Haarp causing earthquakes?

Originally posted by Elostone

Originally posted by AnnonymousLurker

Originally posted by Elostone
I would consider The History Channel to be a reliable source, as well as MSM

So wrong...........

2nd.

Wrong? Really??
Please, if you know something to discredit The History Channel's credibility, something documented, do share!
If not, please reserve your (undocumentable) opinions to yourself until you have verifiable proof.
Deny Ignorance!
Peace

Twice in recent years the History Channel was accused of distorting the history of American presidents, in one case excusing a president's errors, in another implicating a president in a crime he didn't commit.

SOURCE: hnn.us...

The History Channel Gets It Wrong Twice

History Channel Inaccurate Again...

This is just what a cursory search of the net turned up in seconds. Could find some more, but then again you could do this yourself before going all out to defend the history channel a solid reliable source. Deny Ignorance indeed.

Originally posted by AnnonymousLurker

I hate to go off topic here, but to defend my source that has been discredited from an earlier post in this thread, I feel I must. So I will be brief...
Let's discuss your sources that you claim discredited my earlier point:

Twice in recent years the History Channel was accused of distorting the history of American presidents, in one case excusing a president's errors, in another implicating a president in a crime he didn't commit.

SOURCE: hnn.us...

First let me point out, an "accusation" is only that..."proven" would be a more damning conclusion.
Second, the article sourced was a blog about the different types of programming that the History Channel aired in a two week period...back in 2006. This blog was written by an intern.
Third, in the case of "excusing a president's errors" nothing specifying what the writer is referring to is noted, so nothing can be argued.
In the case of "implicating a president in a crime he didn't commit.", the writer is referring to LBJ's (plausible) complicity in knowing about the the JFK assassination, on a program that was aired discussing conspiracy theories. The program "upset" LBJ's family; The History Channel agreed to never air the segment again, as a result.

The History Channel has made a start in the right direction as it has totally disavowed the program and publicly promised it never will be shown again.

That from the same website, this article:
hnn.us...

Next, you cite this:

The History Channel Gets It Wrong Twice

From this source we get the following:

The History Channel in its premier two-hour “Story of Us” managed to refer to the “unalienable Rights” of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 as “inalienable Rights” and then concluded the episode by claiming that George Washington was inaugurated “President of the United States of America” on April 30, 1789. The oral oath of office Washington took on April 30, 1789 was for the office of President of the United States, as anyone who bothers to read Article II Section 1 Clause 8 of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 will readily see.

First, “unalienable Rights” vs “inalienable Rights”, Hmmmm, The History Channel was OBVIOUSLY trying to mislead the masses with this mis-statement.
Further, without my having seen the program in question, unless this statement was shown on the screen in text, I find it hard to believe that the differences in the 2 words could be audibly ascertained.

As to the the issue of Washington taking the Oath of Office vs his being Inaugurated...every President since Washington has taken the Oath of Office at their Inauguration. Washington, was a different case because at the time of his Oath, he had not been Resident of the US for 14 years, as required by Article II Section 1 Clause 5 Office of President.
While we are here, just who is this Ed Rivera from this website this is taken from, edrivera.com?
According to this source:
ateapartyblog.blogspot.com...

Dick Simkanin found out the HARD WAY the “value” of Ed Rivera’s LEGAL ADVICE, WHICH he PAID $10,000 for. Sadly for Dick, Ed Riveria had NOT YET been DISBARRED.

and

On January 7, 2004, he was convicted by a United States federal court on ten counts of willfully failing to collect and pay over employment taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 7202, fifteen counts of knowingly making and presenting false, fictitious or fraudulent claims for refund of employment taxes under 18 U.S.C. § 287 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and four counts of willfully failing to timely file federal income tax returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7203. His convictions were upheld on appeal.[1] en.wikipedia.org...

Less than credible, IMO

and lastly,
History Channel Inaccurate Again...

“Uncle Sam” wasn’t born on this date (History Channel & Fox News wrong every year)

The History Channel has a feature called This Day in History: Sep 7, 1813: United States nicknamed Uncle Sam

This whole passage is wrong. Several years ago, I discovered an earlier “Uncle Sam” in 1812. From my website

Seriously, are you kidding me?

This is just what a cursory search of the net turned up in seconds. Could find some more, but then again you could do this yourself before going all out to defend the history channel a solid reliable source. Deny Ignorance indeed.

I appreciate you doing a cursory search to support your position.
Perhaps next time you will actually take a bit more time to research what you consider to be "solid, reliable sources"
Peace

You work for the history channel or something? It`s not as if these are the only inaccuracies that have been spotted on the history channel, just a quick selection. Here are some more for you.

Lies & The History Channel

History Channel Disinfo

I`m in no way picking through these to focus on any paticular subject matter, these are a random selection of links that point to people repeatedly finding inaccuracies in the subject matter shown by the history channel.
I said in an earlier post, I`m not disputing that they do show some factually accurate and informative programmes.
What I am saying is that they are sometimes wrong, but you seem to have a problem accepting that. With that in mind, I doubt you will accept that you are wrong about anything.
Trusting sources like MSM and cable TV channels is not smart. I thought the whole purpose of this forum was to look for the truth behind what the media show by reading between the lines.
You only need to look at the current crisis in Japan to see that the media will not report the truth in times of trouble. It has been a massive struggle from day one to get accurate information, due to the media being owned by the same people as the power plant ( Obviously solid, reliable and truthful then). If you wish to place your faith in the same people who are poisoning the planet to then report the truth of what is happening then good luck to you. I consider the views and opinions of knowledgeable people here on ATS a much realistic portrayal of what is happening in the world today.

I'm sorry to be rude, but who really cares about the History Channel? I guess most people on this board is grown up or scientifically savy enough to have the tools to verify some things; if this is real stuff, there must be plenty of data to support it, if it was sending all those microwaves around, all radars in the world would be going crazy, lots of instruments would give us a reading... oh and btw, moving the ionosphere without disturbing all radio transmissions? Come on... if the History Channel gives credibility to this well...I think they do lose a lot of credibility, if they had any left. Now, does anyone have any decent data, written by at least a decent undergrad scientist, that knows what error bars are and also remembers to label the axes to his graphs to support this idea?