MonoAccipiter

Many things are possible with scripting, but such a thing needs scripting. What I usually do is I find a mod or a place in the game where something happens that I want to replicate, which in your case would be an NPC changing clothing. I'm not sure if I can think of any such events off the top of my head though. Perhaps the lady in Vault 21, she changes into sleepwear when you, uh, charm her. Might just be replacing her with a new (temporary) NPC though. You could try to see if there's any commands for refreshing inventory at the GECK wiki, and then look into making a script that counts the in-game days and refreshes after a while. In theory that should mean a new outfit each time it is refreshed, so long as they have a levelled list with multiple entries. WCP would probably undo all my changes, and thus, ironically, be very incompatible.

Make a levelled list with the armors you want, tick "Calculate for each item in count," add said list to the inventory of the NPC, making sure to remove the original armor too. You'll have to use the resurrect command on an NPC that has already spawned.

He does later on, but keep in mind that to the game, the Victors you meet along the way to Vegas are different entities given different behaviour packs.

You can't select a model outside of the data directory.

Why would that not be allowed? We just want people to have the best possible experience. I'd thank you rather than chide you for it. :) Never had that hand bug, Jax, perhaps I have different settings with the Stutter Remover, since you seemed to have narrowed it down to that. Too long since I installed that to remember it though. The crouch bug doesn't come from Enhanced Camera, because I've never used that mod myself.

The one where they suddenly come down from the top of the screen? Otherwise, I am unfamiliar with it. Neck seams are fixed with the seam concealer mod. It was pretty bad in vanilla too. Never heard about LOD on NPCs (in FNV) before. Not completely sure what you are referring to.

That mod was removed. It's hard to say if it was that exact mod because there are no images anymore, but it's either that or something called NVBS, which was also removed.

Tumbleweeds are buggy messes in general. Sometimes they get stuck in the ground. The eye thing is an FCO problem which there was a fix for. However, it was taken down. Luckily for you, I found something in my magic box. Crashes are harder to help with. Check that you have nowhere around the max amount of active plugins (F&L has a mention of that at the start) and that you have made your bashed patch correctly, use a 4GB exe and so forth.

Bug with the ragdolls mod, the already-dead bodies will do that. Especially noticeable with brahmin and nightkin. Activate the scanner in the ragdolls mod MCM menu, and for the few bodies it doesn't catch you can try to drag them a bit.

I like Lazarus Project too, the MCM menu is a huge boon.

See my reply to hazelwolf above. This (technically outdated) video should cover using the old version according to the nexus comments. Can't believe this thing is still not up. The old version works fine with the new JIP plugin and could just have been reuploaded while the update was being worked on. If everybody followed this line of reasoning, then every CaliberX-reliant mod would have been taken down, F&L would have been taken down et cetera ad infinitum. Sigh.

It probably doesn't cause stutters, but then again, CASM doesn't cause that much on its own, it depends what you combine it with. I had major stutters when combining it with the aforementioned New Vegas Reborn Project, but that was an intensely script heavy mod, more so than any mod in F&L (and to PTWB's credit, none of his newer mods have that problem). It probably depends a bit on your computer as well, but if you have stutters, and think it covers what you need from a save mod, then by all means, go for it. @hazelwolf: I don't know. There's a strange tendency among some authors to just randomly take things down at the moment, even if it is just for updates. Don't know what made them think it was the thing to do, and can't say I'm much of a fan myself. @leipzig175: They look interesting enough, but would need testing. @baronaatista: If I had time, I would probably change the guide to use NVR3 again. I know I was the one that made the change to FCO in the first place, but in my defence, FCO was being updated at the time. Currently, it has some markant issues, while NVR3 has continued to be updated by Dracomies. Besides, it was never really NVR's aims that were problematic, more that it didn't cover as much as FCO. As of now I would recommend going for an NVR3 setup if you can do without the install instructions.

That is true. I hadn't considered that.

It all depends on whether someone has the time to update the guide properly. At the moment, I don't. As for the mods: CASM has some additional features that are nice and in regards to an F&L setup it is not extremely taxing, perhaps PTWB was using some other mods with weighty scripts, I know some of his older mods (New Vegas Reborn) murdered my loading times when their script had to run on entering a new cell, but I cannot speak for his newer ones. It has caused me little issues though. The bullet time mod is incompatible with PN and I never really considered it a problem that there were VATS perks. There are perks that are completely useless to my melee-berserker when I play that kind of character, but it doesn't really piss me off that they are there. Bullet time being tied to agility works well enough in my opinion. The Karma mod is interesting, but it depends on how strong the perks are. I would have preferred them to work more like traits, giving bonuses and downsides, but that might just be me. It's also somewhat strange that someone with very good karma should lose infamy with a faction like the Legion or the Great Khans. PTWB's economy mods have never worked well with other mods. There's a fairly simple reason for why nobody else tries to turn the economy system on its head and shake it until all the coins fall out: all mods are balanced towards the vanilla system. Yes, I am aware that it changes equipment value, but that has no bearing when completing one or two quests not modified by the mod gives me enough money to buy three fatmans. Weapons are expensive for a reason. PN's economy component works much better because it makes the player need more food, barter skill less forgiving, and repairs more expensive (i.e. it increases the cost of things you have to do instead of changing the entire field so that every other mod is incompatible). Mojave Arsenal is interesting. I've never had any issue with the naming conventions in the original game, and as such I would have wished that he made this into two into separate mods as the different parts touch very different things, but the changes to levelled lists are interesting. My New Vegas Landscape Overhaul mod does much the same thing, in adding ammo variants to some levelled lists.

The guy who composed the soundtrack for Life is Strange, Jonathan Morali, usually goes by the pseudonym Syd Matters, which was made by combining and altering Syd Barrett and Roger Waters. That also happens to be the name of his band, which was featured several times in the game soundtrack. I was a bit confused when I found a record by Albert Hammond Jr. in my dad's old collection a few weeks back. Seemed too much of a coincidence for him to have the exact same name as the rhythm guitarist in the Strokes, and indeed it was not. Turns out they make up a son and father pairing, both of them being named after their respective dads. Anyhow, here's a song from the Strokes' latest album:

It was more that it seemed to imply that people left religion only because they wanted full credit for their merits, which I understand now was not what you meant. Blink was a great episode. Going enormously OT here, but so long as Tech does not mind, it is always pleasurable to discuss that show. I enjoyed the way Daleks were introduced back in Series One (the new run). It might still have looked somewhat silly, but there was a real respect for its capability from the Doctor, not to mention the fact that it took out almost anything that was thrown at it. When that respect (of their capabilities) disappeared from the characters in the show, the Daleks quickly lost traction in terms of their threat, and that's when their more silly aspects became even more apparent.

Was referring to the link, which mostly concerns the episode Utopia. Daleks were easier to take seriously before Moffat decided to practically make them gunfodder. Can't remember the last time I actually saw them accomplish something. He even made them (supposedly the most terrifying beings ever made) beg for mercy just to make River look badass. In the first episode of the new series we were once again treated to a Dalek that was incapable of doing anything of worth, never mind the fact that it was suffering from an obvious case of Storm Trooper Syndrome.

@Nebulous112: There are definitely religious claims that science can disprove, but it is not beyond the means of religion to accept those developments and still retain their faith. It is to be remarked that philosophy has thread upon the grounds of such assumptions on numerous occasions though, with varying results. Theoretically, it could be possible to prove the existence of God within the framework of logic, it has just not been attempted with enormous success. Descartes famously asserted that to be the most perfect, something would have to exist, thus God needed to exist, but he supposed that existence was a trait, which led Kant to point out that if a pair of brown trousers no longer exist, then they are not brown anymore either. This sort of scenario seems to repeat, but it does make for interesting reading. There is a challenge for believers in adapting their faith to reality when they have been given to think of it otherwise, John Ruskin once said: "If only the Geologists would let me alone, I could do very well, but those dreadful Hammers! I hear the clink of them at the end of every cadence of the Bible verses," but it is no impossibility, and so long as that is attempted, co-existence should be well within the means of both sides. I'm not much fond of the view that some atheists seem to hold, which boils down to any belief not founded on affirmable evidence being dangerous. There is a clear distinction between different kinds of belief as I see it, and for each that teaches hate, a dozen that preach harmony. @Ayien: The whole concept of "doing something only by our own merits" seems like a very modern deception. It is not very uncommon even for atheistic philosophical doctrines to believe in such a thing as absolute free will, let alone suppose it just for the benefit of our merits. See Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Sartre etc. I think you give too little thought to why people abandon religion; supposing that they merely want to satisfy their ego seems like a very demeaning remark to make about people... @Sparrowprince: It took me far too long to realise that was a character...

Good old Ten.

I understand as well, Tech, and I have prodded you to my content. Thank you for a civil discussion. It has made me more aware of the points of contentment I am unable to make the leaps to accept, and if those remain unproblematic for you, I have no difficulty in accepting that. ::

I never mentioned radiocarbon. I mentioned radiometric dating. It does not need to use carbon, it uses uranium amongst other things. Carbon dating is for human finds. Hollow earth hypothesis? Really? Are we gonna refute the entire law of gravity now? How do we explain away the average density of the earth? Does seismic waves work in a different fashion than what we presume? Or is there some machine slowing them down when they travel through these honeycomb caves? There is no "me" in this. There are other theories that rely much less on presupposed factors that we are unable to pass judgement on, that cover more ground in terms of the problem this theory faces, that predict more evidence that would allow for verification, that align with other theories accepted for the same reason, such as the accretion theory for the meteor field between Mars and Jupiter. So, yes, it is "dismissed" because other theories are deemed immensely more likely, that is how the scientific method works. Theories that rely on untestable phenomena whilst failing to predict the nature of future evidence, are gradually eliminated as potential solutions because they need to stretch their own definitions further and further at each instance. Probability is very useful here, in fact, it is one of the most reliable guiding factors we have when it comes to the enumeration and assessment of theories. When a theory presupposes that we change other theories for it to work, such as in the case of the hollow earth theory, then it is expected to provide a model that accounts for both itself and all previous cases under the same umbrella. It's not enough to say "this will work if physics are wrong." You need to find a theory that can supplant what we currently work from, and continue to explain all the factors it has explained previously. I've never assumed that the theories I rely on are guaranteed to be correct. Then my line of argument would be: "this is wrong because science explains it otherwise." That is not how I have argued. I have however, identified common threads between theories in terms of the factors they require as a presupposition, and the need for any alternative theory to supplant the theories it dismisses with something equally adequate. When an "unproven assumption" fails to do that, it goes from being an "unproven assumption" to a "a very unlikely, unproven assumption." When the "very unlikely, unproven assumption" fails to explain how it would itself work, then it threads dangerously close to being an impossibility. Such things are dismissed by science not because they take the time definitely eliminate each and every one of them, but because the alternative is intellectual death. Complete stagnation in the development of our knowledge about the world. It is very hard for me to prove definitely what the solar system looked like 75000 years ago, but as I demonstrated, we either rely on the methods that were founded upon reason, or we abandon all methods. There is no picking and choosing amongst what we follow. Openness is not believing in anything, it is being willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. I have tried my very best to do this with your evidence, which you have been more than adequate in providing, and I thank you for that, but it has lead me to contradictions, to the need for introducing additional unreliable factors, to the need for dismissing theories which there has been presented no alternative for (the laws of gravity) and bending every correlation into the most extreme aspect of itself. There are no indicators of truth here, there is a possibility with no evidence pointing to it besides the lack of evidence affirmably denying it, that is, if you do not mistake correlation for causation. When things like the Martian dichotomy can point to alternatives A, B, and C, it stops being evidence for C alone. This path seems to wind on down that road forever. There is a Martian dichotomy, and it could mean a multiple impact scenario took place, and that could be an exploding planet, or it could have been something else entirely, and if it was an exploding planet, it could be another planet than Maldek, which the evidence seems to suggest since most theory on this assumes it happened millions of years ago to account for the stripping of the atmosphere. .. and so forth ad nauseam.

Dinosaur fossils are not my strongest point, but from what I can gather, they are dated through determining the formation time of the sedimentary rocks they are found in, which is done through radioactive dating. So refuting that kind of data would either require explaining how fossils mere tens-of-thousands-of-years-old ended up in several-million-years-old rock formations, or they would require refuting the whole fundament of atomic physics, and that would require some impressive reasoning, as it would also need to explain why the current models are accurate in virtually every other form of application. I don't think cave paintings are reliable enough for us to jump to such conclusions. The fact that I was able to refute several of its claims make me very sceptical of this source. How many collapsed houses do we need to see before we start entertaining the idea that the building plan might have been at fault? More to the point, how large a portion of a theory can be built on falsehood until we dismiss it entirely? It also does not have the problem of needing the explosion to be as recent as Ra suggest, and thus the problem with the 129Xe is an artificial problem that exists when this paper is used to support an adapted theory. The thing is, this theory is well and good, but it is not in itself something that supports something. There are theories that say there are erosion evidence on mars, but until we find evidence that suggest there is water, they remain mere theories, because that erosion evidence might as well be proof of something else. The study says the following: "It is the authors’ central proposal in this paper that it was this verifiable 'Mars tidal lock relationship' with Planet V that accounts for a host of previously inexplicable and even contradictory Martian surface features, that otherwise will remain perpetually mysterious." It is a theory working from the fact that there was no other theory at the time suggesting solutions for the surface features, now there are, and there are even surface features unaccounted for by this very theory. It has been dismissed for several reasons, one is that other theories have surfaced that presuppose less factors (Occam's Razor) and thus are more less reliant on chance, another is that evidence it predicted has not been found, such as frozen water remains on the surface, another is that problems have arisen that the theory does not seem to account for, as was highlighted in the article. The theory of Maldek has the curious capacity of making even more presuppositions and thus shifting an even heavier burden over on chance, while still not actively dealing with the problems of the former theory, or predicting any new evidence that can be used to determine its likelihood. I'm also still very uncertain about the supposition that nuclear explosions can literally shatter a planet. By this logic, should they not be using their own grammar when speaking in English, since they are merely able to look up the words, while not understanding the rules for how they are used? Try using Google Translate to translate a french page, or even better, Japanese, it does not look very pretty, and that even attempts to alleviate some of the grammar issues... If we are talking about the material that does not have scientific components, I can agree, but should not the parts that do have scientific components lend us an indication of the truthfulness of this whole narration? If it is true, it will be true, if it is not, it will not. What we suppose it will indicate, should hopefully have no effect on what it ends up indicating. I mean, if there is a creator, then obviously science would reveal how the creator made things, that is kind of inferred from the term creator. Most mainstream Christianity in Europe, at least where I live, does not teach a literal interpretation of the Bible. Partly because that has been effectively disproved by scientific methods which are deemed accurate by most people because the logic behind them is both available (viz. contestable) and sound (viz. generally uncontested). As I tried to demonstrate earlier, I believe the main interest of the para-sciences should be in proving the truth of their claims, thus it is alarming that they seem uninterested in verification, even to the extent of very simple methods. This, combined with the contradictions in the text, seems like a strong indication of foul play. The narrator is both unreliable, and communicating with people who have no interest in providing adequate verification of its actuality. Thus we have no way of knowing if it is real, if it is what it says it is, while being aware that certain things it says are definitely unreliable (either based on misunderstandings regarding communication or actual falsified information). Thus the chance of the information it presents being of value seem to drop rapidly. Probability tells us that the chance of getting a coin toss right twice in a row is 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4, three in a row is 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/8 and so forth. Imagine the likelihood of the information this entity presents being accurate. We have to first toss the coin of whether the channellers are reliable, if that passes, we have to toss the coin of whether the entity is a real non-deceiver (this could be divided into two categories, but the real part could be applied to the part about the channellers), then we have to toss the coin of whether it made a mistake or not. We have a chance of 1/X * 1/Y * 1/Z, and these factors seem to grow with every addition of evidence that relies even more so on possibility. The fact that the channellers hesitate in making any test of its reliability makes both factor X and factor Y grow, the fact that there are contradictions in the text makes factor Z grow, and also factor Y since it could be intentionally misleading us. Science works by reducing these factors, by leaving as little as possible left to chance. This sort of theory seems to work by having the number of factors grow into infinity, Z was not a factor until I pointed out the contradiction for example, which is basically the opposite of progressing towards a probability, namely regressing into the unknown. The problem with this is that such criticism of knowledge works equally harshly on the points it defends as it does upon science, and it is not really a better solution to the problem of science (absolute verification). It's a sort of knowledge-nihilism, which declares that there is no difference between a high and a low probability, ignoring the fact that such guidance has without a doubt lead us towards important knowledge. The thing that is most odd about that kind of reasoning, however, is that it seems to assume that low probability outcomes benefit more from questioning the validity of our knowledge, when they don't do that at all, proper knowledge-nihilism should reject every factor of knowledge, not defend that which is by nature, unlikely and esoteric. There is no moving of all factors into the a levelled playing field, there is rejection of all factors, or no such rejection at all. Either we abandon science, and rituals which we have even less reason to trust in, or we abandon nothing, and consider its reasoning until a proper philosophical argument for its supposed deception is provided. That is my point of view, at least, on why the lack of complete assurance is a poor excuse for dismissing scientific tradition and the need for scientific verification through probable solutions (and reduction of improbable factors). EDIT: Forgot some of the articles. First off, thank you for providing sources. I was genuinely unable to find that information myself. My main problem with this is as follows: most of these theories rely on the solar wind stripping Mars of its atmosphere, they merely explain the magnetic field being blown away by comets/ateroids. Their benefit is that they can say this happened millions of years ago, and thus the solar wind had plenty of time to do its thing. If there were Martians 75000 years ago, then the time frame is change significantly, and the asteroid impact would need to rid it of its atmosphere too, which these theories do not seem to suggest it did. Otherwise the process would need to be much less developed. ----- Thank you for attempting to help with my meditation hindrance. It is annoying me greatly, but I suppose I can only continue working around it.

I'm not sure what these planets that are suspected of being former moons are, or what their mass is, or who suspects them. These are all important factors to me. If an astrologer from the 19th century suspected something of being a moon, I won't add much weight to it, for example. That would be basing science on pseudo-science, and thus making whatever science it was initially, a pseudo-science. It's important that we get the roots here, the enumeration of sources and their comparison. Otherwise the data means very little. Lots of planets have high eccentricities. Mercury even has a higher one, and Pluto has a higher one, though obviously not a major planet. Planets are generally expected to develop very different eccentricities during the formation of the solar system, and there are some theories to suggest there might have been planets with higher eccentricities that were ejected from the solar system billions of years ago (though not very many, since the system is 4.6 billion years old itself). Heck, we don't even know what the earth's eccentricity was back then. Mars might very well have had a higher eccentricity before, having its orbit made more circular because of tidal forces from the sun. Eccentricity is a basic feature of Kepler's laws, where the eccentricity can depend on the angular momentum amongst other things. There are even means to determine that the eccentricity of the smaller planets in the solar system are affected by Saturn and Jupiter. The point is, that this is not evidence of anything, it is just lack of evidence against it, and that seems strange to use as a means to prove a point. The theories of Phaeton are even built on something much more reliable than assuming Mars was a moon, namely the presence of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, but that was largely superseded by the accretion model. Astronomy is very exciting, and even potential theories like that of Phaeton, though accepted as something unreliable, can excite the curiosity. But there is a long way to go from accepting that there is a slight chance there might have been another planet, and assuming a combined amount of factors about how it was destroyed, how its moon became a planet and so forth. Well, when we start removing random comparisons from statistical data, we can prove just about anything. Mars barely rotates slower than the earth, and the remainder of planets to compare it to is gas giants and ice giants which are known to rotate faster as a general rule. So what are we comparing Mars to then? Nothing? Venus? Venus is larger than Mars and rotates every 243 days. Venus doesn't even have moon. This is just blatantly false, or engineered to be misleading. This would be warning sign for me regarding this show. I was unable to find any data on the CF-CM offset of Mars, or a general theory suggesting the offset in satellite bodies. If possible, I would appreciate if such data was presented, rather than just the conclusion drawn from it. The crustal dichotomy does not need to be proven. That is well known and interesting. What needs to be proven is the likelihood of a multiple impact hypothesis over that of other ones, as well as the fact that such impacts were caused by something like the exploding of whatever planet it was a moon of. As I've attempted to show, there are multiple problems with the idea of Mars having been a moon that need to be solved before there can be any supposed correlation between a multiple impact theory and that factor. We haven't even begun to touch upon the notion that nuclear bombs would literally shatter a planet... Wikipedia has a decent article on the crustal dichotomy, illustrating, amongst other things, some of the problems with the multiple impact hypothesis. See above. The main difference here seems to be that science treats it as indications that such a theory might be feasible, whereas this show seems to treat it as evidence that it is. No. 129Xe is produced by the beta decay of 129I, which is a fission product. 129I has a radioactive half life of 16 million years. That means, due to the fact that the abundance is of its decay product, not the fission product, whatever caused it would have to have happened millions of years ago. Interesting enough there are 129Xe finding on Earth too, in wells in New Mexico, and in meteorites... Does that mean there has been nuclear war on meteorites as well as Earth? Or is it more likely that this common denominator indicates a more general causation, rather than one specific causation for Mars? Scientists have several solutions that do not require ancient races to have left no trace of their existence, for the meteorites is it usually the product of a supernova, on Earth they commonly hold it is from the decay of mantle derived gasses after the planets formation. As for Mars, well, physics seem to solve that too. I'm asking for the theory supposing that such a thing would strip a body of its atmosphere. The atmosphere isn't held by some balloon you can stick a needle to and pop. The fact that I can imagine this happening doesn't lend any reason for why it should be happening. I would like to see a theory that underlines how a magnetic field would change because of an impact, and the same for the atmosphere, what I can imagine has very little bearing on what is real. I can imagine the Sun going completely cold in a matter of seconds, that does not mean it is possible. I can imagine time travel, that does not mean it is possible. It might be, but that has very little to do with my capacity for imagining it. I'm sorry. I did not intend to twist your words. Perhaps "dismiss it" would have been a better way of putting it? What I mean is that you removed the contradiction by introducing a factor of unreliability. It's as if someone claims the Bible is a completely accurate work of history, someone presents a proof of contradiction, and then that is dismissed on the grounds of the writer being confused. I'm not accusing you of hiding anything, obscurantism is more a reference to the act of using unreliability to dismiss opposing points. For example, if I were to say the world consists of squiggly yellow lines, and someone were to say all science points to it being atoms, then I could be an obscurantist and say that we can't see down at that level, and use that as proof of my position, when at best it would be dismissing literally every form of information. I understand the difficulty in this, but I do not currently have the time to read all the context. For this, I apologise. I see. My point was more that an unreliable narrator should strike both ways. If science is unreliable, but actively attempting to combat that effect, and Ra is proven to be unreliable by contradictions in its communications, then Ra remains even more unreliable, and this adds with all the other aspects, such as the unreliability of the people who claim to have been channelling and so on. There is a reason why peer-reviewed studies are the mean by which we usually measure reliability. Esoteric information grows exponentially less trustworthy with every additional effect it needs to procure (such as an unreliable narrator) in explaining its flaws, because the amount of things one had to suspend disbelief in at the start was already a large amount. It's much easier to believe that there are things we cannot explain, than that there is knowledge only provided to a blessed, but somehow always benevolent, few. Yes. This is not a new concept, I have little problem understanding it (in fact, Allah is supposed to be eternal, so this is not an uncommon feature of religion). This is how I understood it, and why using the concepts available in the channeller's mind would mean there should be no difficulty with language, which, combined with the fact that they experience all time at once, while having the channeller's units of measurement, should make such massive mistakes in the assessment of things like how many planets there are in the universe downright baffling. Again, this was not a minor miss, but an anomaly of at least 999.665 billion units. It basically means they missed almost 100% of the actual planets if you round up. The thing is, almost nobody uses the Bible as an accurate representation of history anymore, and it never claimed things such as there being another planet that blew up because of nuclear explosions, or that there were Martians at some point. These are claims that are inherently scientific, and that are presented as part of the truth. There is no package without this included, because we either believe in the whole of it, or none of it, as long as it rest on so many assumptions. John Ruskin said he could hear the hammerings at the end of every bible verse after the likes of evolutionary theory was presented, now a lot of Christians believe in the creation as a symbolic event, and as for those that believe in it as something factual, well, they are repeatedly challenged for a reason. Most of what Christianity presents as part of a symbolism now is possible as some event that is merely symbolised in that way. As Mator pointed out earlier, there are actual proofs of God, of an initial mover and the like, which can potentially be refuted. The ontological proof of Descartes for example, is no longer held to be true after Kant dismissed it. The things about the bible that have been soundly dismissed are rarely held up as truths by people who respect reason and science. The sort of material we are suggesting however, is commenting actively on the state of the world, not just metaphysical aspects of a life after death or the design of a creator. And it makes claims as to the constant validity of its interaction with the human race. The very interaction which has produced certain statements about our current affairs. There is a difference here, for me, and it is an important one. Now as for the law of confusion and the law of free will. I am aware of them, and without bringing up the numerous challenges to free will, such as the moral challenge of Schopenhauer, they can be accepted. However, they are also the easiest way of evading any form of challenge to their supposed knowledge. If I went into the woods one day, came back to my village and said I met an alien that provided me with knowledge, but I cannot share that knowledge because it is dangerous, that would be acceptable within the confines of my presented reality, but it is also the easiest way for me to avoid being put in an awkward spot by a question I cannot answer... Moving on, this was the very reason I mentioned a paradox we already have solutions for, such as Zeno's rows. The idea behind this is simple. It would show that the channellers have some interest in finding out whether they are hearing the truth. The fact that they refuse to endeavour on any such attempt at verifying whoever they're talking with is wildly suspicious to me. It would prove nothing, because, as I've said, we know the answer, and they could have used that to fake it, but it seems too big of an factor to ignore that they show virtually no interest in testing it. What actual scientist would not attempt to find some method of verification of what he is hearing? At the very least, the questioner should be aware that he could be mislead by the two other individuals involved. It seems very out of my control. Sometimes it turns so huge it feels like it sits on top of my lap and makes it hard to breathe. It gets hard to focus on my breath because I lose a sense of how large my body is, whenever I think of some part of my body it just grows like everything else. I've tried imagining it is a curtain that I open and step past, but it just reappears on the other side. I've also tried imagining that I turn in the opposite direction, or that it grows smaller. The latter sometimes, though very rarely, works, and only early on, before it has grown to a certain size. @SparrowPrince 10/10 Community-GIF

Water on mars would be on step towards pointing to microbial life, not civilisations. The only "scientific" proof I have seen of Mars being bombarded is from a plasma physicist who thinks two craters indicate a nuclear war, which is pretty much a huge correlation fallacy summarised into a theory. The problem with things like Maldek is that most of this New Age theory has similarities with previous legends or assumptions, and as such there could be correlation without that actually meaning anything. It could be that it is based on truth, and that the similarities are there because of that, or it could be because if this is untrue, then New Age theory has a long history of "taking" aspects of other legends or earlier theories, such as the pyramids, Jesus, etc. That can virtually point in any direction, which is why if I would want to invent my own religion, it would have been one hell of a good way to start. Theories of an additional planet between Mars and Jupiter have been around since 16th century, though it is usually called Phaeton. The reason for why solar winds could strip Mars' atmosphere is not based on something arbitrary (like supposing it was bombarded by the remnants of an exploding planet) but on the fact that it lost its magnetic field, which was what protected the atmosphere. It is estimated that the loss of the magnetic field happened billions of years ago, which again, is not simply assumed, but justified by it cooling off. I'm not sure how asteroid impacts would remove an atmosphere and the magnetic field at the same time, and at a rate much more rapid that that which the commonly subscribed to theory suggests, perhaps you could explain it to me? This, to me, becomes obscurantism. We reach the point of an impossibility, and you refute it based on an unreliable narrator. It seems extremely peculiar that an entity that is capable of telepathic communication is unable to properly formulate what it needs to say (although being more than able to speak the language in question for some undisclosed reason) being almost omniscient in all other aspects. Yes, there is no actual way for me to refute it, at least not that I can think of, but that is because it relies on virtually no evidence. I don't really see how this solves any paradoxes. It merely says they are solved. I am capable of doing that right now without anything happening to paradoxes. Even if it was true, there would be little that was extremely impressive about it, paradoxes usually indicate there is a distance between how we understand the world and how the world functions, they are very useful to encourage development within our ways of viewing the world. Take Zeno's paradoxes for instance, meant to indicate that there is no movement at all in the world, but ending up giving us new methods for describing the movement of time, what instants are and so forth. The solutions of paradoxes are interesting, not the worlds in which they are absent. There was no world where Achilles couldn't outrun a turtle in Ancient Greece, but Zeno's supposition was still very interesting for mathematics and logic. This also brings up the question of why the channellers wouldn't give Ra an extremely basic method of verifying what it is saying: such as asking it to solve a simple mathematical problem that we have yet not acquired a solution for. The idea that the solution of such a paradox would somehow impede our ability to evolve is preposterous, it could be something as simple as Zeno's Rows which we already have a solution for, but which would obviously require some knowledge on the part of the entity. Even though this could also be faked, because there are solutions for this exact problem, something like that would still lend more weight to their claims because the act of not asking such a question is the easiest form of back-covering there is. The Drake Equation is completely reliant on whatever numbers you put into it, but I avoided that specifically, because it is unnecessary once you assume there actually is intelligent life. And that's when the Fermi paradox (though not really a paradox per say, since it relies on an equation with currently unknown variables) becomes really interesting, because supposing that there is alien life, it has not destroyed itself, and it is capable of sending out signals, already clears out a lot of the variables in the Drake equation. It should be even more alerting to the people believing in these entities that there is an absence of such signals, than it was to Fermi, who never supposed anything as optimistic as that in the number he was presented. I'm sorry for misrepresenting what was said though, I didn't intend to use a straw man, it was a mistake in reading on my part. I haven't stopped, but these are very uncommon hallucinations. It's like a growing object that eventually grows so large it feels like it is about to swallow me, which gives the feeling of having something shoved in your face over and over. Eventually that feeling jerks me out of my trance because it is much like if someone would pull a chair you're sitting on, your whole body reacts instinctively. I don't fear them, in fact, I know they are completely harmless, but that does not stop my body from attempting to react. As I said, there are physical effects of this too, my eyes move up and down extremely rapidly. I've meditated in front of my psychology therapist to confirm this. We have reached an impasse. You seem to judge with the spirit that the spirit is one of the best options for judging information. If you do not see the problem with this kind of circular reasoning, there is no point for me pursuing that particular notion any further, and I will let it rest. EDIT: Just wanted to note that the part about inventing my own religion was only meant to show that such evidence is very difficult to work with, not to be derisive. I replaced the word robbing withh taking as I think the former submitted an unnecessary tone. Sometimes I get a bit too caught up in my writing to go back and grasp what tone it has before submitting.

I do practice meditation, but sadly I start to hallucinate after a while and my eyes begin jumping up and down until it gets so rapid I can't continue. I know that one can be made aware of things through meditation though, but as I will explain below, my point was not that that is impossible. Future student is my current occupation, only have high school in my backpack thus far. But I do enjoy reading a lot, both philosophy and literature, and will be studying those two come autumn. My point is not so much that this is impossible (I would not pretend to hold knowledge about that) as it is a critique of judging information from the spirit with the spirit. You cannot fully determine whether what this method provides you with is true without presupposing that it has that capacity. You may grow to trust your spirit, but even then, you must realise that it does not validate anything. Though it might seem a good guide to you, it is very hard to determine if it is because you think it is, or because it really is, as long as it remains the judge of itself. Actually, the 100 billion stars is one of the more pessimistic estimates, some estimates place it at between 200 and 400 billion. Ra even says it is 250 billion, in which case the chance of there being a planet per star would be 0.335 / 250 = 0.00134 or 0.134% (or an average of 0.00134 planets per star) something which seems to directly contradict what most scientific surveys estimate, and what observation of nearby star systems tell us. You make a valid point about the inaccuracy of science, these are estimates, though not guesses as they are based on statistical data, and could be wrong. The same could be said of anything that Ra says though, whereas it does not even originate from estimates. Obscurantism is very hard to counter, yes, but it applies universally. "Point being is they could be looking at just about anything that is between here and that star 900+ light years away which could cause a repeating pattern when the light from that star has traveled the distance it has. For all we know if there was a plant and that star could have swallowed it up by now or been destroyed by a cosmic event." This is not true. If something much closer crossed its path, it would either block light from more systems if it is closer to us, or move much, much faster than the other bodies, not to mention having no reason to repeat its motion, if being a smaller, but closer object. We can determine where the star is, what temperature it has, and how far away the blocking bodies would have to be using various models of physics and mathematics. These additional planets were found when calculating transit-timing-variations, which would not exist if the bodies observed by the telescope where somewhere else than in the system. Sure that planet "could" have exploded randomly by now, though it would most likely take more than 900 years for it to change course up until it gets swallowed, but that does not change the effect it has on statistical data. If Ra missed a couple of planets here and there, that would be unremarkable, the anomaly of 999.665 billion is what is interesting. There's also the fact that Ra claims there are confederations, including one that contains seven planetary systems. This would just serve to make the Fermi-paradox even stranger... Then there's the claims of there being "humans" on Mars 75000 years ago. Should that not be verifiable? Is the response to that, that there is some world-wide conspiracy better containing information which is somehow better managed than any attempt at government, military strategy or any other case of human coordination? Why would Russia agree to hide secrets of the US and vice versa? Seems strange to me. Cui bono?