Last edited:
Alien archeology and other mysteries: Thread 9 - The Canonn
- Thread starter Ian Phillips
- Start date
- Status
Figure 9 is interesting
At ruins site one, could there be 4 specific alignments in it's orbit? (at the cardinal points of it's orbit, solstice/equinoxes)
Last edited:
I get that too but only when shadows are on ultra, so I turned it down to medium and and the problem went away.
What in the world is a Federal Cutter?
Turn off shdows in graphics detailed settings. I aslo set terrain rendering to low.
I see that too. I turned shadows off.
Yes, 930A I think. Discrete thing, it's no power house but it does what I want it to. I just don't remember it doing that before
But that is what we are trying to do in some cases - back to beginning - because right now we don't have nothing other then 72 bodies that may have or may not something small on them. In my opinion the whole RT information was to provide some information input to search for more patterns rather then simply go searching.
But I may be wrong.
That Culture 12 info now really does make me think my image is on to something:
It's a federal biscuit cutter!
Just an addition to this line of thought whilst I'm on my lunch break - whilst the symbols on all 4 beacons are the same, I think they are rotated/rearanged around the 3 faces of each beacon differently, which may be relevant to your investigations.
Edited to add some vital words to make some sort of sense!
Last edited:
I'm going to time supercruise dropouts at as many of those locations as i can. If i see any spike over 6 seconds.. i'll mark it as potential. We just need to be sure of the planetary bodies.
Yes, if there are directions in the original site then we can now check them by matching the now known answers. But we still don't know if the original site points to one or more other sites. The worry is that it points to zero, and hence the brute force search. It would be nice if Ram T could give us nudges rather than 'it's over there' messages :S
Sorry, but I am really sick of this complaint. I am honestly not trying to pick on you specifically, I am just picking this post to respond to.
Yes, basing a theory on one example is not scientific. But, the truly scientific approach here is to meticulously scan every planet in all 4 systems to collect "data" then to pore over that data and attempt to find correlations, using those correlations generate hypothesis which can be tested in other systems to confirm or deny the hypothesis.
We could do that, but it would take far too long, and we probably don't have enough people to get it done. But more than that.. THIS IS A PUZZLE and not scientific research, the focus of a puzzle is nothing like the focus of scientific research. With a puzzle we start with certainty that there is a solution to find and the goal is to find that solution as fast as possible. With research you do not even know if there is a solution and your purpose is to gather enough data to make some sort of statement about whether a solution exists, what it might be, and to form a tool that can predict further results of the same sort.
So, coming up with a hare brained hypothesis and testing it is a perfectly valid tactic for puzzle solving, especially when that hare brained hypothesis gives you a quick and easy thing to test (vs scanning every planet). If your test proves to find something, it certainly does not imply the reasoning was sound, and it doesn't necessarily give you a mechanism for finding more such sites, but, at this stage with the limited data we have we have to treat this like a puzzle, not science.
Once we have multiple sites and more data, then we can be scientific and try to create a theory which will help find yet more of them. But, at this stage, with the data we have (and the tools we have to gather more) it's very hard to actually science this thing.
So, I wish people would stop complaining about the crazy ideas being posted, everyone solves puzzles differently and one luck break is as likely as anything to solve it.
WRT your post now; What do you mean by "starting from the beginning"?
I don't know what any of that means but it looks good.
you are just mad x) Do you even know that We are not suposed to have Cultural data ?
These are the data that we have. that we need to use ! cause the other one are not suposed to be on the first site (Confirmed by Michael Brookes.)
History:
8 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 14 - 15
Biology
7 - 9
techno
7 - 10
Language
8 - 12 - 14
So much this! All of the this!
If whats going on in this thread is no fun to you, no need to come into this thread and crap on anyone else's fun.
- Status