Randi Rhodes Message Board > Anybody here recall HURRICANE ERIN?

jammonius

May 22 2008, 07:41 AM

QUOTE (Libertas @ May 21 2008, 09:26 PM)

This September 11, 2001 image from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument on board the Terra satellite features the northeastern United States coast. The image shows Hurricane Erin lingering in the Atlantic Ocean approximately 500 miles away from New York.

Goddard Space Flight Center

SeaWiFS on board the Orbview 2 satellite captured these September 11 and 12 images of the Northeast United States. The September 11 & 12 pictures shows a clear day around the US, although hurricane Erin is lingering about 500 miles off the northeast coast.

Goddard Space Flight Center
Goddard Space Flight Center

libertas,

By the way, I think Dr Wood has posted up some excellent independent research on Erin and Katrina, showing that by some measures Erin was stronger than Katrina was. Also, I seem to recall that when Katrina actually hit land, well to the east of N.O., it was a Category 2 hurricane. Is that your recollection?

See: http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/erin/erin2.html

Libertas

May 22 2008, 10:49 AM

QUOTE (jammonius @ May 21 2008, 11:28 PM)

Thanks for the data. You might have indicated that a Category 2 hurricane has winds of over 100mph and if one were to hit NYC, it wouldn't be a cakewalk (neither of the fruit variety, nor any other cake style).

Erin didn't hit NYC
it was 500 miles out to sea and moving east, away from the city.
so yeah.... it was a cake walk.

Libertas

May 22 2008, 10:50 AM

QUOTE (jammonius @ May 22 2008, 08:06 AM)

libertas,

By the way, I think Dr Wood has posted up some excellent independent research on Erin and Katrina, showing that by some measures Erin was stronger than Katrina was. Also, I seem to recall that when Katrina actually hit land, well to the east of N.O., it was a Category 2 hurricane. Is that your recollection?

See: http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/erin/erin2.html

My recollection... Katrina didn't hit NYC on 9/11
neither did Erin.

Libertas

May 22 2008, 10:51 AM

if judy wood comes up with anything else, let us know.

Libertas

May 22 2008, 10:53 AM

QUOTE (jammonius @ May 21 2008, 11:02 PM)

The nutty fruitcake poster, hannibal, (the foregoing is a fully accurate statement), see post #36, may take delight in name calling and so may you. However, the nutty fruitcake poster, hannibal, posted his comment this afternoon. I wonder how much of Dr. Wood's information on Erin he had even read by then, let alone understood?

By the way, the court system generally reviews information submitted carefully and with painstaking precision. I think that that is what Dr. Wood is relying on.

hows that case going... any progress?

Libertas

May 22 2008, 10:54 AM

QUOTE (jammonius @ May 22 2008, 08:02 AM)

Well, poster of the nutty fruitcake, hannibal, you have very pleasantly surprised me. I am truly impressed. Here's why: The following query of yours is highly prescient:

Therein lies the question that actually needs answering. However, right here, at the very beginning, hannibal, a choice probably needs to be made. If you're asking for purposes of laying a foundation for scorn and for ridicule, then I must rrespectfully decline to serve as 'straight man' in an ensuing game. If, on the other hand, you'd like to engage in a joint query, joined in by other posters, perhaps, then I'll engage.

The process I'd be willing to engage in would entail a search for answers, not the typical 'oneupsmanship' message board approach of seeing who can prove the other to be wrong, idiotic, etc. I haven't any interest in that.

One hint that I can give at this point to help you decide whether you want to 'play' the way I'm proposing or not is: free energy. Google it, then you can post whether the subject is something you'd like to engage in cooperative research on, or not.

then you're on the wrong message board.

jammonius

May 22 2008, 11:02 AM

QUOTE (Libertas @ May 22 2008, 11:16 AM)

if judy wood comes up with anything else, let us know.

OK, I relent. I won't respond to any other post of yours pertaining to or about Judy Wood. I get it. Her work and her observations are not to your liking. You do not accredit her as a scientist and you do see your way clear to taking her work seriously. It is easy to understand that that is what you intend based on the way you purposefully engaged in complete and total obfuscation of the comparisons that were offered in connection with Erin and Katrina.

And, there's no reason why you need to take her work seriously. She espouses a point of view that is controversial, to say the least. Also, if what she contends is in any way true, then it would lead people to have to virtually abandon a lot of dearly held and highly cherished assumptions.

In connection with hurricane Erin, however, the information presented is almost exclusively data. As such, it might be of interest to some. I have extended an invitation to hannibal to discuss the matter, so long as it's not done for purposes of ridicule and I don't know yet whether he's willing to engage. We'll see.

Libertas

May 22 2008, 11:08 AM

QUOTE (jammonius @ May 22 2008, 11:27 AM)

OK, I relent. I won't respond to any other post of yours pertaining to or about Judy Wood. I get it. Her work and her observations are not to your liking. You do not accredit her as a scientist and you do see your way clear to taking her work seriously. It is easy to understand that that is what you intend based on the way you purposefully engaged in complete and total obfuscation of the comparisons that were offered in connection with Erin and Katrina.

And, there's no reason why you need to take her work seriously. She espouses a point of view that is controversial, to say the least. Also, if what she contends is in any way true, then it would lead people to have to virtually abandon a lot of dearly held and highly cherished assumptions.

In connection with hurricane Erin, however, the information presented is almost exclusively data. As such, it might be of interest to some. I have extended an invitation to hannibal to discuss the matter, so long as it's not done for purposes of ridicule and I don't know yet whether he's willing to engage. We'll see.

whatever...

socrates

Jun 4 2008, 10:58 AM

QUOTE (Libertas @ May 21 2008, 10:16 AM)

apparently the space based destructor ray of unimaginable power theory didn't work....
sooo, I guess Wood is going try and link the HAARP conspiracy to her theories

Maybe you worded this wrong, but HAARP isn't a conspiracy theory. It has the power to move weather and is not the only station with this ability to tinker with the ionisphere and electro-jet.

HAARP, Atmospheric Research - The Big Players Involved

As for this Judy Wood, it is a potential can of worms I don't have the time to figure out.

socrates

Jun 4 2008, 11:15 AM

QUOTE (Seeker1 @ May 21 2008, 09:26 PM)

It's an interesting document. I pored over it. Seems like a wishlist of what the Air Force hopes to be capable of doing by 2025, rather than a statement of existing capabilities.

Control of precipitation isn't anything new; cloudseeding for rain with silver oxide I think goes back to the 1930s, IIRC. There's a lot in there about how they hope to be able to either generate or dissipate rain and cloud cover in an area preceding an airstrike ... I can see why they would want to pursue that capability, either to hinder an enemy airforce or ease the access of their own.

I can't find anything in there where they state they are even trying to direct hurricanes or harness their energy by 2025. Can you?

That may not be mentioned in the document, but there is plenty in there where the military admits to their goals of mastering environmental modification techniques despite them being outlawed.

{on edit- I found an image from the report where hurricanes are mentioned- that can be seen below.}

Have folks heard of Dyn-o-mat? Efforts are being made to maintain the status quo, imho, through attempts to play God with the atmosphere. Unfortunately for them, there are pesky legal and social implications.

Dyn-O-Gel and the Frankenstein Sciences

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

Environmental warfare

Here are a few screenshots from the owning the weather 2025 document:

Here's one where hurricanes are mentioned.

Sharkie

Jun 4 2008, 07:28 PM

The US has a new weapon, its called HAARP and it don't play the kind of music you can dance to

Check this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFttsnRHzVE

who

Jun 4 2008, 08:41 PM

QUOTE (Sharkie @ Jun 4 2008, 07:53 PM)

The US has a new weapon, its called HAARP and it don't play the kind of music you can dance to

Check this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFttsnRHzVE

HAARP is a fact, so are lasers and fourth generation nuclear weapons. Highly informative video. It is alway thrilling to be reminded that Oppenheimer and his friends had no idea whether their new toy would ignite the atmosphere.