[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible" "Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!" "If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think" "Ending EPA Overreach" Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED! Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing! Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy? Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia) "Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department" Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent "Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail" Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly "Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them" ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson! "The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent" 7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza? What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225 EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start? "Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work" test "Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working" "Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly" "Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home" "The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity" "How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy" Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: the worst flood in recorded history Source: ABC News URL Source: [None] Published: Aug 28, 2017 Author: Barry Midyet Post Date: 2017-08-28 00:31:07 by interpreter Keywords: None Views: 20920 Comments: 128 The news today is that the worst flood in recorded history is occurring right now, and right here (in my neck of the woods, the Houston/ Galveston area). Moreover, as with all of the other major events of the last 25 years, I predicted it. (See my book, The Revelation: A Historicist View and turn to the section on the seven last plagues, Plague# 4). I very plainly said that hurricanes and major weather events including floods would wax much worse in 2017. Katrina was just a dress rehearsal, folks. But Thank God I was fully prepared because like I advised everyone on earth to do, I am completely stocked up on distilled water and can goods, and mosquito spray, and (provided the police give me my gun back) on bullets also. And with all this water to breed in, I'm pretty sure the Aedes from Hades will be here next. And I am making that prediction once again, right here, right now. So get ready folks for much worse before the 7 last plagues are mitigated. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 78. #4. To: interpreter (#0) Moreover, as with all of the other major events of the last 25 years, I predicted it. (See my book, The Revelation: A Historicist View and turn to the section on the seven last plagues, Plague# 4). I very plainly said that hurricanes and major weather events including floods would wax much worse in 2017. Katrina was just a dress rehearsal, folks. Did you predict this? As I recall, you predicted something significant happening during the total eclipse. Maybe the flooding was that prediction, only you were a bit ahead of God's timetable. Again. And of course, failed to state where it would happen, along with what exact "it" was going to be. Petty details, I know, but still..... It's pretty safe to say that there is some kind of climate record set somewhere in the USA every year, whether it's temperature, rainfall, snowfall or any one of a hundred other metrics. If you want bragging rights about making predictions, you'll have to start naming places, events AND times. For example: I predict your house (a place) will be illuminated by the sun (an event) tomorrow. It will happen sometime around dawn (time). Can you top that one? Pinguinite  posted on  2017-08-28   3:04:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: Pinguinite (#4) (Edited) Actually, as you yourself admit, Harvey did in fact form during the eclipse, or perhaps a day afterward. But there is no law against being a day or so ahead of God's timetable. Because in no Bible prophecy anywhere in the Bible does any prophet state the exact date and/or exactly how a prophesied event would take place, and neither did Jean Dixon or Hal Lindsay or Nastrodamus or anyone else you care to name, so why in the hell do you say the utterly ridiculous things you say? But I come very very close to the exact day unlike anyone else in history. And if you want to read exactly what I said, then buy my book and turn to page 71. And there is no way in hell your prediction is going to come true. I dont have a house because I choose to be homeless like Jesus was. That takes the cake (the raspberry one). interpreter  posted on  2017-08-28   3:42:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: interpreter (#5) Actually, as you yourself admit, Harvey did in fact form during the eclipse, or perhaps a day afterward. But there is no law against being a day or so ahead of God's timetable. Oh, so you are indeed claiming credit for predicting the hurricane as part of the eclipse! I looked it up and Harvey was already a named storm before you posted your prediction. But I guess you like to give yourself as much leeway as required to make yourself right. Certainly you need to. And there is no way in hell your prediction is going to come true. I dont have a house because I choose to be homeless like Jesus was. That takes the cake (the raspberry one). Oh, well, when I said "house" I certainly didn't necessarily mean you were a home owner. One's "house" could be an apartment, or if you are indeed homeless, it would/could mean the bridge overpass or cardboard box you would be sleeping under. Anything you sleep under could be considered one's "house", even if it's a tree, so my prediction stands true. See how that works? I can do what you do too. Here's the deal. You made a decision to come on to a public forum and make extremely open ended predictions, like how someone might be born during an eclipse, which on any day in a country the size of the USA happens about 11,000 times, with or without any eclipse. That's a voluntary step on your part that makes you open to criticism. And that's simply what you're getting. We all have our quirks, and yours is a need for attention. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-08-28   10:42:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: Pinguinite (#13) Oh, so you are indeed claiming credit for predicting the hurricane as part of the eclipse! I looked it up and Harvey was already a named storm before you posted your prediction. But I guess you like to give yourself as much leeway as required to make yourself right. Certainly you need to. Oh, well, when I said "house" I certainly didn't necessarily mean you were a home owner. One's "house" could be an apartment, or if you are indeed homeless, it would/could mean the bridge overpass or cardboard box you would be sleeping under. Anything you sleep under could be considered one's "house", even if it's a tree, so my prediction stands true. See how that works? I can do what you do too. Thanks for confirming that Harvey did indeed form during the eclipse. But I personally (and probably most of the world) did not find out about it till the next day because the news media was focused on the eclipse mostly and also the threat of nuclear war, and (as far as the channels I was watching) never once mentioned the itsy-bitsy teenie weeny tropical depression that formed in the Gulf that day. "Oh, well, when I said "house" I certainly didn't necessarily mean you were a home owner. One's "house" could be an apartment, or if you are indeed homeless, it would/could mean the bridge overpass or cardboard box you would be sleeping under. Anything you sleep under could be considered one's "house", even if it's a tree, so my prediction stands true. See how that works? I can do what you do too." Well, I live on a boat, and at the present moment in time, I have no earthly idea if its still there or not, so I may very well have to sleep under a bridge at some point, but right now there are numerous homeless shelters being set up by the state and FEMA, et al, for all the homeless people displaced by Harvey so I am not worried about it at all. No matter what happens to my boat, I thank God that I and all my relatives and neighbors and friends are still alive and kicking. And as for a baby being born during the eclipse, what I actually said was a baby born in 2017 (possibly during the eclipse) will live to be 1000 years old. That narrows down your "11,000 babies" remark considerably dont you think? interpreter  posted on  2017-08-28   12:51:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: interpreter, Pinguinite (#17) [Pinguinite #13] Oh, so you are indeed claiming credit for predicting the hurricane as part of the eclipse! I looked it up and Harvey was already a named storm before you posted your prediction. [interpreter #17 to Pinguinite #13] Thanks for confirming that Harvey did indeed form during the eclipse. The eclipse occurred on August 21st. Harvey reached tropical storm status on August 17. It degenerated to a tropical wave on August 19th. It redeveloped by August 23rd, regained tropical storm status on August 24th, and became a hurricane on August 24th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Harvey The eighth named storm, third hurricane, and the first major hurricane of the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season, Harvey developed from a tropical wave to the east of the Lesser Antilles, reaching tropical storm status on August 17. The storm crossed through the Windward Islands on the following day, passing just south of Barbados and later near Saint Vincent. Upon entering the Caribbean Sea, Harvey began to weaken due to moderate wind shear and degenerated into a tropical wave north of Colombia early on August 19. The remnants were monitored for regeneration as it continued west-northwestward across the Caribbean and the Yucatán Peninsula, before redeveloping over the Bay of Campeche on August 23. Harvey then began to rapidly intensify on August 24, regaining tropical storm status and becoming a hurricane later that day. While the storm moved generally northwestwards, Harvey's intensification phase stalled slightly overnight from August 24–25, however Harvey soon resumed strengthening and became a category 4 hurricane late on August 25. Hours later, Harvey made landfall near Rockport, Texas, at peak intensity. nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-28   15:56:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: nolu chan (#19) Thank you for that info. So if I understand your post correctly, Harvey existed, but was still a tropical wave on August 21st? That's probably why I never heard of it until after the eclipse. I rest my case. But I think its even more impressive that I predicted it before I even heard of it. Barry M interpreter  posted on  2017-08-28   17:05:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: interpreter (#21) So if I understand your post correctly, Harvey existed, but was still a tropical wave on August 21st? That's probably why I never heard of it until after the eclipse. I rest my case. It was a Tropical Wave until the 24th, three days after the eclipse. Harvey was reported as a Tropical Storm on the 17th. It degenerated to a Tropical Wave on August 19th, two days BEFORE the eclipse. It redeveloped on August 23rd, two days AFTER the eclipse, intensified to a Tropical Storm on August 24th, three days AFTER the eclipse, and later on August 24th, intensified into Hurricane Harvey, three days AFTER the eclipse. From two days before the eclipse, until three days after the eclipse, Harvey failed to be intense enough to qualify as a Tropical Storm. nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-28   17:36:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: nolu chan (#23) (Edited) I do have to say that you do your homework/research before you post. But I still will have to dispute one of your points, and I suspect it is because you live in New York City or somewhere and I live right here in the epicenter of this event. And I heard on the TV a few minutes ago that it is the 3rd 1000-year storm in 3 years. Think about that for a minute. Storms that used to occur once every thousand years are now occurring at least once a year (as I predicted in my book). Anyhow, if my memory serves me correctly, your timetable is not quite correct. The tropical wave once called Harvey strayed down to Texas and began to regroup and strenghthen a bit during the eclipse, and within a day or so began to be mentioned for the first time ever on the local weather stations. And within a day or two it became a a full-fledged tropical storm, and then within a day or so it became full-fledged hurricane, and the next day it became a category 4 hurricane. It all happened pretty quick and surprised a lot of people, and I myself was very fortunate to be able to buy some gasoline for my car before all the gas stations ran out of gas, and then after a hell of a lot of rain that night (at least 14 to 15 inches in every city in the