Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 09/08/2005 View Wed 09/07/2005 View Tue 09/06/2005 View Mon 09/05/2005 View Sun 09/04/2005 View Sat 09/03/2005 View Fri 09/02/2005
1
2005-09-08 -Short Attention Span Theater-
U.S. Meteorologist Says Russian Inventors Caused Hurricane Katrina
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve 2005-09-08 09:26|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11139 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 What hospital is this MORON in?????
Posted by ARMYGUY 2005-09-08 09:41||   2005-09-08 09:41|| Front Page Top

#2 Well, surprise surprise, we've got a webpage...

http://www.weatherwars.info/katrina.htm

...and consider yourself warned.
The Yakuza can shoot another Katrina anytime they wish. Watch for yet another one, which is probably being debated right now. This weapons platform has been operational since 1963 with weather operations running since 1976! The woodpecker grid (Google woodpecker grid) which has fantastic weather modification capabilities was turned on Bicentennial weekend July 4th 1976 and has remained on since that time. One can hear it chirping on shortwave radios in the 3 to 30 Mhz range.
Posted by tu3031 2005-09-08 09:55||   2005-09-08 09:55|| Front Page Top

#3 The generators emit a soundwave between three and 30 megahertz and Stevens claims the Russians invented the storm-creating technology back in 1976 and sold it to others in the late 1980s.

Damn, they're onto us...
Posted by Halliburton - Hurricane Division 2005-09-08 10:35||   2005-09-08 10:35|| Front Page Top

#4 Halliburton, stop trying to take credit for the Soviet stuff, okay?
Posted by lotp 2005-09-08 11:02||   2005-09-08 11:02|| Front Page Top

#5 The woodpecker grid (Google woodpecker grid) which has fantastic weather modification capabilities was turned on Bicentennial weekend July 4th 1976 and has remained on since that time. One can hear it chirping on shortwave radios in the 3 to 30 Mhz range.

We've been talking about this sort of stuff over ---->thataway for the past couple of days. I don't know if this is on the same wavelength as the other guy who says the Russians did it with some sort of Ray Gun based on Tesla's Lost/Forgotten/Forbidden (because of course, it'll make oil obsolete) inventions. Of course, that guy has been saying the Russians have been about to destroy us with this stuff for the last twenty years that I know of.

(So, LOTP, these aren't really Russian inventions to begin with; you'd have to start the argument over whether or not they stole them fair and square...)

I intent to write something more in-depth on this in the future, but just as a couple of "quickies:"

* You can zoom in on jpegs (which many satellite image data starts out as these days) and find all sorts of artifacts. You might ask why someone would use a lossy image transmission on a satellite, well, it lets them double or triple the available resolution for the same bandwidth. Of course, a raw image of half the resolution wouldn't have the image artifacts, and would be useful in proving that these image artifacts weren't there, but these satellites are built for scientists interested in looking at the weather, who are already aware of the existance of image artifacts and the like.

The satellites and their instruments aren't built for the express purpose of convincing scientifically subliterate paranoid laymen that the hurricane wasn't caused by evil Russians who entered into a plot with the Zionists, the evil Machivellian Chimphitler Bush and his Dark Master, Darth Chainey of Brown, Root, and the Sith, or the Yakuza... (huh. The Yakuza is a new one to me.) This puts us as a disadvantage.

Here is an exaggerated example showing that jpegs can introduce rectilinear artifacts into an image. It's a weakness of the storage format.

This week's edition of Science.ars at Ars Technica has a neat picture of the hurricane which I hope will explain how the hurricane managed to strengthen while in the gulf, and probably didn't need Russian or Japanese Lost Tesla Scalar Weapons in order to strengthen. Of course you need to know how hurricanes work to begin with.

* I also need to do a refutation to the "hyperdimensional physics" explanation of the storm, as well as a follow-up to last night's first pass at refuting both the "they blew up the levees to try to save the city" rumors and the great Lafayette crime spree rumors. I can't figure out how blowing the levee of the ninth ward would do anything to alleviate flooding elsewhere, for instance...

(Oh, and the Great Lafayette Crime Spree turned out to be fictional.)

I expect by next week there will be three more conspiracy theories out there.
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-09-08 11:39||   2005-09-08 11:39|| Front Page Top

#6 evrywun wants in on em blayme game.
Posted by muck4doo 2005-09-08 12:10|| http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]">[http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]  2005-09-08 12:10|| Front Page Top

#7 It's more than just the blame game. They want people to be disconnected enough from reality that what's true doesn't matter, just the size of the megaphone.

Conspiracy theories about Russian/Yakuza weather machines or exploded levees facilitate this process.
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-09-08 12:24||   2005-09-08 12:24|| Front Page Top

#8 I was driving through Kansas and heard this bullshit on some talk radio that showed up.

Supposedly the Russians sold the technology to Al Qeada so were in the shitstorm. Whatever.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I will say that its very unlikely.

Bin laden will ride a nuke on a tsunami surfboard suicide raid next week if he's really got cajones and a weather machine!

EP
Posted by ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-09-08 12:32||   2005-09-08 12:32|| Front Page Top

#9 I just cehcked. Stevens was on C2C on _Tuesday_ of last week. I wonder if he had everything ready-to-go before the storm even hit.
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-09-08 12:36||   2005-09-08 12:36|| Front Page Top

#10 I know the developer of the USSR's woodpecker radar well enough that I jointly hold a patent with him.

It was a very powerful over the horizon radar! NOTHING MORE!

NOTHING! NADA!

Will kind humane society come forward and put these deranged morons down as the are obviously rabid!
Posted by 3dc 2005-09-08 12:39||   2005-09-08 12:39|| Front Page Top

#11 I thought that Joe Vialls guy died a few months ago.
Posted by Mike 2005-09-08 13:41||   2005-09-08 13:41|| Front Page Top

#12 I thought Art Bell quit. Guess I was wrong; he just changed his name.

And I hope to god this clown is just a meteoroligist who lives in the U.S., not an official U.S. meteoroligist. :-(
Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut  2005-09-08 14:14|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com]  2005-09-08 14:14|| Front Page Top

#13 I wanna hear what JoesphM has to say.....
Posted by Crereth Glolutch7258 2005-09-08 16:19||   2005-09-08 16:19|| Front Page Top

#14 Art Bell is on once or twice a month. As I hinted at in the other thread, I suspect that the management might be trying to reduce the chances of an incident like the big 9-11/Popular Mechanics conspiracy theory debunking show controversy (which we discussed here earlier this year).

(That possibility should have occured to me earlier, but it didn't. Hmm.)
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-09-08 18:19||   2005-09-08 18:19|| Front Page Top

#15 I came across this guy's website a few days ago. Apparently he first started out as a devotee of the "chemtrail" hoax, and later linked it to these Tesla/scalar EM weapons that supposedly exist.

I must admit that I have only rudmentary understanding of science, and I have no mathematics. I've only got my own intuition on this.
I think chemtrails are ridiculous hokum. However, I'm not absolutely sure (but skeptical) that "scalar EM" weapons don't exist. Here's what SecDef Cohen had to say (link)

Part of the problem with getting information on this is that so many folks out there on the internet confuse terminology -- any secret project that involves EM emissions just must to be associated with this, thus the "woodpecker" anachronism. It also must be said that such ideas attract people of a certain bent -- that is to say, people schizoid and schizotypal personality disorders, and just plain hoaxter/jokesters. And if there is some truth to it, we can expect a certain amount of disinformtion about it.

Furthermore, if the scalar-EM theory is true, then it would be itself based on non-standard cosmology. To wit, the "Electric Universe Theory," which, as Phil notes, is itself highly controversial. Apart from scalar-EM weapons, I find the Electric Universe hypothesis more convicing than standard models, in that it removes the need for various band-aids that have cropped up with conventional cosmology such as dark matter we can't see, 11-dimension string theory 4 of which are inacessable, supermassive particles we can't find.

I must admit that I have only rudimentary understanding of science, and no mathematics. I have only my own intuition, and a (healthy?) disregard for authority. I'm always willing to question experts, whether on Iraq-9/11 links or on this stuff.
Posted by Rory B. Bellows 2005-09-08 18:33||   2005-09-08 18:33|| Front Page Top

#16 How did I screw up that paragraph like that?
Posted by Rory B. Bellows 2005-09-08 18:38||   2005-09-08 18:38|| Front Page Top

#17 Rory wrote:
Furthermore, if the scalar-EM theory is true, then it would be itself based on non-standard cosmology. To wit, the "Electric Universe Theory," which, as Phil notes, is itself highly controversial. Apart from scalar-EM weapons, I find the Electric Universe hypothesis more convicing than standard models, in that it removes the need for various band-aids that have cropped up with conventional cosmology such as dark matter we can't see, 11-dimension string theory 4 of which are inacessable, supermassive particles we can't find.


Actually, it depends on which "plasma universe" or "electric universe" theorists one wants to believe. In The Beginning, there was Hannes Alfven, who I think was less interested in creating a substitute unified theory of everything to displace the standard model than in slowly extending his previous theories about electromagnetics and plasmas in space to see what other phenomenon they could explain. In the process he performed a lot of math and numerical modelling. Others interested in his work have started to do their own researches...

...and some people who don't understand the math have come up with their own "Readers' Digest Condensed Version" of Alfven's theories, with less math and less predictions but more Grand Unification of Everything. Which is where I think the Electric Universe people are coming from.

Coincidentally, I also recently wrote a quick post with pointers to pages seeking to refute the Electric Universe models, which you can find here.

And the plot thickens: Slashdot has a post today about The First Results From the Deep Impact Mission. Suprisingly, it doesn't fit the Standard Model. The comet was more of a loosely congealed dustbunny than it was a dirty snowball. OTOH, this doesn't fit what Hoagland and Tom Van Flandern have predicted on the air about what it would turn out to be in their model, which is basically that it was a much more "solid" piece of an exploded planet. Nor does it match, IMHO, McCanney's model of comets as being "powered" by electromagnetic phenomenon.

But I expect either or both of these groups to say one of two things: that since it doesn't match the standard model exactly, that it therefore validates their models (never mind that it doesn't match their predictions either), OR that NASA does have data that validates their models but instead fabricated this data set and published it in the place of the real data.

I am interested in fringe theories, and the like... but for the same reason I find the fringe theories interesting I distrust this particular set of theorists: science is a process, not a collection of correct answers, and the way they present their theories and rewrite them after the fact makes them essentially unfalsifiable. (And therefore outside the process and useless).

(Whew!)
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-09-08 19:06||   2005-09-08 19:06|| Front Page Top

#18 And to save everyone the trouble, the conclusion I had time for:

To be honest, I'm not up to date on the current state-of-the-art in the explanations of the Solar Neutrino Deficit, but based on what I've seen thus far about the electric universe models of the sun, they seem to do precisely what they accuse the standard model of doing: they add another couple layers of turtle's worth of complexity to the situation, without ever saying where the energy is coming from. The nuclear physicists not only have a pretty good idea, but if you're a competent enough electrician/electrical engineer to keep from electrocuting yourself you can demonstrate nuclear fusion on a tabletop with a Farnsworth Fusor. You may not get breakeven but you can at least demonstrate the physical process. (The sun's a lot bigger than the average Farnsworth Fusor, and you won't be able to exploit the proton-proton cycle, but it's the same general concept).
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-09-08 19:11||   2005-09-08 19:11|| Front Page Top

#19 Damn, that's quite an explanation. I just thought the guy was a kook of some sort.... without realizing that so many scientists were kooks of some sort.
Posted by Secret Master 2005-09-08 19:32||   2005-09-08 19:32|| Front Page Top

#20 he’s is convinced it was caused by electromagnetic generators from ground-based microwave transmitters.

Another reason that will be used by the folks who want to make all cold medications perscription only...
Posted by BigEd 2005-09-08 19:45||   2005-09-08 19:45|| Front Page Top

#21 The atmosphere can be influnced by RF emmisions. But no onehas the energy/RF power to do it. Changing or creating weather even slightly is mostly out of reach of existing technology. You need amounts of power that no one has available and if they did they would use it for something else. File this stuff under weather myths.
Posted by Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2005-09-08 19:50||   2005-09-08 19:50|| Front Page Top

#22 Secret Master wrote:
Damn, that's quite an explanation. I just thought the guy was a kook of some sort.... without realizing that so many scientists were kooks of some sort.


Well, while a lot of the above referenced "scientists" are kooks, Alfven was real, and he wasn't a kook.

After you get the Nobel Prize in Physics, you're no longer a kook, you're just eccentric.
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-09-08 19:53||   2005-09-08 19:53|| Front Page Top

#23 Sock, these guys also usually claim the ability to bypass completely the laws of thermodynamics as we know them.

If they could have done that twenty years ago (as many of the tesla scalar people claimed then) the history of the last twenty years would probably look a lot different.
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-09-08 19:55||   2005-09-08 19:55|| Front Page Top

#24 Phil, I like that conclusion you wrote. The astronomical community hasn't been exactly open-minded about this. And then you get the propenents of the theory, who glom onto it with the fervor of the newly-converted. So some of these electric universe folks take things way too far, which sparks still more skepticism from some of the mainstream astronomers. Throw in a few genuine kooks and jokers, and soon both sides are shouting past each other instead of trying to find common ground.

Then you've got the mainstream astronomers holding their celestial mechanics model together with ducttape in the face of all reason, and the folks on the other side arguing that the electric universe is responsible for every phenomenon from the Banjawarn Station incident to Boy Bands. It's something I've seen before. Someone comes up with a new idea, and people aren't generally accepting. Laurie Mylroie, for example, with the Iraq-al Qaeda connections. I think her fundamentals are very good, and I agree with them, but she's taken things too far. (And she may have a large error in her work, too.)

About the comet, specifically, from my understanding (link) the importance isn't the density of the comet but the energy discharge in the explosion, plus the absence of the expected amount of water in the nucleus. What attracts me to electric universe isn't the missing nuetrinos but explaining things like the missing matter problem, and the pioneer anomaly. Simplicity is better. But sometimes the simplest explanation is a connection.
Posted by Rory B. Bellows 2005-09-08 20:22||   2005-09-08 20:22|| Front Page Top

#25 
Phil, I like that conclusion you wrote. The astronomical community hasn't been exactly open-minded about this. And then you get the propenents of the theory, who glom onto it with the fervor of the newly-converted. So some of these electric universe folks take things way too far, which sparks still more skepticism from some of the mainstream astronomers. Throw in a few genuine kooks and jokers, and soon both sides are shouting past each other instead of trying to find common ground.


Well, I don't think there is much common ground. The electric universe people aren't Hannes Alfven, to put it bluntly. They seemed to be making things up.

Then you've got the mainstream astronomers holding their celestial mechanics model together with ducttape in the face of all reason, and the folks on the other side arguing that the electric universe is responsible for every phenomenon from the Banjawarn Station incident to Boy Bands. It's something I've seen before. Someone comes up with a new idea, and people aren't generally accepting. Laurie Mylroie, for example, with the Iraq-al Qaeda connections. I think her fundamentals are very good, and I agree with them, but she's taken things too far. (And she may have a large error in her work, too.)


The thing is, the "Electric Universe" people are making predictions that are turning out to be outright wrong, and/or outright contradicting what we already know about plasma phenomenon and current flows in the solar system. For instance:

About the comet, specifically, from my understanding (link) the importance isn't the density of the comet but the energy discharge in the explosion, plus the absence of the expected amount of water in the nucleus. What attracts me to electric universe isn't the missing nuetrinos but explaining things like the missing matter problem, and the pioneer anomaly. Simplicity is better. But sometimes the simplest explanation is a connection.


First off, your link didn't work. Second, Hoagland, Tom Van Flandern, and McCanney all said that the density of the comet would be higher than the standard model predicts. It was much lower, and composed of rather loosely bound material at the surface.

Loosely bound enough that if the comet were carrying a net electric charge the material would probably be repelled by each other and not be able to hang together as a comet.

Remember what I said earlier, that they'd claim that everything that doesn't match the standard theory would be proof that theirs is right, even if it doesn't match their theory either? There's an example.

Hoagland and Flandern think that comets are fragments of a larger terrestrial planet that broke apart; I have yet to see any model (or math) describing the _process_ as to how it broke apart. Just handwaving. Anyway, as such, they believe that comets are big chunks of rock with little bits of atmosphere and water along for the ride.

McCanney thinks comets eventually turn into regular stony-material or even nickel-iron asteroids.

(Of course, there are other scientists who believe that many asteroids are "dead comets," and DON'T need to postulate the Electric Universe's modifications to physical processes in order to get it to work. Heck, back when I was in college, I was discussing that possibility LONG before McCanney ever went public with his theories.

And his theory isn't NEARLY the only one that can explain a larger-than-usual outburst from the comet.

Frankly, (hah!) Louis Frank's models for comets (and smaller comet fragments) being dust-covered fluffy snowballs accounts for the observed data much more closely than any of the other above mentioned theorists. Incidentally, it's taken him about a decade and a half of wandering through the wilderness to find more and more proof for his theory, but since he doesn't patronize the usual conspiracy theorists or postulate New Physics! noone's ever really heard of him.

Dr. Frank has written a book about the subject, BTW, called The Big Splash. I recommend it highly.

Anyway, this reiterates what I've been trying to say earlier: the EU proponents are not only wrong, but dishonest: they ignore theories besides their own that might explain anomalous observations, and claim all anomalous observations prove their theories whether they really do or not.
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-09-08 21:42||   2005-09-08 21:42|| Front Page Top

#26 I also highly recommend Phil Plait's "Bad Astronomy" website, at http://www.badastronomy.com/.
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-09-08 21:43||   2005-09-08 21:43|| Front Page Top

#27 some of these electric universe folks take things way too far

I wouldn't mind taking things too far. I think that churchians accused Galileo of that exact deed.

I like the electric universe theory myself for the same reasons you state and more. But my beef with some of the adherents is that they don't, in many instances, stipulate what is a certifiable fact and what is pure speculation. They commit the same sins that are so prevalent in the mainstream scientism.
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-09-08 21:48||   2005-09-08 21:48|| Front Page Top

#28 Oh, one little clarification: McCanney claims that comets turn into asteroids of any conceivable type: stony, nickel-iron, chronditic...

Most _other_ scientists who think some asteroids are dead comets restrict themselves to carbonaceous chronditic objects.

An example of this is Phobos; it has a very dry surface, but a very low density consistent with water ice.
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-09-08 21:55||   2005-09-08 21:55|| Front Page Top

#29 give it a rest...
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-09-08 22:02||   2005-09-08 22:02|| Front Page Top

#30 I drove through Roswell last year and Ima purfctly norml. Only thng, Ima canotta makm good fatwas nomo.
Posted by Al-Aska Paul">Al-Aska Paul  2005-09-08 22:13||   2005-09-08 22:13|| Front Page Top

#31 they're fine - you can make Stainless into valves
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-09-08 22:17||   2005-09-08 22:17|| Front Page Top

#32 Sorry, Frank, I got carried away.
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-09-08 22:21||   2005-09-08 22:21|| Front Page Top

#33 :-) I've NEVER done that lol. Actually, I should STFU - I'm the last one to criticize...carry on, my bad
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-09-08 22:37||   2005-09-08 22:37|| Front Page Top

23:52 Curly Howard
23:51 Chris W.
23:14 Moe Howard
23:09 Frank G
22:56 muck4doo
22:55 JosephMendiola
22:55 DMFD
22:54 muck4doo
22:46 3dc
22:41 Frank G
22:40 Frank G
22:39 Al-Aska Paul
22:37 Frank G
22:29 Al-Aska Paul
22:22 mmurray821
22:21 Phil Fraering
22:19 Frank G
22:18 Phil Fraering
22:17 Frank G
22:16 Frank G
22:14 Ptah
22:13 Al-Aska Paul
22:08 Mrs. Davis
22:06 JosephMendiola
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com