SBX-1

[Stellar]

HAARP SBX-1 access to my claim Pdf via this website:

http://voynichcode.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/warfare-against-humanity/

The U.S. Government claims that the naval vessel SBX-1 is for communications and radar missile defense. GPS satellites can detect missile launches; so the SBX-1 may have that capability too, yet rather unnecessary when GPS is already used for that. I know otherwise; this vessel is no other than an earthquake, weather warfare and psychotronic weapons platform for Agenda 21.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

I bet it's for launching devices like this to hunt down people who try to escape from the FEMA village Reagan Bush 41 Bill Clinton Bush 43 Obama ordered built to hold all the undesirables and malcontents.

[attachimg=1]

[Cynnie]

Damn..I thought this said SEX-1 .

[Jackstar]

The U.S. Government claims that the naval vessel SBX-1 is for communications and radar missile defense.

Give it a minute, soon they will be saying that they need it to look for the wreckage of hijacked planes on the ocean floor.

[Jackstar]

Looks familiar.



Kid tested. Mother approved.

[Yorkshire pud]

HAARP SBX-1 access to my claim Pdf via this website:

http://voynichcode.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/warfare-against-humanity/

The U.S. Government claims that the naval vessel SBX-1 is for communications and radar missile defense. GPS satellites can detect missile launches; so the SBX-1 may have that capability too, yet rather unnecessary when GPS is already used for that. I know jack shit; this vessel is no other than an earthquake, weather warfare and psychotronic weapons platform for Agenda 21. it isn't but I feel cool believing any shit I make up. I've never seen what ever it's supposed to do in my life, but it doesn't stop me making up entirely uninformed bullshit.. Strictly speaking it isn't all my doing. I read the crap on CT websites that is made up by equally stupid fools who haven't a clue what it is they're talking about, but seem to know someone on the inside who works for 'them'. They don't, but it means other CT can say 'great work', or 'great research' and they'll feel good about themselves even though they're totally deluded.

FIFY.

No charge.

[Jackstar]

No charge.

That is surely due to the plainly evident fact that your opinions are worthless.



Your first post out of the gate is a blatant ad hominem, that not only isn't relevant, it isn't even funny. Your attitude is representative of what is wrong with the world.

[Yorkshire pud]

Never say I don't think of you. Not often, but on this occasion I'll make an exception. Just for you....

The Tourists - The Loneliest Man In The World (TOTPs 1979)

[Jackstar]

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have  an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

[Yorkshire pud]

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

Oh goody... Checkmate...

We often suffer obsessive conspiracy theorists or (guffaw) 'truth seekers' filling up the boards with fact-free claims, evidence-untroubled epilogues and vast reams of tedious cut'n'paste, invariably regurgitated from some dubious internet site.

We hope this information will be of use if you encounter a conspiraloon while on the boards.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

top

Wikipedia: conspiracy theory guide


1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.

5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.

6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.

Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

7. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.

8. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.

9. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.

10. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.

11. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'

[zeebo]

I bet it's for launching devices like this to hunt down people who try to escape from the FEMA village Reagan Bush 41 Bill Clinton Bush 43 Obama ordered built to hold all the undesirables and malcontents.
[attachimg=1]

I hate that thing, it keeps buggin' me every time I try and get off this crazy island! 

[Jackstar]

Won't you have a wrap?

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

We often suffer obsessive conspiracy theorists or (guffaw) 'truth seekers' filling up the boards with fact-free claims, evidence-untroubled epilogues and vast reams of tedious cut'n'paste, invariably regurgitated from some dubious internet site.

We hope this information will be of use if you encounter a conspiraloon while on the boards.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

That one is a particularly common characteristic.  The typical answer I receive is, "What?  Do you expect me to do your research for you?  I don't have time for that.  Look it up yourself."  Invariably, the person has researched every scrap of information available on the given subject, except, of course, that which challenges his/her assumptions.

[Stellar]

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

Oh goody... Checkmate...

We often suffer obsessive conspiracy theorists or (guffaw) 'truth seekers' filling up the boards with fact-free claims, evidence-untroubled epilogues and vast reams of tedious cut'n'paste, invariably regurgitated from some dubious internet site.

We hope this information will be of use if you encounter a conspiraloon while on the boards.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

top

Wikipedia: conspiracy theory guide


1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.

5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.

6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.

Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

7. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.

8. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.

9. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.

10. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.

11. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'

I guess hit the proverbial HAARP chord in you no pun intended WELL YES intended pud lol

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

I hate that thing, it keeps buggin' me every time I try and get off this crazy island!

Who's side are you on?

The Times - I Helped Patrick McGoohan Escape

Be seeing you....

[Jackstar]

tl; dr

Moving back on topic, is that shot of the radome on top of the mobile ocean platform, an artist's rendition, or is that supposedly a reality shot? It looks pretty fake.

I would expect a real one to have mounted sphinx heads, with rotating laser cannon.

[Yorkshire pud]

That one is a particularly common characteristic.  The typical answer I receive is, "What?  Do you expect me to do your research for you?  I don't have time for that.  Look it up yourself."  Invariably, the person has researched every scrap of information available on the given subject, except, of course, that which challenges his/her assumptions.

I'd also add the comeback when they realise they have nowhere to go: As I've been told I do (on here), and that's whoever comes up with questions the CTer can't actually throw any facts at, always works for one of the alphabet agencies. This begs the question that if I'm as stupid as I'm also alleged to be, why would the CIA, NSA, MI5 et al, want to employ me to put disinfo on websites? That little detail (like so many non sequiturs that CT'ers come out with) seems to remain unanswered.

I do find it amusing though that they tie themselves in knots and then 'forget' to respond to reasonable questions, or corrections they can't refute. And they never ever say they were wrong when they are proven to be so. Another time when they forget to return to a thread.

[Stellar]

I'd also add the comeback when they realise they have nowhere to go: As I've been told I do (on here), and that's whoever comes up with questions the CTer can't actually throw any facts at, always works for one of the alphabet agencies. This begs the question that if I'm as stupid as I'm also alleged to be, why would the CIA, NSA, MI5 et al, want to employ me to put disinfo on websites? That little detail (like so many non sequiturs that CT'ers come out with) seems to remain unanswered.

I do find it amusing though that they tie themselves in knots and then 'forget' to respond to reasonable questions, or corrections they can't refute. And they never ever say they were wrong when they are proven to be so. Another time when they forget to return to a thread.

Wait who me wrong ah you wrong who me wrong ah you wrong oh well let the views decide for itself LMFAO~ goober prism love feel it big brother!!

Sic puppy pud!

Five Finger Death Punch Bad Company Music Video (Generation Kill)

[wr250]

upon closer examination...
[attach=1]

[Stellar]

upon closer examination...
[attach=1]

Who is that wr250?

Avenged Sevenfold - "This Means War" Music Video HD

[wr250]

Who is that wr250?

Avenged Sevenfold - "This Means War" Music Video HD

im astounded that you dont know who that is.

[Jackstar]

im astounded that you don't know who that is.

I con'cur!

[eddie dean]

im astounded that you dont know who that is.

I know right. He's a huge star & a well known international  figure. An international treasure even!
Wait, we are talking about Super Mario aren't we?

[Stellar]

I know right. He's a huge star & a well known international  figure. An international treasure even!
Wait, we are talking about Super Mario aren't we?

lol no seriously

[Stellar]

A feather landing upon water changes the system and oscillations can be seen as tiny ripples moving away from the feather.  When this system changes the entire universe is changed and the effect not seen nor heard affect the most distant planet with a galaxy at the horizon of the universe.

Neutron flux tho unlike the feather can be said to act no different affecting other systems.  People, within this universe change is the mechanism and yes the medium being the universe is affected by everything!

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83219-elf-at-703-hz-resonate-with-igneous-rocks-haarp-2011-quake/
Midnight Oil - Beds Are Burning

[b_dubb]

SBX-1?  Is that the Starbucks orbital coffee platform?

[McPhallus]

I con'cur!

[Jackstar]

In this life, I taught myself to read before the age of three. And, I just taught you how to kiss it.

[Yorkshire pud]

Neutron flux

In your words can you explain what is, what it does and how it does it please?

I fully expect you can't. :

[Yorkshire pud]

I think I should add: Neutron flux isn't a physical object. It isn't even a particle. Now you know that can you explain how neutron flux ties into the context of your previous post? Thanks.

Here's a clue. Think, distance..