Dwarf Star

Flamed Diving

I saw three bright lights orbiting the moon, then they came down and hovered overhead for hours. Nobody knows when I saw this, nor can anyone disprove it, for no one else was present. Therefore me saying so makes it true, irrespective of what little evidence or description I give.

Cheers.

thecommander

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I saw three bright lights orbiting the moon, then they came down and hovered overhead for hours. Nobody knows when I saw this, nor can anyone disprove it, for no one else was present. Therefore me saying so makes it true, irrespective of what little evidence or description I give.

Cheers.

I saw them too.

Cheers

uprising2

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I saw three bright lights orbiting the moon, then they came down and hovered overhead for hours. Nobody knows when I saw this, nor can anyone disprove it, for no one else was present. Therefore me saying so makes it true, irrespective of what little evidence or description I give.

Cheers.

WHY DON'T WE ALL GO TO THE GEOGRAPHY FORUM AND WRITE BOLLLOX?, MUST BE FUKK ALL HAPPENING OVER THERE.

Actually there is not, apply HERE to write bolllox....

Flamed Diving

thecommander wrote: »

I saw them too.

Cheers

You don't know what I saw. I wouldnt trust you for info anyhow.

So i'm stil open to what I felt about it and open to others on their views. I don't like fixated views. unless you can tell me the time and place I seen this.

Flamed Diving

uprising2 wrote: »

WHY DON'T WE ALL GO TO THE GEOGRAPHY FORUM AND WRITE BOLLLOX?, MUST BE FUKK ALL HAPPENING OVER THERE.

Relax. Just making a point through mimicry. There is a lot to be said for corroborated tales.

namloc1980

mysterious wrote: »

You trust instutions and science in every case, rather than yourself in most cases, so why should anyone trust you on your certaincy.

I fully trust myself and I know that it was Venus. You are entitled to be wrong, as you are in this case, and I have no problem with you being totally wrong.

mysterious

Why does this kind of behaviour go on this forum? i just don't understand this behaviour at all.

Lab_Mouse

uprising2 wrote: »

apply HERE

If that what was taught you in school no wonder you'd have issues with state education and university:D

Actualy while your at it Uprising why dont you post in the FUKKING RANTING AND RAVING FORUMS YOU CAN POST ABOUT ANY OLD BOLLOX OR BULLSH1T YOU WANT or even try THUNDERDOME IF YOU LIKE FUKKING SWEARING AND ALL THAT FUKKING BOLLOX FUKKING FUKKITY& FUKK.:P:D

Imicary is the highest form of flattery apparently

Flamed Diving

mysterious wrote: »

Why does this kind of behaviour go on this forum? i just don't understand this behaviour at all.

I will try to explain why. This post below:

mysterious wrote: »

The moon was low, this object was EVEN lower, so if mercury was there is was on the horizon...

This was brighter than Venus imo. It could have been Venus, but it was sure bigger than usual. If anything it was interesting to see. I'm on the fence with planet x. I believe we have a second sun, but the MSM and the powers that be could be using this as fear factor and tieing it into 2012.

Zecharin stichin (spellking error) That f"&king snake oils man creepy mason thing he gots going on there. I don't trust anything he says. He gives me the shivers. So I don't like to believe his word on the Planet X thing. He could be making more dis info out of the real truth to this.

Apart from the Planet X stuff was about seeing some bright object next to Venus in the sky, to which namloc replied:

namloc1980 wrote: »

Yeah that was definitely Venus. It is currently well positioned and is shining at Mag -3.7 at present. Compare that to Sirius which is Mag -1.45.

A perfectly reasonable response, simply stating Venus' & Sirius' position at the moment. Nothing wrong with pointing that out. Your response:

mysterious wrote: »

You don't know what I saw. I wouldnt trust you for info anyhow.

So i'm stil open to what I felt about it and open to others on their views. I don't like fixated views. unless you can tell me the time and place I seen this.

Was a tad bit arrogant and slightly aggressive. As are the vast majority of your posts, and of a few others on here. My style is to give as good as I get, which is why I am able to have reasonable discussion with toracx (?), because he is polite and open to differing views. As far as I can see, the problem here is your attitude, and your constant need to skirt the line between breaking the charter and not. Try stepping back and being a little less... dare I say egotistical? I guarantee you will see a change in attitude towards you.

Give it a go.

bonkey

A bit of calm wouldn't go astray...

mysterious

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I will try to explain why. This post below:



Apart from the Planet X stuff was about seeing some bright object next to Venus in the sky, to which namloc replied:



A perfectly reasonable response, simply stating Venus' & Sirius' position at the moment. Nothing wrong with pointing that out. Your response:



Was a tad bit arrogant and slightly aggressive. As are the vast majority of your posts, and of a few others on here. My style is to give as good as I get, which is why I am able to have reasonable discussion with toracx (?), because he is polite and open to differing views. As far as I can see, the problem here is your attitude, and your constant need to skirt the line between breaking the charter and not. Try stepping back and being a little less... dare I say egotistical? I guarantee you will see a change in attitude towards you.

Give it a go.

He who judges!

The "i am but your this" etc read your own posts dude. The response of mine wasn't even to you.

I haven't nothing else to say(I don't need too) I don't need to follow you. I don't need to be corrected by you. Maybe you should practice by your own advice, the advice you preach to others.

squod

There's some shooting stars for tommorrows arguments discussion.:D

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/ataglance/

Lyrid shower is in the dark hours before dawn. At that time the moon will be under the horizon. Likely, the optimal night will be between midnight and dawn on Thursday, April 22. But a day or two before and after the peak date may offer a decent sprinkling of meteors too.

http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/earthskys-meteor-shower-guide

My name is URL

SuperGrover wrote: »

Someone had to say it.

No, they really didn't. I hope it made you feel like a big man for a minute though

I also hope you're site-banned for making the post, with full intent of being banned for it

Mahatma coat

AAAAAAAAANYWAY Back sorta OT, All thes Fvckin earthquakes, I dare one a ye to stand there witha straight face and say that this is 'Normal' its at very least different from what we consider Normal.

could there be something out there fuppin up the gravities???

Flamed Diving

It's normal.

Mahatma coat

Really, so if you made one of your graphs of Earthquakes/Volcanoes per week spread out over the last 50 years it'd be fairly flat then?????

Flamed Diving

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Really, so if you made one of your graphs of Earthquakes/Volcanoes per week spread out over the last 50 years it'd be fairly flat then?????

The Earth isn't fifty years old.

Yitzhak Rabin

Mahatma coat wrote: »

AAAAAAAAANYWAY Back sorta OT, All thes Fvckin earthquakes, I dare one a ye to stand there witha straight face and say that this is 'Normal' its at very least different from what we consider Normal.

could there be something out there fuppin up the gravities???

Really, so if you made one of your graphs of Earthquakes/Volcanoes per week spread out over the last 50 years it'd be fairly flat then?????

There has been an increase in the death toll rate from earthquakes since 1900-2008. This is easily explained however, by the fact that the population was 1.6bn in 1900, and is c.6.8bn now. Combine that with the fact that there has been a much bigger migration from rural to urban areas, especially in Asian countries like China, where alot of these deadly earthquakes have hit. So I don't think there is anything strange going on....

[straight face]This is normal[/straight face]

Flamed Diving

yekahs wrote: »

There has been an increase in the death toll rate from earthquakes since 1900-2008. This is easily explained however, by the fact that the population was 1.6bn in 1900, and is c.6.8bn now. Combine that with the fact that there has been a much bigger migration from rural to urban areas, especially in Asian countries like China, where alot of these deadly earthquakes have hit. So I don't think there is anything strange going on....

