resolution and
quality) for each band are combined to make a reference
image.  These reference images are astrometrically and photometrically
calibrated based on SDSS stars (\citealt{Pier2003}, \citealt{Ivezic2007},
\citealt{Ahn2012}) with the SDSS ugriz photometry transformed to UBVR
Vega magnitudes using the relations in \cite{Jordi2006}.
The reference images are then subtracted from the individual epochs
to leave only the variable flux between the reference image and the individual
epochs.  Since the reference image is constructed from images
spanning the monitoring period, source fluxes in the reference image
roughly correspond to the mean fluxes.

We cannot measure the absolute flux of the progenitor in the
LBT images due to crowding.  However, the subtracted images
are not crowded and we can easily constrain the variability
of the progenitor.  For this purpose, the uniformity of the data and the
well-sampled PSF makes the ground-based LBT data superior to the
archival HST data. Although variability is seen in none of the bands,
we focus only on the R-band data, which is both deeper and of
higher quality.  Table~\ref{tab:lbtphot} provides the
difference in the R-band luminosity relative to the
error-weighted mean of all the epochs.  The conversion
between the R-band ($\nu L_\nu$) luminosity and counts
is $3.26 L_\odot$/count and no correction for extinction
has been applied.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{fig8.ps}}
\caption{
  R-band progenitor variability prior to the supernova relative to
  the error-weighted mean.  The luminosities are not corrected for
  extinction.  The gray band shows the times for the commencement
  of core oxygen burning for stars with initial mass of $14M_\odot$
  (left edge) to $20 M_\odot$ (right edge) from
  \protect\cite{Sukhbold2014} (see Figure~\protect\ref{fig:bigpicture}
  for the full mass dependence).
  }
\label{fig:vary1}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{fig9.ps}
            \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{fig10.ps}}
\caption{
  (Left) Magnitude variance of the 6 SN progenitors as a function of
  their estimated mass.  The variance in the progenitor's flux is a measure of
  any ``random'' variability of the progenitor.
  The time period over which the variance was estimated varies between the SN
  (see Figure~\protect\ref{fig:bigpicture}).
  }
\label{fig:vary2}
\caption{
  (Right) Absolute values of the linear luminosity slopes of the 6 SN progenitors as a function of
  their estimated mass.  The slope of the progenitor's flux is a measure of any
  ``steady'' variability of the progenitor.  For the SN where we have only
  upper limits, the limit is drawn at the absolute value of the slope plus
  the uncertainty in the slope.
  The time period over which the slope was estimated varies between the SN
  (see Figure~\protect\ref{fig:bigpicture}).
  }
\label{fig:vary3}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=6.8in]{fig11.ps}}
\caption{
  Outburst detection probabilities ($P_d$, left scale) and 90\% confidence upper
  limits on the number of outbursts per SN ($N_{out}$, right scale) as a function of
  the period $t_{out}$ over which eruptions can occur prior to the SN.  The panels show the results for
  different peak luminosities from $M_R = -12$ (top left) down to
  $M_R = -6$~mag (bottom right) where the associated luminosities are
  $\lambda L_\lambda$ at R-band.
  The curves correspond to logarithmically
  spaced outburst FWHM of $t_{peak}= 0.032$ (highest, dotted), $0.1$
  (dotted), $0.32$ (solid), $1.0$ (solid), $3.2$ (solid), $10.0$ (dashed)
  and $32$~ (usually lowest, dashed) years.
   As in Figure~\protect\ref{fig:vary1},
  the shaded region shows the time before collapse for the onset of
  core oxygen burning in the $14M_\odot$ and $20M_\odot$ models
  (see Figure~\protect\ref{fig:bigpicture}).
  The limit on the number of $N_{out}$
  outbursts and the detection probability $P_d$ are related by
  $N_{out}=2.3( N_{SN} P_d)^{-1}$ for the $N_{SN}=5$ SN excluding SN~1987A.
  }
\label{fig:outburst}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=6.8in]{fig12.ps}}
\caption{
  Outburst detection probabilities (left scale) and 90\% confidence upper
  limits on the number of outbursts per SN (right scale) as a function of
  the period over which eruptions can occur prior to the SN for the PTF
  data on Type~IIb SN progenitors considered by \protect\cite{Strotjohann2015}.
  The format is the same as in Figure~\protect\ref{fig:outburst}, but we only show
  the results for $M_R=-10$ and $-8$~mag where there is some overlap with
  the sensitivities shown in Figure~\protect\ref{fig:outburst}.
  The curves correspond to logarithmically
  spaced outburst FWHM of $t_{peak}= 0.032$ (highest, dotted), $0.1$
  (dotted), $0.32$ (solid), $1.0$ (solid), $3.2$ (solid), $10.0$ (dashed)
  and $32$~ (usually lowest, dashed) years.
  The PTF sample
  is better for brighter transients (more SN with better temporal coverage)
  and worse for fainter transients (insufficient depth).
   As in Figure~\protect\ref{fig:vary1},
  the shaded region shows the time before collapse for the onset of
  core oxygen burning in the $14M_\odot$ and $20M_\odot$ models
  (see Figure~\protect\ref{fig:bigpicture}).
  The limit on the
  number of $N_{out}$ outbursts and the detection probability $P_d$ are related by
  $N_{out}=2.3( N_{SN} P_d)^{-1}$ for the $N_{SN}=27$ SN in the
  \protect\cite{Strotjohann2015} sample.
  }
\label{fig:outburst2}
\end{figure*}

