41

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why just Rowbotham?

« on: March 16, 2019, 02:20:00 AM »

Tom, a few questions, if you would please.

For one, the experiments presented aren't very zetetic, they all focus on seeing if moonlight produces heat, instead of just observing the results from their equipment. They all expected moonlight to have a measurable effect instead of testing their equipment with other conditions, like a moonless night, a night with clouds, etc. Indeed, the only experiment to test having the equipment not face the moon was Tyndall, and he admitted himself London's atmospheric conditions weren't suitable for such a delicate test.

Second, you yourself said the results have a lot of variation, some say no change, some say cool, and you mention some who measured a temp. increase. Hardly results to make a solid conclusion out of. You don't just say "Well, more of them said cooling, so that must be it!" It doesn't work like that. You have to show the results are statistically significant.

Third, where's the explanation of the results? You're also bashing RE about how we can't explain gravity, going so far to add in some snarky remarks on the UA wiki about gravitons, so what's the explanation of this cold light from the moon allegedly? No backsies now, you can't turn heel and say "We can observe the effects without having to explain them."

Fourth, what about the currency of these experiments? They're all from the 19th century, are there any recent results from any scientific (or zetetic) experiments, and you can't just pull a "Truth doesn't have an expiration date," because the variation of results complicates that in point two, and there is better equipment to re conduct their experiments.

Fifth Tom, did you notice you contradicted yourself? In the snippet about Harrison, it says this

The clearer the sky the more freely the earth's heat passes away into space, and consequently the colder we feel. So that while the moon warms us she cools us.

That's radiative cooling! Did you just not read through it, or were you too zealous in trying to prove us wrong?

42

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why just Rowbotham?

« on: March 15, 2019, 07:54:59 PM »

Science also demonstrated the cooling effects of moonlight through experiment. In order to show those things to be incorrect, contradictory experiments to those of science would need to be given.

Lol what? Since when does moonlight cool stuff? It's a matter of radiative cooling, not moonlight.

Edit: Not only what manicminer said is true, but there's a way to disprove it zetetically, just compare the temp. of an object out on a night with the full moon to the temp of said object with a new moon. There should be no significant difference (that is if other factors are controlled to a reasonable extent, like conducting the experiment on a cloudless night, using the IR thermometer from the same distance each time, clear area around object so nothing else affects the temp. or you accidentally take the temp. of something else near it along with the object, etc.)

43

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why just Rowbotham?

« on: March 14, 2019, 10:01:33 PM »

Rowbotham's work on the topic is still much more detailed and systematic than any other studies so far.

So no one since Rowbotham has done better than him?

44

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fossil Fuels

« on: March 13, 2019, 06:57:35 PM »

Fossil fuels are a joke. If they came from plants then how did the plants grow under a thousand feet of earth?

Lol, you're not serious are you? http://www.google.lmgtfy.com/?q=How+is+oil+formed%3F

No shortage because it is like water.
it goes from a solid to vapour back to solid.
If you boiled a gallon of water and then the pot is empty does that mean the water is gone for ever?
No it forms clouds and then get redistributed.
Why would any other vapour do it differently?

I'm guessing you never passed Chemistry.

I had a friend that had a job testing oil well heads for pressure.
One day he tested a well that was not on his list to check and the well was marked as dried up.
The well was full. he told his boss what he did and got in major shit for testing it when he was not suppose to.
Two weeks later they fired him.

What does this have to do with anything? Guy does his job incorrectly, he gets fired.

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aether

« on: March 07, 2019, 09:59:51 PM »

Wasn’t aether the 5th element or something? Earth, fire, water, air and Aether?

Yeah, something like that. I believe it was the Ptolemaic model where all the planets where surrounded by celestial crystal spheres made out of aether.

46

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Earth’s core?

« on: March 05, 2019, 09:27:11 PM »

Does anyone want to help with research?

What did you have in mind, it's something I need to revisit but if I recall, scientists have done this already by studying earthquakes and how they pass through the earth and shadow zones created by the core.

I think the current theory (probly not up to date) is that a large chunk of the core is crystallized iron.

If I remember correctly, it's a nickel iron alloy, with a solid inner core and a liquid outer core.

I think the film, The Core, has a scene there.

Please, don't ever mention that movie again

I am unsure what is on the lower layer of most flat theories, sorry

I think the current FE stance is that it's unknown what's underneath.

47

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: I got a second warning for no reason

« on: March 05, 2019, 02:13:08 PM »

Who in the Flat Earth Society is a recognized scientist of note?  Who would the makers of the film actually consult with?

the great Flat Earth zetetic Dr. Tom Bishop
(https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator)

You post Tom Bishop's name with the title "Dr." added and you think the warning is senseless?

If I was a mod, your account would have been nuked.

In the wiki article itself it says

β - the Bishop constant, named in honour of the great Flat Earth zetetic Dr. Tom Bishop, which defines the magnitude of the acceleration on a horizontal light ray due to Dark Energy. When the theory is complete, attempts will be made to measure this experimentally.

(emphasis mine)

That probably had no bearing in giving the warning anyways, the post was already said to be warned for being offtopic, it wasn't given for insulting.

48

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Compiling Objections

« on: March 04, 2019, 08:20:34 PM »

Under the space travel part, I'd suggest adding in the Soviet Union. It seems most of the evidence for The Conspiracy revolves around NASA and occasionally other agencies, but I haven't seen much about debunking Soviet space flights even though they're half of the Conspiracy. But then again, this isn't really a common objection, so it's your choice to add it in.

Something else I'd suggest is geopolitics, once you start talking about The Conspiracy, a lot of people talk about the incredulity that two sworn enemies would cooperate and stuff and the implications of all geopolitics being a sham and stuff like that.

49

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Other Planet's Moons?

« on: March 02, 2019, 02:15:30 AM »

What are you on about? Do you think the moons are fake or something? Or have you never heard of FE's magical solution of celestial gravitation to explain why planets and moons orbit and your perceived lack of gravity in the FE model is a constant thorn to your belief in the flat earth given moons orbiting, planets orbiting, etc.? If it's the latter, then what's with your fixation with moons, just the first thing that hit you? If the former, then I can't help you.

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Antarctic Ice Wall

« on: February 26, 2019, 08:04:20 PM »

Well, I searched it up and found a link to ENaG. http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za22.htm (Ctrl-f "ingress")
Ironically, it was a quote there as well and there's no footnote there either. I'd venture to guess it's a quote from probably Ross's logbook but who knows for sure?
As a general observation, I think there are a few more uncited quotes on the wiki that need cleaning up. Like for example on this page https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy#Motive_of_the_Conspiracy, under the evidence section, there's an alleged quote from Reagan's science advisor about how NASA lies, but there's no citation either. A cursory search yields only references from conspiracy theory books and websites, and other forums. I've tried congress.gov, but it only has records going back to the 104th congress, and Keyworth's statement is from the 99th congress, so unless there's another database, someone's gonna have to go out and find a physical record.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!

« on: February 14, 2019, 07:19:17 PM »

I believe a great deal of the "information," in the images.

I do not believe the compilation of the "information," is correct and much of it is altered to render a false visual.

All of you have effectively agreed with my point.

NASA produces images that do not accurately depict things in a true way.

It is a false visual.

How can you be this slow? We've already pointed out it was a fisheye lens. I gave you link which said the photo was taken with a fisheye lens. No one here is lying or presenting it as a picture taken from the ISS with a normal camera. It is explicitly said to be taken with a fisheye lens. And how does one image prove NASA's other images are fake? You have provided no evidence this one image is representative of NASA's other images.

In fact, let's test you. You claim NASA's other images are fake. Enlighten us with your superior photoanalysis that does not even take into account the kind of camera or lens used.

This is a picture taken with the Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera onboard NOAA's Deep Space Climate Observatory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory)  orbiting the earth.

Image link: https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/natural/2019/02/13/png/epic_1b_20190213002713.png

The image isn't a composite or anything, it's one single frame. Tell us why it's fake without falling back to handwaving.

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!

« on: February 13, 2019, 03:24:41 PM »

... all conveniently caught with the purview of the ISS cupola from a supposed height of just over 250 miles above the earth's surface...

Gimme a break...LOL!

So, are you saying that because you found one camera on the ISS that uses a fish-eye lens that proves that all cameras on the ISS use fish-eye lenses?

I don't care what kind of camera is being used.

I wrote: "I do not believe the compilation of the "information," is correct and much of it is altered to render a false visual."

In response, I received this query from AATW: "OK, and what is your evidence for that belief and what are your qualifications and expertise in this area?
Surely that belief is based on something?"

I am writing the images presented by NASA present a false narrative of a globe earth and I have provided visual evidence they indeed do just that.

So you then acknowledge your own ignorance to the matter and cherry pick an image from the ISS cupola taken by a camera with a fisheye lens and imply it's an image representative of all NASA images to support your conclusion that all NASA images are fake. Do a little research, and you'll find a strikingly similar
image claimed to have been taken by a camera with a fish eye lens.
https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2010/06/02/astro_soichi-comes-back-to-earth/

And as Tom Bishop said:

Unless you've debunked all evidence it remains as evidence.

We are all eagerly awaiting your photoanalysis of all other NASA images or at least evidence that your provided is representative of all NASA images, but wait, it clearly is not since it was taken with a fish eye lens.

So what have learned today? totallackey here is being deliberately disingenuous by providing one image, claiming it is impossible in the face of evidence showing it was taken with a fisheye lens, and then further implying it is representative of all of NASA's other images, in essence handwaving loads of evidence with a weak and ignorant photoanalysis.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!

« on: February 11, 2019, 08:08:48 PM »

The title of the OP is "An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!"

And we are encouraged to pick out a photoshopped element in a series of photos. If we did so, how would it prove that NASA's images are fake?

AATW literally spelled it out for you Tom. It doesn't do so directly, what it does is demonstrate that you have the skills and an objective criteria or methodology to determine whether a photo is fake or not. Since FE'ers contend NASA's photos are fake without any actual evidence besides out of context quotes, and composite images, etc., testing FE'ers skills and methodology with a series of images with a known photoshopped image would show whether you actually had the skills and methodology to back up your assertions about NASA's images.

This isn't rocket science Tom!

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!

« on: February 11, 2019, 01:46:37 PM »

for the record this was answered a while ago.

But that doesn't really matter, sure anyone could look up the answer on this forum but what matters here is the methodology, the criteria for determining photos fake or real. If you don't have that, then you've lost the challenge.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!

« on: February 10, 2019, 04:59:56 PM »

Like BillO and AATW have already pointed out, ir's doubtful whether FE'ers will answer at all. The basic reason for that I think is that for pictures of the Earth, the logic basically goes: "The Earth is flat, therefore, the Conspiracy is real, therefore, the pictures showing Earth as a globe are fake." And then they just throw in CGI as an explanation without actually pointing out how it's fake.
In the words of Tom Bishop,

Unless you've debunked all evidence it remains as evidence.

56

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: the ISS light in the sky is fake, right?

« on: February 08, 2019, 02:02:54 PM »

I'm not sure how big name the Public Observatory is, and they could be getting funding from NASA, if they are a sponsor, but faking it live when the ISS is to pass for visitors sounds rather difficult. I don't live in Munich sadly, so if there are any FE'ers who live there, it would be nice if we could get a firsthand report from someone there for tracking an ISS passing.

Where did a Public Observatory come up with the money to afford an 80Cm telescope with advanced tracking technology to be able to lock onto, and maintain focus on, an object darting across the sky?

Well, from donations, like stack noted, membership fees, an annual grant from the city of Munich, and from some  sponsors if you clicked on the link I gave you (there's probably some financial documents that disclose that out there somewhere, I'll see what I can dig up to see if NASA is one of them.)

57

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: the ISS light in the sky is fake, right?

« on: February 08, 2019, 12:26:04 AM »

This question "what is this thing that looks like the ISS that i'm able to see in the sky with a telescope in my backyeard" has been asked a few times with
several different answers:

1. Some sort of aircraft
2. Some sort of naturally occurring space debris like an asteroid.
3. A weather balooon
4. A high altitude station which is not in space.

How do any of these explanations account for when you see the ISS through a telescope like with this footage?

(Raw footage in description)

I mean, that's got to be one really weird airplane (one that probably couldn't fly if you tried to build what you saw), sure doesn't look like a rock, doesn't look like a balloon either, and to my knowledge, the high altitude stations you're referencing are like the HAA's Lockheed Martin has, and those are basically blimps (unless you meant something else by high altitude station).

It could be some sort of high altitude experimental aircraft. I don't know.
Some people would disagree when you claim that it does not look like a rock.
Some people would disagree when you claim that it does not look a balloon.
It could be a high altitude solar panel.

This is sounding awfully like the counter arguments to that looks like a duck sounds like a duck walks like a duck thing. I understand what you mean though, we can't conclusively rule them out, until you really look into each of them, like you analyze aircraft designs, conclude under known aviation principles and aerodynamics that an aircraft of the design of the ISS would be impossible to fly and things like that, and even then, you'd have to keep up with current info on aviation and update your explanation.

So what is it these independent astronomers are seeing?

What these independent astronomers are seeing has already been listed in my response:
1. Some sort of experimental or oddly shaped aircraft
2. Some sort of naturally occurring space debris like an asteroid.
3. some sort of experimental or oddly shaped  weather balloon
4. A high altitude station which is not in space.
5. Some sort of upper atmosphere disturbance which causes light from the sun to refract in a specific way
(please keep in mind that I could provide many other things what you are seeing is)


Furthermore I'm unaware of what equipment is being used to lock onto and follow something that is moving that fast up in the sky.



Look at this video. An independent astronomer with a telescope/camera and a tripod is unable to "track" this moving aircraft/rock/balloon/mirage/upper atmosphere station. It just zips by. In the video you presented it looks like it is from some sort of professional observatory which very likely could be getting some sort of NASA funding.

Sorry I wasn't more clear about it in my prior post. It's from the 80 cm telescope of the Public Observatory in Munich, but as the name suggests, it is indeed open to the public and they do let visitors look through the telescopes.
http://www.sternwarte-muenchen.de/portrait_e.html

Are they too under NASA's payroll? Are we just seeing CGI or a model or something?

Some of them could be on the NASA's payroll. I would venture to say that a majority of the FE community would not say that some guy with a camera and a tripod who sees this is on the NASA payroll. A big name observatory, which created the video you have shown, could very possibly be getting some sort of NASA funding.

What you are seeing is not a CGI model.  What you are seeing is:

1. Some sort of experimental or oddly shaped aircraft
2. Some sort of naturally occurring space debris like an asteroid.
3. some sort of experimental or oddly shaped  weather balloon
4. A high altitude station which is not in space.
5. Some sort of upper atmosphere disturbance which causes light from the sun to refract in a specific way
(please keep in mind that I could provide many other things what you are seeing is)

I'm not sure how big name the Public Observatory is, and they could be getting funding from NASA, if they are a sponsor, but faking it live when the ISS is to pass for visitors sounds rather difficult. I don't live in Munich sadly, so if there are any FE'ers who live there, it would be nice if we could get a firsthand report from someone there for tracking an ISS passing.

58

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: the ISS light in the sky is fake, right?

« on: February 07, 2019, 09:40:21 PM »

If I can return to the original question, the ISS light in the sky is fake, right?

We see the ISS just as we do any other natural satellite passing through the sky, because of reflected sunlight. I will try to find the link again but somewhere I found a website of an image of the spectrum of the light from the ISS and it showed the same pattern of spectral lines as the Sun. Not surprising since the spectral lines from any light source will be visible whether observer directly or reflected.

So are questionning whether the ISS itself is fake, or the light reflected off the ISS is somehow a fake? Just curious. As an aside you can aim a pair of binoculars or a telescope at the ISS as it is passing over and see it in quite a lot of detail.  The main body shines with a brilliant white while the solar panels are a distinct bronze tint.

This question "what is this thing that looks like the ISS that i'm able to see in the sky with a telescope in my backyeard" has been asked a few times with
several different answers:

1. Some sort of aircraft
2. Some sort of naturally occurring space debris like an asteroid.
3. A weather balooon
4. A high altitude station which is not in space.

How do any of these explanations account for when you see the ISS through a telescope like with this footage?

(Raw footage in description)

I mean, that's got to be one really weird airplane (one that probably couldn't fly if you tried to build what you saw), sure doesn't look like a rock, doesn't look like a balloon either, and to my knowledge, the high altitude stations you're referencing are like the HAA's Lockheed Martin has, and those are basically blimps (unless you meant something else by high altitude station). So what is it these independent astronomers are seeing? Are they too under NASA's payroll? Are we just seeing CGI or a model or something?

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab

« on: February 07, 2019, 02:10:05 AM »

Edit: For all those who say the fluid stuff could be from parabolic flight, it can't be, 5:41 to 6:27 is longer than the 20 seconds of parabolic flight.

. 
How deceptive of you.  There's a cut at 5:14 minutes in to the video so it isn't 46 seconds of continuous footage as you try to imply but about 32-33 seconds.  Google says the parabolic flights provide about 30 seconds of weightlessness.  Also, the footage appears to be slightly slowed down.  Furthermore ,hand-drawn cel animation definitely existed in 1974, and the footage is grainy enough that it could plausibly be the work of a skilled animator (but I lean towards parabolic flight).

I'm guessing there's a typo and you meant 6:14, but why do you think the cut is deceptive in any way? It's obvious they just zoomed in on the water. Like, do you have any evidence the cut signifies a different rotating formation of water? The backgrounds match up pre cut and psot cut, the speeds match up, and since we know it went through all the time pre cut without splitting into two blobs of water,that that time was not long enough to do so pre cut. So if the speeds match up, then post cut is focused on the same splitting blob of water. If you're going to bring up cranking and frame rates, then provide some evidence for it, speculation means nothing. And besides, even if you still are convinced of whatever effect the cut has, 32 seconds is still longer than the max parabolic flight time.

Also, animation? Can you provide any evidence to support your claim?

Quotation from the first post: "@ 1:03 the man is able to accelerate his rotation too quickly to be an underwater environment."

Or the cameraman is able to slow down the frame rate such that it appears that he is rotating faster than he actually is. 

Do you have any evidence for that, not just speculation?

Another quote from the first post:  "@1:18-1:43 The three men execute intersecting 3d pathways that would make wire harnesses tangled, the video segment is too long to be explained by parabolic flight as it exceeds 20 seconds in duration and the SkyLab is too large of an internal volume to fit inside the largest aircraft available at that time."

Parabolic flights can create a zero-g environment for up to 40 seconds. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598414/ 

The notion that the entire volume of Skylab would need to be fitted into the parabolic aircraft in order to shoot the scene in question is obviously ridiculous.  The circle that the "astronauts" are seen floating around in looks no larger than about 10-15 feet in diameter.  It could also be a swimming pool, since the original claim that it could not have been shot in a swimming pool was refuted above.  It looks to me like this scene was shot under water while the scene discussed above looks more like a vomit-comet scene (it isn't "either-or".  Both could have been used, each for different effects).  Either way, this stuff could easily have been faked.

Well, stack already handled the 40 second thing, but I'm not seeing how this swimming pool thing works. They're bouncing off the ring and doing flips and stuff. They're obviously exerting themselves quite a bit over the 25 second period and should be exhaling their breath to keep up that much exertion. You really think NASA can edit out the streams of bubbles?
https://www.usms.org/fitness-and-training/articles-and-videos/articles/exhalingthe-hidden-secret-to-swimming-farther-and-faster

Indeed, in light of stack's video of the skylab ring sequence of 47 seconds, that level of exertion underwater for 47 seconds would be nearly impossible without surfacing.

And now fast rotation guy could be a vomit comet. The problem with that is that the scene is still too big for a vomit comet. The rotation guy has stretched out his arms before and after the rotation, giving a rough estimate of the length of his route being at least two wingspans. Which is most likely larger than the space in a vomit comet. Indeed, when we pan to the other guy who rolls forward, it affirms the assumption that it's a ring the rotation guy was spinning next to, and we've already established that as too big to fit in a vomit comet, even if you don't think it's a ring, the arc is still too big for a vomit comet and then panning to the other guy shows we're not seeing an arc placed sideways in a vomit comet, it's clearly an internal circumference of what would be the vomit comet's fuselage.

From the same paper:

"Such a flight typically consists of 30 to 60 parabolas, each providing about 25 seconds of freefall. Between parabolas, the aircraft must climb to regain altitude, and during this 40 second interval when downward velocity is reduced and eventually becomes upward velocity, g levels reach 1.8 g. (Contrary to popular misconception, the 0 g freefall phase of flight begins as the aircraft climbs, and does not occur solely as the aircraft descends. Although the aircraft has upward velocity during the initial 0 g phase, its acceleration is downward: the upward velocity is decreasing.)"

The 25 seconds of free fall refers to a "typical" flight.  Elsewhere it is claimed that the maximum (as opposed to the typical) amount of free fall time is 40 seconds:  "During such parabolic flight an aircraft flies a trajectory that provides freefall for up to 40 seconds.  Later on:  "Between 1955 and 1958, a refined approach in the F-94 fighter allowed a variety of medical experiments to be performed during 30 to 40 seconds of freefall."  The 40 seconds of "increased force" during the typical parabolic flight has nothing to do with the maximum claimed 40 seconds (or 30-40 seconds) of free-fall, they just happen to be the same.

Do you have any evidence that vomit comet flights, like the ones today even exceed 30 seconds? Also, lol, the F-94? You do realize that thing is a two seater, right? In fact, here's a picture! Please explain to us how you can film anything in that or how conventional vomit comet planes can fly like a fighter jet.

- Skylab water experiments were Disney-esque hand-drawn cel stuff

I don't think that was used in this particular case but it is possible that NASA used hand-drawn animation in the pre CGI era.  The video quality is usually so grainy (deliberately so) that if the effect was well animated enough it wouldn't be easy to see that the texture of the animated feature looked "off."

It's grainy yes, but do you have any evidence for these allegations? Can you show us any hand drawn animations that can pass of as real?

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab

« on: February 03, 2019, 04:37:27 PM »

sandokan copypasta™

more offtopic shit

another wall of text

damn, maybe you should work for the US government, Trump doesn't need money for a border wall, he just needs you to type it, how can illegals wade through your offtopic bs?

Sandokhan, I'm going to say this as nicely as I can, but can you please stay on topic? This thread was supposed to be a discussion of Skylab, and instead you're flooding it with your obfuscations. And manicminer, like come on man, you just keep on feeding him, just stop, the both of you. You both should know better. You want to talk gravity and aether, make your own thread.

This is one question I've never seen flat earthers answer: How do you explain the SkyLab missions?

I guess they don't: they just send someone in to derail the thread with gish gallop, hope gravity gets a mention, and then sit back satisfied that a question buried is kind of the same as a question answered.

SkyLab is a great topic to address: there are so many good videos of the astronauts doing acrobatics up there in those pre-CGI days, with far longer shots than would be possible in a zero-G plane, as well as in much larger area.

Also interesting to note how much more spacious and comfortable SkyLab was compared to the ISS. Space deniers bemoan the NASA budget now, but back then they had some serious dollar to spend, and it showed. Such a shame those space stations have such a limited lifespan.

Here's a SkyLab clip I really like:



Thanks for posting the vids above. Great resource.

Thank you Max, I really appreciate your post. That was basically why I made a new thread on Skylab, because it is such a good topic and there's a lot of footage out there to analyze and explain.

Seeing that the only ontopic FE response in this thread was based on the ramblings of a fringe conspiracy theorist and someone's blog post, the last Skylab thread was mostly offtopic ,and there is no mention whatsoever of Skylab in the wiki, I'm just gonna come out with the truth.
FE'ers can't explain Skylab so they either don't repsond, or hide behind offtopic posts. Like seriously, 162 views on this topic, and only one ontopic FE response? Well, I guess ignorance is bliss.