Tentukan sendiri jalan cerita selanjutnya.

Tentukan sendiri jalan cerita selanjutnya.
SET YOURSELF THE NEXT STORY

Ads : 1 USD forever

This blog started to be written January 11, 2015.
Advertise your products and services here.
With 1 USD then your ad posted in the article forever.
1 USD per article forever.

A story with tens of thousands of articles.

A story with tens of thousands of articles.
life and death, blessing and cursing, from the main character in the hands of readers.

Campaign : Support my book "The ultimate guide to get life on earth as in heaven."

Campaign : Support my book "The ultimate guide to get life on earth as in heaven."
Campaign started October 17, 2015 (45 days)

Your contribution to my campaign

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Does Using Airplanes to Put out Forest Fires Actually Work?

Need a professional writer? Fiction and non-fiction? contact richard.nata@yahoo.co.id


Does Using Airplanes to Put out Forest Fires Actually Work?

By Ben Christopher · 9,531 views

Flying an aircraft into the fiery maw of a raging wildfire is just as dangerous as it sounds.
Early one morning in August of 2001, Scott Vail received a report of a fire burning in an isolated corner of California’s Eldorado National Forest. The wildfire had caught at the bottom of a deep canyon, and so Vail, then the Forest Service’s Fire Chief for Eldorado, chose to send out a forest helicopter with a ground crew following behind.
Throughout the morning, the helicopter delivered water to the fire’s perimeter, 500 gallons at a time, in support of the crew and the fire engines below. But as the day wore on, winds started gusting off of the fire. Four hours into the operation, a draft caught the helicopter's empty bucket, swinging it out from under the belly of the aircraft and over its tailboom. The pilot was able to make an emergency landing without damage or injury, but Vail was forced to pull the helicopter and ground crew out of the canyon.
The Star Fire of 2001 would go on to climb out of the canyon and scorch over 16,500 acres across the central Sierra. The helitack crew under Vail’s command escaped crash and flame, but not all aerial firefighters were so lucky that week. 
That Monday, some 250 miles to the west, two Grumman TS-2A airtankers had collided while battling a fire near Hopland. The pilots in both planes had been killed.
“Flying a big aircraft through inhospitable terrain with outflow winds is not for me,” says Vail, who has since retired from the Forest Service after a 34-year career. “I liked being in helitack, as helicopters can be more forgiving if something goes wrong, but I don’t spend much time in them if I don’t have to.”
Vail’s trepidation is warranted. Wildland firefighting is dangerous in its own right, even without the addition of military-grade aircraft. Since wildfire fighting became the business of the federal government in 1910, nearly 1,100 firefighters have died in the field. More aggressive firefighting policy and more severe fires have escalated the death rate. According to an analysis by the CDC, over 20 firefighters died each year between 2000-2013. A quarter of these were aviation-related. 
That’s a staggeringly disproportionate death toll. Though total employment statistics for wildland firefighters are hard to come by, the number of ground crew working a single wildfire can number in the thousands, while those aboard planes and helicopters are not likely to exceed a few dozen. Aerial firefighting is a risky business.
And it’s a risk that many believe is taken far too frequently. Aerial firefighting—by helicopter, scooper plane, or chemical retardant-bearing airtanker—is dangerous, but it is also expensive, regularly misused, and, as some experts argue, emblematic of a long-standing, but entirely misguided, approach to U.S. forest fire policy. While wildland firefighters and forest fire researchers agree that the “aerial attack” can be an important component of effective firefighting strategy, its imprudent use can come at a steep financial, ecological, and human price.
And for that, we the public might bear some of the blame.
Fly for the Cameras
When a wildfire is raging, ground crew will burn, bulldoze, or hack away combustible biomass in advance of the coming flames in order to starve and contain them. Fireline construction is grueling, necessary, and effective work—and it makes for lousy television.
Not so of fire aviation. When a decommissioned DC-10 soars low over the landscape and empties a bellyful of crimson chemical dust onto the treetops, it may or may not be doing any good, but it certainly looks effective.
“For sixty years now, the sign of active fire protection has been an airplane dropping retardant or a helicopter dropping water,” says Stephen Pyne, a professor of history at Arizona State University and the author of over a dozen books on wildfire. “The public expects it."
In many cases, the public demands it too. Media optics aside, firefighting authorities are under pressure from the public and policymakers alike to throw everything they can at a raging wildfire—especially when life and property are at risk. A highly visible retardant drop can serve as an insurance policy by elected officials and firefighters against future complaints that not enough was done. Cynics have a term for the unnecessary use of aerial resources to fight wildfire: “the CNN drop.”
Aerial firefighting resources have long served a public relations role. In the aftermath of World War I, the federal government used decommissioned British biplanes to scout for fires and deliver messages, but also to lend a degree of credibility to the newly created Forest Service. Amid a debate between western landowners, who would regularly set small fires to reduce fuel buildup on their land, and the anti-fire foresters in Washington D.C., the planes helped to mobilize support for the government’s new war against forest fires.
That war is ongoing. Adopting uniforms based on those of the U.S. Army, conducting joint research with the military, and using surplus military aircraft after World War II and the Korean War, the Forest Service’s fire fighting machine expanded dramatically in the late 1950s and adopted a decidedly militaristic posture. Even the firefighting nomenclature invited comparisons to the battlefield: the person who directs the firefight is the “incident commander,” the first response is called the “initial attack.”  
“Fire was called 'the Red Menace,'” says Pyne. “That reinforces the sense that you are at war with fire—which was never the case and is a really, really bad idea.”
The Price of Smokey the Bear
Not all forest fires are bad. In fact, as many experts argue, over the last century, we haven't had nearly enough of them.
It's a counterintuitive view, but it's one that Pyne shares with most ecologists and forest researchers. The story goes like this: many ecosystems in the American west adapted to the regular presence of fire. Historically, when these fires burned through a forest, they ripped through the grass and brush. But, absent a more substantial fuel source, the fires would peter out before doing serious damage to the bigger trees. Enter the Forest Service in 1905 with its traditional strategy of fire suppression above all else and you get an unprecedented, century-long build up of fuel. 
And while the agency has modified its formal policy in recent years to allow for more “managed wildfire,” according to a report coauthored by one of the Service’s own research scientists, risk aversion and mismanagement within the agency has meant that policy on the ground has changed little. In the last decade, less than half of one percent of all fires have been allowed to burn. This policy, in concert with climate change, is a recipe for massive and massively destructive forest fires.
It's also a justification for the extensive use of airplanes, says Pyne. "When we have a universal policy that every fire is put out by 10 o'clock the next day, you're going to have to use aircraft heavily," he says. And that can get pretty expensive.
Since 1985, the Forest Service, along with the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the National Park Service, have collectively boosted spending on all fire suppression activities—both in the air and on the ground—by four-fold, from $533 million to over $2 billion.
Data: National Interagency Fire Center, inflation-adjusted to 2015 dollars.
There are a host of potential reasons for the spending surge—climate change, drought, fuel buildup, and the encroachment of human development into traditional wilderness areas—but whatever the cause, it has crowded out other potentially valuable investments in land management, research, recreation, and future fire prevention. According to a Forest Servicereport, 16% of the Forest Service's 1995 budget went to putting out fires. Last year, it was 52%.
Aerial firefighting makes up a sizable share of those costs. A 2009 report by the Government Accountability Office suggested that aviation activities claim up to one-third of all federal firefighting expenditure. Not surprisingly, the largest source of these aviation costs are associated with the aircraft themselves. In the case of the Forest Service, planes and helicopters are most often leased from private contractors, a group that Pyne half-jokingly refers to as members of a "fire-industrial complex...a set of lobbyists for more firefighting."
The high price tag on these aircraft might be worth the expense, if they were being put to use effectively. But evidence suggests that they are not.  
Speed and Access
First, let's start with a basic, if counterintuitive, fact: airplanes and helicopters rarely put out forest fires.
No matter how large an airplane and its liquid payload may seem from the ground (or on a TV screen), both are generally too small and their aim too imprecise to completely extinguish a serious conflagration. The effect is a bit like spitting on a campfire. 
Instead, these aircraft provide support to the ground crew. When a large plane dumps a cloud of red retardant at the site of a forest fire, it helps build a fireline by painting a flame resistant chemical cordon around the flames. Likewise, when a helicopter or a small scooper plane dumps water directly onto an inferno, it is doing so to tamp things down before firefighters on the ground can arrive to encircle the area with firebreaks.
Thus, the conventional wisdom in firefighting circles is that aviation resources should be used in the "initial attack," those first precious hours of a nascent wildfire's existence, in order to keep the conflagration in a holding pattern and buy time for the firefighters on the ground.
Matt Plucinski is one of the scientists who helped to make this wisdom conventional. In a series of papers published throughout the late 2000s, the bushfire research scientist at Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization evaluated the effectiveness of airplanes and helicopters in various firefighting scenarios. According to his results, timing is everything.
"I could summarize my previous research in one sentence, and that's that 'small fires are easier to put out than big ones,'" he says. By reaching a wildfire early, aerial firefighters increase the probability that a small, manageable fire will not become a large, unmanageable one. In this respect, he says, the key advantage of aircraft is their speed and their ability to access remote or otherwise difficult to reach fires.
But as the hours drag on and a fire continues to spread, the value of sending out additional aircraft becomes more of an open question, says Plucinski. Raging, acres-wide firestorms tend to rage on regardless of how many buckets of water you dump on them. Choking off such a large fire with extensive firelines has proven effective, but from a scientific perspective, it is nearly impossible to determine what kind of effect a plane or a helicopter has on a large fire—if it has one at all.
Photo Credit: Sgt. Jonathan C. Thibault, U.S. Army
As a matter of policy, the Forest Service has responded to this absence of evidence by prioritizing the use of its most expensive and scarce aerial resources for the so-called initial attack. But as a matter of practice, this has not been the case.
In 2012, a team of Forest Service research scientists reviewed flight records for large retardant-bearing airtankers going back nearly 20 years. The team found that nearly 50% of all tanker flights were used after that initial window of effectiveness had closed. In other words, roughly half of all airtanker flights in the United States during that time period had potentially no effect on wildfire suppression. If true, the implication of the finding is troubling: that’s hundreds of pilots and flight crew needlessly at risk and millions of gallons of potentially toxic flame retardant dumped on our national forests. It also implies an unnecessarily large bill for the federal government.
"Retardant costs about $3 a gallon," explains Edward G. Keating, a senior economist at the RAND Corporation. "When you're dropping 3,000 gallons per drop, that's $9,000 every time." In contrast, he says, water scooped from a nearby lake is free.
That's one reason why when Keating and a number of his colleague at RAND were commissioned by the US Forest Service in 2012 to rethink the agency's aerial fleet, theyrecommended an emphasis on "scoopers." Smaller and much cheaper than the large air tankers favored by the Forest Service, these water-bearing planes can deliver more payload at a cheaper price more frequently.
According to Keating, the Forest Service did not refute his findings, but they were nonetheless met with "general grousing."
"The Forest Service loves its retardant-bearing aircraft," he says. 
The Fault is Not in Our Planes...
Still, as U.S. fire fighting policy evolves, there are small reasons to celebrate.
Potentially misguided aircraft transactions are certainly a marked improvement over the dark days of the early 2000s, when the Forest Service’s dilapidated fleet was falling apart—in some cases, literally. On July 17, 2002, an airtanker carrying retardant near the California-Nevada border broke up in the air. The next day, the left wing fell off an airtanker in Colorado. Between the two crashes, five Forest Service contractors were killed in 48 hours.
“We were crashing two-and-a-half flight crews a year,” recalls retired Fire Chief, Scott Vail. Then, as now, the Forest Service’s entire fleet numbered in the mid-tens. “If you extrapolated that percentage to fire crews, the public wouldn’t stand for it.”
Things have changed in the last decade. In response to the wave of crashes—and later to the criticisms and recommendations leveled by the GAO, by RAND, and by the Forest Service's own research scientists—the agency has retired its oldest aircrafts, increased the number of water scoopers in its fleet, and chartered an internal "Aerial Firefighting Use and Effectiveness" study. This has all taken place in context of a broader national push by all land management agencies for a coordinated strategy on wildfire management—a strategy that considers not only the financial and human costs of fire, but also its ecological benefits.  
On the ground, fire crews have also learned by experience, says Vail, though “too many people had to die to get to where we are.”
But even the clearest policy will not prevent all accidents. Though academics may criticize the overuse of certain aerial resources, Vail insists that the decision to send in the planes or choppers is not an easy decision.
“Am I putting these aviators at risk so that I can take care of something that maybe a handcrew or an engine could take care of it they walked a little further?” says Vail. “That’s the thing that has to go through your mind.”
And even when you make the right decision, things can still go wrong, he says.
The Star Fire that Vail battled in 2001 offers a telling example of the limits of even highly effective wildfire management technique. In response to the early reports of a fire, a helicopter had been dispatched to provide early assistance as part of the initial attack. Vail and his team followed up with a second round of aerial bombardment until the fire reached a certain threshold. Recognizing that additional aircraft would not longer be effective, he pulled back. The response to the fire, in other words, had been by the book. The fire spread anyway.
Though fighting forest fire from the air may seem miraculous, it is no godsend. That, says Vail, has been a difficult lesson for many to learn—and a difficult message for the Forest Service to convey. If airplanes and helicopters are overused, it is because citizens too often expect them to show up and perform the impossible.
"Some of these fires are going to be intractable," he says. "No matter what you have up there."
Our next article looks at how Korea's Kimchi Institute tries to capture the hearts and minds of foreigners through their stomachs. To get notified when we post it    join our email list.

Resource: http://priceonomics.com/does-using-airplanes-to-put-out-forest-fires/




Love this Post? Spread the Word.



Need a professional writer? Fiction and non-fiction? contact richard.nata@yahoo.co.id

How to Whiten Your Skin Naturally - 100% Guarantee!

natural anti-aging shortcuts

the fat burning kitchen

Top secret fat loss


My STARTUP :

Let me introduce myself. My name is Richard Nata. I am an author, novelist, blogger and ghost writer. My articles, including short stories have been published in magazines and newspapers since 1994. I have written a lot of books, both fiction and non-fiction. So I was a professional in the field of writing, both fiction and non-fiction.

I was born in Jakarta, August 17, 1968.  

In 1988, at the age of 20 years, I started working as an accounting staff. Age 24 years has occupied the position of Finance Manager. Age 26 years as a General Manager.

In 1994, my articles published in magazines and tabloids.

In 1997, I wrote a book entitled "Buku Pintar Mencari Kerja". This book is reprinted as much as 8 times. Through the book, the authors successfully helped tens of thousands of people get jobs at once successful in their careers. They were also successful when moving to work in other places.

In 1998, I started investing in shares on Bursa Efek Indonesia (Indonesia stock exchange). As a result of investing in the stock market then I can provide consulting services for companies that want to go public in Indonesia stock exchange.

more information :
1. IPO KAN PERUSAHAAN ANDA DI BEI, TRIK TERCEPAT MENJADIKAN ANDA SEORANG KONGLOMERAT. brand, ideas, story, style, my life: IPO KAN PERUSAHAAN ANDA DI BEI, TRIK TERCEPAT MENJADIKAN ANDA SEORANG KONGLOMERAT.
2. JASA KONSULTAN GO PUBLIC ( IPO ) DI BURSA EFEK INDONESIA. 


BUKU PINTAR DAPAT KERJA GAJI TINGGI PINDAH KERJA GAJI SEMAKIN TINGGI made by retyping the book BEST SELLER of the author, entitled “Buku Pintar Mencari Kerja”. This ebook available on google play.

In 2015, I had the idea of a startup company where the readers can decide for themselves the next story. WASN'T THIS A GREAT IDEA? IF can be realized WILL BE WORTH billions USD. Because CAN PRODUCE FOR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS even tens of millions USD annually. 

In theory, in 10-20 years into the future, my startup income, amounting to hundreds of million USD annually can be obtained easily. AND IF FOLLOWED BY MANY COMPANIES IN THE WHOLE WORLD WILL THEN BE A NEW INDUSTRIAL worth trillions USD. 

To be honest. Currently I'm not having a lot of money. So I start marketing my startup with blogspot.

My STARTUP :


A story with millions of choices in it - looking investor like you.



Try to imagine this. When you're reading a story on the web or blog, you are given two choices. You can choose the next story based on your own choice. After selecting then you can continue reading the story. Shortly afterwards you will be presented back to the 2 other options. The next choice is up to you. Then you continue the story you are reading. After that you will be faced again with 2 choices. So onwards. The more stories you read so the more options you have taken.


If you feel curious then you can re-read the story by changing your selection. Then you will see a different story with the story that you have read previously. The question now is why is this so? Because the storyline will be varying according to your choice. 


I, as the author is planning to make tens of thousands of articles with millions of choices in it. With tens of thousands of articles then you like to see a show of your favorite series on TV for several years. The difference is while watching your favorite TV series, then you can not change the story. Meanwhile, if you read this story then you can alter the way the story according to your own choice.

You might say like this. Sounds like a book "choose your own adventure". Books I read when I was young.

Correctly. The idea is taken from there. But if you read through a book, the story is not so exciting. Due to the limited number of pages. When a child first you may already feel interesting. But if you re-read the book now then becomes no fun anymore because you don't get anything with the amount of 100-200 pages. 

Have you ever heard of game books?  When you were boy or girl, did you like reading game books? I think you've heard even happy to read it.

Gamebooks are sometimes informally called choose your own adventure books or CYOA which is also the name of the Choose Your Own Adventure series published byBantam BooksGamebook - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gamebook - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A gamebook is a work of fiction that allows the reader to participate in the story by making effective choices. The narrative branches along various paths through the use of numbered paragraphs or pages.
Lihat preview menurut Yahoo

Bantam Books with the Choose Your Own Adventure 

series has produced more than 250 million US 

dollars. While I offer you more powerful than the Choose 

Your Own Adventure. Because of what? Because the 

story that I made much more interesting than the stories 

created by the authors of Bantam Books. You will not get anything just to 100-200 pages. While the story that I created is made up of tens of thousands of articles with millions of choices in it.

For comparison are the books published with the theme "choose your own adventure" produces more than 250 million copies worldwide. If the average price of a book for 5 USD, the industry has produced more than 1.5 billion USD. But unfortunately this industry has been abandoned because the reader begins to feel bored. The last book was published entitled "The Gorillas of Uganda (prev." Search for the Mountain Gorillas ")". And this book was published in 2013.

Based on the above, then you are faced with two choices. Are you interested in reading my story is? Or you are not interested at all. The choice is in your hands.
If you are interested then spread widely disseminated this article to your family, friends, neighbors, and relatives. You can also distribute it on facebook, twitter, goggle +, or other social media that this article be viral in the world. By doing so it is a new entertainment industry has been created.

Its creator named Richard Nata.

The full articles that talks about this: 
  



WHY DO I NEED STARTUP FUNDS FROM INVESTORS? I NEED A LOT OF FUNDS FROM INVESTORS BECAUSE I HAVE TO LOOKING FOR EXPERT PROGRAMMERS(IT).BECAUSE THE DATA IS HANDLED IS VERY LARGE, IT MAY HAVE TO WEAR SOME PROGRAMMERS(IT).

I CAN NOT WEAR SOME FREELANCE PROGRAMMER BECAUSE THE DATA MUST BE MONITORED CONTINUOUSLY FROM VIRUSES, MALWARE, SPAM, AND OTHERS.

IN ADDITION FUNDS FROM INVESTORS IS ALSO USED TO BUY SERVERS WITH VERY LARGE CAPACITY. FUNDS ARE ALSO USED TO PAY EMPLOYEE SALARIES AND OPERATIONAL COSTS OF THE COMPANY.

FUNDS CAN ALSO BE USED FOR ADVERTISING AND OTHER MARKETING STRATEGIES.FUNDS CAN ALSO BE USED TO ADVERTISE MY STARTUP AND OTHER MARKETING STRATEGIES.

IF I GET A VERY LARGE FUND, THE PART OF THE FUNDS USED TO TRANSLATE THE STORY INTO VARIOUS LANGUAGES.With more and more languages, the more readers we get.
WITH MORE AND MORE READERS, THE MORE REVENUE WE GET. 

AS AN INVESTOR THEN YOU DO NOT HAVE TO FEEL ANXIOUS ABOUT YOUR FUNDS. BECAUSE YOUR FUNDS WILL NEVER BE LOST BECAUSE IN 3-5 YEARS YOU HAVE RETURNED THE FUNDS COUPLED WITH PROFIT.
THIS BUSINESS IS ONE AND THE ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD.

If we can make a good story, so that the readers will 

come again and again for further reading the story then 

our earnings will continue to grow and will never 

diminish. This is due to new readers who continued  to 

arrive, while long remained loyal readers become our 

customers.

So that the number of our readers will continue to 

multiply over time. With the increasing number of loyal 

readership then automatically the amount of income we 

will also grow larger every year. The same thing 

happened in yahoo, google, facebook, twitter, linkedin, 

and others when they still startup.

Deuteronomy {28:13} And the LORD shall make thee the 

head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and 

thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do [them: ]

Try to imagine this. If I give a very unique story. It was the first time in the world. But the world already know this story even liked it. Because the world love the game books. While the story that I made is the development of game books.
Do you Believe if I dare say if I will succeed because my story will be famous all over the world as Harry Potter?
I believe it. Not because I was the author of the story, but because of the story that I made is unique and the only one in the world. 
Income from my startup :
1. Ads. With millions of unique visitors, the price of the ads will be expensive.
2. Affiliate marketing. In addition to advertising, we are also able to put up some banner from affiliate marketing.
3. Contribution of the readers. If you have a million readers and every reader to pay one US dollar per year then you will get the income of one million US dollars per year. 
If you have a million readers and every reader to pay one US dollar per month then you will get as much revenue twelve million US dollars per year.
4. Books and Comics. After getting hundreds of thousands to the millions of readers of the story will be made in books and the form of a picture story (comics).
5. Movies. If we have a good story with millions of readers then quickly we will be offered to make a film based on the story.
6. Merchandise related to characters. After the movies there will be made an offer for the sale of goods related to the characters.
7. Sales. With millions of email that we have collected from our readers so we can sell anything to them.
    Each income (1-7) worth millions to tens of millions of US dollars. 
    Because each income (1-7) worth millions to tens of millions of US dollars. Then in 10-20 years into the future, AI will be earning hundreds of million USD annually.
So how long do you think my story that I made could gather a thousand readers? Ten thousand readers? One hundred thousand readers? A million readers? Five million readers? Ten million readers? More than ten million readers?
But to get all of it of course takes time, can not be instant. In addition, it takes hard work, big funds and placement of the right people in the right positions.
By advertising, viral marketing, strong marketing strategies and SEO then a million readers can be done in less than a year. Ten million readers can be done in two to three years.
This is the marketing strategy of my startup.
When hundreds of thousands or millions of readers already liked my story then they have to pay to enjoy the story that I made.
If you are a visionary then you will think like this.
With the help of my great name in the world of business, my expertise in marketing, advertising, marketing by mouth, viral marketing, then collecting a million readers to ten million readers will be easy to obtain. Is not that right?
The question now is what if people like my story as they like Harry Potter? You will get tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of email addresses from readers. With that much email, we can sell anything to the readers.
Since April 2013, Wikipedia has around 26 million articles in 285 languages are written by 39 million registered users and a variety of anonymous people who are not known from other parts of the world.  Web ranked by Alexa, Wikipedia is a famous website number 6 which has been visited by 12% of all Internet users with 80 million visitors every month and it is only from the calculation of America.

resource : http://www.tahupedia.com/content/show/136/Sejarah-dan-Asal-Mula-Wikipedia

If no Wikipedia then need hundreds of thousands to millions of books required to make 26 million articles in 285 languages into books.

With the Wikipedia then people started to leave to read a book or books to seek knowledge about a subject or many subjects.

The same thing will happen. Read a story in a book or books to be abandoned. Read a story with millions of choices on the web or blog is far more interesting than reading a book or books. 

So what happens next? In 10-20 years ahead then read a story in a book to be abandoned. Otherwise my startup will grow and continue to develop into a new entertainment industry.

New entertainment industry, where I was a forerunner startup will continue to evolve. 
Therefore, in 10-20 years into the future, my startup will be earning hundreds of million USD annually.

So do not delay. Invest your money immediately to my startup. Take A Look. There are so many advantages if you want to invest in my startup.
WHY YOU SHOULD INVEST YOUR MONEY RIGHT NOW? .
IF YOU INVEST YOUR FUNDS IN ONE, TWO OR THREE YEARS INTO THE FUTURE, YOU MAY BE TOO LATE.
BECAUSE IN 1-3 YEARS INTO THE FUTURE THEN I'VE GOT THE FUNDS. THE FUNDS CAN COME FROM SOME INVESTORS, LOANS FROM BANKS OR FROM ADVERTISEMENTS POSTED ON MY BLOG.

IF I'VE GOT A LARGE AMOUNT OF FUNDS THEN I'VE NO NEED OF YOUR FUNDS. SO INVEST NOW OR NOT AT ALL.

My BLOG started to be written January 11, 2015. TODAY, MAY 30, 2015, THE NUMBER OF CLICKS HAS REACHED 56,750. SO FAR SO GOOD.

If I get big funds from investors then with a quick story that I wrote will spread throughout the world.

So I got acceleration because I can put ads in a large variety of media such as Google AdWords, Facebook, and others. I also can perform a variety of other marketing strategies.
If I do not get funding from investors then my story would still spread throughout the world. But with a longer time, Slow but sure.

So either I get funding from investors or not, the story that I wrote will remain spread throughout the world. Ha ... 7x

So don't worry, be happy.

My advice to you is you should think whether the data that I have provided to you makes sense or not .
If my data reasonable then immediately invest your funds as soon as possible.

Then we discuss how we plan further cooperation.

Thank you.
Lord Jesus bless you.
Amen
P.S. The offer letter I gave also to the hedge funds and 

venture capital and other major companies 

in the entire 

world. So who is fast then he will get it.


P.P.S. In addition, there is one more thing I 

want to tell you. If a story can generate tens 

of millions of US dollars, then what if made 


many stories? Then why do not you make 2, 3 or many stories? You will get hundreds of million USD annually. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...