"Guess I’ll be waiting a minute to surf again..."
This very April, surfers around the world (but mostly screwfoots) cheered robustly as Christina Koch became the first of our kind to slingshot around the moon. The inspirational 47-year-old was part of the four person Artemis II mission that momentarily united the United States. The goal was to take photographs of the moon’s backside and prep for another moon landing to prove, once and for all, the first one was real.
Koch graduated from the NASA Academy program in 2001 and completed her astronaut training in 2015. She has been to the International Space Station and is credited with the longest single continuous spaceflight by a woman after spending some 328 days amongst stars.
And, again plus most importantly, she surfs though in a horror social media post, revealed she is going to have to momentarily quit due interstellar shenanigans.
Guess I’ll be waiting a minute to surf again.
When people live in microgravity, the systems in our body that have evolved to tell our brains how we’re moving, the vestibular organs, don’t work correctly. Our brains learn to ignore those signals and so when we first get back to gravity, we are heavily reliant on our eyes to orient ourselves visually. A tandem walk with eyes closed can be quite the challenge! Learning about this can help inform how we treat vertigo, concussions and other neuro-vestibular conditions on Earth.
Luckily we’re already adapting back to gravity at 7 days post-splashdown!
The spins are the absolute worst and most, in comments, were sensitive. Author and photographer Diala Canelo penning, “From every woman around the world, thank you.” ADHD expert Dr. Jen Wolkin adding, “As someone who sometimes can’t do this having never left Earth, I have profound respect for the impact on your mind body brain and the way you’re so generously sharing your journey towards adaptation.”
The filmmaker Ricardo Gaspar De Alba Quiroz, though, probably a moon landing denier, questioned, “But didnt she give a conference the next day she arrived? And she walked perfectly?”
Question: Would you rather be an astronaut or a surfer?
No wrong answers.
Commented on Disqus? Log out, tap the Disqus button, and your old name and comments come back. The box is ours.
Your comments are still here. Every one of them.
Twelve years of BeachGrit comments came across from Disqus. Connect and we will show you how many are yours. We get your username, nothing else.
Connect Disqus to reveal.
🤣🤣
none of this actually happened did it
Astronaut Grit.
Dez late for his appointment at the Thai massage parlor.
Surfers are astronauts brother
Looks like (world leading surf adjacent fashion house) beachè & grittana have found a famous surfer to lead the team.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
KOCH 4 KOOK
KOOK 4 KOCH
Even looks like she’d drink a fuckin’ VB longneck at 20 to 8 in the fuckin’ mornin’…
Pretty sure I was suffering the same side affects after 20 schooners on ANZAC Day. Gravity has well and truly kicked in this morning.
Something I’ve always wondered about the moon landing denier conspiracy theorists—do they only deny the first moon landing (the only one these people ever talk about), or does it also include the 5 other crewed moon landings after Apollo 11?
Surprised she hasn’t blocked you yet.
Can you they prove that the assanatuon attempt on Trump was fake?
Xox
Wonder if the SPLC paid the assassin. After all, for a supposed group of lefties combatting hate groups, they sure loved financially supporting them. $1 Million over nine years to a member of National Alliance, even after the group was in serious decline and was fighting in court over $160K.
Nothing like fighting hate by funding it’s very existence.
They were paying informants within those groups for info. Ca$h Patel is just another alcoholic grifter bringing that indictment.
If that’s all the ammo against the Dems MAGA has right now they are in trouble for the midterms. Maybe they can promise beef tallow face cream for everyone that shows up to vote in November.
That info wouldn’t be admissable in court. The SPLC is not law enforcement, and has no jurisdictional power to collect information from an “informant” that could be used in any criminal prosecution.
They paid hate to exist.
Fear regarding the midterms is Virginia Dems violating their own State Constitution to gerrymander that State from 6-5 to 10-1. It’ll be overturned, but that fear Dems exhibit will always be present.
Of FFS…won’t you two please just stop it?
Still arguing over who’s winning the Republicans vs Democrats. WWE match ? You sound like Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunne.
You really think you can vote your way out of this mess? Voting is about as effective as writing to Santa Claus.
Rome evolved/declined to Emperors, we might as well also?
We’ve already got emperors.They just don’t like it when people mention who’s behind the curtain. That’s why we get hate speech laws.
