Pre-Research Base - mission board cannot get anything from server. A bug or a feature?
Heading to hunt me some Unknown thingy
Heading to hunt me some Unknown thingy
UAs, Barnacles and other mysteries Thread 8 - The Canonn
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
- Status
Apparently I just needed to take a drive. It's figured out now. For those that can't piece it together you'll have to wait till gamescon. I don't think I should take the time to try to convince people anymore.
It's complex and hard to explain. Maybe I'll draft something up and post it right before gamescon.
For now I'll see what may lie in hiding.
I read all your posts. I have no idea what you are trying to tell us. Either you HAVE no information, or you are not ABLE to give us more information. Remember: Science means: Testable everywhere, from anyone at any time.
Cheers.
+1, since you manage to express what I lack due to my crappy English.
The rest of the post is not directed to you Menenhetet.
Re. Scientism vs Science
If you (anyone) think you can prove something or disprove something, please go ahead. We need you.
I've had the same feeling myself, but instead of cascading into forum-posting I've gone out there to try figure out it.
I've been a sceptic a few times, and I try to disprove (or prove) if it's possible.
Some claimed UP should only searched for in Ross 47.
I though it was wrong because I think I know a fair bit how USS & distribution of content for them.
There was no point sitting around and debating if we should hunt outside Ross 47 or not.
- I had to go out and find it elsewhere.
I found the UP in G 99-49. And by accident. How ironic.
The Voyager problem back in thread 2,3,4,5 "Voyager has gone missing, it must be a lead!" was another such thing.
I was certain that it could be found because I've observed things with the game mechanisms (max 1000ly view distance for space beacons).
It was pointless to keep debating whether they were there or not.
- I had to go out and prove it could be found.
The Voyagers were found (again).
Is there a point to this?
A claim & hypothesis must be possible to *follow up*.
Proving & disproving is both useful.
The plea is:
We might get interest in your thesis if it's coherent and we're able to connect the dots.
Please don't expect us to go out there and solve it for you.
And please don't get upset if we don't pay attention to your post.
You may not have presented anything testable just yet. Or coherent.
You'll keep getting +1 for anything interesting, coherent and testable from me.
Last edited:
My search of the crater was only the beginning. I only asked for someone else to confirm if they were seeing these invisible POI points like I was. This is called peer review. It was not a wild goose chase. It was us (you and me and some others) working to rule out a possible piece of information as a TEAM. Had there been some kind of persistence of these POI points, we would have that to add to the data. As we quickly sorted it out, we were left free to continue on. I am still compiling data on Merope 5c, by imaging and documenting canyon locations where it is said that barnacles tend to persist. After I am done with that, I will move on to other regions. Not a wild goose chase, just good ole fashion research and peer review of data. Thanks for your help by the way. Oh I should also note that I clearly explained that my call for help was simply to rule out the possibility that it was anything of note. Your insistence that I pique your interest with sure-fire findings only confirms what this and other threads has suffered from: a mountain of theorists who only come out for the fireworks. If hours and hours of fruitless searching doesn't suit you, go back to whatever excites you. My last post was a call for unity, not more defensive posturing.
Last edited:
Thanks for the one up. Everything needs to be scaled back and we all need to back real data and perform the research as a team. Some of these ideas are not implausible, they're just lacking substance. It's like showing the answer without knowing the question.
Well, if your search of the crater was only the beginning, I wish you luck in you're endeavours. Working as a team? lol. Ive seen this behaviour before in real life. You're attitude stinks, and so do you. This is my opinion. And please remember that this is only a game, so no need to get upset. You have to remember that you might stumble across people on this forum that actually know what "Scientific method" means. And that particular branch of logic does not belong on a goddam games forum. Because it means more than just words. We are "trying" things in a "GAME" that might or might not work.
Try to remember that. It is only through our fantasy that we enjoy saying stuff like that. In other words - don't act like a know it all ass, when you - like the rest of us know pretty much squat.
Off you go now. Prove that this mountain of theorists cant keep up with you're logic and wit. Im waiting. Beer in hand. This should be fun.
Urr... guys? seems the empire is getting in on the action. Empire Cap Ship in Pleione.
I'd argue that everything can be broken down into numbers / mathematics, so science is maths...
String theory, quantum jiggery-pokery,one photon taking two paths AT THE SAME TIME........large haldron collider....for most the issues have moved beyond "'normal'' comprehension and back into the world of they say it is so it must be right, ie we have to have faith in their proclamations cos we have no way to verify anything for ourselves any more( bar spending a fortune in time and money to get a theoretical professorship in hocus pocus.)
top end science has basically moved back into the realm of magic for the uninitiated/ungifted/unmotivated
so relax and believe! or doubt, its your choice, no point in getting wound up by the fairies and goblins if you cannot see them
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
not recently , but I was seeing a flash of a pockmarked planet quiteoften in witch space just prior to exiting jumps..........raaaaxaaaallaaaaaaa
(RL)I'm role playing on forum. Haven't been on the case as long as you or others. Don't wish to cause friction outside of that. I respect your method of play, if not your method of discovery. Carry on.(RL)
I'm not out to prove anything. I'm on to find things instead of guessing. If I find nothing, so be it. My work will be judged by my peers just as I will judge theirs. I will NOT judge their character. That is where we depart from science, instead welcoming divisiveness to warm itself by the hearth of our hearts.
before leaving the bubble i was on a good track ?
[video=youtube;zbLeCQZ2XyQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbLeCQZ2XyQ[/video]
i was on tau ceti, searching the source of the UP for the feds... because i thought: 'what if the UP was searching a response from an alien being different from human' ?
[video=youtube;zbLeCQZ2XyQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbLeCQZ2XyQ[/video]
i was on tau ceti, searching the source of the UP for the feds... because i thought: 'what if the UP was searching a response from an alien being different from human' ?
Question for people who have dealt with UPs a lot - In practice, if I find a convoy, jump in scan and find there is a UP onboard, is it feasable to get others to jump in and grab it, if they aren't already ready to go?
Does the convoy last indefinitely if I keep following it from jump to jump? Have you had luck getting people to the system and winged up and into the same instance to get the UP, or is it too much trouble?
I know it's technically possible to do this, but, say,on a weekend has this actually worked out?
Does the convoy last indefinitely if I keep following it from jump to jump? Have you had luck getting people to the system and winged up and into the same instance to get the UP, or is it too much trouble?
I know it's technically possible to do this, but, say,on a weekend has this actually worked out?
It was first noticed a few hours ago there are also meta alloy convoys around Pleione 11A, things do seem to be heating up in the region and I suspect its only a matter of time before we have Imps and Feds in the same system
Hi,
This is a somewhat rambling post to gently break it to someone that they are chasing an illusion. I thought I'd post it so people don't head down the same road.
I used to spend a lot of time on the USENET talking to people who liked to think about "weird things". There's nothing wrong with that, per se, as long as one approaches it with some scientific rigor.
In fact, there's even a (critical thinking) textbook out there called _How to Think About Weird Things_, which I'd recommend, except it seems to be a bit expensive to get nowadays.
Anyway, seeing the discussion from CMDR Zulu, I just wanted to post about pareidolia, which is the human tendency to see patterns in noise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
HOWEVER, there is also the baseline fallacy, in which one would say all detected patterns are pareidolia. Sometimes there are patterns in the data. It's just that when such suspected patterns are barely detectable, one must be extremely cautious that there really is a pattern, and not just the mind imposing one on the data.
One of the guys I used to communicate with was absolutely convinced that when people talk, they say things backwards that are "congruent" with what they are saying forwards. People would believe him, too -- but whenever he presented his "reverse speech", he would always tell people what they were supposed to be hearing before playing the audio. I wasn't alone in telling him that what he had was Rorschach patterns for the ears. Also, note that the guy wasn't "crazy" -- he had simply convinced himself that he had something, and every time it "worked", it was re-enforcing the illusion.
There's another guy that will look at pictures of Mars from rovers, and claim there are artifacts in the photos in plain sight -- but again, they are always at the limit of resolution. Thing is, _that_ guy should know better. If there was ever going to be any chance of a study of "planetary SETI", he has set that back by 100 years or so, because whenever people think of such a thing, they think of the debacle surrounding "the face on Mars", and other such illusions.
I maintain that the most difficult part of science isn't doing the experiments -- it's _designing_ the experiments. This is especially true if you're using the exceptional capabilities of human vision to try to find data in what could be noise. I'm pretty sure you couldn't draw any conclusions on such a thing unless you designed a double-blind experiment -- and even then, if all you're looking at are clouds, there's not much utility in going through all that effort for what could be considered a "nebulous" effect.
I guess I could ramble on about all this, but hopefully I've made my point. Hopefully this doesn't discourage anyone from wanting to explore and employ a scientific approach -- I'm just hoping that folks who don't know about pareidolia don't find themselves following a sirens' song of visual illusion.
Take care, have a good weekend.
This is a somewhat rambling post to gently break it to someone that they are chasing an illusion. I thought I'd post it so people don't head down the same road.
I used to spend a lot of time on the USENET talking to people who liked to think about "weird things". There's nothing wrong with that, per se, as long as one approaches it with some scientific rigor.
In fact, there's even a (critical thinking) textbook out there called _How to Think About Weird Things_, which I'd recommend, except it seems to be a bit expensive to get nowadays.
Anyway, seeing the discussion from CMDR Zulu, I just wanted to post about pareidolia, which is the human tendency to see patterns in noise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
HOWEVER, there is also the baseline fallacy, in which one would say all detected patterns are pareidolia. Sometimes there are patterns in the data. It's just that when such suspected patterns are barely detectable, one must be extremely cautious that there really is a pattern, and not just the mind imposing one on the data.
One of the guys I used to communicate with was absolutely convinced that when people talk, they say things backwards that are "congruent" with what they are saying forwards. People would believe him, too -- but whenever he presented his "reverse speech", he would always tell people what they were supposed to be hearing before playing the audio. I wasn't alone in telling him that what he had was Rorschach patterns for the ears. Also, note that the guy wasn't "crazy" -- he had simply convinced himself that he had something, and every time it "worked", it was re-enforcing the illusion.
