NEW UFO nut sticks head above parapet

[LANDROVER ROGER]

The plot thickens.Now we have nuclear missiles fired by golfists.Where will it all end?

[four eyes]

yes they were offloaded from the submarine base under the runway.

[LANDROVER ROGER]

A sub-soil,sub-marine,sub-base?This science is too hot to handle.I fear that it is time for the truth to emerge.(or submerge).I`ll get my coat.

[four eyes]

is that the same coat that has to be kept in a de humidified hanger a la the stealth aircraft? Those clever materials are so hard to maintain,so no dry cleaning.But hey if you wanna be invisible there's a price to pay(about $2 billion per plane i believe)

[Happy]

All I can remember is chatting with a guy called Henderson in the Kinloch Bar in the 70s who worked at the Base and said there were nuclear bombs stored there for use by anti-submarine aircraft. I'm not into UFOs or conspiracy theories etc. but I do recall the Nimrod and Orion aircraft at Machrihanish during that era.

[four eyes]

They aint bombers,nukes yes,they were there.The base was primarily a refuelling stop if the need arose.Amazing they only ever had a small armed guard on site,considering what was stored there.

[Happy]

Remember him saying the Orion pilot was a woman, it had come over from The States, and that the cockpit was the size of your living room and you could have played a football match in the back of it ! The Stratofreighter would have been even bigger - remember it landing at Machrihanish about 30 years ago, from The States. Think it was the biggest plane in the world, certainly the wingspan.

[Cookie]

Hmm cosy. But there you have it, a fellow has something straightforward and interesting to say about aircraft, but still feels the need to disclaim interest in any WEIRD stuff - that would be like getting in a lift with dogpoo on your shoes...no offence Happy, thanks for posting, but it's just a handy metaphor for where any of Cinderella should-be Sciences will remain in 'normal' society (God help us), never invited in, and a bad smell under the noses of so many....i see the doubt here that i had enough to say to truthfully type an extensive end to this thread, and this shows the cant of - not the playing field, but the Gladitorial arena...the combatitive terminology, the unnecessary sarcasm, presumptions and misquoting, and framing of an invite to an alternative circus where nothing awaits but sharp knives and overblinding science, from someone using posts that would get warnings at least in said venue, makes a third attempt seem futile. There are none so blind as those who will not see, apart from the blind sitting in a philosophical bunker manning a semantic machine gun...
I started this to form a simple enough request, and have stated plainly that thats all i would want to do right here.
I'll look at that site more fully another time, but from the need to reinforce policy i see there already, that one could probably expect barely restrained butchery, when i'm approaching subjects that require at least some sensitivity to a possible new paradigm, not the lumbering champions of an establishment that has consistently trumpeted the impassable limits of the possible, only to have them surpassed time and time again through the centuries - not that the comforting public amnesia ever stops the men in white coats having the say.
You'll crow, of course, and use Ah Diddums replies, but you should gather that i've taken plenty flak, non-anonymously, that it matters not a jot to me.
But i did like a quote i saw on BadAstronomy, it pretty much said don't put down to malice what can be more likely attributed to stupidity or ignorance, so although some of this stuff has painted a potentially useful picture for some, of what 'out the box' thinking can automatically encounter, that gives a nicer way of looking at it, so Peace and Love Brothers, i won't be back even to looksee, but i've thrown a few easy balls up in the air here, see how far you can bat them! X

[LANDROVER ROGER]

I think that you need to change your medication.

[Happy]

Try and keep him talking Roger while I get the yellow van

[four eyes]

The problem with conspiracy theorists is that their grasp on reality and logic is flawed, so to propose to convert them to see truth by using reality and logic is therefore also flawed.

There is nothing to do, ignore them, sooner or later they will wean off, die off and there will be another "flavor of the day" conspiracy that will pop up. There's no way to eliminate delusional paranoia, so don't lose sleep over it and just move on.

[four eyes]

Heres what gave the cuckoo sorry cookie a problem,simple,if you want a debate on these issues heres the rules, don't look too hard to me,ahhh you might need something more than a half baked proposition, that'll be the problem then.

Advice for ATM Idea Advocates - Read before posting in ATM
To try to help those of you who are advocating an Against The Mainstream (ATM) idea, the following are some suggestions on how to proceed and what to expect. These are not as fundamental as the board rules linked to in # 1, but should be taken as serious guidelines. Following them is not required, except where they restate the rules, but it will make your visit that much more pleasant.

1. Become familiar with the rules of BAUT, most particularly with Rule 13, on Against the Mainstream (ATM) and Conspiracy Theories (CT).

2. You have only 30 days from the opening of the thread for you to present your idea. It is not a good idea to start the thread before you are prepared. Do your prep work in advance.

3. You should have a good working knowledge of the mainstream theory you are challenging. Is what you’re proposing proof against that theory, or could it be something the theory can absorb?

4. Be prepared to defend your ideas. You are going to be challenged to defend them with evidence and you are expected to do so. Doing your preparation and your research before you even start your thread is an excellent idea. The ATM forum is not intended for you to develop your idea, it is for you to present your idea.

5. Whenever possible, defend your points with published research – and make sure you can provide some explanation in your own words as to how that research supports what you are saying. Quoting articles or providing links to on-line videos with no explanation is not evidence.

6. Remember you will not convince everyone in one or two posts. Take your time to build your argument and be prepared for a long discussion. If you think you’ve refuted Newton, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Big Bang all in one post – you haven’t. Whole books have been written challenging those theories. You’re not going to do it single handedly in a few hundred words on an Internet discussion board.

7. Don’t make claims that extend beyond what your data (or the data you’re referencing) can support. If you consider something as unproven speculation – say so. When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it was shown to be wrong and don’t keep repeating it. Be willing to modify your views.

8. It is sometimes tempting to present many different pieces of evidence at one time. However, you will then be expected to defend all those different ideas. To keep from getting overwhelmed with multiple discussions, it may be better to present one or two pieces of evidence at a time.

9. Questions put to you about your theory must be answered in a timely fashion. It is acceptable to answer “I don’t know” or to ask for more time to come up with the information. If you do ask for more time, a Moderator may temporarily close the thread until you are ready to answer.

10. People will vigorously challenge your theory. This questioning of ideas is one of the fundamental aspects of the Scientific Method. However, all such discussions must be kept polite and respectful, by all parties. You have not been attacked if you are told you are wrong. An attach on your idea is not an attack on you. Likewise, you should only confront ideas, not people. If you believe someone is being disrespectful to you, do not return the attack; report the post with the black triangle Report Post button (lower left corner of the post).

11. Don’t accuse people of being closed minded just because they disagree with you. Throwing a tantrum because your theory is not accepted will not win you support. Have a sense of humor, be friendly and be polite. Taking yourself too seriously usually leads to frustration. People on BAUT will generally listen and discuss politely well reasoned arguments – even when they disagree.

12. Do not use non-mainstream meanings of commonly used scientific terms; such a practice creates confusion. If you use non-standard terms, you should define their meaning. The same applies for symbols; do not use standard symbols in non-standard ways, and define new symbols you may be using.

13. Don’t create cute little names for mainstream theories and astronomers. Sure they might be funny on some level, but they’re going to irritate people and distract them from the points you’re trying to make.

14. Be realistic. You’ll have better luck trying to convince people your alternative is possible than you will have trying to convince everybody your idea is right – and everybody else is wrong.

15. Be happy if people are respectfully discussing the strength and weaknesses of your ideas. If you’ve reached that point then you’ve accomplished a lot more than most of the alternatives brought forward on BAUT.

[Happy]

Why does Cookie remind me of £3.73 ? Must be from my time as a warden in Carstairs.

[Niander]

Come on Cookie
give a bit more input
How about your favorite conspiracy theory/idea?

[four eyes]

dont,it was amusing while it lasted,but mocking the poster is not good,fun yes but not good. i suggest we follow the rules of my favourite website for theories against the mainstream.
Background - Advice for ATM theory supporters
There have been a number of discussions lately that have not gone well. As someone that has supported a number of ATM ideas on this board I thought I might share some suggestions for those that are new at it. These are just my opinions and observations as to how you might have a more enjoyable discussion if you want to discuss an ATM idea.
1. You’re going to be challenged to defend your statements with evidence.
2. You’re going to be told you’re wrong when you make statements in conflict with published research. If you don’t agree with being told you are wrong. See statement #1.
3. You have not been attacked if you are told you are wrong. Only your theory is attacked.
4. Throwing a tantrum because your theory is not accepted will not win you support.
5. Have a sense of humor, be friendly and be polite. Taking yourself too seriously usually leads to frustration.
6. People on BABB generally want to help – even when they disagree with you.
7. Whenever possible, defend your points with published research – and make sure you can provide some explanation as to how that research supports what you are saying.
8. You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question – answer it. If you don’t know the answer – say so.
9. People on BABB will listen and discuss politely well reasoned arguments – even when they disagree.
10. Don’t make claims that extend beyond what your data (or the data you’re referencing) can support. If you consider something as unproven speculation – say so.
11. You’re not going to convince everybody your idea is right with one post.
12. You’re not going to convince everybody your idea is right with two posts.
13. When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it was shown to be wrong and don’t keep repeating it.
14. While some people may sound very dogmatic – the mainstream theories in astronomy and cosmology are not religion.
15. Peer review may not be perfect, but it is necessary.
16. Don’t accuse people of being close minded just because they disagree with you.
17. Don’t create cute little names for mainstream theories and astronomers. Sure they might be funny on some level, but they’re going to irritate people and distract them from the points you’re trying to make.
18. If you think you’ve refuted Newton, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Big Bang all in one post – you haven’t. Whole books have been written challenging those theories. You’re not going to do it single handedly in a few hundred words on an internet discussion board.
19. Be willing to modify your views.
20. Be realistic. You’ll have better luck trying to convince people your alternative is possible than you will have trying to convince everybody your idea is right – and everybody else is wrong.
21. You need more data. All scientists need more data.
22. Ask yourself – Is what you’re proposing proof against the Big Bang, or could it be something the BB theory can absorb?
23. Be happy if people are respectfully discussing the strength and weaknesses of your ideas. If you’ve reached that point then you’ve accomplished a lot more than most of the alternatives brought forward on BABB.