News Feeds

Chemists have been working to synthesize high-value materials from waste molecules for years.

The first rumblings of the Sun's next 11-year solar cycle have been detected in sound waves inside our home star -- even though it is only halfway through its current one. This existing cycle is now at its peak, or 'solar maximum' -- which is when the Sun's magnetic field flips and its poles swap places -- until mid-2025.

Space storms could soon be forecasted with greater accuracy than ever before thanks to a big leap forward in our understanding of exactly when a violent solar eruption may hit Earth. Scientists say it is now possible to predict the precise speed a coronal mass ejection (CME) is travelling at and when it will smash into our planet -- even before it has fully erupted from the Sun.

Researchers have found that titanium-48 changes from a shell model structure to an alpha-cluster structure depending on the distance from the center of the nucleus. The results upend the conventional understanding of nuclear structure and are expected to provide clues to the Gamow theory on the alpha-decay process that occurs in heavy nuclei, which has not been solved for nearly 100 years.

A new essay explores which conditions must be met for consciousness to exist. At least one of them can't be found in a computer.

A new ambient-energy-driven membrane that pumps carbon dioxide out of the air has been developed by researchers.

Researchers has revealed the existence of surface concavities on individual crystal grains -- which are the fundamental blocks -- of perovskite thin films, and have unraveled their significant effects on the film properties and reliability. Based on this discovery, the team pioneered a new way of making perovskite solar cells more efficient and stable via a chemo-elimination of these grain surface concavities.

I had a couple hours to read last night, but didn’t want to start a fat novel as I’m leaving the country soon and wouldn’t want to schlep it. I thus picked up an old copy of God is Not Great, by Christopher Hitchens, which is a pretty quick read.  After two nights I’m almost half done with it, but am a bit disappointed because a lot of the science is wrong or outmoded (the latter is, of course, not Hitchens’s fault), and the arguments seem pretty repetitive.

On the other hand, I realize that these arguments were badly needed at the time and made a big impact on nonbelievers and believers alike. It’s one of the books that kick-started the “New Atheism,” and the “New” bit, as I always say, was the use of scientific arguments to rebut religions faith claims.  These arguments are amply in view in Hitchens’s book, and most of them are correct. And, of course, Hitch was a wonderful writer.

One of Hitchens’s arguments against creationism and its gussied-up cousin Intelligent Design is its invocation of vestigial organs like our vestigial tail, the appendix, wisdom teeth, and so on—all as evidence for evolution.  There were also examples of features that were jury-rigged by evolution so that they’re not perfectly adapted to their function: things like the backwards placement of the retina in the human eye, our “blind spot” where the optic nerve comes in, and—my favorite—the placement of the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

When I pondered those examples, I realized that IDers and creationists argue that all of these features are really adaptive.  The appendix, they say (correctly) contains a small number of cells that have immune functions, and the “backwards” retina of our camera eye is said by creationists to confer protection against an overload of short-wavelength light.  But of course whether the immune function of the appendix outweighs the fact that it may become infected and kill you is pure speculation, as is the postulated “useful” function of the backwards retina.

And I haven’t yet heard of an adaptive explanation for nipples in human males, our wisdom teeth, the developmental sequence of our kidney, or our transitory coat of hair in utero (the “lanugo”), but I’m sure that if you look hard enough on the Internet, you’ll find IDers and creationists showing how these aren’t really “senseless signs of history”, but are actually adaptive. And if they’re adaptive, then they reflect God’s plan.

In the end, I realized that the true purveyors of the “adaptationist program” aren’t evolutionary psychologists, but creationists, who aren’t willing to admit that the vagaries of evolution has vouchsafed us with featurs that, if there was a god or a Designer, could have been designed better. Further, they don’t often realize that if a “vestigial” structure is useful in some way, that doesn’t disprove that it had an evolutionary origin. The “halteres”—balance organs of some insects—is one example. They are used for keeping a guided flight, but we know that they are the vestigial remnants of wings, derived from two of the four wings that flying insects used to have. And they’re useful!

I won’t dwell on this, as these things are discussed in detail in my book Why Evolution is True, and you can also see many examples of vestigial organs supporting evolution at Douglas Theobald’s great site, “29+ evidences for macroevolution” (there are multiple pages; vestigial organs, atavisms, and other features testifying to evolution are here).

Finally, I have never seen creationists even try to refute the biogeographical evidence for evolution, like the absence of endemic mammals, fish, and amphibians on oceanic islands (islands that rose, bereft of life, from the sea bed) as opposed to continental islands that were once connected to continents. Biogeography is the true Achilles Heel of both creationism and ID.

I’m often asked if I’ve though about rewriting or updating my first trade book,  Why Evolution is True. My answer is always “no”—mainly because there’s enough evidence in that book to convince any rational person of its title’s assertion. But I suppose that if I did revise it, I would update it with more evidence for evolution, especially from fossils and molecular biology.  I do present plenty of fossil evidence for evolution in the book, and also some molecular evidence. The latter includes the presence of “dead genes” (genes that were functional in our ancestors and in some of our relatives, but have been rendered nonfunctional in us by degrading mutations). Examples are our many dead “olfactory receptor genes, active in dogs but totally inactive in whales, or a dead gene that is key in synthesizizing Vitamin C in other mammals. That gene is defunct, an ex-gene that sings with the Choir Invisible, but its death doesn’t harm because we get the vitamin from our diet.  I see no way that creationists or IDers can explain the fact that our DNA is largely junk, and much of that junk consists of dead genes. Loading our DNA with genes that don’t do anything, but still have to be copied during cell division and meiosis, is a lousy way to design a genome.

But now we have more such evidence, Here’s Ken Miller lecturing on some of the molecular/chromosomal evidence for evolution in humans and other primates from the structure of our chromosome 2.

I don’t mention this in my book, but it’s a convincing bit of evidence that we’re related to other primates.

There’s a lot of stuff like this, but I won’t belabor it now.  The short take is that I don’t think WEIT (the book) needs to be revised because it would just pile additional evidence for evolution on the Everest of evidence that already exists.  The fact is that evidence from a variety of different disciplines—paleontology, developmental biology, morphology (vestigial organs), biogeography, and molecular biology—all cohere to attest to the truth of evolution. IDers will admit of some microevolution, and even some macroevolution, but the more weaselly ones simply play a “god of the gaps” game, saying that there are adaptations that simply could not have evolved via a step-by-step Darwinian process of accumulating helpful mutations.  (The bacterial flagellum used to be one, but has fallen in light of later research.)

Asserting that our ignorance proves the existence of a Designer has never been a good strategy for researchers. It is simply a “science stopper”, implicitly saying, “You don’t need to do any more research; I already know that this phenomenon is inexplicable by materialistic processes and therefore is evidence for supernatural design.”  How many assertions like that have been debunked by later evidence? The answer is TONS OF THEM.

And I need hardly add that unless we have independent evidence for such a designer, we can simply ignore arguments that depend on its existence.

Some of you may be wondering why I persistently post on the efforts of New Zealand to interpolate local superstitions and lore into science classes and other government endeavors.  This is not because I hate New Zealand, but because I love it.  I hate to see the country brought down, especially scientifically, by sacralizing the superstitions of the indigenous population. Yes, I admit that the local “way of knowing,” Mātauranga Māori (MM), does contain some empirical trial-and-error knowledge, though most of that knowledge should be conveyed in anthropology and sociology classes. But what’s going on in the country now is the world’s most pervasive form of “wokeness,” though it’s not purely performative because it actually damages the country. And the authorities have ensured that no objection to this ideological capture will be tolerated.

So my occasional reports about New Zealand on this site are meant to let Kiwis know what’s really going on in their country in the hopes that rationality and science won’t be held hostage to the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. Many residents know already, but many also send me documents that can’t be criticized publicly because the sacralization of the oppressed has reached the point where New Zealanders who criticize the intrusion of legend, superstition, and local religion into the workplace are liable to be fired or punished.  I can’t tell you the number of emails I get from Kiwis urging me on, but saying that I can’t publish their names for fear of reprisal.  But since I’m in the U.S., I can at least mention this foolishness without fear of retribution. That’s why some NZ outlets, like this one, simply reproduce the posts I’ve written about what seems to be the world’s worst and most dictatorial form of DEI.

So here is yet another email from a New Zealander wanting me to report on this mishigass, but asking to remain anonymous.  So be it.  The other day I reported how the staff at some locations of Health New Zealand, a government health-promoting agency, were encouraged to say Māori prayers or chants (“karakia“) daily. This practice was originally reported on a NZ website, but the link was sent to me anonymously. The author, A. E. Thompson, noted that “voluntary” prayers aren’t really that voluntary if you’re pressured to say them:

Sure, the email to health staff only used the word “encourage” but really, when your employer issues an email saying that, you know it will be expected and that ignoring or opposing it will be held against you and may cost you your job.

Pressuring state employees and even private company employees to participate in karakia sets a dangerous precedent in eroding separation between state and religion. As we speak, Muslim immigrants in Europe are deliberately imposing their religious practices on non-Muslim populations by having their distorting loudspeakers call dozens or hundreds of faithful to prostrate themselves in prayer on public footpaths and roadways (even though nearby mosques are plentiful). The practice reflects their belief that Islam is so important that everyone either needs to convert to it or be discriminated against or killed.

This is why, in the U.S., “voluntary” prayers are banned in school. This not only violates the First Amendment, but pressures kids to conform to public prayers lest they be ostracized.

Well, now New Zealand has done it again, this time in a hospice largely funded by the government, and in the southern part of the country. The hospice even suggests some prayers, which seem to be Māori.  This was sent to me by someone who requests anonymity for fear of losing their job.

Note that this was sent to the staff of a hospice, not to the residents, and, as usual, it’s full of Māori words (I’ve bolded them) that are there simply as a performative act, since they impede understanding (everyone speaks English, but few, even Māori people, speak the indigenous language). In this case, most have already been translated into English. You can look the words and pharses up in the Maori dictionary, but karakia I’ll define for you (here’s part of it):

incantation, ritual chant, chant, intoned incantation, charm, spell – a set form of words to state or make effective a ritual activity. Karakia are recited rapidly using traditional language, symbols and structures.

It can also refer to Christian prayers, but note in the second paragraph that this effort is being guided by a Māori advisory group. Note as well that the introduction of the karakia are being timed to coincide with the new Moon (the phases of the moon have great significance for Māori life).

The email:

Kia ora team,

I’m emailing you all ahead of a change in the way we manage karakia for our IDT hui/meetings.

I want to acknowledge that karakia to begin and end our IDT hui/meetings started quite abruptly to begin with, and it is my hope, and that of the Māori Advisory Group (MAG), to provide some context and to guide this part of our day in a way that is supportive and makes sense.

Firstly I’ll speak to why work places might look to introduce karakia into everyday activities, such as the IDT meeting. Karakia are an integral part of te ao Māori (the Māori world).

On a functional level karakia:

– Provide a predictable structure to everyday interactions i.e. beginning, middle, end;

– Enable the everyday exchange of whanaungatanga (managing relationships/relationship building) and manaakitanga (hospitality).

– Support the normalisation of te reo me ngā tikanga Māori (Māori language and customs), which I believe in turn lends to:

— The development of skills that enhance our capacity to provide culturally safe care to Aotearoa New Zealand’s indigenous people.

— The development of perspectives that foster cultural humility in our engagements with all.

On a deeper level karakia:

– Support us to collectively connect with and focus in on the context (kaupapa) of the interaction;

– Navigate tapu and noa (separate but corresponding states of being within te ao Māori. Inappropriate association between things that are tapu and noa can impact all dimensions of wellbeing) safely.

– Fortify our holistic wellbeing by engaging with Te Taha Wairua (the spiritual dimension of wellbeing).

Making space for karakia within our workplace is particularly important given the intensity of the mahi (work) we are engaged with as individual clinicians, and as a collective. Our mahi straddles the ordinary and the extraordinary: we support patients, whānau and caregivers as they navigate the threshold between life and death, and support each other to provide this care.

We are going to begin refreshing the IDT karakia (or whakataukī – proverb) in concordance with Whio – the New Moon – as an opportunity to consider and acknowledge both the maramataka (Māori lunar calendar) and pūrākau (stories/legends/myths) inherently relevant to our work at the hospice.

 Our hope is that incorporating such an initiative into OCH processes will support us to:

·        Normalise the use of te reo Māori.

·        Enable the everyday exchange of whanaungatanga and manaakitanga.

·        Grow in our personal and organisational understanding of Māori world views within the palliative context.

·        Equip the team with knowledge that may support us to be more culturally responsive.

·        Foster a sense of interest/curiosity in learning more.

So, with this in mind, and given that the next new moon is July 6th, we will be setting this new initiative in motion on the next working day which is Monday 8th July. On the 8th I’ll speak to the initiative briefly, and then provide some context regarding the new karakia or whakataukī, and we’ll go from there. For those that feel comfortable joining in with reciting the karakia – please feel free to join in – otherwise, please feel free to sit back, relax and tune in to the kupu (words) and the kaupapa of the karakia, kei a koutou (its up to you)!

You will find copies of the karakia or whakataukī we are going to use for the next month attached to this email for your reference.

If you are curious about learning more please check out the piece I have contributed to this months OCHeye coming out soon!

The two karakia enclosed are both Māiru incantations: here’s a screenshot of one:

 

Yes, these are non-religious and could be considered as Māori haiku, but the point is that these are “suggested” incantations, and they are Māori.  Note that these are being introduced to the hospice to bring it into “the Māori world”, and one of the stated reasons for the introduction is “The development of skills that enhance our capacity to provide culturally safe care to Aotearoa New Zealand’s indigenous people” and to ·       “Grow in our personal and organisational understanding of Māori world views within the palliative context.”  Now of course one must be sensitive to the culture of hospice patients, and not insult or agitate them, but prayers aren’t the way—they should use Måori healers or spiritual leaders to do this—and I doubt that everybody in the hospice is of indigenous ancestry.

This is in fact one attempt to indoctrinate the staff with the spiritual aspects of Māori culture. Yes, the prayers are “optional”, but you know what that means, and woe to the person who writes to the boss to object to this effort! What is this doing in a hospice? Are there any atheists or Christians there? In the U.S., this kind of effort would be prohibited as discriminatory and perhaps a violation of the First Amendment. Chaplains are allowed to visit hospitals and say prayers with the patients, but hospital staff are not given “suggestions” to say prayers. But this admixture of superstition and government-funded institutions is not prohibited in New Zealand. Many residents object to it, but they’re so cowed that they can’t even voice their objections for fear of punishment. All over the country, speech has been chilled.

So it goes. I hate to think of what New Zealand will look like in thirty years, when this kind of ideological capture has become the norm.

******

I’ll add that in 2021 the leadership of the University of Auckland, Vice Chancellor Dawn Freshwater, promised that there would be seminars, panels and debates on the virtues of teaching MM as coequal to modern science in university science classes.  That was three years ago, and absolutely nothing has transpired. I’m told that the Māori moiety of the administration has prevented any such debate, but I don’t know for sure. All I know is that when I wrote Dr. Freshwater reminding her of her promises, and asking when this important debate would take place, I got no reply.

Saved by the bell, I have two or three batches of photos left. Today we have arthropod photos from one of our most regular contributors, Mark Sturtevant. Mark’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them.

Here are more pictures of arthropods from the previous summer. They were taken from the area where I live: in eastern Michigan.

I regularly check out our “sun garden” in the backyard to see what is going on, and there I commonly find small herds of Boxelder Bugs (Boisea trivittata) as shown with this group of nymphs. Boxelder Bugs feed on the developing seeds of various trees, not just Boxelder trees, and their bright colors are a signal that they are chemically protected. The winged adults will seek shelter for the winter, and this will include peoples’ homes, so during the winter they will turn up in the house along with overwintering stink bugs and ladybird beetles. But I don’t mind buggy visitors during the long winters:

Next up is a Caddisfly. Caddisflies are a sister taxon to Lepidoptera, but their larvae are usually aquatic. They can be hard to identify, and so I can suggest only that this is in the genus Banksiola because it sure does look like it. This won’t be the only time that my IDs’are uncertain here:

The next two pictures show Wooly Aphids, aphids that secrete a waxy floof for protection. I have no idea about their identity, although it would help if I remembered their host plant. The colony picture shows nymphs, winged males, and wingless females. It was rather disgusting:

We come next to a kind of beetle that has become a bit of an obsession. This is one of the species of gold Tortoise Beetles, so-named for its lovely metallic gold color. The particular species here is Deloyala guttata.  There is a similar one that I also find that can be pretty much all gold but when even slightly disturbed it rapidly turns a plain orange color so that it resembles a toxic ladybug.  This picture also marks a first attempt to add some digital brush work and other enhancements to the surroundings during post-processing. I commonly see this sort of thing in the hobby, and I would now like to dabble in this trickery from time to time:

Both of our local species of gold Tortoise Beetle feed on the leaves of Morning Glory plants and related species. As lovely as the beetles can be, their larvae and pupae are decidedly the opposite. Next is a picture of one of the pupae, and the larvae are similar. One of course notes the icky mass that is held over the back. That is a repellant collection of their poo and cast skins, and is called a “fecal shield”. If you want to find golden Tortoise Beetles, look on Morning Glories or on related plants like Bindweed. Swiss-cheese holes in the leaves are a sign of the larvae, and there is a fair chance that a sparkly adult or two is hiding under a leaf. But be quick, as the adults are very shy.

