TechAngel85

If you've done all the above as instructed, then unfortunately there's nothing else I can suggest as a solution other than starting over and doing things slowly while testing along the way. Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Sorry, I was unaware that you couldn't do that. Currently your best option to resolve this is to do as Greg suggested since you know it's working in vanilla. Just enabled a group of say...5 mods at a time, sort with LOOT, and test. If there is no crash, then enable another group. Keep doing this until you get the crash. Then you'll know it's most likely to do with one of the last group of mods you enabled. Disable those mods and re-enable one at a time until the crash is produced. The last mod enabled is the culprit. It's either an asset from the mod or a conflict with the plugin.

Just remove it using xEdit and save. Test. Then if the crash happens, see what Crash Fixes is saying now. You can restore it by verifying local cache via Steam. Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

There's nothing else using that referenced tree? Just Skyrim.esm? If it's just Skyrim.esm, it'd be interesting to know what Crash Fixes reports if you delete the reference. Before doing that, if you're not running Bug Fixes you should install it and test. Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Have you been able to pinpoint that tree in xEdit? Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Which mod is moving Aspen trees to the Whiterun area? Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

I mean manually looking for conflicts. No just running a script for merging. Quickest way is to load your entire plugin list and then right-click and choose Apply filter for conflict losers. That will give you a quick overview of all the conflicts.

Have you opened up xEdit to look for conflicts? Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

What Windows version are you running so that we know the memory limits you're under? Honestly, this doesn't sound like a memory issue, else you'd be experience it in other areas of the game. It sounds more like a corrupt mesh. That's just my hunch.

Unfortunately, I have my hands full right now. Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Once you run the error check, you can use the log to search for the records to remove. Simply copy and paste the ID (ie: 08000D88) into the field at the top of the left pane. It will take you to that record. You can either fix it (if you know how) or to remove the record right click on it in the left pane and choose "remove".

It's okay. My initial post was really just to see if anyone on the forums had read the material or not and if so, then discuss it. Hence there not being much info on what it was (I added the reference later so it wasn't originally there). I never really meant to discuss it with those that hadn't because I knew that would be rough going (which it was), but I let myself get carried away. :: As for Doctor Who, I might pick it up eventually.

Thanks! I grabbed it up. I have been waiting to be able to grab the first game because I have Witcher 2, but didn't want to start it before playing the first title. This worked out great!

The Law of One covers such a varying array of subjects that aren't necessary always connected that I wouldn't even know where to begin to make a bullet point list of it all. Everyone learns and absorbs information differently. Personally, if it's coming from a textbook, I typically have to read it a couple times before I'm able to retain the majority of the information in memory. However, if I can apply anything hands-on, I typically have it down the first time. The material wasn't hard to grasp because of the way it's structured. Some of the material was hard to grasp due to concepts I was unfamiliar with, such as: the difference between space/time and time/space. The only difficulty in the structure is the wording at times. I think it was Mono that mentioned that they should have difficulty with our language and it's clear they do, to an extent. It's like talking to someone from a different nationality whom speaks English well, but there are often some missed translation of how they're using some words. The example I gave was the word "galaxy". They don't have this word. They use Logos, Sub-logi, etc. So when they used the word galaxy there was a misunderstanding that lead to some confusion in the session. To them, the only difference in a solar system and a galaxy, as we know it, is size. In other words, all the inner workings of a galaxy are the same as a solar system to them, just scaled up. Ra "scanned" the understanding of the word from either the channeler or questioner (don't remember which) to understand and correct the confusion.

The the gist of this, for those that didn't watch it, is that there is a god until we find the answers that we attributed to God, then there is no god because we have solved the mystery. It's either you have God or you have science. He even asks the question (paraphrasing here), "why do 15% of the top scientific minds still believe in God when there is all this evidence that there is no god". The question I would ask is "why must it be one or the other?" I believe I have already provided my stance but I will do so again. My belief is that science shows the method of the "how" God put it all together. We're simply discovering the methods, thus taking the mystery out of creation. This has been my believe for 10+ years (since I got heavy into Christianity at around 18yrs old), so that not recent belief. But why is discovering new science a reason to say there is no God/Creator? That's the part I've never understood about those who think that way. There's nothing wrong with that, either. Those are their beliefs. He brings up very briefly in a single sentence that we don't know what there was before the Big Bang. In the Law of One, this would be the time between the 8th and 1st octave (densities). At the 8th we become one with the Creator. Once all is one, the creation starts again so that the Creator can know Creator even further. In this sense, you can take the idea that the universe will eventually contract back in on itself (I don't know if this is still a popular theory now that it's been discovered that the universe is still expanding) and say they are correct because this would be the act of all becoming one again before the next creation. That is, if you follow the Law of One material. As for Neil, great guy. I've watched a lot of the TV shows he's hosted. @Aiyen, Yes. I do understand that now after this experience. Thanks Aiyen and Mono for your words.

@Mono When I made the comments about science-minded people I was strictly speaking of you. You, indeed, have not done any of those things. I was speaking in general from my experiences. Of course as Aiyen pointed out, it is only the natural way of science. @All I have to be honest that I am consider calling this thread quits or at least cutting way back on my responses. This isn't because I don't desire to continue. It's solely for the following reasons: This discussion is taking up FAR more of my free time than I ever imagined it would. This is mainly because the topic has become solely a scientific debate which is requiring me to go back to find old research, re-watch old episodes of shows that presented the information, re-read large parts of the Law of One material, etc., etc. I'm doing this to present my side to a more appropriate standard that science warrants and yet it would seem that I'm still failing to do so properly. Seeing I'm the only one on my side of the debate, I simply don't desire to spend the amount of time it has been required of me to continue along this track. It's literally taking hours, yes several hours, out of each day. Hence why my last reply to Mono was rather short. This is yet another reason I didn't desire this to be a scientific debate. It's far more taxing than I expected. I have other things I'd rather do with my time than dig through all the past materials to formulate appropriate answers which still far short of being complete.I'm finding it hard to discuss the material when there isn't a full grasp of all the material from the Law of One by the other participants due to not having read said material. I am often finding myself saying in my head, "well, if you'd read the material...". I don't have time to explain the scope of the material for each and every posting, especially when some of it spans multiple sessions and each session is several pages long. This is another reason I feel like I'm unable to properly present the material. Most participants are just getting the words I post and nothing more.A good majority of my provided research is going to be within the realm of parascience which, as the record shows, will always be dismissed; therefore, I can see little incentive for me to continue along the path this debate has taken.Finally, because of the reasons above, it's very quickly loosing it's "fun factor" for me and becoming a chore. Chores aren't fun. Scientific debates aren't my idea of fun, either. Simply put, it's loosing it's enjoyment for me.

Myth #1 Therefore, any time you see that radiocarbon dating was used on rocks, they've used the incorrect method because this only goes back 50,000 years and gets into the "ify" stage around 20-30,000 year range. The most common method used is Relative Dating and this is what you are describing. They take the dates of the rock layers around the fossil to get an estimate. To answer the question as to why we don't find human bones would require us getting into the Honeycomb or Hollow Earth hypothesis. The Law of One does say the Earth is honeycombed. It's "dismissed" because there are now "other theories" that you like better. Sorry, but that what I got from that. :: True, but I was merely providing a possibility. Like I said before, no one knows how communication like this would work so all we can do is make assumptions. I was talking about material that does not have scientific components. To answer your question, yes but only to the degree that our science is accurate. Most of what we're providing as indication of truthfulness is only hypothesis and theories; which are nothing more than the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another to form a plausible explanation. Even the dictionary calls theory an "unproved assumption". This is why I have such a hard time debating with scientific minded individuals because more often than not, in my experience, they often take theory and turn it into fact as proof of their correctness before cleansing their hands of the debate. They rarely open themselves to the possibility that a different, less popular "theory" could be correct simply because it isn't mainstream or it has less supporting facts that build its theory. The science community is cut throat in this regard and is why I prefer to stay away from it. The Law of One has it's own "theory" of how this was done, but of course there's no way for science to measure it. I'm not even going to touch this due to lack of energy and that there's the probability that I could see my neighbor washing all the resident's cars today in the nude (joke). Probability, in this sense, deals with too many arbitrary values to be of any use here in my opinion, and, as you mention, deals harsh blows to both sides of the fence so I see no benefit of even getting into....that and because I dropped by statistics class in college. Even if the solar winds did the stripping, the problem I have is the assumption that it would take millions of years for the atmosphere to be stripped away. For all we know it might only take a few thousand.

They don't say anything about us being perfect beings. Just the opposite, in fact. For example, our lifespans are suppose to be several hundred years to grow spiritually, but due to different factors over the ages they've been shortened to what we have now. Nor are we generically pure. What opinions have I not addressed? And no, it was never that advanced but they did have Cadillacs back when the dinosaurs were around. I know because I watched a TV show of it when I was a child.

If all you're doing is resizing, sure. Go for it.

No, the Law of One doesn't, but conspiracy theory does. If that can of worms is going to be opened it should be done in another thread. I'm not, I said my peace with Baronaatista and meant it. I will say the main dinosaurs that we think had feathers were smaller in nature than the mainstream image of dinosaurs. The art mainly depicted the larger species.

At this point, I'm simply going to have to say that we agree to disagree because you appear to be very stuck on the science view and what can only be proven by science without even entertaining other possibilities. Whereas I see science as only half the picture. We'll never get beyond this point in the manner of which you and I are going back and forth. This is mainly because you are, again, reading what is not there. Perhaps it's the vocabulary: "Their views are just as valid for them as mine are for me." Views - a particular way of considering or regarding something; an attitude or opinion.Opinion - a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Perhaps it's my use of the word valid because it would imply sound hard facts.... I could replace it with reasonable or sensible because what is reasonable or sensible to one person may not be to another. Their (opinions) are just as (reasonable/sensible) for them as mine are for me.I hate the language arts....I really do. It comes down to this. They based their opinions on what they know (purely extensive science knowledge and what the data says). I based my opinion on what I know (evidence presented from both sides of the arguments and my spiritual beliefs). Who's right? Who knows! Much of the science around this material is hypothesis and theory. That's part of the problem because there aren't that many grounded "facts" around this material that have been proven without a doubt of other possibilities being a possibility. I'll leave it at that and this will be my last post attempting to explain what I meant in my wording. I apologize if my wording has led to any confusion. In my opinion, my vocabulary sucks.

Again, I'm not going to pay $100 to gain access to a few papers so I will rely on articles that cite them and other material. Most of David's stuff came from here: https://www.enterprisemission.com/tides.htm (it's lengthy and all the citations are at the bottom) A clever search on google found this stuff: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009/04/did-marss-magnetic-field-die-whimper-or-bang https://www.universetoday.com/15262/two-faces-of-mars-explained/ https://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/11/mars-missing-magnetic-field-was-it-destroyed-by-a-massive-asteroid-impact.html https://oeta.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/npls13.sci.ess.earthsys.marsdesert/how-mars-became-a-desert-nasa-planetary-sciences/ I can't refute your reasoning. As further explanation, take calculus. Now I've never taken calculus so I have no understanding of it besides perhaps very basic concepts that I can gleam from my knowledge of other maths. Now I inhabit the mind of a calculus genius. All the information about calculus is there, but that wouldn't necessarily mean the I would have an understanding of the material as well as the genius would. It would be more akin to reading a book. I can read the book, but understanding what I'm reading is another story. This is all hypothetical here so I'm simply providing a possible scenario. I have no idea how the inter workings of such a consciousness transfer would actually work. You are correct that much of the material likely has science attached to it in one way or another and I will try my best to provide the sources for the material. The material that does not, will require some personal decision whether to believe it or not. As for Christian beliefs, I've always been of the opinion that science is simply the way of explaining how God did most things. Once our science is advanced enough, I'm sure this will be even more true. For example the creation story of 7 days. I've never believed that 7 days were an actual series of 7 24hr periods. My Christian views are not mainstream. Again, I can't refute your reasoning. I don't think the books ever say if or how they verified the contact, but that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't either. It's simply an unanswered question at this point. I'll also say that reading the Intro would give you a basis of who these individuals are. If the information is accurate, these are not people who would attempt to trick each other. Don and Carla knew each other for nearly ten years and when you know someone and work closely with them for that long, you tend to know their ins and outs. I'm not saying it's impossible, just very unlikely. I was hoping to gleam some information from this that might be of some help, but I've honestly never heard of anything like this before during mediation. It sounds almost like you are being blocked from going any further in your mediation. EDIT: I forgot to say. You mentioned the asteroid belt. The material about Mars being a moon of Maldek hypotheses that the asteroid belt is the remains of Maldek itself. It didn't exist before Maldek's destruction.

Haha! Always the comic relief! Yes, you've misread the meaning of my words. I never meant that my knowledge on the subject was as good as accomplished scientist. Perhaps, I was the one misreading you. :: In all of my replies I have only meant that I've had time to familiarize myself with certain subjects unfamiliar to me, listened to both sides of the arguments with their individual evidence presented, and drew my own conclusions based on that. This doesn't, in any way, imply that I know as much as accomplished scientist in their respected fields. Don't read any more into that than those words. As I was telling Mono, I'm straightforward and say what I mean. You don't have to try to read between the lines with my replies. It only means just that. I'm not saying I'm right and they're wrong because I never wrote those words. I'm not dismissing their views, because I never wrote those words. Their views are just as valid for them as mine are for me. You've been reading too far into my replies to find things that simply aren't there. I've only presented my views and defended them as anyone else would. So again, I've simply come to my own conclusions based on the information I've seen from both sides of the arguments. It's not usual that someone of a more scientific mind (you and Mator) would side with the mainstream science views while someone of a more spiritual mind would side with the parascience views. Then we have SparrowPrince who has no views...

The way you did it was by association. You associated me with characters you described as "puffed up", "egoistical", and "full of themselves" until they are knocked down by someone greater. That is how I read it and I really don't see any other way of reading it. I accept your apology, but really...no harm done. You are correct in assuming that there is no way of me validating the "feelings" that I receive when I test information for any practical standardized test which would prove my "spirit testing" accurate or not. In most of these cases I wouldn't expect to receive any validation from my spirit because they would be over mundane matters of no real significance to my life. However, I don't consider it any sort of ability. Actually hearing it as such sounds ridiculous to me. Haha! It's my opinion that anyone could do it. I'm puzzled as to where this notion that I'm as good as actual scientists came from unless it was from those earlier discussions about Backster. Seriously, the papers I were able to read were not hard to interpret. Anyone of high school education level would have been able to do so and understand them. The rest that I've researched has been articles explaining the papers in plain English, for the most part. When more advanced maths crop up that I can't understand I start to tune out. I only do scripting when forced to. I hate it and there are people worlds ahead of me (Mator...though I don't know if he knows Papyrus, Chesko, etc). However, I can read just about any Papyrus script and tell you what it's doing. I get the jest of what you're getting at here and yes, there are some subjects that I know nothing about and it would take a good about of research to understand them. However, don't forget that I've had nearly a year to do some of this research over topics unfamiliar to me. It's not like I picked this stuff up a month ago and then started posting about it. That why I've maintained that I've done my questioning of the material of my own accord. Certainly I am open to new information; however, very little of what has been posted here has been anything new that I haven't already ran across or considered myself. Honestly, Mono seems to be bringing more new "thoughts" that I haven't considered than anyone else. I mean no offense, but yours and Mator's approaches have been the typical or standard approach that the majority of the internet is soundboarding on in regards to the material of the Law of One.

Edit: Added info...I seem to be doing that here lately. ::