It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by zuul000
Originally posted by 46ACE
So "SBX" is in port; so no earthquakes"?"
OMG "Proof!"
I'm going to be as polite as I can manage here:
Your logic sucks; it starts with a preconception. Using your reasoning it is just as valid I start the following thread
: " My cat got run over and since then 85% fewer earthquakes"...
One is not necessarily causing the other.
1. If you're talking to me as the OP, it's not my logic. I was just posting a link I found online. No editorial commentary was inserted by me. Do you understand how "the internet" works?
Originally posted by zuul000
2. In the original article I didn't see any assertion that the radar is an "earthquake machine." Several statements were made and, as far as I can tell, each is 100% factual. If there is a specific one that is not you should point it out instead of rolling around on the ground in hysterics.
Originally posted by zuul000
Here are each of the sentences in the three-sentence article I linked:
Originally posted by zuul000
SBX has been accused by some of being a mobile version of, or complement to, the U.S. Navy’s Alaska-based High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) which - itself - has been vaguely connected to the idea of artificially generated earthquakes.
Do you dispute that HAARP has been "accused by some"? This isn't saying "HAARP is" it is saying "HAARP has been accused by some." Do you dispute that?
SBX has been in port since May 11 for routine maintenance, during which time only one earthquake of magnitude 6.5 has occurred, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
An average of seven earthquakes of magnitude 6.5 occurred each month in the preceding part of 2011.
Originally posted by 46ACE
Originally posted by zuul000
Originally posted by 46ACE
So "SBX" is in port; so no earthquakes"?"
OMG "Proof!"
I'm going to be as polite as I can manage here:
Your logic sucks; it starts with a preconception. Using your reasoning it is just as valid I start the following thread
: " My cat got run over and since then 85% fewer earthquakes"...
One is not necessarily causing the other.
1. If you're talking to me as the OP, it's not my logic. I was just posting a link I found online. No editorial commentary was inserted by me. Do you understand how "the internet" works?
Of course I am:
So your "defense of your thread" is to ... uh...violate terms and conditions( "no comment"); then when questioned: throw your hands up " Hey; I didn't actually say "haarp causes earthquakes.... they implied it and the french also have a ship with a high powered radio transmitter just like the radio in Alaska.. so it causes earthquakes too."?
"Don't you mean to say: uh.... yeah maybe you've got a point?...there is no valid proof of a connection just self perpetuating internet babble"..
I find the topic full of fear mongering baseless techno babble by people who've never been anywhere near an RF spectrum analyzer...
I like most here can read english well above the "3rd grade" level.
I pointed out the false logic implied by the title. otherwise I'll' not play word games with you. I don't have a single dog in this fight. He died. funny;it hasn't rained since...
Goodnight..
Originally posted by zuul000
2. In the original article I didn't see any assertion that the radar is an "earthquake machine." Several statements were made and, as far as I can tell, each is 100% factual. If there is a specific one that is not you should point it out instead of rolling around on the ground in hysterics.
Sorry; its late I've had a long working weekend... hysterics is about all I care to invest right now.
You might want to watch that "crazy" term...
Originally posted by zuul000
Here are each of the sentences in the three-sentence article I linked:
Originally posted by zuul000
SBX has been accused by some of being a mobile version of, or complement to, the U.S. Navy’s Alaska-based High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) which - itself - has been vaguely connected to the idea of artificially generated earthquakes.
Do you dispute that HAARP has been "accused by some"? This isn't saying "HAARP is" it is saying "HAARP has been accused by some." Do you dispute that?
Do you dispute the article assumes a connection between Haarp and earthquakes?
SBX has been in port since May 11 for routine maintenance, during which time only one earthquake of magnitude 6.5 has occurred, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Do you dispute that (1) SBX has been in port since May 11, or, do you dispute that (2) one 6.5+ earthquake has occurred since May 11? With which statement do you take umbrage?
An average of seven earthquakes of magnitude 6.5 occurred each month in the preceding part of 2011.
Do you dispute this?
Originally posted by 46ACEI find the topic full of fear mongering baseless techno babble by people who've never been anywhere near an RF spectrum analyzer...
I pointed out the false logic implied by the title. otherwise
Originally posted by zuul000
Originally posted by adeclerk
Why does the geo-engineering forum allow this garbage to be posted?edit on 6/12/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)
True - we really should stick to sound science like discussion about a secret global conspiracy to spray poison chemtrails. Not this garbage. Great point. Starred!
edit on 12-6-2011 by zuul000 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by adeclerk
Originally posted by zuul000
Originally posted by adeclerk
Why does the geo-engineering forum allow this garbage to be posted?edit on 6/12/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)
True - we really should stick to sound science like discussion about a secret global conspiracy to spray poison chemtrails. Not this garbage. Great point. Starred!
edit on 12-6-2011 by zuul000 because: (no reason given)
I can understand, in a way, why people initially believe in chemjunk (they notice some persistent contrails for the first time, even though they've been there). None of the HAARP conspiracies are even remotely believable, maybe for the gullible? Have a read on the actual power of HAARP, incidentally in my thread.
Originally posted by zuul000
Originally posted by adeclerk
Originally posted by zuul000
Originally posted by adeclerk
Why does the geo-engineering forum allow this garbage to be posted?edit on 6/12/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)
True - we really should stick to sound science like discussion about a secret global conspiracy to spray poison chemtrails. Not this garbage. Great point. Starred!
edit on 12-6-2011 by zuul000 because: (no reason given)
I can understand, in a way, why people initially believe in chemjunk (they notice some persistent contrails for the first time, even though they've been there). None of the HAARP conspiracies are even remotely believable, maybe for the gullible? Have a read on the actual power of HAARP, incidentally in my thread.
I'm sorry this topic has you so terribly upset. I hope you are able to resolve that.
I look forward to your participation in this thread once you've managed to calm yourself down to the point that you can rationalize a statement to which others can engage or respond ("thaz dum, ur dum lol - read my thread instead" is a difficult conversation point; also posting content-less messages in a thread just to promote your own is a TOS violation).
Take care; I truly hope you feel better soon.edit on 13-6-2011 by zuul000 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I note that yesterday's 6.3 earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, would not counts as a "Serious Earthquake" under the criteria used in the title of this thread, nor would the one on February 22 that was also 6.3 and did a great deal of damge to the city, killing about 160 ppl - en.wikipedia.org...
but the one there on 4 September of 2010 - 7.1 magnitude - which did little damage, would be - en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by adeclerk
Originally posted by zuul000
Originally posted by adeclerk
Originally posted by zuul000
Originally posted by adeclerk
Why does the geo-engineering forum allow this garbage to be posted?edit on 6/12/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)
True - we really should stick to sound science like discussion about a secret global conspiracy to spray poison chemtrails. Not this garbage. Great point. Starred!
edit on 12-6-2011 by zuul000 because: (no reason given)
I can understand, in a way, why people initially believe in chemjunk (they notice some persistent contrails for the first time, even though they've been there). None of the HAARP conspiracies are even remotely believable, maybe for the gullible? Have a read on the actual power of HAARP, incidentally in my thread.
I'm sorry this topic has you so terribly upset. I hope you are able to resolve that.
I look forward to your participation in this thread once you've managed to calm yourself down to the point that you can rationalize a statement to which others can engage or respond ("thaz dum, ur dum lol - read my thread instead" is a difficult conversation point; also posting content-less messages in a thread just to promote your own is a TOS violation).
Take care; I truly hope you feel better soon.edit on 13-6-2011 by zuul000 because: (no reason given)
Maybe you can read there and compare the low power of HAARP to the even lower power of this "mobile HAARP". But alas, you won't. You believe in the HAARP conspiracies, I really doubt evidence will sway you.
85% drop in serious earthquakes since US Navy SBX radar went in for maintenance on May 11. Coincidence? Probably. t.co... #haarp
Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by zuul000
Do you even realize how much energy is released in an earthquake?
Originally posted by zuul000
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I note that yesterday's 6.3 earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, would not counts as a "Serious Earthquake" under the criteria used in the title of this thread, nor would the one on February 22 that was also 6.3 and did a great deal of damge to the city, killing about 160 ppl - en.wikipedia.org...
but the one there on 4 September of 2010 - 7.1 magnitude - which did little damage, would be - en.wikipedia.org...
It sounds like you subscribe to, or are interested in, a paranoid conspiracy theory where a government cabal is engineering earthquakes to create havoc and destruction, versus mild/latent interest in what unintended consequences applications of new technology may portend.
I hope you are able to apply greater skills of reason, logic and sound judgment in your life moving forward. I can assure you, no one is out to get you, there are no secret groups of villains tracking your movements. Everything is OK.
Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by zuul000
This link in the article is a primary reason I am taking offense, it is a blatant misrepresentation of readily available information. Those charts (you can even see where it says "magnetometer" at the top) have nothing to do with HAARP's activity, they're a measurement of the Earth's magnetic field.
Why did you feel the need to post this garbage if you don't even believe it?
Originally posted by zuul000
I understood the link to be an affirmation of the statement "SBX has been accused by some."
Originally posted by zuul000
You'll find, as you grow your level of internet literacy and general reading comprehension, that linking to another site serves as a citation of the hyperlinked text. In this sense the statement "SBX has been accused by some" is cited by the link. It does not mean the article is asserting or endorsing the content of the link, it's merely evidencing that "someone" has made the "accusation."
Originally posted by zuul000
I'm very sorry you are having difficulty following along. If there's anything I can do to help smooth this process for you, please do let me know. I'm aggrieved that you've worked yourself up into such a hysterical anger. I hope you are able to find some level of calm and comfort soon.