Yeah dude. Nobody denies that mother nature causes earthquakes, just like nobody denies she causes thunderstorms. But in addition to that, there seems to be a lot of information coming out lately that suggest that clouds can in fact be seeded, and yes, giant resonance machines can also trigger earthquakes. Why is that such a stretch to you that you think your condescending tone is warranted? We live in a world where we figured out a way to split a plutonium atom to blow up a city but human beings triggering an earthquake along a fault line with another form of technology is unthinkable?
Why are you even here? Are you just a PDW troll here to dismiss everything that doesn't sound like Fox News common sense from 2005? Or did you just get an A in freshman Geology and are eager to show off all the stuff you memorized from the book you took completely on faith in the first place?
By the way, I also got in A in freshman Geology, but for some reason it didn't turn me into a closed-minded asshole. Maybe you're just cooler than me.
Maybe I am. My handle is for real. Not only did I design death rays, but also killer robots from outer space. The point is that weapon technology was my specialty, I keep in touch with it, and there is nothing to support the idea of "earthquake machines."
Clouds can be seeded, which is Old News. That was commonplace when I was growing up, in the 50s and 60s. They are lucky if they can make it rain. Nobody has seeded a hurricane into existence. The natural forces are far greater than man can attempt to influence.
I was born into the Atomic Age (followed by the Space Age) so don't bore me with the injunction to keep an open mind. I've been there and did that. Still doing it---but I draw the line at nonsense. You may have gotten an A in freshman geology, but I don't think you got an A in principles of logic. Just because you are dissatisfied with existing "explanations" for earthquakes, doesn't mean that your [favorite fantasy] is a valid competing explanation. You have to do the heavy lifting of propounding a theory and adducing evidence to support the theory---and only that theory. You know, the scientific method. I get embarrassed by the degree of wishful thinking showing up on this page. "Oh, well. What if it were [insert favorite implausible supposition]?" What if, indeed? That and $1.50 might get you a cup of coffee.
Your pride and condescension is not to your credit. "That's stupid. You're stupid. I'm smart" is not an appropriate response on a site like this. If you have good reason for your position, share it, by all means. Explain why you think this notion of a machine that can trigger earthquakes at fault lines is impossible and improbable and not worth our time. Stating "nature does this" hardly satisfies those of use who view the location and timing of this particular earthquake as highly suspect given recent events and the rumors we've heard of such machines. Do you really not know where you are right now?
Yeah dude. Nobody denies that mother nature causes earthquakes, just like nobody denies she causes thunderstorms. But in addition to that, there seems to be a lot of information coming out lately that suggest that clouds can in fact be seeded, and yes, giant resonance machines can also trigger earthquakes. Why is that such a stretch to you that you think your condescending tone is warranted? We live in a world where we figured out a way to split a plutonium atom to blow up a city but human beings triggering an earthquake along a fault line with another form of technology is unthinkable?
Why are you even here? Are you just a PDW troll here to dismiss everything that doesn't sound like Fox News common sense from 2005? Or did you just get an A in freshman Geology and are eager to show off all the stuff you memorized from the book you took completely on faith in the first place?
By the way, I also got in A in freshman Geology, but for some reason it didn't turn me into a closed-minded asshole. Maybe you're just cooler than me.
Maybe I am. My handle is for real. Not only did I design death rays, but also killer robots from outer space. The point is that weapon technology was my specialty, I keep in touch with it, and there is nothing to support the idea of "earthquake machines."
Clouds can be seeded, which is Old News. That was commonplace when I was growing up, in the 50s and 60s. They are lucky if they can make it rain. Nobody has seeded a hurricane into existence. The natural forces are far greater than man can attempt to influence.
I was born into the Atomic Age (followed by the Space Age) so don't bore me with the injunction to keep an open mind. I've been there and did that. Still doing it---but I draw the line at nonsense. You may have gotten an A in freshman geology, but I don't think you got an A in principles of logic. Just because you are dissatisfied with existing "explanations" for earthquakes, doesn't mean that your [favorite fantasy] is a valid competing explanation. You have to do the heavy lifting of propounding a theory and adducing evidence to support the theory---and only that theory. You know, the scientific method. I get embarrassed by the degree of wishful thinking showing up on this page. "Oh, well. What if it were [insert favorite implausible supposition]?" What if, indeed? That and $1.50 might get you a cup of coffee.
You should be embarrassed by a lot more than the wishful thinking you find on this page, Alcibiades.
You may be right, but what do you mean?
Your pride and condescension is not to your credit. "That's stupid. You're stupid. I'm smart" is not an appropriate response on a site like this. If you have good reason for your position, share it, by all means. Explain why you think this notion of a machine that can trigger earthquakes at fault lines is impossible and improbable and not worth our time. Stating "nature does this" hardly satisfies those of use who view the location and timing of this particular earthquake as highly suspect given recent events and the rumors we've heard of such machines. Do you really not know where you are right now?