[straight face]This is normal[/straight face]

Not forgetting the exponential increase in seismic stations around the world, since the beginning of the 20th century, meaning a huge increase in the number of measured earthquakes globally, simply as a consequence of these additional stations.

So any increase in the total measured during this time period is to be expected.

Yitzhak Rabin

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Not forgetting the exponential increase in seismic stations around the world, since the beginning of the 20th century, meaning a huge increase in the number of measured earthquakes globally.

So any increase in the total measured during this time period is to be expected.

Thats the death toll though its not measuring the amount of earthquakes.

humanji

SuperGrover banned for a month.

Flamed Diving

yekahs wrote: »

Thats the death toll though its not measuring the amount of earthquakes.

Yeah, your explanation is also valid, for a different measure. When you combine both, you see why there might appear to be an increase.

Mahatma coat

the dates down the side are interestin, the graph itself does reflect what ye say about the increases in both affected populations and recording stations, but the dates on the side seem to indicate a sorta cycle

Yitzhak Rabin

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the dates down the side are interestin, the graph itself does reflect what ye say about the increases in both affected populations and recording stations, but the dates on the side seem to indicate a sorta cycle

What do you mean? That the powerful ones seem to come regularly?

Mahatma coat

sorta 3-4 Years on 3-4 Years off in a reasonably loose cycle

Flamed Diving

I found this:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=6&faqID=110

Yitzhak Rabin

Mahatma coat wrote: »

sorta 3-4 Years on 3-4 Years off in a reasonably loose cycle

I can kinda see what you mean. If you look at the parts where its 'thicker'(because there have been earthquakes in consecetive(sp?) years) you can definitely make out a sort of patern of mini-bell curves all the way down the chart. Its particularly significant around the 70s. I wonder if its a natural phenomenon, or just my pattern seeking ape brain making something out of nothing.

Also for all the "big ones" there was a few years of gradually increasing death tolls, and then gradually decreasing for the subsequent years after. It seems there is obviously some build up of sesmic activity that gets realesed in a big earthquake, and then it builds up again for a few years and continues on in that cycle.

Actually I remeber hearing that San Fran is due a big earthquake soon as it hasn't had one in years and there is alot of tension built up between the plates.

mysterious

Mahatma coat wrote: »

AAAAAAAAANYWAY Back sorta OT, All thes Fvckin earthquakes, I dare one a ye to stand there witha straight face and say that this is 'Normal' its at very least different from what we consider Normal.

could there be something out there fuppin up the gravities???

Another one in Australia today. The volcanic eruption in iceland was huge.

Oh its just a every normal event. It's not a normal everyday event. The amount of earthquakes since january this year has taken a full free for all slide up the chart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXAqJzLdmCY

Another massive one in China last week.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRgaNYV4Wu4

Infact Chile still taking hits. California has also been shaking.

mysterious

yekahs wrote: »

I can kinda see what you mean. If you look at the parts where its 'thicker'(because there have been earthquakes in consecetive(sp?) years) you can definitely make out a sort of patern of mini-bell curves all the way down the chart. Its particularly significant around the 70s. I wonder if its a natural phenomenon, or just my pattern seeking ape brain making something out of nothing.

Also for all the "big ones" there was a few years of gradually increasing death tolls, and then gradually decreasing for the subsequent years after. It seems there is obviously some build up of sesmic activity that gets realesed in a big earthquake, and then it builds up again for a few years and continues on in that cycle.

Actually I remeber hearing that San Fran is due a big earthquake soon as it hasn't had one in years and there is alot of tension built up between the plates.

The whole pacific plate is moving. There is earthquakes every day in the Pacific but thankfully its not in major populated areas. The 04 mega Tsnami really shifted the plates and it's been building up tension all around the Pacific. If Chile has seen record level earthquakes. California is like a melting pot ready to explode.

mysterious

Utah hit by 4.9 earthquake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsWioITQqNQ