ALERT! - World governments admit to having capability of making tsunamis and earthquakes!!!, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 34 times


reply posted on 6-2-2010 @ 02:48 AM by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by downisreallyup



Obviously, you fail to understand what the treaty does state and what not. If you insist on reading this as admission of earthquake weapons, there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise than to point out that they do not admit to having such weapons in the document, as the OP claims.

Judging from the stars I'd say quite some people agree with the reading Phage, I and others have of the document.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]


reply posted on 6-2-2010 @ 02:54 AM by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by downisreallyup



This is really all I need to know about your stance. You say:

1) Tesla weapons exist

2) Tesla was such a genius that his results are irreproducable

Which in my world translates to: Tesla weapons don't exist. Any technology that is irreproducible or relys on some "magic, hidden" technology that is so secret that nobody understands it (except some random poster on the internet, which is supsicious.. If only Tesla and no other person understands this stuff.. HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?) does not interest me as it has no practical significance for my life.

Your post takes me something like this: There is this technology, but you can never know about it. Why should I care then?

That's like saying there is a harem of nymphos on Mars that I could # 24/7, the only catch being that I never can go to Mars. You migh want to review John Locke's argument of practical irrelevancy to see through this particular fallacy.



[edit on 6-2-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]


reply posted on 6-2-2010 @ 03:05 AM by metalholic
reply to post by downisreallyup



heres a good question if an when a country uses a lets say earthquake against another country how is it gonn abe proved that the agreement was disobeyed being that earthquakes are anatural and random force..so where would the evidence be that would suggest a certain country caused an earthquake on another? anyone care to tackle that?



reply posted on 6-2-2010 @ 06:37 AM by Maristo316
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin



This part seems to escape you:

If they knew they would be banned why would they admit or attempt to develop them?
They know these weapons exist, but the potential possible outcomes in the use of the equipment have not yet been fully realised. There are always varying degrees of success and failure.

Also nature could also do such things. Yes, could! And when? The use of the word 'when' here is appropriate. Sorry, no win for you....

deny ignorance


reply posted on 6-2-2010 @ 07:35 AM by DOADOA
Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to
post by downisreallyup



This is really all I need to know about your stance. You say:

1) Tesla weapons exist

2) Tesla was such a genius that his results are irreproducable

Which in my world translates to: Tesla weapons don't exist. Any technology that is irreproducible or relys on some "magic, hidden" technology that is so secret that nobody understands it (except some random poster on the internet, which is supsicious.. If only Tesla and no other person understands this stuff.. HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?) does not interest me as it has no practical significance for my life.

Your post takes me something like this: There is this technology, but you can never know about it. Why should I care then?

That's like saying there is a harem of nymphos on Mars that I could # 24/7, the only catch being that I never can go to Mars. You migh want to review John Locke's argument of practical irrelevancy to see through this particular fallacy.



[edit on 6-2-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]


but just because you can't go to mars doesn't mean those nymphos don't exist.

so in your world tesla didn't exist and he was an idiot?

you are a gifted GENIUS!


reply posted on 6-2-2010 @ 07:37 AM by ucalien
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin




Please don't misrepresent what they wrote there. They do not say these weapons exist; what they say is that these are the kind of weapons that WOULD be banned under the treaty if ever developed.


Why such convention would be created to fight a nonexistent threat??? Are you serious???



reply posted on 6-2-2010 @ 09:32 AM by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by Maristo316



It is not uncommon for treaties to be made in anticipation of yet non-existent technology.

By your logic, the fact that they made an anti-SDI treaty in the 80's indicates that there was functioning SDI technology at that time - something that is not true.

If you look at the context of the treaty (something which PHAGE pointed to in his post) then you would maybe better understand it's nature. Please do. It was a treaty to contingently ban any form of environmental engineering. This makes sense because environmental engineering, even in its testing phase, would have global implications. As soon as people realized that there were theoretical grounds on which such weapons could possibly be built (like the discussed cloud seeding technology was pointing to) in the future the need arose to preemptively ban them multialteraly.

Nowhere in that paper do they state that such technology exists. They say that if it would be developed it would have global implications and therefore needs to be preemptively banned.

deny ignorance. This is not the first treaty of this kind.


reply posted on 6-2-2010 @ 09:33 AM by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by DOADOA



yes, that's what I'm stating and yes that is what anyone with basic reading skills can see in the treaty for himself.


reply posted on 6-2-2010 @ 09:40 AM by TarzanBeta
downisreallyup and Nichirasu Kenshin are both wrong.

downisreallyup - Everyone has the same capability for intelligence. Intelligence, my friend, if you look up the definition, is a measure of information. It is not the ability to figure things out. IQ does not correspond with ingenuity.

That being said, Tesla had CARE. He paid close attention to detail. One who does this is one who realizes the vanity in everything at any rate (eventually). He did not discount the power of the imagination. This means reality was like an open source game to him. Reality is not the metal box that you've placed around the minds of all people by claiming that no one COULD reach his level of intelligence. I assure you that the government is much more "intelligent" than any individual. This is why ATS exists.

Nichirasu Kenshin - The treaty would not be made for no reason. Sure, it's possible also that the technology doesn't exist as a fully functioning capability yet... but it WILL inevitably exist. You don't need your "evidence" because you will see it when it happens. The treaty is an admission of the stark possibility and anything that has become a true possibility is BECOME REALITY.

But here is more reality for y'all. The people who figure things out the most quickly are the people who have the mind to pay close attention to detail and they are the wisest. These wise people gain this ability in many different ways... and birth is rarely the cause.

Anyone who is surprised that the earth can be manipulated is...busy. All things physical can be manipulated. Anyone who is surprised that world leaders would do these things is... naive.

Earthquakes, wars, plagues, famines... All signs of the end of times. But if the world leaders can reproduce these and then take responsibility for these things, then God is diminished in peoples' perceptions.

Remember Moses and the pharaoh's magicians? Yes, they could recreate the same basic effects... but not the plagues. But alas, the pharaohs of the world have learned it. And they're mad.

Boy! They even have the technology to bring someone back from the dead!

Yes... CNN will be getting lots of ratings one day soon. It'll be the last of the ratings they'll get.

edit to change "and" to "can".
added an "e" to "thes".

[edit on 2/6/2010 by TarzanBeta]

[edit on 2/6/2010 by TarzanBeta]


reply posted on 6-2-2010 @ 09:46 AM by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by DOADOA



You clearly did not understand the argument of practical irrelevancy. As I said, John Locke explains it better than me, go to the source.

This means that even though those nymphos on Mars exist, I shouldn't care about them, because it is paradigmatically stated that I cannot interact with them in this thought experiment. That means that their existence or non-existence cannot possibly have meaning for my life, therefore I should not consider them when thinking about it.

Again. You say that:

1) Tesla invented earthquake machines.

2) Tesla is such a singular genius that ONLY he could understand the science behind it and that for that reason the science is irreproducable (something that science never is, never can be, as it reproducability is a fundament of empirical science)

So why should I care about it? If the science behind it is irreproducable then nobody has built such a machine up to today, logic dictates. So why should I care?

You guys were going to give me evidence of earthquake machines. Why is that so hard when all you guys seem to know they exist?

It's like with the nymphos on Mars. Why should I care about what they would do with me if it is impossible that they ever do it?
This is the argument of practical irrelevancy. If you claim a thing exists with properties that give it no chance of ever entering my phenomenology then these things can not have significance for my phenomenology.

That's a pretty strong argument and it has been for about 400 years.


reply posted on 6-2-2010 @ 09:50 AM by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by TarzanBeta



I make no claims about what is GOING TO EXIST ONE DAY as I, other than most ATS'ers, don't deal in prophecy making.

I find it probable that one day such technology could exist, I see no reason why it categorally can't

All I'm saying is I haven't seen compelling evidence of it existing contemporarily.

As you acknowledge in your post, it wouldn't be crazy for a supranational body to make treaties about things that aren't existing right now.

Following the logic of other posters I could say global warming exists - they made a treaty against it so it must be real, right?

That's just junk science. The same people who scream SCAM about AGW suddenly see treaties as some kind of definite proof. Treaties are not proof of anything; certainly not when they use the conditional tense.


reply posted on 6-2-2010 @ 09:53 AM by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by ucalien



UCAlien:

Counter-question:

Is the fact the they made an anti-SDI treaty in the 80's proof that such technology existed back then?

Or I have a better one for you.

Is the Kyoto Protocol proof of global warming?

This is an argument not even the most convinced AGW proponent would use.

But by your standards, these treaties prove what they try to regulate. Good luck with that standard.
I predict an inflation of existing things if this should ever become everyones standard.


reply posted on 6-2-2010 @ 09:53 AM by TarzanBeta
Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to
post by DOADOA



You clearly did not understand the argument of practical irrelevancy. As I said, John Locke explains it better than me, go to the source.

This means that even though those nymphos on Mars exist, I shouldn't care about them, because it is paradigmatically stated that I cannot interact with them in this thought experiment. That means that their existence or non-existence cannot possibly have meaning for my life, therefore I should not consider them when thinking about it.


John Locke's argument is a fallacy in itself.

Apparently John Locke wasn't very aware of his surroundings.

For all you know, those nymphos on Mars are your long lost cousins that you have no idea about... For all you know, your mother is one of those long lost nymphos and those nymphos have the ability to communicate through telepathy. For all you know, those nymphos manipulate the people around you and make things happen a certain way for you. For all you know, your girlfriends are the daughters of these long lost nymphos.

For all you know these technologies wouldn't exist without the Martian nymphos.

The very thinking that you are talking about is exactly what hinders great minds. You cannot rule out ANY POSSIBILITY of ANYTHING interacting WITH ANYTHING ELSE. You must first entertain the possibilities first before doing so. You must make believe these things are TRUE before you find them to be false. You cannot and never will learn anything by assuming ANYTHING is false.

Those nymphos like the attention, anyhow.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Earthly coincidences...or not.
  Posted 16 days ago with 122 member flags
The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe
  Posted 18 days ago with 86 member flags
Denver Airport Allows Camera Crew in Underground Facility
  Posted 18 days ago with 83 member flags
10 People Whose Warnings Went Unheeded
  Posted 4 days ago with 77 member flags
Superbowl Halftime Conspiracy!
  Posted 8 days ago with 75 member flags