Search results

the assumption is that people don't do that anyway also, site search can be limited to searching the current thread (I don't really understand how you go to "read everything" when you advocated using a search engine only a few posts back)

because that cuts the air resistance in half, and because it's a realistic operating speed for HSR in Germany — the ICE4 is designed for a top speed of "only" 165 mph for a reason. this just means you can't get the person•km efficiency from the seat capacity of the train, necessarily. But we...

Couldn't we simply open a Q&A megathread in the 9/11 forum that'd operate similarly to the "current events" threads we have on other issues? (and maybe one on the UFO forum as well?) The advantage is that malicious questions etc. don't get the benefit of a "headline", and it's less intimidating...

the problem is that the "just asking questions" brigade of rhetoric dishonesty could easily turn such a section into an evidence-free, low-quality sludge-fest ("how to we know WTC7 was not demolished?"). If we get such a section, I recommend it be not publicly visible, same as ChitChat. I don't...

getting paid to find UFO stories, isn't he? I'm sure @Mick West will gladly share 10% of his metabunk.org ad revenue with you. ;)

It's not about the notion, it's about the person. When I engage with them, and they engage with me, we can have a conversation. When they're stuck in a rut, repeating the same points, we can't. You never know what's new to them when you start. Neither. "I believe it's a globe, you believe it's...

Not really. I mean, they believe it's flat and I believe it's not, that difference is at the heart of the conversation. (Similarly with 9/11, etc.) We need to respect that, ideally mutually. My thought that's in my mind is, "why do they believe that"? is the evidence they present logical, what...

however, this kind of advice won't be useful when trying to geolocate UFO sightings :-) you have to pick what applies

Speak for yourself. "We" don't all think that.

Calibrating by water tower horizontally and then looking at an object above practically ensures there'll be problems, because vertically the density gets less.

I have not seen that happen on Metabunk. Nothing like it. (On reddit? regularly.)

"Statements" don't go on Metabunk (except in Chitchat), evidence of claims does. If you see a "gender ideologue" claim some fact and support it with evidence, you can post that in "General Discussion" and debunk their evidence. Once there are a good number of posts on a similar subject, a...

"If you are situated indoors or at a location that isn’t on a road, there is a reasonable chance you are in India." :-p that said, very occasionally a location of a UFO picture/video is misattributed, and then this can be helpful. (Less so if you're trying to figure out where that Navy jet was...

the sliding sinker in my screenshot should be easy to suspend horizontally, with minimal effort.

to answer the question correctly, it wasn't necessary to decide the comparison the fact that was hard to decide was a clue that it might be an opinion

Yes, I did that as well, as I mentioned, with the same result. It's only in the context of judging media (e.g. libel cases) that "factual statement" is used to mean "not an opinion" even if it is false. On the other hand, nobody I know says "that's factual" when they can say "that's true", so...

Yes. It feels off that railway construction and maintenance should use more energy than maintaining a highway of comparable capacity. (This works out even better for freight.) And if you don't operate your trains at 220 mph, but "only" at 160 mph, that saves on operating energy.

what @deirdre thinks I do and what I actually do is not the same but that's another conflict that does not belong here

I figured it out a while ago: It's the "all for one" part of the 3 Musketeers' slogan, without the "one for all".

click on the reaction icon to see who left it (I should also mention that before a mod edited it, post #16 was two quotes with no other text, and "reply"-ing to it didn't even provide me with quote tags. That's why my post #18 is a "bare" reply.)