Space Commander Travis Posted September 20, 2012 #2351 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Of the week! You honor me. Perhaps you have not worked them enough to understand I find imagining an answer an easy way out. And I am not sure who it satisfies. I'm still not sure I understand. Are you saying that one should not speculate about things that our scientific knowledge may not know about yet? Do you really not accept that there are things that we do not know about yet? Do you just dismiss it all as "imagining", so therefore refuse to even consider that there may even be such things? What an incredibly blinkered way of looking at things, if you do mind me saying so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted September 20, 2012 #2352 Share Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) He WILL have to rule out the Island explanation....that was obvious from the outset. I think psyche was just 'yanking chains' with the Island thing. ....cheers TMG....good job...... @psyche....for future reference...when you want a co-ordinate just do a google search...easy peasy (but you knew that)... Looks like the Costa Rica UFO is a tough one for sceptics to explain away . Hey Bee, Yes I knew one could Google co-ordinates, but it failed you All you gave me was a picture of clouds!! You told me to take time to investigate, and hey, guess what. I found an Island. Most women would be happy if I found them an Island!!!! Good job on what? Can you prove to me that this Island in not the one MacGuffin pointed out. It had low lying Islands all around it, and Google, thanks to you, tells us that of we turn around we are going to be looking at a huge volcano. This one in fact: The photo I submitted was from a real estate. One is a big property, one is a big house. MacGuffins link goes to a personal page with someones photos. Not the same thing Bee. This is different again, where are the low lying islands, and the background looks different. I guess you would be quite upset if it did turn out to be an Island? Wait until I cut some pictures from the Vallee evaluation so I can show you what I mean. Edited September 20, 2012 by psyche101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted September 20, 2012 #2353 Share Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) I'm still not sure I understand. Are you saying that one should not speculate about things that our scientific knowledge may not know about yet? Do you really not accept that there are things that we do not know about yet? Do you just dismiss it all as "imagining", so therefore refuse to even consider that there may even be such things? What an incredibly blinkered way of looking at things, if you do mind me saying so. Gracious, being obtuse again are we!! I get the very strong impression on a constant basis that you think speculation provides an answer. I think speculation provides no more than a direction at best, and speculation I feel is far more often wrong than right, especially so with science considering our history. Personally, I am over the brick wall thing, I take it you enjoy that? You often pronounce speculative ideas as if fact, yet as with Roswell, you took none of the big picture into account to replace the aliens with Robots, it seems a game that you believe in, and I find you rather amusing to be quite honest. I am rather surprised that needed explaining. Edited September 20, 2012 by psyche101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted September 20, 2012 #2354 Share Posted September 20, 2012 He WILL have to rule out the Island explanation....that was obvious from the outset. LOL, yes, your picture of clouds was very................................................................... ummm........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSS Posted September 20, 2012 #2355 Share Posted September 20, 2012 I get the very strong impression on a constant basis that you think speculation provides an answer. I think speculation provides no more than a direction at best, and speculation I feel is far more often wrong than right, especially so with science considering our history. In a subject of many unknowns, whether it's reliability of testimony through to potential causes, you have to speculate in order to find a direction. How do you find out what's right or wrong if you're suggesting speculation should be curbed to a minimum? (unless i've read you wrong) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted September 20, 2012 #2356 Share Posted September 20, 2012 LOL, yes, your picture of clouds was very................................................................... ummm........... you asked for the co-ordinates.....I gave them to you but NOW you are yanking my chain .....naughty psyche..... boo hoo no explanation for the Costa Rica UFO.....no magical disappearing and reappearing Island.... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kludge808 Posted September 20, 2012 #2357 Share Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) http://chrome://newt...grummanlett.htm No matter what I use - IE, Firefox, Chrome or Safari - I cannot get to anything at the Chrome site. How am I supposed to read them if I can't gain access? Edited September 20, 2012 by Kludge808 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted September 20, 2012 #2358 Share Posted September 20, 2012 In a subject of many unknowns, whether it's reliability of testimony through to potential causes, you have to speculate in order to find a direction. How do you find out what's right or wrong if you're suggesting speculation should be curbed to a minimum? (unless i've read you wrong) Hey SS Is that not pretty much what I said? I think speculation provides no more than a direction at best, It is not something to herald, it is something that comes naturally, and it rarely, if ever provides the correct answer. I do not understand the reverence to speculation. As I said, I feel 747400 in particular feels speculation provides an answer, I do not feel that is the case, and I would ask for a precedent. We were wrong about the sun, the stars, natural phenomena, pretty much everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted September 20, 2012 #2359 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Gracious, being obtuse again are we!! I get the very strong impression on a constant basis that you think speculation provides an answer. I think speculation provides no more than a direction at best, and speculation I feel is far more often wrong than right, especially so with science considering our history. Personally, I am over the brick wall thing, I take it you enjoy that? You often pronounce speculative ideas as if fact, yet as with Roswell, you took none of the big picture into account to replace the aliens with Robots, it seems a game that you believe in, and I find you rather amusing to be quite honest. I am rather surprised that needed explaining. er. sorry? pronounce speculative ideas as if fact? when have i ever done that? When have i ever tried to pronounce that anything was fact? I've never tried to say that anything was Fact. I think you must be thinking of someone else. As, you say, with Roswell, you took none of the big picture into account to replace the aliens with Robots? What big picture was that? You mean all the stuff about Alien bodies? None of that was even mentioned in the original story. You seem to be harping on about the Bodies as if it's the Official version and that anyone who doesn't immediately say "Balloon" must believe that there were. That seems rather like the way that militant Atheists will (for example) insist that any Christian must believe every word in the Old testament as literal fact. And incidentally, I still think you have the idea that I was suggesting that Robots were sitting in the cockpit of a spacecraft, rather like C3PO. What i was talking about was that UFOs may be unmanned, robotic craft, not that they're crewed by robots. I am rather surprised that needed explaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted September 20, 2012 #2360 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Hey Bee, Yes I knew one could Google co-ordinates, but it failed you All you gave me was a picture of clouds!! jeeeeeezus...you are hard work...lol here's the link I gave you WITH THE COORDINATES.... http://wikimapia.org...38/Lago-de-Cote I guess you would be quite upset if it did turn out to be an Island? Guess you are upset that it isn't an island..... But nice try...... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted September 20, 2012 #2361 Share Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) this server is annoying, and makes it very easy to post twice. I wish they'd rectify it Edited September 20, 2012 by 747400 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted September 20, 2012 #2362 Share Posted September 20, 2012 you asked for the co-ordinates.....I gave them to you but NOW you are yanking my chain .....naughty psyche..... boo hoo no explanation for the Costa Rica UFO.....no magical disappearing and reappearing Island.... . I think someone has not read through all the posts. The plane took a picture every 17 seconds. Not hard to disappear like that. You do realise that planes move reasonably fast to stay aloft? How about YOU try and prove the island does not exist? I am not convinced as yet, and the surveyors drawing only strengthens my argument. It shows a raised land mass right between the peninsulas, right where that island seems to be, and right where that anomaly was photographed. Hows that happen Bee? Aliens are cloaking the island? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted September 20, 2012 #2363 Share Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) I think someone has not read through all the posts. The plane took a picture every 17 seconds. Not hard to disappear like that. You do realise that planes move reasonably fast to stay aloft? How about YOU try and prove the island does not exist? I am not convinced as yet, and the surveyors drawing only strengthens my argument. It shows a raised land mass right between the peninsulas, right where that island seems to be, and right where that anomaly was photographed. Hows that happen Bee? Aliens are cloaking the island? How could an island be in one frame, and not in another one 17 seconds later? I don't know if it did say in the article what type of plane it was that the photos were taken from, but I really doubt that a civil light twin would cover that much ground. From low altitude, perhaps, but from fairly high altitude I'm pretty sure that something far below would still be in shot 17 seconds after the first one. And does it really look like an island? Besides, unless this was completely unknown virgin territory, surely anyone looking at the pictures would know that there was an island in that lake and they'd be able to say that that was what it probably was? Edited September 20, 2012 by 747400 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSS Posted September 20, 2012 #2364 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Hey SS Is that not pretty much what I said? It is not something to herald, it is something that comes naturally, and it rarely, if ever provides the correct answer. I do not understand the reverence to speculation. As I said, I feel 747400 in particular feels speculation provides an answer, I do not feel that is the case, and I would ask for a precedent. We were wrong about the sun, the stars, natural phenomena, pretty much everything. Yes that is what you said, which is why I expanded on it. It's speculation that was wrong (as you listed) that helps define the direction itself. I think there is a difference here anyway, since speculation about observable and repeatable events (sun, stars etc) is not nearly as open to interpretation as a subject with no repeatable data to observe in a controlled way. I'd agrue that speculation, regardless of whether it has a precedent is needed when the variations in how the witness perceives it is so great. For the record though, i've never seen 747 argue any speculation as fact, merely throw ideas around when a topic is stuck on a certain road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted September 20, 2012 #2365 Share Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) jeeeeeezus...you are hard work...lol here's the link I gave you WITH THE COORDINATES.... http://wikimapia.org...38/Lago-de-Cote No need to shout, I can see you just fine Yes, those clouds are very white!! I did say thanks for making me get off my butt!! Sheesh, you say I am hard work, Crikey! Just a little hard to make out the shoreline in that one Guess you are upset that it isn't an island..... But nice try...... . So I take it that you refuse to prove this, surely you do not think a picture of clouds is sufficient to prove there is not land mass between the peninsulas in the lake? An Island qualifies Vallee's evaluation, it is can be described as both in, and out of the water, has an irregular oval shape and the peak would explain the dome. At least I did try! You believers make me laugh!! Look at the fear of losing one lousy UFO to the prosaic LOL. The only one who has had a crack at providing further information is MacGuffin! Again!! What, is he the only one of you lot prepared to have a go? Prove me wrong Bee! Do not hide behind a screen, show us what you are made of! I want to know for sure, I am pleased to have got this far with the Island. If it comes down around my ankles, I'll try again. I guess you guys do not have that luxury, so it scares you? Your funny, I'd love to share a nice grange with you some time over a decent meal. I reckon it would be a night to remember. For me anyways! Edited September 20, 2012 by psyche101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted September 20, 2012 #2366 Share Posted September 20, 2012 I think someone has not read through all the posts. The plane took a picture every 17 seconds. Not hard to disappear like that. You do realise that planes move reasonably fast to stay aloft? How about YOU try and prove the island does not exist? I am not convinced as yet, and the surveyors drawing only strengthens my argument. It shows a raised land mass right between the peninsulas, right where that island seems to be, and right where that anomaly was photographed. Hows that happen Bee? Aliens are cloaking the island? give it up.... you're starting to sound desperate . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted September 20, 2012 #2367 Share Posted September 20, 2012 It is not something to herald, it is something that comes naturally, and it rarely, if ever provides the correct answer. I do not understand the reverence to speculation. As I said, I feel 747400 in particular feels speculation provides an answer, I do not feel that is the case, and I would ask for a precedent. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein.. all of whom were willing to look beyond what we knew already, and what the accepted paradigm was, and make a leap that everyone else dismissed as wild speculation, based on what their researches had led them to. I don't know why you seem to be hung up on this idea that i've ever tried to insist that anything is fact, beyond the fact that sticking to what we know and not being willing to speculate will never make any progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted September 20, 2012 #2368 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Yes that is what you said, which is why I expanded on it. It's speculation that was wrong (as you listed) that helps define the direction itself. I think there is a difference here anyway, since speculation about observable and repeatable events (sun, stars etc) is not nearly as open to interpretation as a subject with no repeatable data to observe in a controlled way. I'd agrue that speculation, regardless of whether it has a precedent is needed when the variations in how the witness perceives it is so great. Indeed! I think we might be on the same page, in a roundabout way. I think speculation is natural. If you see something strange, one's first instinct is to identify. I enjoy the speculations of people like Kaku, but the speculation in here by comparison is pretty low brow. And I find most people very definitive and defensive of their speculations. I do not think it is needed, I think it is already there by default. Sort of like story telling maybe? Some people excel, but not too many. I think that putting faith in speculation is a folly, I guess that is what I am trying to say. For the record though, i've never seen 747 argue any speculation as fact, merely throw ideas around when a topic is stuck on a certain road. Fair enough, maybe it is just me, but every time I see 747400 speculate, he holds onto those musings like a pit bull. The Roswell Incident was one that I mentioned where he tried to remove balloons, and aliens and come up with robots, when not even the crash can be qualified. Proof of the crash field only exists verbally and as he himself said, Alien did not enter the story until 1979, so what disproves Aliens opens a door for robots? It was a real WTF moment for me. Another was an asteroid hollowed out as a space station. When I said we had a decent grip on the asteroid belt and scan it regularly and would know of interstellar traffic, and cited the last 2 Jupiter strikes as a precedent, I felt he got rather shirty about his speculation being torn down, like I say, maybe it is just me, but I get the strong impression that 747400 has more faith in speculation than fact by the way he likes to question even solid explanations with some rather wild ideals. Hey, if you don't speak up, nobody is going to know what is going on here, and I think that's probably a waste in a discussion forum? I like people to know what I am thinking so I can have a valuable discussion. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted September 20, 2012 #2369 Share Posted September 20, 2012 give it up.... you're starting to sound desperate . Bee, Your lack of participation, information, and debate proves you have nothing but desperation to back your argument. One little UFO huh LOL. You crack me up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted September 20, 2012 #2370 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Your funny, I'd love to share a nice grange with you some time over a decent meal. I reckon it would be a night to remember. For me anyways! what's a 'grange'........ ps....' Psyche's Fantasy Island'....lol.... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted September 20, 2012 #2371 Share Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) this server is annoying, and makes it very easy to post twice. I wish they'd rectify it It has not happened to me with the new UM. What browser do you use? How could an island be in one frame, and not in another one 17 seconds later? I don't know if it did say in the article what type of plane it was that the photos were taken from, but I really doubt that a civil light twin would cover that much ground. From low altitude, perhaps, but from fairly high altitude I'm pretty sure that something far below would still be in shot 17 seconds after the first one. And does it really look like an island? Besides, unless this was completely unknown virgin territory, surely anyone looking at the pictures would know that there was an island in that lake and they'd be able to say that that was what it probably was? Have you seen the before and after pictures? I asked before, what is more probable, a faulty camera, or an interstellar super saucer that disappears, is invisible the the human eye, does not disturb water, and overcomes aerodynamics? Is an island a bad speculation? Have you checked the negative versions of the photo in the Vallee evaluation? Would the Government use a civil twin light? In the photos MacGuffin provided, the plane looked like it was larger than that. I would be guessing about 250 mph? Why can the plane moving not change the angle of light, and give the photo a different impression? The clouds are brighter than the saucer, have a look yourself, Vallee says the same thing, so just what sort of a surface are we looking at? Shiny metal, as is the average opinion should be brighter than that should it not? And you of all people are upset about my speculation? I thought you would be impressed to see this old stick in the mud having a guess! Just can't please some people!! er. sorry? pronounce speculative ideas as if fact? when have i ever done that? When have i ever tried to pronounce that anything was fact? I've never tried to say that anything was Fact. I think you must be thinking of someone else. As, you say, with Roswell, you took none of the big picture into account to replace the aliens with Robots? What big picture was that? You mean all the stuff about Alien bodies? None of that was even mentioned in the original story. You seem to be harping on about the Bodies as if it's the Official version and that anyone who doesn't immediately say "Balloon" must believe that there were. That seems rather like the way that militant Atheists will (for example) insist that any Christian must believe every word in the Old testament as literal fact. And incidentally, I still think you have the idea that I was suggesting that Robots were sitting in the cockpit of a spacecraft, rather like C3PO. What i was talking about was that UFOs may be unmanned, robotic craft, not that they're crewed by robots. I am rather surprised that needed explaining. I really do get that impression from you. It honestly surprises me that I have to tell you this yet again. Yes, look at Roswell, was the crash qualified? And the reason that aliens are a dubious claim is reason to invoke robots? What?????? I seem to have you wrong, that would not surprise me, you are a most interesting character, like nobody I know and I suppose that is why you draw my attention. Would you care to elaborate on your official position with regards to speculation and clear a few thins up? Hopefully the post to SS explain my wonder in more detail. Edited September 20, 2012 by psyche101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted September 20, 2012 #2372 Share Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein.. all of whom were willing to look beyond what we knew already, and what the accepted paradigm was, and make a leap that everyone else dismissed as wild speculation, based on what their researches had led them to. I don't know why you seem to be hung up on this idea that i've ever tried to insist that anything is fact, beyond the fact that sticking to what we know and not being willing to speculate will never make any progress. THATS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!!!! These men had to fight speculation that people had become so complacent with that it was considered fact!! Exactly my bugbear!!! Speculation is a guess, it can give one an idea, if that idea is good or bad is up to the person speculating, and with all types in this world, that does not strike me as a balanced outcome. As mentioned, I do not think it is something to be revered or fawned over, it's just a natural reaction. The progress these men forged had to wade through centuries of speculation, that had become rock hard!!!! Edited September 20, 2012 by psyche101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted September 20, 2012 #2373 Share Posted September 20, 2012 what's a 'grange'........ Dear me Bee, I do have some things to teach you. From Wikipedia The great 1955 vintage was submitted to competitions beginning in 1962 and over the years has won more than 50 gold medals. The vintage of 1971 won first prize in Shiraz at the Wine Olympics in Paris. The 1990 vintage was named 'Red Wine of the Year' by the Wine Spectator magazine in 1995, which later rated the 1998 vintage 99 points out of a possible 100. ps....' Psyche's Fantasy Island'....lol.... . LOL, you are getting all excited and scared at once now aren't you! I can tell by the tone of your voice You got anything for me, or you just going to tease me all night? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted September 20, 2012 #2374 Share Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) How could an island be in one frame, and not in another one 17 seconds later? See, this is what I find funny. What! A camera cannot malfunction, it must be alienz! I mean, really? Not saying that is what you said, that is pretty much the argument. Do you think that is solid? I honestly think it should take a bit more than that to qualify as one of the best cases of all time? Edited September 20, 2012 by psyche101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted September 20, 2012 #2375 Share Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) Dear me Bee, I do have some things to teach you. From Wikipedia The great 1955 vintage was submitted to competitions beginning in 1962 and over the years has won more than 50 gold medals. The vintage of 1971 won first prize in Shiraz at the Wine Olympics in Paris. The 1990 vintage was named 'Red Wine of the Year' by the Wine Spectator magazine in 1995, which later rated the 1998 vintage 99 points out of a possible 100. nice......cheers...bottoms up and down the hatch etc etc.....a toast to you....... LOL, you are getting all excited and scared at once now aren't you! I can tell by the tone of your voice You got anything for me, or you just going to tease me all night? I'm going to tease you all night....... but as it's only morning here in the UK....I'll hand over to Jim Carey... ps. It's obviously not an Island because that would have been established a long long time ago, if it was.... toodle pip . Edited September 20, 2012 by bee 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