star gazing

[Lilly]

Well, that's one way of looking at it. But, as a skeptic, you should appreciate the observation that we all have one tongue, and two ears. That should tell you a lot.

Actually the quotation goes like this:

"Nature gave us one tongue and two ears so we could hear twice as much as we speak." Epictetus.

I think that Dr. Asimov qualifies as someone who should be heard.

[TheHerb420]

Actually the quotation goes like this:

"Nature gave us one tongue and two ears so we could hear twice as much as we speak." Epictetus.

I think that Dr. Asimov qualifies as someone who should be heard.

I agree. Asimov was a damn genius, and I love his books.

[Eagle Eye]

Actually the quotation goes like this:

"Nature gave us one tongue and two ears so we could hear twice as much as we speak." Epictetus.

I think that Dr. Asimov qualifies as someone who should be heard.

Great science-fiction writer, but there are plenty of people who should be heard when it comes to the UFO phenomena, and those who are well informed on the phenomena are the best writers on the topic. My expertise is classical astrology and astrophysics, and there are many interesting questions about the UFO phenomena that relates to those topics, among many other topics related to it.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Theodore

[morrison1976]

QUOTE(TheHerb420 @ Feb 28 2007, 12:35 PM)

I'd like to point out that this is very arrogant. You automatically assume that you are right and just say "No, you are wrong." w/o giving any reason as to why.

I wish you would stop saying this! It goes both ways my friend. How many times have you seen a de-bunker change his opinion on here????

[TheHerb420]

I wish you would stop saying this! It goes both ways my friend. How many times have you seen a de-bunker change his opinion on here????

Again, I was pointing out that he sounded arrogant, not that he was arrogant. When was the last time you saw a believer change his opinion? But that doesn't even matter, just because you don't change your opinion doesn't make you arrogant.

[morrison1976]

Again, I was pointing out that he sounded arrogant, not that he was arrogant

You said

I'd like to point out that this is very arrogant

When was the last time you saw a believer change his opinion?

You dont. Thats why i said it goes both ways

But that doesn't even matter, just because you don't change your opinion doesn't make you arrogant.

Thats funny. Its twice today i have seen you use the arrogant term, and both times it was to do with someone not changing there opinion, or sticking to what they believe.

Its seems to me that you feel that its ok to stick to your opinion if you are a skeptic, but not if you are a believer, thats the way you come across.

[TheHerb420]

You said

I said this not you

You dont. Thats why i said it goes both ways

Thats funny. Its twice today i have seen you use the arrogant term, and both times it was to do with someone not changing there opinion, or sticking to what they believe.

Again, they sounded arrogant because of the way they said 'No you're wrong' in the specific posts that I quoted. It sounded arrogant, but I didn't mean that they were arrogant. This is the last time I will say this.

[Ufo_Guy]

ive seen 2

[morrison1976]

QUOTE(morrison1976 @ Mar 1 2007, 02:21 AM)

You said

I said this not you

QUOTE

You dont. Thats why i said it goes both ways

Thats funny. Its twice today i have seen you use the arrogant term, and both times it was to do with someone not changing there opinion, or sticking to what they believe.

Again, they sounded arrogant because of the way they said 'No you're wrong' in the specific posts that I quoted. It sounded arrogant, but I didn't mean that they were arrogant. This is the last time I will say this.

This does not make any sense! this is the last time i come back to this. You are clearly trying to get out of what you said, and i cant be asked!

[Eagle Eye]

I said this not you

Again, they sounded arrogant because of the way they said 'No you're wrong' in the specific posts that I quoted. It sounded arrogant, but I didn't mean that they were arrogant. This is the last time I will say this.

It isn't difficult to be at least civil, while not having to come to total agreement on everything. The problem is having to navigate though many great threads because there's a group of people who cannot ask questions without being insulting and rude, and who cannot argue with good manners, because they think everyone else has to be in "total" agreement. Have they forgotten that this is a discussion forum?

[Ryo Ohki]

Great. Another thread thats going to be locked.

[Isis2200]

It isn't difficult to be at least civil, while not having to come to total agreement on everything. The problem is having to navigate though many great threads because there's a group of people who cannot ask questions without being insulting and rude, and who cannot argue with good manners, because they think everyone else has to be in "total" agreement. Have they forgotten that this is a discussion forum?

Hi Theodore :-)

I couldn't agree with you more. I have stated the same thing many times on here. It's ok to disagree; I have done it many times, but the thing is to be respectful. I have stated recently on my own forum that I don't allow this disrespectful bantering back and forth. I feel it's just unproductive.

I agree, Theo, being "civil" is the key word here. and as time goes on, I'm hearing more people state that very thing.

[Eagle Eye]

Hi Theodore :-)

I couldn't agree with you more. I have stated the same thing many times on here. It's ok to disagree; I have done it many times, but the thing is to be respectful. I have stated recently on my own forum that I don't allow this disrespectful bantering back and forth. I feel it's just unproductive.

I agree, Theo, being "civil" is the key word here. and as time goes on, I'm hearing more people state that very thing.

That's good, because some haven't learned how to even debate properly, much less argue. Some of the fighting is really around issues of bias, predispositions, fear, and immaturity. I just wish it was kept at a minimum so reading the very interesting posts on the discussion forum is not constantly interrupted with these skeptics being rude, exhibiting bad manners and making repeated ignorant comments on good threads. That is very unproductive. I agree with you too.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Theodore

[Lilly]

That's good, because some haven't learned how to even debate properly, much less argue. Some of the fighting is really around issues of bias, predispositions, fear, and immaturity. I just wish it was kept at a minimum so reading the very interesting posts on the discussion forum is not constantly interrupted with these skeptics being rude, exhibiting bad manners and making repeated ignorant comments on good threads. That is very unproductive. I agree with you too.

And this is all due to rude skeptics?

"Let me take the speck out of your eye", when all the time there is that plank in your own?" ~Jesus~

[Unlimited]

Great. Another thread thats going to be locked.

probably...why does everyone gang up on theodore ?..it's much harder being a believer here; than a skeptic..trust me...

[Eagle Eye]

And this is all due to rude skeptics?

"Let me take the speck out of your eye", when all the time there is that plank in your own?" ~Jesus~

No, just the so-called "skeptics" who don't know how to be skeptical without always submitting themselves to wild speculation weakly disguised as "critical thinking." That's not thinking. When you think about it, it's not even critical. Just silly, that's all. Those who do not know how to be objective are rude, and ignorant. You can see it in their comments on a wide variety of topics. They can't be civil, and think they know it all. And they are the worst at interdisciplinary thinking. Some of it is educational. The rest of it is pure laziness. You see, it is much easier to not know much, and pretend that you do know, when you that think everyone else is stupid. That's the mistake the so-called "skeptics" make when they comment on nearly anything, that objective and informed people can't think for themselves without some rude, silly, "skeptic" having to a make a dumb comment, usually on topics they know little about, on the topic of discussion. On the whole, people can think for themselves, they don't need a group of so-called "skeptics" to do any their kind of "thinking" for them.

[TheHerb420]

No, just the so-called "skeptics" who don't know how to be skeptical without always submitting themselves to wild speculation weakly disguised as "critical thinking." That's not thinking. When you think about it, it's not even critical. Just silly, that's all. Those who do not know how to be objective are rude, and ignorant. You can see it in their comments on a wide variety of topics. They can't be civil, and think they know it all. And they are the worst at interdisciplinary thinking. Some of it is educational. The rest of it is pure laziness. You see, it is much easier to not know much, and pretend that you do know, when you that think everyone else is stupid. That's the mistake the so-called "skeptics" make when they comment on nearly anything, that objective and informed people can't think for themselves without some rude, silly, "skeptic" having to a make a dumb comment, usually on topics they know little about, on the topic of discussion. On the whole, people can think for themselves, they don't need a group of so-called "skeptics" to do any their kind of "thinking" for them.

Did you not understand the quote Lilly posted?

[Eagle Eye]

Did you not understand the quote Lilly posted?

Did you? Who cares what "quote" he posted? Go fishing or something dude. Jeez.

