[Ahmabeliever]

Bah

Science is scientific and seeking evidence.

But evidence is mocked before trial.

Shame shame shame.

I have discovered a shipwreck with google earth, no, I'm not sharing.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Ahmabeliever

Bah

Science is scientific and seeking evidence.

But evidence is mocked before trial.

Shame shame shame.

I have discovered a shipwreck with google earth, no, I'm not sharing.

To seek evidence one first needs to know the landscape.

Geological investigation is not for the uninformed. You cannot expect to make a major geological discovery simply by going on the net and looking at maps. I have made discoveries where I live... of a volcanic pipe and a mineral deposits and a new mineral serpentine to the state. I did it though field research with 5 geologist,, renting heavy equipment, ordering maps though the state, stocking shelves with expensive out of print books, all the information that you cannot get on line. Examined drill tailings and hiking my ass off. I have seen others that do the same sort of geological investigations such as turtle and people I know first hand in my rock&gem club. I know that you do these things also with stream ecology, do you think you can understand stream ecology without getting your feet wet. I can only assume that you have not done geological investigation or prospecting. Take my word when I tell you geology is study intensive. You live great area for rock hounding. do you have a rock hound club where you live?

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Cedars

And yet GE users have discovered craters.

There is nothing wrong with using GE to locate visual features that warrant further investigation. One should not leap to any conclusions though that are based on visual features alone. Additional investigation is required before claims are made as to the cause of those features.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

To seek evidence one first needs to know the landscape.

Geological investigation is not for the uninformed. You cannot expect to make a major geological discovery simply by going on the net and looking at maps. I have made discoveries where I live... of a volcanic pipe and a mineral deposits and a new mineral serpentine to the state. I did it though field research with 5 geologist,, renting heavy equipment, ordering maps though the state, stocking shelves with expensive out of print books, all the information that you cannot get on line. Examined drill tailings and hiking my ass off. I have seen others that do the same sort of geological investigations such as turtle and people I know first hand in my rock&gem club. I know that you do these things also with stream ecology, do you think you can understand stream ecology without getting your feet wet. I can only assume that you have not done geological investigation or prospecting. Take my word when I tell you geology is study intensive. You live great area for rock hounding. do you have a rock hound club where you live?

You are oh so correct, there is nothing like getting your feet wet either figuratively or really wet. I can remember when I was in my rockhound phase. I was hiking all over the area of west virginia where I lived. I'll never forget the first fossil I dug out of a hillside or the first quartze crystal I found. Nothing beats being there. That is one reason I am so pro space travel. No machine will ever be the same as human feet on the ground. GE is obviously a great guide to find an interesting place to scour in person.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by REASON

Actually yes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it can't be done, Google Earth is a great tool, and I definitely don't have anything against potheads based on personal experience.

Its just in this instance the topography does not appear indicative of an angular impact, and considering its prominent location, would likely have been detected long ago if it did, IMHO. But at a glance, I could see how it might appear as the remnant of an impact due to the curved region.

But don't let me burst anyone's bubble. Collect more data, develop a theory, submit a paper, write a book. That's what it's all about with science, right?

I appreciate your effort to tone down your critique of the topic.

While I dont nessessarily agree with bfph's conclusion, I also have a limited geological familiarity with that region, other than knowing the Appalachian mountains are old. This does not exclude the possibility that this feature predates the formation of the mountains themselves. As the first link I posted relates, many factors have erased, or made the ability of people to definantily conclude something like this is a impact crater that could be a billion, rather than millions of years old and dates back to a younger, lifeless earth.

As exploration and mapping, and technology advances increase, our ability to recognize very old features may increase enough for a group to say Wow, this is one of those really old features that has been mostly obliterated thru time.

I think its fine if people wonder about the possibilities of a strange claim topic, and honestly, this is better than many threads that end up in strange claims or Alt theories.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by C1ay

There is nothing wrong with using GE to locate visual features that warrant further investigation. One should not leap to any conclusions though that are based on visual features alone. Additional investigation is required before claims are made as to the cause of those features.

And bfph forwarded his conclusion to better authorities on the topic. But as people get excited about their ideas, its often hard to wait for the response. I dont see a need to scoff without discussion, critique without explanation, or ignore the opportunity to guide someone to other possible explanations. One can just ignore the topic if they cant take the time to communicate.

This is not directed at any one poster, rather its a general response to an all too easy habit to fall into, and there are people reading these things that never sign up, never post, and could be googling Keywords to learn more all on their own. Its the broader audience.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Cedars

I think its fine if people wonder about the possibilities of a strange claim topic, and honestly, this is better than many threads that end up in strange claims or Alt theories.

Originally Posted by Cedars

And bfph forwarded his conclusion to better authorities on the topic. But as people get excited about their ideas, its often hard to wait for the response. I dont see a need to scoff without discussion, critique without explanation, or ignore the opportunity to guide someone to other possible explanations. One can just ignore the topic if they cant take the time to communicate.

This is not directed at any one poster, rather its a general response to an all too easy habit to fall into, and there are people reading these things that never sign up, never post, and could be googling Keywords to learn more all on their own. Its the broader audience.

Ok. I completely understand your points here and you are correct. And so is T-Bird in his comments above.

It is easy to get caught up not only in this forum, but in the way this discussion was initially presented by bigfatpothead. I found his constantly making light of his being such a "stoner" pretty funny, and my smart-alecky objection was playing into the tone that had already been established in this thread.

T-Bird's point, as I took it, was essentially to suggest that bfph invited these rebuttals since he had not done enough research to make a good argument for what he was seeing, and my objection was in deference to the years of geological and topographical research that has been conducted in that region by experts in the field.

That being said, it's just an initial objection. There are likely to be many more. Breaking through established theories that are heavily supported can be a tough road to hoe. But if there are scientific merits to this observation then by all means, keep pronouncing them. Science is amendable, and so am I.

[Moontanman]

I really liked this thread, BFPH had me through much of it, Anecdotal evidence is often quite compelling, at the very least he gave us something to exercise our minds. His arguments were very good and if the detailed data had been just a little more supporting I would still be in his camp. Great thread!

[Ahmabeliever]

I guess being the 70% left brain artsy farty type I am I'll never stop wondering and dreaming at things and postulating theories about them until we have the facts in. It is a strong point of mine to tie things in. Also a weak point. Though I've discovered this place and my own critical thinking I'm still like a child in the universe of science.

And the magic is still there.

Including pirate treasure and meteor strikes.

Thunderbird said

I know that you do these things also with stream ecology, do you think you can understand stream ecology without getting your feet wet.

Correct. Although, I feel like I spent about 2 years just learning the language. I also had to have hands on, I'd already been in streams for countless hours as a child. The books gave me names for things I already knew, then told me what was there that I couldn't see. But when I moved to soil biology it was like I was made for it (but I already had the language). Sometimes when something falls in my lap like this I can get a bit too cocky and jump the gun on other things. The ability to see the big picture helps a lot, but at the end of the day, without the palette of frames of reference I have begun to collate, there would be no picture.

Can I send in some photos of a couple of rocks for you to look at for me please. They are the only differing factor between two aquaponic systems, the one with them performing better.

I'm sticking with the giant meteor strike. I think it happened an extremely long time ago, and those with many books and papers on things pertaining to geology are pissed that they didn't see it first. Joking!

Can't wait to hear what reply it solicits.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Ahmabeliever

Can't wait to hear what reply it solicits.

Well said from the heart.