ALERT! - World governments admit to having capability of making tsunamis and earthquakes!!!, page 4

Originally posted 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.

Global warming is a hoax.

It's just not the hoax all the deniers think it is.

These technologies we discuss are the makings of Global climate change.

Treaties are proof of a thousand things. Everything is proof of something. That treaty is IN FACT PROOF of the true possibility (regardless of how contemporary the technology is) and also of INTENT.

Any word used in the conditional sense requires the words "if" and/or "when" generally. As Tesla's fan has shown, the treaty uses the word "when". This implies explicitly that not only does the technology certainly exist in some form, but also that the military is the ONLY ENTITY THAT WILL USE IT. Or that they will be definitely the first ones to use it.

Possibility is much more important than What has already manifest.

Understanding the possibilities IS the way to prophesy. Anyone who relies only on what has manifest already is someone who will be caught in their underwear brushing their teeth instead of paying attention.

reply to post by TarzanBeta

---

Sorry, Tarzan. Maybe you didn't understand what I meant, or I didn't make it clear.

I am not contradicting what you are saying. The point about the nymphos on Mars only works when there is no possibility of ever interacting with them.

Let's go with magic space squirrels.

If I were to tell you that there are magic space squirrels but that their properties are such that you could never see, experience and interact with them then you wouldn't care about them. I'm not saying forget about them because they don't seem probable, or because they are to far away. The point is that you cannot claim the existence of something and then add that there is no possivle way of discerning them and then go on about the implications it has for your life.

It was a bad example. I very much agree with some of what you write. John Locke didn't say don't care about things that don't seem probable, Locke said that stipulating entities with properties that deny our interacting with them is a logical fallacy since the stipulation already says that such entities can not have practical relevancy.

The nymphos on Mars have the property that I cannot interact with them, they cannot influence me, I cannot influence them. That's the stipulation of the thought experiment. Wouldn't you agree that if they exist and have these properties then they can not have significance for your life and therefore are practically irrelevant?

reply to post by TarzanBeta

---

Well, it seems we have very different standards of proof.

And if this document alone is proof of earthquake weapons, by the same standard the other treaties are proof of global warming and SDI in the 80's.

Or do you find it epistemologically plausible to have varying hermeneutic standards when reviewing treaties?

[edit on 6-2-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by TarzanBeta

---

Sorry, Tarzan. Maybe you didn't understand what I meant, or I didn't make it clear.

I am not contradicting what you are saying. The point about the nymphos on Mars only works when there is no possibility of ever interacting with them.

Let's go with magic space squirrels.

If I were to tell you that there are magic space squirrels but that their properties are such that you could never see, experience and interact with them then you wouldn't care about them. I'm not saying forget about them because they don't seem probable, or because they are to far away. The point is that you cannot claim the existence of something and then add that there is no possivle way of discerning them and then go on about the implications it has for your life.

It was a bad example. I very much agree with some of what you write. John Locke didn't say don't care about things that don't seem probable, Locke said that stipulating entities with properties that deny our interacting with them is a logical fallacy since the stipulation already says that such entities can not have practical relevancy.

The nymphos on Mars have the property that I cannot interact with them, they cannot influence me, I cannot influence them. That's the stipulation of the thought experiment. Wouldn't you agree that if they exist and have these properties then they can not have significance for your life and therefore are practically irrelevant?

After careful thought, I have come to the conclusion that the only thing that could exist and yet have absolutely no importance to you and your world immediately is a thought in someone elses mind that has the possibility of not manifesting.

If you dream about the offspring of space monkeys and Martian nymphos and neither actually do exist (given that we somehow know that they do not) and you keep it to yourself for eternity and you do not allow it to affect anything you do or say differently EVER...

Then I would say John Locke is right.

But everything in the physical world and most of what happens in our imaginations has an effect on everything and everyone. The entirety of existence could not exist if even so much as a single viral specimen vacated existence - meaning the energy that makes it up as well. The thought of it is simply impossible and the reality of it as well.

All things exist for the purpose of all other things.

edit to change "to" to "you".

[edit on 2/6/2010 by TarzanBeta]

reply to post by TarzanBeta

---

Well in that case we agree.

You see I was not talking about what exists and what doesn't.

I was just demonstrating that someone stipulated the existence of Earthquake weapons with properties that would make it practically irrelevant.

I only care about Earthquake weapons if their properties do not outlaw my ever experiencing them. If they had such properties, it would be practically irrelevent for my life.

reply to post by Imagir

---

You have failed in every other thread to provide compelling evidence of their existence. Excuse me if I don't take your word for it.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by TarzanBeta

---

Well, it seems we have very different standards of proof.

And if this document alone is proof of earthquake weapons, by the same standard the other treaties are proof of global warming and SDI in the ATS's.

Or do you find it epistemologically plausible to have varying hermeneutic standards when reviewing treaties?

The only way in which that the treaty is not proof of the existence of earthquake weapons is if they know that there will be many earthquakes soon (By God or nature) and they want to have the ability to blame someone or something or take responsibility in some way to either be able to attack someone or to flex their muslces and show how strong and controlling they are.


I think that the above is a possibility, but I am much more inclined to believe that they have the technology because they want to BE GOD - not blame God.

You are correct that some treaties could be made for the purpose of making it a belief that something exists when it doesn't... but that also does not mean that it will never exist. In fact, I am inclined to believe that these treaties would be a waste of time if these things do not or are not made to exist.

As well, it would be interesting to note that the far ahead planning of these treaties and laws and bills suggests either PROPHECY or PLANNING. These things would not be created for -no- reason, however.

But I will admit that it is a possibility, no matter how small, that there doesn't even exist at all the first bolt that goes in the machine which causes earthquakes.

But I don't need to see the bolt to know that it is there. I understand people, governments, and their goals. I understand intent -- and where there is power, intent becomes history.

reply to post by TarzanBeta

---

It's funny because we really don't disagree all that much.

I am not making claims about the existence of earthquake weapons. All I am saying is that I've never seen compelling evidence for them.

Do I believe that govs and other circles are interested in such weapons and would like to use them? Absolutely.

I object to this thread because it implies that this document is proof for such machines. I pointed out that by using the same standard people could have claimed that SDI exists in the 80's or that people today could say: global warming exists since there is a treaty against it.

The story is that they are making treaties against possible future dangers, and this treaty tries to stem the problem at the root, multinationally.

Again. Would you take the treaty against weapnoization of space from the 60's as proof that space was weaponized in the 50's`? I doubt it.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

---

3 day on ATS and you know all the Threads on Scalar Weapons?

Only a friendly advice: please read all threads and all the tests that are added also by many other members. You will see,.... you will remain surprised indeed.

However your logik argumentation is really weak.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by TarzanBeta

---

It's funny because we really don't disagree all that much.

I am not making claims about the existence of earthquake weapons. All I am saying is that I've never seen compelling evidence for them.

Do I believe that govs and other circles are interested in such weapons and would like to use them? Absolutely.

I object to this thread because it implies that this document is proof for such machines. I pointed out that by using the same standard people could have claimed that SDI exists in the 80's or that people today could say: global warming exists since there is a treaty against it.

The story is that they are making treaties against possible future dangers, and this treaty tries to stem the problem at the root, multinationally.

Again. Would you take the treaty against weapnoization of space from the 60's as proof that space was weaponized in the 50's`? I doubt it.

I say let the thread stand.

That treaty is a form of proof. Combined with something else, it could be enough to crystalize it.

I agree that it isn't good enough stand alone, but it is a good addition to an investigation...

which I personally believe is rather pointless, ironically enough.

There is irony in attempting to prove to the world that the world leaders have the ability to ruin the world and it would not save the world. What would people do? Hide in the caves from earthquakes?

No, not at all. I think though it is good to warn people if it is peoples' intent on getting right and learning to love everyone around them while they can.

But I know it is not.

Edit to add that it is a rare occurence for anyone to claim agreement with me. That's twice in a month. Thanks.

Edit to fix my grammatically incorrect irony sentence. Second try!

[edit on 2/6/2010 by TarzanBeta]

[edit on 2/6/2010 by TarzanBeta]

[edit on 2/6/2010 by TarzanBeta]

reply to post by Imagir

---

I have been reading ATS threads since 2004, thank you. I have read all HAARP threads, and you have had your butt thoroughly kicked in every one of them. I noticed that you didn't realize that, and that's why I'm not all that interested in what you have to say.

reply to post by TarzanBeta

---

For the record: I am not advocating closing this thread. Surely you do not object to me giving my interpretation of it?

I can't say much more, as we agree. This document is not proof of such weapons; it could be used as circumstantial evidence if there is ever additional material proving the technology.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by TarzanBeta

---

For the record: I am not advocating closing this thread. Surely you do not object to me giving my interpretation of it?

I can't say much more, as we agree. This document is not proof of such weapons; it could be used as circumstantial evidence if there is ever additional material proving the technology.

I do not object to anyone posting anything anywhere as long as it is not lude, nude, or crude.

Although, our thought game came awfully close.

Enjoy.

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.

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.

1. ok, so nymphos on mars was a bad example because of course nymphos on mars is just ridiculous. why would nymphos be on mars? lets be literal, having a system that can alter the natural state of the earth can and will affect every living breathing organism on this planet. this include you unless you live in an invisible super invincible bubble in which case everything is irrelevant to you.

2. i never said tesla invented earthquake machines but i did acknowledge him and i am not being sarcastic when i say he was a genius. you want his technology to be replicated and available to every shopper at toys r'us, you also expect government around to the world to inform you when they have the capability to cause catastrophe via natural disaster. you live in a very honest and fair world.

3. i can also not care and ask you for evidence that these once natural occurrences remainl natural but that would be ignorant of me. not caring and being ignorant is one and the same. example: you tell someone to stop playing with a loaded gun and they say," soooo i don't careeeee, it's not going to affect me cause i'm bullet proof." that's ignorance, not very good at denying it. as for evidence, i will admit i can't take you to my house and let you play with my weather altering gadget, i don't own one and my government didn't put it in the local newspaper but i feel that it would be humorous for grown people of the world to sign a treaty for the existence of an impossibility.

4. back to nymphos on mars. in this instance we are assuming that they exist. you not being able to interact with them do not change the fact that they are on mars and they are nymphos. in reality, earthquakes and weather manipulation aren't nymphos and this is earth.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by DOADOA]

reply to post by DOADOA

---

You didn't get the part about the nymphos, forget it, it is a very technical argument that is hard to understand and even harder for me to write it out plausibly in a language i taught myself. I was trying to point out the nature of the argument made, it doesn't have much bearing on the existence of such weapons or not.

I don't have much time left so I'll make it short.

So maybe Tesla invented these Machines. As long as I haven't seen compelling historical evidence for it I remain skeptical, as public efforts to reproduce them on the grounds of what Tesla imagined have been failures so far.

And a short note about the last part:

If you really believe what you wrote there (that nations don't make treaties on impossibilites) then you are categorically stating that

1) Space was weaponized in the 60's (As the was a treaty against weaponization of space)
2) That there was functioning SDI technology in the late 70's (as there was an anti-SDI treaty around that time)
3) That Global Warming exists (as the Kyoto Protocol is a treaty against the effects of Gobal Warming)

I just don't follow that logic, but that is a decision everyone must make for himself. Again, given the context of the treaty that Phage pointed out in his post it is easily conceivable why they would use that wording.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 6-2-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Straight from the horses mouth:

William S. Cohen (1940- ) | US Secretary of Defense

There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least.

Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops.

Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon othernations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important. In discussion with Senators Nunn and Lugar - April 28, 1997.

can

www.fas.org...

reply to post by Deny Arrogance

---

It would have been nice if you provided the entire quote. Out of context quotes don't exactly help in denying ignorance.

Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in
Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to
deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.

A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a
false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the
intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James
Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom
moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off
a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can
paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search.
The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using
some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some
reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to
construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very
dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written
about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to
devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic-specific so
that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and
others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects
that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an
eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off
earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic
waves.

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work
finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's
real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and
that's why this is so important.

Cohen was responding to a question about a hoaxed anthrax attack. His first paragraph is talking about how even false reports can be disruptive. He does not say such things can or have been done. His second paragraph is saying that, even though there are many false reports, the threat of terrorism is real.

[edit on 2/6/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Deny Arrogance

---

One question:

Do you even know who Alvin Toffler is, or what his work is about? If not it's hard to understand the quote.

About 6 years ago I was arrogant enough to cite this quote from SoD Cohen as evidence for earthquake weapons in a university paper. Boy did my ass get wooped when my prof. pointed out the context of the quote and that nowhere Cohen admits or even suggest that these technologies are operational.

Making a fool of oneself can really help one's critical thinking.

The solution to this quote lies in the work of Alvin Toffler.

Did Carl Sagan know something?
  Posted 19 days ago with 277 member flags

The Devil\'s Chord: The conspiracy to open the portal of consciousness and mystery of the octave
  Posted 4 days ago with 164 member flags

The Coca Cola Conspiracy: The secret cause for the U.S. obesity epidemic
  Posted 15 days ago with 139 member flags

Earthly coincidences...or not.
  Posted 15 days ago with 122 member flags

The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe
  Posted 18 days ago with 86 member flags

Bank of America DOES NOT accept U.S. DOLLARS as payment on mortgages
  Posted 8 days ago with 85 member flags

Denver Airport Allows Camera Crew in Underground Facility
  Posted 17 days ago with 83 member flags

10 People Whose Warnings Went Unheeded
  Posted 3 days ago with 77 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: