Join the dots

interesting. now understand that i am postualting that our universe expands at sub light velocities and can be imagined as an expanding sphere of  DARK MATTER that also provides the media for light itself.  this is the ether of the nineteenth century but packing the sphere of our creation.

Presume that particle creation exists on this surface and that it coalesses into DARK MATTER which slowly decays into our visible universe.  In this case, light will be reflected back in from this working edge and that light will literally bounce back and forth producing the images we see. And yes, early days should be small red dots.

I do not want to accept it, but this is a viable explanation as an alternative to what we have all accepted.  this plausible binary explanation needs to be tested n whatever way is plausible.  our whole universe may well be just our visible galaxy been imaged over and over again for millions of cycles without losing significant data.

Only one Galaxy, only one early Red Dot ,seen over and over again after billions of years   And no transmission outside the ether.

Join the dots

Peering into the origins of our Universe, astronomers found something that shouldn’t be there: what are those little red dots?

Photo courtesy Jenny Greene/NASA/James Webb Space Telescope

Jenny Greene

is a researcher and professor of astrophysics. Currently the Eugene Higgins Professor of Astrophysical Science at Princeton University in New Jersey, she and her collaborators publish numerous articles about the evolution of galaxies and supermassive black holes with cosmic time. She also teaches algebra and astronomy in New Jersey prisons.

Edited byRichard Fisher

https://aeon.co/essays/why-little-red-dots-pose-a-big-mystery-about-the-universe

If you’re interested in the themes of this Essay, come along to our event in London on 21 April where we’ll explore the twisted hearts of black holes and the torrid birth of the early Universe.

Afew years ago, my mother called me up to ask whether the Universe was broken. She had read an article about some puzzling observations of some very massive galaxies, shortly after the Big Bang.

My mother, a retired PhD biologist, keeps tabs on my public talks about my work searching for supermassive black holes. However, usually when she sends me articles, they are about political events or children’s book authors. So I knew that these findings had broken through in a different way.

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) had observed the early Universe, and taken baby pictures we didn’t expect to see. Only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang, astronomers had found a shockingly high number of massive galaxies – with a similar number of stars as the Milky Way has today. They would come to be nicknamed ‘Universe breakers’, because our models didn’t anticipate so many, so early. Galaxies need dark matter to hold them together, but if dark matter behaves as we think, then there would not have been enough dark matter halos for all the massive galaxies to live in. Only a few months into observations with our brand-new telescope, and it seemed everything we thought we knew about the nature of the Universe was (maybe) called into question.

I laughed. Our understanding of the Universe is fine, I told my mother, and this is just astronomers getting ahead of themselves. The JWST is a new telescope, and something is making those galaxies look more massive than they are. Before we go breaking the Universe, we should look for a simpler explanation. When I had first heard about the galaxies, I assumed they were some kind of telescope calibration error. That turned out to be utterly wrong, like most of my guesses so far.

The truth is, we’re still not 100 per cent sure what’s going on. Since then, my colleagues and I have named these puzzling early galaxies ‘little red dots’, so-called because they’re very compact and luminous sources – and most of their light arrives at wavelengths that our eye perceives as red. They are also unlike any galaxy that we have seen before. Every time we think we understand what we’re observing, a new insight creates additional confusion. So, do the little red dots really break the Universe, or is there another explanation?

The first billion years of cosmic history was a very active time in the growth of galaxies. Astronomers have found galaxies as early as 300 million years after the Big Bang, and in this epoch we are actively searching for signs of pristine metal-free stars, and signs of the formation of the first seed black holes. However, because such limited time had passed since the Big Bang, most of the galaxies seen to date were pretty small, with many fewer stars than the Milky Way. So when the astrophysicist Ivo Labbé and colleagues found that the young Universe may actually have been populated by red massive galaxies, it created quite a stir in both scientific circles and the media.

Not long after my mother read about these mysterious massive galaxies, Labbé also called me. He now had more information about one of the objects; he had learnt that they feature very rapidly moving gas, typically seen swirling around in the gravitational potential of a supermassive black hole. So, he thought, maybe the objects were not overly massive galaxies, but a new kind of growing black hole. Did I think that was interesting?

We had never seen growing black holes quite like this before

Labbé called me because I have spent my career trying to understand how supermassive black holes first formed, and how they grow alongside galaxies. As a black-hole hunter, there are a few tools that I commonly use. All rely on seeing emission from material as it falls into a growing black hole, dissipating its own energy and angular momentum, and forming an ‘accretion disk’. Typical accretion disks around supermassive black holes make copious light at high energy, in the UV to X-ray wavelengths. This distinguishes them from typical galaxies. The only problem is that the UV is easily absorbed by even a small amount of cosmic dust, so astronomers must also look for accreting black holes with X-ray emission to get a complete census.

In my hunting, I also look for very high-speed gas, moving under a black hole’s intense gravity. In normal galaxies, gas moves around at 100-300 km/s. But if the gas sits close to a black hole, it is common to see 2,000-4,000 km/s speeds. So when Dale Kocevski and colleagues published a pre-print paper with observations of high-velocity gas around little red dots, it was a big deal. It suggested that we were seeing light from a growing black hole rather than overly massive ‘Universe breaker’ galaxies. Still, we were puzzled. We had never seen growing black holes quite like this before.

Before the JWST launch, there was a different mystery around growing black holes: we were not finding enough of them. At later times, we typically find that roughly 10 per cent of galaxies show signs of black-hole growth in their nucleus, but that percentage seemed to drop to a fraction of a per cent within the first billion years of cosmic time. This is particularly perplexing because we believe that all supermassive black holes were formed as ‘seeds’ in the first billion years of cosmic time. A big goal for JWST was to find direct evidence of growing seed black holes.

Into this confusing picture came the little red dots. Unlike growing black holes known in this epoch, the little red dots were extremely common: three to four of every 100 galaxies looks like one. We proposed that they were likely to be black holes for two reasons. One is that they are very compact. A hallmark of growing black holes is that they are extremely dense, and so emission is naturally extremely compact, compared with stars. The second reason is that fast-moving gas that Labbé had called me about.

If we are right, and the rapidly moving gas that we ubiquitously observe in the little red dots is due to motions around a massive black hole, then the implications are enormous. It seems like we go from having too few black holes compared with galaxies, to suddenly having too many black holes! If indeed we could convince ourselves that the little red dots are signposts of growing black holes, then they have something important to teach us about the birth of supermassive black holes.

This field has been moving fast. Labbé called me to show me the fast-moving gas signature in December 2022. By June 2023, we had posted a pre-print of our first paper, together claiming that little red dots were most likely growing black holes, and around the same time my colleagues Jorryt Matthee, Rohan Naidu et al coined the term ‘little red dots’. But other researchers, including Pablo Pérez-González and Guillermo Barro were less sure. They suggested that the little red dots may be powered by star formation, with the red colour due to dust preferentially removing the blue light from the young forming stars and leaving only red light behind.

How could they all disappear just 1 billion years after the Big Bang?

Our idea linking the compact sizes and fast-moving gas to growing black holes was almost instantly challenged by two observations in 2024. A group of researchers at MIT led by Minghao Yue marginally detected a very weak signal from known little red dots with extremely deep X-ray data, which are usually a telltale hallmark of growing black holes. At the same time, Christina Williams and her team searched for another unique signature: emission from very hot dust that gets that hot only when it is near an actively growing black hole. Effectively, no little red dot shows this hot dust.

Maybe, then, the red colour in a little red dot is because the stars are old – older stars are red. Around this time, Josephine Baggen and colleagues proposed that the little red dots might be very compact and early forming galaxies – in other words, they went back to the overly massive galaxy hypothesis. Maybe the compact size means that the earliest galaxies formed an incredible number of stars in a very small volume, and these are literally the densest galaxies we have ever observed. Maybe the Universe breaker story was the right one after all?

Really, it still felt like we had the story wrong. If the little red dots are powered by 10- to 100-million-sun black holes, as we and others suggested, then, because they are so common, we would have gone from too few to too many supermassive black holes at early times. Furthermore, these black holes would make up a few per cent to most of the mass in the galaxy (in contrast to 0.1 per cent today). On the other hand, if powered by galaxies, these would be the densest galaxies known. How could they all disappear just 1 billion years after the Big Bang?

Two significant developments tipped the scales towards accreting black holes. First came the discovery of two extreme objects, the ‘Cliff’ and ‘MoM-BH*-1’. These two extreme little red dots made a very strong case that the shape of the spectrum really cannot be matched with light from any stars. Second, we went looking for evidence of emission from dust, but found none. If the red in little red dots is due to reddening, then we should be able to detect the dust in emission using telescopes like the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile. However, when we got nice, deep ALMA observations of some of the brightest-known little red dots, we detected nothing. If there were a lot of stars there, it would require copious dust to explain the spectrum that we observe, and we rule out that dust.

But there are still problems. We still don’t have a complete explanation for the red colour if dust is not the culprit. Furthermore, there are so many little red dots that if we explain them as growing black holes with the mass of 100 million suns, then we make too much black-hole mass in the first billion years of cosmic time. Not only that, but the spatial distribution of little red dots relative to other galaxies suggests that they are really small galaxies living in small dark matter halos.

In recent months, a good fraction of the community has coalesced around the idea that there is an accreting black hole powering the little red dots, but that the black holes are growing so fast that a cocoon of dense gas forms around them. This picture can explain why we see a red colour because the gas is so thick that it absorbs the UV photons without the need for dust. A corollary of the cocoon picture is that the black holes are actually much wimpier – we had assumed a lot of power hidden by dust that just isn’t there. In that case, while we originally thought that the little red dots harboured 100-million-sun black holes, maybe they are much smaller, perhaps they even represent the end phases of seed formation.

We find ourselves at an interesting moment, after three intense years of continual surprises and right turns in our understanding. Do we have a working model? Are we transitioning from a raw discovery stage, where every new observation brings new insight, into a characterisation phase, where we fine-tune the model? This was a topic of intense debate among my collaborators as we crafted observing proposals for the next cycle with JWST. On the one hand, having a concrete set of expectations from a specific model allows us to propose sharp experiments. On the other hand, do we run the risk of missing important clues by closing our minds to a wider range of possible explanations? Also, have we brought the wider community along with us, or are many still sceptical that the little red dots are even powered by growing black holes?

It wouldn’t be the first time that such dilemmas have emerged in astronomy and physics – nor would it be the first time that we have taken wrong turns on the route to the truth. We have been reading papers from the early 1960s, when astronomers were trying to understand the nature of so-called quasi-stellar objects. We now know that they are powered by growing black holes, but in those early days many other possibilities were considered, including very compact star formation or exotic types of stars, quite similar to the possibilities that we are considering now to understand little red dots. In that instance, consensus built as more observations like variability supported the very compact nature of the power source. Ultimately, the story was fully settled in the 1990s when the Hubble Space Telescope provided compelling evidence for supermassive black holes from the motions of stars in the centres of nearby galaxies. Likewise, I suspect that our story will not be finished until we can determine the real mass of the little red dots, including the black hole if it is there.

The Universe is not broken, but it is a much more interesting place than we thought a few years ago

So, what can I tell my mother – is our understanding of the Universe broken? If the little red dots are all powered by extreme compact galaxies, then we have a problem: too many big galaxies and not enough dark matter halos to host them. If the little red dots are powered by enormous black holes, then black holes form too quickly and outpace their galaxies’ growth. My best guess today is that the little red dots are the seeds of today’s larger black holes, obscured by clouds of swirling gas that make them appear more powerful than they actually are. If they are small galaxies with small black holes, then they do not break the Universe because there are plenty of wimpy dark matter halos available to host them. We are not making too many black holes, but we are seeing the early stages of their growth.

What I tell my mother now, when she asks what is happening with the little red dots, is that the Universe is not broken, but it is a much more interesting place than we thought a few years ago. And, maybe, JWST is bringing us one step closer to taking the baby picture of a supermassive black hole that I have been dreaming about for my entire career.

That is my current best guess. But I have been wrong before.

The Disturbing History of Vaccine “Hot Lots”

Understand that what you are reading is normal science. The perps have known all along going back to the very beginning.  you would think that they would at least make all this fake shit safe to avoid any risk.

but here we are. Batch related damage signatures beyond argument.

They were scientists and they KNEW.  They always knew.

And we all thought that Dr Mengale was a creep.  no one walks on this.

The Disturbing History of Vaccine “Hot Lots”

People often say: “I got the COVID vaccine and nothing bad ever happened to me.” If only they realized how lucky they were not to get one of the bad batches.

The Vigilant Fox

Apr 17

The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

You’ve probably heard this more times than you can count:

“I got the COVID vaccine and nothing bad ever happened to me.”

There’s a reason for that… not everyone got the same thing.

And a peer-reviewed study backs it up.

In 2023, Max Schmeling and colleagues discovered that just 4.2 percent of the COVID vaccine batches accounted for 71 PERCENT of suspected adverse events.

Additionally, about two-thirds of the batches had a low to moderate risk of adverse events.

And about one-third had little to no risk of adverse events. “Nothing happened.”

The chart below shows how extreme this variation actually was.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13998

“The shot [batch] was deterministic for who was going to have a serious event or not.” That’s the conclusion from renowned cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough.

If “hot lots” showed up in the COVID shots, that raises a bigger question about other vaccines.

What if this wasn’t a one-time issue? Let’s take a look.

For over a century, one assumption has quietly shaped public trust:

If a vaccine is approved, what’s in each vial must be safe and consistent.

Same dose. Same safety. Same outcome.

But history tells a very different story.

Because again and again, the real danger wasn’t always the vaccine itself… Sometimes it was the batch.

This information comes from the work of medical researcher A Midwestern Doctor. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.

The Century of Forgotten Vaccine Hot Lot Disasters

How the mantra of “safe and effective” has shielded countless compromised products from scrutiny and led to the same disasters continuously repeating.

There’s a term most people have never heard: “Hot lots.”

It refers to vaccine batches that are unusually toxic, contaminated, improperly processed, or far more likely to cause severe reactions than other lots.

And once you start looking, they don’t appear once. They appear everywhere.

This isn’t a modern controversy.

It’s a pattern stretching back more than 100 years.

Different countries. Different vaccines. Different technologies.

But the same dangerous situation: One batch behaves normally, another batch… doesn’t.

Early vaccine production had a fundamental problem.

These weren’t simple chemical pills.

They were biological products—grown, cultured, handled, purified.

Which means there were multiple failure points.

Things like contamination, incomplete inactivation, toxin residue, and dose inconsistency.

And when those failures made it into vials, they didn’t affect everyone equally—they clustered.

What makes this topic so unsettling isn’t one event. It’s how often the same pattern shows up across decades—from early childhood vaccines to military programs to COVID-era data.

The full breakdown from A Midwestern Doctor goes far deeper than what most people have ever seen.

The Century of Forgotten Vaccine Hot Lot Disasters

How the mantra of “safe and effective” has shielded countless compromised products from scrutiny and led to the same disasters continuously repeating.

For example, take Dallas in 1919.

A diphtheria campaign used multiple lots.

One of them contained over 50 times the maximum permissible level of free diphtheria toxin.

Of 120 children later studied, 96 had reactions, 74 were severe, and 10 died.

But those numbers don’t capture the reality that those affected had to live with.

The progression was brutal.

It started with intense burning at the injection site.

Then nausea. Vomiting. Massive swelling.

Within days, blistering wounds formed—leaking fluid and leaving raw tissue behind.

Then came heart irregularities. Then paralysis.

Not for hours. For weeks.

Some symptoms lasted 4–5 months.

And Dallas wasn’t an outlier.

Belgium. Massachusetts. Colombia. Italy. Japan.

Again and again, specific batches caused disproportionate harm.

In Kyoto in 1948, over 600 infants and children became ill from one lot, and at least 68 died.

Same underlying issue: Toxin that was supposed to be neutralized wasn’t.

This is where the pattern becomes undeniable.

These weren’t random adverse events.

They were clustered reactions tied to specific lots.

Same product. Same protocol.

Completely different outcomes depending on the batch.

Then came polio.

One of the most celebrated public health victories.

But buried inside that story is one of the largest medical failures in history.

The Cutter incident of 1955.

A vaccine meant to contain an inactivated virus.. didn’t.

At least 220,000 people were infected, 70,000 developed muscle weakness, 164 were severely paralyzed, and 10 died.

All from a product that was supposed to be safe.

The lesson here should have been permanent and it should have inspired action.

Manufacturing failure isn’t theoretical. It’s catastrophic.

It doesn’t always show up evenly. It shows up in clusters.

And it shows up in lots.

The early disasters alone are enough to challenge the idea of consistency in vaccines. But things take a darker turn when you get into infant vaccine clusters, military programs, and modern rollout data.

The Century of Forgotten Vaccine Hot Lot Disasters

How the mantra of “safe and effective” has shielded countless compromised products from scrutiny and led to the same disasters continuously repeating.

Then came the BCG disaster in 1929.

A tuberculosis vaccine was accidentally contaminated with live TB bacteria.

251 infants received that vaccine. 72 of them died and 135 became ill.

Only 44 showed no symptoms.

But this time, something different happened.

There were trials and investigations.

And even prison sentences.

Accountability existed—at least briefly.

That detail matters more than it seems, because later cases didn’t follow that pattern.

Earlier disasters sometimes led to trials and accountability.

Later ones too often ended in ambiguity, delayed action, or silence.

Fast forward to DPT.

By the 1970s, internal warnings were already clear.

One FDA official described it as “one of the more troublesome products to produce.”

Lot-to-lot variability wasn’t rare, it was expected.

And one safety study made that even harder to ignore.

In 1978, researchers found adverse reactions within 48 hours of DPT vaccination were 5000% higher than expected.

The study was ended early.

Those findings never made it into the final publication.

Between August 1978 and March 1979, 11 infants in Tennessee died within 8 days of vaccination.

Four of them died within 24 hours.

They all received the same lot. Wyeth lot #64201.

These weren’t statistical anomalies. They were infants—clustered in time, tragically linked by a lot number.

And that wasn’t the only red flag.

In 1975, the FDA denied approval of a DPT batch after determining it was 300% too potent.

But state officials disagreed.

So they tested it on children. Then released 400,000 doses statewide.

Here’s where things get complicated.

Even with a clear cluster, officials said a causal relationship had not been established, while also admitting it could not be totally excluded.

That gray zone and inability to commit becomes a recurring theme.

Behind the scenes, another idea emerged.

A Midwestern Doctor reveals internal Wyeth correspondence showing that if dangerous lots couldn’t be avoided, the practical response became spreading them around geographically so the pattern would be harder to see.

If bad lots are unavoidable, don’t concentrate them. Distribute them!

That means less clustering, less visibility, and no accountability.

What looks like a disappearance of dangerous clusters might actually be a change in distribution strategy.

The full article from A Midwestern Doctor connects that pattern to modern data.

The Century of Forgotten Vaccine Hot Lot Disasters

How the mantra of “safe and effective” has shielded countless compromised products from scrutiny and led to the same disasters continuously repeating.

This same pattern doesn’t stop with civilian vaccines.

It happened in the military, too.

The anthrax program during the Gulf War raised similar concerns.

Not just about side effects—about manufacturing, too.

At one point, the manufacturer reportedly switched to larger filters that didn’t clog as easily.

But they were also less effective at purification.

Meaning more contaminants could pass through.

Better for production efficiency, but worse for purification and for recipients.

And that brings us to now—the modern era of vaccines.

Now we have a completely new platform—mRNA.

But it was rushed to global scale under extreme pressure.

If we look at history, there are obvious questions that should be asked about this.

The challenge with this new process isn’t just biology. It’s consistency.

Maintaining stable mRNA

Preventing degradation

Ensuring uniform nanoparticle distribution

Avoiding contamination

All on an absolutely massive scale under the most intense time pressure.

Is there any chance something went wrong?

What has emerged since hasn’t been a smooth spectrum of reactions.

It’s been uneven.

Some people had no reaction at all.

Others had severe outcomes.

That kind of distribution raises a very specific question: Was every dose actually the same?

Independent analyses began pointing to something familiar. Something we’ve seen before.

What those analyses suggested was striking.

In some datasets, almost all reported vaccine deaths were linked to roughly 5% of the lots.

Not evenly distributed. Not random.

Concentrated.

A modern echo of an old pattern.

From early toxin failures to polio, infant clusters, military programs, and modern rollouts—the same structural issue keeps resurfacing.

Not just whether an injection is safe.

But whether it’s consistent.

And what happens when it isn’t… when the risk isn’t evenly shared.

The Century of Forgotten Vaccine Hot Lot Disasters

How the mantra of “safe and effective” has shielded countless compromised products from scrutiny and led to the same disasters continuously repeating.

For a deeper dive into what modern medicine has overlooked—or intentionally buried—check out these other eye-opening reports by A Midwestern Doctor:

Linking the Non-Gravitational Acceleration of 3I/ATLAS to Its Symmetric System of Three Jets

Unless a powerful induced natural magnetic field can produce this perfect geometry, we are looking at a control system on the so called comet.  

If I assume DARK MATTER is been manipulated, then this is what I can expact in terms of visual forms.  It is shoved both forward and backward along the axis of travel and split to adjust course.  this produces non Neutonian acceleration.

The probability of this been a natural object is approaching zero.  surprise me.  Assuming populated. they will be in communication with other stations inside our solar system and may drop of a station of their own.  So far no one talks to us.

Linking the Non-Gravitational Acceleration of 3I/ATLAS to Its Symmetric System of Three Jets

Avi Loeb

https://avi-loeb.medium.com/linking-the-non-gravitational-acceleration-of-3i-atlas-to-its-symmetric-system-of-three-jets-847859455a16

The symmetric system of three jets emanating from the nucleus of the interstellar object 3I/ATLAS (separately from the primary anti-tail jet) after the circularly symmetric glow was removed by the Larson-Sekanina rotational gradient filter, based on a Hubble Space Telescope image taken on November 30, 2025. (Image credit: T. Scarmato and A. Loeb 2026)

A new paper (accessible here) that I co-authored today with Toni Scarmato analyzed images of the interstellar object 3I/ATLAS, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope over the past five months. After removing the circularly-symmetric glow around the nucleus of 3I/ATLAS using the Larson-Sekanina rotational gradient filter, we identified three jets emanating from the nucleus that are equally separated from each other in sky projection by about 120 degrees in addition to a primary anti-tail jet pointed at the Sun.

Whether these jets are technological thrusters or pockets of ice that happened to be oriented symmetrically on the surface of a natural iceberg, the outflows of gas and dust in these three jets exerted thrusts through the rocket effect, which resulted in the observed non-gravitational acceleration of 3I/ATLAS (as summarized in a paper that I co-authored with Valentin Thoss and Andi Burkert, accessible here). Our new paper links, for the first time, the directions and momentum flows in these three jets to the non-gravitational acceleration of 3I/ATLAS.

In our previous paper (accessible here), we demonstrated that the jet system wobbles with a period of 7.2 hours, likely as a result the rotation of the nucleus. We concluded that the jet structure wobbles around the rotation axis with a characteristic angular excursion of about 20 degrees, and the rotation axis is aligned with the sunward direction to within about 20 degrees.

Building on this inferred jet system and periodic wobble analysis of 3I/ATLAS, our new paper measures the observed jet position angles and links them to the non-gravitational acceleration components in three dimensions. We use the sky projection and images of the three persistent jets to estimate the order-of-magnitude thrust that each of them provides to the nucleus. Altogether, our analysis provides consistency between the properties of the three jets and the inferred non-gravitational acceleration of 3I/ATLAS, strengthening the evidence that the rocket effect explains the deviations of its trajectory from the path expected from gravity alone.

We adopted the observed jet position angles (PAs) in the sky (with North=0◦, East=90◦) on November 30, 2025 as follows:

• Jet1: PA = 65◦, • Jet2: PA = 290◦, • Jet3: PA = 175◦.

Our analysis identifies Jet2 as the dominant contributor to the transverse non-gravitational acceleration. The table below shows the breakdown of the contributions from the three jets to the non-gravitational acceleration of 3I/ATLAS, a [with components (A1,A2,A3)], in meters per second squared:

Press enter or click to view image in full size

The complete set of Hubble Space Telescope (HST) images is available here.

The symmetric configuration of three jets plus the anti-tail jet raises the question of whether they might constitute a technological system designed for stabilizing the trajectory of 3I/ATLAS. A recent paper by Bo Andree (accessible here) suggested that the minimal approach for steering an interstellar comet along a controlled trajectory indeed matches this 3+1 jet configuration. By relaxing the full six-degree-of-freedom control to forward-cone steering — sufficient for practical navigation — the paper showed that four thrusters are required: one primary jet and three secondary jets separated symmetrically by 120 degrees from each other. The secondary 3-jets synthesize continuous in-plane steering, while the primary jet provides attitude shaping: as the body rotates, the primary-jet torque direction sweeps predictably over a cycle, enabling out-of-plane steering via phase-scheduled firing.

This highlights the fundamental question: is the observed 3+1 jet system around 3I/ATLAS a technological signature?

Donald Trump Pulls the Trigger

Everything points to frontal lobe shrinkage in which he loses impulse control  while faking cognition.  This is not the donald trump we knew from the past.  this is building toward a crisis in which he can no longer be managed by his handlers.

even now it appears to be mostly show and tell.  This Iran adventure looks very much like a distraction from his stalled Canadian adventure and that stalled out his global outreach program of tariff hassle.

however plenty is happening away from his desk and most by good folks working with intent, so it is not quite the reign of the mad hatter.

Yet it is going there.  This man is dying.  

We will need two constituional ammendments.  one will force candidates to be independently checked for medical issues annually without compromise after age 75.  The second must remove tariff powers back to congress alone.  We are seeing the dasmage when the president loses his ability to know his own health or the impact of bad policy.

Donald Trump Pulls the Trigger

by Philip Giraldi | Apr 17, 2026

https://ronpaulinstitute.org/donald-trump-pulls-the-trigger/

Many Americans are coming around to the view, based on what comes out of President Donald Trump’s mouth and what he writes down on his Truth Social site, that the US Head of State is insane. Larry Johnson is reporting “shocking details of what is going on behind the scene at the White House [where] Donald Trump began exhibiting signs of early dementia in September 2025… He frequently confabulates, he routinely loses his temper and unleashes screaming rants, and he is incapable of doing critical thinking. [As a result] Trump’s senior White House staff are behaving like children with an abusive, drug-addled father… i.e., they walk on egg shells fearful of saying anything that might ignite Trump’s rage.”

And the American public is beginning to pick up on the dysfunction. A broad understanding is developing among voters that the war against Iran undeniably has nothing to do with actual American national or security interests and has been covered by a tissue of scarcely credible lies and dissimulations to conceal the truth. This wide divide between truth and fiction has become clear to nearly everyone. And the actual source of the war, which is enabling and “helping” Israel to destroy Iran, has become increasingly evident to the public as well, as has the reality that the brutal war criminal Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu controls both Trump and most of the US Congress.

Beyond his mental breakdown, Trump’s foreign and domestic policies are characterized by their belligerency, full of threats directed against imaginary enemies, friends and allies unwilling to go to war for nothing, and anyone in the media or among the public who dares to criticize what comes out of the White House. That means that Trump is not only crazy he is a dangerous psychopath in his preferred interaction with political and social developments that he is supposed to be examining rationally to benefit the United States and the American people.

So what we Americans get is wars plus killing of fishermen in international waters as well as abductions and assassination of foreign politicians and even bombing school girls for no reasons at all. When he is on a roll, Trump is full of threats to “obliterate” foreign countries, and includes unconscionable diatribes against folks like the Roman Catholic Pope Leo for daring to ask for an end to wars and to seek peaceful coexistence among nations. After Trump posted an Artificial Intelligence picture of himself as Jesus, the Pope argued “Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic, and political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth.” Trump responded by taking aim at the Pope on Truth Social with “I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s terrible that America attacked Venezuela… and I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I’m doing exactly what I was elected, IN A LANDSLIDE, to do… If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican. Unfortunately, Leo’s Weak on Crime, Weak on Nuclear Weapons, does not sit well with me…Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician.”

The attack on the Pope was followed by a summoning of the Vatican’s Washington based diplomatic top representative in the US Cardinal Christophe Pierre to the Pentagon where he received a “bitter lecture” and warning that lest the Pope behaves there will be retaliation employing the superior military might of the United States. In January Pierre had been warned that the United States has the military power to do “whatever it wants” and that Pope Leo, the first American-born pontiff, “better take its side” over US interference in Latin America. Interestingly, on the night following Pierre’s Pentagon visit there was a bomb threat directed against the Pope’s brother in Illinois, perhaps intended to send a message! The good side of that Trumpean rant and the hateful behavior of his supporters, which has produced outrage not only among Catholics, might well be that Trump will lose his majority in Congress and could even be impeached, hopefully successfully this time around.

Trump is also outraging America’s former loyal allies in NATO. One might argue reasonably that NATO has outlived its relevance but that is not the argument Trump is making. He wants NATO to fully support his illegal war of aggression in Iran and also ignore Israel’s war crime of genocide in Gaza. Spain was the first country to deny use of its NATO airbases and its airspace to US warplanes transiting to attack Iran. England, the most loyal lapdog of all, has also turned non-cooperative with Prime Minister Keir Starmer denying use of British airbases in both the UK and Cyprus and declaring that he has had enough of Trump.

But perhaps the cruelest cut of all came from Italy, which was outraged by Trump’s attack on the Pope. Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, hitherto a strong Trump European supporter, struck back against the US President, first deciding that Italy would no longer supply arms to Israel before declaring that Rome would stand by the Pope in his condemnation of war while also finding Trump’s denunciation of the Pontiff “unacceptable.” She elaborated that “The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, and it is right and normal that he calls for peace and condemns every form of war.” Trump, who has given Israel $880 million in new bombs just this week to continue its depredations while also surging thousands more troops to the Middle East, of course went on the offensive. In a subsequent interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, Trump responded that Meloni is “unacceptable,” and Iran “would blow up Italy in two minutes if they had the chance.”

But unfortunately there is much more than the trading of insults at stake in the Donald Trump debacle. We now know the extent to which Netanyahu and Israel control Trump and a large part of our government, so much so that Netanyahu boasts of having Vice President Vance and the White House staff “report to him daily.” That means that the likelihood that the Israelis will have US backing to use their “secret” nuclear weapons to strike and destroy Iran if the war is resumed and is going against them, which is quite possible, maybe even likely. They might also have the leverage to get an ignorant and aggressive Trump to use America’s nukes on Iran, the first employment of such weapons since their use on World War 2 Japan in 1945. As Netanyahu and his intelligence chiefs appear to have regular access to the White House including being able to convince a gullible Trump falsely that the war against Iran would be a cakewalk, they might be able to talk him into using America’s nukes to finish the Persian job, possibly coupled with some lies to the tune that Iran was about to use its hidden nukes to strike the United States. The president’s spokesperson and leading sycophant Karoline Leavitt has assured us that the president is looking at “all options” regarding Iran and just what do you think that means? This would accomplish the same goal of destroying Iran without the onus of Israel being the source of yet another appalling war crime since it already has plenty of such crimes to its credit in Gaza and Lebanon.

I have previously suggested that Israel could energize US military activity against Iran in particular by staging some kind of false flag attack on American forces in the Persian Gulf region while making it appear to have been done by the Iranians. With the possibility that Trump might go nuclear rolling around in my head I decided to do some research into how easy it would be for him to start a nuclear war without any real provocation on the part of anyone to justify it. To my astonishment, it would be very easy, in fact, certainly within the capabilities of a mentally addled insane man. Indeed, there is pretty much nothing in the process to go nuclear that would stop Trump and prevent him from acting out his “feelings,” as he is wont to put it.

So for the benefit of all those, like myself, who want to learn what happens when the United States President pushes the so-called button or pulls the trigger, whichever metaphor one prefers, to start a nuclear war, I will outline what I have discovered. The biggest surprise to me was that there are not really any checks and balances on what takes place to make sure that no president is making a mistake or exceeding authority to go nuclear. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” and both courts and legal scholars have long interpreted this clause as giving the President direct command over military operations, including decisions about when and how to use specific weapons. Indeed, no statute or constitutional provision requires the President to get approval from anyone else before ordering a nuclear strike.

The President’s status as Commander-in-Chief of all US military forces includes those delivery systems for nuclear weapons, and he has absolute authority to launch when, in his or her judgement, there is a proportionate imminent threat coming from a hostile state. Which de facto authority is not to say that there has not been a legal debate over the context of using a nuclear weapon. When incoming warheads are minutes away, there is virtually no legal debate: the President has full authority to respond with nuclear force without seeking prior authorization from Congress. The War Powers Resolution itself recognizes that the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers as the sole nuclear launch authority may be exercised in response to “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

But a nuclear first strike is a different story, raising the issue of possible use against Iran. If a President contemplates using nuclear weapons preemptively, before any attack has begun or become imminent, there is a strong legal argument that congressional authorization is required. The Constitution gives only to Congress the power to declare war, and initiating nuclear hostilities without an imminent threat looks far more like starting a war than responding to one. Many legal scholars would agree that a President must seek congressional authorization before ordering a first use of nuclear weapons in any non-emergency scenario.

Nevertheless, in practice, every President retains the physical ability to order a first strike without asking Congress first as the launch system does not distinguish between retaliatory and first-use orders. The button to push is located on an electronic “nuclear football” that is carried around in close proximity to wherever the president is at by a military aide.

The control football includes a number of features that require confirmation of the action ordered and the targets as well as the identity of the originator who must be the president, or, in his absence, the vice president. That done, the electronics essentially enable a launch order programmed to carry out whatever aggressive action the president or vice president has chosen to engage in. If the US is actually under attack, the entire process from first detection of “incomings” to US missiles leaving their silos can take roughly 25 minutes. The President’s role is limited to approximately 10 minutes during which he or she has to inter alia make a judgement call regarding the legitimacy of what he has been informed of to justify beginning a nuclear war.

There are various other issues involved in staging a nuclear strike, but the fact is that Donald Trump even in his mentally addled state could no doubt both legally and practically initiate a nuclear weapons attack on Iran or any other country based on his “feelings” about what is going on with that country’s foreign policy. In shaping any such a judgement he will no doubt have plenty of false information fed to him by his good friend Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu, of course, has his own nuclear arsenal but most likely has a mindset that impels him to let the Americans do the work and pay whatever price becomes relevant to the horror that would no doubt be the worldwide response. Trump, to be sure, is the second president in a row who has not been of sound mind and the danger that he might stumble into doing something awful is all too real. It would be reasonable to suggest that it is past time for Congress to act to disable the “nuclear football” in any situation where the United States is not itself actually and demonstrably under attack. The thought that Donald Trump might be considering pulling the nuclear trigger to make Israel happy is just too frightening to bear but Americans must be aware of that possibility!

Tesla Continues Slow Increase of Unsupervised Robotaxi in Austin – Now 13 Unsupervised

 

Slomo for now, but about to go live.  Larger numbers will produce failure surely but each teaches.

This has been a long time coming, but also inevitable because of software difficulty,

This was never a luner flyby.  This was managed brownian motion in which bumps are not allowed.

Tesla Continues Slow Increase of Unsupervised Robotaxi in Austin – Now 13 Unsupervised

April 16, 2026 by Brian Wang

There are now 13 unsupervised Tesla robotaxi in Austin. There was a 2 months at the 8-10 unsupervised level. Three were added over the last 10 days. This would suggest about 20 by mid next week.

NHTSA has reported no accidents in the Feb-Mid March timeframe.

There are hundreds of Cybercabs ready roll into Austin as unsupervised. This could be the level at the end of May. A few hundred unsupervised in Austin.

China's Unitree Unveils Robot With "Human-Like Physique" That Can Outrun Most People

Bipedal travel is powerful when it traverses rough ground.  Let us see it bound up a boulder covered scree slope.  That is what ultimately matters and this will work for agricultural robots.

The good news is that we are getting there.  A running combat assault cannot be too far away.

We already have russian soldiers surrendering to combat ground drones.

militarily, this means Canada can mobalize 4,000,000 plus men including low fitness individuals along with 4,000,000 plus women and empower almost all of them with robotic drones of all sorts. 

right now the Ukranian military drone augmented is overwelming a 500,000 plus russian army and their edge is still modest.

China's Unitree Unveils Robot With "Human-Like Physique" That Can Outrun Most People

Wednesday, Apr 15, 2026 - 04:40 PM

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/chinas-unitree-unveils-humanoid-robot-human-physique-can-outrun-most-people

The race for bipedal humanoid robot intelligence has certainly been in the news, with robots receiving "AI brains" that have already brought them onto factory floors and will likely become more visible in the public world in the coming years (see UBS).

But there is another race that Chinese robot maker Unitree is simultaneously part of, and that is actual speed.

In recent days, Unitree posted a video on X titled "Unitree Breaks the World Record Again," indicating that one of its humanoid robots now has the "physique of an ordinary person, running at a world champion's speed."

Unitree said the robot completed a sprint at 10 meters per second, or 22.4 mph. For context, the fastest human sprint speed ever recorded was Usain Bolt's 27.8 mph during his 100-meter world record run at the 2009 World Championships in Athletics.

Combine intelligence with speed, and the world is certainly racing toward the rise of robots that could one day chase down a human or even appear on the battlefield.

That's likely already happened.