Fifty years ago this week, NASA astronaut Alan B. Shepard Jr. made space history when he took a few golf swings on the Moon during the Apollo 14 mission, successfully hitting two golf balls across the lunar surface. Space enthusiasts have debated for decades just how far that second ball traveled. It seems we now have an answer, thanks to the efforts of imaging specialist Andy Saunders, who digitally enhanced archival images from that mission and used them to estimate the final resting spots of the golf balls.

Saunders, who has been working with the United States Golf Association (USGA) to commemorate Shepard's historical feat, announced his findings in a Twitter thread. Saunders concluded that the first golf ball Shepard hit traveled roughly 24 yards, while the second golf ball traveled 40 yards. //

Saunders, whose forthcoming book is entitled Apollo Remastered, estimates that a professional US Open golfer like Bryson DeChambeau could, in theory, hit a ball as far as 3.41 miles on the Moon, with a hang time of 1 minute 22 seconds—much farther (and longer) than Shepard's feat. As he told the BBC:

Unfortunately, even the impressive second shot could hardly be described as "miles and miles and miles," but of course this has only ever been regarded as a light-hearted exaggeration. The Moon is effectively one giant, unraked, rock-strewn bunker. The pressurized suits severely restricted movement, and due to their helmet's visors they struggled to even see their feet. I would challenge any club golfer to go to their local course and try to hit a six-iron, one-handed, with a one-quarter swing out of an unraked bunker. Then imagine being fully suited, helmeted, and wearing thick gloves. Remember also that there was little gravity to pull the clubhead down toward the ball. The fact that Shepard even made contact and got the ball airborne is extremely impressive.

And of course, the astronaut's legacy as the first human to play golf on the Moon remains secure.

if this had been a regular trial, how do you pull a move like this after both sides have already rested?

They had their chance to present witnesses in the House. They didn’t even bother to have a hearing, they went ahead with a vote on impeachment without even that or any evidence. They didn’t even move to have witnesses earlier in the Senate trial. Talk about a last minute move to try to save their case.

But Americans hopefully have seen how hypocritical they are. They don’t care about doing the people’s work. It’s about doing anything they can to stop their political opponent, even after he’s already out of office.

Hopefully Americans make them pay heavily for this at the ballot box

Joel Pollak
@joelpollak
.@RepRaskin plays a deceptively edited video of Trump's Jan. 6 speech that leaves out the passage where he said people should protest "peacefully and patriotically." This is sheer demagoguery, an abuse of power by the Democrat-run House, ands should be rejected

Freddie Laker, the owner of a small aviation firm named Aviation Traders Ltd (ATL), wanted to convert surplus examples of the famous Douglas DC-4 and its military derivative, the C-54 Skymaster. This move would provide an inexpensive solution for vehicle transportation. Overall, the industry needed a successor to the increasingly aging Bristol 170 Freighter. //

The DC-4 had become outdated for deployment on passenger routes and was matched with a nose design inspired by the model of the Bristol Freighter. Notably, the cockpit was raised significantly higher compared with other aircraft. It was directly above the front of the cargo bay.

Generally, the Carvair could hold 22 passengers in a rear cabin. Meanwhile, up to five cars could be loaded at the front.

First of all, the headline itself is completely misleading, as there was nothing “skewed” whatsoever in the Droz team spreadsheet. Indeed, the AP article completely failed to prove that the data was skewed or that their assessment was correct.

Second, the fact-checker included ad hominem against Droz by imputing that his long-time activism “rejecting the science of climate change” somehow discredits his team’s analysis of 2020 election lawsuits. That’s yellow journalism – and, by the way, there is no proven “science of climate change” in any event. Indeed, the fact-checker’s inclusion of that phrase is additional confirmation of leftwing bias.

Third, the ad hominem attack used the phrase “self-described physicist” as a kind of grammatical pejorative. One would have thought that the fact-checker could have discovered that Droz holds physics degrees from Boston College and Syracuse University.

Fourth, the article concludes that information in the spreadsheet has been “misinterpreted” by readers of at least one blogsite (LifeSiteNews) to conclude that President Trump “could still overturn the election results.” This is a classic strawman argument, as the lawsuit list in the Droz team spreadsheet has nothing to do with that claim.

Fifth, the AP article identified a single database as the source for the Droz team spreadsheet and analysis. This is misleading, as the spreadsheet itself lists eight (8) separate sources for the information compiled.

Sixth, the AP article uses a cited example (Ritchie v. Polis) to “prove” that “some of the cases in the report are also wrongly coded as wins for Trump when they didn’t directly deal with the presidential election.” In fact, Ritchie v. Polis was not just about “petition-signing,” as the AP article states, but rather addressed the much broader situation of whether a governor has the authority to override a state legislature concerning election laws and regulations (the court ruled that the governor does NOT have that authority). Droz has subsequently confirmed that the fact-checker knew the truth about this lawsuit she cited, but chose to ignore it to maintain the false narrative of the article.

Ted Cruz
@tedcruz
CNN is no longer a news organization. They’re Dem propagandists.

Facts they are ignoring:

(1) senators are NOT jurors, as Dem Sen. Harkin clarified: https://tinyurl.com/4tvlnnl3

(2) Schumer repeatedly confers w/ House managers, as always & fully appropriate.

Three GOP senators meet with Trump's lawyers on eve of impeachment defense presentation
cnn.com //

Indeed. Also, I must have missed the CNN report that talked about how an “impartial” Democratic “juror” (Pat Leahy) presiding over the trial “told us all we need to know.”

The 10 minute video the defense showed was absolutely brutal, and Rep. Maxine Waters, Schumer, Biden, and Harris took center stage in them. They also used a full two minutes of Sen. Elizabeth Warren talking about bringing “the fight” and not backing down: //

There are legal arguments being made and political arguments being made during the trial by both sides. While the minds of the senators watching are likely to remain unchanged by any of it, it was imperative that the defense team show the American people the darker, much less “tolerant” side of Democrats that the mainstream media has desperately tried to keep hidden.

Why? Law professor Jonathan Turley broke it down earlier this week:

If this trial boils down to irresponsible political rhetoric, the public could find it difficult to distinguish between the accused, the “prosecutors” and the “jury.” That is the problem with a strategy that seems focused not on proving incitement of an insurrection but some ill-defined form of political negligence.

Chris2
41 minutes ago
In light of the holiday, I pulled an old AP fact-checking article from the library:

CLAIM: Black people have Constitutional rights. In a pamphlet, Republican presidential candidate Abraham Lincoln claim Black people have rights under the U.S. Constitution.

AP ASSESSMENT: FALSE. As SCOTUS correctly held, "A Black man has no rights that a white man is bound to respect." No American court has acknowledged the Constitutional rights of Black people; this false pamphlet meme is based on a single case from a British court, and the author neglects to mention that we fought two wars (the Revolution and the War of 1812) to avoid living under British law. Therefore, we assess Republican presidential candidate Abraham Lincoln's claims to the contrary to be FALSE. Please read the AP's endorsement of Democrat Stephen Douglas, who has called for a return to normalcy and decency on the slavery issue.

See how much fun we can have when we rely upon courts for our facts? Well-educated people recognize the appeal to authority fallacy, but liberals can't. Indeed, the appeal to authority fallacy is pretty much their entire thought process, so...

Chris2
31 minutes ago
To me, the fact that the courts largely rejected Trump's allegations is the best evidence that he was telling the truth. Let's remember what our courts have also held: the unborn can be murdered, Black people have no rights that white people must respect, the government can intern people based on race, the government can sterilize people it deems unfit, the government can ban homosexuality, oops the government can't discriminate against gays, the 14th Amendment doesn't prohibit segregation by race, oops - it does, but take your time doing anything about it, Obamacare is a tax & it's still okay w/o the tax part, and on and on and on. The courts are the friends of the status quo (aka the rich and powerful); the courts do NOT protect individual rights. Fools point to a few "correct" decisions & ignore all the errors. Remember the "good" decisions are merely PARTIAL fixes to the bad ones. Congress banned discrimination on race in the 1870s; the courts rejected those statutes until they slowly began changing the law & - even then - they made enforcement difficult. The courts aren't the friends of liberty; they wanted to defeat Trump & they invented legal excuses to do so - they did not even pretend to be interested in justice or law. I read those decisions, briefs etc - it was all a joke. The powers-that-be wanted Biden, and the courts obliged, as they always do. Eventually, they'll get around to fixing the election laws & then we'll hear how great they are. Courts have good press, but they're terrible for human rights. Don't believe me? Ask all the slaves they freed (none); ask all the people they sentenced to segregation for decades; ask all the unborn they sent to the slaughterhouses. Courts protect the rich and powerful; they function like a House of Lords to ensure that change happens slowly & w/ the elite's approval - and you'd know that if you judged by the facts & not the hype.

Raskin played a deceptively edited video that claimed that Trump had called Neo-Nazis “very fine people.” He edited out where Trump said, “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.” He was talking about folks on the left and free speech purists on the right. It’s a lie that’s been debunked for years. But that didn’t stop Raskin. Raskin also stupidly improperly identified the Charlottesville in question.

But Schoen then destroyed that today by playing, perhaps for the first time ever on some of these liberal networks the full remarks of that day where it was clear that Trump denounced Neo-Nazis and white nationalists decisively.

When 90-year-old Aaron Epstein bought a Wall Street Journal print ad to complain about his slow AT&T Internet service, the impact was immediate. Reporters like me called him and wrote articles, talk of his plight went viral on the Internet, his ad made an appearance on Stephen Colbert's Late Show, TV networks interviewed him for nightly news broadcasts, and AT&T executives sprang into action to minimize the public-relations damage.