Recent Asian Tsunami
- atheist101
- _Boanerges_
- _Boanerges_
- atheist101
- _Boanerges_
- plox
- Franc28
- sacred_insights
- hawknut
- _Boanerges_
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
» atheist101 - Re: uselss dribble
In response to uselss dribble posted by _Boanerges_:….sure it is verifiable that Weather Modification Weapons is a reality, as evidenced by….
My previous attack, on the confusion that _Boanerges_ is trying to create with regard to the recent Asian tsunami, has made _Boanerges_ go insane. He has completely lost the control and now he does not know even whether he is coming or going.
Now he cannot even recall what he was discussing. Therefore let me help the poor chap. My dear, you were not discussing whether there are weather modifying weapons. Friend, you were telling us that the recent Asian tsunami could have been man made. Can you remember it, at least now? Shake your head a little but not so vigorously and now you will be able to recall that you were telling us that you are just speculating that there can be a human intervention in the recent tsunami. Even though the things may be too much overwhelming for him, I hope that at least his memory should be ok! I have in fact asked whether he can verify this speculation (message no: 27) but he failed to respond. I had explained to him that if somebody is having any doubts then it is up to that person to clear them without bothering others.
When I said in my previous posting that there is no point in presenting unverifiable ideas in a conversation (because then the participants are unable to debate and verify in order to accept or reject what was presented), what I was referring to is what _Boanerges_ said at the very begging. Can somebody help him to recall that it was not “There are weather modifying weapons” but “The recent tsunami could be man made”?
Please understand that what we discuss here is various explanations for the tsunami in order to build a fruitful conversation where baseless and/or unverifiable explanations are discarded and the explanations supported by facts are accepted. The objective of starting a conversation is arriving at such conclusions and not collecting some unverifiable ideas that nobody knows whether true or false. And therefore please be kind enough to present only verifiable explanations so that the participants can debate and verify them in order to accept or reject them. Presenting unverifiable explanations is only wasting time because here no reader wants to know what just another member of the 600+ billion human populations thinks about something. These things I have explained in great detail.
As any sane person can see, just because there are weather modifying weapons, it does not sufficient to verify whether the recent Asian tsunami was man made. If I may repeat one of my previous analogies, the fact that somebody is having a gun, is not sufficient for an officer who is trying to verify whether that person committed a murder.
…Weather Modification Weapons is a reality, as evidenced by …… Maybe Atheist would not like to admit such a fact,…..
O’ dear! A serious case!! Did _Boanerges_ strike his head on something? _Boanerges_ has completely lost his memory. In fact the readers can remember that even before _Boanerges_, I mentioned that nuclear explosions can be used to create tsunamis artificially!
_Boanerges_ says, I have offered sound an irrefutable evidence.
For what? He has not forward any evidence to support that the recent tsunami could be man made. On the contrary he has repeatedly told that he has no intention of proving (other than speculating) that there was a human intervention (in the recent tsunami).
He has offered many Web links about various mechanisms of creating explosions and controlling weather. But these are not relevant to what we discuss here. Because no amount of evidence to support the availability of such controlling mechanisms can elevate his “Man made Asian tsunami theory” from the status of an unverifiable speculation to the status of a verifiable proposition. And I repeat that even _Boanerges_ has no way of finding out whether humans were responsible for the Asian tsunami (meaning even _Boanerges_ does not know whether what he is suggesting is true or false) and such unverifiable statements are completely useless as they are not contributing towards building a productive discussion where the participants can, at the end of the discussion, conclude what are the propositions supported by facts and have to accepted and what are the propositions that have to be discarded due to lack of supporting material. _Boanerges_’s evidence only talk about various weather controlling mechanisms but unfortunately what we discuss here is different from the availability of such mechanisms.
_Boanerges_ may like to believe that what he had offered is “sound” and “irrefutable” evidence but the readers who carefully read my previous posting (message no: 49) can remember that how _Boanerges_ had mentioned things in the experimental stage as things that can be used in the real world (I have shown this by quoting his own “sound” and “irrefutable” sources) and how _Boanerges_ had produced evidence which only contradicts what he had said before because _Boanerges_ does not know what he is talking about. There I have shown that even though _Boanerges_ had tried to tell us that those occultists are doing these things on particular days important for them and these days that _Boanerges_ is using for his speculations, unless one is using a nuclear explosion to create a tsunami, one cannot guarantee that the tsunami would occur on a particular day important for the one. (To find out on what basis I said so please read my previous posting (message no: 49) where I have explained these in details.)
I repeat that if _Boanerges_ says that the basis for his speculation for a man made tsunami is the date (Dec. 26) on which it happened, then the only way to create a tsunami (which was the resultant of the release of the energy of 100 Gigatons, for which I have provided the source) on a pre-determined date (that is important for some occultists) is to explode a huge nuclear device . As I had explained in the message no: 49 the other mechanisms cannot guarantee the date as they depend on the movements inside the earth and other internal things as well, in addition to the strength exerted by the mechanism, (details of which we do not know, as shown by our inability to predict accurately when and where earthquakes occur). Therefore, if somebody is interested in creating a tsunami on a pre-determined date then s/he has to invariably use nuclear energy . And I have also shown this recent tsunami was the resultant of the release of energy of 100 Gigatons (I repeat, for this, I provided the source even for the second time, even though that _Boanerges_ has tried to create the wrong impression unreasonably in the minds of the readers that I do not substantiate what I write) and only a nuclear explosion and no other mechanism as _Boanerges_ has tried to explain by writing 4120 word in one of his postings can release this much of energy. Thereafter I went on to prove that there is no evidence in the Sumatra region to establish a nuclear explosion.
They are:
(i) No evidence has been found to indicate an increase in the radioactivity level in this region.
(ii) Nobody has seen an unbelievably high mushroom cloud in the Indonesian region
(iii) No evidence for deaths / injuries / burns due to exposure to nuclear radiation
(iv) No evidence for seen light and heard sound, which are natural results of a nuclear explosions.
As I said, all evidence lead in only one direction. That is no nuclear device has been exploded.
So, if the only way to create a tsunami artificially on a pre-determined date is to explode a nuclear device and no sign of such an explosion is found then it proves that _Boanerges_’s basis for speculation, which is the importance of the date on which it happened , is untrue. So I have effectively nailed the canard that _Boanerges_ is trying to propagate that the recent tsunami must be man made. I have specifically said that _Boanerges_ is now back to square one and at least that should have awakened him from the dream of the high place where he himself has put him.
Even though _Boanerges_ is trying to create the wrong impression that my arguments are unsubstantiated (simply because _Boanerges_ has no way of meeting them and only thing he can do is resorting to Goebbelsian tactics), the readers are now in a position to determine whether I have substantiated them or not.
Why should anyone just take your word for anything? Prove it! (my 4th request) No reader has to accept or reject whether I did the tests by myself or not because I do not base any of my arguments on my personal experiences. It is the tradition of the Christians to use personal experiences like prayers and all that to prove their claims. We atheists never resort to such cunning tactics. Our evidences are verifiable by others. For example whether the recent tsunami was the result of the release of energy of 100 Gigatons or not is something verifiable by the others, if they are interested in. Similarly whether the evidence for increased radioactivity has been found out or not is again something verifiable. So on and so forth. For the millionth time I am telling that _Boanerges_ wanted to know whether I did the tests by myself and then I responded. And that’s all. Whether he accepts my response is not my concern because even if he accepts it, there is no advantage for me because none of arguments are based on that response. Similarly even if he rejects my response then again there is no disadvantage for me because none of arguments are based on that response. So why should I bother whether _Boanerges_ or any other reader accepts that response when it (whether somebody accepts it or not) is not going to make any difference? As the readers can very well see, even though I have explained this situation numerous times, _Boanerges_ keeps on quarrelling with me, only for the sake of surviving in the debate, simply because he has run out of arguments. And no wonder why he has decided to get “bored”.
Even though I have tried to start a conversation, which can help the participants to arrive at conclusions (as opposed to merely presenting unverifiable speculations), _Boanerges_ has not made any attempt to make a contribution towards it, probably because only thing he knows is jabbering, quarrelling, ranting, etc. and not engaging in a fruitful discussion where the participants can debate and resolve issues (as opposed to collecting a list of unverifiable personal opinions).
Therefore I reproduce the last part of my previous posting here again.
In the mind of _Boanerges_ there is a possibility that the tsunami is something man made. Even if the tsunami is man made then whether it is consistent with the concept of a god who is all-loving, almighty and omniscient? Let me explain it a bit further.
