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

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 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 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 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

Originally posted 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.

This part seems to have escaped you:

"

ollowing examples are illustrative of phenomena that could be caused by the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II of the Convention:

"

COULD !

and

"

when produced by military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, would result, or could reasonably be expected to result

"

WHEN.... WOULD... COULD.....

deny ignorance.

so you're saying that the world got together and made treaties to weapons that WOULD/COULD never exist? GENIUS!

deny ignorance

[edit on 6-2-2010 by DOADOA]

teh USA uses about 20 million barrels of oil a DAY.

That is more oil than what is indicated in the article. lol

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 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???

ID LIKE TO READ ARTICLES I AND II, B-4 COMPLETELY LAUGHING AT YOU.
BUT ITS PROLLY JUST REFERRING TO CLOUD FERTILIZATION AND SUCH.
ITS REALLY A GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW TODAYS CONGRESS SHOULD WRITE THEIR BILLS, WITH THOUGHT OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN, AND BEATING CORRUPTION TO THE PUNCH!..

This is very interesting, s&f.
To prove a crime, especially one with no "witnesses" that can positively put the finger on the perpetrator, you have to establish motive, means, and opportunity. In relation to the use of earthquake generating phenomenon;
We know that the "motive" exists, after all, how many wars are we in.
The "means", though in dispute, exist to some degree, I think at least.
The opportunity is the toughest part to prove for me.
More understanding of the latter two are needed.
Then, there is the issue of PROBABILITY.
You can establish that an entity LIKELY has all three (motive, means, opportunity) by showing that the incidences significantly exceed probability.
We have records of earthquake incidences going way back. This map, overlaid by a map of USEFUL TARGETS, that is, third world countries with valuable resources, could prove useful. In this way, if you are able to FORECAST "natural" disasters in regions not historically prone to earthquakes or whatever, based upon the usefulness of this to the CORPORATOCRACY...
then you will have established all three requirements for a reasonable person, WITHOUT actual "proof" which can be exceedingly hard to come by.

Maybe they will use the earthquake technology on my homestate of California to sink it and government officials will blame it on terrorists of planting hugh bombs at sensitive locations.

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 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.

Originally posted 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.

This part seems to have escaped you:

"

ollowing examples are illustrative of phenomena that could be caused by the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II of the Convention:

"

COULD !

and

"

when produced by military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, would result, or could reasonably be expected to result

"

WHEN.... WOULD... COULD.....

deny ignorance.

That answer doesnt cut a thing!!!!!!!!!! They mention what is. And yet turn around like little children and say, prove we have it!!!!

Beause of Tesla and all the others like him, they have it.

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 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 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 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.

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.