On why the Earth is a puzzle, and other existential-crisis-inducing ideas.

"It is difficult, but it's a labor of love."

It is the 52nd Mersenne prime to be found since they were first studied over 350 years ago.

The cities provide a rare insight into life at high altitudes during the medieval era, and show surprising size.

This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read. The post Mysterious Skyquakes: What Are the Thunderous Sounds Heard Worldwide? appeared first on Anomalien.com.

The New York Times was so triggered by former President Donald Trump’s recent trolling of Vice President Kamala Harris’ employment record that it committed a major logical fallacy when attempting to fact-check him. Trump made a high-profile appearance at a McDonald’s in Feasterville-Trevose, Pennsylvania to work the fryers, on Oct. 20 and The Times couldn’t handle it. The newspaper fired off a bevy of whiny news items complaining about Trump casting doubt on Harris’ claim that she formerly worked for fast-food giant. “Kamala Harris and McDonald’s: A College Job, and a Trump Attack” and “Trump, Slinging Fries and Smearing Harris, Takes Turn Behind a McDonald’s Counter,” were just two of the headlines that led the propaganda-laced stories. Both stories tried to idiotically put the burden of proof on Trump, suggesting he must prove that Harris never worked at McDonald’s instead of expecting Harris to prove her own claims that she did. The Times apparently suffered from an extreme lack of self-awareness when drafting their stories. The authors railed against Trump’s alleged “pattern of accusing Vice President Kamala Harris without evidence of lying about a summer job working at McDonald’s.”  But what evidence did The Times utilize to retort Trump? None.  The Times’ supposed fact-checks boiled down to this: The Harris campaign and a friend of hers says she did work at Mcdonald's, so Trump is wrong. This is what is called a “Burden of Proof Fallacy” and as LogicalFallacies.org notes, such a nutty line of argument is typically used “in an attempt to avoid having to provide evidence for their own position.” The Times’s antics are even more humorous in light of the authors involved: Times San Francisco Bureau Chief Heather Knight and Times political correspondents Nicholas Nehamas and Michael Gold.  Knight, who co-authored one of the anti-Trump stories with Nehamas, pontificates in her bio that she believes “strongly in the old journalism adage of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.” In this case Harris would appear to be the “afflicted” she’s determined to comfort.  Nehamas touts his record as an “investigative reporter” in his bio, but apparently couldn’t be bothered to investigate and provide any evidence of whether Harris actually worked at McDonald’s before claiming Trump’s skepticism was false.  Gold also engages in self-aggrandizement by boasting how he works to “fairly and accurately represent the issues and people I cover,” which is undercut by the clear fallacy he was willing to commit just to get a dig in at Trump.  Even leftist outlets like Snopes asserted that Harris’ claim of working at the fast food giant was “unproven,” and Newsweek admitted that the “Harris camp has not provided any evidence that the ice president did in fact work at the Golden Arches.” But somehow, in Knight and Nehamas’s view, it is Trump’s responsibility to prove a negative for Harris’s own unproven claim. “Mr. Trump’s latest allegation also appears to be false,” cried the authors.  Knight and Nehamas even went so  far  as to editorialize about Trump’s skepticism, calling it  “insidious.” which takes the article far outside news territory and straight into op-ed-style bellyaching: Whether a presidential candidate actually flipped burgers as a college student is a far less serious allegation, of course. But Mr. Trump’s seeding of doubts about Ms. Harris’s story, while insidious and outside the lines of traditional fair play in politics, advances his goal of portraying Ms. Harris as a fraud.  In the other story, Gold sang a similar, sour-noted tune: “Mr. Trump, known for wildly speculating about the backgrounds of his political opponents without proof, repeated the claim as he addressed reporters from a drive-through window in Feasterville-Trevose, Pa.” Riddle me this: How can Trump be blamed for speculating about a claim the Harris campaign has provided no evidence to date to corroborate?  But when viewed in light of The Times’s recent, objectivity-wrecking endorsement of Harris as “the only patriotic choice for president,” it makes sense why it would do everything in its power to not properly investigate her and shield her from having to actually defend her record.  “All the news that’s fit to print?” Don’t make us laugh. Conservatives are under attack. Contact The New York Times at 1 (800) 698-4637 and hold it accountable for acting as a mouthpiece for the Harris campaign.  

Former President Donald Trump rebuked Google for promoting negative stories about him two weeks before the 2024 election. Trump sat down for a live Oct. 15 interview with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait at an event hosted by the Economic Club of Chicago, where the pair discussed the recent federal cases brought against Google. The Department of Justice specifically accused Google of using monopolistic practices to secure its position as America's top search engine.  “Google’s got a lot of power. They’re very bad to me, very very bad to me, I can speak from that standpoint,” Trump said in response to Micklethwait’s question about the ongoing lawsuit. Trump seemingly referred to an MRC study (published Oct. 15) that exposed Google’s bias when users searched for the Trump campaign. He added, “If I have 20 good stories and 20 bad stories—and everyone’s entitled to that—you’ll only see the 20 bad stories.”  This was not the first time Trump has come out against Google's election interference during the election season—and not the first time MRC exposed Google’s bias. “It has been determined that Google has illegally used a system of only revealing and displaying bad stories about Donald J. Trump, some made up for this purpose while, at the same time, only revealing good stories about Comrade Kamala Harris.” Trump shared on Truth on Sept. 27. Two days earlier, MRC released a study that showed the tech giant pushing widely biased news above Trump’s campaign website. Following his ingestion of the recent research to come out exposing the bias at Google, Trump shared his recent actions in an attempt to amend the situation.  “I called the head of Google the other day and I said, ‘I'm getting a lot of good stories lately but you don’t find them in Google, it’s a whole rigged deal,” Trump shared with Micklethwait who consequently asked, “You’d break them up, in other words?”  Trump responded frankly, “I’d do something” leaving it open to interpretation. For some, this is reminiscent of Trump’s recent comments against Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who admitted to being coerced into censoring COVID-19-related information in a letter to the House Judiciary Committee.  In his Save America book, Trump said Zuckerberg would “spend the rest of his life in prison” if he interfered in the 2024 election the same way he did in 2020.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representative and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable

Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of the Atlantic, is sticking to his latest story in which he claims former President Donald Trump rudely refused to pay for the funeral of Army Specialist Vanessa Guillen after initially offering to cover the expenses. Multiple people affiliated with the story went on the record to deny the allegations against Trump.Guillen was killed in 2020 by a soldier she worked with. Guillen's death became a nationwide story after her family members jumped into action when a military investigation into her initial disappearance was severely mishandled. Goldberg alleges that Trump became enraged when he found out the cost of the funeral in December 2020:'It doesn’t cost 60,000 bucks to bury a f***ing Mexican!' He turned to his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and issued an order: 'Don’t pay it!' Later that day, he was still agitated. 'Can you believe it?' he said, according to a witness. 'F***ing people, trying to rip me off.'Goldberg's story was met with a flurry of denials, most importantly from Meadows. Guillen's family and attorney also said the story does not match their experience with Trump. 'Treat this dishonest piece accordingly.' — (@) In an interview with CNN on Tuesday, Goldberg was asked what he thought about the denials."I don‘t make much of them at all. The sister wasn‘t in the meeting. The lawyer for the family wasn‘t in the meeting. Mark Meadows was in the meeting. Kash Patel was in the meeting. A whole bunch of other senior officials were in the meeting. I have sources who are sitting in that meeting. I have contemporaneous notes taken by participants in that meeting that describe exactly what I described in the story," said Goldberg.Goldberg pointed to his poorly sourced "suckers and losers" story from 2020 as an example of why he has creditability this time around."So it‘s not surprising that Mark Meadows is going to deny it, but the denial doesn‘t hold weight. I have contemporaneous sources, contemporaneous notes from that meeting. [Trump] said it. It also tracks with everything that we know about the way he speaks," he insisted. Patel likewise denied the allegations about Trump.Ben Williamson, a spokesman for Meadows, showed how the Atlantic twisted the denial to make it seem less credible."I sent ... a comment saying President Trump 'absolutely did not say that,' referring to the alleged comments about Ms. Guillen they printed. ... Atlantic translated that comment to 'didn’t hear Trump say it.' Treat this dishonest piece accordingly," he said, showing a screenshot of the statement he sent.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The location of a highly anticipated women's volleyball match between San Jose State and the University of Nevada scheduled for Saturday in Reno has been moved to San Jose as the schools prepare for a forfeit over an SJSU transgender player. "The decision to move the location of the match has been made in the best interest of both programs and the well-being of the student-athletes, coaches, athletic staff and spectators. The decision has been made with the approval of the Mountain West Conference," the Nevada Wolf Pack said on its website. Nevada's captain, Sia LiiLii, told Blaze News in an exclusive interview that observers will 'just have to see' if the team decides to protest on the court or simply not show up. Nevada players last week announced their intention to forfeit their game against SJSU, which has a 6'1" male — Blaire Fleming, born Brayden — on its roster. San Jose State's controversial transgender athlete Blaire Fleming.Photo by Andrew Wevers/Getty Images However, University of Nevada officials rejected the players' vote and said the game would go on as scheduled in accordance with NCAA rules and state laws surrounding gender inclusion. An OutKick report said the Mountain West Conference previously indicated that SJSU would need to travel to Reno in order to accept a potential forfeit from Nevada. But sources confirmed to Blaze News that because Nevada players intend to go through with the forfeit, that ultimately cemented the joint decision by both schools to move the game to California so that SJSU could receive the forfeit-victory without traveling. Whether Nevada plans to step foot on the SJSU campus remains to be seen, as it's unclear whether Nevada Athletics will field a team after stating the players' decision to forfeit was "made independently, and without consultation with the University or the athletic department." Nevada's captain, Sia LiiLii, told Blaze News in an exclusive interview that observers will "just have to see" if the team decides to protest on the court or simply not show up. Several politicians have shown support for the Nevada players, including Tulsi Gabbard and U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.). Gabbard posted a message of encouragement on X. "The courage of the University of Nevada-Reno women's volleyball team to stand up for objective truth by refusing to play against biological males is inspiring others to do the same," Gabbard wrote. She added, "Harris-Biden destroyed Title IX and over 50 years of progress for women and girls. We must stop them by standing with these brave young women for objective truth, common sense and fairness, and make sure our voices are heard in this election." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A coalition of more than 40 sheriffs from 18 states released a joint letter addressed to the public on Tuesday, slamming the Biden-Harris administration’s destructive open-border policies for unleashing crime and drug surges in small-town America.In the letter, obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation, the sheriffs expressed “grave concern for the safety and security of our communities” nationwide, noting that under the current administration, “Every town is a border town.”'The impact is broken families, lost futures, and devastated communities.'“As sheriffs, our first duty is to protect the citizens we serve, but today, we find ourselves confronted by a growing crisis that threatens the very fabric of our country and its sovereignty: open-border policies,” they wrote.The sheriffs blamed the administration for allowing between 10 to 15 million foreign nationals to cross the border illegally, adding that those totals are “more than the individual population of 46 states in our nation.”By refusing to enforce the country’s existing immigration laws, the Biden-Harris administration has “allowed dangerous criminals, human traffickers, and drug cartels” to infiltrate American communities, they contended.“The result is a flood of illegal drugs, particularly fentanyl, into our cities and towns. The impact is broken families, lost futures, and devastated communities,” the sheriffs continued.The Biden administration, Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign, and their Democratic allies have repeatedly insisted that the only way to stop the immigration crisis is for Congress to pass more laws — specifically, the failed so-called "bipartisan" border Senate bill, the Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, H.R. 815.However, the coalition of sheriffs appeared to push back on the administration’s false claims that it does not already have the authority to shut down mass illegal immigration.“The President alone can act to fix this crisis. The president can suspend or restrict the entry of noncitizens if it is deemed in the national interest, proclaim a national emergency along the border, and redirect federal funds to construct a border wall. The Biden-Harris Administration has done none of these. And we are seeing the consequences,” they wrote.Sheriffs Rich Stanek of Hennepin County, Minnesota; Chad Leonard of Dallas County, Iowa; Adam Infante of Dallas County, Iowa; and Mark Lamb of Pinal County, Arizona, were among those who signed the letter.Sheriff James Custer of Fayette County, Pennsylvania, another signatory, told the DCNF about how the fentanyl crisis has impacted his community.“I’ve seen this trend has been going on over the last three years, the fentanyl crisis, that has come across our southern border. ... Our overdose deaths rose each year,” Custer stated. “Now we are in a slight decline this year, but we have several deaths pending toxicology results.”Sheriff Bob Songer of Klickitat County, Washington, who also signed the sheriffs’ letter, told the DCNF, “Personally, I think both the Biden administration and their administrative staff ought to be charged with treason, they’ve broken this country to where we don’t have a border.”The Biden-Harris administration and the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!