• Announcements

    • Xiola Linden

      The New Community Platform   03/21/2017

      We are still working on making adjustments and changes to the new platform. Thanks  to everyone who has been sending in feedback and filing any bugs you've encountered! 
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Lucinda Bulloch

Strange things happening.

174 posts in this topic


Marigold Devin wrote:

Luci, like everyone, knows what she knows, researches what she's interested in, and just seemed to me to wish to discuss those interests.  What followed was a mix of like-minded people also wishing to discuss the theories, along with "the usual" people who just wanted to put her down for wanting to discuss something a little bit out of their range of interest.

Marigold, I don't know what, if anything, Lucinda knows. I have read a lot of her posts on a lot of subjects and she has invariably returned to the theme "this is why SL is dying". Sometimes it's because the other merchants shut her out. Sometimes it's because LL has such terrible policies. Sometimes it's because all of 'us bullies' pick on Lucinda. I consider Lucinda to be a troll.

My only comment in this thread concerned the 'sun rises early in Greenland' comment. Residents of the city of Ilulissat reported that they saw the sun for the first time this year on Jan. 11, when it should not have been visible until Jan 13. There were no measurements. There appear to have been no scientific studies. There do not seem to be any reports of such a thing happening anywhere else in Greenland or in the world, for that matter.

For such a thing to have happened due to a change in either the Earth's tilt or rotation (something clearly implied by Lucinda's thesis) the repercussions would have been worldwide and instant. Whether the sun really did go above the horizon, I don't know. I think it more likely that atmospheric conditions made it appear that sun was above the horizon. EITHER way, it could not have been a result of anything to do with a 7-mooned brown dwarf supposedly moving in from the Oort Cloud.

Lucinda just throws a bunch of unrelated stuff out there and then arrogantly insults anyone who questions the opinion, all the while providing zero links to any confirming articles or data, other than one photo on what appears to be her blog. I don't think there's a gang of bullies out to get Lucinda. I think Lucinda is a troll and enjoys causing a fuss.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're going about this in the wrong way.

Take in a deep breath, exhale, relax, resume breathing normally.

You are far from alone in your quests and in your understanding of truths and facts. The fact that your research has sources, confirms that you are not alone.

Do not internalize your data, it's not about you, or your readers.

 

You might see the humor, when I suggest that you beat around the bush, just like moses. He beat that bush, he was poun... on.... never mind.

 

 

I visited a website that claimed to be the good people. At the website is a special offer for those who join early.

What kind of "good" person would set-up a hierarchical system offering advantageous positions for only a select few?

They are not the good people.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Lucinda Bulloch wrote:

It is, I tried to isolate whether a hole in the magnetosphere could create sounds with the air at the bottom(top of atmosphere) and with the electro magnetic particles caught up in eddies at the top of the hole reacting with the solar wind, I thought that would be simple, but it seems none wanted to focus on that and wanted to focus on whether I am a worthy person or other outlandish things like making sounds in space and with bodies millions of miles away, as I am unable to express what I was looking for I have given up, I thought what I have said at the start would be seen for what it is as described above but this is not a chat to have with most of the people here.

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1852.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_6_111/ai_87854873/

I heard a whistling meteor one night back in 1993 or so. The sound seemed to emanate from the power/telephone wiring just over my head at the exact instant of a very bright flash as the meteorite streaked overhead. Alas I did not see it directly, just my shadow moving across the ground, it was that bright. Ham radio operators hear meteorites all the time. That said, if you wish to detect the ultimate cause of these sounds, we've been doing it for ages with radios. I'm not terribly worried that people are hearing things which aren't being detected already by other means.

There is, I think, a common misperception that only big governments have the ability to see certain things, and they regularly hide them from us. In fact, there are a great many amateur eyes and ears watching and listening all the time, all over the world, under different governments and having different cultures and beliefs. Many amateur astronomers are also ham radio operators, and there are even amateur radio-astronomers in the mix. So, all those eyes and ears can easily communicate DIRECTLY with each another across the globe if they wish, with no "censored internet" between them. Given these facts, I think a conspiracy of silence would be hard to achieve on such a grand scale.

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/guest/evans/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2048797/Amateur-skywatchers-Tenerife-impact-threat-asteroid.html

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/objects/asteroids/3305146.html?showAll=y&c=y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Marigold Devin wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


Marigold Devin wrote:

It often makes me laugh out loud that people wish to climb to the top, but the top of what?  Ego is a strange thing. 

I am also old and tired.  When I was 16-18, I would meet my young friends at certain places in my town, and the world belonged to us and us alone. We knew it all.  Now the town belongs to the 16-18 year olds, and they know it all, of course.  :matte-motes-wink:

Ignorance can be bliss.  I fear I am ignorant in many things, but what I don't understand, I endeavour to learn about, and if I ever put anyone down, it is done unintentionally.

You started a potentially interesting thread, you must focus on the like-minded within it, and discard the flippant and unkind.  If someone treats you like you do not matter, better not to even acknowledge they exist, because we don't know what lies behind harsh words, not really; maybe simple arrogance, maybe mental illness. 

Mari, your "you must focus on the like-minded" seems to contradict your "I endeavour to learn". Do we learn from the like minded? As as to Lucinda's focus, it does seem laser-like to me.

 

Does it seem to?

And yes, you can learn from the like-minded, those being people with similar interests and leanings, rather than those who dismiss your beliefs, if you get what I mean.

Luci, like everyone, knows what she knows, researches what she's interested in, and just seemed to me to wish to discuss those interests.  What followed was a mix of like-minded people also wishing to discuss the theories, along with "the usual" people who just wanted to put her down for wanting to discuss something a little bit out of their range of interest.

So I don't believe my statement was contradictory at all.

I've seen Lucinda put down a lot of people who have presented facts which seem to be outside her range of interest. I think I could mount an argument that facts themselves are outside Lucinda's area of interest. Perhaps she's a performance artist, who knows.

I am reminded of "balance in journalism" arguments which claim that every argument has two sides, with the implication that those sides are equally valid. That's simply not true.

The preponderance of the evidence is against Lucinda's contentions here. When that is pointed out she puts down the presenter. I have had long civil discourses with people who's beliefs I do not hold. Sometimes they move my needle a little. That's unlikely in Lucinda's case, as her arguments are often neither factual nor rational. If pointing that out feels harsh or arrogant, I don't know what's to be done about it.

I enjoy satire, but not sarcasm. It's tricky to avoid turning the one into the other when only a few people are involved. Lucinda eppears to enjoy sarcasm, but only if she's delivering it. It hardly seems fair for her to decry receiving it in return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on Dillon. I did some research on this and atmospheric phenomenon seems to be the most plausible explanation.

It is said that the sun rose on the 11th January in Ilulissat, two days earlier than expected but there are no photographs or data relating to this. People should remember that for this area, the sun rises almost due south and for the ceremony of watching the sun rise, the locals go to the top a nearby hill looking over the Ilulissat Fjord. It's not watched from the town itself.

On the 13th January, the sun rose, just peeping over the horizon, as expected although said to be 30 minutes late. What gives credence to the atmospheric phenomenon is that the sun did not rise on the 12th January at this location, thus dispelling any nonsense about a shift in the tilt of the Earth. This is a photo of sunrise from the hill above Ilulissat on the 13th January.

sol13januar_ilulissa_21246a.jpg

The tilt of the Earth occurs over a period of 26, 000 years so 13,000 years each way before it gets back to where it was. Any change in the Earth's tilt would have been immediately noticed by every observatory in the world whose telescopes are permanentl polar aligned and this did not happen. It would have made headline news in every paper and media. It just did not happen. The tilt of the Earth is exactly what it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nyll Bergbahn wrote:

Spot on Dillon. I did some research on this and atmospheric phenomenon seems to be the most plausible explanation.

It is said that the sun rose on the 11th January in Ilulissat, two days earlier than expected but there are no photographs or data relating to this. People should remember that for this area, the sun rises almost due south and for the ceremony of watching the sun rise, the locals go to the top a nearby hill looking over the Ilulissat Fjord. It's not watched from the town itself.

On the 13th January, the sun rose, just peeping over the horizon, as expected although said to be 30 minutes late. What gives credence to the atmospheric phenomenon is that the sun did not rise on the 12th January at this location, thus dispelling any nonsense about a shift in the tilt of the Earth. This is a photo of sunrise from the hill above Ilulissat on the 13th January.

sol13januar_ilulissa_21246a.jpg

The tilt of the Earth occurs over a period of 26, 000 years so 13,000 years each way before it gets back to where it was. Any change in the Earth's tilt would have been immediately noticed by every observatory in the world whose telescopes are permanentl polar aligned and this did not happen. It would have made headline news in every paper and media. It just did not happen. The tilt of the Earth is exactly what it should be.

Agreed. Robotic telescopes, now readily available to people of modest means (I have an LX-200), would immediately reveal any unexpected change in planetary/stellar/solar position, as they contain ephemeris data that should be good for the life of the telescope.

I hope to watch Venus transit across the Sun on June 5. I caught the last one in 2004 but won't be around for the next in 2117. If the Sun, the Earth, or Venus are not where they're expected to be, thousands of amateur astronomers, including me, will be ringing up news desks all over the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucinda Bulloch wrote:

I tried to isolate whether a hole in the magnetosphere could create sounds with the air at the bottom(top of atmosphere) and with the electro magnetic particles caught up in eddies at the top of the hole reacting with the solar wind, I thought that would be simple,
but it seems none wanted to focus on that and wanted to focus on whether I am a worthy person
or other outlandish things like making sounds in space and with bodies millions of miles away, as I am unable to express what I was looking for I have given up, I thought what I have said at the start would be seen for what it is as described above but this is not a chat to have with most of the people here.

To be fair to "everyone", which includes me, if "everyone" sees you as I see you - as you've shown yourself to be in your posts - then "everyone" sees you as a person who sees conspiracies around every corner and, therefore, not a person who can be taken seriously. E.g. there was a Star Trek episode in which Amelia wotsername was found somewhere across the galaxy, so it points to her being murdered here on Earth. Another example was not long ago when you posted that you are active (RL) against something to do with Zionists. You stated other people's wild ideas as facts (someone wrote that you'd posted that there is brown dwarf with moons in the Oort cloud). You say that the U.S never put men on the moon. And other stuff in this very thread. Conspiracies around every corner. You say that you've studied/researched the Van Allen Belt for 40 years, and yet you didn't about the inner one. Neither did I, but I don't claim to have studied it for 40 years.

You strike me as a person who likes to believe there are conspiracies everywhere, and who likes to believe every 'odd' whim that anyone comes up with. It's no wonder that people seem to find what you write to be unreliable. And that's being kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote: (referring to Lucinda)

You strike me as a person who likes to believe there are conspiracies everywhere, and who likes to believe every 'odd' whim that anyone comes up with. It's no wonder that people seem to find what you write to be unreliable. And that's being kind.


"Like" might not describe what's at work here, Phil. We are wired for irrational beliefs, including the belief that we always act rationally and that we "know" things to be true. One might consider examining a 1958 sketch of and article about the Van Allen belt for 40 years to be the same as studying the belt itself. Certainly you can think of parallel examples?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I don't believe she's studied it at all. It's much more likely that she read something about it about 40 years ago, and she's read stuff about it as she came across it since then. No study, no research, just occasional browsing or stumbling on things. Just like the rest of the stuff she claims. E.g. she must have read something about a brown dwarf in the Oort Cloud and naturally believes it to be an absolute. And she must have read someone's wild idea about Amelia wotsername and Star Trek, and believes it to be an absolute. And, naturally, anyone who doesn't believe the guff she readily swallows must be an intellectual pigmy, or whatever put-downs she uses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Certainly you can think of parallel examples?

