Boy, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel when you stoop to interviewing Jan Irvin. I hope he was sober for this one.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm quite sure I know more about Jan Irvin than you do, I have quite a bit of experience with him. I stand by my comment, having him here is definitely a low point for this podcast.I find your comment as worthless as you find mine, but I won't ask you to refrain from making it. And I could not care less whether I have your respect, it is of no value to me.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The guest said that quantum physics is pseudoscience meant to confuse people. Quantum mechanics (QM) is actually very accurate and successfully empirically tested a lot, BUT I do think he has a point here. QM is I suspect only accurate because it's an incomplete front for the deeper knowledge. Even Stephen Hawking has written a curious statement that I believe reflects the deeper truth: "Maybe that is our mistake: maybe there are no particle positions and velocities, but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of positions and velocities.The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability." -- http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
I want to add that there IS unpredictability in the universe, probably not because of some mysterious uncertainty principle; instead the unpredictability is a straightforward result of computational irreducibility:"Wolfram terms the inability to shortcut a program (e.g., a system), or otherwise describe its behavior in a simple way, "computational irreducibility". The empirical fact is that the world of simple programs contains a great diversity of behavior, but, because of undecidability, it is impossible to predict what they will do before essentially running them. The idea demonstrates that there are occurrences where theory's predictions are effectively not possible. Wolfram states several phenomena are normally computationally irreducible." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_irreducibility
Michael Tsarion said that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are just fronts for an ancient movement from Ancient Egypt. That explains how some people, like the guest believes "Zionists did it" while another researcher like Eric Phelps claims that the Jesuits are behind everything. They are both wrong! There is a deeper power structure running around behind these public front religions and movements.As for Einstein's relativity, yep that's a complete hoax. The cop out they use is to claim that events can happen arbitrarily along some time dimension. Completely bogus science. People often reply with a question like: Then how can GPS work if Einstein's relativity is false? The answer is that the only "adjustment" made is that (they claim) the clocks in the satellites are adjusted for Einstein's relativity. How many people are in control of that supposed adjustment of satellites before launch? Very few people! So that's something that's easy to fake by simply not doing any adjustment of the clocks at all and only claim that they do.
The symbolism, including colors, and numerology are actually quite simple, IF YOU STUDY IT; it's explained in full color here: (Hint: they're BOTH sides of the same Ayin controlled slavery system. (See Ayin 26 cabala) Daimons/demons are real and quite powerful; they took control of human spirituality early on.http://dragonspaw.blogspot.com/2015/11/"That explains how some people, like the guest believes "Zionists did it" while another researcher like Eric Phelps claims that the Jesuits are behind everything."
Here's a direct link:http://dragonspaw.blogspot.com/2015/11/italians-are-jews-coup-de-gras.html
Anders Lindman wrote:"How many people are in control of that supposed adjustment of satellites before launch? Very few people! So that's something that's easy to fake by simply not doing any adjustment of the clocks at all and only claim that they do."**********Anders,Am I to assume that you yourself are one of the (quote/ unquote) "very few people" that have assisted to a satellite launch? Perhaps in the jungles of Kourou/ Guyana or in the desert steppes of Baikonur /Kazakhstan? Or are you just assuming / accepting / imagining the reality of man-made satellites - because NASA folks and the like tell you so?Anyhow, and since its xmas-time, I do wish for you and your family to witness the Santa Claus flying chariot and reindeers landing on your rooftop! Season's Greetings! :O) Simon Shack
Simon, radio waves can only bounce on the atmosphere at relatively low frequencies:"D layer – This layer occurs only during the day at altitudes of 60 to 90 km. High absorption takes place at frequencies up to 7 MHz." -- http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Communication_Systems/Wave_Propagation#Sky_WavesOther forms of sky waves with higher frequencies use temporary conditions, such as sporadic E.Satellite signals can be of higher frequencies: http://www.zarya.info/Frequencies/FrequenciesAll.phpAnd satellite signals are functional 24/7. I don't see how that could be faked.
I welcome both Irvin and Blakeney's moving away from mainstream conspindustry (and left-establishment) ways of thinking toward politics as such:an analysis of how people and peoples act in their own interests vs the interests of other people / peoples, i.e. real life ...(coincidentally an analysis entirely absent from mainline 'politics' right or left and conspindustry and other mainline alternatives).***(edit... ) Versus the comments here for example ...Your nation is being invaded but forget all that, and instead get caught up in an online debate with other google-experts about relativity theory/ ancient Egypt/ satellites don't exist.
Very interesting conversation re MK Ultra, the drug culture psychedelics, mind control, new age religion the change in diet, especially of the US, feminism, etc.Jan attributes these actions to the government and their attempts to control the population by dumbing down the public and compromising their health.It seems to me that the breaking down of the social structure has more to do with commercial interests than government control. If you get the sexes to fight with each other and break up, that is good for business as now there would be two households instead of one to outfit, two vacuum cleaners, stoves, etc.The marketing of food, ie, substituting a grain diet for real meat and animal fat--a no fat, no salt diet which eventually causes illness--is good for the pharmacuetical business. Did you know the third best selling product in the world is a fat-lowering drug, Lipitor? So, the government and its CIA agents are working as always for big business as usual. (I do love Joseph Campbell's work, though, especially his series with Moyers on the Power of Myth.)
Anders Lindman said:"Simon, radio waves can only bounce on the atmosphere at relatively low frequencies:........"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~It's probably none of my business, but could it be Simon is asking how a satellite can make it to space with a launching system that needs oxygen to propel it? How far can a rocket go on rocket fuel since the higher it goes, the less oxygen is available?
@Compass Imagine two bricks in space put together with explosive charge between them. When the charge is detonated the bricks will fly apart. In a rocket traveling through empty space the fuel is exploded in one direction and the rocket is propelled in the other direction.
Like a bullet, a rocket has its oxygen contained within it. Just as you can shoot a bullet in water, you can have a rocket w/o external oxygen atmosphere.
Shouldn't you be harnessing up your reindeer, ho, ho ho?
Hi, Clare! Say, do you know anything about rocket science? I could use some help here. :)
Not that aspect. You could ask Jim if he does or knows someone. Maybe even Don Fox, or Dennis Cimino?
Anders Lindman wrote:"Imagine two bricks in space put together with explosive charge between them. When the charge is detonated the bricks will fly apart." ******************************Anders, that is of course an entirely theoretical argumentation: you would first have to find a way to get these bricks up (and away from Earth's gravity) into the vacuum of space, don't you agree? But let me use an example from Mother Nature - or more precisely, the animal world - i.e. something that we can easily relate to intuitively: A squid propels itself through water by expelling a jet of water from its body (think of a squid's body / mantle cavity as a rocket's combustion chamber). Squids can actually swim pretty fast, as you surely know - thanks to the action / reaction exerted by the thrust of its water jet against its surrounding ambient / habitat, namely... water. Now let us imagine if we could suspend a squid (say, with a nylon string from a crane) - above the water surface - and feed it (externally / with a hose) with water. As the squid expels its water supply against the surrounding ambient (air), it will obviously go nowhere fast - apart from perhaps jolting about a little, each time it contracts its muscles to squirt water out of its body (the so-called "recoil effect", which NASA will tell you is exactly - and exclusively - what propels their rockets in the vacuum of space). Now, no matter how powerful our squid's water jet is, it will just keep spraying out the water from its back - and if we cut the string, gravity will make sure the poor animal splashes back down into the sea - its natural ambient - and resumes swimming / propelling itself - as fast as ever. I will stop here for now and just ask you why you'd think that the above (i.e. gravity-pull-outpowering-dwindling-rocket-thrust) would NOT apply to say, a 100.000kg rocket as it reaches the outer limits of our atmosphere (at about 100km of altitutde / aka "the Karman line") - and meets the vacuum of space.God Jul ! Simon Shack
This is quite false Simon. The expulsion of the mass of water is what propels the squid. Its surroundings is a drag to this action. If a squid would expel water contained within itself while in an environment of air, the drag would be less and it would propel itself more efficiently. This is the physics we are talking about here. You are confused.
Simon,Suppose I stand on a skateboard holding a fire hose attached to a fire hydrant. If the hydrant is opened up, will my skateboard remain motionless or will it travel in the opposition direction as the water flowing out of the hose? Assume that I remain standing on the skateboard.
God Jul, Simon. If the squid expels water at 5320 m/s I'm sure it would fly through the air. :D"The combination delivered 542 s specific impulse in a vacuum, equivalent to an exhaust velocity of 5320 m/s." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket_propellants
Dear Anders - that's an interesting topic you brought up, one that has puzzled me for some time now. But firstly, let me just point out that when I wrote -" no matter how powerful our squids water jet is" - I of course referred to a normal / earthly squid - and not to any sort of extrarrestrial / or rocket-powered one...! Now, the exhaust velocity claimed for the Space Shuttles engines is, for instance, 4,4km/s (or 4400m/s). Yet, NASA claims that the escape velocity (the speed needed for a spacecraft to escape Earth's gravity) is 8km/s. That is almost twice the max EXHAUST velocity claimed for their Space Shuttle rockets. Of course, the EXHAUST velocity certainly does not equate to the actual speed of the spacecraft itself : that would be like claiming that, "if I manage to throw a big ball downwards at 100km/h - my body will fly upwards at 100km/h." Clearly, the weight and aerodynamic drag of the object you wish to propel out of Earth's gravity / atmosphere has to be accounted for. So the question is: how did NASA manage to achieve the needed 8 km/s escape velocity of their Space Shuttles - when their stated engines' EXHAUST velocities were no higher than 4,4km/s?As it is, our Cluesforum member 'Citronbleu' has submitted this and similar questions to the Physics Forum.com - but for now, it doesn't seem we have any clear / satisfactory answers to these 'vexing' issues:https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/rocket-thrust-in-vacuum.708263/Food for (xmas) thought :-)
Simon, a rocket accelerates, so the velocity of the rocket can get larger than the exhaust velocity.It would be more interesting to post questions about Einstein's relativity on physicsforums.com. One problem is that they use a cop out of having events allowed to happen in any order along a time "dimension". And the mainstream experts claim that photons don't have a reference frame! That's another cop out they use.
so you believe in hilbert space and space ships; i envy your faith.i don't feel like getting into hilbert's, von neumann's, and wigner's nonsense; but i will ask you how you brought yourself to believe in this... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbs85I_AfEg
@seu bobo That's an old video about JPL. The real satellite stuff was I believe developed by the NRO that was a secret agency in the beginning.
@anders pickering makes an appearance at the iconic news conference; but this video has nothing to do with jack parson's occultic sideshow in pasedena. so do you believe the footage of the launch of exploere1?
Yes, I believe Explorer 1 could have been a successful mission as claimed. I haven't looked into it in detail though.
do you believe the footage in the video, as presented to us by the us army, of the launch of explorer 1? can anyone in good faith actually believe the footage we are shown in the video? are you claiming the video is bull science but explorer 1 was successfuly launched?
Just guessing but the film was probably "Hollywood-ized". The Explorer 1 mission could have been real. One thing I wonder about is how difficult it is to get a satellite into exact orbit. Too low orbital velocity and the satellite would drop down to Earth, and too high velocity and the satellite would move away from Earth and out into space. Seems like a pretty tricky task although I don't know much about the technical details and could be wrong about that.
The squid thrusting a powerful jet of water in the air would bounce back, just like strong wind would make a storm. So will a balloon bounce back when the pressure inside suddenly is released. Pressure escaping fast is still pushing against the air outside. The difference is the speed and the quantity of suddenly released air is increased, which in turn account for stupid theories equating the sudden thrust of the balloon with some sort of reflex. Otherwise it's a pure non-sequitur when talking about motion in vacuum.Simon...you don't take these set escape velocity speeds, Alan Belts, etc... seriously? NASA in its good days travelled to the moon, half a dozen of times or so. They encountered very low gravity, no atmosphere and other very interesting phenomena. They only forgot to videotape it all. They were obviously busy conducting, wink, wink "scientific experiments." What they did videotape was taking the piss.Now, since NASA has been a good sport for long time I would like to see they restore some credibility. And since they are in possession of flying objects operating far away in the vacuum of space, they could now do what they forgot to do on at least one of their moon missions, namely videotape motion in the vacuum of space the best they can. It should be a piece of cake. I am not talking the trash they show inside that stadium sized thingy. It's taking the piss again. The actual physical experiments in vacuum caught on cameras would be nice to have a look at. It's a sorry state of affairs. So many vehicles operate in space and no one knows anything about the actual physics of these motions.
Anders Lindman wrote:"Simon, a rocket accelerates, so the velocity of the rocket can get larger than the exhaust velocity."**********************Please explain that to me, Anders - in reasonably understandable physical terms. See, you seem to be repeating word by word what NASA has been telling us for decades - i.e. that "rockets keep accelerating beyond the maximum speed of their rocket's exhaust velocity". I'm sorry, but this would mean that any force producing forward motion - like the tail of a dolphin - would make it accelerate indefinitely - as long as that force is applied. We all know that this is not true. What makes you think that a 100.000kg spacecraft pushed by rockets producing a (max) 4,4km/s EXHAUST velocity can reach the speed of 8km/s? You really need to convince me that this is possible in the real world. The fact that air gets ever thinner as the rocket ascends does NOT make its 4,4km/s max EXHAUST velocity increase. So, please explain.Simon Shack
@septemberclues Simon, an object moving with friction reaches a limit when the friction is increasing.If you add 1 m/s to an object in space moving away from Earth at 1 m/s in the same direction the total velocity relative to Earth will be 2 m/s.
Simon, It would behoove you to look over:http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bgp.htmlzOr run the simulators at http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/ngnsim.htmlor download them athttp://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Enginesim/index.htm
Simon Pimon wrote:"Simon...you don't take these set escape velocity speeds, Alan Belts, etc... seriously? "******************************Dear Simon Pimon, it is not that I take them seriously - but, as the rational person that I am, I always try to stay updated with NASA's own, officially released claims and data - in order to show more clearly how NASA has been taking us all for a ride - ever since its inception.Oh - and by the way, do you know who was the very first NASA administrator? Ever heard of T. Keith Glennan? Well, here you go:http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2391085#p2391085
I don't know but would guess Mickey Mouse. I've heard about the Van Allen belt and escape velocity. Never before did I encounter exhaust velocity. In looks like the whole theory is worthless let alone the application.Yep, Micky Mouse alright.
t. keith worked for paramount and samuel goldwyn studios, not disney; but i suppose at the end of the day hollywool is hollywool.
@blake121666 :??? We are not debating jet engines here - I have flown in jet airplanes and know full well that they work quite fine, thank you very much.***************************************Anders Lindman wrote:"Simon, an object moving with friction reaches a limit when the friction is increasing. If you add 1 m/s to an object in space moving away from Earth at 1 m/s in the same direction the total velocity relative to Earth will be 2 m/s."Well, Anders - the problem is: HOW do you add 1m/s to the speed of a rocket exiting our atmosphere - in absence of friction? I'm afraid that our debate will quickly turn into a classic / endless circular debate - if you are just going to be parroting NASA's/ & the space industry's claims and allegations. What I am proposing here is that you use your own mind to verify - via your own life experience in the real, physical world - whether these claims stand up to scrutiny. The issue of 'friction' (and all its various meanings) is, of course, central to our present discourse. For instance, friction can be described as follows: a racing car (equipped with slick tyres) speeding up a mountain road will keep ascending - as long as friction is maintained between its tyres and the tarmac. As soon as the car meets ice / or snow - the friction will vanish and, after the car's inertia subsides, it will stop ascending / moving forward altogether (no matter how powerful its engine may be - or how fast its wheels are spinning). The car's velocity will drop to zero - and start sliding down the mountain road, out of control - due to the force of gravity.Of course - and incredibly enough - NASA stubbornly maintains that their rockets' exhausts do NOT apply ANY friction on the surrounding air or, in other words, "do NOT push against air". This is, in my humble personal opinion, perhaps the most outlandish & vexatious of NASA's many dubious claims. This is tantamount to claiming that squids / or dolphins do NOT push against water to propel themselves through water. More thoughts on this issue here:http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2390540#p2390540Simon Shack
@septemberclues My example of two bricks in space with an explosive charge between them is without friction. What do you believe will happen when the charge is detonated? Clue: what happens in a car engine when the spark is ignited in one of the cylinders?
Rockets don't get their motive force through friction. Friction is a drag in the equation. You're under the Aristotelian fallacy that motion is a result of some kind of "pushing". Aristotle was wrong. You are wrong. Mechanics is not only NOT based on your confusions, it is based on the disproving of your confusions.This is high school physics, Simon, that you have some weird mental hangup about.Would more friction add more force in your mind ... more springiness ... or whatever mixed up model you are using in your head - which happens to be just plain wrong?Test your false (and hugely falsified empirically) model with bottle rockets or something. Read the damned reference I gave you above and get a clearer understanding of the matter which you ignorantly deny on no basis other than whatever falsity is in your head.
BTW, I see very little difference between your arguments and someone who is blindly wedded to the idea that heavier things accelerate faster than lighter ones in gravity. The experiments prove otherwise. The equations don't have that property in them. And the only thing one can say is that you have a mental hangup about it.
Do you have a point Blake or just waffling? In an unlikely case you do, you may try to focus and diy.I have a field of expertise that may suit you better ...Under Teller' direction, his colleagues at Livermore devised ever wilder schemes to prove that nuclear testing could be hidden and, therefore, a test ban was not possible. These included exploding weapons in deep caves, building a gargantuan shield to hide x-rays from earthbound observers, and planning nuclear tests on the far side of the moon...
Just curious, what about one brick and explosive charge?
@Lego The brick would still fly away. With less force I think, than for two bricks.
My experience with and opinion of Jan Irvin is summed up in the conflict I had with him a while ago and depicted in my open letter to him. Jan's last reply was that I am 'a psychopath,' presumably for pointing out his hypocrisy:http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-jan-irvin/
I suggested to Jim that I come on with Jan to debate our 'differences,' i.e., my list of Logical Fallacies with which Jan's interview with David Harriman was replete; this was all my essay meant to do (it was not a defense of QM or the Big Bang theory). The offer stands. I think it would be a hoot.
Allan,Here is a couple clips refuting the Big Bang. You might find interesting.Steve Crothers on Failures of Big Bang Cosmologyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC_KkLvG22AMay 5, 2014Scientists using the BICEP2 telescope recently pronounced that they had discovered direct evidence of Einstein gravitational waves and cosmic inflation. The team describes having detected polarizations in the so-called Cosmic Microwave Background, which is described as the afterglow of the theoretical Big Bang explosion. Science media declared the discovery a victory for Big Bang cosmology. However, omitted from the science press releases are countless foundational problems for the Big Bang theory. Stephen Crothers weighs in on the topic.______________________________________________________Stephen Crothers: The Parallax Effect on Short Hair | EU2014https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXF098w48foApr 19, 2014Stephen Crothers presented the case that Black Holes and the Big Bang have been created by theorists and never observed. Black Holes are now said to be both invisible and visible. Quasars are now black holes; so are the ‘blazars’. Individual black holes are also alleged x-ray sources. It is claimed that galaxies harbor a super-massive black hole at their centers, along with other black holes dispersed throughout them. All these black holes exist in an alleged expanding big bang universe. However, black hole universes are inconsistent with big bang universes. The audience were taken through the salient facts one step at a time in this riveting mostly non-mathematical presentation. The math of General Relativity has a notorious reputation for its complexity but most of the important facts can be understood by the layman and specialist alike without any mathematics.Crothers is a preeminent mathematician, counted among the most competent critics of modern cosmology (including both the General Theory of Relativity and popular theory of the Big Bang). He has also gained much attention for his systematic unraveling of standard Black Hole theory, showing that the mathematical model of a Black Hole follows neither from observation nor from any logical reasoning from Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity
Allan, here is an article pointing out many of the problems with the theory of evolution.The Scientific Case Against Evolutionby Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False -http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html
Oh my. The attacks on the theory of evolution are misconceived. For example, that"The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning."The point is that the environment culls AND breeding without interference (i.e., not human interference) produces very slight & more-than-slight changes which are still slight in the short run but very effective in the long run.However:This does not mean animals may not have a biological-spiritual interaction, or (not to use the term "spirit") mind-body deep interaction, which might push some changes at a cellular level in the DNA, whereby certain traits might express, not express, or even be reconfigured and affect sperm creation & sperm-egg interaction.If you want your God element, you can have it; but the basic insight is that animals derive from others, not placed on earth pre-formed.To become a modern Creationist is to take bits of Darwin's points (usually).Either way, then, let's not discount evolution in its basic tenet. Thanks. It gets dumb, real fast, to do that.If you wish to be very subtle, then yes, there are problems in the theory as discounting "Lamarckian" changes, of sorts. L's actual theory does not work, but the interaction of mind and body (if you will, a "spiritual" mystery), may affect what, in some cases, evolves.It is still evolution, not pre-placed animal types.
I am not meaning to support the "God Element".However, to state the humans were derived from apes is pure conjecture not based on any provable science. Can we show human DNA was derived from Ape DNA is the point.
911TNC: the proof is argument, as all things are. There are connected qualities in apes (not modern) & humans (not modern) -- including aspects of DNA. However, that there may be a serious break between us -- engineered by someone, some posit, or "random" but sudden, due to some change in radiation reaching the earth -- is also what some suggest.
'Evolution' as it is properly defined is simply 'change over time.' I'll check the links provided when i have wifi access (i'm on the road with a cell) but do they prove that life has not changed over time? (I do not believe in 'random mutations plus time' equals 'us'... due to... well, irreducible complexity, among other things...)
"but do they prove that life has not changed over time?"It has been shown/proved that species do change over time. The question that is in debate. Can it be shown that one species can evolved to another species over time.This is the point that Jan is addressing. I would like to see him accept a debate with you.
Jan would never debate me because my main point would be all the logical fallacies he commits while worshipping the trivium as a religion (see my open letter, linked above).i don't believe any species got here 'overnight', like boom! here we have an elephant! in a sense you either believe in evolution (as i define it, i.e., change over time, including to another species) or you believe in some version of Adam's rib magic. the latter doesn't work for me. but as i say, random mutations are not going to do it either. i believe in evolution with a purpose, i guess you could say.
A.C.: That's effectively intelligent design's position -- evolution but minus what they don't think has to be random.
Very informative post review. I am pleased to have come accross this article. I was eagerly looking for a post that give such information. Keep it up.I have some relevant information you can review below.Lipotol und ColonoxAbnehmen mit Lipotol
Today's science is Kabbalistic blather. It's seriously...arrested development the Protocols talked about. It's also used by Churchill in this hidden jewel of history. So many more even more riveting. WINSTON CHURCHILL SAID THIS ON FEB 8 1920 IN NEWSPAPER IN LONDON: "In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing…and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews."
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F: