Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pingonaut

  1. I've attempted the download on both browsers and neither worked. Figured I'd bring it up since I saw that a thread was made about it quite a while ago. I just noticed that it was moved to Google Play. I've never used it before, is that available on Chrome? And since I've already purchased the old version am I able to transfer it?
  2. Sputnik was a test payload for a military project. America reacted the way it did because the Russians showed that they could hit anywhere on the planet. Far from a "pet project." I don't know where you heard that. Not so innocent.
  3. I tried and it crashed. Not because of memory, though. Some of the textures were causing issues. Refused to load. I just went with KSPRC and added the Astronomer's parts that worked (everything but EVE textures).
  4. I love stock-a-line mods! Great work! If you're looking for suggestions, it'd be neat to see some built-in landing legs and even balcony/porch things that fold out on some modules (or modules specifically for that).
  5. It's possible that there's a different mod causing this. I've never seen that issue with normal EVE.
  6. 2015 is going to go down as a really great year.
  7. Then post it on Kerbin Side's mod page. This isn't TextureReplacer's bug to fix.
  8. It's more about not wanting the kerbal texture and suit changes, but wanting the planet and navball texture changes. As I said, it isn't hard for me to do it. But for someone new to mods it may be a bit confusing if they don't want those changes. I'm perfectly fine going through the files and choosing what to keep and what not to.
  9. That's alright. It isn't an issue for me to go through and pick and choose which pieces I want and which I don't (for example I keep the navball textures, but not the suit textures, etc.). It just takes a bit of time. I actually thought step-by-step instructions would be easier, but I can see how someone new to modding would find a drag and drop pack easier. I'm not sure what you mean by this.
  10. Alright, thanks for the explanation. I'll just use the BB code mode.
  11. For some reason, when switching to bold, italics, etc. hitting the backspace key will bring me back to the end of whatever was formatted. So for example if I bold this make a mistake, and hit backspace, it will take me back to the 's' in this or the space after it, and delete it.
  12. But still, what kind of substantiation? Anyhow, I just wanted to come back before checking out of the discussion. Thanks for the enjoyment. Will check up every now and then and finish up if need be.
  13. Even though I agree, I have to chime in and say he isn't wrong. - - - Updated - - - It's like saying "there's a giant snake in my backyard but no known snakes like that are believed to have habitat here" before it was discovered that the large snakes originated from pets that were discarded, which started a colony.
  14. As said above, that reasoning doesn't make any sense. The idea of Earth being a round ball of rock orbiting a ball of flame, which is just one of countless similar systems certainly wasn't mainstream for such a long time. Sorry. That view has no basis in reality.
  15. I'm back, but not for too long. What is proof, exactly? Investigations certainly have produced evidence. - - - Updated - - - Then why do we study animals in the wild today, why do we protect endangered species? Curiosity, as well. For a civilization that has achieved beyond the point of only surviving, why is it far fetched to believe that they would be doing things like we are? Nature preserves, studies on species and their development, etc.
  16. I'm saying though, we would be so behind in understanding of technology and society that our motives would likely be different than theirs. As I said, I like the Zoo Hypothesis and it would make sense. They hide when they need to, don't try to when they don't, etc. because they're doing research, or whatever. Very true. But some eyewitness testimonies come with good physical evidence that can be explored further. If you can corroborate it, then always try to do so. That's good. I'm not saying don't be skeptical. - - - Updated - - - What? I'm sorry, but that really doesn't make any sense. Use science to confirm/debunk the claims, is what I'm saying. Make investigating this stuff a proper science and debunk it properly. - - - Updated - - - Any physical object will produce a radar signal? Yeah, there are cases where there was a radar signal. But how does stealth technology work? (I don't personally know) If we can make stealth jets that don't show up on radar as greatly, why can't a more advanced technology (almost) completely avoid it? I've actually got to go. Thanks for the good discussion!
  17. I dunno, I'm enjoying the discussion. I've yet to see anyone putting anyone else down for their views. - - - Updated - - - By who?
  18. Why do they have to use signals that we use, like radio? Like people saying "SETI hasn't found anything, so it's unlikely," it's like trying to detect television broadcasts with a ham radio.
  19. Honestly both of them are fairly likely. The problem is some of them do come with some pretty good proof. You just have to investigate it. There were a few landing sightings where the ground beneath showed extremely high radiation, corroborating the exact shape and size of the objects.
  20. Why? It makes a difference if a trained observer says they see something. Take the story as-is? No. Investigate further based on circumstances? Yeah. That's the issue. It stops at investigating ​thoroughly.
  21. This is true. I'm not saying you should accept every case as fact just because they're trained observers. I'm simply saying they're more credible. Of course without complete knowledge they are personally fallible, but others can use their testimony and investigate it further, using their circumstances as a base. - - - Updated - - - Again, I really don't know how you're going to get extraordinary evidence.
  22. No, they don't necessarily. There are plenty of theoretical ways of going around the speed of light that we already know of. Do you think we know all there is to know about interstellar travel physics, more than a civilization that has had maybe millions of years more time than us? Why do they have to land on our lawns, or be showing themselves? (I'm obviously partial to the zoo hypothesis) A scientist studying the deer population at a local nature preserve will "abduct" deer and do stuff with it. They won't try to hide themselves if it isn't necessary, they will when it is, but they don't go stomping on the deer's home saying "HEY I'M HERE, LOOK!" just because they don't have reason to hide. Well, there are quite a few cases that have done it for me. Testimony from really good witness does that. Not every pilot, police officer, soldier, and even astronaut just happened to be incapacitated visually at the time. - - - Updated - - - Job title doesn't. Experience does. People who are trained observers are more credible than a blind hillbilly. Physical evidence exists, but it isn't hard proof. I'm not sure how you'd get hard proof. edit: huh, just realized accidentally double posting just updates your post. Awesome!
  • Create New...