Thousands of UFO's filmed over Madrid, Spain, in June 2006 (Video)

Originally posted by StellarX
In my opinion the 'balloon theory' is not only simplistic but also ludicrous in it's assumption that balloons reflects light in that way or that they would be visible or in formation.

I like simple explanations. Nature always use the path of least resistance, so I always look for the simpler explanations.

In Portugal last year, on October 5, a formation like this but smaller, with some 50 objects, was seen by some people. One of those people was the president of the Sociedade Portuguesa de Ovniologia (Portuguese Ufology Society).

He contacted one of their researchers and this researcher, equiped with a binoculars and a digital camera with an 12X optical zoom, saw that they were only ballons.

On their site you can see their report, but it is in Portuguese.

Portuguese case

That's odd, a bit into the movie, you can notice one balloon distinctly going faster than others. Not if there was some sort of jet stream type effect, where wind was going through, why not affect other balloons in the general area, it wasn't as if they were miles apart?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by StellarX
In my opinion the 'balloon theory' is not only simplistic but also ludicrous in it's assumption that balloons reflects light in that way or that they would be visible or in formation.

I like simple explanations. Nature always use the path of least resistance, so I always look for the simpler explanations.

In Portugal last year, on October 5, a formation like this but smaller, with some 50 objects, was seen by some people. One of those people was the president of the Sociedade Portuguesa de Ovniologia (Portuguese Ufology Society).

He contacted one of their researchers and this researcher, equiped with a binoculars and a digital camera with an 12X optical zoom, saw that they were only ballons.

On their site you can see their report, but it is in Portuguese.

Portuguese case

so are you pro balloon theory or what?

I am in favour of the balloon theory, that is why I searched for a balloon release on that day.

As I said, it is the simpler answer and I do not see anything against it.

I think this was one of the best debunks on ATS that I have encountered. I'm truly surprised how some people can still think this phenomenon is of extra-terrestrial nature.

When I first saw videos of dozens of white dots in the sky I did not abandon UFO version, but hey, this video shows hundreds over the capital of Spain and isn't that strange why there was no media coverage for such an event?

Looking at the photos of balloon release it is obvious that sometimes multiple balloons are tied together. If some of those multiple balloons start slowly releasing gas, then this could affect travelling direction without causing any visible decrease in size of the object. Or it could be just wind streams.

I'm sorry for your wasted time, Mr. Jamie Maussan, but you were clearly onto... nothing

Originally posted by ArMaP
I like simple explanations.

So do children and people with lowered intellectual capacity.... I am not suggesting that YOU are stupid or anything as much as that you seem very lazy in trying to pick whatever solution demands the least thinking and consideration. Why do you imagine this occurance has a simple explanation? What is the motivation for that point of view?

Nature always use the path of least resistance, so I always look for the simpler explanations.

You think you will get away with that sort of statement in most universities? Why the years and lifetimes of study to understand the 'nature' you accuse of being so 'simple'?

He contacted one of their researchers and this researcher, equiped with a binoculars and a digital camera with an 12X optical zoom, saw that they were only ballons.

On their site you can see their report, but it is in Portuguese.

So why do you consider these two instances related beside the fact that it suits your ideal that the simplest solution be most accurate? What motivates the view that knowing nothing about most things ( physics is kinda complex) will offer you the best change of being able to explain physical phenomenon? It sounds like the argument of someone who wants to defend his ignorance based on the assumption that he needs to know no more than he does already.

Stellar

Stellar, so you don't believe the balloon version of the story? Oh, come on, my only hope is that I just misunderstood you.

Hundreds of UFOs over one of the biggest cities in Europe and nobody else noticed that? Yeah, right

Watch the video again and you'll identify single balloons, several balloons tied together spinning in the air - that's damn obvious Have you wondered why the objects that you see moving relative to others are of a different size? Well that's because they are higher or lower than the rest and were caught by a wind - CHECK for yourself! By the way, anyone knows whyy almost all the objects seem to be moving from the top right corner to the left bottom corner? Is this some kind of seasonal migration?

Oh, I've just read a killer-comment on youtube:

It is a video that shows more than 500 objects that are not balloons. There are objects bigger than the rest. They are formed by the mix of other objects. Their movements are autonomous. It shows Inteligence.

Omg, I'm laughing with tears now Some people are really ignorant and don't even bother to look for simple explanations. This is so primitive. I'll try to be primitive as well - ages ago when our ancestors had limited knowledge of science they prayed for gods because that was the only explanation they could come up with. Is this what you are doing now? I suppose I wouldn't be far from truth if I called UFO a new age religion, would I?

[edit on 16/8/2006 by The Conspiracy Follower]

Originally posted by StellarX
Why do you imagine this occurance has a simple explanation? What is the motivation for that point of view?

I do not "imagine" that this occurrence has a simple explanation, I suppose that this occurrence has a simple explanation because most of the times they do have a simple explanation, and I am not talking only about UFOs.

When a crime is committed does the police search for the criminal in another state or country? No, they search first on the area where the crime took place, only when they do not find the solution near, then they spread the area. The same for the motive, they start with the most obvious and then, if this does not seam the true reason, they think of other motives.

My point of view for all problems is based (not motivated) on the same principle, start with the simpler and then, if necessary, increase the complexity.

Nature always use the path of least resistance, so I always look for the simpler explanations.

You think you will get away with that sort of statement in most universities? Why the years and lifetimes of study to understand the 'nature' you accuse of being so 'simple'?

What need do I have to "get away" with this sort of statement in any university?
I do not want to enter any university, I am only trying to understand what that video shows.

I did not "accuse" Nature of being simple, I said:

Nature always use the path of least resistance

That does not mean it is simple, it means only that Nature uses the easiest (from the point of view of the execution of that method, not in the complexity of what it involves) to solve its "problems".

What appeared first in Nature, the simpler or more complex organisms?

And the more complex organisms, did they start by having all the capabilities that they have know or were those capabilities the result of an evolution through the years because they were needed?

Why do we have cells that can be transformed in any other type of cell if needed? Because making all types of cell with a duplicate was a waste of materials and energy, and energy is not a free resource in Nature, it costs time, the only thing that can not be created (as far as I know).

So why do you consider these two instances related beside the fact that it suits your ideal that the simplest solution be most accurate?

Because I saw the photos on the site of that association and they are very similar to the images in the video.

Did you saw the photos on that Portuguese site?

What motivates the view that knowing nothing about most things ( physics is kinda complex) will offer you the best change of being able to explain physical phenomenon? It sounds like the argument of someone who wants to defend his ignorance based on the assumption that he needs to know no more than he does already.

Where did I said anything like that? If I said something that could be interpreted in that way then I am sorry, tell where it was to see if I can correct that.
I know that my English is far from perfect, I learned all by myself by earing it on the movies and on the TV and by reading books and magazines in English, but I never had nobody to teach me how to write, so sometimes I try to think the sentences in English but they turn out all mixed up, and that has created some misunderstandings in the past.

Did you read my signature? I can tell you that is true, I really like to deny ignorance, I like it so much that I even take the trouble of picking up a dictionary (yes, a real book) to know the exact meaning and origin of a word, and I do this with everything that I think may result in a increase of my knowledge.

AccessDenied I do think your pss was uncalled for.

You can give your opinions, thoughts, but making insults like that is going to get you in trouble if you aren't careful.

Originally posted by The Conspiracy Follower
Stellar, so you don't believe the balloon version of the story? Oh, come on, my only hope is that I just misunderstood you.

Well for the original video yes but not for what i have subsequently posted....

Hundreds of UFOs over one of the biggest cities in Europe and nobody else noticed that? Yeah, right

I think i have discovered at least one source for this current disagreement. I never watched original video ( lack of time and such ) and have so far always been talking about the events of Jan 4 over Madrid

www.orbwar.com...

Watch the video again and you'll identify single balloons, several balloons tied together spinning in the air - that's damn obvious

Have you wondered why the objects that you see moving relative to others are of a different size? Well that's because they are higher or lower than the rest and were caught by a wind - CHECK for yourself

I must admit if i have now , finally, watched the original clip i never would have argued that these were 'ufos' had i not for some reason assumed the june 5 pictures were of the june 10 event recorded on that video. My mistake entirely.

bythe way, anyone knows whyy almost all the objects seem to be moving from the top right corner to the left bottom corner?

Is this some kind of seasonal migration?

'Wind'. And that is not 500 'ufo's but thousands if one consideres them 'unidentified'.

Damn i hate the general confusion that ensues when people are talking about different things without realising as much!

Stellar

[edit on 17-8-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX
I must admit if i have now , finally, watched the original clip i never would have argued that these were 'ufos' had i not for some reason assumed the june 5 pictures were of the june 10 event recorded on that video. My mistake entirely.

No problem, I didn't saw your links either before today.

Is there any thread here about that case?

When I first saw videos of dozens of white dots in the sky I did not abandon UFO version, but hey, this video shows hundreds over the capital of Spain and isn't that strange why there was no media coverage for such an event?

What's even stranger is why the Spanish military would sit idly by while thousands of UFOs were floating over Madrid.... Then again, they probably don't scramble for every balloon release....kind of like the Mexican balloon releases which also somehow get mistaken as UFO fleets.



[edit on 17-8-2006 by Gazrok]

Why is this thread even still going? Are people really that interested in a bunch of white balloons floating around?

Originally posted by TeH PwNeR
check this vid out, you can tell its fake cause it seems like they used a string for that

www.youtube.com...


No that's real. Prove to me that it's not real, bla, bla, bla

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Xeros]

Originally posted by Access Denied
Sanity?

What society considers sane does not say much about current society.

What I'd like to know is why do you imagine this occurrence to not have a simple explanation? What is the motivation for your point of view?

Much experience in the field of realising simple looking things to be very complex?

And even if by some huge impossible stretch of the imagination these were actual UFOs then I sincerely hope this isn't what you consider to be undeniable proof of extraterrestrial visitation...

Yeah, i should have watched that video on day one. As you would have realised from a earlier post i never did and after watching it do not consider those to be proof of anything. Did you see the links to the orbs that i was actually talking about?

it's just a bunch of "orbs" doing nothing of any interest... and if you believe that then I've got some swampland in Florida to sell you.

Hey i don't believe those original video's to be proof of anything but those others orbs...... Swampland in Florida does'nt interest me nearly as much as unidentified craft patrolling the skies of the continental USA.

P.S. Has anybody counted how many "UFOs" are actually in this video... is it really in the "thousands" as claimed by the OP in the title of this thread?

It really is thousands yes and that alone should have disqualified it as news....

(Sorry, the title of this thread was enough reason for me to not to bother watching it... any serious researcher will tell you "real" UFOs don't appear in those kind of numbers.)

Your gut feeling and knowledge didn't let you down in this instance...

P.S.S. It occurs to me this forum ought to be required reading for psych students if it isn’t already… you just can’t get a more immersive experience than this in a field trip to the local psych ward I would imagine.

Agreed.

Stellar

Originally posted by ArMaP
I do not "imagine" that this occurrence has a simple explanation, I suppose that this occurrence has a simple explanation because most of the times they do have a simple explanation, and I am not talking only about UFOs.

Well i can agree with that.....

When a crime is committed does the police search for the criminal in another state or country? No, they search first on the area where the crime took place, only when they do not find the solution near, then they spread the area. The same for the motive, they start with the most obvious and then, if this does not seam the true reason, they think of other motives.

No objections here...

My point of view for all problems is based (not motivated) on the same principle, start with the simpler and then, if necessary, increase the complexity.

Which is not a bad standard in general as long as one is not motivated to look for simple explanations for complex problems ( 'God created everything').

What need do I have to "get away" with this sort of statement in any university?
I do not want to enter any university, I am only trying to understand what that video shows.

The principle that things are just 'simple' and that we are somehow just dumb for not being able to figure it all out over the last few thousand years.

I did not "accuse" Nature of being simple, I said:

That does not mean it is simple, it means only that Nature uses the easiest (from the point of view of the execution of that method, not in the complexity of what it involves) to solve its "problems".

How on earth can you come to that conclusion? Do you know how to make universes or create life? What basis do you have to assume that nature works along the least complex lines? What universe or nature are you using as reference point?

What appeared first in Nature, the simpler or more complex organisms?

The so called 'simpler' organism were not really simple to start with and assuming that they were as evidence that simpler explanations, to observed reality, be more likely than any other..... I just don't really see the connection and do not understand why you have the compulsion to look for simple solutions ( which those in power always readily offer one as diversion) when they do nothing to bring understanding.

And the more complex organisms, did they start by having all the capabilities that they have know or were those capabilities the result of an evolution through the years because they were needed?

That's not how evolution works. There is no known mechanism that requires 'positive' ( i know , i know) change in any life form. Added 'complexity' comes not because of 'need' but accidently ( as far as i know they know ) and will be retained only if the environment allows. Complexity is not something you might want but it does not care either way and happens whether you like it or not, even in nature.

Why do we have cells that can be transformed in any other type of cell if needed? Because making all types of cell with a duplicate was a waste of materials and energy, and energy is not a free resource in Nature, it costs time, the only thing that can not be created (as far as I know).

Energy is 'free' in that this earth is a open system receiving energy at no cost. Attempting to use the complexity of the average biological system as argument against considering complex alternatives to the simplest possible solution is probably not going to turn out well for your assumed 'simplest' solution towards reality...

Because I saw the photos on the site of that association and they are very similar to the images in the video.

Did you saw the photos on that Portuguese site?

Can't seem to find find them ( briefly scanned all six pages) but i was talking about those three odd links i provided earlier.

What motivates the view that knowing nothing about most things ( physics is kinda complex) will offer you the best change of being able to explain physical phenomenon? It sounds like the argument of someone who wants to defend his ignorance based on the assumption that he needs to know no more than he does already.

Where did I said anything like that? If I said something that could be interpreted in that way then I am sorry, tell where it was to see if I can correct that.
I know that my English is far from perfect, I learned all by myself by earing it on the movies and on the TV and by reading books and magazines in English, but I never had nobody to teach me how to write, so sometimes I try to think the sentences in English but they turn out all mixed up, and that has created some misunderstandings in the past.

There is nothing wrong with your use of the language as far as i can tell ( and that isn't very far considering my own insecurity on the issue) and i based my statement on the opinion ( mine) that you do not seem well enough informed on scientific matters to be able to suggest that nature ( or at least our scientific understanding of it) somehow chooses the simplest method of 'getting the job done'. We have 20 000 odd , active, genes and yet for our current view of how the human body is supposed to function we need closer to 200 000 genes and our understanding of nature is replete with these facts..

Did you read my signature? I can tell you that is true, I really like to deny ignorance, I like it so much that I even take the trouble of picking up a dictionary (yes, a real book) to know the exact meaning and origin of a word, and I do this with everything that I think may result in a increase of my knowledge.

Well if denying ignorance is your true aim we will, if not now eventually, get along just fine.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

My point of view for all problems is based (not motivated) on the same principle, start with the simpler and then, if necessary, increase the complexity.

Which is not a bad standard in general as long as one is not motivated to look for simple explanations for complex problems ( 'God created everything').

I think that I should have had put more emphasis on the "start", I look for the simpler explanations at the start. If a simple explanation solves the problem, then I do not need to search any more, unless my explanation proves to be incapable of really explain the problem.

And you may be certain that a 'God created everything' will never be in my mind, I am an atheist, at least until I find proof of the existence of god(s).

I just don't really see the connection and do not understand why you have the compulsion to look for simple solutions ( which those in power always readily offer one as diversion) when they do nothing to bring understanding.

If anyone offers a simple explanation for something I accept it only if it really shows the possibility of explaining that situation.

In this case, if my "balloon explanation" didn't fly then I would have had to search another explanation, not so simple.

We have 20 000 odd , active, genes and yet for our current view of how the human body is supposed to function we need closer to 200 000 genes and our understanding of nature is replete with these facts..

That is exactly what I have been trying to say. If we have something like 20,000 active genes but using our present knowledge think that we should have needed some 200,000 to function, then the real system is simpler, it only needs 20,000, Nature found a way of doing things simpler than "our" way.

Part of this idea of mine that most things have simple explanations comes from my work, I am a computer programmer, so I have had some hundreds of problems to solve during my career.

Almost all problems can be solved in more than one way, but the simpler is usually the best and the one that gives the best results. Sometimes I solve a problem but I "mark" it as an incomplete solution because I think that I did not found the easiest way of doing it. The last time this happened was 5 weeks ago, and that piece of code that I had written more or less a year ago and that worked, when revised, was reduce to only 20% of its size and turned out to be some 10% faster than the original version.

This second way of doing things was simpler than the first that I used.

In programming, if we find only a complex way of doing things than it means that we did not look carefully enough for the best solution, we only looked for the fastest way of finding a solution.


Nature has time on its side, so it has had time enough to make this type of "tunning", that is why we only have 20,000 genes, its the result of optimization.

But I may be completely wrong and I am prepared to face the day when I reach that conclusion.

Can't seem to find find them ( briefly scanned all six pages) but i was talking about those three odd links i provided earlier.

Here it is: Portuguese balloon case

Well if denying ignorance is your true aim we will, if not now eventually, get along just fine.

You can be sure of that, in fact I may tell you that I do not have any solution for those pictures you pointed to, at least not yet, but those things do not fit my balloon explanation for the other case.

Originally posted by ArMaP
My point of view for all problems is based (not motivated) on the same principle, start with the simpler and then, if necessary, increase the complexity.

The problem i have always had with that 'assumption' is that people can bend evidence to fit perception with relative ease. If you automatically assume the simpler explanation to be more likely you will never have any encouragement to learn anything knew as you will find the simplest solution to be something that your mind can understand. Why do you think we have gods? It's the most likely ( simpler) explanation for everything and anything when your mostly ignorant. Can you see where i am coming from when i am claim that assuming simplicity is basically a negative loop where ignorance begets ignorance?

[quoteAnd you may be certain that a 'God created everything' will never be in my mind, I am an atheist, at least until I find proof of the existence of god(s).

Then your agnostic as i am which means that we have found no god ( a past or current prime mover ) for just yet but that we are open to the idea and investigating the possibility.

If anyone offers a simple explanation for something I accept it only if it really shows the possibility of explaining that situation.

What level of proof do you demand and do you demand it when your ideas are contested or when you contest the ideas of others? From what sources will you accept this proof?

In this case, if my "balloon explanation" didn't fly then I would have had to search another explanation, not so simple.

One can assign balloons almost any aerodynamic capabilities if one does not know much and hence one can always readily use it when others are no better informed. I must admit that in the original instance there was not much reason to suspect anything other but where does one draw the line?

That is exactly what I have been trying to say. If we have something like 20,000 active genes but using our present knowledge think that we should have needed some 200,000 to function, then the real system is simpler, it only needs 20,000, Nature found a way of doing things simpler than "our" way.

Actually the mechanistic view of the human body ( simplest) requires around 200 000 genes so finding only 20 000 indicates that the body is far more ( or maybe even inexplicably) more complex than we expected assuming simpler explanations first. Nature would have done it with more genes according to our current views and those current views are by no means the first thing ( simplest) we came up with.

Part of this idea of mine that most things have simple explanations comes from my work, I am a computer programmer, so I have had some hundreds of problems to solve during my career.

When something is already working odds are that it broke only partly and that the problem is thus small and relatively simple considering the means involved. I think i understand where your coming from but i do not think it's accurate to compare programming languages with the wide scope of science and observed reality. If you know a computer language it's a world largely isolated from other facts but that is simply not so in 'real world' ( TM) where lack of knowledge begets the assumption of simplicity.

Almost all problems can be solved in more than one way,

Only if you have the required knowledge and if the problem is well enough understood. If one is ignorant few if more than one solution might be obvious or even enter consideration. With programming you will always get there if you know the language but the way you get there might not be very functional.

but the simpler is usually the best and the one that gives the best results. Sometimes I solve a problem but I "mark" it as an incomplete solution because I think that I did not found the easiest way of doing it. The last time this happened was 5 weeks ago, and that piece of code that I had written more or less a year ago and that worked, when revised, was reduce to only 20% of its size and turned out to be some 10% faster than the original version.

And that's why i think simplicity is largely a construct of how much one knows. For someone who have extensively explored science UFO's from Andromeda might very well turn out to be the simplest solution after his first attempts yielded only 'balloon from a festival' last year. What is scientific discovery other than discovering our former ignorance and stupid assumptions of simplicity when the problems are in retrospect obviously far more complex than our simplest assumptions at the time? Can we confidently assume that our simplest solutions do not normally say more about us than about the problem?

second way of doing things was simpler than the first that I used.

At the time it certainly was not as you would then have obviously been able to do it 'right' and 'simplest' the first time..... How much did you learn in that time?

pramming, if we find only a complex way of doing things than it means that we did not look carefully enough for the best solution, we only looked for the fastest way of finding a solution.

You always do it the best and simplest way you can the truth just not being readily apparent at the time. The simplest solution involved more knowledge and time, strangely, so what is that really suggestive of?

Nature has time on its side, so it has had time enough to make this type of "tunning", that is why we only have 20,000 genes, its the result of optimization.

Well many basic forms of worms have more genes than we do and i am not so sure you would have attempted above argument had you know that.

But I may be completely wrong and I am prepared to face the day when I reach that conclusion.

I have often been completely wrong in the past and i can tell you that it was not not conclusions based on the assumption of simplicity. Is it for instance likely or simple for one to realise that there is massive vast conspiracy to suppress humanity and to hide the true complexity of human development and history from us? I think assuming simplicity leads to dead ends as there is simple too much encouragement and too little time to arrive at anything useful within a human lifetime. That's obviously just my opinion thought.

You can be sure of that, in fact I may tell you that I do not have any solution for those pictures you pointed to, at least not yet, but those things do not fit my balloon explanation for the other case.

The suspension of judgement is a very positive sign and my only ( possible worthwhile imo) advice would be to never rush to conclusions unless your very life depends on it; readily choosing to remain uncertain about any number of issues is what true discovery is based on as it encourages the constant acquisition of knowledge.

Stellar

Ha! Finally someone makes the 'balloon' claim and proves it. Usually someone does the balloon thing and all they can say is "IT'S A BALLOON! WHY? BECAUSE THAT WOULD PROVE ME RIGHT"

Originally posted by StellarX
If you automatically assume the simpler explanation to be more likely you will never have any encouragement to learn anything knew as you will find the simplest solution to be something that your mind can understand. Why do you think we have gods? It's the most likely ( simpler) explanation for everything and anything when your mostly ignorant. Can you see where i am coming from when i am claim that assuming simplicity is basically a negative loop where ignorance begets ignorance?

I think I understand what you are saying.

But for me and my way of analyzing things that explanation of "God did it" is simple but there are no explanations (simple or otherwise) for the existence of god.

That was why I thought that in the case of this video from Madrid it looked like balloons but then I looked for an explanation for the presence of those balloons there.

My idea of a simple explanation applies to all the process; in this case some guy made a video of something and said it was in Madrid in that particular day, that something looked like balloons to me, there was a balloon release on that day in Madrid.

If I didn't had found that there was a balloon release on that day or if they had only released some 10 balloons, I wouldn't have accepted my balloon theory.

Then your agnostic as i am which means that we have found no god ( a past or current prime mover ) for just yet but that we are open to the idea and investigating the possibility.

I prefer to think myself as an atheist than an agnostic.

What level of proof do you demand and do you demand it when your ideas are contested or when you contest the ideas of others? From what sources will you accept this proof?

I accept all sources, if what is presented as proof really looks like it can explain my point or the other peoples' point, then I accept it as a starting point for trying to find an explanation.

One can assign balloons almost any aerodynamic capabilities if one does not know much and hence one can always readily use it when others are no better informed. I must admit that in the original instance there was not much reason to suspect anything other but where does one draw the line?

That I do not know how to answer, I think that it depends on what we have to work with.

When something is already working odds are that it broke only partly and that the problem is thus small and relatively simple considering the means involved. I think i understand where your coming from but i do not think it's accurate to compare programming languages with the wide scope of science and observed reality. If you know a computer language it's a world largely isolated from other facts but that is simply not so in 'real world' ( TM) where lack of knowledge begets the assumption of simplicity.

I am not speaking of programming in any particular language, but about the way of transposing the real world problems to a computer world problem that could be solved or split in any number of smaller problems that can be solved.

Programming in general does not involve any specific language.

(I may have said something wrong in this 'programming explanation' because I never learned programming theory or algorithm creation, I learned it by myself)

second way of doing things was simpler than the first that I used.

At the time it certainly was not as you would then have obviously been able to do it 'right' and 'simplest' the first time..... How much did you learn in that time?

It could have been the simplest way of dooing things but I could have not seen it at the time, my judgment of what is the simpler way is not full-proof.

Obviously, if my knowledge changed during that time then maybe I can now use a simpler way that did not existed (to me, at the time).

You always do it the best and simplest way you can the truth just not being readily apparent at the time. The simplest solution involved more knowledge and time, strangely, so what is that really suggestive of?

The way I do things (I cannot speak for other people) is influenced by many things, some times my way of doing things is diverted by other things that surround me.

One of those cases was the 2 months before my father's death in 2003. My work during those 2 months was almost all rubbish, not because I was not aware of what I should have been doing but because my mind had a greater difficulty of "stepping out" of the real world to enter that abstract world where I try to solve things in a way that can be used in the real world.

Well many basic forms of worms have more genes than we do and i am not so sure you would have attempted above argument had you know that.

In that case they should be 'optimized', maybe they are still in the start of their evolution and apparently they have excessive 'gene weight'.

Or else I am wrong again.

The suspension of judgement is a very positive sign and my only ( possible worthwhile imo) advice would be to never rush to conclusions unless your very life depends on it; readily choosing to remain uncertain about any number of issues is what true discovery is based on as it encourages the constant acquisition of knowledge.

I agree, specially if we do not forget what we thought at first, because in that way, if a similar situation appears, we can remember all the possibilities that we have.

If we never make the same mistake twice than we are on the good way.