UWI put one foot into RSPL final

first_img Looking back at the game, he said that although Portmore created some good chances, it was down to his team turning over the ball a lot. “A lot of their chances were as a result of turnovers. We have to correct the mistakes and come back,” he said. UWI should welcome back the experienced duo of defender Kemar Flemmings and midfielder Dawyne Smith, who missed the game due to different reasons. “We will have back Flemmings, who missed the game because of a one-match suspension, and Rick (Smith), who had work commitment. They will make the team stronger,” Peart explained. Patrick Brown, who entered the field as a substitute in the second half, scored the all-important goal. “It is a semi-final, so to come off the bench and score the winning goal is a great feeling,” Brown said. “We have to go back and focus on the second game. We will continue the good work and move on to the final,” he added. Meanwhile, losing coach Linval Dixon rued the missed chances. ‘We missed a lot of chances that we should have scored and it came back to haunt us,” Dixon reasoned. “We have to get ourselves ready for the second leg,” he added. In the other first-leg semi-final, Arnett Gardens face off against Humble Lion at the Anthony Spaulding Sports Complex in Trench Town tonight, starting at 8. The University of the West Indies (UWI) FC made a bold step towards a place in the Red Stripe Premier League (RSPL) final when they staged a come-from-behind 2-1 win against Portmore United yesterday at the Wembley Centre of Excellence in Clarendon. Portmore took the early lead when Ricardo Morris netted in the third minute. However, Girvon Brown equalised when he scored a header in the 22nd minute. Substitute Patrick Brown scored the winner in the 68th minute. The Portmore team had some clear chances to score, but were let down by faulty shooting from Morris, Cleon Pryce and second-half substitute Maalique Foster. UWI’s assistant coach, Andrew Peart said that it was a good feeling for his team after ending a four-game win-less streak during the late part of the preliminary stage. “Yes, we are satisfied with the team’s performance and victory, based on previous games in which we failed to win,” Peart told The Gleaner. He admitted that it was a slim lead, so the two-way tie was far from over. “We are fully aware that a one-goal lead is not much to play around with. We will go back home and prepare for the return game that is set for our home turf,” the coach said. GOOD CHANCESlast_img read more

More Dino Blood Found: Evolutionists in Denial

first_img“Can soft tissue survive 75 million years?” the caption in Science Magazine reads.No, it can’t. That’s why this cannot be original dinosaur soft tissue, some evolutionists are claiming in a news article in Science Magazine by Robert F. Service: “Signs of ancient cells and proteins found in dinosaur fossils.” Creationists have been proclaiming this evidence for a decade since Mary Schweitzer and Jack Horner found soft, stretchy tissue in a T. rex femur in 2005 (see 60 Minutes video), but evolutionists have either denied it, explained it away, or ignored it.  Can they ignore this news from America’s leading science journal?Because this was found in 8 bones tested, Service states that soft tissue in dinosaur bones may be common:The cupboards of the Natural History Museum in London hold spectacular dinosaur fossils, from 15-centimeter, serrated Tyrannosaurus rex teeth to a 4-meter-long hadrosaur tail. Now, researchers are reporting another spectacular find, buried in eight nondescript fossils from the same collection: what appear to be ancient red blood cells and fibers of ancient protein.Using new methods to peer deep inside fossils, the study in this week’s issue of Nature Communications backs up previous, controversial reports of such structures in dinosaur bones. It also suggests that soft tissue preservation may be more common than anyone had guessed. “It’s encouraging,” especially because the proteins were found in what appear to be the most unremarkable, ordinary bones, says Matthew Collins, an archaeologist and biochemist at the University of York in the United Kingdom. But he and others caution that the team hasn’t proven beyond doubt that the structures do contain ancient proteins.That’s right; they call it “encouraging,” as if paleontologists expected this or had not been denying it for a decade. This was the last thing evolutionists expected to find in bones thought tens of millions of years old.  “Proteins commonly decay hundreds to thousands of years after an organism dies, but in rare cases they have been known to survive up to 3 million years,” Service continues. That’s far short of the 75 million Darwin years needed to explain these new bones. Schweitzer found collagen in dinosaur bone previously, but others had not been able to replicate that find till now—and the results are shocking:What they found shocked them. Imaging the fresh-cut surfaces with scanning and transmission electron microscopes, “we didn’t see bone crystallites” as expected, Maidment says. “What we saw instead was soft tissue. It was completely unexpected. My initial response was these results are not real.”The U.K. team tested more fossils and ran microscopic samples from what appear to be collagen fibers through a mass spectrometer to get the weight of the component molecules. The weights came back as identical to those of the three most common amino acids in collagen, the team reports.The photo accompanying the article shows fibers that clearly look like collagen; they look nothing like pieces of rock or mineral. No DNA has been found yet, but co-discoverer Sarah Maidment is not ruling it out: “We haven’t found any in our fossils… however, I think it’s unwise to say we’ll never find any in [the] future” (BBC News). Sergio Bertazzo agrees: “It’s possible you could find fragments, but to find more than that? Who knows?” (The Guardian).Creationists are not shocked, because they believe dinosaurs died in the Flood just a few thousand years ago, like the Bible says. Secularists have treated that as mythology ever since Darwin and Lyell made it fashionable to think in terms of millions of years of earth history. Who has the empirical evidence now?  If the proteins are really from the dinosaur, it sets severe upper limits on the age of the material.Service doesn’t say anything else about the apparent “red blood cells” in the specimens. He ends with a sprinkle of doubt that the proteins are even real:But outsiders, including Schweitzer, say that the weights aren’t conclusive proof that the amino acids are real or that they came from a dinosaur rather than from bacteria or other contaminants. A different type of mass spectrometer that can provide the sequence of the amino acids in a protein fragment would strongly suggest the existence of collagen and replicate the earlier work, Collins says. Maidment says the team hopes to do such studies soon. If they succeed, the work may spur additional efforts to isolate dinosaur proteins and understand how they differed from those of their modern relatives.Service never again addresses the question, “Can soft tissue survive 75 million years?” No theory is presented about how it could last more than a few hundred thousand years, or 3 million at best. The two responses in this paragraph are: (1) deny it’s real, or (2) see what it can tell us about evolution. If that’s all, creationists are bound to celebrate this latest announcement (just one of a string of similar findings)  as a  “See? We told you so!” moment.The announcement comes just 3 days before “Jurassic World” hits the big screens around the world. The movie admits soft tissue exists, but claims that it can be preserved for millions of years by iron from hemoglobin in the dinosaur’s blood. This was a controversial claim by Mary Schweitzer in 2013 (11/16/13) that many other scientists find implausible (3/15/14).Correction: our initial post said that Service’s article was in Nature; it was in Science Magazine. The finding itself was reported in Nature Communications.Update 6/09/15: The news media are picking up on this story, suggesting it may get more traction this time around:Dinosaur blood cells extracted from 75-million-year-old fossil (New Scientist)Scientists out for dinosaur blood (PhysOrg)‘Blood cells’ found in dino fossils (BBC News)Found: preserved dinosaur cells – but sadly scientists still can’t build Jurassic World (Gareth Dyke in The Conversation)Dinosaur fossil investigation unlocks possible soft tissue treasure trove (Science Daily)Scientists See Signs of Dinosaur Blood in 75-Million-Year-Old Fossils (NBC News)75-million-year-old dinosaur blood and collagen discovered in fossil fragments (The Guardian)Paleontologists Discover Fossilized Dinosaur Blood (Popular Mechanics)How are reporters treating the obvious age implications? None of them mention creationists, the Bible, or the Flood. None of them even questions the Darwin ages of the bones. The attitude seems to be, “Well, what do you know; dinosaur blood can last for 75 million years. Let’s see what we can learn from it about evolution.”Perhaps the closest thing to skepticism is found in the last article: “the fossils contain some of their original biological proteins and amino acids—molecules that are thought to degrade completely after 4 million years,” the Popular Mechanics reporter says about statements by Susannah Maidment, the lead scientist at Imperial College London that published the findings. “‘This pushes that envelope back about 71 million years,” Maidment says. She adds that how or why these biological tissues managed to last for so long is a complete mystery. ‘We can only speculate, and there’s a lot of research that will be needed to explain how this sort of preservation has occurred.’” Her initial reaction is instructive: “”It was a total surprise,” Maidment says. “As a paleontologist my first thought was, ‘This is silly, there is absolutely no way this could be dinosaur blood’.”Update 6/09/15: The original paper in Nature Communications is open access, meaning everyone can read it and look at the evidence. The press release from Imperial College London is cautious: “potentially be red blood cells although the researchers caution that further evidence would be needed to confirm that the structures do not have another origin.” Maidment says, “Our study is helping us to see that preserved soft tissue may be more widespread in dinosaur fossils than we originally thought,” since their discoveries were made in “scrappy, poorly preserved fossils” instead of exceptionally-preserved ones. This suggests that a treasure trove of additional soft tissues are waiting to be uncovered. Mary Schweitzer, who made a splash with her soft tissue discovery in a T. rex a decade ago, calls it: “an exciting paper, particularly in showing what happens when you really look at ancient bone and are not bound by the expectation that ‘nothing could possibly persist’. If you don’t look, you won’t find. But if you do, you never know.” (BBC)Do you catch the importance of this?  It’s comparable to evolutionists stumbling upon the real Noah’s Ark. They cannot sustain the millions-of-years ages in light of this evidence. What will they do now?This will provide a highly visible test of evolutionists’ commitment to empiricism. If they continue to deny that this is evidence dinosaur bones are young, they deserve to get hammered. We’re seeing the leading edge of the toppling of evolutionists’ millions-of-years scheme, and with it, their whole theory of the history of the earth.  That’s too big a price for them to pay. If history is a guide, they will continue to be in a state of denial and carry on as if nothing happened. It’s up to the rest of us to get the word out.Creationists are also doing original research on this. Mark Armitage, who lost his job at California State University after publishing a paper on soft tissue in Triceratops horn that he found himself (11/05/14), is seeking funds to continue research. He posted a YouTube video responding to the Jurassic World claim. The osteocytes and cells he found in dinosaur bone never touch blood, he explains; therefore Schweitzer’s controversial explanation doesn’t work for bone cells (see ICR). If the bone cells are young, then the rest of the soft tissue cannot be millions of years old.(Visited 524 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享9last_img read more

Cinematography Guide: The Effective Use of the Close-Up

first_imgClose-ups have a range of uses, from comedy to horror, but as a general rule, you should use them sparingly. Here are a few reasons why.The close-up is one of the most common tools in visual storytelling, and when used correctly, it is very powerful. It allows the filmmaker to connect the audience with the subject on a deeper emotional level. But if you overuse it, the effect wears off quickly, and the film feels claustrophobic and cramped. Let’s take a look at few situations when you should, and when you shouldn’t, use a close-up.Emotional ContagionIn “Catching Characters’ Emotions,” Amy Coplan discusses the involuntary psychological response known as “emotional contagion,” wherein a person will mimic and (to a degree) feel the emotions of the people around them — or in this case, the characters in a film. Coplan uses the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan to make her point. At the beginning of the film, we do not know the characters’ back stories or personalities or motivations. But through the strategic use of close-ups, Spielberg connects the audience to these characters on an emotional level.The initial close-ups cause us to “catch” emotions, so as the rest of the scene plays out, we’re already invested in the characters’ well-being. Coplan writes, “Emotional contagion is not a deliberate or intellectual process but one that takes place involuntarily and unconsciously.” This is the power of the close-up. Regardless of the viewer’s immersion into the plot and suspension of disbelief, if the viewer is watching, chances are that, at the very least, a close-up with a powerful emotional performance will draw them in.Emotional EnduranceA thought, then, might be to use the close-up as much as possible in order to draw in and maintain the audience’s emotional attention. However, there are inherent flaws with this approach. First of all, we can only experience emotions for so long before we become mentally and physically worn out. Yes, moods last for a long period of time, but the initial experience of an emotion is brief. By the time we get to the close-up that matters, they all feel just the same.Check out this short film, “Uisce Beatha,” about an Irishman who misses his boat (the Titanic) to emigrate to America.The film is almost entirely shot using close-ups. Aside from making everything feel cramped and uncomfortable, the close-up loses its effect. There is no differentiation between a close-up during our protagonist’s regular conversations and one wherein his father is weeping. After so much emotional contagion, we’re emotionally fatigued. By the time we’re supposed to be moved by a crying father, we’re spent!The notion is similar to the jump scare. If a horror film relies only on jump scares, then most of us will eventually stop caring, and each subsequent scare will be predictable and ineffective. Watch this scene from The Haunting. Not only does it use the close-up effectively, it’s also a good use of the jump scare.The proper use of the close-up intensifies the jump scare. As our characters come together and begin to move back down the staircase, the camera pulls out to wider shots, allowing us to relax from the tension for a moment. Then, suddenly, we jump back into a close-up as the doctor’s wife emerges from a trap door, practically shoving her terrified expression into our faces. This dramatic change of composition is unsettling, and it is made even more powerful by the emotional contagion that occurs as we witness the look of horror.ContextStorytelling relies on context. The twist at the end of The Sixth Sense has little power without the entire film that precedes it. Coplan writes, “Emotional contagion leads to a synchrony between individuals, but this synchrony is not sufficient for understanding.”Out of context, the close-up will only elicit the experience of an emotion, not an understanding of it. If the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan were only close-ups of worried faces, than that’s all we would feel: worry. When the camera pulls out to show the battle taking place, we receive context for these emotions and are then able to actually relate to and grow with each character — as opposed to simply mimicking the characters’ emotions.When possible, the close-up should emphasize emotions and thoughts within a grander context. In Superbad, we see a close-up used exactly that way.For most of the scene, we see mid shots and wides of the characters in their environments and how they interact with each other. We only cut in to close-ups to emphasize the characters’ anger, disbelief, and fear. This uses the close-up as a tool for emphasis.Body LanguageMuch of our interpersonal communication relies on body language. Body language not only emotionally emphasizes words and ideas, it also conveys important characteristics of the subjects on-screen. The way characters move and comport themselves is critical to understanding who they are. Obviously, then, shooting too many close-ups hinders viewers’ ability to read characters’ body language.Compare these two scenes and how each one handles the close-up.CyrusCasino RoyaleThe performances in both are very well done, but in Casino Royale, we see more mid and wide shots of the conversation. This gives us a better view of these two characters moving about in space (even the limited space of a dinner table) — it also helps us step back from their faces. In Cyrus, we are crammed up against John C. Reilly and Jonah Hill’s faces for the entirety of their conversation. This creates a sense that these two characters are practically motionless beings.The Close-Up for EmphasisWith today’s smaller screens, it’s easy to fall into a habit of shooting mostly close-ups. A face filling a phone or television screen for most of an hour isn’t as obnoxious as one that fills a theater screen. But regardless of the size of the screen, the close-up is a powerful tool that requires moderation.As with all art, however, “rules” are really just guidance. This is not to say that close-ups can only be and are only effective in specific emotional moments. But the new filmmaker should approach the close-up with a certain degree of respect. Unless there is a thematic or narrative reason to shoot mostly close-ups (i.e., creating a sense of claustrophobia, paranoia, etc.), avoid falling into the habit of shooting entire sequences (or films, for that matter) in only close-ups. Use them sparingly.The close-up is an intimate moment, a look into a character’s mind. Find the moments when its use would create the most impact.Cover image via Casino Royale (Sony Pictures Releasing).Looking for more articles on film and video production? Check these out.Back to Basics: Mastering Wide and Close-up ShotsHow to Design a Close-Up Shot — And When You Should Use ItHow to Organically Incorporate Close-Ups Into Your EditHow to Shoot Close-Up Shots Like Sergio LeoneCinematography Tip: How the Pros Frame a Close-Uplast_img read more