Next up is a tiny weevil, which I believe to be Conotrachelus sp. It just sat there, locked in this pose, while did a focus stack:

The wasp shown in the next picture is a parasitic Ichneumon wasp, Therion sp. I don’t know what hosts are used by this one, but I do know that a related species will parasitize caterpillars:

If I have a special treat, I like to put it in last and so here it comes. Besides tortoise beetles, I have lately become very interested in the little cobweb building comb-footed spiders (family Theridiidae), especially because their habits are greater than what I had supposed. Familiar examples of spiders in this family include what we call House Spiders in the U.S., and then there are the Widows. As you all know, these more familiar species favor dark places where they sit and wait to ensnare prey that encounter their tangled-looking cobwebs (although their webs actually have some clever designs to them). But the family is large, and Theridiids don’t all lurk in dark places, nor do they all simply stay in a web to wait for prey to come to them.

See this little spider? Rather pretty, isn’t it? This is the Candy-striped spider (Enoplognatha ovata). The picture is a staged manual focus stack of a spider that had wandered on its own onto our back porch. The “sky” is really a paint swatch. The 2nd picture shows a male in our sun garden:

Well, this little spider is a notable marauder of diurnal (daytime active) insects, and it uses different strategies to hunt prey. Candy-striped spiders make small tangled webs near the tops of plants in gardens and fields, and there they aggressively go after insects that so much as touch their web. More recently, I got to watch one of these spiders, lurking below a flower, attack a much larger bee that happened to be foraging on the flower above. The bee had no chance as the spider steadily thrusted loop after loop of silk up from between the petals of the flower, pinning the bees’ feet down. I have pictures to show later – they are still in the camera.

It doesn’t stop there, though. According to this beautifully done research paper, and summarized further in this article, the spiders become even more pro-active hunters under the cover of night. Diurnal insects often sleep up on plants at night, and that is when the little spiders can venture out and blindly explore the plants around them in order to murder insects in their sleep and eat them. It is through this active hunting that a high percentage of their prey are bees and wasps, and the size of the insect affords them no protection. The research paper has a fabulous picture that made the journal cover that conveys the carnage rather well. Y’all really should zoom in on that journal picture to appreciate the horror of it.

So now I am regularly examining the foliage around plants, looking for small, innocent-looking cobwebs. Just this morning I found another one of these spiders sitting on top of a daisy in the sun garden, eating a Hemipteran –like flower crab spiders do. Last summer and again this summer, I am finding hints that at least a couple other Theridiid species may use similar sneak-outside-of-their-web strategies. In iNaturalist there are quite a few pictures of brightly colored spiders in this family that are just sitting around in the open, without tangled webs. So what are they up to? And here is this little Theridiid (Theridion frondeum) in a park near Detroit. She was tucked away in a leaf, and no web was nearby. So how did this nearly blind spider bring down this big fly? As always, there are more questions:

Areas of rural countryside around cities are intended to prevent urban sprawl, but can also influence the climate within cities - and now researchers have quantified this cooling effect

This kind of abuse of deepfake endorsements was entirely predictable, so it’s not surprising that a recent BMJ study documents the scale of this fraud. The study focused on the UK, detailing instances of deepfakes of celebrity doctors endorsing dubious products. For example, there is this video of Dr. Hilary Jones used to endorse a snake oil product claiming to reduce blood pressure. The video is entirely fake. It’s also interesting that in the video the fake Jones refers only to “this product” – as if the deepfakers made a generic endorsement (ala Krusty the Clown) that could be then attached to any product.

This trend is obviously disturbing, although again entirely expected. This use of deepfakes is deliberate fraud, and should be treated as such. Public figures have a right to their own identity, including their name and likeness. Laws vary by country and by state, but most have some limited protections for the use of someone’s name or likeness. In the US, for example, there is a limited “right of publicity” which limits the use of someone’s name or likely for commercial purposes without their permission. This can also extend beyond death, with the estate holding the rights. Even imitating a recognizable voice has been successfully sued.

This means that using a deepfake clearly violates the right of publicity – in fact it is the ultimate violation of that right. There are generally three legal remedies for violations – monetary damages, injunctive relief, and punitive damages.

How good are the deepfakes? Good enough, especially if you are viewing a relatively low-res video on social media. And of course they are only getting better. We cannot wait until deepfakes are good enough to fool most people, right now they are high enough quality to constitute fraud. So what do we do about it?

Most of the articles I read about this study were fatalistic and put the onus on the user, such as:

For those whose likenesses are being co-opted, there’s seemingly very little they can do about it, but Stokel-Walker offers some tips on what to do if you find a deepfake. For instance, take a careful look at the content to make sure your suspicions are well-founded then leave a comment, questioning its veracity. Use the platform’s built-in reporting tools to voice your concerns, and finally report the person who or account that shared the post.

This question comes up with almost every type of fraud – do we deal with the situation by educating the public to spot the fraud and protect themselves, or do we try to control the fraud through regulation? I think we should always do both. It is better for individuals to be savvy, to takes steps to protect themselves from all kinds of fraud, and to report instances of fraud. We can improve this through education – teaching the public about each specific type of fraud, but also teaching generic critical thinking skills and media savvy.

But overall the “personal responsibility” approach to public problems has very limited success, in pretty much every context. This doesn’t mean we should not optimize personal responsibility, just that we need to recognize the results will always be limited. Expecting (in the US, for example) 300 million people to always do the right thing is unrealistic. This is true when it comes to public health, carbon footprint, litter, fraud detection, and other issues.

We also have to consider the “personal responsibility burden” of society (I just made up that term, but I think it’s a useful concept). Going through our day-to-day lives, how much mental energy do we need to expend in order to navigate all of our personal responsibilities? If we imagine a hypothetical world with zero regulations, one that is driven 100% by market forces, is this a world that anyone would want to live in? You would be responsible for evaluating and validating the safety and efficacy of every medical product you use, of the safety of the cars you drive in and the roads and bridges you drive on, of all commercial claims for every product, of the quality and safety of your food, and of the legitimacy of services you pay for. It would be overwhelming.

Also, keep in mind, that for each and every product or service there would be an industry with lots of time, money, and resources to craft effective scams, while you would have the burden of fending off thousands of such attempts to deceive you. The asymmetry is massive. Sure, there would likely be consumer protection organizations to provide reviews and investigations, but can you trust them? Industries would (and do) just make up their own fake consumer protection groups, or seals of approval, or whatever mechanism is used to help consumers evaluate products, in order to promote their own products.

I guess consumers could act collectively by funding their own organizations that would be evidence-based and transparent, and rely mostly upon experts to provide the information they need. But of course, that’s essentially what the government is, except with more teeth.

To be clear, I am not trying to factor personal responsibility out of the equation, but I think its unavoidable that society functions better if there is at least a minimal safety net. Our technological society is simply too advanced and specialized for anyone to have the ability to take responsibility for everything they may encounter or depend upon.  There should be minimal safety standards for food, regulations against outright fraud, and reasonable standards for safety at least.

The discussion should revolve around where the limits of regulations are. How regulations can be most effective, how are decisions made and implemented, how to avoid unintended negative consequences, and how to guard against gaming the system. We also have to consider the total regulatory burden (a term I did not coin as it is a concept long promoted by industry). There is a balance to be struck, and we need to consider the ROI of any regulation. This means having a system that is dynamic and responsive. Regulations should be transparent, minimalist, evidence-based, and self-correcting. This means there needs to be mechanisms for evaluating the burden and effectiveness of regulations, and for lobbying for changes where necessary.

Getting back to deepfakes – we also have to imagine a world overwhelmed with fake information content. We are essentially already there. I wrote recently about the culture of TikTok recently in which driving engagement is prioritized almost entirely over truth and accuracy. It is the end-stage of “infotainment”. Deepfakes like the ones in this study are worse – they are not optimized for engagement, they are deliberately deceiving the viewer in order to defraud them, while stealing the public personal of celebrities.

I am not fatalistic about this phenomenon. Rather, for all the reasons I stated above, I think this is an issue that needs to be dealt with through thoughtful and tough regulations. In terms of the remedies above, we need to make sure we have the legal resources to impose swift and accurate injunctive relief. I also think that “punitive damages” should be extensive – greater than any possible economic benefit from committing the fraud. It can’t just be the cost of doing business. Being caught using a deepfake to defraud the public should be ruinous. I also think that prison time should be on the table. People do go to prison for fraud.

Also, think about it this way. We have an entire highway safety infrastructure. We recognize that highways can be dangerous, and we need to protect the public. Right now I would argue that the most dangerous venue for the public is the internet. We need to start taking cybersecurity, in all its forms, much more seriously. We lead an increasing amount of our live online. We do business online, and we get our information online. We need a cybersecurity infrastructure, including appropriate regulations, that make our online lives reasonably safe and secure. Right now I am personally under a daily assault by countless scams – through calls, texts, e-mails, and websites. It’s constant. I am vigilant, but even I at times can be temporarily blindsided by a new type of scam. My elderly mother has no chance of protecting herself from the onslaught, so her kids have to do it for her. And we have to essentially limit her online interactions.

Online fraud cost Americans over 10 billion dollars in 2023, and that is likely an underestimate. Some individuals are wiped out. This is a serious issue that cannot be tackled through PSAs. This is why it was disappointing that so many articles on the deepfakes focus exclusively on personal responsibility. Rather, we need to demand effective regulations.

The post Deepfake Doctor Endorsements first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.

Lunar exploration equipment at any future lunar base is in danger from debris blasted toward it by subsequent lunar landers. This danger isn’t just theoretical – Surveyor III was a lander during the Apollo era that was damaged by Apollo 12’s descent rocket and returned to Earth for closer examination. Plenty of ideas have been put forward to limit this risk, and we’ve reported on many of them, from constructing landing pads out of melted regolith to 3D printing a blast shield out of available materials. But a new paper from researchers in Switzerland suggests a much simpler idea – why not just build a blast wall by stacking a bunch of rocks together?

On the Moon, that task isn’t as simple as it sounds. It would require an autonomous excavator to assess the rocks, collect them, and stack them on top of each other so that they wouldn’t fall over. Depending on the size of the rocks, that task could be completed successfully by a toddler, but for a robot, it remained in the realm of science fiction, at least until recently.

Another paper by some of the same co-authors described an autonomous boulder-stacking robot for use in construction projects on Earth. In it, they showed a control algorithm that could successfully stack a rock wall together using medium-sized boulders entirely autonomously. Applying it to lunar construction seemed like the next obvious step. 

Video of the autonomous boulder stacking method in use on Earth.
Credit – ETH Zurich YouTube Channel

But first, an excavator would have to make sure there were enough boulders around to build the wall effectively. In the paper, the authors use data from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to research the distribution of boulders at two potential landing sites – the Shackleton-Henson Connecting Ridge and the Aristarchus Plateau. They also extrapolate sizes of smaller boulders based on the limits of LRO’s resolution and the distribution law of boulder sizes. Final confirmation came in the form of rock abundance data from another instrument on LRO, with their final estimates agreeing that there should be enough loose material for an autonomous excavator to build a blast wall using locally sourced boulders successfully.

Calculating the amount of material needed to build the blast shield was actually a precursor step to confirming enough boulders were available. It was also necessary for another important calculation – understanding how much energy this process would take compared to alternative solutions of processed stone walls or microwave-heated landing pads. According to the author’s calculations, stacking existing stones is two to three times less energy-intensive than alternatives.

That’s not to say there aren’t still hurdles to overcome. The most obvious is the lack of an autonomous excavator capable of operating on the Moon. The one used in the Earth-bound experiments was prohibitively large, and designing a system for use on the Lunar surface is notoriously difficult, with the radiation and the electrostatically charged dust particles. Those electrostatically charged particles could also prove a problem, but further modeling is needed to understand whether lunar boulders would be affected by considerable dust accumulation.

Fraser discusses the need for our return to the Moon.

The idea itself is still relatively new, and it does have a lot going for it, given its advantages and the proof of concept demonstration already completed on Earth. So, while there are currently no plans to set up an autonomously constructed rock wall, there is a decent possibility that the idea, or something similar to it, could be picked up as part of the Artemis mission infrastructure. At least the Artemis mission designers will have plenty of potential solutions to this problem, no matter their choice.

Learn More:
Walther et al. – Autonomous construction of lunar infrastructure with in-situ boulders
UT – NASA Wants to Build Landing Pads on the Moon
UT – What’s the Best Way to Build Landing Pads on the Moon?
UT – A Handy Attachment Could Make Lunar Construction a Breeze

Lead Image:
Drawing of an autonomous excavator stacking in-situ boulders for a rock wall.
Credit – Walther et al.

The post Lunar Infrastructure Could Be Protected By Autonomously Building A Rock Wall appeared first on Universe Today.

More people, mostly kids, are drowning these days, in no small part because of the pandemic.

The post Drowning Deaths Continue Post-Pandemic Rise first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

An update to a piece of software called CrowdStrike Falcon Sensor appears to be negatively affecting Windows computers worldwide, with banks, airports, broadcasters and more finding that devices display a "blue screen of death" instead of booting up

New York, New York, the “city that never Sleeps,” has given us two Presidents, Eggs Benedict, potato chips, Robert De Niro, Saturday Night Live, and Scrabble. Two of New York City’s boroughs have also been home to three of the most controversial and infamous criminal defendants in American history: Bruno Richard Hauptmann, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

Though their convictions were handed down decades ago, Hauptmann from the Bronx, and the Rosenbergs from Knickerbocker Village in Manhattan, remain causes célèbres around the globe. With passionate proponents around the world still proclaiming their innocence, a skeptical examination of the evidence for the guilt of both Hauptmann and the Rosenbergs is warranted.

Bruno Richard Hauptmann
The Crime

On the night of March 1, 1932, 20-month-old Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jr. was kidnapped from his nursery window on the second floor of the Lindbergh home near Hopewell, NJ.1 The kidnapper(s) left a poorly written ransom note demanding $50,000 (over $1 Million in today’s money).2 The note to the Lindbergh’s also contained a code: two interlocking circles resembling a Venn diagram with three small holes punched through them.3 At least two sets of differing footprints were found at the crime site, as were a ¾” chisel,4 and the home-built ladder used to climb to the nursery window.5 During the next three months, 13 more notes bearing the code symbols were delivered and the ransom was raised to $70,000.

The kidnapping of the world-famous son of “Lucky Lindy” (solo pilot of the first nonstop airline flight across the Atlantic Ocean, New York to Paris) made international headlines. A retired school teacher and, by all accounts, a self-aggrandizing publicity-seeker6 named John F. Condon, published a letter in the Bronx Home News offering to serve as a liaison between the Lindberghs and the kidnapper(s).7 On March 8, seven days after the child was taken, and one day following the publication of his offer, Condon received a letter, bearing the code, accepting his offer to be an intermediary.8

Condon was instructed by the kidnapper(s) to place an ad in the New York American using the name “Jafsie” (a play on his initials), indicating that the ransom money was ready. Condon did so and, on March 12, he received another code-bearing letter from a cab driver instructing him to meet the kidnappers at Woodlawn, a Bronx cemetery.9 Condon went alone. There he met a man with a German accent identified as “John,” who asked for the money, which Condon refused to provide until he’d seen the baby. The mysterious man expressed fear that he “might burn” if the baby was dead and told Condon he would provide proof of the child in the toddler’s sleeping suit.10 Condon soon received the child’s sleeping suit in the mail and continued to communicate through advertisements until a meeting was arranged to exchange the ransom. $70,000 in unmarked gold certificate U.S. paper money were placed in two packages, their serial numbers having been recorded. (The fact that the ransom was paid in gold certificates would later become significant).