As seen in Figure~\ref{fig:vary1} and Table~\ref{tab:lbtphot}, there is no
statistically significant evidence
for variability from the progenitor.  The root-mean-square
(RMS) of the variability is $1505 L_\odot$ as compared to a
mean square uncertainty of $1204 L_\odot$.  Subtracting
in quadrature, this implies variability at an RMS level of
$900 L_\odot$.  Because the RMS is so close to the level
of the uncertainties, these should be regarded as upper
limits on the variability rather than detections.
If we fit a linear trend, the slope is
$(220\pm 133)L_\odot$~year$^{-1}$ with $\chi^2=16.4$
for $13$ degrees of freedom.  If we rescale the uncertainties
to make the $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom unity,
this becomes $(291\pm 149)L_\odot$~year$^{-1}$.
If we adopt an R-band luminosity of $\nu L_\nu = 10^{4.3}L_\odot$,
the RMS variability is
$< 4.5\%$ and the limit on the slope is
$(1.4\pm 0.7)\%$~year$^{-1}$.
This luminosity estimate is the logarithmic average of the Galactic extinction-corrected
ACS and WFC F814W and F555W C1, D1 and E1 source luminosities.
The absolute scale of these luminosities is subject to
distance uncertainties and extinction corrections,
but the fractional variability is independent of both.

Figure~\ref{fig:vary1} shows the relation of the LBT epochs
to nuclear burning phases with a gray band bracketing the
onset of core oxygen burning for models with
$14 M_\odot < M < 20 M_\odot$ from \cite{Sukhbold2014}, where
the full mass dependence is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:bigpicture}.
More or less independent of mass, the LBT data samples the last
phases of carbon shell burning, the neon burning phase (not shown),
core oxygen burning, and the initial phases of shell oxygen
burning.  Since the two points that drive the apparent slope
in the luminosity evolution probably lie in the
shell carbon burning phase, the variability in the later
burning phases is even smaller than the overall limits given
above.

\section{Discussion}

We have clearly identified a counterpart to ASASSN-16fq
in archival HST data. Unfortunately,
our constraints on the properties of the progenitor are
far from satisfactory, presumably due to the blending
of multiple stars with the progenitor even at the resolution of
HST. However, for a broad range of reasonable assumptions about its
temperature and the amount of extinction, its properties are
consistent with a lower-mass ($8$-$12M_\odot$) red supergiant.
The data almost certainly require an upper mass limit
of $M_* \ltorder 17 M_\odot$ that matches the mass limit
associated with the red supergiant problem (\citealt{Smartt2009b})
or the more general problem of missing higher mass SN
progenitors originally identified by \cite{Kochanek2008}.
The only real escape from this conclusion is to give the
progenitor a far higher than expected temperature, but this
option quickly drives the progenitor luminosity to be
extraordinarily high.  While we view this possibility as
unlikely, it would make the progenitor of ASASSN-16fq far
more remarkable than simply making it a garden variety
red supergiant of modest mass.  Observations either with the LBT
or HST once the SN has faded will have no difficulty making
accurate photometric measurements of the progenitor.

