Well, it's a 4 sided pyramid (not counting the bottom), so I'd venture a guess that at least one side is within 45 degrees of true north.

Yeah, but my house is too...
Ok, it is not pyramid shaped, but its one side is almost perfectly facing north.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Or an awfully cold room....

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

I doubt that. However, my point was more this: a pyramid, by definition, has four equal sides. Unless there are extraneous features--the stairs of the Mayan pyramids, for example--isn't it in fact "facing" all four directions? And again, if you're talking magnetic north, how often do you realign your pyramids?

No, you won't. A moderator might be able to move the question for you, but they probably won't. In all likelihood, you will be required by said moderator to answer the question in the thread in which it's presented.

And once again, enough with the purple and italics already. It makes your posts very difficult to read, and they're not even interesting enough for me to make the effort.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

You´re being very sarcastic, aren´t you?

No, I'm being ordinarily sarcastic. Don't make me get very sarcastic. You wouldn't like me when I'm very sarcastic.

I´m here because I´ve got something, that is new to science and Interesting.

That's debatable. The only interest your claims hold for me is how you expect anyone to believe them. They're laughable. And as for novelty to science, the only points you make there is that the universe behaves differently for you than it does for everyone else, and that NASA is suppressing your abilities and the remarkable things they've led you to. Those are topics better handled by psychologists, not practitioners of the physical sciences.

And that was, what I was trying to tell you, that I don´t understand so many scientific terms.

Then don't use words you don't understand. And specifically don't redefine common words to mean only what you intend. When you use a word, people naturally believe you understand what the word means and that the meaning they know is the one you intend. If you mistakenly use it incorrectly and correct yourself, that's excusable. When you insist on your personal definitions, that's dishonest.

You could also present it in such a way, so anyone would understand it...

I did. For example, I drew the parallel between the effects of radiation and of a knife on the human body. If you stab someone, withdrawing the knife doesn't undo the effects of the initial stab. Similarly, removing the source of the radiation doesn't correct the effects that radiation already caused.

You insisted that your rocks emitted radiation because the effects went away when the rocks did. You said that's how you knew it was radiation. But since radiation doesn't behave that way, your argument doesn't hold.

...since this is also a Forum for people that do this on a hobby basis, right?

No, this is not remedial schooling. You are expected to be familiar with the principles you invoke.

because I´m using that term, "Cosmic - Radiation", means to me only, that there is something there, THAT "I" can´t understand...

If you can't understand it, say that it's something you can't understand. Don't pick a word out of science, which has a different clear and precise meaning, and use that instead to describe your phenomenon. That instead sounds like you're trying to mislead people.

...then please DO explane it to all of us, ...if you can!

Your burden of proof. I frankly don't believe a word you say. I think you're a con artist. You have the responsibility to show proof of what you say is happening. It's not up to others to explain it, explain it away, or defend you.

You´re just being jealous and probably are getting paid by NASA to make me shut up...

Or maybe I'm just skeptical and calling you on your hogwash. Have you considered the possibility that people disagree with you not because they're paid disinformationists, but because your claims are patently absurd and you have no evidence for them? Have you considered that people can be motivated just as well by an appreciation of the truth as by monetary gain?

Skeptics are the consumer advocates in the marketplace of ideas, and right now your product doesn't rank very high.

It just means something different for me as it does for you, very simple.

No, confusing and misleading. And I daresay intentionally so. You throw around scientific-sounding words in the hopes that someone will believe you know what you're talking about. But when push comes to shove, you can't demonstrate that you know what you're talking about. You try as hard as you can to obfuscate the issue and redirect attention, but in the end you have absolutely nothing that a line of reasoning can grasp.

When he presented his relativity Theory, a lot of scientists didn´t understand him...

Name one scientist who didn't understand Einstein.

...either OR DIDN´T WANT to understand him because all they wanted was, to just brush it under the carpet

Name one scientist who says he wanted this. Pseudoscientists universally compare themselves to Einstein and claim that he was ridiculed for his publications. Not true, and you are no Einstein.

...isn´t it like that here too Jay in Utah?

Not in the least. Einstein didn't misuse words or claim the universe worked differently for him than for everyone else. He published findings that people recognized as well-reasoned and that addressed observable shortcomings in prevailing models.

When you go to your Doctor and tell him, that your stomache hurts...

You don't go to the doctor and tell him your stomach hurts when what you really mean is that your foot hurts. If you don't know the name of the body part in question, you can always point. You insist on calling a foot a stomach.

I Never said anything about wanting people to pay for me for that ability!!! You should read between the lines, then you´d understand it better.

Here are the lines in between which I am reading.
You clearly desire a large amount of money for your find.
Again, no small peanuts here -- you want to strike it rich.
And here you jealously protect your product. If your interest were scientific, you would get it into as many scientific hands as possible. But if your interest is commercial, you keep competitors away.
Here you assign monetary, not scientific, value to your findings and the methods by which you come by them.

Please carefully interpret those statements and tell me where I've made a mistake in thinking you're not interested in money.

I only mentioned it for all of the interested scientists out there, if they´d like to experiment with me or on it.

I don't imagine there are any scientists who are interested in your claims, but I'll be there are plenty of policemen who are.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Good grief! When Jay gets very sarcastic, he turns into Bill Bixby!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

When Jay gets very sarcastic, he turns into Bill Bixby!

I'm glad somebody got the joke.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I got it, but I would have said David Banner.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Funny, most of northern Canada's landscape is comprised of boreal forest, rocky terrain, lakes, streams, and wetlands. It's the wetlands that provide the chief impediment to travel by foot.One might find a single meteorite by eye if one were lucky. The odds of finding many meteorites that size repeatedly approaches zero. Meteor showers, BTW, are due to sand-grain sized (and smaller) objects which burn up in the atmosphere and never reach the ground, except as fine dust.Northern Canada is comprised of about 3,700,000 square kilometers. Per the Ursus americanus survey of 1994 there were 15,000 black bears living in that area. This works out to 0.004 bear per square kilometer, or one black bear for every 250 square kilometers. 250 square kilometers is an area that is just under 16 kilometers on each side. You must have been living in a black bear urban center if there were a lot of them in your location. Doubtful though, since black bears tend to be solitary creatures rather than existing in packs.Why didn't you just switch to the boat you referred to earlier? Boats tend to be a lot stabler than canoes and can carry larger loads. How did the holes in the boots make things better? With cold water inside your boots you've lost all insulation and cold water is an excellent medium for removing heat from the human body. Surprised you didn't start to experience hypothermia after a short while.Wait a minute. You already said you had collected meteorites. Where had you seen an iron-nickel meteorite before?OK, things are really starting to get stretched here. You don't say how big the canoe was, but let's go with an average one, say a Coleman Journey. That would be approximately 115 cubic feet of capacity, plus the canoe itself would weigh about 85 pounds. Water weighs about 62 pounds per cubic foot. Therefore the total weight would be 7215 pounds minimum. Probably more since there's the meteorite and the heavy rocks, which one can take as being denser than water.

So now with a rope you then dragged an object weighing more than 3.5 tons out of the lake onto the shore, without any kind of mechanical advantage, such as a block and tackle? Right.Uh, when one is paddling a canoe solo one usually sits aft of midships. Or for multi-person canoes, at least on the seat closest to the stern. Of course if you really wanted to maintain stability, then a lower position would have been better, say, kneeling on the hull. What a splendid coincidence that family happened to be up at 2 AM watching the sky.

The rest has all the usual aspects of a CT tale, including the references to all the scientists contacted, each one of which belonged to that famous group, The Renowned Scientists Who May Not Be Named.

This isn't even a very good piece of fiction, as the internal inconsistencies stand out as major flaws.

It might qualify as one of these, however.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

He has pics of the canoe carrying the rock. You know, the rock for which he has given no evidence at all that it is a meteorite. The one that is so large, it would have been quite an impact event if something that size hit ground there the evening before.

http://picasaweb.google.com/AutumCre...lienMeteoriten

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Wait.... you're saying he turns in to The Magician?

Now, I knew Jay worked in the theatre quite a bit, but that is cool.

__________________
There we were in the park when suddenly some old lady says I stole her purse..... I chucked the professor at her but she kept coming..... So I had to hit her with this purse I found.
-- Bender

As Mak has noted, finding a single meteorite is a lucky find, but you are saying you found more than a few very large ones. Worse, you said there are visible fossils in some, and suggested they are from Mars. Martian meteorites are even harder to find, and there have been exactly zero meteorites with confirmed (let alone visible) fossils. From your statements, it seems clear you don't have expertise in identifying meteorites, therefore, the obvious conclusion is that these are not meteorites.

I find that an interesting reaction. You said that certain scientists should have tested the alleged meteorites for radiation, which would suggest that some scientists actually had examined them. If you had explained who had looked at them (at least to the extent of stating their field of expertise) then we could discuss how they examined the rocks and their stated conclusions. Instead of providing any information, you instantly became defensive.

I don't know whether you really believe these are meteorites or are just making up a story in the hopes of getting someone's money, but I am quite sure that nobody here believes these are meteorites. It would take careful scientific work before we'd take this seriously.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Now, how many get that one? (I have fond memories of that show, though it goes back a few years and was short lived.)

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I wouldn't be able to recognize a meteorite if it fell out of the sky into my hands. I mean, there's so many things that look like meteorites. Leftovers from metal foundries (I found one of those in the field once, it looks exactly like a stereotype meteorite). Fossil coral (hint). Volcanic rock. Rock that's been in fire. Fossilized worm holes (the earthly soil variant, not the intergalactic variant). I've got one of hose somewhere, it looks again just like a meteorite. But none of these are meteorites.

Fossman, let's sum some things up

-you found your fossils near water, in water, or in an area that may very well have been watery in the past.
http://picasaweb.google.com/AutumCre...38943155841650
-some of them look like fossil coral, or algae
http://picasaweb.google.com/AutumCre...00115232945778
http://picasaweb.google.com/AutumCre...41507251317602
-there's fossil wood in one of them
http://picasaweb.google.com/AutumCre...44986174827698
-there's fossil coral in them
http://picasaweb.google.com/AutumCre...45703434366210
-there's fossil shells in them
http://picasaweb.google.com/AutumCre...50299049373522
http://picasaweb.google.com/AutumCre...50299049373538
-there's what appears to be a vague fossil of ammonite in one of them
http://picasaweb.google.com/AutumCre...41520136219554

Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that you found a nice collection of marine fossils, rather than a large quality of never seen before, ridiculously rare, interdimensional creature fossilised meteorites? Come on. As I said, these are a nice collection of earthly fossils, but your interdimensional stories snow under that fact, which is a pity. It's a nice collection, it doesn't need interdimensional stories to be interesting. You won't get millions out of it, whether you promote them as the marine fossils and rocks (you'd need to sort the interesting fossils from the regular rocks) that they are, or as the interdimensional meteorite gizmo's that they're not.

btw this keyboard is terrible, it eats half the letters I type. I'll go for the worn explanation and leave interdimensional explanations out of it.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I saw that whole sequence. There's one picture in there that's very revealing.

He claims it's an iron (-nickel) meteorite. If the fellow is of average size, then using him as a scale, the "meteorite" is about two feet across. Going with that as the average diameter, that gives us a volume of about 4.2 cubic feet. An iron-nickel meteorite has a typical density of 7 grams per cubic centimeter. Converting the 4.2 cubic feet to cubic centimeters, we get 118,931 ccs. This means the "meteorite"'s mass is about 833 kgs, which on Earth translates to ~1,835 pounds.

So the fellow now has a "meteorite" in his canoe that weighs in just under one ton. Typical canoe weight capacity is between 250 and 1000 pounds (for a really big one). So here's the catch: his little canoe has not only remained afloat, but the waterline has remained about the same as one would expect to see in a normally loaded canoe, i.e., the draft/freeboard ratio is per design, as is the waterline length.

So it's either a prop or pumice or some similar thing. A "meteorite" it ain't!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Is fossil coral heavy?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Some of the comments are revealing too. From:

http://picasaweb.google.com/AutumCre...30223394627730

The bottom left one, I refer to it as the stony Iron Meteorite but it´s not a stony Iron Meteorite. At it´s interior, there seams to be sulphide and Iron Oxides present the other peace of it was send by me to Omaha, NE to be analyzed by a Dr.Shroder. His comment; "It wasn´t a Meteorite so I through it away"! Who gives him the right to do that?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Depends on the coral. If there are many gaps then the density would be low compared to a more solid structure. I need to check my rock and mineral collection to see if there's any in there. Then do the Archimedes thing.

BTW, I do have some fossilized wood, which might provide equivalent results. Memory seems to indicate it was about as dense as sandstone.

But, one way or the other, for an object that large made of some kind of rock (other than pumice, et al) it's still going to be quite heavy.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Good one.

Basic CT approach to independent verification: data that fail to agree with my premise are wrong.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I spotted that too. I can assume the anger was in the throwing away of the "precious meteorite", but that still indicates the message that it wasn't a meteorite was not accepted.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I have no idea where I kept my rock collection.

