text:
New Mars Global Surveyor Images of Cydonia
In November 7, 1996, well before Mars Pathfinder had even landed at its hyperdimensional site of 19.5° x 33°, NASA had already launched its next mission to the Red Planet.
Mars Global Surveyor was the successor to the ill-fated Mars Observer, to be fitted with a slightly upgraded version of that probe's "Malin camera," designed by Dr. Michael Malin.
Malin Space Science Systems had won a new contract for the camera on MGS in a less-than-open competition. Attempts by the military team that ran the Clementine mission to the Moon to bid on the contract were rejected in a manner that one witness described as "frothing," in spite of the fact that the Clementine team's camera was superior in all respects to Malin's. So NASA asked Dr. John Brandenberg, an old colleague of Hoagland's from the early independent Mars investigations, to present the camera a second time to JPL's open bidding process.
The decision was then abruptly assigned to a "selection committee" run by JPL, who selected Malin and his camera, basically the same 1993 technology that was on Mars Observer, over the more flexible Clementine instrument, which, among other things, could be gimbaled to point at an off-nadir target, while the entire spacecraft had to be maneuvered to take such an image in the case of the Malin camera. JPL, it seemed, really wanted Malin to be the camera man for the next Mars mission.
This time however, we had reason to believe that we might finally get the images we had waited so long for. The launch of Mars Global Surveyor had followed the ritual pattern we had come to expect. As MGS pulled away from the cape, Sirius was hovering at 33° below the horizon. We hoped that this meant that MGS would be successful where Mars Observer had failed.
In fact, there was even a "double alignment" of sorts at the launch, with Orion's belt star Alnitak also at 33° below the Cydonia horizon. So we had a "hit" on the occasion of the launch at both the launch site and the anticipated target zone.
With Malin's well-demonstrated hostility toward the Cydonia issue clouding everything around the mission, Stan McDaniel's SPSR organization arranged a clandestine meeting with NASA's Dr. Carl Pilcher, the Acting Director of Solar System Studies, in November of 1997. At the meeting, which was attended by McDaniel, Carlotto and Brandenberg among others, Pilcher feigned interest and promised that Cydonia would be imaged at every opportunity during the "science mapping phase" of the mission. He later dismissed the meeting, saying he "just took the meeting to get SPSR to stop bothering us." However, in a report on the meeting made by Carlotto at a Brazilian UFO expo, there was this one intriguing nugget:
"Moreover, they said that they are in fact very interested in these objects, for two reasons. There are two groups in NASA. One group believes that [UFO researchers] are all wrong, and they want to prove it. So they want to take these pictures to prove that you're wrong, so you'll go away. The other group - and our sense is that it's a small but growing group within NASA - believes that we have some interesting data, and they want to take a closer look at it."105
Unfortunately, despite Pilcher's verbal promise that re-photographing Cydonia was now "official NASA policy," SPSR didn't get anything in writing.
As the Spring 1998 orbital insertion of MGS approached, Hoagland used the power of his appearances on Coast to Coast AM to ratchet up the pressure on NASA to formally commit to re-photographing Cydonia. He argued that Malin should not have the god-like power to decide what would be photographed, that the data stream from the Orbiter should be live, as opposed to the (up to) six months embargo period Malin was allowed under his private contract, and that Malin should be put on record as to whether he had any knowledge about Mars Observer's disappearance or possible secret resurrection.
As the public pressure mounted, Malin took to the airwaves himself in an effort to diffuse the situation and retain exclusive control over "his" instrument - which the American public had paid for.
Malin chose to give an interview to Linda Moulton Howe, a regular contributor to Coast to Coast AM. In the interview, he expressed indignance that anyone could view him as being responsible for what happened to the Mars Observer. He also went to great lengths to claim that getting an image of an object as "small" as the Face (which is about 2.5 x 2 km) was an iffy proposition at best, comparing it to winning the lottery. When Howe asked him what he would say to those that had waited for almost twenty years for new images of the region, Malin said "... all I can say is, jeez, I'm sorry, that's the reality of the thing."106
We, of course, knew this to be baloney. The targeting capability of the MGS camera was exceptional, with very little error built into the system. Malin's team had devised an excellent targeting software suite that enabled them to preselect a Face-sized target with ease.
There are two factors affecting the targeting of a specific object with the MGS camera: downtrack and crosstrack. "Downtrack" is the path back along the spacecraft orbit. "Crosstrack" is the lateral scanning normal to the spacecraft's vertical axis. Of the two, crosstrack is by far the most difficult to account for when targeting a specific object because of uncertainties in the mapping grid developed by the Rand Corporation.
However, even in the worst case scenario, the maximum crosstrack error is about 0.15 miles, or one eighth of the width of the Face itself. The downtrack error margin is significantly less than even that small distance. In the words of Stanley McDaniel's "McDaniel Report," hitting a specific target the size of the Face is "About as difficult... as hitting a door with a baseball from a distance of about one foot."
Malin's attempts to deceive the listeners with his "lottery" comments were obviously very worrisome to Hoagland and the other Cydonia researchers. In a page on his website, Malin had made his feelings plain as recently as 1995, when he stated that "no one in the planetary science community (at least to my knowledge) would waste their time doing 'a scientific study' of the nature advocated by those who believe that the 'Face on Mars' [is] artificial."
This was of course a gross misstatement of the argument. No one, not even Hoagland, had expressed a specific belief that the Face or any of the other objects at Cydonia were artificial. Although we all strongly suspected they might be, we'd merely argued that they deserved further study and should be imaged at every opportunity. But Dr. Malin had a long history of distortion and obfuscation when it came to the Face and Cydonia.
According to Vincent Dipietro, during the "Case for Mars" conference in Boulder, Colorado in 1981, Dipietro and his research partner Gregory Molenaar were audibly assaulted by Malin. Malin had set up a display table near to the one hosted by Dipietro and Molenaar, who were trying to generate interest in the Face and their image enhancement process. Every time anyone approached the table and started to look at the images of the Face, Malin picked up a megaphone and began yelling into it, creating so much noise that he was able to drive away many a curious conference-goer.
It seemed obvious that he and JPL remained extremely hostile to the idea of even trying to target the region. Further, Hoagland noted that Pilcher's promise was to target Cydonia only during the "science mapping" phase of the mission. This was key, because MGS was about to enter a prescience mapping orbit that would have it pass over Cydonia every nine days.
In March 1998, after receiving literally tens of thousands of faxes from Art Bell's Coast-to-Coast AM audience demanding that NASA take new photos at the first opportunity, NASA finally caved. In a prominent agreement, later posted on the official JPL website, the Mars Surveyor Project agreed to "announce these [Cydonia] imaging opportunities in advance..." and then "(shortly after receipt] to post the resultant images on the internet." According to the specific terms of this agreement, "we [the Mars Surveyor Project] expect that there will be widespread scientific and public interest in the new results from Mars. As such, there is a strong commitment by NASA and the MGS scientists to release data to the public on a timely basis.
The project will be releasing data shortly after receipt on the internet in a manner similar to that seen on the Clementine, Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous and Mars Pathfinder missions.
"The Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft is only able to photograph features on the surface of Mars that are directly below it as it makes each orbital pass. The spacecraft will fly directly over the Cydonia region, where enigmatic features were observed in the Viking mission, a few times during its mapping mission.
"The Mars Global Surveyor project will announce these imaging opportunities in advance and will post the resultant images on the internet.
The fax and e-mail campaign generated by Hoagland and Bell paid off a few weeks later when NASA announced its first Cydonia imaging opportunity for April 5, 1998, during the science phasing orbit period. At last it seemed we were going to get the pictures that might settle the argument once and for all.
Playing in the Catbox
In the anxious days leading up to the April 1998 imaging opportunity, NASA released even more details on the targets planned for the science phasing orbit images.
They released a list including Cydonia, the Viking 1 and 2 landing sites, and the Pathfinder landing site. If it was designed to be a run through of all of the possible "temple sites" on Mars, it could not have been more obvious.
The announcement emphasized that these sites were chosen because they could provide scientists with crucial "ground truth" measurements to compare with what they had seen from the landing sites themselves, even though they acknowledged that the Landers would not be visible.
Exactly how these images could be of any use in making such comparisons when the Landers weren't even visible escaped us, but it was certainly true that, visible Landers or not, this ritual of re-photographing the most "sacred sites" on Mars established by man could serve a powerful ceremonial function.
In keeping with Malin's previous statements, the announcement maintained the idea that actually imaging a specific target would be problematic:
"The probability that the targets of interest will be within the camera's field of view varies between thirty and fifty percent."
A further update announced that the Cydonia image would be taken on orbit 220, at 08:33 UTC (Universal Time). This gave us an excellent chance to look for alignments for that image. The first place we looked would logically be Cydonia, where the image was being taken. There were no alignments there. However, when we checked the sky over JPL, from which the command to take the image was sent, we did find a significant alignment - Sirius/Isis hovered below the JPL horizon at precisely the tetrahedral 19.5° altitude when the image was taken. So the ritual pattern continued.
Heading into the April 4 weekend, NASA announced that the Cydonia image targeting the Face on Mars would be released on Monday morning, April 6 at 10:30 a.m. PDT. Getting such a precise date and time aroused our curiosity, and as we waited over the weekend for the image to be taken, we occupied ourselves by checking the alignments for the image release.
Although there was no alignment over JPL at that time, there was a significant alignment of Orion's belt star Mintaka at 33° below the horizon at Cydonia. In addition, Mintaka was almost dead on the Meridian, making this an extraordinary "double hit" in the ritual system. We concluded after finding this alignment that we would indeed get something very significant that Monday morning.
On the morning of the sixth, we all huddled around our computers, anxiously awaiting the image release. Precisely at 10:30 a.m., in accordance with the alignments that had been established, the link appeared on our screens. When we clicked on it, we saw what we had been waiting for over two decades to see - sort of.
The image that was released was a black, grainy, essentially blank image. Was this a joke? [Fig. 6-1]
Unfortunately, it was not a joke (that was to come a few hours later). It was a raw image, supposedly of the data that had been uploaded to the spacecraft. However, even though the image was taken in the full light of mid-day, it was virtually black. This was not what anyone, even the media, had expected.
Hoagland's phone began to ring off the hook, asking him if he still "believed" in the Face on Mars and if he had any comment. He simply responded that he was disappointed with the quality of the image, since we had all been led to believe that it would be much better than Viking's raw data, when in fact it was worse. He urged caution until we saw if NASA would release a processed version later in the day.
That "processed version" came a few hours later, from JPL's Mission Image Processing Laboratory (MIPL). At last we could see enough detail to tell where in the image swath the Face actually fell.
Contrary to his previous claims about "hitting the lottery," Malin was able to nail the Face dead center in the image on his first official attempt. Rotating the spacecraft "off-nadir" as it approached Cydonia, Malin and the JPL navigators positioned the probe and its camera to capture the Face nearly perfectly. It was dead center on both the crosstrack and downtrack of the image swath. There was only one problem; not only didn't the Face look much like a face, it didn't look like much of anything [Fig. 6-2].
Instead of a high resolution overhead view of the Face, we got a low-contrast, noisy and washed-out image that was apparently taken well after MGS had passed the Face mesa. This resulted in a view that was looking up from below and dramatically to the left side. Details of the right side, previously shadowed in the Viking images, were visually compressed by perspective and hidden behind the "nose." The image swath had extended far beyond the Face to the north, showing a featureless plain, and south all the way to the D&M Pyramid, capturing almost one full corner of that enigmatic object. The image was so lacking in contrast and detail that it gave the impression of a flat, blank desert landscape, with virtually no elevation at all.
This was not what the researchers or the public had expected to see. But it was clearly what JPL and MSSS wanted the media to show them. Within an hour of the release of an image that they surely knew was far below the quality of what could be obtained from the raw data, JPL spin doctors had spread out to the various news media pronouncing the Face to be natural. Obviously working from pre-arranged talking points, these spin doctors-employees of JPL mostly - insisted that even though they were NASA scientists (and by implication smarter than most of us) they were not speaking for NASA or JPL, but only for themselves.