On April 2, 1932, Charles Lindbergh rode with Condon11 to another Bronx cemetery, St. Raymond’s,12 where they heard a man call out, “Hey doctor!” Condon went toward the voice while Lindbergh waited in the car. Condon convinced the kidnapper he only had $50,000 of the ransom money. The kidnapper accepted the sum and gave Condon another note filled with misspellings asserting that the child was safe aboard a boat named “Nelly,” harbored off the Massachusetts coast.13 The kidnapper took the money and Condon returned to the car where Lindbergh was waiting. An exhaustive search failed to find the boat. On May 12, 1932, the body of the child was found close to Lindbergh’s home from which he was taken.14 Over the next two years, 296 of the gold certificates the Lindberghs used to pay the ransom turned up in circulation.

Earlier that year, Roosevelt’s Gold Reserve Act of 1934 mandated that all gold and gold certificate currency be surrendered and vested in the sole title of the United States Department of the Treasury. In other words, The Gold Reserve Act prohibited private ownership of monetary gold. On September 15, 1934, a gas station attendant in the Bronx wrote down the license plate number of a man who had paid him with one of the gold standard-backed certificates. The authorities traced the plate to Bruno Richard Hauptmann, a German-born American carpenter.15 A search of Hauptmann’s garage found $14,600 of the ransom money. Hauptmann provided an explanation and an alibi: He was working the night of the kidnapping at a hotel and a former business partner named Isidor Fitch left the money with him.16 Fitch, who owed him money, had since returned to his native Germany and died on March 29, 1934. Initially, Condon was unwilling to identify Hauptmann conclusively from a police lineup, later changing his mind and acknowledging that Hauptmann was indeed “Cemetery John.”17 Hauptmann was charged with extortion and murder and pled not guilty. The trial was a media circus, with famed journalist H.L. Mencken labeling it “the greatest story since the resurrection.”18

Hauptmann was found guilty and sentenced to death, with most of the public convinced of his guilt.19 After the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey unanimously affirmed Hauptmann’s conviction, he was executed on April 3, 1936. Hauptmann died protesting his innocence, even though a newspaper offered him $75,000 (far more than the ransom money) to name his accomplices.20

The Conspiracies

Though the Lindbergh kidnapping is approaching its 100th anniversary and all the principal participants are long dead, The State of New Jersey v. Bruno Richard Hauptmann has evolved in much of the public imagination into a tragic miscarriage of justice. Since his execution in 1936, books, articles, documentaries, plays, websites, and movies have examined Hauptmann’s role in the crime, the majority of them wondering if Hauptmann was, in fact, wrongly convicted.21

For years, conspiracies have run the gamut from the probable (Hauptmann had accomplices)22 to the possible (Violet Sharpe, a domestic servant of the Lindberghs, was somehow involved)23 to the preposterous (Charles Lindbergh had his own disabled son murdered).24 A few highlights:

• In 1976, author Antony Scaduto capitalized on these conspiracies with the publication of Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. Scaduto purported to “set the record straight after some forty years of distortion…”25
• In a 1980 episode of In Search Of…, Scaduto claimed to have found “startling new evidence that exonerates Hauptmann.”26 All expert testimony, eyewitness testimony, and physical and forensic evidence, he claimed, were manufactured by the police to frame Hauptmann. Scaduto goes even further, asserting that the body found on May 12, 1932, was not that of the Lindbergh baby, and the only way to identify the badly decomposed body was by the number of his teeth.27
• In 1981, Hauptmann’s widow Anna began a series of lawsuits against her husband’s prosecutor, David Wilentz, echoing conspiratorial claims of new evidence that exonerated her husband alongside charges of fraud and witness suppression.28
• In 1985, Ludovic Kennedy published The Airman and The Carpenter: The Lindbergh Kidnapping and the Framing of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. He posited that Hauptmann did not commit the crime and was wrongfully convicted and executed.29
• In a 1996 HBO movie, Crime of the Century, Stephen Rea portrayed Hauptmann as an innocent victim railroaded for a crime he did not commit.30
• In 2012, Robert Zorn published Cemetery John: The Undiscovered Mastermind Behind the Lindbergh Kidnapping, in which he makes the case that Hauptmann’s accomplice was a fellow German immigrant named John Knoll.31 Zorn’s thesis notes Knoll’s resemblance to the police sketch provided by Condon, traces of meat found on some of the ransom money (Knoll having worked at a deli), updated handwriting analysis of the ransom notes,32 and Knoll’s trip to Germany on a luxury liner during the trial, only returning after Hauptmann’s conviction.33
• In 2020, Lise Pearlman released The Lindbergh Kidnapping Suspect No. 1: The Man Who Got Away, which suggests Lindbergh himself, a vocal eugenics supporter and Nazi sympathizer, may have orchestrated the kidnapping and death of his own son.34

The Evidence

Pay attention only to Hauptmann-was-innocent proponents and a pattern emerges: Desperate to satisfy a public hungry to assign blame, authorities deliberately conspired to frame Hauptmann for the crime. Lacking hard evidence, the prosecution exploited the anti-German atmosphere of the time by portraying Hauptmann as part of the the growing German menace, and a gross miscarriage of justice.35 Authorities coerced Condon into identifying Hauptmann as Cemetery John,36 and Hauptmann was forced to misspell the same words on writing samples that were misspelled on the ransom notes.37

The evidence reveals a much harsher reality: It may well be that Hauptmann had accomplices (the government certainly thought he did),38 but it takes an extraordinary leap of faith to believe Hauptmann was uninvolved in the crime and preposterous to argue that he was “framed.” Many of these conspiratorial claims mislead by omission, while others are demonstrably false. For example, when initially interviewed by the police, Hauptmann lied twice, saying the only gold certificates he had were the ones in his wallet,39 and he was working as a carpenter at a hotel the day of the kidnapping,40 driving his wife home at about 9:00 p.m. that night.41

About one-third of the ransom money was found hidden in Hauptmann’s garage.42 Upon checking the hotel employment records, it was discovered that Hauptmann had not started working there until 20 days after the crime, and quit the day the ransom was delivered.43 (Scaduto omits this entirely.44) The summer after the ransom was paid, Hauptmann (an unemployed carpenter at the height of the Great Depression) came into enough money to fund four family trips to California, Florida, and Maine, and finance trips to Europe for his wife and several friends.45

The physical evidence found on Hauptmann’s property wasn’t limited to the ransom money, either. Hauptmann’s tools matched the marks on the ladder. Dr. Condon’s address and phone number were found scrawled in a closet alongside the serial numbers of gold certificates.46 When asked for an explanation on the witness stand, Hauptmann admitted that he must have written Condon’s contact information in his closet because, in his words, “I must have read it in the paper about the story. I was a little bit interested and keep a little bit record of it, and maybe I was just on the closet, and was reading the paper and put it down the address.”47

There were eyewitnesses as well. The cab driver, Joseph Perrone, pinpointed Hauptmann as the man who gave him written instructions for Condon.48, 49 After deliberation, Condon testified that it was indeed Hauptmann whom he met at the cemetery,50 and Lindbergh himself testified it was Hauptmann’s voice he heard yelling, “Hey doctor!”51 Forensic evidence also implicates Hauptmann. Contrary to Scaduto’s claims, the autopsy of the victim was conducted with fidelity by Dr. Charles Mitchell, a veteran coroner, who easily identified the child by his (clearly recognizable) face. Lindbergh confirmed the body was that of his son.52, 53 Forensic experts54 then and now confirm a board from the ladder came from Hauptmann’s own attic.55 Scaduto notes that Hauptmann’s fingerprints did not match those found on the ransom note.56 This is true, but only because no fingerprints were found at the scene.57

At least 21 handwriting experts examined Hauptmann’s notebooks, and private letters in addition to the samples Hauptmann wrote for the police, all of whom concluded Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes during the trial.58 All of Anna Hauptmann’s lawsuits against the government through the early 1980s were dismissed for lack of evidence.59 As recently as 2003, a police archivist named Mark Fazini found a handwritten, anonymous note in German confessing to the crime.60 This would seem to exonerate Hauptmann unless one considers the note was debunked61 and was only one of dozens of similar confessions.62

Through the years, at least 16 different people have claimed to be the actual Lindbergh baby, including an African American woman from Trenton, NJ.63 Establishing the Lindbergh baby survived and grew up under an assumed name would absolutely exonerate Hauptmann, but no substantive evidence for any one of these claims has ever been provided.64, 65, 66 Even more damning is Hauptmann’s modus operandi. His widow, Anna, gave multiple interviews in which she asserted Richard was telling the truth67 and could never commit such a crime.68, 69 In fact, Hauptmann had an extensive criminal record. While in Germany, for example, he’d been convicted of robbery at gunpoint and even burglarized a home while using a ladder.70

Why didn’t Hauptmann name his accomplices and save himself, then? According to criminal profiler John Douglas, it isn’t unusual for the condemned to maintain innocence in order to spare their surviving family members public shame.71 Hauptmann also believed he would be spared the electric chair, as the governor of New Jersey publicly expressed doubts about Hauptmann’s role in the crime.72

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, separated by heavy wire screen as they leave U.S. Court House after being found guilty by jury. (Credit: Roger Higgins, New York World-Telegram and Sun Collection / Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Digital ID cph 3c17772)

Julius & Ethel Rosenberg
The Crime

In January of 1950, a physicist who had worked on the Manhattan Project named Klaus Fuchs was arrested in Great Britain for passing top-secret information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union.73 Fuchs admitted the crime and fingered a Swiss chemist named Harry Gold as the courier between himself and the Soviets. Gold was arrested and identified others in the espionage ring, including a machinist at Los Alamos, David Greenglass,74 who first denied the charges, and then, in June of 1950, named his brother-in-law, Julius Rosenberg, as the one who convinced him to spy for the Russians.75 Julius Rosenberg was living with his wife Ethel and two children in Knickerbocker Village, a housing development located near the Manhattan Bridge.76 Julius was arrested and flatly denied any involvement.77

A grand jury convened in August 1950 to investigate the spy ring, one of the witnesses being Julius Rosenberg’s wife, Ethel. Following her testimony in which she invoked her right not to incriminate herself, Ethel was charged with conspiracy to commit espionage alongside Julius and another defendant, Morton Sobell.78

At their trial, Greenglass testified that Julius had orchestrated the espionage at his home in January 1945. Julius went into his kitchen with Ruth (David’s wife) and Ethel, and cut a side panel of a Jell-O box into two irregular parts. He passed one piece to Ruth, asserting that the spy contacting her and David at Los Alamos would identify themselves with the other half.79 Ruth testified that Ethel solicited her to approach David to spy and typed the notes David brought back to New York with him. Greenglass confirmed his wife’s testimony, further implicating Ethel by testifying she typed the notes containing nuclear secrets, which were turned over to Harry Gold. Both Rosenbergs denied any involvement whatsoever in espionage and refused to answer questions about their Communist party membership.80

The accused were found guilty in March 1953. Greenglass was sentenced to 15 years (a lighter sentence because he’d agreed to turn state’s evidence), Sobell received 30 years, and the Rosenbergs were sentenced to die in the electric chair.81 Despite pleas for clemency by notables, including Pope Pius XII, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Albert Einstein,82 Julius and Ethel Rosenberg went to their deaths maintaining their innocence.83 At the time of their conviction and execution, and for many years afterward, many Americans believed the United States executed two innocent people.84

The Conspiracies

As in the Hauptmann case, Rosenberg v. United States: 346 U.S. 273 lives on. In 1971, novelist E.L. Doctorow published The Book of Daniel, a fictionalized account of the case.85 A film adaptation (Daniel) followed in 1983.86 Bob Dylan recorded “Julius and Ethel” in 198387 and Meryl Streep portrayed Ethel’s ghost haunting her prosecutor Roy Cohn in the movie Angels in America in 2003. If anything, the Rosenberg case has only gained prominence in the last quarter century. In 2001, a New York Times reporter named Sam Roberts tracked down David Greenglass (who testified against the Rosenbergs), who was living under an assumed name. In the extensive interviews for The Brother: The Untold Story of the Rosenberg Case, Greenglass admitted he’d lied on the witness stand about Ethel typing the letters of instruction from Julius to the Soviets.88

In 2004, Ivy Meeropol, granddaughter of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, released the documentary Heir to an Execution, in which she incorporates archival footage with interviews of her family members and the other alleged conspirators.89

In 2008, Michael and Robbie Meeropol (the Rosenbergs’ surviving children, who had been adopted into the Meeropol family) unsuccessfully petitioned President Obama to exonerate their mother using their uncle David Greenglass’ confession.90, 91 Recently, in 2021, Anne Sebbe published Ethel Rosenberg: An American Tragedy, in which she argued for Ethel’s innocence.

The Evidence

Rosenberg defenders often note outside factors that led to their convictions: Jurist prejudice, antisemitism, Cold War hysteria, and (in Ethel’s case) misogyny have been named as the reasons for their convictions and executions.92, 93 Another common argument is that the Rosenbergs assisted a World War II ally, not an enemy, therefore they should not have been tried and convicted for treason.94

The facts of the case tell a different story. The Rosenbergs were charged with conspiracy to commit espionage, not treason.95 Evidence shows Julius approached Soviet intelligence96 agents before Hitler invaded Russia at a time when the Nazi leader and Stalin were collaborating under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.97 In 1995, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) released translations of Soviet cables decrypted in the 1940s. Called VENONA, it ran from 1943 to 1980 and identified hundreds of Soviet agents in America and other Western countries.98 The cables identify Julius as the head of a vast spy ring, assigning him two code names, “liberal”99 and “antenna.” In 2008, co-defendant Morton Sobell affirmed he and Julius were spies but the information passed was useless.100

In 2009, Alexander Vassiliev, a former KGB officer and defector to Great Britain, released his notes taken during his service in the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), which debunk Sobell’s claim that minimizes Julius’ activities. Not only did Julius orchestrate the theft of top-secret information from Los Alamos, he also recruited a man named Russell Alton McNutt (son and brother of members of the Communist Party of the United States)101 to obtain information from a uranium enrichment plant in Oak Ridge, TN.

Sensationalism and conspiratorial thinking keep the cases of Bruno Richard Hauptmann and the Rosenbergs thriving as cottage industries.

When the VENONA transcripts were released, the narrative for innocence shifted from “the Rosenbergs were innocent” to “Julius Rosenberg was guilty, but Ethel was innocent.”102 What of Ethel’s guilt, then? At their trial, prosecutor Irving Saypol established Ethel’s guilt in his summation by stating, “Mrs. Rosenberg struck the keys, blow by blow, against her own country in the interests of the Soviets.”103 In 2001, Greenglass admitted he likely perjured himself by testifying Ethel typed Julius’ instructions104 and, indeed the Vassiliev notes seem to confirm this.105 Sobell’s 2008 admission notes that Ethel Rosenberg knew of her husband’s activities but did not actively spy herself.106

Despite the commonly-held belief that Ethel Rosenberg is not mentioned in the VENONA Project,107 in fact, she is. The Soviet spy cables describe Ethel as “…well devoted politically (who)108 knows her husband’s work and the role of ‘Twain’ and ‘Callistratus.’ (code names of Soviet agents).”109 If the only evidence against Ethel were the false testimony of Greenglass and her sole mention in the VENONA cables, a reasonable case might be made for doubt. Unfortunately for proponents of her innocence, substantive evidence has since come forth that makes it clear Ethel not only knew of her husband’s illegal activities but actively participated in spying alongside him.110

This article appeared in Skeptic magazine 29.1
Buy print edition
Buy digital edition
Subscribe to print edition
Subscribe to digital edition
Download our app

Through Vasiliev’s leak, we know that Ruth testified truthfully when she claimed Ethel solicited her to persuade David Greenglass to spy.111 A letter written to Moscow by Julius Rosenberg himself substantiates this.112 Vasiliev’s notes reveal Ethel met with at least three of the KGB officers with whom Julius was spying.113 Why did Greenglass perjure himself in front of the grand jury and later at his trial, then? Simply, he was attempting to protect his sister and hoped the government would leave her out of the indictment charging Julius. In the same transcripts before the grand jury, Greenglass implicates Ethel by testifying she was present at a meeting between Julius and Ann Sidorovich, one of the couriers for the spy ring.114

Why didn’t they save themselves by naming others, then? As noted, the Vasiliev leak makes clear the spy ring Julius orchestrated was far more expansive in scope than was revealed to the public. Julius and Ethel most likely did not reveal names because they (correctly) believed the FBI had yet to identify them and those individuals could continue spying for the Soviets after their own deaths.115

• • • • • •

Sensationalism and conspiratorial thinking keep the cases of Bruno Richard Hauptmann and the Rosenbergs thriving as cottage industries. In truth, the evidence for Hauptmann’s involvement in the Lindbergh Kidnapping remains exceptionally strong, as does the case for Julius and Ethel Rosenberg’s guilt in conspiring to commit espionage. Even though books propounding conspiracy theories exonerating them sell—and sell well—the full weight of evidence shows, beyond any reasonable doubt, NYC’s most controversial defendants to have been guilty of the crimes for which they were charged.

About the Author

John D. Van Dyke is an academic and science educator. His personal website is vandykerevue.org.

References

1. https://bit.ly/3vurndO
2. https://bit.ly/48ubClA
3. Cahill, R. T. (2014). Hauptmann’s Ladder: A Step-by-step Analysis of the Lindbergh Kidnapping. Kent State University Press.
4. Lee, H. C., & Labriola, J. (2001). Famous Crimes Revisited: From Sacco-Vanzetti to O.J. Simpson, Including Lindbergh Kidnapping, Sam Sheppard, John F. Kennedy, Vincent Foster, JonBenet Ramsey. Strong Books.
5. https://bit.ly/3tGoTJ1
6. https://bit.ly/48lmLWi
7. Ibid.
8. https://bit.ly/3S3jhSq
9. https://bit.ly/3tC2igI
10. https://bit.ly/48ubClA
11. https://bit.ly/3tC2igI
12. https://bit.ly/3TOCsRd
13. https://bit.ly/3THoG2H
14. https://bit.ly/3vf0v1o
15. https://bit.ly/41H83X4
16. https://bit.ly/48ubClA
17. https://bit.ly/3vlg2wL
18. https://bit.ly/4aE8up4
19. Cahill, R. T. (2014). Hauptmann’s Ladder: A Step-by-step Analysis of the Lindbergh Kidnapping. Kent State University Press.
20. https://bit.ly/48ubClA
21. https://bit.ly/41Ky8EL
22. Douglas, J. E., & Olshaker, M. (2001). The Cases That Haunt Us. Pocket Books.
23. Baker, N. F. (1932, Jul–Aug). The Case of Violet Sharpe. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1931–1951), 23(2), 166–168.
24. Pearlman, L. (2020). The Lindbergh Kidnapping Suspect No. 1: The Man Who Got Away. Regent Press.
25. Scaduto, A. (1976). Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. Putnam.
26. https://bit.ly/48ubClA
27. https://bit.ly/3TOECAj
28. https://bit.ly/3RLCOFw
29. https://bit.ly/3HnYm6F
30. https://bit.ly/3H90BKA
31. Zorn, R. (2012). Cemetery John: The Undiscovered Mastermind Behind the Lindbergh Kidnapping. Harry N. Abrams.
32. https://bit.ly/3RZ2EY1
33. https://bit.ly/3tH1ib5
34. Pearlman, L. (2020). The Lindbergh Kidnapping Suspect No. 1: The Man Who Got Away. Regent Press.
35. https://bit.ly/3TLjBGW
36. https://bit.ly/3tH1ib5
37. https://bit.ly/3tGoTJ1
38. https://bit.ly/3vh3QwV
39. https://bit.ly/48jplMr
40. https://bit.ly/3vlg2wL
41. https://bit.ly/4aDLNkT
42. https://bit.ly/3vurndO
43. https://bit.ly/3vlg2wL
44. Scaduto, A. (1976). Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. Putnam.
45. https://bit.ly/47jKsNg
46. https://bit.ly/3vurndO
47. https://bit.ly/3S3PyJd
48. https://bit.ly/3vurndO
49. https://bit.ly/3TLkdfI
50. https://bit.ly/3tD3i49
51. https://bit.ly/3vh3QwV
52. https://bit.ly/3tD3i49
53. https://bit.ly/48ubClA
54. Graham, S. A. (1997). Anatomy of the Lindbergh Kidnapping. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42(3), 368–377.
55. https://bit.ly/3H2sq7l
56. https://bit.ly/47kttu7
57. https://bit.ly/3vurndO
58. https://bit.ly/47kttu7
59. https://bit.ly/48uKrHu
60. https://bit.ly/3vit666
61. https://bit.ly/48iyswO
62. Cahill, R. T. (2014). Hauptmann’s Ladder: A Step-by-step Analysis of the Lindbergh Kidnapping. Kent State University Press.
63. https://bit.ly/3vit666
64. https://bit.ly/4aE9xFw
65. https://bit.ly/3tuqEch
66. https://bit.ly/3H45wN1
67. https://bit.ly/3TLjBGW
68. https://bit.ly/4aEiL4B
69. https://bit.ly/3TLjBGW
70. https://bit.ly/41H83X4
71. https://bit.ly/3RZ2EY1
72. https://bit.ly/3S3wpqE
73. https://bit.ly/47qpGLL
74. https://bit.ly/47mrTIr
75. https://bit.ly/3RMvRnA
76. https://bit.ly/3vuvxlW
77. https://bit.ly/47j3G5B
78. https://bit.ly/48CAEPl
79. https://bit.ly/48oLtVO
80. https://bit.ly/4aAz1Ul
81. https://bit.ly/3RMvRnA
82. https://bit.ly/3H6Q0QB
83. https://bit.ly/47j3G5B
84. https://bit.ly/3RFhJwF
85. https://bit.ly/48jB5OL
86. https://bit.ly/41JPGRh
87. https://bit.ly/3tMR4WB
88. Roberts, S. (2001). The Brother: The Untold Story of Atomic Spy David Greenglass and How He Sent His Sister, Ethel Rosenberg, to the Electric Chair. Random House.
89. https://bit.ly/3tvO1SO
90. https://bit.ly/3RJgAUT
91. https://bit.ly/3tF9aKe
92. https://bit.ly/41GJ0U0
93. https://bit.ly/47paoHc
94. https://bit.ly/3NOVlQ6
95. https://bit.ly/47j3G5B
96. https://bit.ly/3TKihUo
97. https://bit.ly/4aEkiYp
98. https://bit.ly/3tF9aKe
99. https://bit.ly/47kQFZ6
100. https://bit.ly/3NPQcYi
101. https://bit.ly/3TKihUo
102. https://bit.ly/3RFhJwF
103. https://bit.ly/41PIHGA
104. Roberts, S. (2001). The Brother: The Untold Story of Atomic Spy David Greenglass and How He Sent His Sister, Ethel Rosenberg, to the Electric Chair. Random House.
105. https://bit.ly/3TKihUo
106. https://bit.ly/3NPQcYi
107. https://bit.ly/3RKGHul
108. https://bit.ly/3tF9aKe
109. https://bit.ly/48Aptqu
110. https://bit.ly/3TKihUo
111. https://bit.ly/48Aptqu
112. https://bit.ly/4aAz1Ul
113. https://bit.ly/4aKdrwL
114. https://bit.ly/3tF9aKe
115. https://bit.ly/3TKihUo

Genetic analysis shows that there are four varieties of Portuguese man o’ war, or bluebottle, including an Antipodean species that has yet to be named

The largest storm in the Solar System is shrinking and planetary scientists think they have an explanation. It could be related to a reduction in the number of smaller storms that feed it and may be starving Jupiter’s centuries-old Great Red Spot (GRS).

This storm has intrigued observers from its perch in the Jovian southern hemisphere since it was first seen in the mid-1600s. Continuous observations of it began in the late 1800s, which allowed scientists to chart a constant parade of changes. In the process, they’ve learned quite a bit about the spot. It’s a high-pressure region that generates a 16,000 km-wide anticyclonic storm with winds clocking in at more than 321 km per hour. The storm extends down through the atmosphere to a depth of about 250 km below the mainly ammonia cloud tops.

A zoomed-in view of the Great Red Spot based on Juno observations. Courtesy Kevin Gill. Modeling a Shrinking and Growing Great Red Spot

Over the past century, scientists noticed the GRS shrinking, leaving them with a puzzle on their hands. Yale Ph.D. student Caleb Keaveney had the idea that perhaps smaller storms that feed the GRS could play a role in starving it. He and a team of researchers focused on their influence and conducted a series of 3D simulations of the Spot. They used a model called the Explicit Planetary Isentropic-Coordinate (EPIC) model, which is used in studying planetary atmospheres. The result was a suite of computer models that simulated interactions between the Great Red Spot and smaller storms of varying frequency and intensity.

A separate control group of simulations left out the small storms. Then, the team compared the simulations. They saw that the smaller storms seemed to strengthen the Great Red Spot and make it grow. “We found through numerical simulations that by feeding the Great Red Spot a diet of smaller storms, as has been known to occur on Jupiter, we could modulate its size,” Keaveney said.

If that’s true, then the presence (or lack thereof) of those smaller storms could be what’s changing the spot’s size. Essentially, a lot of smaller spots cause it to grow larger. Fewer little ones cause it to shrink. Furthermore, the team’s modeling supports an interesting idea. Without forced interactions with these smaller vortices, the Spot can shrink over a period of about 2.6 Earth years.

Using Earth Storms as a Comparison

The Great Red Spot isn’t the only place in the Solar System that sports such a long-lived high-pressure system. Earth experiences plenty of them, usually called “heat domes” or “blocks.” Most of us are familiar with heat domes because we experience them during the summer months. They happen frequently in the upper atmosphere jet stream that circulates across our planet’s mid-latitudes. We can blame them for some of the extreme weather people experience—such as heat waves and extended droughts. They tend to last a long time, and they are linked to interactions with smaller transient weather such as high-pressure eddies and anticyclones.

Given that the Great Red Spot is an anticyclonic feature, it has interesting implications for similar atmospheric structures on both planets, according to Keaveney. “Interactions with nearby weather systems have been shown to sustain and amplify heat domes, which motivated our hypothesis that similar interactions on Jupiter could sustain the Great Red Spot,” he said. “In validating that hypothesis, we provide additional support to this understanding of heat domes on Earth.”

The Ever-changing Great Red Spot

In addition to the changing size of the Great Red Spot, observers also notice shifts in its color. It’s mainly reddish-orange but has been known to fade to a pinkish-orange hue. The colors suggest some complex chemistry occurring in the region spurred by solar radiation. It has an effect on a chemical compound called ammonium hydrosulfide as well as the organic compound acetylene. That creates a substance called a tholin, which gives a reddish color wherever it exists.

At times the spot has nearly disappeared altogether due to some complex interaction with a feature called the Southern Equatorial Belt (SEB). The SEB is where the spot is located, and when it is bright and white, the spot goes dark. At other times, the reverse color change happens. In some cases, the SEB itself has disappeared at various times. No one is quite sure why this is happening, but it’s one more piece of the Jovian atmospheric puzzle.

These Hubble images of Jupiter taken 11 months apart show the Southern Equatorial Belt has disappeared. Note the presence of the Great Red Spot. Credit: NASA, ESA, M. H. Wong (University of California, Berkeley, USA), H. B. Hammel (Space Science Institute, Boulder, Colorado, USA), A. A. Simon-Miller (Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA) and the Jupiter Impact Science Team.

Changes to the Great Red Spot have been studied extensively not just from the ground, but also by spacecraft missions, beginning with Voyager and extending through the Galileo, Cassini, and Juno missions. Each spacecraft used specialized instruments to probe the spot, measure its windspeeds and temperatures, and sample the gas and compounds in the upper atmosphere. All of that data feeds models like the ones used at Yale to model the smaller storms’ contributions to the Great Red Spot’s growth and shrinkage.

For More Information

A New Explanation for Jupiter’s Great, Shrinking “Spot”
Effect of Transient Vortex Interactions on the Size and Strength of Jupiter’s Great Red Spot
Juno and the Great Red Spot

The post Why is Jupiter’s Great Red Spot Shrinking? It’s Starving. appeared first on Universe Today.

Creating fertilizers from organic waste can help reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and promote sustainable production. One way of doing this is through hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL), which converts biomass into biocrude oil through a high-temperature, high-pressure process. Two studies explore the use of a fungal treatment to convert the leftover wastewater into fertilizer for agricultural crops.

According to the ESA’s Near-Earth Objects Coordination Center (NEOCC), 35,264 known asteroids regularly cross the orbit of Earth and the other inner planets. Of these, 1,626 have been identified as Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHAs), meaning that they may someday pass close enough to Earth to be caught by its gravity and impact its surface. While planetary defense has always been a concern, the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 slamming into Jupiter in 1994 sparked intense interest in this field.

In 2022, NASA’s Double-Asteroid Redirect Test (DART) mission successfully tested the kinetic impact method when it collided with Dimorphos, the small asteroid orbiting Didymos. Today, the ESA Space Safety program is taking steps to test the next planetary defense mission – the Rapid Apophis Missin for Space Safety (RAMSES). In 2029, RAMSES will rendezvous with the Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) 99942 Apophis and accompany it as it makes a very close (but safe) flyby of Earth in 2029. The data it collects will help scientists improve our ability to protect Earth from similar objects that could pose an impact risk.

Discovered in 2004, Apophis is an irregularly shaped asteroid measuring about 375 m (410 yards) across. At the time, observations indicated there was a small risk that it would impact Earth in 2029, 2036, or 2068. Given its size and the devastating effect an impact would have, astronomers decided to name it after the Egyptian god of chaos and destruction. While astronomers have since ruled out the possibility of a collision for at least the next century, Apophis will pass within 32,000 km (~19,885 mi) of Earth’s surface on April 13th, 2029.

Radar observations of Apophis rule out future impact. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech and NSF/AUI/GBO

At this distance, the asteroid will be close enough to be visible to the naked eye to roughly two billion people across much of Europe, Africa, and parts of Asia. Based on analyses of the size and orbits of all known asteroids, astronomers believe that objects this large pass this close to Earth only once every 5,000 to 10,000 years. The RAMSES spacecraft will rendezvous with Apophis before it makes its closest pass to Earth and follow behind, monitoring it with a suite of scientific instruments to see how Earth’s gravity changes it.

This will consist of conducting before-and-after surveys of the asteroid’s shape, surface, orbit, rotation, and orientation. Based on this comparative analysis, scientists will learn more about how an asteroid’s fundamental characteristics – its composition, interior structure, cohesion, mass, density, and porosity – respond to external forces. These properties are vital for determining how to knock a PHA off course so it does not collide with Earth. Patrick Michel, the Director of Research at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) and the Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur in Nice, explained in an ESA press release:

“There is still so much we have yet to learn about asteroids but, until now, we have had to travel deep into the Solar System to study them and perform experiments ourselves to interact with their surface. For the first time ever, nature is bringing one to us and conducting the experiment itself. All we need to do is watch as Apophis is stretched and squeezed by strong tidal forces that may trigger landslides and other disturbances and reveal new material from beneath the surface.”

The ESA recently secured permission from the Space Safety Program board to begin preparatory work on the mission so it can launch by April 2028. This deadline is necessary, so the mission is to be ready to launch and rendezvous with Apophis in orbit by February 2029. The final decision to commit to the mission will be made at the ESA’s Ministerial Council Meeting in November 2025. In the meantime, NASA has redirected its newly renamed OSIRIS-APEX spacecraft towards Apophis, which will arrive one month after the asteroid makes its flyby.

Apophis orbit diverted by Earth’s gravity – NEO Toolkit Space Safety Apophis orbit diverted by Earth’s gravity, Credit: ESA

Since asteroids are leftover material from the formation of the Solar System (ca. 4.5 billion years ago), this rendezvous is also an opportunity to obtain data that could provide new insights into planetary formation and evolution. This makes the 2029 flyby an extremely rare opportunity for astronomy, asteroid science, planetary defense, and for engaging billions of people worldwide. It will also be an opportunity for international collaboration, as previously demonstrated by the DART and the ESA’s Hera missions – the former redirected Didymos while the latter confirmed a change in orbit.

Last, but not least, the RAMSES mission will test the ability of space agencies to build and deploy an asteroid response quickly. As Richard Moissl, heading ESA’s Planetary Defence Office, explained:

“Ramses will demonstrate that humankind can deploy a reconnaissance mission to rendezvous with an incoming asteroid in just a few years. This type of mission is a cornerstone of humankind’s response to a hazardous asteroid. A reconnaissance mission would be launched first to analyse the incoming asteroid’s orbit and structure. The results would be used to determine how best to redirect the asteroid or to rule out non-impacts before an expensive deflector mission is developed.”

Further Reading: ESA

The post ESA is Building a Mission to Visit Asteroid Apophis, Joining it for its 2029 Earth Flyby appeared first on Universe Today.