I have been in a similar canoe with 3 adults and a child, so if the rock weighs as much as 2 adults and a child (in our case, that would total about 160 kg) it wouldn't be a problem for the canoe. But for such a rock to weigh 250 kg or less (which I see as an upper limit for the canoe to behave that way), it would have to be quite light indeed. Pumice certainly is possible, I have no experience with fossilized coral so I have no idea on that one.

But I imagine that if such a large meteorite were to hit ground closeby, you would notice it. Notice, as in being shaken out of your bed, covered in broken window glass.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

No, according to the Earth Impact Effects Program you would be not.
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

He said it impacted on the other side, so it was about two kilometers away.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Please do not mistake my following comments as either sarcastic or implying derision.

This is the kind of debate that keeps me reading these threads. Careful, analytical and informed debate regardles of the incredulity of the claims made. Not the pure debating tactics I see in some other threads. A real pleasure and my hats off to the posters of this thread. I never stop learning from the informed. Despite the incongruities in the OP and then in later posts I could not find the words, that others so eloquently have. However:

1: Which face of a pyramid is north has still not been adequately answered.
2: The quantitive predictions regarding the population density of bears in the immediate area has not been addressed.
3: The type and quantity (presumed to be in rad's) of 'radiation' one has to concentrate very hard on (please also quantify 'very hard') to form an impression on a silver nitrate medium, has not been sufficiently defined for reproduction. (in this particular individuals case reproduction may be considered a real issue)
4: And how does one address the problem of the use of the term 'reptiod' as being of 'extra-terrestrial' or 'extra-dimensional' origin, as reptiles are most definitely a known and well documented Earthly phenomena. Assuredly any such unknown lifeform would most certainly not be recognisable in Earthly terms (I guess).
5: Meteorite density and size do not appear to match canoe carrying capacity. No feasible argument has been offered to satisfy this point either.

__________________
I once put instant coffee in a microwave and nearly went back in time - Steven Wright

I'm glad somebody got the joke.

I did, but I couldn't think of a sufficiently witty comment to make.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Fossman,

Note that your claims are getting weaker the more we look into them.

I can assume one of two things:
1) Like Richard Hoagland, you're trying to make money by present pseudoscience, and hoping no one will catch on to the scheme.
2) You really believe what you're saying, and ignore contradictory evidence that shows you beliefs to be in error.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

well, that gives me an easily heard 33 dB (depends on the actual diameter entered, but all remains easily heard) impact sound at 2 km distance, plus a crater of 12m diameter and 4m depth in the floor of shallow water.

So not what I described, but also not the peaceful scene where it was found the day after, according to the story.

edit: if you put a a stone meteorite instead of iron, it wouldn't be heard, and you'd have no crater because it would never reach the ground. So it would have been far larger in order to have such a piece hit the ground. Let's ee how large a stony meteor would need to be...

Hm, the neiighbours saw the fireball but no airburst. I don't think any stone meteor can go through the atmosphere without an airburst and have only that size. Even a 9m diameter stony meteor would still airburst.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

42dB is not loud but easily noticeable when there is no noise in the surroundings, yes. I am missing the description of the huge crater too. As this piece would have been at the bottom of the crater he would have to dive about four meters deep and then bring up a 800kg rock, with his bare hands.
That plot hole is big enough to drive a cargo train through it.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Fossman, please address the pertinant questions and relevant points raised in my post #113

__________________
I once put instant coffee in a microwave and nearly went back in time - Steven Wright

BaDboD, Fossman hasn't been online since you asked those questions, so maybe he's just at work or sleeping. A bit of patience .

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

well, that crater was for an iron meteor. It is stony. The problem then is, that this piece is too small to hit the ground in one piece. it would have to be a fragment of a much larger, airblasted stony meteor. The witnesses saw it (one thing) passing by according to the story, no mentioning of an air blast. So it doesn't add up if this would have been part of that meteor.

But there's more. On his site, Fossman wonders about a fossil shell being unharmed by the entry heat, even though being on the outside of the "meteorite". Yet he doesn't wonder whether this might be not a meteor but something earthly. Add to that at least 2 scientists who have told him it are no meteorites (see his site) plus the summation I made in one of my previous posts, and you have to wonder why Fossman would hold on to his meteorites at all. All evidence suggests it are no meteorites.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.