Posted on 05/17/2024 5:25:54 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Video of meteorologist predicting severe Texas weather two days before it occurs and showing the Doppler beams ionizing the atmosphere. The Doppler radar towers put in a couple of decades ago have ten times the power going to them required for weather forecasting. The order of magnitude of power is for weather control.
Who got control of the Rove Weather Machine?
“The other one is a video somebody else in the thread linked to which is a guy 9I see now that it’s Dutchsinse) showing what he’s found about how the government confirms that weather modification is real. I have no idea who you’re claiming is talking about fracking because neither of the videos talks about that.”
Your boy, dutchsinse. One of his videos.
Of course weather modification is real. The first cloud seeding was in 1946 over NYC. No big secret!
Funny that you should mention “eviscerat(ing) your stupid claims with real facts”. Four different times on this thread I have asked what is going on when the radar shows cone-shaped blips (post 22, post 31, post 80, and post 112).
Not one of those posts has received a reply explaining what causes this. A lot of ad hominem attacks on me and on anybody who would actually consider this phenomenon, but no scientific explanations or “real facts” as you claim.
It’s extremely disappointing. I would expect much, much better from real scientists.
There have been comments about the power of the radar being too small to ionize but nobody has looked more deeply into what Dutchsinse is saying, to realize that he is talking about a DIFFERENT scientific phenomenon that focuses electromagnetic energy into something much, much stronger. My understanding is admittedly limited, but what I understand is that you wouldn’t have to have a great, strong radar system to create huge effects if the effect was magnified through time reversal.
I am not a physicist so I’d appreciate some genuine scientific discussion and explanation. But I’m not going to get it here because - after all - this is the internet so it’s all just shit anyway.
“Dr. Nick Begich, a physicist”
You really should not quote Coast to Coast AM!
The loudest noise-makers here are not serious scientists as they claim. They fall prey to every logical fallacy in the book.
The one that bugs me the most is the appeal to authority. Evidence doesn’t count if it is posted on the internet.
That, of course, is followed by circular reasoning. Well, it would count if it linked to some real (authority-based) evidence but it links to something on the internet so it still doesn’t count.
I’m not expressing myself well; the trolling has its desired effect of tiring out the target. I’m not even going to reply to the posts where what I’ve previously posted is badly butchered as if the responder’s reading comprehension is about a 5-year-old’s. But the underlying epistemology of these supposed “scientists” is exactly the kind of undermining that has gone on in 5th-generation warfare, to dumb us all down to a point where we can’t have any kind of decent conversation. The reasoning here is the same kind of reasoning that the woke left uses. There’s no way to reason with somebody who blows off any inquiry of phenomena they blow off as “conspiratorial”.
Ask a simple question like “Hey, what’s causing those weird cone-shaped blips on the radar screen” and you get canceled for being crazy. You saw it right here on Free Republic in full view of everybody.
God help us. There’s no way to fix the stupid. The logical fallacies have taken over the world.
“The poster ragging you re fracking is obviously a long-time monitor of the work of Dutchsinse.”
Nope. Butter introduced that faker to me.
“The loudest noise-makers here are not serious scientists as they claim. They fall prey to every logical fallacy in the book.”
Quit the ad hominem attacks!
Posting to myself because I’m not going to waste my time on the resident troll. Cloud seeding was acknowledged as existing, but the use of radar, etc is said here to be impossible to affect weather. But on the NOAA page Dutchsinse linked to, at https://libguides.library.noaa.gov/weather-climate/weather-modification-project-reports
it mentions #8:
“Activities subject to reporting.
(a)Weather modification activities are defined as “Any activity performed with the intention of producing artificial changes in the composition, behavior, or dynamics of the atmosphere” (see 15 CFR § 908.1). The following, when conducted as weather modification activities, shall be reported (see 15 CFR § 908.3):
(ED: #1-7 here, followed by #8 below:)
Using lasers or other sources of electromagnetic radiation”
Why does the law require reporting on the use of weather-modifying lasers or other sources of electromagnetic radiation, if such things cannot POSSIBLY modify weather?
I’ve asked that quite a few times on this thread and similarly, have gotten no responses other than ad hominem attacks.
Which is actually very revealing.
From wikipedia: “Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. “
I said the troll was using logical fallacies such as the appeal to authority and circular reasoning. I noted that rather than answering my questions as to why the govt requires reporting on electromagnetic energy weather modification and what the cone-shaped blips on the radar screen are, the troll questioned my credibility.
And I’ll just add here that it wasn’t just one troll who did this; it was the WHOLE ARGUMENT OF THE ENTIRE “SIDE” supposedly refuting this video. NOBODY has addressed my questions.
It isn’t an ad hominem attack when I point out the troll techniques being used. It IS an ad hominem attack to avoid the actual content by making the issue all about how crazy the presenter of the evidence/question is. Which is the ONLY response I have received to either of my 2 evidentiary questions. Two pieces of evidence have been brought up and both have been discarded because they appear on the internet:
1) the cone-shaped blips showing up on the radar;
2) the NOAA website showing the federal law requiring companies to report whether they have used any “lasers or other sources of electromagnetic radiation” to modify weather.
The supposed “scientists” here who are so much smarter than dolts like me have assured us all that radar means nothing if you see it on the internet (where the heck ELSE do you ever see it?), and that federal law isn’t federal law if it’s shown on the internet (again, where he heck ELSE do you or I ever see the actual text of federal law?)
Does anybody truly expect us to believe that real scientists would be making these claims? Get real.
“It isn’t an ad hominem attack when I point out the troll techniques being used.”
It is when you call someone a troll!
—————————You——————
“Posting to myself because I’m not going to waste my time on the resident troll.”
Amazing to this day some people believe the weather has a schedule to keep and nothing ever changes with it.
Moe these people worry me
Larry
Public Service Announcement
This is from https://www.grammarly.com/blog/logical-fallacies/ In this thread I have observed the “scientists” use #1,2,3,6,7,9, and 11:
What are 15 common types of logical fallacies?
As you’ll see below, there are a lot of ways an argument can be flawed. Take a look at fifteen of the most commonly used logical fallacies.
1 Ad hominem
An ad hominem fallacy is one that attempts to invalidate an opponent’s position based on a personal trait or fact about the opponent rather than through logic.
Example: Katherine is a bad choice for mayor because she didn’t grow up in this town.
2 Red herring
A red herring is an attempt to shift focus from the debate at hand by introducing an irrelevant point.
Example: Losing a tooth can be scary, but have you heard about the Tooth Fairy?
3 Straw man
A straw man argument is one that argues against a hyperbolic, inaccurate version of the opposition rather than their actual argument.
Example: Erin thinks we need to stop using all plastics, right now, to save the planet from climate change.
4 Equivocation
An equivocation is a statement crafted to mislead or confuse readers or listeners by using multiple meanings or interpretations of a word or simply through unclear phrasing.
Example: While I have a clear plan for the campus budget that accounts for every dollar spent, my opponent simply wants to throw money at special interest projects.
5 Slippery slope
With a slippery slope fallacy, the arguer claims a specific series of events will follow one starting point, typically with no supporting evidence for this chain of events.
Example: If we make an exception for Bijal’s service dog, then other people will want to bring their dogs. Then everybody will bring their dog, and before you know it, our restaurant will be overrun with dogs, their slobber, their hair, and all the noise they make, and nobody will want to eat here anymore.
6 Hasty generalization
A hasty generalization is a statement made after considering just one or a few examples rather than relying on more extensive research to back up the claim. It’s important to keep in mind that what constitutes sufficient research depends on the issue at hand and the statement being made about it.
Example: I felt nauseated both times I ate pizza from Georgio’s, so I must be allergic to something in pizza.
7 Appeal to authority
In an appeal to authority, the arguer claims an authority figure’s expertise to support a claim despite this expertise being irrelevant or overstated.
Example: If you want to be healthy, you need to stop drinking coffee. I read it on a fitness blog.
8 False dilemma
A false dilemma, also known as a false dichotomy, claims there are only two options in a given situation. Often, these two options are extreme opposites of each other, failing to acknowledge that other, more reasonable, options exist.
Example: If you don’t support my decision, you were never really my friend.
9 Bandwagon fallacy
With the bandwagon fallacy, the arguer claims that a certain action is the right thing to do because it’s popular.
Example: Of course it’s fine to wait until the last minute to write your paper. Everybody does it!
10 Appeal to ignorance
An appeal to ignorance is a claim that something must be true because it hasn’t been proven false. It can also be a claim that something must be false because it hasn’t been proven true. This is also known as the burden of proof fallacy.
Example: There must be fairies living in our attic because nobody’s ever proven that there aren’t fairies living in our attic.
11 Circular argument
A circular argument is one that uses the same statement as both the premise and the conclusion. No new information or justification is introduced.
Example: Peppers are the easiest vegetable to grow because I think peppers are the easiest vegetable to grow.
12 Sunk cost fallacy
With the sunk cost fallacy, the arguer justifies their decision to continue a specific course of action by the amount of time or money they’ve already spent on it.
Example: I’m not enjoying this book, but I bought it, so I have to finish reading it.
13 Appeal to pity
An appeal to pity attempts to sway a reader’s or listener’s opinion by provoking them emotionally.
Example: I know I should have been on time for the interview, but I woke up late and felt really bad about it, then the stress of being late made it hard to concentrate on driving here.
14 Causal fallacy
A causal fallacy is one that implies a relationship between two things where one can’t actually be proven.
Example: When ice cream sales are up, so are shark attacks. Therefore, buying ice cream increases your risk of being bitten by a shark.
15 Appeal to hypocrisy
An appeal to hypocrisy, also known as a tu quoque fallacy, is a rebuttal that responds to one claim with reactive criticism rather than with a response to the claim itself.
Example: “You don’t have enough experience to be the new leader.” “Neither do you!”
“Why does the law require reporting on the use of weather-modifying lasers or other sources of electromagnetic radiation, if such things cannot POSSIBLY modify weather?”
AJ claims radar is ionizing radiation. First sentence in OP. That is absolutely false.
But you defend him saying this is not about physics!
“I said the troll was using logical fallacies such as the appeal to authority and circular reasoning.”
Please cite where and stop the ad hominem attacks.
“Dr. Nick Begich, a physicist”
Please cite his doctoral thesis ...
“A causal fallacy is one that implies a relationship between two things where one can’t actually be proven.”
A perfect example of your posts relating to your boy Dutch!
Right there is a red herring. You avoided answering my actual question about the government requiring electromagnetic radiation weather modification to be reported, by bringing up the subject of whether radar is ionizing radiation.
RED HERRING. You STILL failed to address the evidence I brought up.
I never said this was not about physics. But this particular piece of evidence is not from physics; it is from the US government, which is supposed to know what kinds of weather modification there are.
You keep saying that radar is not ionizing, but you haven’t addressed the link I brought up where physicists were discussing that and it actually ends up being a question of voltage. Nor have you addressed my questions about whether radar whose electromagnetic waves are TIME REVERSED still fits your 55-year-old, way-behind-the-Soviets basic physics definition. The world of science has grown a lot since 55 years ago, ya know.
“How would time reversal of the electromagnetic waves put out by radar impact the capabilities of those waves?”
It wouldionize the transmitter! </s >
“You keep saying that radar is not ionizing, “
Yep. And you defend AJ who says it is. First sentence in OP.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.