UFOs Warning about Tsunami?

[duendy]

HI...I found this today:
India Daily - an enormous number of UFO sightings before Tsunami
www.indiadaily.com/editorial/12-31h-04.asp

This really makes you wonder....THAt if we would just be more openminded about all this, then we would be able to SEE signs about disasters like Tsunami.

another natrual sign before it was may many sand snakes coming out of the ground as in response to earth tremor

 

[phlogistician]

Dude, it's well known that the earth is piezo electric, and that before earthquakes, the electricity created by the tension in the rock can cause visible phenomena.

Go read a science book, eh?

 

[Avatar]

Besides if some intelligence had wanted to tell something it would have done it. Like.. telling.

 

[duendy]

Dude, it's well known that the earth is piezo electric, and that before earthquakes, the electricity created by the tension in the rock can cause visible phenomena.

yes, i am aware of electrical significance of UFOs...ie., 'Earth Light'--go read my only other post of these forums

what i note is that there are otyher interpretations about what they might BE. people such as yourself seem to stick in a gorrove, and if others say or imply differnt they suffer your.....

Go read a science book, eh?

....condecension.....!

 

[phlogistician]

Look Duendy, it's a proven geophysical phenomenon. well understood, and it needs no interpretation.

Also, what Avatar said. If these UFOs knew what was going to happen, a less cryptic warning would have saved over a hundred thousand lives. But as that warning wasn't understood, the warning wasn't much use, was it?

 

[SkinWalker]

Not to mention that India Daily appears to be India's online version of a tabloid. Very little of their news is factual, most is based on opinion. Pieces that are usually made up completely get the tag "Staff Reporter" instead of an actual reporter's name on the byline.

 

[duendy]

Look Duendy, it's a proven geophysical phenomenon. well understood, and it needs no interpretation.

D)..so you are saying that your "proven geophysical phenomenon" is kind of an arch-thory which explains A L L known reported cases of sightings and experiences of UFOs? Is this what you are stating?

Also, what Avatar said. If these UFOs knew what was going to happen, a less cryptic warning would have saved over a hundred thousand lives. But as that warning wasn't understood, the warning wasn't much use, was it?

Well you say it there. "Wasn't understood"

damn right it wasn't. what i am extremely interested in is is WHy we are not understanding such a warning that -if twas true--could have saved many lives.
In your camp you are saying that the reported lights are 'proven theory'? Is this then part of the regular school, college curriculum?
Also, i feel more openminded than you about this, with respect. in that i am not claiming it to be A one known thing.

did you by chance ever see the famous documentary about the many reported sightings--many on camera and video--of UFOs in Brzil in err 1990?

 

[duendy]

Not to mention that India Daily appears to be India's online version of a tabloid. Very little of their news is factual, most is based on opinion. Pieces that are usually made up completely get the tag "Staff Reporter" instead of an actual reporter's name on the byline.

so, if it had been reported in a 'higher caste' paper you wouldn't be so sceptical?

I am wondering if you have ever done any research into the polics of UFO coverage?
That many paprs wont TOUCH it. in this country even TABLOIDs wont touch it

when i first read it, i thought that it being in India the restrictions wouldn't be as geat as the West. Similar in Brazil where media coverage is less restricted

 

[SkinWalker]

The reason why other papers don't cover it is because they have internal policies that require their reporters to be able to support their findings or to provide credible sources within the story. In otherwords, if there's no real evidence to suggest that its newsworthy, then they avoid it.

 

[craterchains (Norval]

Of course IF there are ETI and these craft are theirs, I would want to get them out of their underground hangers and away from that earthquake area.

If yah can’t talk about the TOPIC skinny instead of around it, why don’t yah just fut the shuck up? If yah aint got any thing good to put in the pipe, don’t pass it. :m:

 

[SkinWalker]

If yah can’t talk about the TOPIC skinny instead of around it, why don’t yah just fut the shuck up? If yah aint got any thing good to put in the pipe, don’t pass it. :m:

'Cause some fum duther muckers keep bringing up silly shit. I wouldn't be earning my pay as a debunker or getting my "disinformation bonus" if I didn't speak out.

 

[duendy]

The reason why other papers don't cover it is because they have internal policies that require their reporters to be able to support their findings or to provide credible sources within the story. In otherwords, if there's no real evidence to suggest that its newsworthy, then they avoid it.

A bit naive mate. you seem to be looking 'there' and missing all 'here'

Therer is a lock as to what papers can print, never MIND their individual journalists. you've heard of SPIN haven't you? and you dont think that includes talk about UFOs and ETs etc

it's not a simple as you seem to make out

 

[terpinator72]

Not to mention that India Daily appears to be India's online version of a tabloid. Very little of their news is factual, most is based on opinion. Pieces that are usually made up completely get the tag "Staff Reporter" instead of an actual reporter's name on the byline.

Yea I was just thinking that last night.. This quoted "newspaper" seems like the grocery stores chain of tabloid garbage ala national enquirer.

Stop quoting this garbage please.

 

[phlogistician]

Well you say it there. "Wasn't understood"

damn right it wasn't. what i am extremely interested in is is WHy we are not understanding such a warning that -if twas true--could have saved many lives.

Look, you interpret it somehow as a warning. But that's jut you looking to make the event fit into your already held theory. But you're clutching at straws.

In your camp you are saying that the reported lights are 'proven theory'? Is this then part of the regular school, college curriculum?

OK, here's one site, that deals with the EM tell tale signs before earthquakes;

http://www.quakefinder.com/elfexamples.htm

Here's a page that has been posted on Sciforums before about 'earth lights';

http://www.pauldevereux.co.uk/new/body_earthlights.html

Here's a paper about EM caused by seismic activity;

http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/5204/52040253.pdf

Also, i feel more openminded than you about this, with respect. in that i am not claiming it to be A one known thing.

Not believing a proven is not being open minded, it's being ignorant.

did you by chance ever see the famous documentary about the many reported sightings--many on camera and video--of UFOs in Brzil in err 1990?

No, I'll check it out, but I'm predicting the video footage will either be a long shot of a static light, or a close up with huge amounts of camera shake, out of focus, and show no detail, as always.

 

[duendy]

Look, you interpret it somehow as a warning. But that's jut you looking to make the event fit into your already held theory. But you're clutching at straws.

D...have you heard of warnings? signs? premonitions? do you think all that poppycok.
surely what we are talking about is a report about reported sightings of UFOs--meaning what it says. UNIDENTIFIED..yeah?
IF so, and there WERE sightings, do you believ such as thisml would consist as a warning?

OK, here's one site, that deals with the EM tell tale signs before earthquakes;

http://www.quakefinder.com/elfexamples.htm

Here's a page that has been posted on Sciforums before about 'earth lights';

http://www.pauldevereux.co.uk/new/body_earthlights.html

Here's a paper about EM caused by seismic activity;

http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/5204/52040253.pdf

Like i aleady said, i AM familiar with 'earth lights' ala Devereaux (chekout my only other post in another thread here--forgotten for now which)......He is openminded about our ancestors' interpretation of them....as he is about hallucinogenic inspiration. i have a book of his called The Long Trip, all about that
What you got to understand is that our paradigm is based on a menchacical understanding of Earth and universe and any phenomena that may occur. you no doubt imagine the latter's is spot on, and an honour to the whiteman's superior status in the kingdom of the West....no?

Not believing a proven is not being open minded, it's being ignorant.

D--no. just accepting a SO-CALLED 'proven' is being closed-minded. a pseudo-sceptic is a cosed minded person who pooo poohs all other view ponts that might be worthy being open-minded about

No, I'll check it out, but I'm predicting the video footage will either be a long shot of a static light, or a close up with huge amounts of camera shake, out of focus, and show no detail, as always.

hmmm, well put it this way. i have seen it and i saw a UFO playing hide and seek behind a cloud.
Also--as a sideline (have this in my notes somewhere)--apparently the Mayans predicted this incredible event would happen

 

[phlogistician]

dude, sort out your quoting and your spelling and get back to me. It's hard enough work reading the work of woo woos without these obstacles.

 

[duendy]

dude, sort out your quoting and your spelling and get back to me. It's hard enough work reading the work of woo woos without these obstacles.

D--ahhhh, ad hominem hey?@ avoiding the question by attacking the questionER

dont be so ruddy lazy. i dont like your manner at all. typical pseudoskeptic if yer ask me

and 'dude' i am not hanging on to your ever so-intellgent replies. and errr what the...is a 'woo woo'?

 

[phlogistician]

sorry dude, an ad hominem would be attacking you, personally. I was asking you to tidy up your post, so not an ad hominem.

You've mixed up my post with your reply inside one set of quotes, and that's sloppy. Now, just hit the edit button, and try harder to express yourself clearly.

And I'm a not a pdseudoskeptic. I'm a full on, real skeptic.

 

[duendy]

sorry dude, an ad hominem would be attacking you, personally. I was asking you to tidy up your post, so not an ad hominem.

You've mixed up my post with your reply inside one set of quotes, and that's sloppy. Now, just hit the edit button, and try harder to express yourself clearly.

And I'm a not a pdseudoskeptic. I'm a full on, real skeptic.

well, you are the first one to complain is what i am saying. though i AM aware i do do typos etc. you shold see the limitations of my system, and keyboard---but i cant be arsed to explain

what has happened now is its become an English friggin class instead of what is of issue here

from the word go you seem to have an attitude, which says to me you are defending a closedmindedness. when you later DEFLECT AWAY from said argument this also deepens my insight. i have come across your attitude so many times before at forums
why then i say 'pseudosceptic' is that a kosher sceptic is supposed to be NOT like that, but open to exploration

and why i call you lazy. i often come across so many different styles. yet nover ONCe have i gone all schoolteacherly about bad spellin, quote-composition, etc

i am too INTERESTEd in what is being debated about for all that divertin crap

 

[SkinWalker]

i have come across your attitude so many times before at forums [that's] why then i say 'pseudosceptic' is that a kosher sceptic is supposed to be NOT like that, but open to exploration

skeptic - someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs

pseudo - fake; imposter: a person who makes deceitful pretenses

Therefore, pseudoskeptic - one who pretends to doubt; a fake skeptic.

I'm a bit skeptical of that definition being applied to phlog.

The real usage of "pseudoskeptic" in forums like this, however, is an attempt at ad hominem or insulting remark, typically applied by someone who is offended at having their belief system doubted or effectively discounted by a skeptic. Rather than concede that a person is truly skeptical, they attempt, quite poorly, to apply the label of "pseudoskeptic," all the while failing to understand the true meaning of the term.

Basically its a play on "pseudoscience" and "pseudoscientist," both terms that are completely accurate in most applications, but perceived as insulting by the believer.