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?
You explain to me why gnomes are impossible and improbable as causes of earthquakes. I certainly can't. Nor can anyone. It is the same with mystery earthquake machines, operating on unknown principles.
You have no conception of logical analysis. It is never an obligation to show that things cannot happen. It is an obligation to show that things can happen. You don't have a shred of evidence to suggest that any such agency as "earthquake machines" is at work. And I maintain, fanciful suspicion (delusional paranoia) is not evidence or cause to believe. When "rumors" are nothing more than urban myth, you have lost your ability to tell fact from fancy. I haven't and I don't feel any need to apologize for having a clear view.
It seems that everybody on this page is willing to go along with and nurture the other guy's wild fantasy in order to be on the receiving end of similar sympathy. It leads to fringe conspiracy nuttiness, where magic and pseudo-science are accepted as replacements for actual science. It is clear that not too many people playing at being an "anon" have much of a scientific education, yet they feel at ease declaring that this or that fabulous technology is merely "hidden" and lurking behind some sinister curtain. I've actually worked on classified technology, and I find this attitude completely childish.
Where I am right now is with my feet firmly planted on the ground. In earthquake and volcanic eruption country.
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?
You explain to me why gnomes are impossible and improbable as causes of earthquakes. I certainly can't. Nor can anyone. It is the same with mystery earthquake machines, operating on unknown principles.
You have no conception of logical analysis. It is never an obligation to show that things cannot happen. It is an obligation to show that things can happen. You don't have a shred of evidence to suggest that any such agency as "earthquake machines" is at work. And I maintain, fanciful suspicion (delusional paranoia) is not evidence or cause to believe. When "rumors" are nothing more than urban myth, you have lost your ability to tell fact from fancy. I haven't and I don't feel any need to apologize for having a clear view.
It seems that everybody on this page is willing to go along with and nurture the other guy's wild fantasy in order to be on the receiving end of similar sympathy. It leads to fringe conspiracy nuttiness, where magic and pseudo-science are accepted as replacements for actual science. It is clear that not too many people playing at being an "anon" have much of a scientific education, yet they feel at ease declaring that this or that fabulous technology is merely "hidden" and lurking behind some sinister curtain. I've actually worked on classified technology, and I find this attitude completely childish.
Where I am right now is with my feet firmly planted on the ground. In earthquake and volcanic eruption country.