 

The one that keeps recurring to me is by Johannes Keppler, who was certain the heavens were of divine order :

"Mensus eram coelos, nunc terrae metior umbras

Mens coelestis erat, corporis umbra iacet." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LX 200 is a very nice telescope Madelaine. I owned a 10" LX50 for some years and loved it before changing it for a fully computerised 8". I saw the transit of Mercury in 2004 being fortunate enough to have beautiful clears skies all during the transit. I would have to travel abroad to see the 2012 transit so I will probably miss it. About 2117, no I won't be around either. :smileylol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

To be honest, I don't believe she's studied it at all. It's much more likely that she read something about it about 40 years ago, and she's read stuff about it as she came across it since then. No study, no research, just occasional browsing or stumbling on things. Just like the rest of the stuff she claims. E.g. she must have read something about a brown dwarf in the Oort Cloud and naturally believes it to be an absolute. And she must have read someone's wild idea about Amelia wotsername and Star Trek, and believes it to be an absolute. And, naturally, anyone who doesn't believe the guff she readily swallows must be an intellectual pigmy, or whatever put-downs she uses.

Well, I think that's what I was getting at. She read something about the Van Allen belt written prior to our exploring it sufficiently to know how to fly through it. That satisfied her curiosity, so no further input was sought or even allowed. You don't believe that to be "studying the subject". I don't either. But, it's possible Lucinda does. Good luck trying to shake that belief.

And so we get to a discussion of how to respond to things like this. Do you just walk away, or do you put up resistance to the promulgation of false information for the benefit of those who are ignorant of the facts but still curious? We're neither saving nor destroying the world here, so I think there's latitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


ROB34466IIIa wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Certainly you can think of parallel examples?


The one that keeps recurring to me is by Johannes Keppler, who was certain the heavens were of divine order :

"
Mensus eram coelos, nunc terrae metior umbras
Mens coelestis erat, corporis umbra iacet." 

Divine order is still in the minds of a great many exceptionally bright and knowledgable people. Although I'm sure Kepler was miffed by Brahe's observational data, he did ultimately let go of his perfect solids and embrace the elipse, which he could argue is still a pretty devine shape ;-)

Planck is another example. He went to his grave unable to accept that his "quanta" were not a figment of his imagination. I find that both sad, amusing, and a reminder that dogma doesn't dog only the religious.

The example I had in mind can no longer be found at Holiday Inn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone who's interest has been piqued by astronomical matters, and you have a clear sky tonight, a beautiful sight awaits you. Look to the west and you will see the crescent Moon on its back. Below it to the right is the really bright planet Venus, also a crescent but you'll need 10x50 binoculars on a steady tripod or a small telescope to see the crescent. Below Venus and to its right is the planet Jupiter. Again, 7x 50 binoculars on a steady tripod will easily show some of its main four moons. Hand shake tends to make Jupiter and its moons jump around in non-stabilised binoculars so a tripod is very useful. If you're in western europe, you'll need to be quick as Jupiter will be setting but if you are in the US, you have plenty of time.

Mars is also visible quite high in the east. You can't miss it's bright red naked eye glow in the constellation of Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nyll Bergbahn wrote:

 If you're in western europe, you'll need to be quick as Jupiter will be setting

 

Already been spoilt with that awesome sight since march 13th ... :robotwink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nyll Bergbahn wrote:

For anyone who's interest has been piqued by astronomical matters, and you have a clear sky tonight, a beautiful sight awaits you. Look to the west and you will see the crescent Moon on its back. Below it to the right is the really bright planet Venus, also a crescent but you'll need 10x50 binoculars on a steady tripod or a small telescope to see the crescent. Below Venus and to its right is the planet Jupiter. Again, 7x 50 binoculars on a steady tripod will easily show some of its main four moons. Hand shake tends to make Jupiter and its moons jump around in non-stabilised binoculars so a tripod is very useful. If you're in western europe, you'll need to be quick as Jupiter will be setting but if you are in the US, you have plenty of time.