Table~\ref{tab:progvary} summarizes the available information on
the variability of SN progenitors beyond the large outbursts
probed by  \cite{Ofek2014}, \cite{Bilinski2015} and \cite{Strotjohann2015}.
Information is available for the Type~IIpec SN~1987A
(photographic, \citealt{Plotkin2004}),
the Type~IIb SN~1993J (V-band, \citealt{Cohen1995}), the Type~IIP
SN~2008cn (V-band, \citealt{EliasRosa2009}, \citealt{Maund2015}),
the Type~IIb SN~2011dh (R-band, \citealt{Szczygiel2012}) and the
Type~IIP SN~2013ej (I-band, \citealt{Fraser2014}) in
addition to ASASSN-16fq.
Based on the review of \cite{Smartt2009},
we adopt progenitor masses of $14$-$20M_\odot$ for SN~1987A
and $15 M_\odot$ for SN~1993J. We use an upper limit of $<16 M_\odot$ for
SN~2008cn following \cite{Maund2015}, $(13\pm 3)M_\odot$
for SN~2011dh following \cite{Maund2011}, and $8$-$15.5M_\odot$
for SN~2013ej (\citealt{Fraser2014}).  We use our
estimate of $8$-$12 M_\odot$ from \S2 for ASASSN-16fq.
We also report the time period spanned by the variability
data and (roughly) the corresponding nuclear burning
phases based on Figure~\ref{fig:bigpicture}.  The
data for SN~1987A, SN~1993J, SN~2008cn and SN~2013ej
probably only sample the carbon shell burning phase.
The LBT data for SN~2011dh, like that for ASASSN-16fq,
probably samples the last phases of carbon shell burning
through the early phases of oxygen shell burning.

We can characterize the ``random,'' ``steady'', and ``outburst''
variability of these SN progenitors. Limits on the random variability
are illustrated by the ``Var'' estimates of the intrinsic variability
as a function of the progenitor mass in Figure~\ref{fig:vary2}.
The variance ``Var'' is estimated by subtracting the mean of the
reported photometric uncertainties ($\langle\hbox{Err}\rangle$)
from the root mean square (RMS) of the light curve,
($\hbox{Var}=(\hbox{RMS}^2-\langle\hbox{Err}\rangle^2)^{1/2}$).
The intrinsic variability is defined to be zero if
the mean errors exceed the RMS, as is the case for
SN~2013ej and the \cite{Maund2015} results for SN~2008cn.
These quantities are reported in Table~\ref{tab:progvary}.
Limits on the steady variability are illustrated in
Figure~\ref{fig:vary3} by the estimates of the linear
luminosity slopes as a function of progenitor mass.  The upper limits
used for all but SN~2011dh are drawn at the absolute value
of the slope plus the error estimate.
The slope
estimates and the goodness of fit are included in
Table~\ref{tab:progvary}.

Of these SN, only SN~2011dh is clearly
variable, but with the small number of epochs available
to \cite{Szczygiel2012} it is also possible to interpret
it as ellipsoidal variability given the binary models
for the progenitor system by \cite{Benvenuto2013}.
For comparison, typical slopes estimated from the end points of stellar
evolution models are $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-4}$~mag/year
(e.g., \citealt{Schaller1992}, \citealt{Heger2000}).
The limit on the slope for SN~1987A is by far
the tightest due to the long time span of the data.
Obviously, these systems are
heterogeneously selected and sample different final
burning phases (see Figure~\ref{fig:bigpicture}), but they
also appear to be the only
published progenitors with adequate data to test for these lower
levels of variability.

We can characterize outbursts by adding Gaussian
bursts in luminosity (quadratic in magnitude) defined
by a peak luminosity $L_{peak}$ and a burst FWHM $t_{peak}$
to the light curves of all the sources in Table~\ref{tab:progvary}
except SN~1987A.
We allow the outbursts during an eruption time corresponding
to the last $t_{out}$ before the SN.
We normalize the available light curves to have a
$\chi^2$ per degree of freedom, $N_{dof}$, of at most unity (i.e.
ignoring the variability of SN~2011dh) when fit as having a
constant flux. We then add model
outbursts at random times and conservatively define detection
to be when the $\chi^2$ for fitting the ``fake'' data containing an
outburst as having a constant flux
exceeds the larger of $2N_{dof}$ and $N_{dof}+4$.
Figure~\ref{fig:outburst} shows the results, quantified
as the detection probability per SN, $P_d$, for peak
outburst luminosities of $M_R=-6$, $-8$, $-10$ and $-12$~mag,
corresponding to $\lambda L_\lambda \simeq 10^{4.0}$, $10^{4.8}$
$10^{5.6}$ and $10^{6.4}L_\odot$.  The detection probabilities
can then be converted to 90\% confidence limits on the number
of outbursts per SN as
\begin{equation}
   N_{out} < { 2.30  \over N_{SN} P_d } = 0.46 P_d^{-1}
\end{equation}
where $N_{SN}=5$ since we have excluded SN~1987A from the
analysis.  The rate of eruptions during the eruption period
is then $r_{out} = N_{out}/t_{out}$.

The general pattern of the detection probabilities
$P_d$  in Figure~\ref{fig:outburst}
is relatively easy to understand.  Short outbursts become
increasingly difficult to detect because of the finite
temporal sampling of the data.   Long outbursts ultimately
become difficult to detect because they show no time
variability over the finite temporal extent
of the data (although for sufficiently bright transients
the luminosity would be incompatible with any progenitor).
The results for long outbursts eventually correspond to
the slope limits of Figure~\ref{fig:vary3}.
The sensitivity is highest for eruption
periods extending to roughly $10$~years because SN~1993J,
SN~2008cn and SN~2013ej only contribute on these time scales.
For the shortest eruption periods ($t_{out}$), only SN~2011dh contributes,
and for long eruption periods, there is no information
outside the last roughly $10$~years before the SN.

Figure~\ref{fig:outburst2} shows outburst limits computed in the
same manner for the sample of $27$ Type~IIb SN considered by
\cite{Strotjohann2015} for comparison.  \cite{Ofek2014} and
\cite{Strotjohann2015} provide $5\sigma$ R-band luminosity
limits, $L_{PTF}$, for 15~day bins of the data, each
containing a variable number, $N_{PTF}$, of epochs. For
simplicity, we simply spread the reported number of epochs
uniformly over their 15 day bin (with temporal spacings of
$1/2:1:1 \cdots 1:1:1/2$ over the bin), each with a ($1\sigma$)
uncertainty per epoch of $L_{PTF}N_{PTF}^{1/2}/5$.  We can then
apply our formalism with only minor ambiguities for
very short time scale ($t_{peak} \ltorder 15$~day) outbursts.  Figure~\ref{fig:outburst2}
shows the results for the \cite{Strotjohann2015} sample at $M_R=-12$ and $-10$~mag.
The Type~IIn sample considered by \cite{Ofek2014} has even less sensitivity to low
luminosity outbursts because the typical SN is more distant and there
are fewer SN in the sample.

As we can see from comparing Figures~\ref{fig:outburst} and \ref{fig:outburst2},
the PTF sample is more sensitive to very luminous outbursts and far less
sensitive to outbursts closer to the progenitor luminosity.  This is simply
because, relative to the sample in Table~\ref{tab:progvary}, the PTF data
has more continuous, but very shallow, coverage of a larger number of SN.
The rate limits of the two samples cross
near peak luminosities of $M_R=-12$~mag ($\lambda L_\lambda \simeq 10^{6.4}L_\odot$),
where the relative sensitivity depends on the burst duration.  By
$M_R=-10$~mag ($\lambda L_\lambda \simeq 10^{5.6}L_\odot$), the deeper data
we use here is more sensitive independent of the outburst duration. The
PTF data has negligible sensitivity to the fainter $M_R=-8$ and $-6$~mag
outbursts.

In essence, the two approaches are complimentary.  SN surveys like PTF
will better constrain the rates of high luminosity, shorter transients --
they will generally have larger numbers of SN observed with higher
cadence.  However, even with
the co-addition of data, SN surveys simply lack the sensitivity to
probe variability significantly below $\sim 10$ times the
luminosity of the progenitor stars.  Deep monitoring data, like that from our LBT survey, are
sensitive to very low levels of variability (down to $\sim 1\%$ of
the progenitor luminosity, Figure~\ref{fig:vary1}), but are limited by
the SN rate in nearby galaxies ($\sim 1$~year) and the lower cadence
of any monitoring project on large telescopes.

SN surveys like PTF are also largely limited to studying the relationships between outburst
and SN properties, as done by \cite{Ofek2014}, because most of the SN
will be too distant for measurements of the progenitor properties.
Any survey which can measure variability on the scale of the progenitor
luminosity or fainter can, by definition, also determine the properties
of the progenitor.  As a result, studies like the LBT survey (\citealt{Kochanek2008},
\citealt{Gerke2015}) are
better suited to studying the relationship between outbursts and
progenitors.  An obvious next step is to systematically analyze the variability
of all the SN progenitors in the LBT survey data, which will provide
a relatively homogeneous, volume-limited sample, rather than the
heterogeneous sample represented by Table~\ref{tab:progvary}.

\section*{Acknowledgments}

We thank A. Dolphin for his advice regarding {\sc dolphot}.
CSK, KZS, JSB, SMA and TWSH are supported by NSF grants AST-1515876 and
AST-1515927.
BJS is supported by NASA through Hubble Fellowship
grant HF-51348.001 awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute,
which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in
Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS 5-26555.
TW-SH is supported by the DOE Computational
Science Graduate Fellowship, grant number DE-FG02-
97ER25308.  TS is partly supported by NSF grand PHY-1404311 to J. Beacom.
This work was partly supported by the European Union
FP7 program through ERC grant number 320360.
Support for JLP is provided in part by FONDECYT through the
grant 1151445 and by the Ministry of Economy, Development, and Tourism's Millennium Science Initiative
through grant IC120009, awarded to The Millennium Institute of
Astrophysics, MAS.
SD is supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program ``The
Emergence of Cosmological Structures'' of the Chinese Academy of
Sciences (Grant No. XDB09000000) and NSFC project 11573003.
Some of the observations were carried out using the LBT at Mt Graham, AZ. The LBT
is an international collaboration among institutions in the United
States, Italy, and Germany. LBT Corporation partners are the University
of Arizona on behalf of the Arizona university system; Istituto
Nazionale di Astrofisica, Italy; LBT Beteiligungsgesellschaft,
Germany, representing the Max-Planck Society, the Astrophysical
Institute Potsdam, and Heidelberg University; the Ohio State
University; and The Research Corporation, on behalf of the University
of Notre Dame, University of Minnesota, and University of
Virginia.
This work is based in part on observations
made with the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated
by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
under a contract with NASA, and in part on observations made
with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope obtained at the Space
Telescope Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities
for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract
NAS 5-26555. Some observations were obtained from the Hubble Legacy Archive, which is a
collaboration between the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI/NASA),
the Space Telescope European Coordinating Facility (ST-ECF/ESA) and
the Canadian Astronomy Data Centre (CADC/NRC/CSA).

