Rothschild Guinness Advert Predicts HAARP Hurricane Sandy

You're still not discussing the Guinness adverts, only trying to throw the thread off. I'm not falling for it.

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by drbatstein

 

As I say, I don't want this thread to be diverted into a technical thread, as there are already such threads going on:- Is HAARP feeding SANDY? www.abovetopsecret.com... I know the tactics that are used by certain members here to try to deliberately throw threads off target.

And I know the tactics that are used by charlatans here to deliberately create delusional threads and fail to back them up with any more evidence than "I have a feeling I may be right"

You have made claims on your own thread.....you have failed to back up a single one of them........

reply to post by drbatstein

You have your own agenda for being here, those who want to examine the evidence will do, they will see what is there.

Yes I do have my own agenda....it's called common sense, logic and education what's your agenda?......and where is this evidence you speak of

reply to post by drbatstein

You're still not discussing the Guinness adverts, only trying to throw the thread off. I'm not falling for it.

I've discussed the Guinness adverts on page 1 of this thread....I'm not throwing the thread off....you are!.....and it's your own thread for gods sake!


So I'll ask again.....what evidence do you have that HAARP created a low pressure system that caused hurricane Sandy.....and what evidence do you have, other than your imagination that the creators of the Guinness adverts foretold this event?.......and I don't mean silly nonsensical interpretations of the adverts, I mean hard evidence.

I'm guessing none.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by drbatstein

 

No.
Sandy was commanded by the wind. The wind from a very strong high pressure area near Greenland and the wind from a low pressure area in the North Atlantic.

Thats Not wind, thats pressure. Otherwise your statement would have someone believe that the entirety of Sandy was pushed around by a much more powerful windy force. Sandy was not commanded by wind. but by atmospheric pressure. Thats not the same as wind.

You're no doubt one of the many HAARP shills who DARPA fund to be here, any mention of HAARP and software picks up on it which then redirects you to the thread to start debunking HAARP.

The fact there are so many HAARP shills on a Conspiracy website is a smoking gun in itself

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by drbatstein

 

You have your own agenda for being here, those who want to examine the evidence will do, they will see what is there.

Yes I do have my own agenda....it's called common sense, logic and education what's your agenda?......and where is this evidence you speak of

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by drbatstein

 

No.
Sandy was commanded by the wind. The wind from a very strong high pressure area near Greenland and the wind from a low pressure area in the North Atlantic.

Thats Not wind, thats pressure. Otherwise your statement would have someone believe that the entirety of Sandy was pushed around by a much more powerful windy force. Sandy was not commanded by wind. but by atmospheric pressure. Thats not the same as wind.

The difference in pressure creates the wind.

Given this theory is from the same person who told us London was due an attack based on emergency phone numbers (which had to be jiggled about) in August, and you've not even presented as much evidence here, I think it's pretty fair to presume that the makers of the Guiness advert didn't know about superstorm Sandy.

So I'll presume that.

reply to post by drbatstein

Empirical data outranks belief. Try not to jump too far ahead, let's take one step at a time. Are they doing this? YES! Why are they doing this? UNSURE!

Well then Alex Jones seems to know what the whole thing behind Sandy was....



Seriously Sandy was a natural disaster such as Andrew and Katrina which neither of those were caused or steered by HAARP or the Rothschilds..Nor was Sandy..

Originally posted by reficul
if haarp can make storms like this,why don't they take out iran or pakistan??????
why us??????????????
this is silly,why am i responding?

Flip those questions on it's head. Why not you? Why iran and pakistan, what have they done?

I guess you responded because you didn't think before responding.

I should start asking the guys down at HAARP to materialize some food onto my dinner table to replace my gf's cooking.

Apparently these guys can do anything.

What you've done there is a logical fallacy, this is not about me, you have to view the evidence independently, anyone could have shared this evidence with you.

Originally posted by khimbar
Given this theory is from the same person who told us London was due an attack based on emergency phone numbers (which had to be jiggled about) in August, and you've not even presented as much evidence here, I think it's pretty fair to presume that the makers of the Guiness advert didn't know about superstorm Sandy.

So I'll presume that.

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h

Seriously Sandy was a natural disaster such as Andrew and Katrina which neither of those were caused or steered by HAARP or the Rothschilds..Nor was Sandy..

Have you got any evidence to back up your theories on Sandy and Katrina?