area) everything was closed the next day and everything is still closed. It all happened very quickly. And about 15 to 20 thousand people in low-lying areas have been rescued so far, often from their roofs, and total rainfall from the storm is expected to be 50 inches before its over, causing another 15 to 20 thousand to seek to be rescued. But only about half of the 911 callers are able to get through, and many many people have drowned. So there you have it, straight from the epicenter of the latest plague that God/ Mother Nature has sent upon the Earth. And anyone who knows anything about history knows that most of the earth's earthshaking events have occurred during an eclipse. Everyone used to know that, but today that rather obvious fact (if there ever was one) is very often poo-pooed for some reason. Barry Midyet interpreter  posted on  2017-08-28   22:21:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: interpreter (#28) I do have to say that you do your homework/research before you post. But I still will have to dispute one of your points, and I suspect it is because you live in New York City or somewhere and I live right here in the epicenter of this event. I have not called New York home for more than 50 years. I do not live any where near it. I live much closer to you. I heard on the TV a few minutes ago that it is the 3rd 1000-year storm in 3 years. Think about that for a minute. Storms that used to occur once every thousand years are now occurring at least once a year (as I predicted in my book). Yeah, not to mention how may times the press has declared the Crime of the Century, the Trial of the Century, the Fight of the Century, and so on and so forth. When is the last time anyone saw a news story about the fourth, fifth, or sixth biggest storm of the century? Anyhow, if my memory serves me correctly, your timetable is not quite correct. I assuredly did not go by memory. The tropical wave once called Harvey strayed down to Texas and began to regroup and strenghthen a bit during the eclipse, and within a day or so began to mentioned for the first time ever on the local weather stations. As I posted previously at #19, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Harvey The eighth named storm, third hurricane, and the first major hurricane of the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season, Harvey developed from a tropical wave to the east of the Lesser Antilles, reaching tropical storm status on August 17. The storm crossed through the Windward Islands on the following day, passing just south of Barbados and later near Saint Vincent. Upon entering the Caribbean Sea, Harvey began to weaken due to moderate wind shear and degenerated into a tropical wave north of Colombia early on August 19. The remnants were monitored for regeneration as it continued west-northwestward across the Caribbean and the Yucatán Peninsula, before redeveloping over the Bay of Campeche on August 23. Harvey then began to rapidly intensify on August 24, regaining tropical storm status and becoming a hurricane later that day. While the storm moved generally northwestwards, Harvey's intensification phase stalled slightly overnight from August 24–25, however Harvey soon resumed strengthening and became a category 4 hurricane late on August 25. Hours later, Harvey made landfall near Rockport, Texas, at peak intensity. That description conforms to the NOAA/NHC weather notices, of which I quoted one in its entirely and linked to nine more, indicating the storm status of the alerts, and the dates. And within a day or two it became a a full-fledged tropical storm, and then within a day or so it became full-fledged huricane, and the next day it became a catagory 4 hurricane. It became a tropical storm on 17 August. It fell below a tropical storm on 19 August. It became a tropical storm again on August 24. It became a Hurricane on 25 August. It is a matter of record. It all happened pretty quick and surprised a lot of people, and I myself was very fortunate to be able to buy some gasoline for my car before all the gas stations ran out of gas, and then after a hell of a lot of rain that night (at least 14 to 15 inches in every city in the area) everything was closed the next day and everything is still closed. It all happened very quickly. It was lower than a tropical storm from 19 Aug to 24 Aug. The eclipse was on 21 Aug. The storm started to regain strength on the 23 Aug and resumed tropical storm status the next day. Later that day, it became a hurricane for the first time. For precise times, see the official times cited below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Harvey Harvey was downgraded to a tropical depression at 21:00 UTC on August 19; six hours later, based on continued data from a reconnaissance aircraft, it was declared an open tropical wave. Early on August 20, the NHC began monitoring the remnants of Harvey for redevelopment. Although the effects of strong upper-level winds and dry air were expected to limit development in the near-term, conditions were expected to become more conducive to tropical storm and hurricane conditions when the disturbance entered the northwestern Caribbean Sea, and especially in the Bay of Campeche. Despite an increase in convective organization, the disturbance still lacked a well-defined center as it approached the Yucatán Peninsula. While traversing inland, satellite images and surface observations indicated that the circulation became better defined. A reconnaissance aircraft investigating the remnants of Harvey around 15:00 UTC on August 23 indicated that it once again acquired a well-defined center, and the NHC upgraded it to a tropical depression accordingly. The system began to slowly consolidate amid an increasingly favorable environment, attaining tropical storm intensity by 06:00 UTC on August 24. Later that morning, Harvey began to undergo rapid intensification as an eye developed and its central pressure quickly fell. By 17:00 UTC, the storm was upgraded to the third hurricane of the season. Slight entrainment of dry air slowed the intensification process, however, by the next day, Harvey was able to quickly strengthen into a major hurricane by 19:00 UTC. Further deepening occurred as the storm approached the coast of Texas, with Harvey becoming a Category 4 hurricane at 23:00 UTC, based on reconnaissance aircraft data. Around 03:00 UTC on August 26, the hurricane made landfall at peak intensity at Rockport with winds of 130 mph (215 km/h) and an atmospheric pressure of 938 mbar (27.7 inHg). Those times are UTC. Texas is on CDT and is UTC -5. So there you have it, straight from the epicenter of the latest plague that God/ Mother Nature has sent upon the Earth. And anyone who knows anything about history knows that most of the earth's earthshaking events have occurred during an eclipse. Well, this event did not occur during an eclipse. It was not even of tropical storm strength from two (2) days before the eclipse, to three (3) days after the eclipse. I'm older than you and have lived through no earth shattering events or plagues during any eclipse, but I do recall Carol and Edna. In 1954, the East Coast was especially naughty and Hurricane Carol (1-minute sustained wind, 115 mph) formed on August 25th and dissipated on September 1st. Then Hurricane Edna (1-minute sustained wind, 125 mph) formed on September 2nd and dissipated on September 15th. Carol caused 72 fatalities. Edna directly caused 20 fatalities, and 9 indirect. nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-28   23:50:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: nolu chan (#30) Well, with you I am giving up (for now) because as usual you have done much much research and I have done none, but that is simply because I do not have any time to do any research on anything because I am in the middle of the biggest storm in recorded history. All I can do is go by memory and by my eyes and ears and what I am seeing and hearing even as I type this. 9 trillion gallons of water have been dumped on Southeast Texas, and Rescuers have now rescued over 3000 people from the floodwaters and that figure is expected to double before its over. And it is very evident that it all started with an eclipse, and any knowledgable student of history can tell you that most all earthshaking events were fulfilled during, or started during an eclipse. Do you want me to list them for you? If that is what you want, I can do that. And as for 1000-year floods, a few years ago, it was a 500-year flood occurring every year. Now it is a 1000-year floods occurring every year. For God's sake, how much worse do things have to get before you become a believer and realize that God is unhappy with the US, and is punishing us just as He did with the Israelites?? We must repent and rejoin the Paris agreement for starters. Then we must repeal the 1965 Immigration Reform Act that let Muslims in. Then we must overturn the Same Sex Marriage decision and the Roe vs Wade decision for two other starters. Then, and only then, will we see the seven last plagues begin to be mitigated, and receive some relief. interpreter  posted on  2017-08-29   1:42:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: interpreter (#31) Well, with you I am giving up (for now) because as usual you have done much much research and I have done none, but that is simply because I do not have any time to do any research on anything because I am in the middle of the biggest storm in recorded history. Everything is bigger in Texas. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/441964/The-biggest-storm-in-history-batters-the-Philippines The biggest storm in history batters the Philippines A MONSTER 235mph “super typhoon” confirmed as the ­biggest storm in history was last night feared to have claimed thousands of lives. By Nathan Rao PUBLISHED: 00:01, Sat, Nov 9, 2013 Typhoon Haiyan ripped into the Philippines, forcing millions to flee their homes in terror. The storm’s astonishing power ­unleashed giant 45ft waves, flooding coastal areas including tourist destinations with 16in of lashing rain. [snip] Can't touch those monster storms in the Pacific. All I can do is go by memory and by my eyes and ears and what I am seeing and hearing even as I type this. I don't know why your memory is all you can go on, when my post that you are responding to linked and quoted the official weather center data. Harvey failed to be a Tropical Storm from two days before the eclipse to three days after the eclipse. That may be inconvenient for the eclipse caused it theory, but that is the breaks of Naval air. And it is very evident that it all started with an eclipse, and any knowledgable student of history can tell you that most all earthshaking events were fulfilled during, or started during an eclipse. Do you want me to list them for you? If that is what you want, I can do that. It is not obvious at all that earthshaking events almost always occur during an eclipse. And as for 1000-year floods, a few years ago, it was a 500-year flood occurring every year. Now it is a 1000-year floods occurring every year. For God's sake, how much worse do things have to get before you become a believer and realize that God is unhappy with the US, and is punishing us just as He did with the Israelites?? We must repent and rejoin the Paris agreement for starters. You do realize that claims of more than one 1,000 year storm every thousand years is an irrational claim. If there were such a storm every day, it would be a daily storm. Weather happens. God does not cause storms, or touchdowns, or make footballs carom off goalposts to punish naughty kickers. Nor does He deflate Tom Brady's balls. And honest to Buddha, spare us the Paris agreement. Then we must repeal the 1965 Immigration Reform Act that let Muslims in. Then we must overturn the Same Sex Marriage decision and the Roe vs Wade decision for two other starters. Then, and only then, will we see the seven last plagues begin to be mitigated, and receive some relief. I'm not sure why the Immigration and Nationality Act, amendments of 1965 has such high priority. I'll provide the content and you can identify the most seriously offending provision(s). Well, heck, I uploaded to Scribd and their computer flagged it for a copyright violation. It's a Federal law, and a dumb computer program. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg911.pdf 79 Stat. 911, H.R. 2580, P.L. 89-236 (3 Oct 1965). Immigration and Nationality Act, amendments. I would be for overturning (not reversing) Obergefell and Roe. Those were issues best left to the States and of questionable Federal jurisdiction. However, it should be noted that this would result in States making up their own mind, and many had permitted abortion and gay marriage. Texas would be free to do its thing, and California could do its thing. Advocating Federal jurisdiction is advocating for Federal government authority to decide the issue for all. Look where that got us. Then, and only then, will we see the seven last plagues begin to be mitigated, and receive some relief. Oh noes, not this plague thing again. Why would an all-loving god punish all for the whimsical acts of the nine? The good of the many outweighs the whimsy of the few. nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-29   4:00:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: nolu chan (#32) (Edited) As for the rest of your post, I am glad that we fully agree on some things, i.e, the need to overturn Obergefell and Roe. As for Roe, if we cannot succeed in overturning the whole thing, we definitely need (at the minimum) to overturn the part that allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb. That is murder (taking the life of another human being), pure and simple and there can be no debate, and no if ands or buts. As for your last remark, God is NOT an all-loving God. He hates a lot of things, and a lot of people (like ISIS for example), and we are repeated told in the Bible about the need to fear God and His wrath. And despite your view of things, God often punishes a whole nation or city, etc. for the sins of a few. He is like that sometimes if He gets mad enough, and we must constantly fear Him else we too will feel His wrath. interpreter  posted on  2017-08-29   13:26:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: interpreter (#41) As for Roe, if we cannot succeed in overturning the whole thing, we definitely need (at the minimum) to overturn the part that allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb. Can you please QUOTE the provision in Roe that you believe "allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb"? That is murder (taking the life of another human being), pure and simple and there can be no debate, and no if ands or buts. Murder is a man-made legal construct. If something is legal, it is not murder. Any act that does not meet the legal definition of murder, is not murder. If Roe were overturned, states such as California could, and likely would, have lawful abortion on demand. As for your last remark, God is NOT an all-loving God. He hates a lot of things, and a lot of people (like ISIS for example), and we are repeated told in the Bible about the need to fear God and His wrath. And despite your view of things, God often punishes a whole nation or city, etc. for the sins of a few. Your God may be a hateful, wrathful, avenging God. You are free to believe whatever you want. Resort to your invisible friend when your attempt at rational/factual argument fails is not persuasive. nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-29   22:46:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: nolu chan (#58) (Edited) Technically, the Roe vs Wade verdict does NOT say that, but the wording is kinda ambiguous, and what I said is how the alt-left judges and Planned Parenthood interprets it. The other alternative is simply to get rid of Planned Parenthood and all the alt-left judges and problem solved. (But to prevent any alt-left judges from ever ruling that way again, the wording of the verdict probably should reworded or amended or something, but I am in no way a legal expert so I have no idea how it should be accomplished. And the legal definition of murder should also be changed, and any other law if it disagrees with the Bible because that is what all English laws are supposed to be based on as everyone knows (except you apparently). interpreter  posted on  2017-08-30   1:36:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #68. To: interpreter (#65) [interpreter #41] As for Roe, if we cannot succeed in overturning the whole thing, we definitely need (at the minimum) to overturn the part that allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb. [nolu chan #58] Can you please QUOTE the provision in Roe that you believe "allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb"? [interpreter #65] Technically, the Roe vs Wade verdict does NOT say that, but the wording is kinda ambiguous, and what I said is how the alt-left judges and Planned Parenthood interprets it. Actually, it says no such thing about partial-birth or third trimester abortions. Partial-birth abortion is illegal, your interpretation of Roe, based on alt-left sources and Planned Parenthood interpretation notwithstanding. What Roe actually says is, "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, it it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe abortion excep[t where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." One does not need to overturn Roe v. Wade to make partial-birth abortion a crime. It is already criminalized by Federal statute of 5 November 2003. What Federal law actually says is, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." - - - - - - - - - - S.3 — 108th Congress (2003-2004) Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 Sponsor: Sen. Santorum, Rick [R-PA] (Introduced 02/14/2003) Cosponsors: (45) Committee Reports: H. Rept. 108-288 (Conference Report) Latest Action: 11/05/2003 Became Public Law No: 108-105. (TXT | PDF) (All Actions) Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and it became Public Law 108-105. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As it appears codified at 18 United States Code, § 1531 http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2015/title-18/part-i/chapter-74/sec.-1531/ 18 U.S.C. 1531 2015 US Code Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Sections 1 - 6005) Part I - Crimes (Sections 1 - 2725) Chapter 74 - Partial-Birth Abortions (Sections 1531 - 1531) Sec. 1531 - Partial-birth abortions prohibited 18 U.S.C. § 1531 (2015) §1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited (a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment. (b) As used in this section— (1) the term "partial-birth abortion" means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion— (A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and (B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and (2) the term "physician" means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this section. (c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion. (2) Such relief shall include— (A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and (B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the partial-birth abortion. (d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. (2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take place. (e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section. (Added Pub. L. 108–105, §3(a), Nov. 5, 2003, 117 Stat. 1206.) REFERENCES IN TEXT The enactment, referred to in subsec. (a), probably means the date of the enactment of Pub. L. 108–105, which enacted this section and was approved Nov. 5, 2003. SHORT TITLE Pub. L. 108–105, §1, Nov. 5, 2003, 117 Stat. 1201, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter and provisions set out as a note under this section] may be cited as the 'Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'." FINDINGS Pub. L. 108–105, §2, Nov. 5, 2003, 117 Stat. 1201, provided that: "The Congress finds and declares the following: "(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion—an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant—is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited. "(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. "(3) In Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 932 (2000), the United States Supreme Court opined 'that significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, [partial birth abortion] would be the safest procedure' for pregnant women who wish to undergo an abortion. Thus, the Court struck down the State of Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion procedures, concluding that it placed an 'undue burden' on women seeking abortions because it failed to include an exception for partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the 'health' of the mother. "(4) In reaching this conclusion, the Court deferred to the Federal district court's factual findings that the partial-birth abortion procedure was statistically and medically as safe as, and in many circumstances safer than, alternative abortion procedures. "(5) However, substantial evidence presented at the Stenberg trial and overwhelming evidence presented and compiled at extensive congressional hearings, much of which was compiled after the district court hearing in Stenberg, and thus not included in the Stenberg trial record, demonstrates that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed and is outside the standard of medical care. "(6) Despite the dearth of evidence in the Stenberg trial court record supporting the district court's findings, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the Supreme Court refused to set aside the district court's factual findings because, under the applicable standard of appellate review, they were not 'clearly erroneous'. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous 'when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed'. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). Under this standard, 'if the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently'. Id. at 574. "(7) Thus, in Stenberg, the United States Supreme Court was required to accept the very questionable findings issued by the district court judge—the effect of which was to render null and void the reasoned factual findings and policy determinations of the United States Congress and at least 27 State legislatures. "(8) However, under well-settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the United States Congress is not bound to accept the same factual findings that the Supreme Court was bound to accept in Stenberg under the 'clearly erroneous' standard. Rather, the United States Congress is entitled to reach its own factual findings—findings that the Supreme Court accords great deference—and to enact legislation based upon these findings so long as it seeks to pursue a legitimate interest that is within the scope of the Constitution, and draws reasonable inferences based upon substantial evidence. "(9) In Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), the Supreme Court articulated its highly deferential review of congressional factual findings when it addressed the constitutionality of section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [52 U.S.C. 10303(e)]. Regarding Congress' factual determination that section 4(e) would assist the Puerto Rican community in 'gaining nondiscriminatory treatment in public services,' the Court stated that '[i]t was for Congress, as the branch that made this judgment, to assess and weigh the various conflicting considerations * * *. It is not for us to review the congressional resolution of these factors. It is enough that we be able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress might resolve the conflict as it did. There plainly was such a basis to support section 4(e) in the application in question in this case.'. Id. at 653. "(10) Katzenbach's highly deferential review of Congress' factual conclusions was relied upon by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia when it upheld the 'bail-out' provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973c) [now 52 U.S.C. 10304], stating that 'congressional fact finding, to which we are inclined to pay great deference, strengthens the inference that, in those jurisdictions covered by the Act, state actions discriminatory in effect are discriminatory in purpose'. City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S., 472 F. Supp. 221 (D.D.C. 1979) aff'd City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S., 446 U.S. 156 (1980). "(11) The Court continued its practice of deferring to congressional factual findings in reviewing the constitutionality of the must-carry provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 [Pub. L. 102–385, see Tables for classification]. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (Turner I) and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 520 U.S. 180 (1997) (Turner II). At issue in the Turner cases was Congress' legislative finding that, absent mandatory carriage rules, the continued viability of local broadcast television would be 'seriously jeopardized'. The Turner I Court recognized that as an institution, 'Congress is far better equipped than the judiciary to "amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data" bearing upon an issue as complex and dynamic as that presented here', 512 U.S. at 665–66. Although the Court recognized that 'the deference afforded to legislative findings does "not foreclose our independent judgment of the facts bearing on an issue of constitutional law," ' its 'obligation to exercise independent judgment when First Amendment rights are implicated is not a license to reweigh the evidence de novo, or to replace Congress' factual predictions with our own. Rather, it is to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.'. Id. at 666. "(12) Three years later in Turner II, the Court upheld the 'must-carry' provisions based upon Congress' findings, stating the Court's 'sole obligation is "to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence." ' 520 U.S. at 195. Citing its ruling in Turner I, the Court reiterated that '[w]e owe Congress' findings deference in part because the institution "is far better equipped than the judiciary to 'amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data' bearing upon" legislative questions,' id. at 195, and added that it 'owe[d] Congress' findings an additional measure of deference out of respect for its authority to exercise the legislative power.'