NASA and JPL pronounced that neither would take an official position on the image, thereby draping both organizations in a fallacious robe of objectivity. Surely, they knew what their employees were doing on their lunch hours, since it was all over the television.
The end result of this was to insulate NASA and JPL from direct criticism on the matter. Any of their employees subsequently found to have made false statements or unscientific arguments over this issue could be dismissed as "loose cannons" that acted outside the purview of their responsibilities at the agency. This meant that there could never be a second "McDaniel Report," proving NASA's complicity in a campaign of misinformation and ridicule of a scientifically testable hypothesis. At the same time NASA could then claim that it acted openly and honestly by releasing data quickly and allowing its scientists to comment on the matter.
Hoagland and the other independent researchers were caught off guard by this well-coordinated media assault against them. Still trying to process the raw image themselves and hopefully get a better version of it than had been provided by JPL, they were ill equipped to deal with the media circus around the image release. Facing deadlines, the major media couldn't wait around for Hoagland or anyone else to process a better version. When the six-o'clock news rolled around, they went with the MIPL image.
They were almost uniformly hostile. None other than brilliant planetary scientist Dan Rather pronounced it "a pile of rocks." NBC's Tom Brokaw called the image "proof of what we already knew." Only CNN's John Holliman, who had been friendly to the independent investigation over the years, was somewhat sympathetic, saying that the independent researchers needed more time to properly evaluate the image. He concluded his report by saying "NASA has always said the Face is merely a trick of light and shadow. Some trick." JPL's spin team had done the job.
Then, within three minutes of the last national six-o'clock newscast sign off, a second image suddenly appeared - again without comment - on the various NASA, MSSS and JPL web and mirror sites. The "TJP" (Timothy J. Parker) enhancement was a significant improvement over the earlier MIPL image. It contained far more contrast and detail, and less noise, than the image that had dominated the newscasts [Fig. 6-3).
Parker, a JPL geologist, had produced this second, vastly superior version of the "raw" data using mostly standard Photoshop tools, and posted his steps on the web. His version had detail that was far more visible and confirmed many Facelike features - including clearly unmistakable nostrils, of all things - but it came too late. Only after the major news organizations had broadcast their reports and made their pronouncements did this considerably improved, much more obviously Face-like image miraculously come to light. Even so, it was still improperly ortho-rectified and gave a less-than-ideal perspective on the object.
That night on Bell's show, Hoagland tried to explain all this to an obviously disappointed public. He pointed out that, given the distance the spacecraft's vertical track was from the Face, such a side-view was the best that could be hoped for. However, it wasn't necessary to have waited as long as they had to take the image, resulting in a view looking back at the Face from "below." While this angle did show some new secondary facial characteristics, such as the "nostrils," it could not be used for a realistic symmetry study that a true overhead shot might have provided.
Bell, however, was indignant at the political aspects of the day. He considered it a joke that the horrible "MIPL" version had been the only one available as the TV news had gone to air, and asked Hoagland why it might take another seven hours for Malin's team to release their "TJP" version.
Hoagland admitted that the TJP version should have only taken about thirty minutes to produce, and lamented the fact that the MIPL version made it appear that there was no "Face" at all.
"Well, looking at that image, Richard, I'd have to conclude as well that there is no Face on Mars," Bell said, "and my question now is, where the hell did it go?"
Bell summed up the MIPL image by saying that it reminded him of a pattern his kitty might scratch up in her litter box. It was from that moment forward that the MIPL image would forever be known as the "Catbox" version of the Face on Mars.
Honey, I Shrunk the Face
Within a day of the release of the new MGS image of the Face, Hoagland had become suspicious of its quality, and then reasoned that there might be a way to discern if the image had been altered or degraded.
The Mars Orbiter camera, in its "narrow-angle mode," is composed of a single line of detectors - a 2048 Element Line Scan CCD Array. The camera produces images by electronically "cross-track sampling" the array, while the physical motion of the spacecraft around the planet moves the entire line of detectors over the Martian surface at right angles to that scan (normally straight down at the planet's surface).
Inevitably, each individual CCD element in such an array possesses slightly varying sensitivity compared to its neighboring elements, across the width of the detector. Thus, any image produced by the "line-scan CCD array" will inevitably display a series of irregularly-spaced, vertical bright and dark lines - like scratches on an old print of Casablanca, stretching the length of the entire image at right angles to the scan.
Normally, these vertical irregularities are removed from the final image by appropriate computer processing; however, in "raw" or incompletely processed images, these scan lines can serve as unique detector fingerprints of that particular CCD array. No two line-scan cameras will imprint the same spacing, intensity or number of such lines on any of its images. Thus, like matching bullet markings in a murder investigation through a ballistics test, comparing lines on various CCD line-scan camera images cap uniquely determine crucial aspects of those images - including which camera took which image.
The next day, a listener named Fred Hoddick, acting on Hoagland's conversation about these CCD idiosyncrasies, discovered that the MOC indeed imprinted a unique line-scan fingerprint on every Mars Surveyor photograph.
One such image he investigated was a close-up section of the spectacular Vallis Marineris, the "Grand Canyon of Mars." In comparing the line-scan signature visible in narrow-angle image with the pattern of faint lines seen in the raw version of the MGS Cydonia image, Hoddick indeed made a major, startling discovery - the spatial dimensions of the Mars Surveyor image of Cydonia released by JPL were only half of what should have been acquired [Fig. 6-4].
When the bright, clear, full resolution image was reduced in size by 50%, its scan-line signature precisely matched that of the Cydonia raw image. Thus, the raw frame displayed on all the NASA websites only presented half the spatial data apparently originally imaged by the camera. This radically reduced the ability of image processors to detect (if not unambiguously identify) any artificial sub-structures present in the image.
When this blatant spatial image tampering is added to the extremely limited grey scale presented in the same MGS raw image (only forty-two out of a possible 256 shades of grey were present in the raw data) the result is an extremely noisy image enhancement. Because of the morning light aspect of this MGS Cydonia photograph, this reduced number of grey levels further distorted the raw Mars Surveyor Cydonia image, effectively eliminating meaningful comparisons with the previous Viking data. This comparison is further hampered by NASA's choice of the spacecraft imaging angle - oblique, as opposed to Viking's overhead frontal view.
Finally, NASA's choice of imaging enhancement tools for this bland image - high-pass filtering - further reduced the MIPL version of the Face from Mars Surveyor to a black and white "cartoon," what Art Bell termed whimsically "the Catbox image."
Michael Malin quickly responded by saying that the image was reduced in size by 50% over what could have been acquired in order to avoid a downtrack error from occurring and missing the Face. Of course, as we have already discussed, the major navigation problem with MGS was not down track, but cross track, and that error range was so slight as to be insignificant in targeting an object as large as the Face - and to extend the downrange "footprint" of the Surveyor's imaging, from slightly under seven miles to twenty-six miles, in an ostensible effort to guarantee successfully re-imaging the Face (but at the cost of cutting the surface resolution in the camera in half) simply doesn't make sense. And the spectacular success of the JPL navigation team confirms this - the actual location of the Face in the image JPL released was almost dead center of the "downrange" footprint, and just left of the east/west "cross track." (In the words of one of Malin's own associates on that Monday afternoon: "We nailed it!")
Other nagging inconsistencies also remained. If "trading off imaging resolution for a larger photographic footprint was a deliberate pre-Cydonia strategy reached by the entire project, why didn't anyone at NASA (including Michael Malin) say so before the Cydonia attempt? Why did they wait to offer an explanation for this "surprise" only after Hoagland caught them at it?
And, finally, there is the little matter of the "corrected caption" that then appeared on JPL's own website
"CYDONIA PHOTO CAPTION
"as stated on: Mon 04/06/98 10:30 AM PDT Image dimensions: 1024 x 19200 pixels, 4.42 km x 82.94 km
"This was a typographical error for which we appologize [sic]. "Actual image dimensions: 1024 x 9600 pixels, 4.42 km x 41.5 km."
Somehow, it's hard to imagine anyone typing "19200" in place of "9600," 82.94 km for 41.5 km - even in a government contracted typing pool at JPL - but if the original transmitted imaging resolution from Dr. Malin's camera was 2048 pixels across, subsequently downsized on Earth to 1024, then the corresponding down track dimension would have been precisely 19200 pixels - exactly what the original NASA caption read, exactly consistent with Hoagland's discovery that the image was somehow missing 400 percent of its expected resolution.
In other words; they did it.
Responding to the other major criticism that greeted the first raw Cydonia image - that it was simply too dark, resulting in a lack of grayscale contrast range - Malin posted data claiming that the MGS raw image in fact "wasn't all that dark..." He attempted to compare the new MOC data of Cydonia with the twenty-two-year-old Viking image histograms, insisting that in truth "the MOC data actually have more grey levels than the Viking images..." There is only one small problem with Dr. Malin's analysis - he's wrong.
The major difference is that both Viking Cydonia frames were taken in the late afternoon, with long shadows obvious in even the raw data. The MGS image was taken at 10:00 a.m. local Martian time - yet the image histograms showed more levels of gray in the Viking images than the MGS image, and all this with a camera that was on the order of ten times better than Viking's
In the end, we were forced to conclude that the supposedly raw image was a second-generation copy filled with noise and devoid of crucial detail-and an SPSR member was about to show us that the "Catbox" image was an even bigger ruse...
Unmasking the Catbox
Even as the controversy raged over the question of the raw data, other independent researchers remained focused on the MIPL, or Catbox, enhancement. However much detail and contrast had been removed from the raw data, it paled in comparison to the hatchet job done on the Face by the unnamed creator of the Catbox image. One researcher, Lan Fleming of SPSR, was also a NASA contractor by day. He spent weeks trying to recreate the Catbox image with standard software processing tools, to no avail. No matter how hard he tried, he was unable to reproduce the flat, featureless look of the "enhancement."
Then he decided to try a new combination of techniques. By first applying a high-pass filter (which removes high frequency data from an image) and then a low-pass filter (which removes low frequency data), he got very close to the Catbox look. This was also probably how so many of the gray levels were removed from the raw image presented by JPL. He then applied a noise filter, which introduced more noise into the image, to reproduce the "graininess" that was so prominent in the Catbox enhancement.
But he was still lacking a crucial "something." Fleming had noted that a boulder near the Face in the Catbox image was producing a shadow that pointed almost due north, essentially the twelve o'clock position in the image, implying that the light was coming from the six o'clock position. He knew this had to be a false shadow, since the light was coming from below the Face, in the four o'clock position, when the image was taken. He was now stuck trying to find a filter that could reproduce this effect [Fig. 6-5].
Eventually, he tried an emboss filter, a software tool that works by turning lines and edges into a relief. These edges then become illusory ridges and depressions, depending on the direction that is chosen for the false lighting. This has the effect of creating false visual cues for elevation, effectively scrambling an image to make it less visually coherent.
By adding these two additional filters, the Catbox image was revealed as a simple fraud. As Fleming put it:
"After JPL removed most of the tonal variation in the original image that gives the observer the visual cues to the real three-dimensional shape of the object, they added false visual cues to give the object its rough, jumbled appearance, inadvertently falsifying the appearance of the surrounding terrain as well... the Catbox is not a 'poor' enhancement, as it is often called; it is a crude but very effective fraud perpetrated by employees or contractors to the United States government.
Even if the Face is proven to be completely natural, this is inexcusable misconduct and a gross abuse of power.
If the Face ultimately is proven to be artificial, the Catbox will certainly come to be regarded as the greatest, most malicious and most destructive scientific hoax since the Piltdown Man, and perhaps of all time."
In other words, in order to get from the original raw MOC 22003 image to the eventual Catbox enhancement, which defined the Face to the majority of the public and academia for several years afterward, NASA/JPL/MSSS had gone to the following trouble:
Reduced the resolution of the original 2048 x 19200 image strip to 1024 x 9600, some time after acquisition of the image
Removed almost 85% of the tonal variations by using high-pass and low-pass filters on the "raw" data
After initial processing, applied another high-pass filter
Applied a noise filter to induce more noise into the image than had already been created by the previous processes
Used an emboss filter to delete visual elevation cues and induce false visual cues into the image
And all of this, just to discredit an investigation that "no one" at NASA or JPL supposedly took seriously.
Just what was it on that original raw data that was so threatening that it would require this degree of suppression? We may never know.
Over the following weeks and months, Carlotto and a whole host of amateurs performed enhancements on the new Face image.
Although hampered by the degradation of the "raw" data and the poor light and angle of the image, some remarkable work was eventually accomplished. Carlotto produced a better ortho-rectification than the NASA version, and still others produced even better versions. Eventually, the "Mark Kelly enhancement" came to be viewed as the best that could be gleaned from the limited source data.
Although hardly an ideal rendering, the new Face image at least confirmed many of the assumptions and predictions of the early independent investigations. There was indeed a "brow ridge," apparently on both sides and roughly symmetrical. The beveled "platform" upon which the Face rested could also be confirmed as being close to 98% symmetrical, a condition that was almost unheard of in any natural formation. Beyond that, there seemed to be a curled lower lip, and fairly unmistakable "nostrils" in the nose, right where they should be if they were indeed intended to represent nostrils. There was also a hint of a pupil in the eye socket.
To Dr. Tom Van Flandern, these obvious secondary facial characteristics were compelling. He argued that such features were inherently predicted by artificiality hypothesis, and that their existence represented strong enough evidence to conclude that the Face was artificial.
"The artificiality hypothesis predicts that an image intended to portray a humanoid face should have more than the primary facial features (eyes, nose, mouth) seen in the Viking images," he wrote on his website.
"At higher resolution, we ought to see secondary facial features such as eyebrows, pupils, nostrils and lips, for which the resolution of the original Viking images was insufficient.
The presence of such features in the MGS images would be significant new indicators of artificiality. Their existence by chance is highly improbable. And the prediction of their existence by the artificiality hypothesis is completely a priori.
"By contrast, the natural-origin hypothesis predicts that the 'Face' will look more fractal (e.g., more natural) at higher resolution.
Any feature that resembled secondary facial features could do so only by chance, and would be expected to have poor correspondence with the expected size, shape, location and orientation of real secondary facial features.
Any such chance feature might also be expected to be part of a background containing many similar chance features."107
He finished by saying,
"In my considered opinion, there is no longer room for reasonable doubt of the artificial origin of the face mesa, and I've never concluded 'no room for reasonable doubt' about anything in my thirty-five-year scientific career."
If Van Flandern was more than satisfied, others were not quite as enthusiastic.
Carlotto contended that the Face might be artificial, but that if it was, it was in a "highly eroded" state. Graham Hancock, a sometime Face proponent who later authored a book about Mars and the Cydonia controversy (The Mars Mystery), appeared on Coast to Coast AM a few days after the Catbox image was released and stated "I have to say, I believe that the advocates of the Cydonia hypothesis have been dealt a blow." The authors' own conclusion was that with the source data so hopelessly compromised, there was little that could be decided about the new image. Our focus had now turned forward, to the next two Cydonia imaging opportunities that were coming up. NASA, regardless of Van Flandern's protestations, had won this round. They had successfully suppressed interest in Cydonia to the point that no major media would touch the subject for the time being. What we wanted now was to get more out of the next imaging opportunities instead of arguing the last one.
On April 10,1998, a few days after the release of the Catbox image, NASA/JPL released a document on their website announcing the second set of "targeted imaging opportunities." It contained a map of Cydonia with a predicted image swath through the city, with the so-called "city square" as the primary target. The document explained that NASA had decided to ignore the Face on this second pass since it had already been "successful" in capturing the Face on the first Cydonia over-flight. While we all contested the accuracy of that statement, the question of artificiality at Cydonia had always rested on far more than the Face, and it would be good to get images of some of the other pyramidal structures and the odd, Giza Pyramid-sized mounds scattered around the Cydonia plain [Fig. 6-6].
The document also contained one specific statement, which caught our attention:
"Results of the Cydonia imaging will be posted on the internet, in the same manner as in the first observation attempt, at approximately mid-evening Pacific Time on Tuesday, April 14."
The authors immediately recognized this as an opportunity to run a true, indisputable a priori test of our ritual alignment model. Even though we had been successful in pointing out the ritual alignments on the first image release, on this occasion we did not even have a specific time for the release, just a general "mid-evening" timeframe. It was up to us to construct a falsifiable experiment that would verify our hypothesis.
Fortunately, the stars cooperated. We decided to first look at the sky over JPL, since that was where the image release was being controlled and where the servers providing the images were almost certain to be located. It didn't take us long, looking at the stars through Red Shift 2, to pin-point the timing for the image release. At 6:55 p.m. (PDT) on the anointed date, Sirius would be passing through 33°, right over JPL. This moment in turn would open up a "window" in which the three belt stars of Orion would all pass through that 33° altitude over the next ten minutes.
So we had an unmistakable opportunity to forever silence the naysayers. But we also realized that a public prediction could alter the conditions of the test, by providing a heads up to JPL that we were tracking them. We decided against a published prediction, since that would make it far too easy to delay the image release by a few minutes and scuttle our test. Instead, we decided to e-mail our prediction to specific researchers and members of the press, including Tom Van Flandern and Art Bell. We predicted an image release at 6:55 p.m. PDT, when Sirius was at 33° above the JPL horizon. Although we had the 10 minute window, we knew that we would have to pick a specific moment for the test to have complete validity. JPL did not disappoint us.
As we were watching the JPL websites, with Bara on the main JPL site and Hoagland watching the primary mirror site, we continued to refresh our browsers to insure we got the image at precisely the moment it was posted. Then at 6:55 p.m., exactly as we had predicted, the new image link appeared on the JPL main web page.
Even though we'd scored a "hit," we continued to monitor the primary JPL mirror site, which had not been updated with the new image. Then, exactly ten minutes after the image had appeared on the JPL main page, a link to the new image appeared at 7:05 p.m. PDT on the JPL mirror site. So they had released the image twice, in effect, once at the opening of the "alignment window" and once at the close. But unquestionably, undeniably, they had followed the ritual pattern.
As a side note, some months later, when reorganizing the Cydonia images under a single web page, NASA/JPL changed the release date and time stamp to show that the second Cydonia image was posted at 6:30 p.m., PDT, taking the release outside the alignment window. The authors can categorically state that this was not the case. The images were released in just the manner described above, at 6:55 and 7:05 p.m.
Even more interesting was what the image contained. Although it had missed the targeted "city square" by some two miles, the image swath managed to capture a sizable chunk of the so-called "Western Pyramid" in the City, along with some of the (remember, tetrahedrally arranged and shaped) mounds and a sizable portion of the landscape beyond the City. There were some surprises.
One of the objects in the city, the Western Pyramid, had been noted and named by architect Robert Fiertek while looking at the Viking data. At its base, just above an enclosed "courtyard," was what appeared to be a small knob that seemed possibly to be faceted, but in the original data it was not clear enough to tell for sure. In scanning the new image (which appeared on the web in both poor [MIPL] and good [TJP] versions) this "knob" stood out dramatically.
It was a pyramid [Fig. 6-7].
Indeed, not only was this knob distinctly pyramidal, it was overtly layered and faceted on all four sides, like a cross between a Mesoamerican pyramid and the structures at Giza, although it was nearly five times the scale of those Pyramids. Although collapsing on the northern side, it maintained a rigid four-sided structure that gave the impression of monumental architecture. From its southwest corner, a wall extended that terminated in a multi-tiered structure Hoagland dubbed the "Castle of Barsoom."
A fuzzy fog oddly obscured the southern and western faces, though "fog" had to be a false description, since the MGS, camera went well into the infrared and should have effectively cut any local haze. Instead, the fog seemed to be areas of the image that had unaccountably lost all contrast and detail. This is generally a characteristic of a blended, modified section of a digital image. An examination of the histogram showed major compression of grayscales in these areas.
A geometric reconstruction of the shape revealed that the best visual fit for the object was a two-tiered pyramid shape, with a 45° slope angle for the first layer and a 60° slope angle for the cap layer. Critics argued that the "Giza Pyramid" was simply a product of "mass wasting," a known geological process that results in debris piling up at the base of a mountain. However, the chances of such a pile of rocks forming themselves into a pyramidal shape with at least two obvious profile edges and two tiers sloping upward at 459 and 60° respectively, as Hoagland put it, were "pretty remote."
Then came the issue of the tetrahedrally arranged mounds of Cydonia. Two of them were captured in the new image, mound "P" and mound "O." Of the two, mound P was the most extraordinary. Not only was it a neat little wedge shape, as the image from Viking had predicted, but right next to it was something those images hadn't revealed - a hexagon [Fig. 6-8].
In fact, there were two distinct hexagons on the image swath, one next to mound P and another at the bottom of the image, in a rugged patterned area of the frame called the suburbs. Both were the size of baseball stadiums and both were unnaturally regular. Mound 0 was unfortunately just at the edge of the image swath, and although it too looked faintly hexagonal, the resolution just wasn't there to reach any definitive conclusions.
Hoagland considered the presence of hexagons on the ground at Cydonia to be especially significant. In the works of Maxwell, upon which Hoagland based his hyperdimensional model of the message of Cydonia, he postulated about the physical properties of multi-spatial dimensions and their interactions in our familiar 3D world of energy and matter.
The numbers predicted that the behavior of a spinning sphere, such as a planet, would outwell higher dimensional energies at the key tetrahedral latitude - the now-ubiquitous 19.5° connection.
A lesser-known aspect of this model was the prediction that there would be inwelling points in the system as well, and that they would be hexagonal. There had been some confirmation of this idea in images taken of Saturn and the sun. Both sets of images showed hexagonal rings of clouds around the northern poles of both bodies, making the turns at high velocity-No known physical phenomena could account for this behavior.
Further, if Hoagland and Torun had been right all along in their declaration that the arrangements of the monuments at Cydonia were intended to inculcate knowledge of tetrahedral physics to observers, then placing hexagons all around the area would be a dramatic reinforcement of that message.
The Final Image
On April 20, 1998 (yes, Hitler's birthday), NASA again posted a document announcing the third set of targeted observations of the Viking 1 and 2 landing sites, the Pathfinder landing site, and Cydonia.
Again, this process seemed to be almost ritualistic, as if they were cycling through the Martian temples one by one. This time, the release even took the care to tell us exactly what date and time each image would be taken, almost daring us to look ahead to what they were planning. Of course, we took them up on it, and although there were no significant alignments at any of the landing sites, once again the Cydonia image followed the ritual pattern with Sirius dead on the horizon from the vantage point of JPL when the image was taken.
The image itself contained even more anomalies, ranging from a flat triangular-shaped ruin that had a complex latticework of supporting struts, to rectilinear room-sized cells on the main pyramid. The triangular ruin was especially controversial, since some members of Stanley McDaniel's SPSR tried to dismiss it as an old-fashioned trick of light and shadow, while others pointed out that it pointed directly due north, quite a coincidence for a trick of shading.
The long-sought City Square was finally captured in the image. Initially, it appeared to be a set of four fairly unremarkable mounds, albeit mounds with highly unusual reflective properties. After some proper enhancement work, however, the four mounds took on a distinctly more geometric quality.
In the end, Van Flandern's assessment of the third image was perhaps the most descriptive:
"Triangles and hexagons are rarely found in satellite imagery, except at Cydonia, where they seem to be common."
Admittedly, we ended the first round of new Cydonia imaging with some very substantive evidence to support not only the artificiality hypothesis, but our ritual alignment model as well.
Still, NASA had scored a big win in the political battle with the Catbox fraud.
By deliberately manipulating the data they had managed to relieve the pressure from the mainstream media. With the Catbox as cover, they had the perfect opportunity to take their Cydonia studies back under the dark blanket of Malin's "exclusive rights" contract.
For the next couple of years, that's exactly what they did.
Chapter Six Images


We offer a restrictive scope of Ladies Slip Hanger that are made of amazing items. These can be utilized as a part of homes or attire and undergarments stores in India. These can be only planned according to the prerequisites of our customers in distinctive shapes, sizes and styles.
Looking for Household Hangers ?


text:
Notorious Armed Robbers Who Shot a Police Officer Caught in Ogun State (Photo)
Two dreaded armed robbers who shot and injured the Divisional Police Officer of Ogbere Police Division in Ogun State have been arrested on Thursday.
According to information by the police, the leader of the gang was killed during a shootout with the police. The DPO, CSP Adeyinka Akingbade, was shot after he led policemen in his division to a robbery scene at a hotel in Itele-Ijebu. He was said to have been ambushed by the robbers and shot at a close range.
The Police Public Relations Officer of the state command, Abimbola Oyeyemi, said the state Commissioner of Police, Ahmed Iliyasu, on receiving the information about the attack on the DPO, gave a marching order to the Officer-in-Charge, FSARS, DSP Uba Adam, to fish out the hoodlums within 24 hours.
"The FSARS team swung into action immediately and their effort paid off after six hours when the hideout of the robbers was located.
"On sighting the policemen, the robbers engaged them in a gun battle which lasted for about an hour. At the end of the encounter, two of the robbers, identified as Wasiu Ganiyu and Azeez Komolafe, were arrested, while the leader of the gang, known simply as Mungo Park, was shot dead. Other members of the gang escaped with bullet injuries," Oyeyemi said.
The spokesman for the police added that two AK-47 rifles with 120 rounds of ammunition were recovered at the hideout of the robbers.
The police appealed to members of the public, especially hospital workers, to report anybody seen with gunshot injuries to the police.
"He noted that the Ogbere division's DPO was one of the best performing DPOs in the command. He prayed for his quick recovery," the PPRO added.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


This page displays sold house prices for Dean Street in Telford.
Dean Street in Town Centre, Telford . Properties on Dean Street typically have values around under £100,000, with exceptional properties valued upwards of £100,000.
Map showing Dean Street in Telford.


text:
2014 Oscar Nominations and Observations
The 2014 Oscar nominations were announced a few hours ago. Going down through them I didn't see any really huge surprises among the major nominees. This is a big change from last year when the Best Director category had multiple WTFs in it. In 2013 the nominations were announced before the Golden Globes were awarded, so I couldn't do any observations there. This year they once again came after the Globes, so I will be able to have some analysis on that.
Here are the nine Best Picture nominees:
I will post reviews for as many of these movies as I can prior to the Oscar telecast on March 2nd. At this point I have seen only a few of them. I will also post my predictions in the days leading up to the ceremony. And I will have another Oscar quiz like last year's one on early films from Oscar winners. This year's quiz will be on the titles of Best Picture nominees.
Click "Read more" for a complete list of the nominees, what got the most nominations, and some other things of interest.
Most nominations among the Best Picture nominees:
American Hustle – 10
Gravity – 10
12 Years a Slave – 9
Captain Phillips – 6
Dallas Buyers Club – 6
Nebraska – 6
Her – 5
The Wolf of Wall Street – 5
Philomena – 4
Multiple nominations among other "Oscar bait" films:
Blue Jasmine – 3 (Actress, Supporting Actress, Original Screenplay)
August: Osage County – 2 (Actress, Supporting Actress)
Inside Llewyn Davis – 2 (Cinematography, Sound Mixing)
The Great Gatsby – 2 (Production Design, Costume Design)
I don't know that any of them are likely to win any of those. Last year Anna Karenina had four nominations. Does anyone even remember that there was an Anna Karenina film last year?
Mainstream movies with nominations:
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug – 3 (Visual Effects, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing)
The Lone Ranger – 2 (Makeup, Visual Effects)
Lone Survivor – 2 (Sound Editing, Sound Mixing)
Iron Man 3 – 1 (Visual Effects)
Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa – 1 (Makeup)
Prisoners – 1 (Cinematography)
Star Trek into Darkness – 1 (Visual Effects)
Last year Skyfall had five nominations. This year there's the usual assortment with a couple of technical nominations and that's it.
Best Animated, Foreign Language, or Documentary nominees with any other nominations:
Despicable Me 2 – 2 (Animated Film, Original Song)
Frozen – 2 (Animated Film, Original Song)
I will note that foreign language film The Grandmaster received two nominations for Cinematography and Costumes, but did not receive a Best Foreign Language Film nomination. None of the nominees in that category received a second nomination. Last year Amour had five total nominations.
Movies Nominated Only for Acting:
August: Osage County (Meryl Streep – Actress, Julia Roberts – Supporting Actress)
Every other film with an acting nomination also received a Best Picture nomination, except for Blue Jasmine, but it received an Original Screenplay nom. Last year three films – The Master, The Impossible, and The Sessions – received only acting nominations.
One Movie was nominated in all five major categories; plus, a bit of history – again:
Last year I wrote about how Silver Linings Playbook received nominations in all five major categories, which was rare enough, but how it received nominations in the Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress categories, too. Only Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Sunset Blvd., A Streetcar Named Desire, Network, and Reds had ever done that in the history of the Oscars. Silver Linings Playbook was written and directed by David O. Russell.
Well this year he has gone back to back. His film American Hustle has done exactly what Silver Linings Playbook did the year before and what only five films had ever done before that – receive nominations for Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Screenplay (Original), Supporting Actor, and Supporting Actress.
Out of all of those Silver Linings Playbook only won for Best Actress for Jennifer Lawrence. This year she is probably their best chance of winning again, this time in the Best Supporting Actress category.
AMPAS first expanded from five Best Picture nominees to ten for the 2010 Oscars. They must have felt that was going to be too many because it only lasted that way two years then they changed it to be "up to ten" nominees. Well, nine appears to be the magic number for them because since that change there have only ever been nine nominees for the top award each year.
Looking at the "real" Best Picture nominees (those that also received one of the five Best Director nominations) none of the remaining four – Captain Phillips, Dallas Buyers Club, Her, and Philomena – are really surprises for not being nominated for Best Director. This is a big change from last year when Ben Affleck did not receive a nomination for Argo.
Gravity is the only one of the nine Best Picture nominees that did not get nominated for either Best Original or Adapted Screenplay. This does not bode well for it. Last year Les Miserables was the only film on the outside looking in. Blue Jasmine appears to have taken Gravity's spot in the Best Original Screenplay category. Woody Allen is a perennial nominee for his writing.
In fact, most of Gravity's ten nominations are in the minor categories. "Minor" means those categories where the nominees have spent just as many years and decades as the actors/actresses perfecting their craft, but which the general movie-watching populace knows little about.
And I'm not sure why Before Midnight is in the Adapted Screenplay category other than it has characters that have appeared in two prior films. The story was written directly for the film.
Unlike the last two years where Hugo and Life of Pi each received eleven nominations without one of them being in an acting category, this year almost all the Best Picture nominees also received acting noms, including the top nomination recipients American Hustle, Gravity, and 12 Years a Slave.
Two years ago there were two nominees that separated from the rest – The Artist and Hugo. Last year the nominations were more spread out and this year continues that trend with every Best Picture nominee receiving at least four nominations.
In the Actor category things are interesting in that we've got both Matthew McConaughey and Chiwetel Ejiofor who are first time nominees, and we've got Bruce Dern who has been nominated for the first time in 35 years (since way back in 1979 for Coming Home.)
In the Actress category we've got four women who have already won an Oscar (Streep, Bullock, Dench, and Blanchett)…and Amy Adams. This is already Adams' fifth Oscar nomination, and the third in the last four years. It's the first one in the main category, though; all her prior nominations have been for Supporting Actress. Is this the year she finally breaks through and wins? She's got some tough competition.
The two prior years none of the Best Original Song nominees has come from a movie nominated for Best Animated Film. This year we get back to normal with two of the songs coming from nominated animated films.
Once again AMPAS swaps out a single nominee from the Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing nominations to try to show that they should remain separate categories, which then allows them to continue to freeze out a Best Stunt Production category. This year All Is Lost is in the Sound Editing category while Inside Llewyn Davis is in the Sound Mixing one.
Oscars to Golden Globes observations:
Among the ten Golden Globe nominated films only Rush from the drama category did not receive a similar Oscar nomination. Both winners – 12 Years a Slave (Drama) and American Hustle (Comedy) – were nominated.
All six acting winners from the Globes – McConaughey, Blanchett, DiCaprio, Adams, Leto, and Lawrence – received Oscar nominations.
Like the Oscars, the Globes only have five nominations for Best Director. They included Paul Greengrass for Captain Phillips. AMPAS swapped him out for perennial Oscar nominee Martin Scorcese.
Only two of the Globes' original song nominees received a similar honor from the Oscars – Let It Go from Frozen and Globes winner Ordinary Love from Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom.
The only Golden Globe winner from the film categories not to receive an Oscar nomination is in the Best Original Score category. All Is Lost won the Golden Globe, but didn't make the cut at the Oscars.
Here is the complete list of nominations in all twenty-four categories. I will list my picks for all of them just prior to the Oscars:
Best Animated Picture
The Wind Rises
Best Foreign Language Picture
The Missing Picture
20 Feet from Stardom
Cutie and the Boxer
August: Osage County
Martin Scorcese
Before Midnight
Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom
Saving Mr. Banks
The Grandmaster
Best Costumes
The Invisible Woman
Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa
Get a Horse!
Mr. Hublot
Cave Digger
Facing Fear
Karama Has No Walls
The Lady in Number 6
Prison Terminal: The Last Days of Private Jack Hall
Aquel No Era Yo
Do I Have to Take Care of Everything?
Just Before Losing Everything
The Voorman Problem
Labels: Movies, Movies – 2014 Oscar Nominees, Oscars
siochembio January 16, 2014 at 4:34 PM
I'm planning on seeing 12 Years and Her this weekend (once my vertigo/chronic lightheadedness/whatever the f*&#@ this is eases up), and I've already seen Philomena, Nebraska, and Hustle. I'm me, so I'm a huge Alexander Payne fan, and I was really pleased with Nebraska's 6 nominations. The cinematography nod there was surprising - well deserved, but surprising. I don't necessarily favor the film's chances, but I was very pleased to see it getting more than just a best picture or best actor nod.
I was thinking about the ending of Nebraska on my way home from work today and I almost started crying. Stoopid movie...
Chip Lary January 17, 2014 at 8:10 AM
Well, now that I know it's got a sad ending I'm not looking forward to it as much. Of course, most Oscar nominated films aren't happy ones - that's why they get nominated.
SJHoneywell January 17, 2014 at 1:26 AM
Well, I've seen exactly two of the nominees. I suppose I should get to a theater.
By my count you just had 16 more movies added to your lists. Better get cracking. For what it's worth, some of the nominees are available streaming on Netflix, although not in the major categories. The Hunt (foreign film) is one. Most of the documentaries are also available that way.
SJHoneywell January 17, 2014 at 2:57 PM
Just 14. I've reviewed both Gravity and Despicable Me 2.
TSorensen January 17, 2014 at 2:27 PM
I should get my act together and see the hunt. It is supposed to be good.
Most of the nominees will only come to the cinema here in 2014.
Chip Lary January 17, 2014 at 6:41 PM
I've had The Hunt in my Netflix Instant queue since it appeared on the IMDB Top 250 2013 year end list. Since I know I can watch it anytime, though, that means I tend to watch others first.
Movie – Her (2013)
Movie – Dallas Buyers Club (2013)
Movie – American Hustle (2013)
Movie – 12 Years a Slave (2013)
Movie – The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Movie – Captain Phillips (2013)
A Tribute to Bill Knight and The Way We Get By
Movie – Oklahoma! (1955)
Movie – Human Desire (1954)
Movie – The Big Heat (1953)
2013 – A Look Back at a Year in Movies
December Movie Status


text:
Q: Can't install the newest Wine on 18.04 So I'm operating on Ubuntu 18.04 and whenever I try to install the Wine this is what I get.
$ sudo apt-get install --install-recommends wine-stable
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 wine-stable : Depends: wine-stable-i386 (= 5.0.0~bionic)
               Depends: wine-stable-amd64 (= 5.0.0~bionic) but it is not going to be installed
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

Then when I try to add $ sudo apt-get install wine-stable-amd64 I get this.
$ sudo apt-get install wine-stable-amd64
[sudo] password for user:
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 wine-stable-amd64 : Depends: libfaudio0 but it is not installable
                     Recommends: libsdl2-2.0-0 but it is not installable
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

I'm new to Ubuntu and I am not the best with it, so I'd really appreciate some assistance with what this issue means and how to correct it.

A: Here is the Ubuntu 18.04 method of installing Wine 5.  It appears on this website.
I will detail the steps:
Enable 32 bit support:
sudo dpkg --add-architecture i386

Add repositories for Wine:
Download the GPG key of the official Wine package repository:
wget -nc https://dl.winehq.org/wine-builds/winehq.key

Add the Wine GPG key:
sudo apt-key add winehq.key

Add the official Wine package repository:
sudo apt-add-repository 'deb https://dl.winehq.org/wine-builds/ubuntu/ bionic main'

Download the OpenSUSE Wine repository's GPG key:
wget -nc https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/Emulators:/Wine:/Debian/xUbuntu_18.04/Release.key

Add the GPG key:
sudo apt-key add Release.key

Add the OpenSUSE Wine repository:
echo "deb http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/Emulators:/Wine:/Debian/xUbuntu_18.04 ./" | sudo tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/wine-obs.list

Update the APT package repository cache:
sudo apt update

You're ready to install Wine 5:
sudo apt install --install-recommends winehq-stable

Press Y and then press Enter
Once Wine 5 is installed, you can configure it.
winecfg

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


If you adore vegetables and long for a broad selection of meatless choices for lunch, you'll have the time of your life at Bacheeso's. As proclaimed by its motto, "Mediterranean Cuisine with European Touch," proprietor Amir Asli's midday buffet offers an amazing variety of such fresh-Med favorites as yellow squash soup, horiatiki salad, baba ghanoush, hummus, organic steamed vegetables, tomatoes with pesto, roasted potatoes, corn fritters, and rice pudding, with one or two carnivorous entrŽes like BBQ chicken thrown in. The all-you-care-to-eat price is $8 per person. Its bright corner location in the middle of the loft-and-workshop district of the Berkeley flats is also a plus. It even does catering. So what's not to like?


when you want utilize the computer mouse, you could get the receiver from the switch of the computer mouse.
trip or saving it away.
This Jelly Comb Whisper-quiet 2.4G Ultra Slim Portable Wireless Keyboard computer mouse has Energy Conserving feature.
when the nano-receiver separates from the computer.
will shut off and quit reacting in rest mode).
A very silent mouse and also keyboard in regards to typing which you can like as well as you enjoy the spacing format of the buttons. It makes use of a 2.4 GHz dongle to attach it to whatever computer or console you such as well as installs practically instantly just activating the mouse/keyboard combo when the dongle is energetic. When not in use you can place the dongle in all-time low of the mouse so you do not lose it. Both the keyboard and also computer mouse take x1 AA battery separately, making battery-use rarely a trouble. A truly good, simple, easy to use key-board and mouse combination. It makes a change from having a common black/grey/white set up and both things match nicely. The key-board, although smaller sized compared to a standard keyboard, does function full size tricks, just laid out in a much more reliable means to minimise squandered space. It feels strong as well as well made, and the tricks have a light yet strong feel to them. They're silent to utilize, but you know what you're typing with good feedback. Outstanding product.
The Jelly Comb Whisper-quiet 2.4G Ultra Slim Portable Wireless Keyboard is super soft to utilize as well as the mouse is truly responsive. You use them for 10 hrs a day continuesly and also they are very comfy. The Bluetooth connected instantly so you was set up within a min, so there was no shed sales as they showed up. You would certainly suggest this item and a lot of my workplace will be purchasing this collection. This is a fantastic set, both the computer mouse as well as the keyboard job well. The mouse has a quiet click which you like and also there is the 2nd number pad on the key-board. Mine was dispatched the night of buying and arrived within 2 days on common order.


The best background music is a complex matter nowadays. There is no matter if you are a professional blogger, video creator or just a person who loves to make great content, at least once you have faced the problem of how hard is to find a royalty free background music. Fortunately, we've worked hard to create this list of 10 best background songs for you, but first, let's clarify what exactly royalty free background music means.
Saying briefly, Royalty Free Music is a type of music licensing that permit the buyer to pay for this license only one time and to use it for as long as he wants. Factly, Royalty Free means a "Free of Royalty" for someone it could be a bit confusing. This term is in opposition to "rights managed" licensing where the buyer pays "royalties" (fees) according to the number of times it would be used as well as the size of the area. With RML (rights managed licensing) or "Needle Drop" licensing you will have to pay a fee each time the music is used or as the saying goes "Needle is dropped" on the record.
– Royalty Free Music is NOT free!
This happy background music would be good for any type of projects. It would fit "Top 5…" videos, slideshows or any kind of informational video content.
This music could be used for videos with serious or sad content. It also would be a great fit for "Top.." scary videos.
This is a great choice for extreme, prank or workout videos. Would be also good for happy "Top" videos.
Excellent music for romantic or sad videos. Could be also used for movie teasers and trailers.
This music is great for "Relaxing" videos like views of nature, incredible landscapes or even travelling.
Epic upbeat music is good for prank videos or any extreme, shocking content.
Good for any sorts of videos or content that is related to a happy mood.
This type of music would be a great choice for History Videos or anything related to this.
Would be awesome for prank videos.
Great choice for informative historical videos.
So, that was the best background music that you can use in any type of projects. If you're interested in the quality of our music, feel free to go over the samples here so that you can get a feel for what to expect. Each category of music has a range of samples available so that you can test out a track and see if it's a fit for your content before you purchase it.


text:
#ifndef QTAV_MediaIO_P_H
#define QTAV_MediaIO_P_H

#include "QtAV/QtAV_Global.h"
#include "QtAV/private/AVCompat.h"
#include <QtCore/QString>
#include "QtAV/MediaIO.h"

namespace QtAV {

class MediaIO;
class Q_AV_PRIVATE_EXPORT MediaIOPrivate : public DPtrPrivate<MediaIO>
{
public:
    MediaIOPrivate()
        : ctx(0)
        , mode(MediaIO::Read)
    {}
    // TODO: how to manage ctx?
    AVIOContext *ctx;
    MediaIO::AccessMode mode;
    QString url;
};

} //namespace QtAV
#endif // QTAV_MediaIO_P_H

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Mt. A rebuffs a request for lead negotiator's pay
Kevin Levangie
Mount Allison University has refused The Argosy's request for payment invoices to their chief negotiator during the faculty labour dispute. Halifax-based lawyer Brian Johnston of Stewart McKelvey was the chief negotiator for the university side in the contract negotiations, which lasted from July 4, 2013, to Feb. 16, 2014.
The Argosy filed the request on Feb. 4 under New Brunswick's right to information legislation. As the university is a public institution in the province, the act allows individuals to request files of the university by submitting a form to David Stewart, Mt. A's vice-president administration.
Stewart replied to the request in a Feb. 14 letter to The Argosy, which stated: "[The] invoices are subject to solicitor client privilege and therefore I refuse to provide you with access to them under section 27(1)(a) of the Act."
Section 27 of the Right to Information Act covers under what circumstances the public body may choose to deny an applicant the information she or he requested. Section 27(1)(a) of the act reads: "The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant (a) information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege."
According to the Canadian Bar Association, solicitor-client privilege applies to communication between a lawyer and client for the purpose of legal advice. The privilege is the client's, who may voluntarily disclose the information.
While Stewart is not the head of Mt. A, the letter notes that University President Robert Campbell has delegated all "his duties and powers under the Act with the exception of the power to delegate."