And for those of you who can see Venus' crescent shape in a small telescope, understand the historic nature of the first sighting of that by Galileo. He realized that Venus could only have a crescent shaped illumination if the Sun was "behind" it. Following Venus across the sky night after night, he saw that crescent become gibbous, then full, which meant the Sun was now in "front" of it. He understood that meant Venus was orbiting the Sun, not Earth. The Pope was displeased, and sent Galileo to his room... for the rest of his life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Madelaine McMasters wrote:...The Pope was displeased, and sent Galileo to his room for the rest of his life.

Unfortunately the pope was a jealous early adopter of social media.  Venus was meant to have 'friended' the vatican and read every inane papal tweet.  It was a planetary requirement to 'follow' the earth.  To this day, even in protestant England, it is social suicide to read The Sun.  Thanks largely to the education of orders such as the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), however, it now makes more sense to believe the vatican than almost anything written by a delusional and almost illiterate "blogger for a national newspaper".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PeterCanessa Oh wrote:
To this day, even in protestant England, it is social suicide to read The Sun. 


 

I trust this does not include it' s 3rd page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

And so we get to a discussion of how to respond to things like this. Do you just walk away, or do you put up resistance to the promulgation of false information for the benefit of those who are ignorant of the facts but still curious? We're neither saving nor destroying the world here, so I think there's latitude.

As far as facts can be ascertained, I prefer to correct misinformation, and I'd prefer to be corrected when applicable.

In this case, I was reading this thread and, coincidentally, IMing with a forum user about another thread. By the end of page 3 of this thread, I'd formed my opinion of the OP and stated it in the IM - a single word. When I said in a recent post that I was being kind, I really meant it. I was being kind. After page 3, all the stuff about Star Trek and Amelia, moon landings, brown dwarfs, 40 years of studying the Van Allen belt, all the claimed research, etc. were posted. For me, there can only be one conclusion, which is the same one that I drew by the end of page 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

And so we get to a discussion of how to respond to things like this. Do you just walk away, or do you put up resistance to the
promulgation of false information
for the benefit of those who are ignorant of the facts but still curious? We're neither saving nor destroying the world here, so I think there's latitude.


 

Maddy, the promulgation of false information snowballs.   The effect becomes accumulative overtime, as false information piles upon further, and further.   This does society a disservice, as ignorance is not bliss, and neither is confusion.  

If, "We're neither saving nor destroying the world here..."    then why confront those who counter the false information?   Why not confront those who dispense false information?  

Why try to modify the behavior of other poster's here in the forum?   If there is latitude to be given to the OP...why latitude to those who reply with comments?   

Also, we've touched upon this issue before...in another place and time.   So, I'm curious, as to why it's important to you to try and modify the behavior of other posters.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Celestiall Nightfire wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

And so we get to a discussion of how to respond to things like this. Do you just walk away, or do you put up resistance to the
promulgation of false information
for the benefit of those who are ignorant of the facts but still curious? We're neither saving nor destroying the world here, so I think there's latitude.


 

Maddy, the promulgation of false information snowballs.   The effect becomes accumulative overtime, as false information piles upon further, and further.   This does society a disservice, as ignorance is not bliss, and neither is confusion.  

If, "
We're neither saving nor destroying the world here..."    
then why confront those who counter the false information?   Why not confront those who dispense false information?  

Why try to modify the behavior of other poster's here in the forum?   If there is latitude to be given to the OP...why latitude to those who reply with comments?   

Also, we've touched upon this issue before...in another place and time.   So, I'm curious, as to why it's important to you to try and modify the behavior of other posters.  

Deja vu all over again, and I recognize a pattern.  Posts disappear very quickly, why is that?  Are people ARing for asking valid questions?  Celestiall, you bring up an interesting point as I had this conversation in the Lifestyles forum.  I am curious for an answer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0