Originally posted by mr10k
I should start asking the guys down at HAARP to materialize some food onto my dinner table to replace my gf's cooking.

Apparently these guys can do anything.

Sorry, even HAARP can't do that, try Pizza Hut

Originally posted by drbatstein
What you've done there is a logical fallacy, this is not about me, you have to view the evidence independently, anyone could have shared this evidence with you.

Originally posted by khimbar
Given this theory is from the same person who told us London was due an attack based on emergency phone numbers (which had to be jiggled about) in August, and you've not even presented as much evidence here, I think it's pretty fair to presume that the makers of the Guiness advert didn't know about superstorm Sandy.

So I'll presume that.

No, I'm using the evidence that supports my hypothesis that you're an attention seeking nutbar (Hi Bernard!) and from that hypothesis everything you suggest is nutbar.

Therefore your theory is nutbar.

You get confused between a poster and the evidence, it wouldn't matter if I was a nutbar, does that mean if I tell you about the 9/11 conspiracy then the official story must be true?

Please try to use more logic in your posts.

Originally posted by khimbar

Originally posted by drbatstein
What you've done there is a logical fallacy, this is not about me, you have to view the evidence independently, anyone could have shared this evidence with you.

Originally posted by khimbar
Given this theory is from the same person who told us London was due an attack based on emergency phone numbers (which had to be jiggled about) in August, and you've not even presented as much evidence here, I think it's pretty fair to presume that the makers of the Guiness advert didn't know about superstorm Sandy.

So I'll presume that.

No, I'm using the evidence that supports my hypothesis that you're an attention seeking nutbar (Hi Bernard!) and from that hypothesis everything you suggest is nutbar.

Therefore your theory is nutbar.

Originally posted by drbatstein
You get confused between a poster and the evidence, it wouldn't matter if I was a nutbar, does that mean if I tell you about the 9/11 conspiracy then the official story must be true?

Please try to use more logic in your posts.

Originally posted by khimbar

Originally posted by drbatstein
What you've done there is a logical fallacy, this is not about me, you have to view the evidence independently, anyone could have shared this evidence with you.

Originally posted by khimbar
Given this theory is from the same person who told us London was due an attack based on emergency phone numbers (which had to be jiggled about) in August, and you've not even presented as much evidence here, I think it's pretty fair to presume that the makers of the Guiness advert didn't know about superstorm Sandy.

So I'll presume that.

No, I'm using the evidence that supports my hypothesis that you're an attention seeking nutbar (Hi Bernard!) and from that hypothesis everything you suggest is nutbar.

Therefore your theory is nutbar.

Ok, present evidence (and make it as good as your 'If I take phone numbers and mix them up and take dates and mix them up then omgz I can predict the future) and not a nutbar theory and I'll discuss it. I'll wait...

Bernard back to his best though. I do love your long game threads rather than the short instantly deleted ones.

reply to post by OratoryHeist


no my friend. i did not will any ill fortune on our brothers and sisters from other countries.
i was referring to the present political situation at hand!
why would the govt. 'aim' the hurricane at us (if they could!) and why not 'aim' it at the 'enemy'!
rubbish!
peace on earth,please!

Neither fact nor fiction ~ the similarity of signs speak for/of themselves...
In time all truths are revealed.
So shall we see in the next advertisement if this is more than mere speculation.
At this point its not provable, nor disprovable, and so to stay on topic we need observe the OP's advert-coincidence!

This too may be of interest ~ from Project Camelot Blog 10/30

"Sandy Simulation from 1997"
The Hurricane Simulation

∞LOVE
mayallsoulsbefree∞

reply to post by drbatstein

Have you got any evidence to back up your theories on Sandy and Katrina?

Sorry, but that isn't a theory it is scientific fact.

And what do you have that proves what your saying?

Originally posted by reficul
reply to post by OratoryHeist

 

no my friend. i did not will any ill fortune on our brothers and sisters from other countries.
i was referring to the present political situation at hand!
why would the govt. 'aim' the hurricane at us (if they could!) and why not 'aim' it at the 'enemy'!
rubbish!
peace on earth,please!

You are referring to the present political situation from a western point of view, but HAARP isn't a US weapon. They don't decide where to 'aim' it. So if a weapon as potentially destructive (and useful) as HAARP doesn't belong to any one nation or ally group - who is the enemy?