[TheHerb420]

Did you? Who cares what "quote" he posted? Go fishing or something dude. Jeez.

Basically it meant, "practice what you preach", and you clearly are not. And I fish quite a lot.

[Eagle Eye]

Basically it meant, "practice what you preach", and you clearly are not. And I fish quite a lot.

How would you know to tell me what I am not? This thread is about star-gazing and the UFO phenomena. I would prefer that rather going around with these silly comments that you actually add something meaningful to the thread rather than these pithy weak one-liners of yours, or yes, go out to fish then. It's not a comedy show Herb. Ok? Cheers.

Edited March 3, 2007 by Theodore

[TheHerb420]

How would you know to tell me what I am not? This thread is about star-gazing and the UFO phenomena. I would prefer that rather going around with these silly comments that you actually add something meaningful to the thread rather than these pithy weak one-liners of yours, or yes, go out to fish then. It's not a comedy show Herb. Ok? Cheers.

I'm sorry, I really am. It just angers me to see that you don't seem to understand that you have been constantly going on about how all skeptics have clearly not done their homework, and it is obvious you only say this because they asked a valid question and you are avoiding them by making snide comments. I will back down from this thread so you can resume your star-gazing topic.

Edited March 3, 2007 by TheHerb420

[Lilly]

Did you not understand the quote Lilly posted?

Obviously not.

[Eagle Eye]

I'm sorry, I really am. It just angers me to see that you don't seem to understand that you have been constantly going on about how all skeptics have clearly not done their homework, and it is obvious you only say this because they asked a valid question and you are avoiding them by making snide comments. I will back down from this thread so you can resume your star-gazing topic.

Considering that journalists are about the toughest, true skeptics out there, you should not be surprised that I know quite a bit about skepticism, and, about doing one's own homework before submitting one's opinion, biases, and predispositions as facts. They are not. So, chill out, and stop assuming that I am "avoiding" anything. I'm not. I face them, and deal with the bozos straight on, and straight up. When you see one of them whine, that's how you know. The truth hurts, but that does not mean one cannot change, and become objective, and yes, it urges some to quit being lazy, and to do their own homework. There are no babysitters here. This isn't a daycare. It's a discussion form.

Edited March 3, 2007 by Theodore

[magnetar]

Holy crap, Theodore! That's one huge list of UFOs sighted by astronomers!

I second that emotion! It just looked like a blur as I scrolled down!

Astronomers with a doctorate are able physicists, computer programers, and navigators. They can see far into the past. But, they spend time gathering spectra, as much as anything else.

As has been stated, they focus down what is essentially a long cone of electromagnetic radiation. The Hubble is a classic case. But, it is versatile with a variety of narrow focus and wide survey imagers. Regardless, it can resolve no better than the general shape of a star in our Local Neighborhood (that is my common sense guess).

Solar astronomers that have championed our own Sun for a variety of reasons, would be hard pressed to find anything competing in their field of vision.

There are a few researchers with sites designed to use photo-multiplier tubes in a dish telescope. Those look for light in the blue spectrum as it undergoes a runaway cascade due to cosmic rays entering our atmosphere. It is a safe bet that any reputed anomalous megawatt light sources stretching from a cone over their detectors, would not go unnoticed.

Light pollution had put restraints on many amateurs, and is the bane of professional astronomers. However, the sheer number of amateurs is still considerable, because of filters that block sodium and mercury emmision. They could still provide a bullwark of testimony against frequent and or extra-ordinary occurances.

I would think it would not take long for a spacefaring group to analyze various planets they encounter. And, with the distances and numbers involved, I would guess they would hit this world, and move on.

Edited March 3, 2007 by magnetar

[lost_shaman]

And, with the distances and numbers involved, I would guess they would hit this world, and move on.

Hey magnetar,

That's really not a bad "common sense" guess. I just have to respectfully disagree.

If we discovered an Earth-like planet we would certainly spend thousands of years checking it out and studying that planet and in all actuality we would most likely never leave. In all honesty I just do not see any advanced civilization finding Earth-like planets and leaving. We Humans would certainly not do that.