I know the one of the usual responses for this is free-will. God has given free-will to the man and therefore god is not responsible for the man’s sinful actions. What I argue is that this is only a partial answer. May be free will is there. But just because somebody wants to create a tsunami he cannot implement it, if the implementation is not possible. Now say that somebody wants to stop an approaching tsunami before it reaches the beaches. It is a thought but cannot be converted to action. But if somebody wants to create a tsunami then he can at least explode a nuclear bomb – a big one – and do it. So there is an obvious contradiction, which needs to be resolved, if it has to be consistent with the concept of a god who is omniscient, almighty and all-loving. Why is this disparity there? Why did a god who is said to be all-loving, omniscient and almighty wanted to create a world where creating a tsunami is not very difficult, but stopping a tsunami – man made or natural – is simply impossible? Is it up to the man to engage in scientific research and find a way to stop tsunamis or to find new technologies to prevent people from creating artificial tsunamis?
Any contributions?
(I hope that at least some of the Christians will realise that in the light of the above argument, there is no point in trying to speculate that tsunami must be man made or thinking that attempting to blame the man for tsunami, will help to save god)
-- posted by atheist101
» _Boanerges_ - to save god??
In response to Re: uselss dribble posted by atheist101:As I had explained in the message no: 49 the other mechanisms cannot guarantee the date as they depend on the movements inside the earth and other internal things as well, in addition to the strength exerted by the mechanism
Most who think it is possible to have created this man-made Tsunami (conspiracy folks like myself - remember the WMD in Iraq deception?) do not believe that it was a Nuke that created it. Most inidicate the potential for ELF or HAARP to be used. In the links offered above, earthquates have been caused through oil exploration and have been documented. Other methods where shown to be viable with the use of air. In another link it was shown that Cyclones were created to clean out the smog! The evidence points to the fact that man is capable to produce such things, to the contrary of what you claim Atheist101. To say otherwise is foolish. Do I believe that this Tsunami was man-made? Even more so now, after reading your efforts to deny it. In fact, you cannot prove it was not, as I have already indicated, which you have no proof it was not, only speculation that it could not.
There is something very sinister our there, Martha, and it ain't uncle Tom looking out for our well being
. The discussion has nothing to do with God or Religion, and why you continue to invoke it demonstrates biased motive. I have no reason to argue religion with an Atheist, just the Tsunami (or any other man-made disaster) is enough for me in this topic. The need to invoke God has no relevance to what man is capable of in the 21st century...
-- posted by _Boanerges_
» _Boanerges_ - Project Seal, Space Preservation Act, etc
Furore over `tidal bomb' claimshttp://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:bBW...
Details of the tsunami bomb, known as Project Seal, are contained in 53-year-old documents released by the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
U.S. intel once considered causing huge quake
WWII-era top-secret project talked of producing tsunami with A-bomb
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...
SecDef Cohen warned of earthquake weapons
http://web.archive.org/web/2001091301393...
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
Space Preservation Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House) HR 2977 IH
107th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2977
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/jan...
(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--
(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;
(ii) chemtrails;
(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;
(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;
(v) laser weapons systems;
(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and
(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.
Human Hand Behind Earthquake and Tsunami?
http://216.132.172.240/indiadaily/editor...
There are technologies on the research table that is used to create electromagnetic effects to release the gravitational effects which can cause this kind massive earth movements.
Egyptian paper: Israel-India nuke test caused tsunami
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?p...
Despite warnings not to carry out nuclear experiments in and around the 'Fire Belt', "Israel and India continue to conduct nuclear tests in the Indian Ocean, and the United States has recently decided to carry out similar tests in the Australian deserts, which is included in the 'Fire Belt', the Egyptian weekly magazine wrote.
Ionospheric Manipulation Responsible For Devastating Tsunami?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/jan...
These are classic effects of high frequency polarised RF.The RF which bounced off the ionosphere landed not only at the point of the epicentre but a second reflection obviously hit at Sylhet, Bangladesh.
Earthquake: Coincidence or a Corporate Oil Tragedy?
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm...
According to Jim Cummings of the Acoustic Ecology Institute, Seismic surveys utilizing airguns have been taking place in mineral-rich areas of the world’s oceans since 1968. Among the areas that have experienced the most intense survey activity are the North Sea, the Beaufort Sea (off Alaska’s North Slope), and the Gulf of Mexico; areas around Australia and South America are also current hot-spots of activity.
The impulses created by the release of air from arrays of up to 24 airguns create low frequency sound waves powerful enough to penetrate up to 40km below the seafloor. The “source level" of these sound waves is generally over 200dB (and often 230dB or more), roughly comparable to a sound of at least 140-170dB in air.
US island base given warning
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tsunami/story/...
US denies ‘foreknowledge’ of Asian tsunami
http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/Jan05/...