text:
Plastic trash in the ocean is a global problem, and the US is the top source—a new report urges action
A study published in 2020 that concluded that the U.S. is the largest global source of plastic waste, including plastics shipped to other countries that later are mismanaged.
Matthew Savoca, Anna Robuck and Lauren Kashiwabara
SOURCEThe Conversation
Image Credit: Newburgh Gazette
Plastic waste of all shapes and sizes permeates the world's oceans. It shows up on beaches, in fish and even in Arctic sea ice. And a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine makes clear that the U.S. is a big part of the problem.
As the report shows, the U.S. produces a large share of the global supply of plastic resin—the precursor material to all plastic industrial and consumer products. It also imports and exports billions of dollars' worth of plastic products every year.
On a per capita basis, the U.S. produces an order of magnitude more plastic waste than China—a nation often vilified over pollution-related issues. These findings build off a study published in 2020 that concluded that the U.S. is the largest global source of plastic waste, including plastics shipped to other countries that later are mismanaged.
And only a small fraction of plastic in U.S. household waste streams is recycled. The study calls current U.S. recycling systems "grossly insufficient to manage the diversity, complexity and quantity of plastic waste."
As scientists who study the effects of plastic pollution on marine ecosystems, we view this report as an important first step on a long road to reducing ocean plastic pollution. While it's important to make clear how the U.S. is contributing to ocean plastic waste, we see a need for specific, actionable goals and recommendations to mitigate the plastic pollution crisis, and would have liked to see the report go further in that direction.
Plastic is showing up in seafood
Researchers started documenting marine plastic pollution in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Public and scientific interest in the issue exploded in the early 2000s after oceanographer Charles Moore drew attention to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch—a region in the central north Pacific where ocean currents concentrate floating plastic trash into spinning collections thousands of miles across.
More plastic garbage patches have now been found in the South Pacific, the North and South Atlantic, and the Indian Ocean. Unsurprisingly, plastic pervades marine food webs. Over 700 marine species are known to ingest plastic, including over 200 species of fish that humans eat.
Humans also consume plastic that fragments into beverages and food from packaging and inhale microplastic particles in household dust. Scientists are only beginning to assess what this means for public health. Research to date suggests that exposure to plastic-associated chemicals may interfere with hormones that regulate many processes in our bodies, cause developmental problems in children, or alter human metabolic processes in ways that promote obesity
Scientists estimate that if plastics continue to enter the ocean at current rates they will outweigh fish by 2050.
A need for a national strategy
The new report is a sweeping overview of marine plastic pollution, grounded in science. However, many of its conclusions and recommendations have been proposed in various forms for years, and in our view the report could have done more to advance those discussions.
For example, it strongly recommends developing a national marine debris monitoring program, led by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's Marine Debris Program. We agree with this proposal, but the report does not address what to monitor, how to do it or what the specific goals of monitoring should be.
Ideally, we believe the federal government should create a coalition of relevant agencies, such as NOAA, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health, to tackle plastic pollution. Agencies have done this in the past in response to acute pollution events, such as the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, but not for chronic problems like marine debris. The report proposes a cross-government effort as well but does not provide specifics.
In 2019 volunteers for the nonprofit Surfrider Foundation removed nearly 300,000 pounds of trash from U.S. beaches, nearly all of it plastic. Surfrider Foundation, CC BY-ND
An underfunded problem
Actions to detect, track and remove plastic waste from the ocean will require substantial financial support. But there's little federal funding for marine debris research and cleanup. In 2020, for example, NOAA's Marine Debris Program budget request was $US7 million, which represents 0.1% of NOAA's $5.65B 2020 budget. Proposed funding for the Marine Debris Program increased by $9 million for fiscal 2022, which is a step in the right direction.
Even so, making progress on ocean plastic waste will require considerably more funding for academic research, nongovernmental organizations and NOAA's marine debris activities. Increased support for these programs will help close knowledge gaps, increase public awareness and spur effective action across the entire life cycle of plastics.
One way to address marine plastic waste is to capture it before it enters the ocean. Mr. Trash Wheel, a solar-powered semi-autonomous trash interceptor, removes floating debris from Baltimore's Inner Harbor.
Corporate responsibility and equity
The private sector also has a crucial role to play in reducing plastic use and waste. We would have liked to see more discussion in the report of how businesses and industries contribute to the accumulation of ocean plastic waste and their role in solutions.
The report correctly notes that plastic pollution is an environmental justice issue. Minority and low-income communities are disproportionately affected by many activities that produce plastic waste, from oil drilling emissions to toxic chemicals released during the production or incineration of plastics. Some proposals in the report, such as better waste management and increased recycling, may benefit these communities—but only if they are directly involved in planning and carrying them out.
[Over 140,000 readers rely on The Conversation's newsletters to understand the world. Sign up today.]
The study also highlights the need to produce less plastic and scale up effective plastic recycling. More public and private funding for solutions like reusable and refillable containers, reduced packaging and standardized plastic recycling processes would increase opportunities for consumers to shift away from single-use disposable products.
Plastic pollution threatens the world's oceans. It also poses direct and indirect risks to human health. We hope the bipartisan support this study has received is a sign that U.S. leaders are ready to take far-reaching action on this critical environmental problem.
Matthew Savoca, Postdoctoral researcher, Stanford University; Anna Robuck, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and Lauren Kashiwabara, Master's Degree Student in Biological Sciences, University of the Pacific
Previous articleOverturning Roe v. Wade isn't just about abortion
Next articleThe Donald also rises?
Matt Savoca holds a Ph.D. in Ecology from UC Davis. He is currently an NSF postdoctoral research fellow at the Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford University. His research interests include foraging ecology, sensory ecology, community ecology, and conservation biology. Originally from New York City, Matt enjoys traveling and photography in his spare time. Dr. Robuck is an environmental chemist studying chemical and plastic pollution as a postdoctoral research fellow at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai. She earned a Ph.D. in Chemical Oceanography in 2020 from the University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography, during which she studied per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and plastic pollution in water and wildlife. Her dissertation was supported by the highly selective NOAA Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship, the ORISE Research Fellowship within the US EPA, and a traineeship in the NIEHS Superfund Research Program. Robuck has received recognition for her expansive thinking to marine pollution and PFAS, including the NIEHS KC Donnelly Externship (2020), the Robert and Patricia Switzer Foundation Environmental Leadership Fellowship (2019), and the American Chemical Society Environmental Chemistry Graduate Student Award (2020). Dr. Robuck also holds a BS in Marine Biology and Chemistry, and a MSc in Marine Science and GIS, both from the University of North Carolina Wilmington. Lauren Kashiwabara is a graduate student pursuing my dreams of becoming a marine biologist. My college endeavors have included various marine science research experiences (listed below). My true passion is in changing the world through climate change research and education.
15-minute tumble dry can release hundreds of thousands of microfibers into the air
Biden administration reverses Trump-era policy that opened new oil development in Arctic Alaska
Why words matter in the fight against climate change
Living closer to oil and gas drilling linked to higher risk of pregnancy complications, new study finds
2021's biggest climate and weather disasters cost the U.S. $145 billion – here's what climate science says about them in 5 essential reads
Department of Interior announces protection of more than 351,000 acres of Chaco Canyon
EPA's first new air pollutant addition in 30 years reveals agency failings: Critics
Too harmful: The march of salt and plastics on world soils
How grassroots energy projects are taking back power from utility companies
Prosecutor sought funding from oil giant Enbridge to jail line 3 water protectors: report
What will we remember of 2022?


The students in Technion MBA program are diverse in their backgrounds, their interests, and their professions but they share a desire to develop the skills they'll need to achieve their professional goals.
Some want to start a new venture. Others want to switch careers entirely. Many want to accelerate their current career. We provide all of our MBA students with the strong functional knowledge and insight needed to navigate change, identify new opportunities for growth, and motivate teams in a common purpose to impact the business world around the world.


Luciano Hiwat aka Lil Blade is a 11 year old multi talented boy coming out of Rotterdam (the Netherlands). Already at the age of 3 Luciano started to breakdance , skateboard and do capoeira. In 2008 Luciano competed in the television show "Holland Got talent" and made it to the semi finals. Luciano's career really took of in 2010 when he entered the Dance competition "Move Like Michael Jackson" on prime-time TV. Luciano being a big "Michael Jackson" fan stunned the world with his authentic dance moves and even got tears to the eyes of Move like Michael Jackson jury member Jermaine Jackson , saying Luciano remembered him of his brother the late Michael Jackson. Also the other Move Like Michael Jackson jury-members Lavelle Smith Junior (choreographer/dancer on the Michael Jackson tours) and "This Is It" casting director Mark Summers couldn't believe how "big" this small boy's dance talent really was. Luciano went on to the Move Like Michael Jackson finals and won the competition! Mark Summers realised that this victory could be the start of a mega career for Luciano and he contacted manager Peter Muls from Absolute P Entertainment (50/50 Konvict Muzik , Akon) and asked him to guide Luciano and his mom Lucinda on their quest to greatness. Peter asked Luciano what he really wanted to do, dance , sing ,act? Luciano answered that he really wanted to be a alround artist , dance like Michael Jackson , sing like Justin Bieber and act like Jaden Smith! In the beginning of 2011 Luciano signed his first record deal with Mostiko Record and not much later Luciano got casted for a role in the movie "Body Language" , playing Bobby. Luciano released a single in October 2012. Dreams do come true when you are a dedicated , hard working artist like Luciano !


Argentina will depend on the performances of their star forward Lionel Messi at the World Cup, but he insists he is just another player.
Argentina striker Gonzalo Higuain told ESPN confirmed reports the game had been cancelled following political pressure and said: "They've finally done the right thing". Let us know in the comments section below.
"Values, morals and sport have secured a victory today and a red card was raised in Israel through the cancellation of the game", said chairman Jibril Rajoub, quoted by Reuters news agency.
Israeli media said that late Tuesday Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Argentine President Mauricio Macri, with whom he has good relations, in an effort to save the match but that Macri had said he was unable to intervene. However, Guatemala and Honduras followed the U.S. head in moving their embassies last month.
President Reuven Rivlin issued a statement Wednesday afternoon, saying, "The politicization in the Argentinian decision is of great concern".
The Palestinian FA also threatened to torpedo Argentina's bid to host the 2030 World Cup finals.
"We are seeing it as crossing a red line and we can not accept it", he said. Israel regards Jerusalem as its "eternal and undivided" capital.
"I stressed that the game, in the wake of the killing of the Palestinians in Gaza and the relocation of the USA. embassy to Jerusalem, sends a unsafe message to the Israeli government that the world ignores its gross human rights violations". The Palestinians claim east Jerusalem as the capital of a future state.
Claudio Tapia, president of the Argentine Football Association, apologised for cancelling the match but said the safety of the players was at stake.
Argentina's next match is now slated to be their World Cup Group D opener against Iceland on June 16, with Messi and his team-mates having only played one warm-up match - a 4-0 win over Haiti on May 30.
"Argentina is going to play on an occupied land of Palestine, so it should bear the diplomatic and sporting consequences; the occupying state has hundreds of stadiums but choosing one in the (Palestinian) village of al-Malha with Messi participating is a propaganda work to demonstrate Israeli right to Jerusalem".


text:
Hispanic dating a black girl
FAQ – Radioactive Age-Dating
Posted By: June 30, 2019
Potassium-Argon Dating Methods
Radiometric Dating and the Passage of Time
Potassium argon dating definition
Potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating
Dating method of rocks
Rubidium-strontium, uranium, and thorium-lead dating of lunar material
Abstract Details
Relative and Absolute Dating
Subscriber Account active since. While their hot-and-heavy relationship seemingly appeared out of nowhere, the two musicians have been friends for years. In the months that followed their October debut as a couple, they got matching tattoos and packed their Instagram feeds with PDA-filled photos. In August , Cyrus confirmed that she and Simpson had called it quits after 10 months of dating but remain friends. I knew all the words to her songs. I'm not going to lie. I'm not ashamed about it at all," he said during an interview with Fuse. He continued, "I was a big Miley Cyrus fan.
Petrology Tulane University Prof. Stephen A. Nelson Radiometric Dating Prior to the best and most accepted age of the Earth was that proposed by Lord Kelvin based on the amount of time necessary for the Earth to cool to its present temperature from a completely liquid state. Although we now recognize lots of problems with that calculation, the age of 25 my was accepted by most physicists, but considered too short by most geologists.
But micas, plagioclase, hornblende, clays, and other minerals can yield good data, as can whole-rock analyses. Young rocks have low levels of.
Using Index Fossils Lab Answer Key 9 shows the Lewis symbols for the elements of the third period of the periodic table. CER-based narratives are set up in a paragraph form usually sentences in length. OBJECTIVE: Using cross sections you will infer the logical sequence of geologic events and establish relative age for a series of rock layers for one or many different locations. National Biotechnology Standard s : BT. Key Takeaways Key Points. The lab next week on the classification and evolution of organisms involves three exercises.
For fossils to form, the remains must be covered quickly by Index fossils; Half-lives; 4. That every school child, regardless of location, background or ability should have the pleasure. Search for two web sites that support the continued use of atrazine and two web sites opposed to its continued use.
Patterns of Evolution See more ideas about Earth science, Earth and space science, Earth science lessons. From fossil evidence, it appears that life may have existed on Earth as early as 3. There are two basic approaches: relative geologic age dating, and absolute geologic age dating.
Potassium argon dating definition Meaning of two dating definition geology – rich man and translations of an important radioactive potassium is melted, mainly devoted to the time of ages. Other dating methods, by geochristian. Measurement of the mineral. Video shows what potassium-argon dating mean? Early geologists, Dating is used to estimate the geologic time scale.
Sieved Matrix Ages To test the accuracy of whole-rock ages, we employed a third dating strategy (Olson, ) at one field site (Fig. 2, Site 13). The age of.
Some dating that occur in the dates for 60, more than ten years. As uranium in their both methods have led a lady. Coverage of old-earth geology rely on the atoms occurs in units called a method depends in determining the abundance ratio of a rock samples definition. Like a fairly precise age of k. Each stop with radiometric dating of elements such as uranium in them. At about the solidity of rock layers all rocks from solidified lava.
An age of these minerals using some examples of an age determinations in radioactive dating. Recognition that occur in the. For dating methods, etc.
Potassium has three naturally occurring isotopes: 39 K, 40 K and 41 K. The positron emission mechanism mentioned in Chapter 2. In addition to 40 Ar, argon has two more stable isotopes: 36 Ar and 38 Ar.
Carbon is known as potassium-argon dating has long focused on rock dating is It is a method theoretically overcomes the whole radiometric dating of.
Whole-rock samples from different parts of the same body generally differ in rubidium content and the 87 Sr: 86 Sr ratio of each can be plotted as a function of its 87 Rb: 86 Sr ratio in an isochron diagram. At the time of the initial crystallization different parts of the sample, regardless of rubidium concentration, would have had the same 87 Sr: 86 Sr ratio and hence plot as a horizontal line.
With the passage of time 87 Rb would be lost and corresponding amounts of radiogenic 87 Sr gained. As the 87 Sr: 86 Sr ratio changes in each part of the rock, the slope of the isochron increases progressively, providing a measure of the age of the crystallization. The intercept of the isochron at the ordinate indicates the isotopic composition of common strontium at the beginning of the process. August 11, Retrieved August 11, from Encyclopedia.
Then, copy and paste the text into your bibliography or works cited list. Because each style has its own formatting nuances that evolve over time and not all information is available for every reference entry or article, Encyclopedia. Science Dictionaries thesauruses pictures and press releases whole-rock dating. Cite this article Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.
Learn more about citation styles Citation styles Encyclopedia.
The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do the words of this law. Deuteronomy Most readers appreciate the hard science, but many have struggled with the equations. The purpose of this series is to demonstrate in no uncertain terms that these dating methods do not prove that Earth is millions or billions of years old, as is often reported.
Radiometric dating of minerals in metamorphic rocks usually indicates the age of An alternative method is whole-rock dating, in which samples from different.
Radioactive dating is a method of dating rocks and minerals using radioactive isotopes. This method is useful for igneous and metamorphic rocks, which cannot be dated by the stratigraphic correlation method used for sedimentary rocks. Over naturally-occurring isotopes are known. Some do not change with time and form stable isotopes i.
The unstable or more commonly known radioactive isotopes break down by radioactive decay into other isotopes. Radioactive decay is a natural process and comes from the atomic nucleus becoming unstable and releasing bits and pieces. These are released as radioactive particles there are many types. This decay process leads to a more balanced nucleus and when the number of protons and neutrons balance, the atom becomes stable. This radioactivity can be used for dating, since a radioactive 'parent' element decays into a stable 'daughter' element at a constant rate.
For geological purposes, this is taken as one year. Another way of expressing this is the half-life period given the symbol T. The half-life is the time it takes for half of the parent atoms to decay. Many different radioactive isotopes and techniques are used for dating.
Here's why New Wrangler will offer alternative powertrains, but don't hold your breath for them to arrive anytime soon Al Fossils are the remains of ancient life that are usually buried in rock. Index Fossil Worksheet Answer Key The second set of diagrams identifies four types of index fossils and shows four columns of fossil bearing rock strata. We can then trace back that California used to be attached next to Nevada because of the where we've found the plant fossil.
By doing Fossil record answer this interactive quiz and the following drawings and relative dating worksheet answer key dating. Key of their relative dating of a fossil record activity of a answer of absolute dating worksheet answers pdf the fossil record? Fossils Key Concept What are fossils, and how do they form?
Despite these difficulties associated with whole rock dating of low-grade metamorphic volcaniclastic and metasedimentary rocks, renewed efforts were made to.
Thank you for visiting nature. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer. In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript. Here we report the first direct dating of the depositional age of a sedimentary carbonate rock using long-lived radioactive decay schemes.
Wilson, J. Bull 62 Publs geol.
Figure 9. Certain elements like uranium, radium and other elements are unstable and have the tendency to spontaneously disintegrate, forming an atom of a different element and emitting radiation in the process. The atomic number of the isotope is decreased by two and the atomic weight is decreased by four. The atomic number increases by one, but there is no change in the atomic weight.
Rock shelters in Laos near the Tham Doun Mai cave where about that whole period across Eurasia and certainly Southeast Asia. The fact.
A relative age simply states whether one rock formation is older or younger than another formation. The Geologic Time Scale was originally laid out using relative dating principles. The geological time scale is based on the the geological rock record, which includes erosion, mountain building and other geological events. Over hundreds to thousands of millions of years, continents, oceans and mountain ranges have moved vast distances both vertically and horizontally.
For example, areas that were once deep oceans hundreds of millions of years ago are now mountainous desert regions. How is geological time measured? The earliest geological time scales simply used the order of rocks laid down in a sedimentary rock sequence stratum with the oldest at the bottom. However, a more powerful tool was the fossilised remains of ancient animals and plants within the rock strata. After Charles Darwin's publication Origin of Species Darwin himself was also a geologist in , geologists realised that particular fossils were restricted to particular layers of rock.
This built up the first generalised geological time scale. Once formations and stratigraphic sequences were mapped around the world, sequences could be matched from the faunal successions. These sequences apply from the beginning of the Cambrian period, which contains the first evidence of macro-fossils. Fossil assemblages 'fingerprint' formations, even though some species may range through several different formations.
Here I want to concentrate on another source of error, namely, processes that take place within magma chambers. To me it has been a real eye opener to see all the processes that are taking place and their potential influence on radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is largely done on rock that has formed from solidified lava. Lava properly called magma before it erupts fills large underground chambers called magma chambers.
Most people are not aware of the many processes that take place in lava before it erupts and as it solidifies, processes that can have a tremendous influence on daughter to parent ratios.
While radiometric dating-the process of rocks formed, but because the accuracy of the radioactive isotopes of elements used to heat. Whole-Rock samples can.
How do scientists find the age of planets date samples or planetary time relative age and absolute age? If carbon is so short-lived in comparison to potassium or uranium, why is it that in terms of the media, we mostly about carbon and rarely the others? Are carbon isotopes used for age measurement of meteorite samples? We hear a lot of time estimates, X hundred millions, X million years, etc. In nature, all elements have atoms with varying numbers of neutrons in their nucleus. These differing atoms are called isotopes and they are represented by the sum of protons and neutrons in the nucleus.
Let's look at a simple case, carbon. Carbon has 6 protons in its nucleus, but the number of neutrons its nucleus can host range from 6 to 8. We thus have three different isotopes of carbon: Carbon with 6 protons and 6 neutrons in the nucleus, Carbon with 6 protons and 7 neutrons in the nucleus, Carbon with 6 protons and 8 neutrons in the nucleus. Both carbon and carbon are stable, but carbon is unstable, which means that there are too many neutrons in the nucleus.
Carbon is also known as radiocarbon. As a result, carbon decays by changing one proton into a neutron and becoming a different element, nitrogen with 7 protons and 7 neutrons in the nucleus.
Mid-Miocene cosmogenic upper limit for 10Be/21Ne burial
Oakley offloads controlling share of German dating service
Chronological dating
Trust Exercises
Teen Dating & Relationships
Browse Finland Christian Singles by Province/State:
Matchmaking Buckinghamshire
Free christian dating sites in uganda
Private dating scan stockport
FrançaisEnglishTürkçe中文(简体)LëtzebuergeschDeutschDanskSvenska日本語SuomiPortuguêsEesti keelΕλληνικάItalianoMagyarPolskiNorskNederlandsČeštinaEspañolالعربية