There's another guy that will look at pictures of Mars from rovers, and claim there are artifacts in the photos in plain sight -- but again, they are always at the limit of resolution. Thing is, _that_ guy should know better. If there was ever going to be any chance of a study of "planetary SETI", he has set that back by 100 years or so, because whenever people think of such a thing, they think of the debacle surrounding "the face on Mars", and other such illusions.
I maintain that the most difficult part of science isn't doing the experiments -- it's _designing_ the experiments. This is especially true if you're using the exceptional capabilities of human vision to try to find data in what could be noise. I'm pretty sure you couldn't draw any conclusions on such a thing unless you designed a double-blind experiment -- and even then, if all you're looking at are clouds, there's not much utility in going through all that effort for what could be considered a "nebulous" effect.
I guess I could ramble on about all this, but hopefully I've made my point. Hopefully this doesn't discourage anyone from wanting to explore and employ a scientific approach -- I'm just hoping that folks who don't know about pareidolia don't find themselves following a sirens' song of visual illusion.
Take care, have a good weekend.
I have a slightly wild idea about the UP. It's easily testable, so bare with me.
The UP is a grund attack weapon!
By honking it in high orbit, it will case dammage to SRVs, ships and other stuff on ground and in low flight.
The drawing describes the use. Point to center, from orbit, Honk to affect a sector.
Howling indicates that the UP is ready to fire.
The reason I think this is possibe, is that Merope 5C has been set up to have all commanders in the same instance. Several have reported taking damage for no apparent reason.
The purpose of this is of course that the UP makers are not happy to have skimmers, misile racks and Cap. ships placed on their Barnacles.
Test: One commander on ground reports coordinates to UP holder. UP holder matches coordinates in high orbit(as long as the UP howls, it should be ok), drops and honks the UP.
Boom, Commander one takes damage.
The UP is a grund attack weapon!
By honking it in high orbit, it will case dammage to SRVs, ships and other stuff on ground and in low flight.
The drawing describes the use. Point to center, from orbit, Honk to affect a sector.
Howling indicates that the UP is ready to fire.
The reason I think this is possibe, is that Merope 5C has been set up to have all commanders in the same instance. Several have reported taking damage for no apparent reason.
The purpose of this is of course that the UP makers are not happy to have skimmers, misile racks and Cap. ships placed on their Barnacles.
Test: One commander on ground reports coordinates to UP holder. UP holder matches coordinates in high orbit(as long as the UP howls, it should be ok), drops and honks the UP.
Boom, Commander one takes damage.
Hi,
This is a somewhat rambling post to gently break it to someone that they are chasing an illusion. I thought I'd post it so people don't head down the same road.
I used to spend a lot of time on the USENET talking to people who liked to think about "weird things". There's nothing wrong with that, per se, as long as one approaches it with some scientific rigor.
In fact, there's even a (critical thinking) textbook out there called _How to Think About Weird Things_, which I'd recommend, except it seems to be a bit expensive to get nowadays.
Anyway, seeing the discussion from CMDR Zulu, I just wanted to post about pareidolia, which is the human tendency to see patterns in noise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
HOWEVER, there is also the baseline fallacy, in which one would say all detected patterns are pareidolia. Sometimes there are patterns in the data. It's just that when such suspected patterns are barely detectable, one must be extremely cautious that there really is a pattern, and not just the mind imposing one on the data.
One of the guys I used to communicate with was absolutely convinced that when people talk, they say things backwards that are "congruent" with what they are saying forwards. People would believe him, too -- but whenever he presented his "reverse speech", he would always tell people what they were supposed to be hearing before playing the audio. I wasn't alone in telling him that what he had was Rorschach patterns for the ears. Also, note that the guy wasn't "crazy" -- he had simply convinced himself that he had something, and every time it "worked", it was re-enforcing the illusion.
There's another guy that will look at pictures of Mars from rovers, and claim there are artifacts in the photos in plain sight -- but again, they are always at the limit of resolution. Thing is, _that_ guy should know better. If there was ever going to be any chance of a study of "planetary SETI", he has set that back by 100 years or so, because whenever people think of such a thing, they think of the debacle surrounding "the face on Mars", and other such illusions.
I maintain that the most difficult part of science isn't doing the experiments -- it's _designing_ the experiments. This is especially true if you're using the exceptional capabilities of human vision to try to find data in what could be noise. I'm pretty sure you couldn't draw any conclusions on such a thing unless you designed a double-blind experiment -- and even then, if all you're looking at are clouds, there's not much utility in going through all that effort for what could be considered a "nebulous" effect.
I guess I could ramble on about all this, but hopefully I've made my point. Hopefully this doesn't discourage anyone from wanting to explore and employ a scientific approach -- I'm just hoping that folks who don't know about pareidolia don't find themselves following a sirens' song of visual illusion.
Take care, have a good weekend.
if you asked me what kind of car I have, I could answer ''a toyota''
I could answer you backwards and you wouldn't even know!
- Status