He will stay. He needs to be in a position to destroy Truss in HoC if it all goes utterly pear shaped, and he needs to keep all options open.
I suspect you are correct.
A handful of months on the back benches and a VONC on the hapless Truss, and Johnson returns, stronger faster, fitter. All his misbehaviour will have been purged and BigDog is saved again.
Critically, it doesn't have to make sense to the Conservative Party, Liz Truss, or the rest of the country.
It only has to make sense in Big Dog's imagination.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
I'm suspicious of those branches at the top: suggests they've hung something - perhaps some symmetrical stone object - from them with transparent thread.
If you were going to hang something, you'd make very sure there was no visible means of support, surely!
Anyway, here's a cropped picture of Schiehallion (being a suitable hill for an EXPERIMENT) in a cloud inversion. I took this in January, not August, but you get the idea. The location is only a few miles from Calvine (in the Drumochter hills).
Even with a serious overexposure I think you'd struggle to get something similar to the mystery image.
I still think it is a reflection but am prepared to be convinced.
I totally understand the obsession with ALIENS. Are we alone? It is a fundamental question which will shape how we see the universe if it can ever answered in the negative.
I doubt we'll discover them in this way, though.
The mountain top/stone in loch theories ignore the backstory to the photo. They would be great if there were none, and this was just a photo of unknown provenance bought at a car boot sale. But there is, there's the statement of the guys who took the photo (or at least provided it) who say it was a thing in the sky, which shot upwards after 10 minutes. So if they are lying, what's the theory? That a stone in a loch is the best way of faking the UAP or that they took a picture of an uninteresting lochstone and later looked at it and said Hey, that looks like a spaceship? Neither sems likely. The photo is 1 of 6 by the way, so the mountain in clouds claim looks a non starter unlessly they were spookily static clouds.
What it is, it's the USAF Aurora project.
There is also the plentiful evidence that the MoD took this seriously, and decided the photos showed a real object, hanging in the sky. Not a rock or a mountain
Nick Pope has been a much derided figure in Fortean UFOlogical circles, but he has been adamant for years that these photos existed and they were lost/hidden, and after all that derision, here indeed is one of the photos, and it is a very close match to what he has described all along. He's been entirely consistent. He is vindicated
He is particularly interesting because, in his opinion and those of some colleagues- it seems - this is NOT American tech
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
That’s always been the case since the UK joined the EU .
EU nationals overall were a positive for the treasury , they were more likely to be younger and fitter and in well paid jobs .
Non EU nationals were a negative for the treasury especially as family reunion was a larger part of those coming and they brought older family members who took up more resources.
All the UK has done is replace EU nationals with non EU ones from countries which didn’t reciprocate any freedom of movement rights so in effect UK citizens lost their chance to live in 27 other countries and ended up with more immigration .
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot . It’s noticeable now how quiet the right wing press are about current levels of immigration , seeing as they went full on with the anti EU hate , clearly highlighting how they duped their readers is something they want to avoid !
Sorry but you're mixing up a few myths to put together into a case you want to make.
Each individual can be net positive or net negative for the Treasury, to lump together all of a nationality together and claim what's true for some is true for all is what could be termed 'racism'.
Some EU nationals were a net positive being young and fit and in well paid jobs. Some EU nationals were a net negative being unskilled who came to work in minimum wage jobs as it was better than their minimum wage.
Some non-EU nationals were net negative engaging in family reunion etc Some non-EU nationals were net positive being young and fit and skilled etc
What's changed post-Brexit is we've tightened up rules on unskilled Europeans coming her to work minimum wage jobs (so skilled Europeans can still get a visa) while loosening restrictions on skilled non-Europeans who were struggling to get a visa in the past.
If that means more skilled non-Europeans compensating for fewer less skilled EU nationals then that is a net improvement and will see the net compensation to the Treasury for both groups improving potentially as the skilled Europeans are no longer deflated by their unskilled counterparts, while skilled non-Europeans have an easier route in which they were blocked from in the past.
Win/win, best of both worlds. Unless you're a racist who wants to keep out non-Europeans.
Not sure Leavers should be accusing Remainers of being racist! The Leave campaign won because of anti immigrant rhetoric pushed by people like Farage and the cesspit right wing press . I’m pro immigration and was merely pointing out what the treasury figures showed and the irony of those voting leave who were duped into voting for a lie .
I'm pro-immigration too and the notion that Brexit was a good idea as it would lead to less racist immigration policies treating people from around the globe more equally rather than being biased towards Europeans was a common notion being spread by a certain strand of positive Brexiteer.
Those who voted for that, like me, have got exactly what we voted for.
Those who are now saying "Brexit means more non-Europeans and that's bad" are being racist.
No they aren't. There's all sorts of non racist reasons why you might want to skew your immigration to Europe. Stealing doctors and nurses from sub Saharan Africa, for instance, is deprecated by those who have any concern for the wellbeing of sub Saharan Africans.
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
That’s always been the case since the UK joined the EU .
EU nationals overall were a positive for the treasury , they were more likely to be younger and fitter and in well paid jobs .
Non EU nationals were a negative for the treasury especially as family reunion was a larger part of those coming and they brought older family members who took up more resources.
All the UK has done is replace EU nationals with non EU ones from countries which didn’t reciprocate any freedom of movement rights so in effect UK citizens lost their chance to live in 27 other countries and ended up with more immigration .
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot . It’s noticeable now how quiet the right wing press are about current levels of immigration , seeing as they went full on with the anti EU hate , clearly highlighting how they duped their readers is something they want to avoid !
Sorry but you're mixing up a few myths to put together into a case you want to make.
Each individual can be net positive or net negative for the Treasury, to lump together all of a nationality together and claim what's true for some is true for all is what could be termed 'racism'.
Some EU nationals were a net positive being young and fit and in well paid jobs. Some EU nationals were a net negative being unskilled who came to work in minimum wage jobs as it was better than their minimum wage.
Some non-EU nationals were net negative engaging in family reunion etc Some non-EU nationals were net positive being young and fit and skilled etc
What's changed post-Brexit is we've tightened up rules on unskilled Europeans coming her to work minimum wage jobs (so skilled Europeans can still get a visa) while loosening restrictions on skilled non-Europeans who were struggling to get a visa in the past.
If that means more skilled non-Europeans compensating for fewer less skilled EU nationals then that is a net improvement and will see the net compensation to the Treasury for both groups improving potentially as the skilled Europeans are no longer deflated by their unskilled counterparts, while skilled non-Europeans have an easier route in which they were blocked from in the past.
Win/win, best of both worlds. Unless you're a racist who wants to keep out non-Europeans.
Not sure Leavers should be accusing Remainers of being racist! The Leave campaign won because of anti immigrant rhetoric pushed by people like Farage and the cesspit right wing press . I’m pro immigration and was merely pointing out what the treasury figures showed and the irony of those voting leave who were duped into voting for a lie .
I'm pro-immigration too and the notion that Brexit was a good idea as it would lead to less racist immigration policies treating people from around the globe more equally rather than being biased towards Europeans was a common notion being spread by a certain strand of positive Brexiteer.
Those who voted for that, like me, have got exactly what we voted for.
Those who are now saying "Brexit means more non-Europeans and that's bad" are being racist.
You mean you voted for the economy to be trashed and total polarising of our society?
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
His graph comparing GDP growth per capita and net migration doesn't support the oft repeated claim that immigration boosts productivity.
No, as he points out. And although I disagree with that particular premise, i believe it’s an interesting thread.
It is an interesting premise and like you I don't agree with everything he says, but I don't consider non-EU migration to be "worse" than EU migration.
I consider the loosening of non-EU migration rules as a positive side-effect of controlling EU migration. To have the whole world migrating on a looser but level playing field is better than uncontrolled on one side and draconianly restricted on the other.
The origin of the immigrants is not itself, important. Rather it's a question of the characteristics of immigrants. In order to take a view statistics would be required about the education and skills of immigrants and an 'objective' view of those be taken.
There is a massive amount of immigration from the Philippines into nursing for example (and thank god), but it might be argued that this is 'unproductive' immigration, whereas young creative French and Italians were more likely to generate economic growth.
It's a complex topic:
Personally, I think that in most occasions, immigration is a symptom of deeper problems. And one is best off seeking to solve the underlying issues, rather than attempting to band aid the problem at the symptom level.
If your country doesn't produce enough trained plumbers or electricians, and is importing 24 year olds with those skills, well maybe you have a problem with education and training. Likewise, if you have a problem with low labourforce participation rates for certain segments of the population, you might want to ask why that is.
Skill-based selection of immigrants responds to the needs of the economy.
High-skilled immigrants have better labor market prospects in general than immigrants admitted based on kinship ties or for humanitarian reasons.
High-skilled immigrants boost innovation, a key to long-term economic growth.
High-skilled immigrants in the labor market can raise wages for low-skilled native workers struggling with declining labor market prospects.
Highly paid skill-based immigrants widen the tax base and help offset growing fiscal challenges. Cons
The design of selection systems for skill-based admissions is complicated and requires frequent updating as the economic environment changes.
Skill-based immigrants face formidable economic integration challenges due to skill and credential transferability problems and underutilization of their human capital.
Identifying short-term skill shortages as a basis for admissions is difficult and may not be in line with long-term needs of the economy.
Allocating a higher share of immigrant admissions based on skills usually comes at the expense of kinship- and humanitarian-based admissions.
I think the biggest Con is that governments are often "behind the curve".
Australia has a visa category that is designed around specific skill and occupational vacancies. And back in the early 2000s, it still had AS/400 on the list. So, you might have been unemployable in the UK with out of date technical skills, but Australia was still handing out visas for people who could prove they had the skills.
It also means that the government doesn't necessarily do the right remedial work: if you're importing electricians year after year, then maybe the problem is that you're not training enough electricians. And you should solve your training problem, rather than relying on your visa system.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
I'm suspicious of those branches at the top: suggests they've hung something - perhaps some symmetrical stone object - from them with transparent thread.
If you were going to hang something, you'd make very sure there was no visible means of support, surely!
Anyway, here's a cropped picture of Schiehallion (being a suitable hill for an EXPERIMENT) in a cloud inversion. I took this in January, not August, but you get the idea. The location is only a few miles from Calvine (in the Drumochter hills).
Even with a serious overexposure I think you'd struggle to get something similar to the mystery image.
I still think it is a reflection but am prepared to be convinced.
I totally understand the obsession with ALIENS. Are we alone? It is a fundamental question which will shape how we see the universe if it can ever answered in the negative.
I doubt we'll discover them in this way, though.
The mountain top/stone in loch theories ignore the backstory to the photo. They would be great if there were none, and this was just a photo of unknown provenance bought at a car boot sale. But there is, there's the statement of the guys who took the photo (or at least provided it) who say it was a thing in the sky, which shot upwards after 10 minutes. So if they are lying, what's the theory? That a stone in a loch is the best way of faking the UAP or that they took a picture of an uninteresting lochstone and later looked at it and said Hey, that looks like a spaceship? Neither sems likely. The photo is 1 of 6 by the way, so the mountain in clouds claim looks a non starter unlessly they were spookily static clouds.
What it is, it's the USAF Aurora project.
There is also the plentiful evidence that the MoD took this seriously, and decided the photos showed a real object, hanging in the sky. Not a rock or a mountain
Nick Pope has been a much derided figure in Fortean UFOlogical circles, but he has been adamant for years that these photos existed and they were lost/hidden, and after all that derision, here indeed is one of the photos, and it is a very close match to what he has described all along. He's been entirely consistent. He is vindicated
He is particularly interesting because, in his opinion and those of some colleagues- it seems - this is NOT American tech
The sources say there are six COLOUR photos. Would be nice to see a hi res colour version, or even 6 of them.
I think the US is going to have a “soft landing”, but Europe including the UK seems quite astonishingly fucked.
Certainly in the short term. This winter will be brutal; what happens next year is not yet decided.
Whatever happens in Ukraine, the gas situation is going to remain as is for a good while yet - relations between europe and Russia are going to be icy for a long time. Energy (Particularly gas) needs to be seen as a strategic national resource now by nation states now, rather than a global commodity. The decommissioning for gas in the North sea needs to have been stopped yesterday, and we need to remain good friends with the arabs no matter what tbh.
Russia provides ~40% of Europe's gas consumption – generating electricity, providing heat in homes and industry and used as a feedstock.
Our third Explainer sets out options to replace Russian gas within a year
Stuff like turning down thermostats is pure hopium, people have a temperature they're comfortable with - so they'd have done that already. It's just not possible to replace 1800 terrawatt hours in one year. Not without far more radical intervention than they're wanting anyway.
One that particular point, it's less than 15% of the 740TWh they claim could be comparatively easily replaced - and no one turned down their thermostats last winter; a 1deg drop this winter isn't totally implausible.
The rest of the 1100TWh is labelled 'tricky tradeoffs'.
Nothing about this is simple, but some mitigation is certainly possible within the next twelve months.
What proportion of households are on fixed tariffs taken out on or before September 2021? They wont have the same incentive to turn the heating down, altruism aside.
FPT: The IFS predicts inflation will reach 18% for the poorest 20% of households.
I heard Hammond talking about the dire position we are in on the lunchtime news. It seems a done deal.....
Is there an obvious reason why no one's prepared to discuss the elephant in the room? The next Prime Minister and the Leader of the opposition share one thing in common.
Both were staunch Remainers.
Even a Daily Express reader reader from Hartlepool who is over 70 and left school at 16 would by now have joined the dots.....
I can understand- just-why Truss might be squirming in embarrassment at the choices she subsequently made but not Starmer. His hands were clean. As large swathes of the country slip into penury why is he keeping up his omerta?
What's going on and where is this fabled brain of his?
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has put the brakes on the theory that AI systems can be inventors on US patents. If that's what you want, you're going to need a new law https://twitter.com/Dereklowe/status/1559204664855465984
The YouGov polling does clearly show support for both freezing energy bills and ensuring no tax money goes to subsidizing energy companies. Labour pushing hard that they are offering the former whilst trying to disguise that is entirely based on the latter. Politically i'd expect a big pushback on the latter point by those not prepared to allow Labour an undeserved free hit. And, as predicted. They are squawking about 'fully costed'. Its a crisis, fuck the costings, come up with the sustainable, permanent solution, not some expensive shit to get through Christmas and keep energy CEOs in holiday homes, private jets and the like
He will stay. He needs to be in a position to destroy Truss in HoC if it all goes utterly pear shaped, and he needs to keep all options open.
I suspect you are correct.
A handful of months on the back benches and a VONC on the hapless Truss, and Johnson returns, stronger faster, fitter. All his misbehaviour will have been purged and BigDog is saved again.
Critically, it doesn't have to make sense to the Conservative Party, Liz Truss, or the rest of the country.
It only has to make sense in Big Dog's imagination.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
I'm suspicious of those branches at the top: suggests they've hung something - perhaps some symmetrical stone object - from them with transparent thread.
If you were going to hang something, you'd make very sure there was no visible means of support, surely!
Anyway, here's a cropped picture of Schiehallion (being a suitable hill for an EXPERIMENT) in a cloud inversion. I took this in January, not August, but you get the idea. The location is only a few miles from Calvine (in the Drumochter hills).
Even with a serious overexposure I think you'd struggle to get something similar to the mystery image.
I still think it is a reflection but am prepared to be convinced.
I totally understand the obsession with ALIENS. Are we alone? It is a fundamental question which will shape how we see the universe if it can ever answered in the negative.
I doubt we'll discover them in this way, though.
The mountain top/stone in loch theories ignore the backstory to the photo. They would be great if there were none, and this was just a photo of unknown provenance bought at a car boot sale. But there is, there's the statement of the guys who took the photo (or at least provided it) who say it was a thing in the sky, which shot upwards after 10 minutes. So if they are lying, what's the theory? That a stone in a loch is the best way of faking the UAP or that they took a picture of an uninteresting lochstone and later looked at it and said Hey, that looks like a spaceship? Neither sems likely. The photo is 1 of 6 by the way, so the mountain in clouds claim looks a non starter unlessly they were spookily static clouds.
What it is, it's the USAF Aurora project.
Isn't it a shot of Ursula Andress doing the backstroke in Dr No?
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing...
Or, in your case, the precise opposite ?
I'm literally saying that my bias is towards the prosaic explanation, in quite an overt, maybe unreliable way
What do you think is in that photo? I genuinely have no idea, and am open to any explanation
Old grainy photo ? I'm not really interested.
Show me several dozen recent ones and I might be.
Unless I get to meet ET or they start breaking Star Trek's prime directive I could not care less about any aliens visiting earth, or not.
You honestly don't care if non-human but intelligent beings are buzzing around our skies and diving in our seas? And sodomizing our poor domestic animals?
In all seriousness, you don't have any interest at all? To me it would be one of the most interesting revelations in the history of humankind. Perhaps THE most interesting
Not really. What am I supposed to do about it? Cower in fear? Jump for joy? Try to make contact? Or just enjoy living my life as I was before I found out?
Sure if I could have a friendly conversation with ET where he/she/it/they tells me all about life on planet zog and space travel, great, I would be up for that, but doubt that is on offer.
I find it intrinsically fascinating, and I honestly cannot get my head around a perspective like yours. But of course each to their own
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
That’s always been the case since the UK joined the EU .
EU nationals overall were a positive for the treasury , they were more likely to be younger and fitter and in well paid jobs .
Non EU nationals were a negative for the treasury especially as family reunion was a larger part of those coming and they brought older family members who took up more resources.
All the UK has done is replace EU nationals with non EU ones from countries which didn’t reciprocate any freedom of movement rights so in effect UK citizens lost their chance to live in 27 other countries and ended up with more immigration .
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot . It’s noticeable now how quiet the right wing press are about current levels of immigration , seeing as they went full on with the anti EU hate , clearly highlighting how they duped their readers is something they want to avoid !
Sorry but you're mixing up a few myths to put together into a case you want to make.
Each individual can be net positive or net negative for the Treasury, to lump together all of a nationality together and claim what's true for some is true for all is what could be termed 'racism'.
Some EU nationals were a net positive being young and fit and in well paid jobs. Some EU nationals were a net negative being unskilled who came to work in minimum wage jobs as it was better than their minimum wage.
Some non-EU nationals were net negative engaging in family reunion etc Some non-EU nationals were net positive being young and fit and skilled etc
What's changed post-Brexit is we've tightened up rules on unskilled Europeans coming her to work minimum wage jobs (so skilled Europeans can still get a visa) while loosening restrictions on skilled non-Europeans who were struggling to get a visa in the past.
If that means more skilled non-Europeans compensating for fewer less skilled EU nationals then that is a net improvement and will see the net compensation to the Treasury for both groups improving potentially as the skilled Europeans are no longer deflated by their unskilled counterparts, while skilled non-Europeans have an easier route in which they were blocked from in the past.
Win/win, best of both worlds. Unless you're a racist who wants to keep out non-Europeans.
Not sure Leavers should be accusing Remainers of being racist! The Leave campaign won because of anti immigrant rhetoric pushed by people like Farage and the cesspit right wing press . I’m pro immigration and was merely pointing out what the treasury figures showed and the irony of those voting leave who were duped into voting for a lie .
I'm pro-immigration too and the notion that Brexit was a good idea as it would lead to less racist immigration policies treating people from around the globe more equally rather than being biased towards Europeans was a common notion being spread by a certain strand of positive Brexiteer.
Those who voted for that, like me, have got exactly what we voted for.
Those who are now saying "Brexit means more non-Europeans and that's bad" are being racist.
You mean you voted for the economy to be trashed and total polarising of our society?
The polarisation existed pre Brexit, it's just you turned a blind eye to it.
The economy was trashed pre Brexit too by one Gordon Brown who promised to abolish boom and bust but only did half of the job.
FPT: The IFS predicts inflation will reach 18% for the poorest 20% of households.
I heard Hammond talking about the dire position we are in on the lunchtime news. It seems a done deal.....
Is there an obvious reason why no one's prepared to discuss the elephant in the room? The next Prime Minister and the Leader of the opposition share one thing in common.
Both were staunch Remainers.
Even a pro hanging blue passport loving Daily Express reader from Hartlepool who is over 70 and left school at 16 would by now have joined the dots.....
I can understand- just-why Truss might be squirming in embarrassment at the choices she subsequently made but not Starmer. His hands were clean. As large swathes of the country slip into penury why is he keeping up his omerta?
What's going on and where is this fabled brain of his?
Hammond reminded me of a post 1997 Shadow Chancellor critiquing Starmer as he would (what he considers to be) the profligate Blair Government back in the day.
Phew normal service is resumed. Although...I am not sure Spreadsheet Phil realises that Labour are in opposition and the Government is currently of the blue variety.
You honestly don't care if non-human but intelligent beings are buzzing around our skies and diving in our seas? And sodomizing our poor domestic animals?
In all seriousness, you don't have any interest at all? To me it would be one of the most interesting revelations in the history of humankind. Perhaps THE most interesting
If it were clearly true it would be interesting (to say the least). As a "we don't know and we have a few odd photographs and some speculation" it's pretty uninteresting unless you happen to be the sort of person who reads the Fortean Times.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
I'm suspicious of those branches at the top: suggests they've hung something - perhaps some symmetrical stone object - from them with transparent thread.
If you were going to hang something, you'd make very sure there was no visible means of support, surely!
Anyway, here's a cropped picture of Schiehallion (being a suitable hill for an EXPERIMENT) in a cloud inversion. I took this in January, not August, but you get the idea. The location is only a few miles from Calvine (in the Drumochter hills).
Even with a serious overexposure I think you'd struggle to get something similar to the mystery image.
I still think it is a reflection but am prepared to be convinced.
I totally understand the obsession with ALIENS. Are we alone? It is a fundamental question which will shape how we see the universe if it can ever answered in the negative.
I doubt we'll discover them in this way, though.
The mountain top/stone in loch theories ignore the backstory to the photo. They would be great if there were none, and this was just a photo of unknown provenance bought at a car boot sale. But there is, there's the statement of the guys who took the photo (or at least provided it) who say it was a thing in the sky, which shot upwards after 10 minutes. So if they are lying, what's the theory? That a stone in a loch is the best way of faking the UAP or that they took a picture of an uninteresting lochstone and later looked at it and said Hey, that looks like a spaceship? Neither sems likely. The photo is 1 of 6 by the way, so the mountain in clouds claim looks a non starter unlessly they were spookily static clouds.
What it is, it's the USAF Aurora project.
There is also the plentiful evidence that the MoD took this seriously, and decided the photos showed a real object, hanging in the sky. Not a rock or a mountain
Nick Pope has been a much derided figure in Fortean UFOlogical circles, but he has been adamant for years that these photos existed and they were lost/hidden, and after all that derision, here indeed is one of the photos, and it is a very close match to what he has described all along. He's been entirely consistent. He is vindicated
He is particularly interesting because, in his opinion and those of some colleagues- it seems - this is NOT American tech
The sources say there are six COLOUR photos. Would be nice to see a hi res colour version, or even 6 of them.
Yes. More might yet emerge
For anyone that wants the backstory, this old article by Nick Pope gives a good summary. It is deeply interesting in the light of the photo suddenly showing up
And, in retrospect, his final paragraph is quite compelling
"I don't know if the photos or negatives will ever turn up, but I certainly hope they do. Because whatever peoples’ views on UFOs, these are the photos that changed the minds of numerous skeptical civil servants, military personnel and intelligence specialists at MoD. I should know. I was one of them."
On topic - There used to be a popular view on here that "Boris" would jack it all in with alacrity in order to "make squillions" and "have fun". This never rang true to me and it still doesn't. It stems from a romantic and false view of the man as some megawatt all-purpose star with many strings to his bow of which politics is just one. Not so. He's devoted his life to politics. Ok, so in a deeply tacky way, driven 100% by narcissism and 0% by public service, but still. He's above all a political animal. I don't think - and I don't think he thinks - he would make a fortune outside politics and I don't think he'd have much fun either. So I reckon he'll stay on - if he survives the "lying" inquiry and he wins his seat again.
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
That’s always been the case since the UK joined the EU .
EU nationals overall were a positive for the treasury , they were more likely to be younger and fitter and in well paid jobs .
Non EU nationals were a negative for the treasury especially as family reunion was a larger part of those coming and they brought older family members who took up more resources.
All the UK has done is replace EU nationals with non EU ones from countries which didn’t reciprocate any freedom of movement rights so in effect UK citizens lost their chance to live in 27 other countries and ended up with more immigration .
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot . It’s noticeable now how quiet the right wing press are about current levels of immigration , seeing as they went full on with the anti EU hate , clearly highlighting how they duped their readers is something they want to avoid !
Sorry but you're mixing up a few myths to put together into a case you want to make.
Each individual can be net positive or net negative for the Treasury, to lump together all of a nationality together and claim what's true for some is true for all is what could be termed 'racism'.
Some EU nationals were a net positive being young and fit and in well paid jobs. Some EU nationals were a net negative being unskilled who came to work in minimum wage jobs as it was better than their minimum wage.
Some non-EU nationals were net negative engaging in family reunion etc Some non-EU nationals were net positive being young and fit and skilled etc
What's changed post-Brexit is we've tightened up rules on unskilled Europeans coming her to work minimum wage jobs (so skilled Europeans can still get a visa) while loosening restrictions on skilled non-Europeans who were struggling to get a visa in the past.
If that means more skilled non-Europeans compensating for fewer less skilled EU nationals then that is a net improvement and will see the net compensation to the Treasury for both groups improving potentially as the skilled Europeans are no longer deflated by their unskilled counterparts, while skilled non-Europeans have an easier route in which they were blocked from in the past.
Win/win, best of both worlds. Unless you're a racist who wants to keep out non-Europeans.
Not sure Leavers should be accusing Remainers of being racist! The Leave campaign won because of anti immigrant rhetoric pushed by people like Farage and the cesspit right wing press . I’m pro immigration and was merely pointing out what the treasury figures showed and the irony of those voting leave who were duped into voting for a lie .
I'm pro-immigration too and the notion that Brexit was a good idea as it would lead to less racist immigration policies treating people from around the globe more equally rather than being biased towards Europeans was a common notion being spread by a certain strand of positive Brexiteer.
Those who voted for that, like me, have got exactly what we voted for.
Those who are now saying "Brexit means more non-Europeans and that's bad" are being racist.
You mean you voted for the economy to be trashed and total polarising of our society?
The polarisation existed pre Brexit, it's just you turned a blind eye to it.
The economy was trashed pre Brexit too by one Gordon Brown who promised to abolish boom and bust but only did half of the job.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing...
Or, in your case, the precise opposite ?
I'm literally saying that my bias is towards the prosaic explanation, in quite an overt, maybe unreliable way
What do you think is in that photo? I genuinely have no idea, and am open to any explanation
Old grainy photo ? I'm not really interested.
Show me several dozen recent ones and I might be.
Unless I get to meet ET or they start breaking Star Trek's prime directive I could not care less about any aliens visiting earth, or not.
You honestly don't care if non-human but intelligent beings are buzzing around our skies and diving in our seas? And sodomizing our poor domestic animals?
In all seriousness, you don't have any interest at all? To me it would be one of the most interesting revelations in the history of humankind. Perhaps THE most interesting
Not really. What am I supposed to do about it? Cower in fear? Jump for joy? Try to make contact? Or just enjoy living my life as I was before I found out?
Sure if I could have a friendly conversation with ET where he/she/it/they tells me all about life on planet zog and space travel, great, I would be up for that, but doubt that is on offer.
I find it intrinsically fascinating, and I honestly cannot get my head around a perspective like yours. But of course each to their own
But it's an old photo that has been hidden away for three decades yet much-discussed to the extent that people made replicas of it from descriptions (which turn out to be really quite accurate)
If it isn't a hoax, a rock or a mountain then it is probably the most spectacular photo of a UFO in existence
That STILL doesn't mean it's aliens, of course, but the allied eye witness accounts suggest it was/is genuinely WEIRD
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
His graph comparing GDP growth per capita and net migration doesn't support the oft repeated claim that immigration boosts productivity.
No, as he points out. And although I disagree with that particular premise, i believe it’s an interesting thread.
It is an interesting premise and like you I don't agree with everything he says, but I don't consider non-EU migration to be "worse" than EU migration.
I consider the loosening of non-EU migration rules as a positive side-effect of controlling EU migration. To have the whole world migrating on a looser but level playing field is better than uncontrolled on one side and draconianly restricted on the other.
The origin of the immigrants is not itself, important. Rather it's a question of the characteristics of immigrants. In order to take a view statistics would be required about the education and skills of immigrants and an 'objective' view of those be taken.
There is a massive amount of immigration from the Philippines into nursing for example (and thank god), but it might be argued that this is 'unproductive' immigration, whereas young creative French and Italians were more likely to generate economic growth.
It's a complex topic:
Personally, I think that in most occasions, immigration is a symptom of deeper problems. And one is best off seeking to solve the underlying issues, rather than attempting to band aid the problem at the symptom level.
If your country doesn't produce enough trained plumbers or electricians, and is importing 24 year olds with those skills, well maybe you have a problem with education and training. Likewise, if you have a problem with low labourforce participation rates for certain segments of the population, you might want to ask why that is.
Skill-based selection of immigrants responds to the needs of the economy.
High-skilled immigrants have better labor market prospects in general than immigrants admitted based on kinship ties or for humanitarian reasons.
High-skilled immigrants boost innovation, a key to long-term economic growth.
High-skilled immigrants in the labor market can raise wages for low-skilled native workers struggling with declining labor market prospects.
Highly paid skill-based immigrants widen the tax base and help offset growing fiscal challenges. Cons
The design of selection systems for skill-based admissions is complicated and requires frequent updating as the economic environment changes.
Skill-based immigrants face formidable economic integration challenges due to skill and credential transferability problems and underutilization of their human capital.
Identifying short-term skill shortages as a basis for admissions is difficult and may not be in line with long-term needs of the economy.
Allocating a higher share of immigrant admissions based on skills usually comes at the expense of kinship- and humanitarian-based admissions.
I think the biggest Con is that governments are often "behind the curve".
Australia has a visa category that is designed around specific skill and occupational vacancies. And back in the early 2000s, it still had AS/400 on the list. So, you might have been unemployable in the UK with out of date technical skills, but Australia was still handing out visas for people who could prove they had the skills.
It also means that the government doesn't necessarily do the right remedial work: if you're importing electricians year after year, then maybe the problem is that you're not training enough electricians. And you should solve your training problem, rather than relying on your visa system.
The best way to do it is to minimise governmental interference cherry picking winners and losers and let the market intervene instead.
Set a wage rate that opens up temporary visas. Eg maybe £40k or £50k (picking numbers out of the air) and anyone with a job meeting that threshold can get a visa so long as they meet other criteria (eg clean criminal record etc).
If they stay in the UK for five years maintaining that job, or equivalents, contributing taxes and keeping a clean record then open a pathway to permanent residence followed by citizenship.
He will stay. He needs to be in a position to destroy Truss in HoC if it all goes utterly pear shaped, and he needs to keep all options open.
I suspect you are correct.
A handful of months on the back benches and a VONC on the hapless Truss, and Johnson returns, stronger faster, fitter. All his misbehaviour will have been purged and BigDog is saved again.
Critically, it doesn't have to make sense to the Conservative Party, Liz Truss, or the rest of the country.
It only has to make sense in Big Dog's imagination.
Boris is finished.
In practice, fully agree. Unless there is a medical reason, the Conservatives are stuck with Truss until the next election. They would look like utter fools to elect and dump a PM within a parliamentary term. And even if Truss were to fall under a metaphorical bus, parties don't go back. I imagine the next leadership election (2025?) will be Badenoch - Mordaunt.
But whilst Boris's political career is dead, I don't see any evidence that he has noticed yet. And that's the problem.
Truss lead out to 4 points 41 to 37 over Starmer, Starmer leads Sunak by 7, a point swing in the headline
Labour leads by 7%.
Westminster Voting Intention (14 August):
Labour 41% (+1) Conservative 34% (-1) Liberal Democrat 12% (–) Green 5% (–) Scottish National Party 4% (-) Reform UK 3% (–) Plaid Cymru 1% (-) Other 2% (+1)
On topic - There used to be a popular view on here that "Boris" would jack it all in with alacrity in order to "make squillions" and "have fun". This never rang true to me and it still doesn't. It stems from a romantic and false view of the man as some megawatt all-purpose star with many strings to his bow of which politics is just one. Not so. He's devoted his life to politics. Ok, so in a deeply tacky way, driven 100% by narcissism and 0% by public service, but still. He's above all a political animal. I don't think - and I don't think he thinks - he would make a fortune outside politics and I don't think he'd have much fun either. So I reckon he'll stay on - if he survives the "lying" inquiry and he wins his seat again.
I think you're right Mr K, but I don't think he'll survive the 'lying' inquiry. I think he'll get thrown out of parliament and have to try and find a seat somewhere probably after the next general election. Even then there will be still be some safe Conservative seats! In the meantime he'll have a couple of newspaper columns and another book advance to keep him in the style to which he and Carrie have become accustomed!
You honestly don't care if non-human but intelligent beings are buzzing around our skies and diving in our seas? And sodomizing our poor domestic animals?
In all seriousness, you don't have any interest at all? To me it would be one of the most interesting revelations in the history of humankind. Perhaps THE most interesting
If it were clearly true it would be interesting (to say the least). As a "we don't know and we have a few odd photographs and some speculation" it's pretty uninteresting unless you happen to be the sort of person who reads the Fortean Times.
But this completely ignores the huge flap going on in the USA, with ex presidents, senators, CIA chief, generals, admirals, intel specialists, senior NYT journalists, NASA heads, all saying, in chorus: Yes there is something up there, we don't know what
This is 1000 times more than a series of excitable articles in the Fortean Times
Even if this is psy-ops by the American Establishment, that is fascinating in and of itself
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing...
Or, in your case, the precise opposite ?
I'm literally saying that my bias is towards the prosaic explanation, in quite an overt, maybe unreliable way
What do you think is in that photo? I genuinely have no idea, and am open to any explanation
Old grainy photo ? I'm not really interested.
Show me several dozen recent ones and I might be.
Unless I get to meet ET or they start breaking Star Trek's prime directive I could not care less about any aliens visiting earth, or not.
You honestly don't care if non-human but intelligent beings are buzzing around our skies and diving in our seas? And sodomizing our poor domestic animals?
In all seriousness, you don't have any interest at all? To me it would be one of the most interesting revelations in the history of humankind. Perhaps THE most interesting
Not really. What am I supposed to do about it? Cower in fear? Jump for joy? Try to make contact? Or just enjoy living my life as I was before I found out?
Sure if I could have a friendly conversation with ET where he/she/it/they tells me all about life on planet zog and space travel, great, I would be up for that, but doubt that is on offer.
I find it intrinsically fascinating, and I honestly cannot get my head around a perspective like yours. But of course each to their own
Looks like the feds are pursuing 2 lines of enquiry against the Donald, one is completely unrelated to the raid and remains sealed by order of the same judge (poss a Jan 6 related thing?). DT says he has the security footage of the raid at Mar A Lago. Popcorntastic stuff.
If it were clearly true it would be interesting (to say the least). As a "we don't know and we have a few odd photographs and some speculation" it's pretty uninteresting unless you happen to be the sort of person who reads the Fortean Times.
But this completely ignores the huge flap going on in the USA, with ex presidents, senators, CIA chief, generals, admirals, intel specialists, senior NYT journalists, NASA heads, all saying, in chorus: Yes there is something up there, we don't know what
Yes. My requirement for "clearly true" is definitely higher than that. Wake me up when Truss has called a COBRA briefing to discuss the UK's response.
On topic - There used to be a popular view on here that "Boris" would jack it all in with alacrity in order to "make squillions" and "have fun". This never rang true to me and it still doesn't. It stems from a romantic and false view of the man as some megawatt all-purpose star with many strings to his bow of which politics is just one. Not so. He's devoted his life to politics. Ok, so in a deeply tacky way, driven 100% by narcissism and 0% by public service, but still. He's above all a political animal. I don't think - and I don't think he thinks - he would make a fortune outside politics and I don't think he'd have much fun either. So I reckon he'll stay on - if he survives the "lying" inquiry and he wins his seat again.
I think you're right Mr K, but I don't think he'll survive the 'lying' inquiry. I think he'll get thrown out of parliament and have to try and find a seat somewhere probably after the next general election. Even then there will be still be some safe Conservative seats! In the meantime he'll have a couple of newspaper columns and another book advance to keep him in the style to which he and Carrie have become accustomed!
I'm hoping to see that Inquiry do the business - there hasn't been enough overt humiliation of Johnson for my taste - but my hunch is either it won't happen or they'll obfuscate and bottle it.
If it were clearly true it would be interesting (to say the least). As a "we don't know and we have a few odd photographs and some speculation" it's pretty uninteresting unless you happen to be the sort of person who reads the Fortean Times.
But this completely ignores the huge flap going on in the USA, with ex presidents, senators, CIA chief, generals, admirals, intel specialists, senior NYT journalists, NASA heads, all saying, in chorus: Yes there is something up there, we don't know what
Yes. My requirement for "clearly true" is definitely higher than that. Wake me up when Truss has called a COBRA briefing to discuss the UK's response.
Has anyone said anything is "clearly true"?
No. This is quite wearying. We are an intelligent bunch of people and we are trying to work out what this photo shows, because a couple of POSSIBLE answers are mind-boggling
But no one knows for sure, of course
What we can do is rule out hypotheses, perhaps. I am now pretty convinced it is not a mountain-top seen in unusual cloud formations, and that's partly because of things said on here. So, go PB UFO Team
Boris will stay. There is no obligation to do anything as MP, so it’s free money essentially.
Free money maybe - but the opportunity cost versus his earnings on the US talking circuit is massive.
Being an MP never stopped Cox from bringing in masses of money, and Boris isn't going to need to provide expert legal advice to anyone, so it should be easy.
On topic - There used to be a popular view on here that "Boris" would jack it all in with alacrity in order to "make squillions" and "have fun". This never rang true to me and it still doesn't. It stems from a romantic and false view of the man as some megawatt all-purpose star with many strings to his bow of which politics is just one. Not so. He's devoted his life to politics. Ok, so in a deeply tacky way, driven 100% by narcissism and 0% by public service, but still. He's above all a political animal. I don't think - and I don't think he thinks - he would make a fortune outside politics and I don't think he'd have much fun either. So I reckon he'll stay on - if he survives the "lying" inquiry and he wins his seat again.
I think you're right Mr K, but I don't think he'll survive the 'lying' inquiry. I think he'll get thrown out of parliament and have to try and find a seat somewhere probably after the next general election. Even then there will be still be some safe Conservative seats! In the meantime he'll have a couple of newspaper columns and another book advance to keep him in the style to which he and Carrie have become accustomed!
I'm hoping to see that Inquiry do the business - there hasn't been enough overt humiliation of Johnson for my taste - but my hunch is either it won't happen or they'll obfuscate and bottle it.
You may be right of course; I think it really depends on whether something comes out to Johnson's discredit as the committee get down to work.
Vladimir Putin has boasted that Russian weapons are 'decades' ahead of Western rivals' in a speech at an arms expo in Moscow.
Delegations from more than 70 countries are attending Army-2022 to take advantage of good deals on Russian kit.
Allies and buyers of Russian hardware have expressed concern as Putin's tanks, warships and planes continue to drop like flies in Ukraine.
He's not wrong. They were made decades ahead of their western counterparts. Maybe as many as six or seven.
Either nobody is telling Putin the extent of the Russian losses. Which is a fair self-preservation tactic, if you are a senior military bod who doesn't want to be sent to a forward observation post.
Or....he is going to go on Russian TV, raise his arms - and we will discover the terrible truth: he is a White Walker.
And the Ukrainians are going to have kill his army of the undead all over again.
If it were clearly true it would be interesting (to say the least). As a "we don't know and we have a few odd photographs and some speculation" it's pretty uninteresting unless you happen to be the sort of person who reads the Fortean Times.
But this completely ignores the huge flap going on in the USA, with ex presidents, senators, CIA chief, generals, admirals, intel specialists, senior NYT journalists, NASA heads, all saying, in chorus: Yes there is something up there, we don't know what
Yes. My requirement for "clearly true" is definitely higher than that. Wake me up when Truss has called a COBRA briefing to discuss the UK's response.
Has anyone said anything is "clearly true"?
No. This is quite wearying.
Indeed, I agree (and did from the outset) that nobody has said anything is clearly true. You asked why somebody might not be interested, and that is exactly why I am not. If *you* are enthused by speculating about the possibilities, fantastic. But don't be surprised if not everybody shares your hobby...
The YouGov polling does clearly show support for both freezing energy bills and ensuring no tax money goes to subsidizing energy companies. Labour pushing hard that they are offering the former whilst trying to disguise that is entirely based on the latter. Politically i'd expect a big pushback on the latter point by those not prepared to allow Labour an undeserved free hit. And, as predicted. They are squawking about 'fully costed'. Its a crisis, fuck the costings, come up with the sustainable, permanent solution, not some expensive shit to get through Christmas and keep energy CEOs in holiday homes, private jets and the like
People think of energy companies rather than companies doing energy extraction and energy distribution. The extractors are coining it in, and the distributors are at risk of bankruptcy as their customers wont be able to afford to pay and they can't easily stop supplying them.
The government need a windfall tax on energy extractors and move that cash to the energy distributors. Everyone should stop thinking of energy companies as a homogenous bunch.
Did the Mail expect him to say "our weapons are shit and completely overhyped"?
Having said that, for countries that need something cheap, basic and where opponents are often under armed insurgents eg in many African countries, Russian weapons do the job.
Conversely, expensive weapons aren't a guarantee of success. As the performance of the Saudis in Yemen with M1 Abrams has shown.
If it were clearly true it would be interesting (to say the least). As a "we don't know and we have a few odd photographs and some speculation" it's pretty uninteresting unless you happen to be the sort of person who reads the Fortean Times.
But this completely ignores the huge flap going on in the USA, with ex presidents, senators, CIA chief, generals, admirals, intel specialists, senior NYT journalists, NASA heads, all saying, in chorus: Yes there is something up there, we don't know what
Yes. My requirement for "clearly true" is definitely higher than that. Wake me up when Truss has called a COBRA briefing to discuss the UK's response.
Has anyone said anything is "clearly true"?
No. This is quite wearying.
Indeed, I agree (and did from the outset) that nobody has said anything is clearly true. You asked why somebody might not be interested, and that is exactly why I am not. If *you* are enthused by speculating about the possibilities, fantastic. But don't be surprised if not everybody shares your hobby...
Although to not be interested requires you to be pathologically disinterested.
I mean, it's only the biggest question since our sentient selves started building pyramids.
I think that he will leave because if he doesn't the Privileges Committee are very likely to sanction him for lying to the House of Commons on more than one occasion and the penalty may well be sufficient to justify a recall petition which would be humiliating.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
I'm suspicious of those branches at the top: suggests they've hung something - perhaps some symmetrical stone object - from them with transparent thread.
If you were going to hang something, you'd make very sure there was no visible means of support, surely!
Anyway, here's a cropped picture of Schiehallion (being a suitable hill for an EXPERIMENT) in a cloud inversion. I took this in January, not August, but you get the idea. The location is only a few miles from Calvine (in the Drumochter hills).
Even with a serious overexposure I think you'd struggle to get something similar to the mystery image.
I still think it is a reflection but am prepared to be convinced.
I totally understand the obsession with ALIENS. Are we alone? It is a fundamental question which will shape how we see the universe if it can ever answered in the negative.
I doubt we'll discover them in this way, though.
The mountain top/stone in loch theories ignore the backstory to the photo. They would be great if there were none, and this was just a photo of unknown provenance bought at a car boot sale. But there is, there's the statement of the guys who took the photo (or at least provided it) who say it was a thing in the sky, which shot upwards after 10 minutes. So if they are lying, what's the theory? That a stone in a loch is the best way of faking the UAP or that they took a picture of an uninteresting lochstone and later looked at it and said Hey, that looks like a spaceship? Neither sems likely. The photo is 1 of 6 by the way, so the mountain in clouds claim looks a non starter unlessly they were spookily static clouds.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
I'm suspicious of those branches at the top: suggests they've hung something - perhaps some symmetrical stone object - from them with transparent thread.
If you were going to hang something, you'd make very sure there was no visible means of support, surely!
Anyway, here's a cropped picture of Schiehallion (being a suitable hill for an EXPERIMENT) in a cloud inversion. I took this in January, not August, but you get the idea. The location is only a few miles from Calvine (in the Drumochter hills).
Even with a serious overexposure I think you'd struggle to get something similar to the mystery image.
I still think it is a reflection but am prepared to be convinced.
I totally understand the obsession with ALIENS. Are we alone? It is a fundamental question which will shape how we see the universe if it can ever answered in the negative.
I doubt we'll discover them in this way, though.
The mountain top/stone in loch theories ignore the backstory to the photo. They would be great if there were none, and this was just a photo of unknown provenance bought at a car boot sale. But there is, there's the statement of the guys who took the photo (or at least provided it) who say it was a thing in the sky, which shot upwards after 10 minutes. So if they are lying, what's the theory? That a stone in a loch is the best way of faking the UAP or that they took a picture of an uninteresting lochstone and later looked at it and said Hey, that looks like a spaceship? Neither sems likely. The photo is 1 of 6 by the way, so the mountain in clouds claim looks a non starter unlessly they were spookily static clouds.
What it is, it's the USAF Aurora project.
Allegedly 1 of 6, which is rather a key point.
And no negatives to be examined. Much more useful than prints.
On topic - There used to be a popular view on here that "Boris" would jack it all in with alacrity in order to "make squillions" and "have fun". This never rang true to me and it still doesn't. It stems from a romantic and false view of the man as some megawatt all-purpose star with many strings to his bow of which politics is just one. Not so. He's devoted his life to politics. Ok, so in a deeply tacky way, driven 100% by narcissism and 0% by public service, but still. He's above all a political animal. I don't think - and I don't think he thinks - he would make a fortune outside politics and I don't think he'd have much fun either. So I reckon he'll stay on - if he survives the "lying" inquiry and he wins his seat again.
You and I both saw the man for who he is decades ago. He really is an unabashed &£#@!
I can't recall a UK politician quite so repellent to me, and with Farage and Corbyn* waiting in the wings that is some bold assessment.
* Worse even than Chris Williamson and Rob Roberts. I even prefer Chope, Bridgen, Francois, Bone and Philip Davies.
A debunking of that thread on immigration from (remainer) Jonathan Portes.
Portes in turn ignores the quid-pro-quo for previously allowing migration from the EU: we had reciprocal freedoms of movement and trade with EU countries, which we haven't substituted with non-EU freedoms. Immigration from non-EU countries has always been available in the same way as now.
At best, we are now choosing to allow immigration from non-EU countries when we chose not to do so before, at the cost of losing our liberties. It doesn't seem a good exchange.
The YouGov polling does clearly show support for both freezing energy bills and ensuring no tax money goes to subsidizing energy companies.
Which are surely mutually exclusive.
Yes. No plan on the table addresses both issues
But surely no plan can address both. Either you freeze energy prices - which, given energy companies' higher costs, means subsidising them (either directly or by letting them fail and then paying to pick up the pieces) - or you don't subsidise them, in which case they can't keep prices down.
The YouGov polling does clearly show support for both freezing energy bills and ensuring no tax money goes to subsidizing energy companies. Labour pushing hard that they are offering the former whilst trying to disguise that is entirely based on the latter. Politically i'd expect a big pushback on the latter point by those not prepared to allow Labour an undeserved free hit. And, as predicted. They are squawking about 'fully costed'. Its a crisis, fuck the costings, come up with the sustainable, permanent solution, not some expensive shit to get through Christmas and keep energy CEOs in holiday homes, private jets and the like
People think of energy companies rather than companies doing energy extraction and energy distribution. The extractors are coining it in, and the distributors are at risk of bankruptcy as their customers wont be able to afford to pay and they can't easily stop supplying them.
The government need a windfall tax on energy extractors and move that cash to the energy distributors. Everyone should stop thinking of energy companies as a homogenous bunch.
The distributors are private companies making good coin too, look at the disgusting price gouging they do on small businesses outside the cap, look at the disgraceful fixed deals they are offering to try and maintain their profits. They aren't charities run by volunteers.
On topic - There used to be a popular view on here that "Boris" would jack it all in with alacrity in order to "make squillions" and "have fun". This never rang true to me and it still doesn't. It stems from a romantic and false view of the man as some megawatt all-purpose star with many strings to his bow of which politics is just one. Not so. He's devoted his life to politics. Ok, so in a deeply tacky way, driven 100% by narcissism and 0% by public service, but still. He's above all a political animal. I don't think - and I don't think he thinks - he would make a fortune outside politics and I don't think he'd have much fun either. So I reckon he'll stay on - if he survives the "lying" inquiry and he wins his seat again.
You and I both saw the man for who he is decades ago. He really is an unabashed &£#@!
I can't recall a UK politician quite so repellent to me, and with Farage and Corbyn waiting in the wings that is some bold assessment.
Vladimir Putin has boasted that Russian weapons are 'decades' ahead of Western rivals' in a speech at an arms expo in Moscow.
Delegations from more than 70 countries are attending Army-2022 to take advantage of good deals on Russian kit.
Allies and buyers of Russian hardware have expressed concern as Putin's tanks, warships and planes continue to drop like flies in Ukraine.
He's not wrong. They were made decades ahead of their western counterparts. Maybe as many as six or seven.
Either nobody is telling Putin the extent of the Russian losses. Which is a fair self-preservation tactic, if you are a senior military bod who doesn't want to be sent to a forward observation post.
Or....he is going to go on Russian TV, raise his arms - and we will discover the terrible truth: he is a White Walker.
And the Ukrainians are going to have kill his army of the undead all over again.
If it were clearly true it would be interesting (to say the least). As a "we don't know and we have a few odd photographs and some speculation" it's pretty uninteresting unless you happen to be the sort of person who reads the Fortean Times.
But this completely ignores the huge flap going on in the USA, with ex presidents, senators, CIA chief, generals, admirals, intel specialists, senior NYT journalists, NASA heads, all saying, in chorus: Yes there is something up there, we don't know what
Yes. My requirement for "clearly true" is definitely higher than that. Wake me up when Truss has called a COBRA briefing to discuss the UK's response.
Has anyone said anything is "clearly true"?
No. This is quite wearying.
Indeed, I agree (and did from the outset) that nobody has said anything is clearly true. You asked why somebody might not be interested, and that is exactly why I am not. If *you* are enthused by speculating about the possibilities, fantastic. But don't be surprised if not everybody shares your hobby...
But you're on politicalbetting. So you're interested in politics. Aren't you therefore interested in the bizarre behaviour of a large proportion of the American political elite, which is suddenly saying things which, until a couple of years ago, would have been dismissed as lunatic nonsense?
On topic - There used to be a popular view on here that "Boris" would jack it all in with alacrity in order to "make squillions" and "have fun". This never rang true to me and it still doesn't. It stems from a romantic and false view of the man as some megawatt all-purpose star with many strings to his bow of which politics is just one. Not so. He's devoted his life to politics. Ok, so in a deeply tacky way, driven 100% by narcissism and 0% by public service, but still. He's above all a political animal. I don't think - and I don't think he thinks - he would make a fortune outside politics and I don't think he'd have much fun either. So I reckon he'll stay on - if he survives the "lying" inquiry and he wins his seat again.
You and I both saw the man for who he is decades ago. He really is an unabashed &£#@!
I can't recall a UK politician quite so repellent to me, and with Farage and Corbyn waiting in the wings that is some bold assessment.
Did the Mail expect him to say "our weapons are shit and completely overhyped"?
Having said that, for countries that need something cheap, basic and where opponents are often under armed insurgents eg in many African countries, Russian weapons do the job.
Conversely, expensive weapons aren't a guarantee of success. As the performance of the Saudis in Yemen with M1 Abrams has shown.
Vladimir Putin has boasted that Russian weapons are 'decades' ahead of Western rivals' in a speech at an arms expo in Moscow.
Delegations from more than 70 countries are attending Army-2022 to take advantage of good deals on Russian kit.
Allies and buyers of Russian hardware have expressed concern as Putin's tanks, warships and planes continue to drop like flies in Ukraine.
These days you'd probably look at Turkey, or China, or S Korea, or India, or Pakistan before Russia...
For example: https://twitter.com/INTELPSF/status/1559199323073691651 A Nigerian Air Force #Pakistan-made PAC JF-17A Thunder Block II (Serial No. 720), carrying a #Turkey-made Aselsan ASELPOD reconnaissance and targeting pod.
Vladimir Putin has boasted that Russian weapons are 'decades' ahead of Western rivals' in a speech at an arms expo in Moscow.
Delegations from more than 70 countries are attending Army-2022 to take advantage of good deals on Russian kit.
Allies and buyers of Russian hardware have expressed concern as Putin's tanks, warships and planes continue to drop like flies in Ukraine.
He's not wrong. They were made decades ahead of their western counterparts. Maybe as many as six or seven.
Either nobody is telling Putin the extent of the Russian losses. Which is a fair self-preservation tactic, if you are a senior military bod who doesn't want to be sent to a forward observation post.
Or....he is going to go on Russian TV, raise his arms - and we will discover the terrible truth: he is a White Walker.
And the Ukrainians are going to have kill his army of the undead all over again.
Vladimir Putin has boasted that Russian weapons are 'decades' ahead of Western rivals' in a speech at an arms expo in Moscow.
Delegations from more than 70 countries are attending Army-2022 to take advantage of good deals on Russian kit.
Allies and buyers of Russian hardware have expressed concern as Putin's tanks, warships and planes continue to drop like flies in Ukraine.
He's not wrong. They were made decades ahead of their western counterparts. Maybe as many as six or seven.
Either nobody is telling Putin the extent of the Russian losses. Which is a fair self-preservation tactic, if you are a senior military bod who doesn't want to be sent to a forward observation post.
Or....he is going to go on Russian TV, raise his arms - and we will discover the terrible truth: he is a White Walker.
And the Ukrainians are going to have kill his army of the undead all over again.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
I'm suspicious of those branches at the top: suggests they've hung something - perhaps some symmetrical stone object - from them with transparent thread.
If you were going to hang something, you'd make very sure there was no visible means of support, surely!
Anyway, here's a cropped picture of Schiehallion (being a suitable hill for an EXPERIMENT) in a cloud inversion. I took this in January, not August, but you get the idea. The location is only a few miles from Calvine (in the Drumochter hills).
Even with a serious overexposure I think you'd struggle to get something similar to the mystery image.
I still think it is a reflection but am prepared to be convinced.
I totally understand the obsession with ALIENS. Are we alone? It is a fundamental question which will shape how we see the universe if it can ever answered in the negative.
I doubt we'll discover them in this way, though.
The mountain top/stone in loch theories ignore the backstory to the photo. They would be great if there were none, and this was just a photo of unknown provenance bought at a car boot sale. But there is, there's the statement of the guys who took the photo (or at least provided it) who say it was a thing in the sky, which shot upwards after 10 minutes. So if they are lying, what's the theory? That a stone in a loch is the best way of faking the UAP or that they took a picture of an uninteresting lochstone and later looked at it and said Hey, that looks like a spaceship? Neither sems likely. The photo is 1 of 6 by the way, so the mountain in clouds claim looks a non starter unlessly they were spookily static clouds.
What it is, it's the USAF Aurora project.
There is also the plentiful evidence that the MoD took this seriously, and decided the photos showed a real object, hanging in the sky. Not a rock or a mountain
Nick Pope has been a much derided figure in Fortean UFOlogical circles, but he has been adamant for years that these photos existed and they were lost/hidden, and after all that derision, here indeed is one of the photos, and it is a very close match to what he has described all along. He's been entirely consistent. He is vindicated
He is particularly interesting because, in his opinion and those of some colleagues- it seems - this is NOT American tech
Have you eve4 wondered why we never see the same UFO in other reports? If this is an alien craft, and an example of the ones that have been visiting for 60 years, why is there no consistency?
On this particular case, and Nick Pope in particular, I have never doubted the existence of at least one photo, that likely spooked someone in the RAF. But Pope has a new career to push, and books to sell, and a living to make. He is skin in the game.
A debunking of that thread on immigration from (remainer) Jonathan Portes.
Portes in turn ignores the quid-pro-quo for previously allowing migration from the EU: we had reciprocal freedoms of movement and trade with EU countries, which we haven't substituted with non-EU freedoms. Immigration from non-EU countries has always been available in the same way as now.
At best, we are now choosing to allow immigration from non-EU countries when we chose not to do so before, at the cost of losing our liberties. It doesn't seem a good exchange.
Immigration affects the whole country, for good or for ill. Losing FoM affects maybe three or four percent of the country, and some of those can still emmigrate without FoM. Spare a thought for the other 96% if you can…
I've scanned the threads but I don't see any mention of the big story of the day - the big reveal of the brides and grooms for this year's Married At First Sight.
If it were clearly true it would be interesting (to say the least). As a "we don't know and we have a few odd photographs and some speculation" it's pretty uninteresting unless you happen to be the sort of person who reads the Fortean Times.
But this completely ignores the huge flap going on in the USA, with ex presidents, senators, CIA chief, generals, admirals, intel specialists, senior NYT journalists, NASA heads, all saying, in chorus: Yes there is something up there, we don't know what
Yes. My requirement for "clearly true" is definitely higher than that. Wake me up when Truss has called a COBRA briefing to discuss the UK's response.
Has anyone said anything is "clearly true"?
No. This is quite wearying.
Indeed, I agree (and did from the outset) that nobody has said anything is clearly true. You asked why somebody might not be interested, and that is exactly why I am not. If *you* are enthused by speculating about the possibilities, fantastic. But don't be surprised if not everybody shares your hobby...
But you're on politicalbetting. So you're interested in politics. Aren't you therefore interested in the bizarre behaviour of a large proportion of the American political elite, which is suddenly saying things which, until a couple of years ago, would have been dismissed as lunatic nonsense?
The YouGov polling does clearly show support for both freezing energy bills and ensuring no tax money goes to subsidizing energy companies.
Which are surely mutually exclusive.
Yes. No plan on the table addresses both issues
But surely no plan can address both. Either you freeze energy prices - which, given energy companies' higher costs, means subsidising them (either directly or by letting them fail and then paying to pick up the pieces) - or you don't subsidise them, in which case they can't keep prices down.
Long term get control of provision of our energy needs (tidal, nuclear, some solar and wind). Short term protect bill payers via furlough style intervention which still encourages energy conservation, and also cap business energy costs to stop them moving increases on to them. Set up a government owned energy provider to roll customers/employees from any bankruptcy distributors into. I mean, something like that should be the broad outline imo
I think that he will leave because if he doesn't the Privileges Committee are very likely to sanction him for lying to the House of Commons on more than one occasion and the penalty may well be sufficient to justify a recall petition which would be humiliating.
I think they can go after him afterwards, just as they can any non MP for contempt of parliament.
"What kind of punishment can be dished out?
Parliament’s powers to punish contempt are quite weak. The 4 December 2018 motion did not require any further punishment.
Parliament used to be able to imprison or fine perpetrators, as a court of law, but these powers have lapsed. The last time parliament fined someone was in 1666, and the last time it imprisoned anyone was in 1880 (in the Clock Tower). There have been many calls to put the ability to fine on a statutory basis. Most punishments on non-members involves bringing them before the House to be reprimanded."
I would find being brought before the House and told off, much more humiliating than a few days' suspension or a recall petition. The latter 2 could look like martyrdom.
You honestly don't care if non-human but intelligent beings are buzzing around our skies and diving in our seas? And sodomizing our poor domestic animals?
In all seriousness, you don't have any interest at all? To me it would be one of the most interesting revelations in the history of humankind. Perhaps THE most interesting
If it were clearly true it would be interesting (to say the least). As a "we don't know and we have a few odd photographs and some speculation" it's pretty uninteresting unless you happen to be the sort of person who reads the Fortean Times.
But this completely ignores the huge flap going on in the USA, with ex presidents, senators, CIA chief, generals, admirals, intel specialists, senior NYT journalists, NASA heads, all saying, in chorus: Yes there is something up there, we don't know what
This is 1000 times more than a series of excitable articles in the Fortean Times
Even if this is psy-ops by the American Establishment, that is fascinating in and of itself
Also rather unfair on the Fortean Times, which is grounded and balanced, and certainly not a magazine filled with trash puff stories.
The YouGov polling does clearly show support for both freezing energy bills and ensuring no tax money goes to subsidizing energy companies.
Which are surely mutually exclusive.
Yes. No plan on the table addresses both issues
But surely no plan can address both. Either you freeze energy prices - which, given energy companies' higher costs, means subsidising them (either directly or by letting them fail and then paying to pick up the pieces) - or you don't subsidise them, in which case they can't keep prices down.
Long term get control of provision of our energy needs (tidal, nuclear, some solar and wind). Short term protect bill payers via furlough style intervention which still encourages energy conservation, and also cap business energy costs to stop them moving increases on to them. Set up a government owned energy provider to roll customers/employees from any bankruptcy distributors into. I mean, something like that should be the broad outline imo
I still don't see how you do that without subsidising the energy suppliers?
A debunking of that thread on immigration from (remainer) Jonathan Portes.
Portes in turn ignores the quid-pro-quo for previously allowing migration from the EU: we had reciprocal freedoms of movement and trade with EU countries, which we haven't substituted with non-EU freedoms. Immigration from non-EU countries has always been available in the same way as now.
At best, we are now choosing to allow immigration from non-EU countries when we chose not to do so before, at the cost of losing our liberties. It doesn't seem a good exchange.
No, just now applying the same points system non EU migrants had to EU migrants
If you're spending billions interfering in a free market and propping up private companies profits at no risk to them, its not a free market. If its not a free market then what is the point of it? The market is bring manipulated against us to protect it with our money. We saw it in 2008, we saw it with the artificial interest rate holddown and the fraudulent money printing scams called QE and now this. Fuck that for a game of soldiers, we are grubbing about to protect the great god globslisation. Burn it all down.
Cheery new study into the global effects of various nuclear war scenarios.
https://phys.org/news/2022-08-nuclear-war-global-famine-billions.html ...These data then were entered into the Community Earth System Model, a climate forecasting tool supported by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The NCAR Community Land Model made it possible to estimate productivity of major crops (maize, rice, spring wheat and soybean) on a country-by-country basis. The researchers also examined projected changes to livestock pasture and in global marine fisheries.
Under even the smallest nuclear scenario, a localized war between India and Pakistan, global average caloric production decreased 7% within five years of the conflict. In the largest war scenario tested—a full-scale U.S.-Russia nuclear conflict—global average caloric production decreased by about 90% three to four years after the fighting.
Crop declines would be the most severe in the mid-high latitude nations, including major exporting countries such as Russia and the U.S., which could trigger export restrictions and cause severe disruptions in import-dependent countries in Africa and the Middle East.
These changes would induce a catastrophic disruption of global food markets, the researchers conclude. Even a 7% global decline in crop yield would exceed the largest anomaly ever recorded since the beginning of Food and Agricultural Organization observational records in 1961. Under the largest war scenario, more than 75% of the planet would be starving within two years...
A debunking of that thread on immigration from (remainer) Jonathan Portes.
Portes in turn ignores the quid-pro-quo for previously allowing migration from the EU: we had reciprocal freedoms of movement and trade with EU countries, which we haven't substituted with non-EU freedoms. Immigration from non-EU countries has always been available in the same way as now.
At best, we are now choosing to allow immigration from non-EU countries when we chose not to do so before, at the cost of losing our liberties. It doesn't seem a good exchange.
Immigration affects the whole country, for good or for ill. Losing FoM affects maybe three or four percent of the country, and some of those can still emmigrate without FoM. Spare a thought for the other 96% if you can…
Your point is? Loss of liberty tends to be niche, but important for the people affected. It is not as if there is any real gain for that loss. The "benefit" of Brexit as identified by Portes - increased non-EU immigration - has always been available. It's just we chose not to adopt it earlier.
The YouGov polling does clearly show support for both freezing energy bills and ensuring no tax money goes to subsidizing energy companies.
Which are surely mutually exclusive.
Yes. No plan on the table addresses both issues
But surely no plan can address both. Either you freeze energy prices - which, given energy companies' higher costs, means subsidising them (either directly or by letting them fail and then paying to pick up the pieces) - or you don't subsidise them, in which case they can't keep prices down.
Long term get control of provision of our energy needs (tidal, nuclear, some solar and wind). Short term protect bill payers via furlough style intervention which still encourages energy conservation, and also cap business energy costs to stop them moving increases on to them. Set up a government owned energy provider to roll customers/employees from any bankruptcy distributors into. I mean, something like that should be the broad outline imo
I still don't see how you do that without subsidising the energy suppliers?
No you allow the cap to proceed normally and directly protect bill payers with furlough type payments. Distributors have to offer the best rate to survive.
Labour 41% (+1) Conservative 34% (-1) Liberal Democrat 12% (–) Green 5% (–) Scottish National Party 4% (-) Reform UK 3% (–) Plaid Cymru 1% (-) Other 2% (+1)
Cheery new study into the global effects of various nuclear war scenarios.
https://phys.org/news/2022-08-nuclear-war-global-famine-billions.html ...These data then were entered into the Community Earth System Model, a climate forecasting tool supported by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The NCAR Community Land Model made it possible to estimate productivity of major crops (maize, rice, spring wheat and soybean) on a country-by-country basis. The researchers also examined projected changes to livestock pasture and in global marine fisheries.
Under even the smallest nuclear scenario, a localized war between India and Pakistan, global average caloric production decreased 7% within five years of the conflict. In the largest war scenario tested—a full-scale U.S.-Russia nuclear conflict—global average caloric production decreased by about 90% three to four years after the fighting.
Crop declines would be the most severe in the mid-high latitude nations, including major exporting countries such as Russia and the U.S., which could trigger export restrictions and cause severe disruptions in import-dependent countries in Africa and the Middle East.
These changes would induce a catastrophic disruption of global food markets, the researchers conclude. Even a 7% global decline in crop yield would exceed the largest anomaly ever recorded since the beginning of Food and Agricultural Organization observational records in 1961. Under the largest war scenario, more than 75% of the planet would be starving within two years...
You don't want live in a world after a full US-Russia nuke war.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
I'm suspicious of those branches at the top: suggests they've hung something - perhaps some symmetrical stone object - from them with transparent thread.
If you were going to hang something, you'd make very sure there was no visible means of support, surely!
Anyway, here's a cropped picture of Schiehallion (being a suitable hill for an EXPERIMENT) in a cloud inversion. I took this in January, not August, but you get the idea. The location is only a few miles from Calvine (in the Drumochter hills).
Even with a serious overexposure I think you'd struggle to get something similar to the mystery image.
I still think it is a reflection but am prepared to be convinced.
I totally understand the obsession with ALIENS. Are we alone? It is a fundamental question which will shape how we see the universe if it can ever answered in the negative.
I doubt we'll discover them in this way, though.
The mountain top/stone in loch theories ignore the backstory to the photo. They would be great if there were none, and this was just a photo of unknown provenance bought at a car boot sale. But there is, there's the statement of the guys who took the photo (or at least provided it) who say it was a thing in the sky, which shot upwards after 10 minutes. So if they are lying, what's the theory? That a stone in a loch is the best way of faking the UAP or that they took a picture of an uninteresting lochstone and later looked at it and said Hey, that looks like a spaceship? Neither sems likely. The photo is 1 of 6 by the way, so the mountain in clouds claim looks a non starter unlessly they were spookily static clouds.
What it is, it's the USAF Aurora project.
There is also the plentiful evidence that the MoD took this seriously, and decided the photos showed a real object, hanging in the sky. Not a rock or a mountain
Nick Pope has been a much derided figure in Fortean UFOlogical circles, but he has been adamant for years that these photos existed and they were lost/hidden, and after all that derision, here indeed is one of the photos, and it is a very close match to what he has described all along. He's been entirely consistent. He is vindicated
He is particularly interesting because, in his opinion and those of some colleagues- it seems - this is NOT American tech
Have you eve4 wondered why we never see the same UFO in other reports? If this is an alien craft, and an example of the ones that have been visiting for 60 years, why is there no consistency?
On this particular case, and Nick Pope in particular, I have never doubted the existence of at least one photo, that likely spooked someone in the RAF. But Pope has a new career to push, and books to sell, and a living to make. He is skin in the game.
They have hundreds of thousands of vehicles to choose from.
Their engineering developed differently from ours and everything is a one off
There is stacks of consistency, there's all sorts of known types - tictacs, discs, foo fighters, pyramids etc etc
A debunking of that thread on immigration from (remainer) Jonathan Portes.
Portes in turn ignores the quid-pro-quo for previously allowing migration from the EU: we had reciprocal freedoms of movement and trade with EU countries, which we haven't substituted with non-EU freedoms. Immigration from non-EU countries has always been available in the same way as now.
At best, we are now choosing to allow immigration from non-EU countries when we chose not to do so before, at the cost of losing our liberties. It doesn't seem a good exchange.
No, just now applying the same points system non EU migrants had to EU migrants
Do you think people voted Brexit so they could have a point system? Immigration is a legitimate area of discussion with people having a range of views. But what Brexit has enabled is the possibility of having fewer Europeans -only that.
Cheery new study into the global effects of various nuclear war scenarios.
https://phys.org/news/2022-08-nuclear-war-global-famine-billions.html ...These data then were entered into the Community Earth System Model, a climate forecasting tool supported by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The NCAR Community Land Model made it possible to estimate productivity of major crops (maize, rice, spring wheat and soybean) on a country-by-country basis. The researchers also examined projected changes to livestock pasture and in global marine fisheries.
Under even the smallest nuclear scenario, a localized war between India and Pakistan, global average caloric production decreased 7% within five years of the conflict. In the largest war scenario tested—a full-scale U.S.-Russia nuclear conflict—global average caloric production decreased by about 90% three to four years after the fighting.
Crop declines would be the most severe in the mid-high latitude nations, including major exporting countries such as Russia and the U.S., which could trigger export restrictions and cause severe disruptions in import-dependent countries in Africa and the Middle East.
These changes would induce a catastrophic disruption of global food markets, the researchers conclude. Even a 7% global decline in crop yield would exceed the largest anomaly ever recorded since the beginning of Food and Agricultural Organization observational records in 1961. Under the largest war scenario, more than 75% of the planet would be starving within two years...
You don't want live in a world after a full US-Russia nuke war.
Better to be evaporated in a flash frankly.
Most of us wouldn't be able to for long, even if we wanted.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
I'm suspicious of those branches at the top: suggests they've hung something - perhaps some symmetrical stone object - from them with transparent thread.
If you were going to hang something, you'd make very sure there was no visible means of support, surely!
Anyway, here's a cropped picture of Schiehallion (being a suitable hill for an EXPERIMENT) in a cloud inversion. I took this in January, not August, but you get the idea. The location is only a few miles from Calvine (in the Drumochter hills).
Even with a serious overexposure I think you'd struggle to get something similar to the mystery image.
I still think it is a reflection but am prepared to be convinced.
I totally understand the obsession with ALIENS. Are we alone? It is a fundamental question which will shape how we see the universe if it can ever answered in the negative.
I doubt we'll discover them in this way, though.
The mountain top/stone in loch theories ignore the backstory to the photo. They would be great if there were none, and this was just a photo of unknown provenance bought at a car boot sale. But there is, there's the statement of the guys who took the photo (or at least provided it) who say it was a thing in the sky, which shot upwards after 10 minutes. So if they are lying, what's the theory? That a stone in a loch is the best way of faking the UAP or that they took a picture of an uninteresting lochstone and later looked at it and said Hey, that looks like a spaceship? Neither sems likely. The photo is 1 of 6 by the way, so the mountain in clouds claim looks a non starter unlessly they were spookily static clouds.
What it is, it's the USAF Aurora project.
There is also the plentiful evidence that the MoD took this seriously, and decided the photos showed a real object, hanging in the sky. Not a rock or a mountain
Nick Pope has been a much derided figure in Fortean UFOlogical circles, but he has been adamant for years that these photos existed and they were lost/hidden, and after all that derision, here indeed is one of the photos, and it is a very close match to what he has described all along. He's been entirely consistent. He is vindicated
He is particularly interesting because, in his opinion and those of some colleagues- it seems - this is NOT American tech
Have you eve4 wondered why we never see the same UFO in other reports? If this is an alien craft, and an example of the ones that have been visiting for 60 years, why is there no consistency?
On this particular case, and Nick Pope in particular, I have never doubted the existence of at least one photo, that likely spooked someone in the RAF. But Pope has a new career to push, and books to sell, and a living to make. He is skin in the game.
Is that true tho? Two of the best photos ever taken of UFOs are Costa Rica, and now Calvine
Let's compare them
Costa Rica:
Calvine:
Those could be exactly the same "craft" seen from two angles. One from above, one from the side
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
I'm suspicious of those branches at the top: suggests they've hung something - perhaps some symmetrical stone object - from them with transparent thread.
If you were going to hang something, you'd make very sure there was no visible means of support, surely!
Anyway, here's a cropped picture of Schiehallion (being a suitable hill for an EXPERIMENT) in a cloud inversion. I took this in January, not August, but you get the idea. The location is only a few miles from Calvine (in the Drumochter hills).
Even with a serious overexposure I think you'd struggle to get something similar to the mystery image.
I still think it is a reflection but am prepared to be convinced.
I totally understand the obsession with ALIENS. Are we alone? It is a fundamental question which will shape how we see the universe if it can ever answered in the negative.
I doubt we'll discover them in this way, though.
The mountain top/stone in loch theories ignore the backstory to the photo. They would be great if there were none, and this was just a photo of unknown provenance bought at a car boot sale. But there is, there's the statement of the guys who took the photo (or at least provided it) who say it was a thing in the sky, which shot upwards after 10 minutes. So if they are lying, what's the theory? That a stone in a loch is the best way of faking the UAP or that they took a picture of an uninteresting lochstone and later looked at it and said Hey, that looks like a spaceship? Neither sems likely. The photo is 1 of 6 by the way, so the mountain in clouds claim looks a non starter unlessly they were spookily static clouds.
What it is, it's the USAF Aurora project.
There is also the plentiful evidence that the MoD took this seriously, and decided the photos showed a real object, hanging in the sky. Not a rock or a mountain
Nick Pope has been a much derided figure in Fortean UFOlogical circles, but he has been adamant for years that these photos existed and they were lost/hidden, and after all that derision, here indeed is one of the photos, and it is a very close match to what he has described all along. He's been entirely consistent. He is vindicated
He is particularly interesting because, in his opinion and those of some colleagues- it seems - this is NOT American tech
Have you eve4 wondered why we never see the same UFO in other reports? If this is an alien craft, and an example of the ones that have been visiting for 60 years, why is there no consistency?
On this particular case, and Nick Pope in particular, I have never doubted the existence of at least one photo, that likely spooked someone in the RAF. But Pope has a new career to push, and books to sell, and a living to make. He is skin in the game.
There are other photos and videos with similar shaped craft, same with 'saucer' shaped, triangles etc. There are other eye witness cases with similar shaped craft - Todmorden Yorks in the 70s for example.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
I'm suspicious of those branches at the top: suggests they've hung something - perhaps some symmetrical stone object - from them with transparent thread.
If you were going to hang something, you'd make very sure there was no visible means of support, surely!
Anyway, here's a cropped picture of Schiehallion (being a suitable hill for an EXPERIMENT) in a cloud inversion. I took this in January, not August, but you get the idea. The location is only a few miles from Calvine (in the Drumochter hills).
Even with a serious overexposure I think you'd struggle to get something similar to the mystery image.
I still think it is a reflection but am prepared to be convinced.
I totally understand the obsession with ALIENS. Are we alone? It is a fundamental question which will shape how we see the universe if it can ever answered in the negative.
I doubt we'll discover them in this way, though.
The mountain top/stone in loch theories ignore the backstory to the photo. They would be great if there were none, and this was just a photo of unknown provenance bought at a car boot sale. But there is, there's the statement of the guys who took the photo (or at least provided it) who say it was a thing in the sky, which shot upwards after 10 minutes. So if they are lying, what's the theory? That a stone in a loch is the best way of faking the UAP or that they took a picture of an uninteresting lochstone and later looked at it and said Hey, that looks like a spaceship? Neither sems likely. The photo is 1 of 6 by the way, so the mountain in clouds claim looks a non starter unlessly they were spookily static clouds.
What it is, it's the USAF Aurora project.
There is also the plentiful evidence that the MoD took this seriously, and decided the photos showed a real object, hanging in the sky. Not a rock or a mountain
Nick Pope has been a much derided figure in Fortean UFOlogical circles, but he has been adamant for years that these photos existed and they were lost/hidden, and after all that derision, here indeed is one of the photos, and it is a very close match to what he has described all along. He's been entirely consistent. He is vindicated
He is particularly interesting because, in his opinion and those of some colleagues- it seems - this is NOT American tech
Have you eve4 wondered why we never see the same UFO in other reports? If this is an alien craft, and an example of the ones that have been visiting for 60 years, why is there no consistency?
On this particular case, and Nick Pope in particular, I have never doubted the existence of at least one photo, that likely spooked someone in the RAF. But Pope has a new career to push, and books to sell, and a living to make. He is skin in the game.
There are other photos and videos with similar shaped craft, same with 'saucer' shaped, triangles etc. There are other eye witness cases with similar shaped craft - Todmorden Yorks in the 70s for example.
Hebden Bridge I might understand, but why would they want to visit Tod ?
I think that he will leave because if he doesn't the Privileges Committee are very likely to sanction him for lying to the House of Commons on more than one occasion and the penalty may well be sufficient to justify a recall petition which would be humiliating.
I think they can go after him afterwards, just as they can any non MP for contempt of parliament.
"What kind of punishment can be dished out?
Parliament’s powers to punish contempt are quite weak. The 4 December 2018 motion did not require any further punishment.
Parliament used to be able to imprison or fine perpetrators, as a court of law, but these powers have lapsed. The last time parliament fined someone was in 1666, and the last time it imprisoned anyone was in 1880 (in the Clock Tower). There have been many calls to put the ability to fine on a statutory basis. Most punishments on non-members involves bringing them before the House to be reprimanded."
I would find being brought before the House and told off, much more humiliating than a few days' suspension or a recall petition. The latter 2 could look like martyrdom.
It's not martyrdom if someone faces the level of sanction that their offence generally requires. That's the same logic employed to suggest people should not face any consequences at all - where the guilty attempt to argue the normal punishment is not fair and so would make them a martyr.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
I'm suspicious of those branches at the top: suggests they've hung something - perhaps some symmetrical stone object - from them with transparent thread.
If you were going to hang something, you'd make very sure there was no visible means of support, surely!
Anyway, here's a cropped picture of Schiehallion (being a suitable hill for an EXPERIMENT) in a cloud inversion. I took this in January, not August, but you get the idea. The location is only a few miles from Calvine (in the Drumochter hills).
Even with a serious overexposure I think you'd struggle to get something similar to the mystery image.
I still think it is a reflection but am prepared to be convinced.
I totally understand the obsession with ALIENS. Are we alone? It is a fundamental question which will shape how we see the universe if it can ever answered in the negative.
I doubt we'll discover them in this way, though.
The mountain top/stone in loch theories ignore the backstory to the photo. They would be great if there were none, and this was just a photo of unknown provenance bought at a car boot sale. But there is, there's the statement of the guys who took the photo (or at least provided it) who say it was a thing in the sky, which shot upwards after 10 minutes. So if they are lying, what's the theory? That a stone in a loch is the best way of faking the UAP or that they took a picture of an uninteresting lochstone and later looked at it and said Hey, that looks like a spaceship? Neither sems likely. The photo is 1 of 6 by the way, so the mountain in clouds claim looks a non starter unlessly they were spookily static clouds.
What it is, it's the USAF Aurora project.
There is also the plentiful evidence that the MoD took this seriously, and decided the photos showed a real object, hanging in the sky. Not a rock or a mountain
Nick Pope has been a much derided figure in Fortean UFOlogical circles, but he has been adamant for years that these photos existed and they were lost/hidden, and after all that derision, here indeed is one of the photos, and it is a very close match to what he has described all along. He's been entirely consistent. He is vindicated
He is particularly interesting because, in his opinion and those of some colleagues- it seems - this is NOT American tech
Have you eve4 wondered why we never see the same UFO in other reports? If this is an alien craft, and an example of the ones that have been visiting for 60 years, why is there no consistency?
On this particular case, and Nick Pope in particular, I have never doubted the existence of at least one photo, that likely spooked someone in the RAF. But Pope has a new career to push, and books to sell, and a living to make. He is skin in the game.
There are other photos and videos with similar shaped craft, same with 'saucer' shaped, triangles etc. There are other eye witness cases with similar shaped craft - Todmorden Yorks in the 70s for example.
Hebden Bridge I might understand, but why would they want to visit Tod ?
A debunking of that thread on immigration from (remainer) Jonathan Portes.
Portes in turn ignores the quid-pro-quo for previously allowing migration from the EU: we had reciprocal freedoms of movement and trade with EU countries, which we haven't substituted with non-EU freedoms. Immigration from non-EU countries has always been available in the same way as now.
At best, we are now choosing to allow immigration from non-EU countries when we chose not to do so before, at the cost of losing our liberties. It doesn't seem a good exchange.
No, just now applying the same points system non EU migrants had to EU migrants
Do you think people voted Brexit so they could have a point system? Immigration is a legitimate area of discussion with people having a range of views. But what Brexit has enabled is the possibility of having fewer Europeans -only that.
Yes, that was one of the key manifesto pledges of the Vote Leave campaign. Replace free movement from the EU with a points system
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
I'm suspicious of those branches at the top: suggests they've hung something - perhaps some symmetrical stone object - from them with transparent thread.
If you were going to hang something, you'd make very sure there was no visible means of support, surely!
Anyway, here's a cropped picture of Schiehallion (being a suitable hill for an EXPERIMENT) in a cloud inversion. I took this in January, not August, but you get the idea. The location is only a few miles from Calvine (in the Drumochter hills).
Even with a serious overexposure I think you'd struggle to get something similar to the mystery image.
I still think it is a reflection but am prepared to be convinced.
I totally understand the obsession with ALIENS. Are we alone? It is a fundamental question which will shape how we see the universe if it can ever answered in the negative.
I doubt we'll discover them in this way, though.
The mountain top/stone in loch theories ignore the backstory to the photo. They would be great if there were none, and this was just a photo of unknown provenance bought at a car boot sale. But there is, there's the statement of the guys who took the photo (or at least provided it) who say it was a thing in the sky, which shot upwards after 10 minutes. So if they are lying, what's the theory? That a stone in a loch is the best way of faking the UAP or that they took a picture of an uninteresting lochstone and later looked at it and said Hey, that looks like a spaceship? Neither sems likely. The photo is 1 of 6 by the way, so the mountain in clouds claim looks a non starter unlessly they were spookily static clouds.
What it is, it's the USAF Aurora project.
There is also the plentiful evidence that the MoD took this seriously, and decided the photos showed a real object, hanging in the sky. Not a rock or a mountain
Nick Pope has been a much derided figure in Fortean UFOlogical circles, but he has been adamant for years that these photos existed and they were lost/hidden, and after all that derision, here indeed is one of the photos, and it is a very close match to what he has described all along. He's been entirely consistent. He is vindicated
He is particularly interesting because, in his opinion and those of some colleagues- it seems - this is NOT American tech
Have you eve4 wondered why we never see the same UFO in other reports? If this is an alien craft, and an example of the ones that have been visiting for 60 years, why is there no consistency?
On this particular case, and Nick Pope in particular, I have never doubted the existence of at least one photo, that likely spooked someone in the RAF. But Pope has a new career to push, and books to sell, and a living to make. He is skin in the game.
There are other photos and videos with similar shaped craft, same with 'saucer' shaped, triangles etc. There are other eye witness cases with similar shaped craft - Todmorden Yorks in the 70s for example.
Hebden Bridge I might understand, but why would they want to visit Tod ?
Or West Lothian? (which just happens to have Edinburgh Airport next door).
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
I'm suspicious of those branches at the top: suggests they've hung something - perhaps some symmetrical stone object - from them with transparent thread.
If you were going to hang something, you'd make very sure there was no visible means of support, surely!
Anyway, here's a cropped picture of Schiehallion (being a suitable hill for an EXPERIMENT) in a cloud inversion. I took this in January, not August, but you get the idea. The location is only a few miles from Calvine (in the Drumochter hills).
Even with a serious overexposure I think you'd struggle to get something similar to the mystery image.
I still think it is a reflection but am prepared to be convinced.
I totally understand the obsession with ALIENS. Are we alone? It is a fundamental question which will shape how we see the universe if it can ever answered in the negative.
I doubt we'll discover them in this way, though.
The mountain top/stone in loch theories ignore the backstory to the photo. They would be great if there were none, and this was just a photo of unknown provenance bought at a car boot sale. But there is, there's the statement of the guys who took the photo (or at least provided it) who say it was a thing in the sky, which shot upwards after 10 minutes. So if they are lying, what's the theory? That a stone in a loch is the best way of faking the UAP or that they took a picture of an uninteresting lochstone and later looked at it and said Hey, that looks like a spaceship? Neither sems likely. The photo is 1 of 6 by the way, so the mountain in clouds claim looks a non starter unlessly they were spookily static clouds.
What it is, it's the USAF Aurora project.
There is also the plentiful evidence that the MoD took this seriously, and decided the photos showed a real object, hanging in the sky. Not a rock or a mountain
Nick Pope has been a much derided figure in Fortean UFOlogical circles, but he has been adamant for years that these photos existed and they were lost/hidden, and after all that derision, here indeed is one of the photos, and it is a very close match to what he has described all along. He's been entirely consistent. He is vindicated
He is particularly interesting because, in his opinion and those of some colleagues- it seems - this is NOT American tech
Have you eve4 wondered why we never see the same UFO in other reports? If this is an alien craft, and an example of the ones that have been visiting for 60 years, why is there no consistency?
On this particular case, and Nick Pope in particular, I have never doubted the existence of at least one photo, that likely spooked someone in the RAF. But Pope has a new career to push, and books to sell, and a living to make. He is skin in the game.
There are other photos and videos with similar shaped craft, same with 'saucer' shaped, triangles etc. There are other eye witness cases with similar shaped craft - Todmorden Yorks in the 70s for example.
Yes. Another common shape is the sphere or "orb", gliding along serenely
Here's one. Bristol Channel. Only visible on thermal camera, and flying steadily against the wind
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
I'm suspicious of those branches at the top: suggests they've hung something - perhaps some symmetrical stone object - from them with transparent thread.
If you were going to hang something, you'd make very sure there was no visible means of support, surely!
Anyway, here's a cropped picture of Schiehallion (being a suitable hill for an EXPERIMENT) in a cloud inversion. I took this in January, not August, but you get the idea. The location is only a few miles from Calvine (in the Drumochter hills).
Even with a serious overexposure I think you'd struggle to get something similar to the mystery image.
I still think it is a reflection but am prepared to be convinced.
I totally understand the obsession with ALIENS. Are we alone? It is a fundamental question which will shape how we see the universe if it can ever answered in the negative.
I doubt we'll discover them in this way, though.
The mountain top/stone in loch theories ignore the backstory to the photo. They would be great if there were none, and this was just a photo of unknown provenance bought at a car boot sale. But there is, there's the statement of the guys who took the photo (or at least provided it) who say it was a thing in the sky, which shot upwards after 10 minutes. So if they are lying, what's the theory? That a stone in a loch is the best way of faking the UAP or that they took a picture of an uninteresting lochstone and later looked at it and said Hey, that looks like a spaceship? Neither sems likely. The photo is 1 of 6 by the way, so the mountain in clouds claim looks a non starter unlessly they were spookily static clouds.
What it is, it's the USAF Aurora project.
There is also the plentiful evidence that the MoD took this seriously, and decided the photos showed a real object, hanging in the sky. Not a rock or a mountain
Nick Pope has been a much derided figure in Fortean UFOlogical circles, but he has been adamant for years that these photos existed and they were lost/hidden, and after all that derision, here indeed is one of the photos, and it is a very close match to what he has described all along. He's been entirely consistent. He is vindicated
He is particularly interesting because, in his opinion and those of some colleagues- it seems - this is NOT American tech
Have you eve4 wondered why we never see the same UFO in other reports? If this is an alien craft, and an example of the ones that have been visiting for 60 years, why is there no consistency?
On this particular case, and Nick Pope in particular, I have never doubted the existence of at least one photo, that likely spooked someone in the RAF. But Pope has a new career to push, and books to sell, and a living to make. He is skin in the game.
Is that true tho? Two of the best photos ever taken of UFOs are Costa Rica, and now Calvine
Let's compare them
Costa Rica:
Calvine:
Those could be exactly the same "craft" seen from two angles. One from above, one from the side
There is 'string' in the CR photo (possibly scratches from the camera or development); and the thing is in focus as is the far-distant landscape. Not sure if the latter is plausible.
Comments
It only has to make sense in Big Dog's imagination.
Nick Pope has been a much derided figure in Fortean UFOlogical circles, but he has been adamant for years that these photos existed and they were lost/hidden, and after all that derision, here indeed is one of the photos, and it is a very close match to what he has described all along. He's been entirely consistent. He is vindicated
He is particularly interesting because, in his opinion and those of some colleagues- it seems - this is NOT American tech
Australia has a visa category that is designed around specific skill and occupational vacancies. And back in the early 2000s, it still had AS/400 on the list. So, you might have been unemployable in the UK with out of date technical skills, but Australia was still handing out visas for people who could prove they had the skills.
It also means that the government doesn't necessarily do the right remedial work: if you're importing electricians year after year, then maybe the problem is that you're not training enough electricians. And you should solve your training problem, rather than relying on your visa system.
No idea.
https://twitter.com/Dereklowe/status/1559204664855465984
And, as predicted. They are squawking about 'fully costed'. Its a crisis, fuck the costings, come up with the sustainable, permanent solution, not some expensive shit to get through Christmas and keep energy CEOs in holiday homes, private jets and the like
For example:
https://piggsboson.medium.com/the-unanswered-questions-in-physics-and-philosophy-817bca90c4c9
But an old photo ?
Not so much.
The economy was trashed pre Brexit too by one Gordon Brown who promised to abolish boom and bust but only did half of the job.
Phew normal service is resumed. Although...I am not sure Spreadsheet Phil realises that Labour are in opposition and the Government is currently of the blue variety.
Vladimir Putin has boasted that Russian weapons are 'decades' ahead of Western rivals' in a speech at an arms expo in Moscow.
Delegations from more than 70 countries are attending Army-2022 to take advantage of good deals on Russian kit.
Allies and buyers of Russian hardware have expressed concern as Putin's tanks, warships and planes continue to drop like flies in Ukraine.
For anyone that wants the backstory, this old article by Nick Pope gives a good summary. It is deeply interesting in the light of the photo suddenly showing up
https://web.archive.org/web/20190331171512/http://www.nickpope.net/calvine-ufo-photo.htm
And, in retrospect, his final paragraph is quite compelling
"I don't know if the photos or negatives will ever turn up, but I certainly hope they do. Because whatever peoples’ views on UFOs, these are the photos that changed the minds of numerous skeptical civil servants, military personnel and intelligence specialists at MoD. I should know. I was one of them."
If it isn't a hoax, a rock or a mountain then it is probably the most spectacular photo of a UFO in existence
That STILL doesn't mean it's aliens, of course, but the allied eye witness accounts suggest it was/is genuinely WEIRD
Set a wage rate that opens up temporary visas. Eg maybe £40k or £50k (picking numbers out of the air) and anyone with a job meeting that threshold can get a visa so long as they meet other criteria (eg clean criminal record etc).
If they stay in the UK for five years maintaining that job, or equivalents, contributing taxes and keeping a clean record then open a pathway to permanent residence followed by citizenship.
But whilst Boris's political career is dead, I don't see any evidence that he has noticed yet. And that's the problem.
Labour leads by 7%.
Westminster Voting Intention (14 August):
Labour 41% (+1)
Conservative 34% (-1)
Liberal Democrat 12% (–)
Green 5% (–)
Scottish National Party 4% (-)
Reform UK 3% (–)
Plaid Cymru 1% (-)
Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 7 August
https://t.co/Z4K3Y5gdje https://t.co/z9FTS9SbZ2
In the meantime he'll have a couple of newspaper columns and another book advance to keep him in the style to which he and Carrie have become accustomed!
This is 1000 times more than a series of excitable articles in the Fortean Times
Even if this is psy-ops by the American Establishment, that is fascinating in and of itself
A debunking of that thread on immigration from (remainer) Jonathan Portes.
No. This is quite wearying. We are an intelligent bunch of people and we are trying to work out what this photo shows, because a couple of POSSIBLE answers are mind-boggling
But no one knows for sure, of course
What we can do is rule out hypotheses, perhaps. I am now pretty convinced it is not a mountain-top seen in unusual cloud formations, and that's partly because of things said on here. So, go PB UFO Team
I don't think most people including a majority of politicians have accepted the necessary bailouts will consume huge amounts of public money.
Or....he is going to go on Russian TV, raise his arms - and we will discover the terrible truth: he is a White Walker.
And the Ukrainians are going to have kill his army of the undead all over again.
The government need a windfall tax on energy extractors and move that cash to the energy distributors. Everyone should stop thinking of energy companies as a homogenous bunch.
The Russian Army is visually confirmed to have suffered the loss of 1027 IFVs so far....
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1559209628788981762
Did the Mail expect him to say "our weapons are shit and completely overhyped"?
Having said that, for countries that need something cheap, basic and where opponents are often under armed insurgents eg in many African countries, Russian weapons do the job.
Conversely, expensive weapons aren't a guarantee of success. As the performance of the Saudis in Yemen with M1 Abrams has shown.
I mean, it's only the biggest question since our sentient selves started building pyramids.
Exploring the Potential: A high energy density pulsed power device as a UK R&D platform
The Royal Society, with Dr Nick Hawker of First Light Fusion, is hosting this meeting to explore the possible research applications for a new UK capability for High Energy Density (HED) science. The meeting will take place at the Royal Society on 15 September 2022.
https://royalsociety.org/science-events-and-lectures/2022/09/exploring-the-research-potential-of-a-pulsed-power-device/
https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-troops-effectiveness-russia-pentagon-vladimir-putin-kherson-1733417
Balanced out by the Russians -2 out of 10.
I can't recall a UK politician quite so repellent to me, and with Farage and Corbyn* waiting in the wings that is some bold assessment.
* Worse even than Chris Williamson and Rob Roberts. I even prefer Chope, Bridgen, Francois, Bone and Philip Davies.
At best, we are now choosing to allow immigration from non-EU countries when we chose not to do so before, at the cost of losing our liberties. It doesn't seem a good exchange.
This won't be improved upon.
For example:
https://twitter.com/INTELPSF/status/1559199323073691651
A Nigerian Air Force #Pakistan-made PAC JF-17A Thunder Block II (Serial No. 720), carrying a #Turkey-made Aselsan ASELPOD reconnaissance and targeting pod.
On this particular case, and Nick Pope in particular, I have never doubted the existence of at least one photo, that likely spooked someone in the RAF. But Pope has a new career to push, and books to sell, and a living to make. He is skin in the game.
https://www.instagram.com/p/ChQfJc3Itbx/
What are you guys like?
I mean, something like that should be the broad outline imo
"What kind of punishment can be dished out?
Parliament’s powers to punish contempt are quite weak. The 4 December 2018 motion did not require any further punishment.
Parliament used to be able to imprison or fine perpetrators, as a court of law, but these powers have lapsed. The last time parliament fined someone was in 1666, and the last time it imprisoned anyone was in 1880 (in the Clock Tower). There have been many calls to put the ability to fine on a statutory basis. Most punishments on non-members involves bringing them before the House to be reprimanded."
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/contempt-parliament
I would find being brought before the House and told off, much more humiliating than a few days' suspension or a recall petition. The latter 2 could look like martyrdom.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA341&lpg=PA341&dq=this+tends+to+make+the+air+a+more+effective+blanket+for+the+earth&source=bl&ots=QvdH-SgFLl&sig=WiPUNOIzM6udOSTBm2VXzRQB9K8&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
P339-342
Burn it all down.
https://phys.org/news/2022-08-nuclear-war-global-famine-billions.html
...These data then were entered into the Community Earth System Model, a climate forecasting tool supported by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The NCAR Community Land Model made it possible to estimate productivity of major crops (maize, rice, spring wheat and soybean) on a country-by-country basis. The researchers also examined projected changes to livestock pasture and in global marine fisheries.
Under even the smallest nuclear scenario, a localized war between India and Pakistan, global average caloric production decreased 7% within five years of the conflict. In the largest war scenario tested—a full-scale U.S.-Russia nuclear conflict—global average caloric production decreased by about 90% three to four years after the fighting.
Crop declines would be the most severe in the mid-high latitude nations, including major exporting countries such as Russia and the U.S., which could trigger export restrictions and cause severe disruptions in import-dependent countries in Africa and the Middle East.
These changes would induce a catastrophic disruption of global food markets, the researchers conclude. Even a 7% global decline in crop yield would exceed the largest anomaly ever recorded since the beginning of Food and Agricultural Organization observational records in 1961. Under the largest war scenario, more than 75% of the planet would be starving within two years...
At this moment, which of the following individuals do voters think would be the better PM for the United Kingdom? (14 August)
Truss 41% (+3)
Starmer 37% (+2)
Don't Know 22% (-4)
Changes +/- 7 August
Westminster Voting Intention (14 August):
Labour 41% (+1)
Conservative 34% (-1)
Liberal Democrat 12% (–)
Green 5% (–)
Scottish National Party 4% (-)
Reform UK 3% (–)
Plaid Cymru 1% (-)
Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 7 August
Better to be evaporated in a flash frankly.
Their engineering developed differently from ours and everything is a one off
There is stacks of consistency, there's all sorts of known types - tictacs, discs, foo fighters, pyramids etc etc
Here's the same ufo Calidfornia 2012
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/diamond-shaped-ufo-california_n_1415261
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2022/08/419_334434.html
Let's compare them
Costa Rica:
Calvine:
Those could be exactly the same "craft" seen from two angles. One from above, one from the side
Wholesale gas up another 12% today (Sept ‘22 contract) to 443p/therm.
Futures;
December ‘22 contract 592p
Winter ‘23 contract 458p
https://www.theice.com/products/910/UK-Natural-Gas-Futures/data?marketId=5253323
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/restoring_public_trust_in_immigration_policy_a_points_based_non_discriminatory_immigration_system.html
Yes. Another common shape is the sphere or "orb", gliding along serenely
Here's one. Bristol Channel. Only visible on thermal camera, and flying steadily against the wind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LN_lQ8N2K8