Piecing together the Confusion

BBC and Der Spiegel have both reported on the recomposition of the destroyed Andra Mantegna fresco in the 13th century church of the Eremitani, in Padua, Italy.

The church was destroyed during an Allied bombing raid in March 1944, reducing the majestic fresco to dust and chunklets.

The church was rebuilt after the war, but restoring the fresco presented seemingly insurmountable problems, as the only pictures of the work were in black and white.

But through the Miracle of Math, artists and mathematicians have been able to recompose the fresco using algorithms to "paint" the colour gradations between the extant pieces or "points" of the picture.




So at least we have a cyber fresco. But if this is possible, why not a holographic reconstruction of the Roman Forum?

And if we can mathematically reconstruct the Forum, why not also the events that took place in it? If we have reported "chunklets" of history, why not use algorithms to fill in the unkown spaces between event-points?

The days of Star Trek's holodeck are nigh! And this is truly a fascinating prospect; for, if we can "dial into" whatever holographic replay of the past we want, why not decide to live in whatever era we chose? At age 21 we would have a choice of which historical period we want to live in (for life).

All this, thanks to Allied bombing.

According to Der Spiegel, the Church of the Eremitani blasted to smithereens during a raid on "nearby" German headquarters, and this event-piece of the "reconstructed past" was found in several other places on the net as well.

Uh... how nearby? We have been to Italy, and one remarkable thing (at least to hemispheric Americans) is how small the cities are. Is the crowded downtown of crooked, narrow streets the place for a "headquarters" in the middle of a war? It is certainly possible, but the more likely place -- easily and quickly accessible by vehicles -- would be on the more modern outskirts of the city.

So we went agoogling.

Not surprisingly, there was no confirmation of the "headquarters" excuse. It is beyond dispute that the Church of the Eremitani was destroyed during a bombing raid on 11 March 1944, conducted by the US Army 2nd Bombardment Group (H), 429th Squadron. (The Second Was First (1999) ISBN 0-9675054-0-2.)

The sortie log states:

"Twenty aircraft dropped 60 tons of 500-lb. GP bombs on Marshalling Yards on the west side of Padua."

"Photos showed considerable damage in the north yards and direct hits on repair sheds and warehouses."

The photos show:

Le Ferrovie Italiane durante La Second Guerra...

(www.trenidicarta.it/bombesuibinari/padova.html)

That hardly looks like centre-ville. But just to make sure, we googled an aerial map of Padua showing the location of the Marshalling Yards and the Eremitani Church.




The sortie log for the Bomber Group, states,

"Confusion over the target resulted in two runs being made on the target. The first time over, the rear half of the Group dropped its bombs while the forward half did not for fear of dropping bombs on another Group on a different axis of attack. The whole Group went over the target a second time and the forward half bombed."

Quite some confusion!

Actually, the confusion was the result of General Indifference. For bombing purposes Italian cities were ranked "A" "B" "C". "A" cities were off limits. "B" cities were subject to slow go special case bombing. "C" cities were "who gives a fuck?"

Padua was classed "C"

"This is the story of the men of the Second Bombardment Group (Heavy) .... They were the cream of America’s youth. May their names, and deeds, never be forgotten."

.

Does Research Make You Stupid?

The UK Independent runs a story today entitled "Does Running make You Fat?" This nugget of sagacity explains "Many of us take up jogging to help lose weight. But the latest research shows it could have just the opposite effect. Sophie Morris, who ran a marathon and ended up heavier, explains why."

It turns out that Sophie Morris pigged out after her runs. ""People gravitate towards rewarding themselves after exercise with sweet treats," says researcher James Duigan. Morris confirms by informing us that her runs were accompanied by "Two breakfasts, minimum, and then protein-based snacks before and after runs. Ah yes, and the cake"

Does anyone know the meaning of "it"? Running did not have the opposite effect, overeating did.

Well running tends to cause people to overeat does it not? No. Some of the blobbiest people I see are riding shopping carts down the candy aisle at Walmarts, and I am scientifically certain that they don't run -- or jog -- anywhere. It -- jogging or running -- did not cause them to blob out and waddle down the candy aisle. Sugar did.

The problem with all these health and medical research studies is that they don't adhere to the simple rules of grammar and thus create a confusing profusion of "astonishing new discoveries" which conflict with "astonishing old discoveries" leaving the public beaten into perpetual befuddlement by too much cheap information.

Everyone's metabolism and body is slightly different. But within a general range certain evident rules apply. Exercise expends calories. The body wants to replenish the calories expended. This is known as hunger. If you replace what you spend, you will stay the same weight. If you replace less, you will loose weight and if you replace more you will gain weight. The trick is managing one's hunger and understanding what foods trigger more hunger than they satisfy. The answer once again is : sugars. (Sugar, refined grains, junk foods.)

After a long intense run, most people do want quick-energy; that is, sugar. In what is certainly an amazing act of telepathic or gravitational communication (worthy of a study), the Snickers bar on the counter triggers the salivary glands. "An apple is rarely appealing after you've worked up a sweat," our researchers inform us. Well.... duh. What are we trying to do? Are we trying to indulge our tastebuds or get into shape?

"We feel we have worked hard and desrve a reward...." Well... duh again. What kind of reward do we want? Do we want the reward of tasty food or do we want the reward of looking good because we are in fact feeling good? It is amazing how much "research" and much "training advice" simply distracts people from making clear cut decisions and sticking with them.

The Independent article goes on to provide a bunch of interesting statistics on how low level aerobic activity (raking leaves) stimulates more hunger more quickly after work than high intensity anaerobic activity which tends to depress hunger, but how, on the other hand a balance of 27.5% low level aerobic + 32.5% hi intensity anaerobic aerobic excercise followed by 50% medium intensity resistance training will achieve the optimum hunger suppression/stimulation ratio.... Or whatever.

The eager acolyte, after hours on his or her butt figuring out the best possible routine, then tries to accomodate his work outs into the appropriate breakdown... has a miserable time, tries to tune out from the whole grim process by listenign to stock options on his iThing while jogging, doesn't pay attention to that little soreness around the ankle, injures himself and (with secret relief at having a bona fide excuse) "skips" the morning run while rustling up some bacon and eggs.... and toast n' jam.

Isn't it wonderful we live in the Age of Research?

.