The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common – they don’t change their views to fit the facts; they try to change the facts to fit their views. Stupid people are actually more dangerous and destructive to an environment and a civilization than even evil people. You can try to teach and educate them but no one can fix stupid.

As long as life is confined to one planet that life's existence and extermination have days that are already numbered.

By the 4th generation of those who chose to settle Mars and start terraforming the 63% less gravity of the Martian planet the “Chicken Leg Syndrome” made it impossible for them to ever return and live on Earth . Even rolling around in a motorized wheel chair was just to much of a heavy burden to bare back on Earth's one “G” gravity well.

For those who were birthed and raised on Mars the adversity gave their science a strong desire to get off the planet; but where to go ?

The Martians put all their efforts into building a habitat in orbit around Mars where they could control the weather, gravity, and environment so that they could slowly increase the bone density and muscle mass of future generations.

That had been the plan until the Third generation of Martians were born on the habitat; then things changed.

“Why would anyone want to live on a planet,” was the general consensus of the new race that called themselves Spacers . They could grow and manufacture anything they needed without contending with Earth/Mars quakes, dust storms, bugs, animals, and bacteria that wanted to infect and kill you so why live on a planet that seemed to always have problems for life ?

Those who disagreed were offered a one way ride back to Mars or Earth; their choice....

The Spacer's habitat grew until there were over eight million 7th generation Spacers living and working in the habitat they had created just for themselves.

One year they decided to leave the inner Sol solar system completely as the sun had just expelled a huge CME that would probably send Earth back into the stone age (if they were lucky) and there were doubts that the Mars underground cities would fair much better.. There were cries of, “Come save us from both planets,” but those cries fell upon deaf ears as it was to late for Earth and would soon be to late for the Martians as the huge relentless CME/ micro nova approached.

The habitat was moved to the outer reaches of the solar system where there was plenty of water and other resources their habitat could use to sustain the growing Spacer population . The Space council of 9 were already having discussions about adding another one or two habitation rings once they got into the resource rich environment in what was once called the Ort cloud.

After a few years those left alive on Earth after the CME found out that it is hard to be a hunter gatherer if there is nothing to hunt or gather as even much of the fish and ocean life had died during the relentless heat and radiation from the sun.

You can't fix stupid .

The End

https://lists.youmaker.com/links/hNgAMi1.../qXlJoGRex

Quote:More Than 217,000 Americans Killed by the COVID Jab: Survey Estimate
Health Viewpoints

Joseph Mercola
Feb 7 2023
biggersmaller

(Numstocker/Shutterstock)
You’ll never guess how many have been killed or seriously injured in just the first year. Yet, the FDA and CDC keep pushing the shots, despite their own trial data showing they have no benefit in terms of reducing your risk of hospitalization or death.

• According to a December 2021 survey of 2,840 Americans, between 217,330 and 332,608 people died from the COVID jabs in 2021.
  
• Survey results also show that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed.
  
• Of the respondents, 34 percent knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22 percent knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot.
  
• Fifty-one percent of the survey respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 13 percent reported experiencing a “serious” health problem post-jab. Compare that to Pfizer’s six-month safety analysis, which claimed only 1.2 percent of trial participants experienced a serious adverse event.
  
• In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll, 34 percent reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and seven percent reported major side effects.
  

While it’s clear that the experimental COVID shots have killed a considerable number of people, the total death toll remains elusive, thanks to U.S. health agencies obfuscating, hiding, and manipulating data.
That said, the most recent survey1,2—published in the peer-reviewed journal BMC Infectious Diseases—puts the death toll from the COVID jabs somewhere between 217,330 and 332,608 in 2021 alone. As noted by Steve Kirsch:3

Quote:“[We’ve] killed at least 217,000 Americans and seriously injured 33 million … in just the first year, and the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] want to give you more shots … Since deaths from the vaccine were higher in 2022, most experts would estimate the all-cause mortality death toll from the COVID vaccines to be in the range of 500K to 600K.

Quote:“So the global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people … These [data] are consistent with the numbers I’ve been saying for a long time. It’s not a coincidence.”

Survey: Why People Did or Did Not Get the Jab
Now, the slant of this paper is kind of interesting. The primary aim of it was to “identify the factors associated by American citizens with the decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19.”
The author was curious about why 31 percent of the U.S. population had declined the jab or not completed the primary series by November 2022, nearly two years into a massively advertised “vaccination” campaign.
Calculating the proportion of fatal events from the jab was secondary. As explained by the author, Mark Skidmore,4 Ph.D., an economics professor at Michigan State University:5

Quote:“A largely unexplored factor is the degree to which serious health problems arising from the COVID-19 illness or the COVID-19 vaccines among family and friends influences the decision to be vaccinated.

Quote:“Serious illness due to COVID-19 would make vaccination more likely; the perceived benefits of avoiding COVID-19 through inoculation would be higher.

Quote:“On the other hand, observing major health issues following COVID-19 inoculation within one’s social network would heighten the perceived risks of vaccination. Previous studies have not evaluated the degree to which experiences with the disease and vaccine injury influence vaccine status.

Quote:“The main aim of this online survey of COVID-19 health experiences is to investigate the degree to which the COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 vaccine adverse events among friends and family, whether perceived or real, influenced inoculation decisions. The second aim of this work is to estimate the total number of COVID-19 vaccine-induced fatalities nationwide from the survey.”

Here’s an excerpt describing the methodology:6

Quote:“An online survey of COVID-19 health experiences was conducted. Information was collected regarding reasons for and against COVID-19 inoculations, experiences with COVID-19 illness, and COVID-19 inoculations by survey respondents and their social circles. Logit regression analyses were carried out to identify factors influencing the likelihood of being vaccinated.”

Survey Findings
A total of 2,840 people completed the survey between Dec. 18 and Dec. 23, 2021. The mean age was 47, and the gender ratio was 51 percent women, 49 percent men. Just over half, 51 percent, had received one or more COVID jabs.
As Skidmore suspected, results showed that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed.
Of the respondents, 34 percent knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22 percent knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot. So, as noted by to the author:7

Quote:“Knowing someone who reported serious health issues either from COVID-19 or from COVID-19 vaccination are important factors for the decision to get vaccinated.”

As for the types of side effects experienced by people within the respondents’ social circles, they included (but were not limited to) the “usual suspects,” such as:

• Heart and cardiovascular problems.
  
• Severe COVID infection or other respiratory illness.
  
• Feeling generally unwell, weak, fatigued, and out of breath for weeks.
  
• Blood clots and stroke.
  
• Death.
  

Hundreds of Thousands Killed for No Reason
Based on these survey data, Skidmore estimates:

Quote:“… the total number of fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 278,000 (95 percent CI 217,330-332,608) when fatalities that may have occurred regardless of inoculation are removed.”

Were COVID-19 an infection with an extremely high mortality rate, perhaps high rates of death from a vaccine would be acceptable. But COVID-19 has an exceptionally low mortality rate, on par with or lower than influenza, hence the risk associated with the COVID jabs ought to be equally low.
The global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people.
— Steve Kirsch

As it stands, the risks of the shots are very high, while Pfizer’s own trial data, with more than 40,000 participants, show they offer no benefit in terms of your risk of hospitalization and/or death. The absolute risk reduction is so minute as to be inconsequential.8
High Rates of Side Effects
The death toll from the jabs isn’t the only disturbing part of this paper, though. Skidmore’s findings also suggest side effects from the jab may be more common than previously suspected.
As mentioned, 51 percent of the respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 15 percent reported experiencing a new health problem post-jab and 13 percent deemed it “serious.” Compare that to Pfizer’s six-month safety analysis,9 which claimed only 1.2 percent of trial participants reported a serious adverse event.
Now, as suggested by Kirsch,10 “we need to discount that by a factor of two because people report less severe adverse events as adverse events.” Still, that means serious adverse events from the jab are five times higher than what Pfizer reported.

Quote:“This is why the FDA never does after-market surveys on the drugs it approves. Because reality hurts,” Kirsch writes.11 “It is the FDA that should have discovered this before Mark Skidmore. The FDA is asleep at the wheel and they just believe everything the drug companies tell them, hook, line, and sinker. This is a major miss. Why aren’t they doing surveys like this to see if the reality matches the study?”

More Side Effect Rate Comparisons
For additional comparison, here are the findings of several other investigations:

• Rasmussen Reports12: In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll—taken one year after Skidmore’s survey—34 percent reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and seven percent reported major side effects.
  
• CDC’s V-Safe data13: In October 2022, ICAN [Informed Consent Action Network] obtained the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe data. This is a voluntary program to monitor adverse vaccine reactions. Of the 10.1 million COVID jab recipients who used the app, 7.7 percent had to seek medical care post-jab.
  
• Kirsch-funded survey14: A June 2022 U.S. survey by the market research company Pollfish found that 16.3 percent of COVID jabbed respondents experienced an injury, and 9.7 percent required medical care.
  

The graphic below, which visually compares Skidmore’s findings to the findings of the Rasmussen, V-Safe, and Pollfish surveys, was created by InfoGame on Substack.15 As noted by InfoGame:

Quote:“Skidmore’s article serves as another sign that the rate of COVID-19 side effects is extremely high and that the COVID-19 vaccines are an unprecedently risky medical product.”

(InfoGame)
Menstrual Irregularities Are Common Post-Jab
While we’re on the topic of reported side effects, several surveys have also focused on the frequency of abnormal menses in women who got the jab, which could be indicative of reproductive harm. For example:

• A British survey published in early December 2021 found 20 percent of women experienced menstrual disturbances following their jab.16
  
• A study published in Science Advances in mid-July 2022 found 66 percent of “fully vaccinated” postmenopausal women experienced abnormal breakthrough bleeding. In total, 42.1 percent reported heavier menstrual flow post-jab (this included women of all ages, as well as transgenders on hormone treatments).17
  
• An Italian peer-reviewed study published in March 2022 found that “50-60 percent of reproductive-age women who received the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine reported menstrual cycle irregularities, regardless of the type of administered vaccine.” After the second dose, abnormal menses were reported by 60 percent to 70 percent.18
  

People in High Places Seek Retraction
Not surprisingly, people in high places are already trying to force a retraction of the paper. A special notice from the editor, dated just two days post-publication, states:
“Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by editors. Specifically, that the claims are unsubstantiated and that there are questions about the quality of the peer review.”
As noted by Kirsch:19

Quote:“They are actively trying to get the paper retracted because it destroys the narrative. I’m certain they will succeed because journals are under intense pressure to censor any anti-narrative paper. The problem is that Mark’s survey was entirely consistent with my surveys.

Quote:“If they want to have the paper retracted they need to show us THEIR surveys. But of course, they don’t have any surveys because they are too afraid of the results.

Quote:“So they will use hand-waving arguments like “I don’t like the methodology” or some nonsense like that instead of gathering their own data. They will NEVER show us survey data that supports their narrative because it isn’t there.

Quote:“That’s why there are no success anecdotes. NOBODY can give me the name of a U.S. geriatric practice where all-cause deaths plummeted after the vaccines rolled out. In every case, they went the wrong way. The narrative is unraveling at an accelerated pace but the medical community is still fighting the truth.”

Originally published Feb. 07, 2023, on Mercola.com

Better than most from that time period

Which Cabinet member will be the designated survivor tonight, watching the State of the Union address at an undisclosed location outside of Washington, DC, in the company of the Secret Service, a White House doctor, and a military aide carrying the backup Presidential Emergency Satchel (Football)?

Last year it was Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo. A few guesses are Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Denis McDonough, and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm is disqualified; she was born in Canada.




In 2016, former Member of Congress and Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, and former Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton described what it was like to be the designated survivors during the State of the Union address in 1997 and 2002, respectively:



Fun Fact: Tom Vilsack was the designated survivor in 2012, when he also served as secretary of agriculture during the Obama administration.

According to the National Constitution Center, the tradition of a designated survivor during the State of the Union speech began in the 1950s as a result of fears of a nuclear attack during the Cold War. But the federal government did not publicly name the designated survivor until 1981, when President Ronald Reagan’s Education Secretary Terrel Bell assumed the designation for an address to a joint session of Congress.

The presidential line of succession is outlined in the Presidential Succession Act of 1792, which was updated during the Truman administration in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. The updated line of succession was spurred by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death in 1945, which led to Harry Truman’s assumption to the Oval Office.

Current order of succession

The secretaries of Interior and Agriculture tie for the most frequent designated survivor appointments, with seven designations each.

Feb 5, 2019: Secretary of Energy Rick Perry was the Designated Survivor.
Feb 4, 2020: Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt was the Designated Survivor.

We still don’t know whom, if anyone, the Trump White House assigned as the "Designated Survivor" for Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20, 2021.

Worth a listen about the lies being spread

Bad Lip Reading of.... The US House Of Representatives.... (or they DO actually bug that building!!!)

A puzzler for those interested in current mysteries. A lady in the UK 'vanished' during a daily walk with her dog
beside a slow-moving river. The British media (London really!) are fascinated by this latest incident and are
chomping at the bit to the first in announcing a result.

Speculation is rampant since Covid and the Ukraine are no longer a ratings-grabber and questions must be
asked, but the word 'investigation' these days means simply means running with whatever the Police tell
the media.


Nicola Bulley.

Wikipedia:
'On 27 January 2023, 45-year-old Nicola Bulley disappeared near St. Michael's on Wyre in Lancashire,
United Kingdom, while walking her dog. Lancashire Police's hypothesis is that Bulley fell into the River
Wyre, but despite a search including police divers and helicopters, sniffer dogs and drones, she has not
been found.

On 27 January 2023, Bulley drove from her home in Inskip to the nearby village of St. Michael's on Wyre
where, after dropping her children off at school, she walked along the River Wyre with Willow. At 8:53 GMT,
Bulley sent an e-mail to her employer and joined a Microsoft Teams call at 9:01.

She was last seen at approximately 9:10 on the upper field, walking Willow off the lead. At 9:20, Bulley's
phone was believed to be at a bench in the lower field. At 9:30, the call ended. At 9:33, Bulley's mobile
phone—still connected to the internet—was found at the bench. Willow was found alone near the bench,
and showed no signs of having been in the river.
The dog's harness was found on the ground near the river...'
......................................................................

The Daily Mail asks:

Quote:'Why hasn't Nicola Bulley been found in the river and why was her dog's harness removed?
Fifteen vital questions about mother-of-two's disappearance that are leaving police and family baffled

1. Why hasn’t Ms Bulley been found in the river?

The River Wyre empties into the Irish Sea at Fleetwood, 13 miles downstream. It is tidal for several miles,
until the point where a weir is situated, close to where Ms Bulley disappeared. The water is slow-flowing,
so if Ms Bulley fell into the river, it is difficult to understand why she has not been found – or how she could
have got into trouble in the first place.

2. Could she swim?

Ms Bulley is described as a capable swimmer. She is familiar with the route, which she walks most mornings,
and was dressed appropriately for the cold.

3. Why was the dog’s harness removed?

A disturbing puzzle is why Willow’s harness was found on the ground. If Ms Bulley had wanted to let the dog
run free, she could have simply unclipped the lead. But for some reason, Willow’s harness had been removed.

4. Had the dog been in the water, and maybe Ms Bulley went in after her?

Willow appeared distressed but ‘bone dry’, according to the woman who found her. There was no sign of her
having gone in the river.

5. Why would she leave her phone on the bench?

Ms Bulley’s phone was found on the bench, still connected to a conference call. So whatever happened, there
was no time to end the call or to alert others on the call. But it is possible Ms Bulley deliberately chose not to
terminate the call because she believed she would be returning to it once she had dealt with whatever needed
her immediate attention. Detectives have examined the phone, but so far there is nothing to indicate anyone
but Ms Bulley placed it on the bench.

6. Why was she on mute with no video for her business meeting?

The conference call was a team meeting with colleagues from her firm Exclusively Mortgages.
It started at 9.01am and Ms Bulley dialled in from her phone. Ben Pociecha, the firm’s director, said: ‘It seems
as if she was muted and didn’t have her camera on. She was listening in while walking her dog. The police are
investigating the call.’

It was not unusual for Ms Bulley to attend meetings in this manner. The company is based in Keighley, West
Yorkshire, a 90-minute drive, and there was no need for Ms Bulley to attend in person or even take part beyond
listening.

7. Where was her partner while she was out walking their dog?

Paul Ansell, her partner of 12 years, works as an engineer and the couple often took it in turns to perform the school
run and dog-walking duties. The 44-year-old is believed to have been at the family home when the call came through
telling him Ms Bulley’s phone and dog had been found near the river.

8. Did anyone see her dropping off the children?

The car park next to the school is well used, although there are apparently no CCTV cameras. It was Ms Bulley’s
usual practice to drop off her daughters at 8.30am and then walk Willow to the river, leaving the car near the school.
They would have been visible to motorists as they walked along the pavement of the busy A-road, Blackpool Lane,
for about 200 yards, past the village church, before crossing the bridge over the river and turning on to the towpath.

9. Is the towpath isolated?

The towpath starts in the open before entering a copse at a bend in the river. At least four people appear to have seen
Ms Bulley along the path between 8.43am and 9.10am.

10. Why are there no physical signs along the riverbank?

Although locals have warned about the ‘slippery riverbank’, which is muddy and steep in places, Ms Bulley’s family
have questioned why there are no signs of anyone sliding into the river or desperately scrabbling to get out. But
Superintendent Sally Riley, from Lancashire Police, said ‘parts of the riverbank are treacherous’.

11. Could she have been kidnapped?

Ms Bulley’s father Ernest, 73, has wondered if she was snatched. He said: ‘There was no sign of a slip or falling in,
so our thought was, “Has somebody got her?”. He said he had asked a police sergeant, who had all but dismissed
the theory. But he said: ‘How can you know that? It’s such an isolated area, the only way that has happened is if it
was someone who knew her.’ Lancashire Constabulary have said they do not believe there was any third-party
involvement in her disappearance but are keeping an ‘open mind’.

12. Could she have staged a disappearance?

On the contrary, Ms Bulley was said to have been ‘very upbeat’ and loving her life and her job as a mortgage broker,
through which she had just won a new client. Only the night before, when she saw her parents, ‘her mind was great’,
her father said.

Her mother, Dot, 72, said Ms Bulley had recently bought tickets to watch her children in choir and gymnastics shows,
and had excitedly been planning a spa day treat with her younger sister Louise.

13. What about the ‘abandoned’ house?

An ‘abandoned house’ opposite the river bank where she disappeared was an intriguing early line of inquiry. But the
manor house turned out not to be abandoned, and the owner ‘had a quick look around and she wasn’t there’, searcher
Kev Camplin said.

14. Why is the search taking so long?

Police divers are performing an ‘arc search’, combing the riverbed by moving in a side-to-side motion from bank to bank
– described as a ‘thorough but long’ process. They have also deployed underwater drones, but visibility in the muddy
waters is poor.

15. What do the family think happened?

Ms Bulley’s sister, Louise Cunningham, said yesterday: ‘Somebody must know something.
People don’t just vanish into thin air. There has got to be somebody who knows something and all we are asking is,
no matter how small or big, if there is anything you remember that doesn’t seem right, then please reach out to the
police. Get in touch and get my sister back.’

I really enjoyed this series make by Speilburg. It covers mast all aspects of Ufology. 

This link contains all episodes in order -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnCxRzzJ...Lz1Su4AIVz

Quote:Researchers solve one of the Borderlands’ biggest water puzzles

Officially, the U.S. and Mexico share 11 groundwater basins. A new map bumps that figure up to a stunning 72.

The U.S. and Mexico share underground water basins that span more than 121,500 square miles of the Borderlands. But the two countries have no regulations for managing those common aquifers, in part, because historically very little was known about them.

That’s changing. On Dec. 28, researchers released the first complete map [PDF] of the groundwater basins that span the U.S.-Mexico boundary. It demarcates 72 shared aquifers — a striking contrast to the countries’ official count of 11. With water becoming an increasingly precious resource in the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico, the researchers hope the new map will provide a basis for developing a binational legal framework to regulate the underground waters’ management.

“The lack of a legal framework that regulates the management of transboundary groundwater resources promotes the unsustainable use and exploitation of the resource,” wrote the authors, Rosario Sánchez, a scientist at the Texas Water Resources Institute, and Laura Rodríguez, a graduate student at Texas A&M University.

Their research, published in the book Transboundary Aquifers: Challenges and the Way Forward, builds on previous research that mapped segments of the Borderlands. It shows five shared aquifers between Baja California and California, 26 between Sonora and Arizona, and 33 between Texas and the Mexican states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas. Of these, 45% are considered to be in “good to moderate” condition.

One of the key contributions of the new research was to standardize the way that aquifers are delineated. While identifying aquifers might seem like a straightforward task, the two countries, and even individual states, have different criteria for where they draw the lines.

The researchers started by using those different definitions. “We put together what each state and country was doing, like a puzzle,” said Sánchez. But they realized that the data didn’t line up. “Texas uses geological boundaries, California uses a combination of watershed and geological boundaries, and Mexico uses administrative boundaries — a combination of geological and state boundaries. We realized that we couldn’t follow anyone.”

Instead, they put together their own methodology from scratch, drawing on geologic data from a wide variety of sources including 19th century geological surveys. They determined the aquifer boundaries using geological formations and the type of rock present, as well as waterways, changes in elevation, and topography. “That’s why it took us 10 years,” said Sánchez. “It’s been hard.”


A map shows the 72 shared aquifers along the U.S.-Mexico border


Alfonso Rivera and Randy Hanson, the authors of a 2015 report identifying 11 transboundary aquifers along the U.S.-Mexico border, wrote that the compilation of this geologic data is “an important stepping stone to reconcile how groundwater resources will be shared, governed and managed” as demand for groundwater increases.

Sánchez and Rodríguez hope that, at a minimum, the new research will prompt Mexico and the U.S. to update the official count of the number of aquifers shared between the countries. It also has the potential to prompt border states and the U.S. and Mexico governments to agree on a common methodology for identifying aquifers, and beyond that, a legal framework for managing them.

Felicia Marcus of the Water Policy Group added that maps like the one Sánchez and Rodríguez produced “are helpful for transparency and allow for more engagement of the affected communities,” particularly in resolution of disputes.

Conflicts over groundwater are already here, with widespread drought affecting both Mexico and the southwestern U.S. Meanwhile, New Mexico and Texas are fighting each other in the Supreme Court over groundwater pumping, California is implementing sustainable groundwater regulations, and Arizona is voting on citizen-initiated groundwater management areas — all of which could impact the cross-border aquifers. A legal framework for dealing with the international implications of those conflicts can’t come fast enough.