Premier of NSW subservient to President of Israel after drafting illegal laws to quell protest during his visit and legislating hate speech laws based on a proven hoax “antisemitism terror” farce
Disagree, voting matters. Trump has been doing everything possible to try and get people to believe that “the whole thing is rigged, you can’t trust anything you read in the news, I’m the only one you can believe” etc. Don’t fall for it, exercise your right to vote and be informed.
You sound like Hitler…..a lot
whoah there, looks like we have an expert on the Federal Rules of Evidence here! Pray tell me how the testimony of an informant, or evidence establishing that the SPLC was paying informants would be inadmissible?
Hearsay FRE 801-807
Authentication FRE 901
Relevance and Prejudice FRE 401-403
Confrontation Clause
Credibility and Reliability
You know it’s true
You don’t understand any of those things Otto.
What a witness sees isn’t hearsay. Witness testimony about what a party opponent (i.e., the adverse party to the proceeding) said is also an exception to hearsay. That’s why a prosecutor can bring any witness he or she wants to trial to testify about what a criminal defendant said outside of court.
Authentication refers to the testimony laying the foundation to introduce documentary, video, audio, or other tangible evidence. For instance, SPLC can authenticate copies of checks it made out to an informant simply by having its representative testify, “Yes, these are copies of the checks we sent to the informants.”
The checks are also not excluded because they are the business records of SPLC (another hearsay exception). The same would be true of any contracts between SPLC and the informants for informant services.
FRE 403 exclusions are also discretionary and only apply when the risk of prejudice outweighs the probative value of the information. There’s no risk of prejudice to the US Attorneys prosecuting SPLC if any of that evidence comes in.
The confrontations clause merely means that a criminal defendant has the right to cross examine a witness that testifies against him or her. Even in the context of an informant testifying, you get to do that with an informant witness.
Credibility and reliability aren’t rules of evidence either—it’s whether the trier of fact believes a witness or not, or whether it believes a piece of evidence is genuine
Guys like you keep me gainfully employed Otto. They think they know enough about the law to DIY something from a legal perspective like a contract or business formation, and then they have to hire someone like me to try to unfuck the mess they’ve gotten themselves into.
The prosecutors never knew what the SPLC was up to dude.
Name one case where Federal prosecutors used an SPLC “informant”. You can’t.
The SPLC is a grift. You know it.
The Feds use informants all the time, and I can’t tell you whether or not the SPLC’s story is accurate or whether the Feds used any of their informants (which seems unlikely given that the Feds just pay informants directly). But none of your beliefs about SPLC makes your understanding of the Rules of Evidence any more accurate, and that’s even assuming that your beliefs are true.
If you’re worth even half the $ you paid for your favorite tie, you’d know a good defense attorney would be able to prevail on having SPLC informant testimony/document evidence excluded, no matter the various exemptions you reference. The prejudicial nature of their tactic would ensure exclusion.
In what context Otto? In the context of the Feds prosecuting the SPLC and the Feds wanting to exclude exculpatory evidence offered by the SPLC in term of some of the things I’ve described? If that’s the case, there’s no way the Feds are excluding that.
If it’s the SPLC seeking to exclude evidence the Feds are offering against it, I don’t even know what the Feds would even try to offer. By comparison, if these informants are prepared to testify that the SPLC just had them on their payroll, but not as informants, the SPLC wouldn’t be able to keep that out either.
If it’s some third context where these informants were giving info to the SPLC for purposes of suing individuals civilly and a non-government informant had a wire to start secretly recording private conversations, then you might be getting somewhere on evidentiary exclusion depending on the State it was happening in.
But Otto, you wound me every time you call into question my professional expertise. I’ve never suggested you are ill-qualified to, for example, gun someone down.
The SPLC doesn’t need an informant in any extremist group to form their conclusions that extremist groups are bad. $1 Million dollars over 9 years. That’s over $100K per year that has done nothing more than fund a group like National Alliance that was already largely irrelevant, even according to SPLC themselves.
The group has dismal finances, but $100K a year sure helps efforts by that extremist group.
What has the SPLC done with any of the info they gathered? Why did they go to such efforts and never work with the DOJ?
Its like the firefighter funding the arsonist.
Ok, but none of that has to do with the admissibility of evidence in court.