SacredThreads

@Hurricane762 @JustineBateman I don't pay rent either but I also bought a house I could afford in an area I could afford. Most of the people in these videos want to live in the most expensive areas and complain about costs. My mortgage, property taxes, and utilities are likely less than their rent.

@minchoi Our 2T model, which is better than our 1.5T in every way, will finish initial training next week. It might be able to exceed Kimi, but with speed and token efficiency close to our 1.5T (aka Grok 4.5).

Courtesy of @News4SA I have never seen this that bad here. In Kerrville, San Antonio and mild flooding here. But not this bad.

No, not necessarily, and not even likely. Transient lunar phenomena (TLP), particularly from or around Aristarchus, were observed by amateur astronomers, lay people, and scientists of all stripes for hundreds of years, or long before there were any "planetary scientists". Yet they were considered taboo to discuss in the scientific community, and even the post-1950s planetary science community, for decades. Brown University and former Apollo selenologist, Prof. Peter Schultz, has told me directly (email communication) that Dr. Barbara Middlehurst's work on TLP in the 1960s and 1970s was considered taboo at NASA and that she lost her funding and job for working on it. He has also said this publicly in media interviews. Yet, since the early 2000s, NASA has freely admitted to the reality of TLP and admits that they are "poorly understood" and lacking a generally accepted plausible natural-geological explanation or set of explanations. As well, a persistent massive plume (of something still not fully explained) extending 150 miles high above the Martian surface, well above the atmospheric limb of Mars, visible from earth-bound telescopes, was independently discovered by an amateur astronomer named Wayne Jaeschke. The "planetary scientists" completely missed it before he spotted it, and when he spotted it, all but one "planetary scientist" contacted him to evaluate his data, and that "planetary scientist" thought it was a mistake/illusion/data artifact at first. After years of evaluation, it was finally acknowledged as real by the "planetary scientists". Yet, to this day, "planetary scientists" admit they still have no plausible explanation what it is: Mysterious Mars Plume Discovery Is Amateur Astronomy at Its Best space.com/28670-mystery-… europepmc.org/article/MED/29… As well, Viking orbiter project scientist, Gerald Soffen, told the press in a public NASA press conference in 1976 that the apparent 'face' on Mars imaged by Viking was a trick of light and shadow that went away a few hours later upon a second image being taken: "Isn't it peculiar what tricks of light and shadow can do...? When we took another picture a few hours later, it all went away; it was just a trick, just the way the light fell on it." Yet, Soffen flatly lied. There was never a second photo taken hours later. Not only that, but there *couldn't* have been one, because the Viking orbiter wasn't even in position anywhere close to Cydonia until a couple months later, as was discovered by Vince Di Pietro and Greg Molenaar (DPM), and later noted by Richard Hoagland and many others. Moreover, when it was imaged again a couple months later (frame 70A), that Viking frame was *withheld* by NASA from public knowledge and public access (as discovered by DPM), and the frame showed the 'face' at a higher sun elevation angle *still looking like a face* (it was even labeled as "Head" in the Viking imaging archives where DPM discovered it). Even Carl Sagan, who initially was mocking of independent researchers suggesting that the 'face' on Mars might be artificial in origin, later admitted that Soffen was wrong, 10 years later, in a private letter to Dr. Mark Carlotto (see attached). Moreover, in his Cosmos video series in the 1990s, Sagan while talking about Mars discussed the 'face' and said that although he thinks the 'face' is most likely just a blocky mesa, if we are going to visit Mars with manned missions, "there's no harm in [going to the 'face' structure and] "taking a look": Carl Sagan Cosmos Clip youtube.com/watch?v=ya6G1P… Sagan also used Carlott's shape-from-shading imaging results of the 'face', both in his Cosmos series and in a later book The Demon Haunted World (neither of which he had to do at all). Sagan also said this in DHW: “Unlike the UFO phenomenon, we have here the opportunity for a definitive experiment. This kind of hypothesis is falsifiable, a property that brings it into the scientific arena. I hope that forthcoming American and Russian missions to Mars, especially orbiters with high-resolution television cameras, will make a special effort – among hundreds of other scientific questions – to look much more closely at the pyramids and what some people call the Face and the city.” markcarlotto.com/2023/06/03/dr-… The point is that Sagan was very late to the party, but eventually came around to agreeing that the 'face', 'pyramids', etc., look anomalous enough that they warrant further study. The very position of non-planetary scientists such as Carlotto, Hoagland, Torun, McDaniel, among many others, and the position of minority-view NASA "planetary scientists" like Di Pietro, Molenaar, and Brandenburg, among others, several years before Sagan came around. Finally, we have Jared Isaacman, the current head of NASA, recently admitting that there are UAP-type anomalies in NASA's own image archives from the Apollo era. Anomalies which clearly NASA leadership never publicly acknowledged (or perhaps even noticed) until the first tranche of UAP files from the DOW. Don't believe me? Believe Isaacman's own words (quotes all from the same May 2026 Fox News interview): "I would say that some of the most interesting data that NASA has provided as part of the UAP disclosure was taken on the surface of the moon from Apollo 12 and 17. You can't be a moon landing denier and also believe that those photos captured unexplained phenomenon." ""There’s nothing I’m aware of in terms of alien bodies or spaceships," Isaacman said. "But observations from decades past — from some of our adversaries and potentially some of our allies — essentially saying, ‘We saw something, we documented it, and we kept it buried in a file somewhere,’ are now being made public."" ""What’s being surfaced isn’t crashed ships or alien bodies, but real unexplained phenomena," Isaacman told Fox News Digital in an interview Friday." foxnews.com/politics/nasa-… There are many other examples of genuine planetary anomalies that "planetary scientists" were NOT the first to recognize, and/or stubbornly refused to acknowledge until much later, and/or have still been unable to satisfactorily explain in natural/geological terms, and/or recognized them but simply suppressed them from public knowledge or publicly suppressed their recognition of those anomalies. The point is that your idea that "planetary scientists would definitely have noticed any anomalous objects on the Moon and/or Mars first, if they existed", is flagrantly contradicted by the available facts. Not to mention totally unscientific.