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


text:
Drug Attorney on Call | Tampa | 813-222-2220 | 24/7/365
Board Certified Criminal Defense Trial Lawyer, Near Tampa, Florida defends all drug crimes, including marijuana, cannabis, grow house cases and helps with medical marijuana and drug programs. Serious charges - serious defense - fight to win Law Office of W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary, Jr.
Attorney Qualifications
Constructive Possession of Cocaine in Florida - Conviction Tossed
Constructive Possession of Cocaine
What happens in a typical Constructive of Possession of Cocaine Case in Florida?
Here are excerpts from what a constructive possession appeals court court just did in Tampa Bay, Florida:
In March 2014, Manatee County Sheriff's deputies were called to a motel in Bradenton to investigate a possible robbery. When they arrived, they encountered the victim who informed them she had been robbed by Edwards and his friend, Rachel Simms. The officers located Edwards and Simms in a motel room and interviewed them. During the investigation, the officers discovered a car key for a vehicle parked outside. One of the officers had seen Edwards sitting in the driver's seat of the vehicle a couple of hours prior to the robbery call. As a result, the officers asked Edwards for consent to search the vehicle. Edwards notified the officers that he did not own the vehicle but instead had borrowed it. The officers then obtained consent from the owner of the vehicle, but the owner advised the officers that the key found in the motel room would only work in the vehicle's ignition. It would not open the vehicle because the vehicle was equipped with a combination lock. The owner gave the officers the combination to unlock the vehicle, but the evidence reflected that Edwards knew the combination as well.
During the search of the vehicle, one of the officers located a gray canvas bag under the driver's seat. Inside that bag was a wallet that contained Edwards's identification card as well as a bail bond receipt bearing the name of "Joanne A. Simms." The robbery victim's identification card was also found in the canvas bag along with a few other items that contained no identifying information. The police report reflected that there was a smaller purple bag inside the canvas bag and inside that smaller bag was a plastic baggie containing rock cocaine. The officer who found the cocaine testified that there was indeed a purple bag inside the canvas bag despite the fact that there was no purple bag submitted into evidence at the sheriff's office.
"While this case does present circumstances that could be interpreted as incriminating, those circumstances can also be construed as being consistent with . . . innocence."
Edwards was arrested and charged with robbery with a firearm and possession of cocaine. At trial, Simms testified regarding the events leading up to and including the alleged robbery. However, her testimony revealed some inconsistencies regarding exactly when she had been inside the vehicle in question. She at first admitted going with Edwards and the victim to get cigarettes, but she subsequently denied being in the vehicle on the day of the alleged robbery. However, Edwards testified that on the relevant date, he, Simms, and the victim all got into the vehicle and went to a local convenience store to obtain cigarettes. He testified that Simms drove the vehicle there. He denied possessing the cocaine, and there was no evidence presented regarding ownership of the canvas bag or the purple bag within the canvas bag. There was also no fingerprint evidence submitted.
Edwards moved for judgment of acquittal arguing that the vehicle had been jointly occupied and that the State had failed to present independent proof that Edwards had knowledge of the cocaine and the ability to maintain dominion or control over it. He proffered that it was possible that Simms or the victim placed the cocaine in the bag. His motion was denied.
Ultimately, the jury acquitted Edwards of the armed robbery charge but found him guilty of the possession charge. He was sentenced to a suspended five-year prison sentence and placed on one year of community control followed by two years of probation. His license was also suspended, and a community service requirement was imposed.
Why did the Florida Court Reverse the Drug Crime Conviction?
We employ de novo review over the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal. See Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002). We will only reverse if the conviction is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. See id. Yet "[w]here, as here, the evidence of the defendant's guilt is entirely circumstantial, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence." Bennett v. State, 46 So. 3d 1181, 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (citing State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla. 1989)).
What does the Prosecutor Need to Prove to establish Possession of Cocaine in a Drug Crimes Case?
Here, Edwards was not found in physical possession of the cocaine and thus the State's case was predicated on constructive possession. The State was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Edwards knew of the presence of the cocaine and had the ability to exercise dominion and control over it. Bennett, 46 So. 3d at 1184; Jackson v. State, 995 So. 2d 535, 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). "The surrounding circumstances must support the inference of a 'conscious and substantial possession by the accused, as distinguished from a mere involuntary or superficial possession.' " Jackson, 995 So. 2d at 539 (quoting Reynolds v. State, 111 So. 285, 286 (Fla. 1926)). "Mere proximity to contraband, without more, is legally insufficient to prove possession." Id. (quoting Pena v. State, 465 So. 2d 1386, 1388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)).
"As our case law has made clear, a defendant's knowledge and control of contraband may be inferred where there are incriminating circumstances beyond mere proximity from which a jury could infer those elements."
The evidence failed to show that Edwards had knowledge of the presence of or had the ability to exercise dominion and control over the cocaine. Although he admitted borrowing the car, knew the combination to unlock it, and had been seen sitting in the driver's seat a couple of hours prior to the alleged robbery, he was not with the vehicle when the officers arrived. Further, there was evidence presented that Simms and the victim had been in the vehicle with Edwards that day and that Simms had actually driven the vehicle.
What happens in Drug Possession cases when the vehicle has multiple occupants?
Where the area in which drugs are found is in joint, rather than exclusive possession, a defendant's "knowledge of the contraband's presence and the ability to control it will not be inferred from the ownership but must be established by independent proof." Jackson, 995 So. 2d at 539 (quoting Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1983)). This can be done either "through 'evidence that the defendant had actual knowledge of the presence of the contraband or evidence of incriminating statements or circumstances, other than simple proximity to the contraband, from which the jury could infer the defendant's knowledge' of the contraband." Id. (quoting Wagner v. State, 950 So. 2d 511, 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)). "An inference of knowledge and dominion and control may . . . arise where the contraband located in [a] jointly occupied [area] is found in or about other personal property which is shown to be owned or controlled by the defendant." Id.
What happens in a Possession of Cocaine Case where the area that drugs were found was Jointly Occupied?
However, in this case, the cocaine was found in an area that the evidence reflected had been jointly occupied, and the cocaine was found near personal property which was shown to be owned or controlled by at least three people including Edwards. The victim's identification card was located inside the gray canvas bag, and a bail bond receipt bearing the name of "Joanne A. Simms" was found inside Edwards's wallet. Consequently, under these limited circumstances, we refuse to apply an inference of Edwards's knowledge of the presence of and dominion and control over the cocaine. Cf. Jackson, 995 So. 2d at 540-41 (holding that surrounding circumstances were sufficient for a rational jury to conclude that the drugs contained in a change purse located near the defendant were known to him and were under his dominion and control where the change purse appeared to have spilled from a larger purse, the defendant was known to carry a purse and there were no other purses in the dwelling, the defendant's identification was found inside a cigarette case that also appeared to have spilled from the purse, and there was no evidence in or around the purse or the change purse that they belonged to anyone other than defendant).
What does a Florida Court do where there is a defense based upon a jointly occupied vehicle?
This court has previously reversed a conviction based on constructive possession where a defendant was in a jointly occupied vehicle and drugs were located near his personal belongings but the items were in an area to which the other passengers had equal access.1 See, e.g., S.B. v. State, 657 So. 2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (holding that evidence was not inconsistent with the defendant's theory that someone put marijuana in his bag where the bag was located inside the trunk and the marijuana was found inside another container that was inside the defendant's bag, where multiple people had access to the bag, and where the defendant disclaimed ownership of the container). This is such a case.
What do Florida Courts do when there is a Jointly Occupied House?
Similar dispositions have occurred where drugs were found concealed near a defendant's personal property inside jointly occupied houses. See, e.g., Bennett, 46 So. 3d at 1183 (holding in relevant part that the State failed to prove constructive possession of drugs found inside a cardboard box where defendant's shirt was found because there was no evidence to prove who owned the other clothes in the box and defendant had a reasonable hypothesis that he threw his shirt on top of the box without knowing that the drugs were inside); N.K.W., Jr. v. State, 788 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding evidence was insufficient to establish constructive possession where, although drugs were found in a plastic bag inside defendant's wallet, defendant was never asked if the bag belonged to him, no fingerprints were lifted from the bag, defendant denied ownership of the bag, and multiple people had access to the room where his wallet was located); Evans v. State, 32 So. 3d 188, 189-90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that the State failed to prove constructive possession where drugs were hidden in a pain reliever bottle inside a small toiletry bag, which was itself inside a duffel bag that also contained the defendant's passport, but where no one was in actual possession of the duffel bag at the time of the search, multiple people had access to the room where the bag was found, no fingerprints were found on the duffel bag or pain reliever bottle, and no one was asked about ownership of the pill bottle).
The proximity of Edwards's identification to the purple bag in which the cocaine was concealed might be consistent with his having knowledge of the cocaine and dominion and control over it. Yet those facts are equally susceptible to the reasonable hypothesis that the cocaine was in the possession and control of Simms or the victim while they were in the vehicle and that Edwards simply threw his wallet into the gray canvas bag without knowing that the cocaine was inside. See Bennett, 46 So. 3d at 1184. Indeed, there was no evidence presented as to when the cocaine was placed in the purple bag or when the purple bag was placed inside the gray canvas bag. See Evans v. State, 32 So. 3d 188, 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (noting that presence of the defendant's passport in duffel bag suggests he placed it there, but explaining that "[s]uch an inference . . . provides no time frame with regard to when the contraband came to reside in the bag, nor any help as to appellant's present dominion over the contraband" and, therefore, the "mere presence of the passport" was insufficient to establish defendant's constructive possession). The lack of a time frame for placement of the cocaine in either bag, combined with the lack of evidence regarding ownership of either bag, the lack of fingerprint evidence, and the fact that items belonging to persons other than Edwards were also located in the gray canvas bag lead us to conclude that the State's circumstantial evidence failed to prove that Edwards was in constructive possession of the cocaine.possession of the cocaine.possession of the cocaine. While this case does present circumstances that could be interpreted as incriminating, those circumstances can also be construed as being consistent with Edwards's hypothesis of innocence.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
What does a Florida Court do where there is a defense based upon a jointly occupied house?
We emphasize that it was the combination of these factors that requires us to reverse the judgment in this case. We do not intend for this opinion to be interpreted as requiring reversal whenever drugs are located near a defendant's personal items that are commingled with personal items belonging to someone else. As our case law has made clear, a defendant's knowledge and control of contraband may be inferred where there are incriminating circumstances beyond mere proximity from which a jury could infer those elements. See Jackson, 995 So. 2d at 539.
http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Pages_2016/February/February%2012,%202016/2D15-612.pdf
Index: Constructive Possesssion, POSSESSION OF COCAINE
Location: 2102 W Cleveland St, Tampa, FL 33606, USA
Search Casey's Database
Drug Crimes Defense Attorney Tampa Reviews
"Casey's strong arguments during the hearing made all the difference ..."
Written by: Google+ User
W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary, Jr.
More Reviews are Here:
Local.com
MerchantCircle
SuperPages
Click To Call Casey
250 Ways to Go to Jail for Drug Crimes in Florida
Definitive List of Florida Drug Crimes Statutes There are 250 Ways to Go to Jail for Drug Crimes in Tampa. There are 250 types of D...
NORML Legal Committee
National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws | Tampa Florida
Our Expert
Law Office of W.F. "Casey" Ebsary Jr
I am a board certified trial expert in Tampa Florida. I defend all types of cases including DUI, drug crimes, and theft -- both felony and misdemeanor.
+ Law Office of W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr. on Google+ Visit Us
Follow Casey
Tweets by @centrallaw
Typical Drug Bust Story
Drug Crimes Possession and Distribution Drugs / Marijuana in State or Federal Court Stories of Typical Drug Busts Frequently, we...
DRUG9101 POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
Felony Drug9101 Possession of a Controlled Substance Possession Controlled Substance Possession Controlled Substance This is the ...
Drug Crimes Defense - Tampa Board Certified - 813-222-2220
Drug Crimes Lawyer Tampa "Free Phone Consultation directly with a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer" Crimina...
DRUG3912 TRAFFICKING IN ILLEGAL DRUGS 4 TO 14 GRAMS
Drug Trafficking Trafficking 4 to 14 Grams Morphine, Opium, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, Hydromorphone "shall be sentenced to a...
DRUG2103 POSSESSION OF CANNABIS LESS THAN 20 GRAMS
Possession of Cannabis Less Than 20 Grams "the possession of not more than 20 grams of cannabis , as defined in this chapte...
List of Florida Florida Forfeiture Statutes - Complete Text
Federal forfeitures are used in prosecutions of federal law violations. Florida frequently uses this tool in state statutes. Here is a li...
Warrant Arrest - Hillsborough County Search Online
Here is a great link to check for outstanding arrest warrants in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Hillsborough County Sheriff maintains th...
Florida 893 Drug Statute Constitutional Says Florida Supreme Court
Florida Drug Statute Constitutional - Breaking News Update January 24, 2014 - Florida Supreme Court approved ballot question on me...
Violation of Probation in Tampa Bay, Florida - New 1 Minute Video
Violation of Probation in Tampa Bay, Florida Violation of probation cases are usually handled by the judge or in the division that the...
Copyright 2016. Awesome Inc. theme. Powered by Blogger.