Fatties on TV vs Skinnies on TV

When reports such as Fatties on TV regarding Marie Claire Magazine's blog post and Should Women Over 50 Have Long Hair air on NBC news and/or NBC's web site, you have to wonder why they're not spending time on real news. That said, I have some comments about both issues.

Re: Fatties on TV

Maura Kelly said, ". . . while I think our country's obsession with physical perfection is unhealthy, I also think it's at least equally crazy, albeit in the other direction, to be implicitly promoting obesity!" in Marie Claire Magazine's blog. Yes, she also said, "anorexia is sick." However, she doesn't have any problem with television "implicitly promoting" ultra-thin, size zero women and lanky, skin and bones men. I'll admit that the latter is less prevalent. Maura insultingly said, "So anyway, yes, I think I'd be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other ... because I'd be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything. To be brutally honest, even in real life, I find it aesthetically displeasing to watch a very, very fat person simply walk across a room . . . ." I'm not grossed out. Overweight, and even obese, people need love too. So what if TV shows are promoting "big is beautiful." Here are two truths: 1) Fat does not mean ugly and 2) skinny does not mean beautiful. I've seen beautiful and ugly people (I pay more attention to women in my case) in both categories. I've seen obese (300+ lb) women with very pretty faces. Am I going to say, "Man, she's got a hot body"? Perhaps not. Along the same line, I've seen "size zero" women with pretty faces, but I'm not going to go gaga over their stick figure. A certain percentage of body fat is healthy. Personally, I'd go for a woman 20, or even 40, pounds over her optimum weight (per standardized health guides) over an ultra thin woman (15+ lbs under optimum weight) any day.

After much public attention, Maura did apologize. However, you know it was just to save face for Marie Claire Magazine. Maura, if you want obese people removed from television because of "implied promotion", I'm going to go to the opposite extreme. I think that ultra thin people should be removed from TV. Their very dangerous too from a "promotional" standpoint; especially to teenage girls. After being bombarded by television shows and magazines promoting ultra thinness, many young women think that they have to be size zero to be attractive. While this might not be as big of an issue as far as health insurance is concerned, it does lead to bad eating habits such as binging and purging and even teen suicide. So, I say either get those ultra thin people, especially women, off the TV and big screen or make them gain a few pounds so that they are either at or slightly over their optimum weight. By the way, there are two main factors in calculating optimum weight: height and build. A person's build can range from small to large. For reference, I'd say that Bill Cosby has a medium build.

Here's the type of woman we should see more of on TV:


Patricia Arquette is "plus-size" and beautiful.

Re: Should Women Over 50 Have Long Hair?

Depends on the type of hair the woman has, but I'd say yes in most cases. After all, they say that 50 is the new 30.


I think Meryl Streep looks great with long hair. Enough said.

Who says you can't beat a computer at chess?

Remember this old electronic chess board? I used to beat it occasionally on some of the mid to upper levels back when I played more often. I also played Chessmaster 2000 back in the 80's and early 90's. The animated chess sets were cool, but I usually lost. Even then, I was far from a pro. I'd never be a match for top notch chess players. However, I could give average or slightly above average players a run for their money!

Having not played chess in a very long time, I recently purchased Chessmaster 10th Edition for $10 at Officemax. I won my first game against a player with a standard rating of roughly 600. So, I decided to choose a computer player that would be more of a challenge. Eddie (standard rating: 949) was that player. After losing to Eddie 23 consecutive times, I was determined to beat him!! I had come extremely close twice and dominated over 50% of the time. However, I'd either make a "doh!" move toward the end of the game or he'd happen to be a step ahead of me and I didn't catch it. I'm not very quick. Some people can easily see 5 or 6 moves ahead. That's not me. After the first 3 or 4 opening moves, it can take me 5+ minutes per move. I think I've taken close to 20 minutes on a couple of occasions! Thus, a human opponent would need a lot of patience. Of course, we'd also have small talk, drink some beverages, etc. Can't do that with a computer player . . . yet. Small talk might come eventually. I'm not sure about the drinking part.

So, anyway, I played my 24th game against Eddie tonight . . . and I whipped his arse!! Check this out:


As you can tell from the Game Status window on the right, I played white. It took me ~46.5 minutes, but I nabbed him good! I couldn't believe that he gave up his queen so early in the game! I thought for sure it was a setup, but I swiped it with a pawn!! And there was no major fallout! I was shocked! Later, Eddie made a few other costly mistakes and it ultimately cost "him" (the computer) the game.

Is Colonial Williamsburg Really Haunted?

It's been quite some time since my last post and I thought I'd discuss a new subject in my blog. I've had an interest in the paranormal for quite some time. However, I had not actually taken action and done my own "hunting" until some friends and I took one of the Williamsburg ghost tours. This is the "original" ghost tour and features stories from L. B. Taylor's book Ghosts of Williamsburg. During this preliminary investigation, I took about 40 pictures at the various locations. Although I took some pictures during the tour, many of them were taken after the tour as it was still daylight during much of the tour.

Before you scroll down to the pictures below, I'd like to make a few things known.

1) I am a skeptic. So, I did not expect to see anything unusual in the pictures that I took.

2) I realize that props, reflective objects, etc. could possibly be used on such tours to make them "scary".

3) I can assure you that both my lens and the clear, protective filter were free of dust and condensation when the pictures were taken. I checked for condensation and such a few times that evening while taking the pictures.

4) I plan to do a test shoot at home. Why? If my camera captures something unusual there, it will have a great degree of authenticity. In addition, it will show that my camera is functioning properly when taking pictures at night; especially if nothing unusual is captured.

