Queenofthefairies Posted February 7, 2009 #51 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Of course there are plenty of things I can not explain. But by the same token I will not accept things on face value. Not saying my explanations are correct, but for the two cases I discussed above I would say they are. If I see something suspicious I see no harm in pointing it out either. Scepticism is healthy and important. Yes you are correct scepticism is healthy. <QueenoftheFairies> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karl 12 Posted February 7, 2009 Author #52 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Hello, Karl12. I see you post here as well. Hey bud -good to see you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted February 7, 2009 #53 Share Posted February 7, 2009 (edited) Just to add, flask of dinoflagelletes. Also some lovely pics of them in the wild in Puerto Rico. Edited February 7, 2009 by Mattshark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenofthefairies Posted February 7, 2009 #54 Share Posted February 7, 2009 kool <QueenoftheFairies> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted February 7, 2009 #55 Share Posted February 7, 2009 kool <QueenoftheFairies> They are aren't they. Great it you drive through some on a boat. They have them in Sarasota bay and they look amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenofthefairies Posted February 7, 2009 #56 Share Posted February 7, 2009 They are aren't they. Great it you drive through some on a boat. They have them in Sarasota bay and they look amazing. Excuse my ignorance but do they come in different colours? <QueenoftheFairies> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted February 7, 2009 #57 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Excuse my ignorance but do they come in different colours? <QueenoftheFairies> Don't think the dinoflagellate do but other animals can produce other colours, green is common in sharks for example. On deep sea fish uses red, which nearly every other fish can not see. Which could make effective signalling and hunting. firefly squid have all 3 primary colours available A beach in California. So yep, lots of different colours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenofthefairies Posted February 7, 2009 #58 Share Posted February 7, 2009 wow i would love to go to that beach how pretty <QueenoftheFairies> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted February 7, 2009 #59 Share Posted February 7, 2009 wow i would love to go to that beach how pretty <QueenoftheFairies> It is Carlsbad California. Unfortunately you can never guarantee such a thing happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent. Mulder Posted February 7, 2009 #60 Share Posted February 7, 2009 (edited) Tell you what, try writing a scientific paper and using eye witnesses as evidence. Do you think it'll be accepted? I can tell right now that it'll be thrown straight out. Witnesses are always unreliable. I'm not gonna look through 500000 articles. I have really research to do (and a real review to write up ) always? no, not true. but nice try. and no ones arguing here about a paper being accepted or not, no one cares about that, so dont bother posting it. were talking about people witnessing something. *edit* luminescent colours/animals dont usually come out of the water, hover, take off or descend into the water. unless your research has come across some that do. Edited February 7, 2009 by Agent. Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenofthefairies Posted February 7, 2009 #61 Share Posted February 7, 2009 It is Carlsbad California. Unfortunately you can never guarantee such a thing happening. ohh well don't live in the US anyway <QueenoftheFairies> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted February 7, 2009 #62 Share Posted February 7, 2009 always? no, not true. but nice try. and no ones arguing here about a paper being accepted or not, no one cares about that, so dont bother posting it. were talking about people witnessing something. *edit* luminescent colours/animals dont usually come out of the water, hover, take off or descend into the water. unless your research has come across some that do. Witness are subject to so many confounding factors, preconceptions and at times a lack of knowledge that they simply can not be relied upon Great article: Mind fiction from New Scientist. I think regards to such events that confabulation is a serious concern. Hence you can not trust a witness, I think you missed the point. It is showing that witnesses are not reliable evidence for a scientific study because they are simply not reliable ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted February 7, 2009 #63 Share Posted February 7, 2009 ohh well don't live in the US anyway <QueenoftheFairies> Me neither. But the UK has some bioluminescent species. Namely dogfish, usually visible at night by a green glow. I saw one in Malta once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent. Mulder Posted February 7, 2009 #64 Share Posted February 7, 2009 (edited) Witness are subject to so many confounding factors, preconceptions and at times a lack of knowledge that they simply can not be relied upon Great article: Mind fiction from New Scientist. I think regards to such events that confabulation is a serious concern. Hence you can not trust a witness, I think you missed the point. It is showing that witnesses are not reliable evidence for a scientific study because they are simply not reliable ever. k thats very true, and probably why they are not used in court either. Edited February 7, 2009 by Agent. Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOUL-DRIFTER Posted February 7, 2009 #65 Share Posted February 7, 2009 (edited) Tell you what, try writing a scientific paper and using eye witnesses as evidence. Do you think it'll be accepted? I can tell right now that it'll be thrown straight out. Witnesses are always unreliable. I'm not gonna look through 500000 articles. I have really research to do (and a real review to write up ) How can you compare this to a scientific paper? That has to be based on scientifically proven facts. The are declassified government documents NOT simple articles!!! Witnesses are unreliable....to a degree....not totally. And that degree varies between witnesses...does it not? If you are so scientific in your thinking, I shouldn't have to give you any examples...right? Isn't many of our history books full of data based on the witnesses testamonies? Bioluminescence to USOs is like what Swamp Gas is to UFOs...explains them sometimes...but mostly...NOT. Edited February 7, 2009 by SOUL-DRIFTER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted February 7, 2009 #66 Share Posted February 7, 2009 How can you compare this to a scientific paper? That has to be based on scientifically proven facts. The are declassified government documents NOT simple articles!!! Witnesses are unreliable....to a degree....not totally. And that degree varies between witnesses...does it not? If you are so scientific in your thinking, I shouldn't have to give you any examples...right? Isn't many of our history books full of data based on the witnesses testamonies? Bioluminescence to USOs is like what Swamp Gas is to UFOs...explains them sometimes...but mostly...NOT. No science is evidence based, facts are merely what you try to explain. They are just the start point. That is nice but that doesn't mean that if I see a glaring error that I should not point it out and that I should not be suspicious of it. Witness in science are at all time always unreliable. To many confounding factors. Rank or status does not increase a witnesses reliability. History is based on texts and archaeology. Not the same as witness testimonies. It is also what is known as a soft science as it is far more difficult (sometimes impossible) to produce the accuracy required for real science. I think it is a very elegant explanation, especially when tied into to confabulation. As I have said there are other explanations to Sonar etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelTM Posted February 7, 2009 #67 Share Posted February 7, 2009 k thats very true, and probably why they are not used in court either. Not solely in and of themselves. Eyewitness testimony, when backed by other, objective evidence, often makes a case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makaya325 Posted February 8, 2009 #68 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Tell you what, try writing a scientific paper and using eye witnesses as evidence. Do you think it'll be accepted? I can tell right now that it'll be thrown straight out. Witnesses are always unreliable. I'm not gonna look through 500000 articles. I have really research to do (and a real review to write up ) Not always. I guess we should dismiss murder cases based on testimony, or lost pets based on people seeing a stray dog. They may be unreliable, but you greatly insult the greatest and most intelligent species on earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makaya325 Posted February 8, 2009 #69 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Matt, these things have been OBSERVED UP CLOSE for centuries by russia, usa, japan, germany, italy, france. They have documented objects on radar that show an unearthly technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangium Posted February 8, 2009 #70 Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) Matt, these things have been OBSERVED UP CLOSE for centuries by russia, usa, japan, germany, italy, france. They have documented objects on radar that show an unearthly technology. Not exactly. That whole thing about radar confirming intelligence and technology is rather inaccurate since the determination, for what the unknown is, comes from the human operators. Granted they are experts at identifying the radar/sonar signatures of a multitude of known objects and artifacts, but when confronted by an unknown, alll they can do is come up with educated speculation of what it wasn't and (theoretically) what it might have been made of. Edited February 8, 2009 by Evangium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timfix Posted February 8, 2009 #71 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Matt, these things have been OBSERVED UP CLOSE for centuries by russia, usa, japan, germany, italy, france. They have documented objects on radar that show an unearthly technology. since out planet has more water then land its no wonder that et's would choose parking or making a base deep in our oceans. its safe down there if you have the technology , plus all the privacy you need. i'll bet they park inside the mother ship that switches on a cloaking device ,im sure that cloaking device keeps skeptics out ,as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drago Posted February 8, 2009 #72 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Well, you have all the privacy you need until the Megaladon attacks your seabed military invasion base, then where are you? Underwater with the planet's biggest, most powerful killing machine, that's where! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makaya325 Posted February 8, 2009 #73 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Well, you have all the privacy you need until the Megaladon attacks your seabed military invasion base, then where are you? Underwater with the planet's biggest, most powerful killing machine, that's where! No megs down there. The largest thing yet to be found in the deep is no bigger than a foot/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drago Posted February 8, 2009 #74 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Hey, if he gets to say they have bases down there and motherships with invisibility cloaks, I get to say there's Meggies down there with 'em. We both have about the same amount of evidence to back our claims up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makaya325 Posted February 8, 2009 #75 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Hey, if he gets to say they have bases down there and motherships with invisibility cloaks, I get to say there's Meggies down there with 'em. We both have about the same amount of evidence to back our claims up. Not exactly. We know megs died out, and if they were alive, you would see them in shallow waters. meg sightings=0 uso sightings= tons, radar cases, observed by many many officers at the same time, ice drillings, weird material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now