What Did the US Know and When Did It Know It?
http://www.counterpunch.org/mickey122920...
Foreknowledge of A Natural Disaster: Washington was aware that a deadly Tidal Wave was building up in the Indian Ocean
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO412...
-- posted by _Boanerges_
» atheist101 - Re: Project Seal, Space Preservation Act, etc
In response to Project Seal, Space Preservation Act, etc posted by _Boanerges_:
I have already responded to all of _Boanerges_’s arguments and all I have to do this time is to quote from my own previous postings. I have put those quotations from my postings in bold characters just to mention that what the readers are reading is what they have already read before and not because I want to emphasise them. I have put in italics quotations from _Boanerges_.
The evidence points to the fact that man is capable to produce such things, to the contrary of what you claim Atheist101. To say otherwise is foolish..
This is deliberate distortion of what I have been to telling.
No where I have said that man cannot do such things. In fact I have mentioned that nuclear explosions can be used to create artificial tsunamis.
This is what I said in the message 56 in this thread:
In fact the readers can remember that even before _Boanerges_, I mentioned that nuclear explosions can be used to create tsunamis artificially!
I really do not understand why _Boanerges_ is repeatedly trying to give the wrong impression to the readers that either I do not know or I do not accept that the man can create tsunamis, etc.
Then _Boanerges_ has, as usual, given some more Web links.
As my response, I quote from my posting in message no 56 of this thread:
He has offered many Web links about various mechanisms of creating explosions and controlling weather. But these are not relevant to what we discuss here. Because no amount of evidence to support the availability of such controlling mechanisms can elevate his “Man made Asian tsunami theory” from the status of an unverifiable speculation to the status of a verifiable proposition.
And also I have said in the same message no 56 in this thread:
just because there are weather modifying weapons, it does not sufficient to verify whether the recent Asian tsunami was man made. If I may repeat one of my previous analogies, the fact that somebody is having a gun, is not sufficient for an officer who is trying to verify whether that person committed a murder.
_Boanerges_ calls himself ‘a conspiracy folk’ (conspiracy folks like myself … and regarding these _Boanerges_’s speculations, there are many quotations that I can copy from my previous messages, but I quote a few.
From the message no: 56
When I said in my previous posting that there is no point in presenting unverifiable ideas in a conversation (because then the participants are unable to debate and verify in order to accept or reject what was presented)…………….,
From the same message:
Please understand that what we discuss here is various explanations for the tsunami in order to build a fruitful conversation where baseless and/or unverifiable explanations are discarded and the explanations supported by facts are accepted. The objective of starting a conversation is arriving at such conclusions and not collecting some unverifiable ideas that nobody knows whether true or false. And therefore please be kind enough to present only verifiable explanations so that the participants can debate and verify them in order to accept or reject them. Presenting unverifiable explanations is only wasting time……….
Again from the same message:
Even though I have tried to start a conversation, which can help the participants to arrive at conclusions (as opposed to merely presenting unverifiable speculations),
If I may quote from the message no 49:
Just think of the following scenario:
Alice:: I think that Bin Laden is going to Mexico today.
Bob:: How do you know?
Alice:: Because Bin Laden was in Canada the day before yesterday and he was in the US yesterday. So based on these things, I speculate that Bin Laden must be going to Mexico today.
Bob:: But just because he was in Canada and US can we think that he is going to Mexico? Aren’t you just speculating?
Alice:: Yes I’m only speculating.
Now what is the benefit of this conversation to Bob? Forget it. What is the benefit of this to Alice? Did it produce any results for the other listeners? Can a conversation like this grow and go to higher level of understanding of the things? What is the purpose of engaging in a conversation if all that you can learn at the end of the conversation is about an unverifiable personal opinion of just another member of the human race of 600+ billion members? Why should other listeners want to learn about what personally Alice thinks about something?
Again from the same message:
As I have already explained in my one of my previous postings, the only thing this type of things can do is wasting time (as has been amply demonstrated in this thread) and not building a fruitful conversation as I wanted to at the beginning. In a fruitful discussion, the participants should be able to verify what others say and accept verified ideas and discard garbage……………….
Here when you provide something then others should be able to build a conversation on that and go to higher levels. When you provide something unverifiable as an ‘explanation’, no conversation can be built. It is stuck at the same place. Somebody can come here and say that Russians are behind one earthquake in Turkey and Afghans are behind another in Afghanistan but at that point how a progress can be made in the conversation when these ideas are not verifiable? ………….
Please note that what I wanted at the beginning was to start a conversation, meaning an exchange of ideas based on what is being expressed by others, and not to create a list of personal opinions of the participants. It is not a conversation. A conversation means when somebody says something then the other person says something that is relevant to the previous expression. When the other person has no way of finding out whether what was said before is true or false, it cannot become a conversation. When the people are providing unverifiable ideas what will be there is only those ideas and not building something based on them. In such a ‘conversation’ what the reader will have at the end will be only a list of personal opinions, which has little or no value. What I say again is who cares about what just one member of the human race thinks about something.
Could _Boanerges_ kindly explain, what does he expect by posting unverifiable speculations in a public forum when the readers have no way of finding out whether what he says is true or false? If he thinks that his speculations are verifiable, then could he kindly verify them and tell us the result and also how he verified?
_Boanerges_ says, Do I believe that this Tsunami was man-made? Even more so now,
It looks like _Boanerges_’s speculation has now become a belief – to my mind a belief is something stronger than a speculation – (but while I admit this may be a minor mistake and what _Boanerges_ has meant by ‘I believe’ is in fact ‘I speculate’), I like reproduce the following quotation as well from the message no 49:
Only a person like _Boanerges_ can have the courage to believe that his arm chair speculations must be more true than not when he or anybody else is not making any attempt to verify his speculations. - typo corrected!
The need to invoke God has no relevance…..
Let me explain why posted that question by quoting the reason I gave when I presented the question.
But what I am interested in is not those speculations because no amount of discussions on them can produce any valuable results. So without wasting our time on unverifiable ideas I want to put this ‘conversation’ to a real track where people can discuss and arrive at conclusions, without repeating the same stuff over and over again. This is especially important because I do not want to set a bad precedent as the one who started this thread. If somebody starts talking about whether it was aliens who wrote the Bible then I’ll be one of the persons to be blamed. (You can search the Web and find enough number stories about various things said to have been done by aliens so that you can keep on speculating. But again even if you talk about them for one full year, I do not think that it will produce any useful results. I know there can be one or two people who like to be engage in such unproductive work but cannot be the most of the readers.)
So I want to talk about something related to the topic I started but something that is capable of producing some results.
In the mind of _Boanerges_ there is a possibility that the tsunami is something man made. Even if the tsunami is man made then whether it is consistent with the concept of a god who is all-loving, almighty and omniscient? Let me explain it a bit further.
I know the one of the usual responses for this is free-will. God has given free-will to the man and therefore god is not responsible for the man’s sinful actions. What I argue is that this is only a partial answer. May be free will is there. But just because somebody wants to create a tsunami he cannot implement it, if the implementation is not possible. Now say that somebody wants to stop an approaching tsunami before it reaches the beaches. It is a thought but cannot be converted to action. But if somebody wants to create a tsunami then he can at least explode a nuclear bomb – a big one – and do it. So there is an obvious contradiction, which needs to be resolved, if it has to be consistent with the concept of a god who is omniscient, almighty and all-loving. Why is this disparity there? Why did a god who is said to be all-loving, omniscient and almighty wanted to create a world where creating a tsunami is not very difficult, but stopping a tsunami – man made or natural – is simply impossible? Is it up to the man to engage in scientific research and find a way to stop tsunamis or to find new technologies to prevent people from creating artificial tsunamis?
I think now the readers can understand that I have already explained the reason why I posted that question.
Finally, _Boanerges_ has tried to tell that what I do is also speculation. I do not post speculations in public discussion forums. For me, as I have already explained in one of my previous postings, a speculation means something even I do not know for sure whether true or false. That means if I post a speculation and if somebody asks me whether I know what I have posted is true or false, all I will have to tell is that I do not know what I posted is true or false!
-- posted by atheist101
» _Boanerges_ - Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons and their Terrorist Use
Let the reader be the judge!.........Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons and their Terrorist Use: Immediate Strategic Aspects of the Asymmetric War on the U.S. by Lt. Col Thomas E. Bearden
-- posted by _Boanerges_
» sacred_insights - Re: Re: who won?
In response to Re: who won? posted by Franc28:LOL I have to agree...
Cat
-- posted by sacred_insights
» _Boanerges_ - Russian paper Pravda speaks out
Did the USA orchestrate the mammoth Asian tsunami of December 2004? 08/05/2005 Pravda
Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons? Hmm.....
This link offers an indepth review on Environmental Weapons ECONEWS
-- posted by _Boanerges_
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.