. Id. at 196. "(13) There exists substantial record evidence upon which Congress has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial-birth abortion is not required to contain a 'health' exception, because the facts indicate that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care. Congress was informed by extensive hearings held during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses and passed a ban on partial-birth abortion in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. These findings reflect the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care, and should, therefore, be banned. "(14) Pursuant to the testimony received during extensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses, Congress finds and declares that: "(A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: An increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, 'there are very few, if any, indications for * * * other than for delivery of a second twin'; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death. "(B) There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum. "(C) A prominent medical association has concluded that partial-birth abortion is 'not an accepted medical practice', that it has 'never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development,' that 'the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown,' and that 'there is no consensus among obstetricians about its use'. The association has further noted that partial-birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is 'ethically wrong,' and 'is never the only appropriate procedure'. "(D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, nor the experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of a woman. "(E) The physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman. "(F) A ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure will therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy. "(G) In light of this overwhelming evidence, Congress and the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, such a prohibition will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for human life. "(H) Based upon Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), a governmental interest in protecting the life of a child during the delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that during a partial-birth abortion, labor is induced and the birth process has begun. This distinction was recognized in Roe when the Court noted, without comment, that the Texas parturition statute, which prohibited one from killing a child 'in a state of being born and before actual birth,' was not under attack. This interest becomes compelling as the child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is completely born is a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections afforded a 'person' under the United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a 'person'. Thus, the government has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the partially-born child. "(I) This, too, has not gone unnoticed in the medical community, where a prominent medical association has recognized that partial-birth abortions are 'ethically different from other destructive abortion techniques because the fetus, normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is killed outside of the womb'. According to this medical association, the ' "partial birth" gives the fetus an autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to choose treatments for her own body'. "(J) Partial-birth abortion also confuses the medical, legal, and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and promote life, as the physician acts directly against the physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered, all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life. Partial-birth abortion thus appropriates the terminology and techniques used by obstetricians in the delivery of living children—obstetricians who preserve and protect the life of the mother and the child—and instead uses those techniques to end the life of the partially-born child. "(K) Thus, by aborting a child in the manner that purposefully seeks to kill the child after he or she has begun the process of birth, partial-birth abortion undermines the public's perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into the world, in order to destroy a partially-born child. "(L) The gruesome and inhumane nature of the partial-birth abortion procedure and its disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant promotes a complete disregard for infant human life that can only be countered by a prohibition of the procedure. "(M) The vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth abortions are alive until the end of the procedure. It is a medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their perception of this pain is even more intense than that of newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same stimuli. Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain. "(N) Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a compelling interest in acting—indeed it must act—to prohibit this inhumane procedure. "(O) For these reasons, Congress finds that partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion procedure by the mainstream medical community; poses additional health risks to the mother; blurs the line between abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially-born child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned." nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-30   17:44:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #77. To: nolu chan (#68) This just a real quick post to let you guys know that despite what I previously posted (that I would post something yesterday if I'm alive ,and if I'm dead I wont) I am still alive and kicking. The problem yesterday was I went back to my boat and I did not have electricity or access to the internet, and even if I did, I was too busy bailing water out of my boat before it too sank like the boat beside me and several other boats. It was listing about 30 degrees to one side, and after bailing water out all afternoon and evening, it is now listing only about 20 degrees, and today I have both electricity and internet access, so now I can take a break from bailing, and post something real quick, and then its back to work. BTW, if anyone cares, my daughter and her family in Santa Fe, the hardest hit by flood waters of any Texas city, made it through the hurricane/flood without any real harm, but their house, like my boat is very water-logged, lots of damage to their carpet and almost everything. But the carpet and everything in their house can be replaced. interpreter  posted on  2017-08-31   11:36:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #78. To: All (#77) Just one more comment, actually a question. Did any of you guys actually see/watch the eclipse during its totality? And if so, where was Venus during the eclipse?? The answer to that is the only way I can know for sure, with 100% certainty, which one of the two scenarios I proposed/predicted is the correct one. If Venus appeared as the Morning Star that is a good omen. It it appeared as the Evening Star that is a bad omen. Anyone know? interpreter  posted on  2017-08-31   11:48:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 78. #79. To: interpreter (#78) I did watch the eclipse that day but I was only watching the eclipse and not other planets as they were not significant to me. I view that eclipse as a time of the beginning of sorrows. I did not celebrate this event at all. Just observed it. earthsky.org/astronomy-es...se-4-planets-bright-stars goldilucky  posted on  2017-08-31 12:15:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #80. To: interpreter (#78) If Venus appeared as the Morning Star that is a good omen. It it appeared as the Evening Star that is a bad omen. Anyone know? I've seen it get darker during one of the storms that comes before a tornado. I was not in the path to see much. But the information you seek has been reported. Venus appeared as the Morning Star http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/usa-eclipse-2017.htm August 21st 2017: Positions of the Planets at Totality by Martin J Powell On August 21st 2017 millions of observers looked skywards to witness the first total solar eclipse over the USA mainland since 1979. The 'Great American Eclipse', visible from twelve states across the country from North-west to South-east, was the most photographed, filmed and talked-about solar eclipse in history. This article does not examine the eclipse itself, however, but the naked-eye planets which one could have expected to glimpse in the vicinity of the eclipsed Sun (and a little further afield) within the 2½ minutes or so of totality. A total solar eclipse is the only circumstance in which planets positioned on either side of the Sun (morning and evening planets) can be observed from Earth at the same time. A fully eclipsed Sun with Venus and Mercury above it, observed from the Java Sea, Indonesia on March 9th 2016 (Photograph © Joseph A Carr) A fully eclipsed Sun with Venus and Mercury above it, observed from the Java Sea, Indonesia on March 9th 2016 (Photograph © Joseph A Carr) What Planets were Visible During the Eclipse? There were potentially four naked-eye planets which were viewable during totality, two with ease and two with some difficulty. The two brightest would have been visible long before totality arrived: Venus, at an apparent magnitude of -4.0 was easily seen against the twilit sky caused by the eclipse totality. In fact, it should have become visible some 15 minutes or more before totality, when the eclipse was still partial and the sky was slowly darkening. Venus was positioned 34° West of the Sun at the time of the eclipse and was about half-way through its 2017 morning apparition, having been visible as a 'Morning Star' before dawn for several months. The planet was positioned in the Eastern half of the constellation of Gemini, the Twins. Its two brightest stars Castor (Greek lower-case letter 'alpha' Gem or Alpha Geminorum, mag. +1.6) and Pollux (Greek lower-case letter 'beta' Gem or Beta Geminorum, mag. +1.1) were positioned a short distance above (North of) the planet, both of which should have been visible in the twilight of eclipse totality. Jupiter (magnitude -1.6) was positioned 52° to the East of the Sun at eclipse totality. It should also have become visible during the partial phase of the eclipse. For observers along the track of totality who were located West of central Idaho, Jupiter could not be seen because the eclipse took place before the planet had risen (see table below). Jupiter was positioned in central Virgo, the Virgin, near its brightest star Spica (Greek lower-case letter 'alpha' Vir or Alpha Virginis, mag. +1.0) which should also have been glimpsed in the twilight of totality. Jupiter was an evening planet, visible after sunset, around 90% through its 2016-17 apparition. Mars (mag. +1.8) was positioned just 8° to the West of the Sun. Mars was very distant from the Earth at this time and consequently it would have been more difficult than normal to spot in the twilight. Being considerably fainter than both Venus and Jupiter, it was only likely to become visible in the final seconds leading up to totality. The Red Planet, which appears pale orange to the naked-eye whenever it is bright, was positioned in Western Leo and would soon emerge out of the dawn twilight into the start of its 2017-19 apparition (in July 2018 Mars will reach its closest point to the Earth in almost fifteen years). Mercury (mag. +3.4) was positioned 11° to the South-east of the Sun at the time of the eclipse. It was the faintest of the four planets visible during the eclipse and would have been the most difficult to detect. Mercury was at the end of its second evening apparition of 2017 and was the closest of the planets to Earth at this time. At the time of the eclipse, the Sun was positioned in the Western half of the constellation of Leo, the Lion, not far from its brightest star, Regulus (Greek lower-case letter 'alpha' Leo or Alpha Leonis, mag. +1.4). Regulus itself may have been easy or difficult to discern, depending upon the brightness of the eclipsed sky and any glare effect caused by the Sun's corona. The brightness of an eclipsed sky is dependant on several factors and is difficult to determine in advance, so the magnitude of the faintest stars to be seen at totality is uncertain. Historically, eclipse observers have often seen stars with the naked-eye down to about magnitude +3.5, although photographic equipment will often detect stars of much fainter magnitude. [snip] [images and charts] nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-31 13:00:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 78. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com