5) There were instances where I intentionally did not use the flash when taking pictures. Although the originals were quite dark, details were captured and I was able to bring out those details by adjusting the levels. A good analogy for "levels" are the 3 knobs that appear on many guitar amplifiers: Bass, Midtone, and Treble. In the case of "levels", it's more like: shadows, midtones, and highlights.

6) I also took a few photos using the camera's built-in infrared feature. Only one of those captured something interesting.

7) The only edits I made to these photos were resizing them for posting in the blog, adjusting the levels, and removing noise caused by low lighting conditions. I did not add anything to the photos that wasn't already there.

Now, the pictures . . . .



This is a picture of the Peyton Randolph house. I used the flash. It is said that the right-most upper 2 windows glow green. However, you can clearly see that the shades are down. Whereas, the shades are up in the other windows. The object of interest is in front of the lower portion of the bottom right window. It appears to be what paranormal investigators would call an "orb".

Below, is an enlarged image of that window.



The next image was taken less than a minute later from the same distance and angle. Again, I used the flash. The object of interest has apparently moved from the lower portion of the window to nearly above the top center pane of the window.



Again, an enlarged image of the window . . . .



Below is another picture of the Peyton Randolph house taken after the tour. I cannot even begin to explain the unusual objects in the image. I can assure you that the lens was free of dust and condensation. In addition, the 2 right hand windows on the first floor appear to have a green "glow". However, I double checked the story. It is definitely those 2 windows on the 2nd floor that supposedly glow. Weird.



An enlarged view of some of the more prominent objects . . . .



The picture below was taken less than one minute later from roughly the same distance, but I was standing more to the left of the house. Although there are fewer of the unexplainable objects, they are still there and appear to have moved.



Again, here is an enlarged view of the more prominent objects. Note that the lower window is still glowing green.



This infrared shot was taken about 8 minutes after the very first picture above and before the other 2 that show several unusual objects. Ignore the splotches in the upper left and right. They were caused by the IR light reflecting off of the clear filter. The object of interest is the bright spot near the bottom of the image on the right side. It appears to be just below the bottom center pane of that first floor window. As you can see from the pictures above, there is nothing in that area that would cause light (especially IR light) to reflect that brightly.



An enlarged view of that window. You can very faintly see some of the panes and the object in question below them.



This is a picture of the Wythe House taken after the tour. I didn't see anything in the image until I enhanced it by adjusting the levels. There appears to be an "orb" hovering over the grass between me (the camera man) and a friend.



This is another shot of the Wythe House taken 3 minutes before the picture above. Note the strange bright light just to the right of the house where the overhang meets the brick face. I can assure you that there was no airplane flying overhead at that time. Besides, it would have to have been quite close for the lights from it to be that bright.



The following shot was taken about 4 minutes after the shot above. It was taken from a similar distance and angle. Note that the strange bright light is not there.



Here's another shot of the Wythe House. Notice the "orb" floating above the fence on the right side of the house.



This next shot was taken less than one minute later from a similar distance and angle. Note that the "orb" is gone.



This next shot is possibly the weirdest of them all. It was a 2 second exposure and no flash. That's why you can see a little bit of motion blur. However, the thing to note is the "ribbon" of light streaking across at what I would estimate to be 2 feet above the ground. I can assure you that no-one was walking in front of me at the time. If that had been the case, you'd see the person as well as the object if it were attached to them.



Another shot taken less than one minute later from a similar distance and angle . . . no ribbon of light. Again, it was a 2 second exposure and no flash.



Here's a shot of the Wythe House before dark. Notice that the indoor shutters are open now whereas they are closed after dark. Take note of the upper left hand window. There is very little reflection in it and the window below it whereas there is a lot of reflection in some of the other windows. Now, look very closely at that upper left window. It could be a reflection, but I see what might be the collar of a light colored shirt and, perhaps, the chin of a figure in the second row of panes from the bottom and 3rd pane from the left. I also see what could be the cuff of a sleeve and a light colored object (perhaps a piece of paper) being held in a hand in the pane next to that.



Due to having to decrease the image size for posting in my blog, you're probably saying, "I don't see anything." So, I have cropped the original image to just that window and enlarged it slightly so you can see more detail. Still, I'll admit that I'm on the fence about this one. It could very well be some sort of reflection. Even so, it took a very interesting shape.



A lot of movies, cartoons, etc show strange stuff going on in cemetaries right? Well, I guess the cemetary behind Bruton Parish Church is no exception. I honestly wasn't expecting to capture anything because that was my thinking; strange stuff in cemetaries only happens in cartoons and movies. So much for thinking.

This first picture shows an unusual object up in a tree that looms over the grave stones. You might say, "oh, that's just a spider web or something." But wait until you see the next picture.



Don't say I didn't warn you! ;^) This shot was actually taken less than one minute before the one above. I guess the first shot scared a few of the object's "friends" away. It was taken from the same vantage point, but at a slightly different angle.



This final picture was taken further down the wall toward the back of the cemetary. Note the "orb" near the grave stone.



Despite the evidence in these images, I'm still not convinced that ghosts and other paranormal beings are real. Although I don't usually do a lot of outdoor night photography, I can assure you that my camera works well under indoor lighting and daylight conditions. I can also assure, as I already have, that the lens and clear filter were free of dust and condensation. I plan to do quite a bit more exploration on the topic. In fact, once I get on a roll, I'll dedicate a separate blog to the subject. I'll need to take a lot more photos at different sites as well as my home for a test site before I'll be anywhere near convinced. That said, I do plan to take another trip to Williamsburg soon. I'm going on a different ghost tour with a friend. We'll stick around afterward and take even more photos.