rigorousintuition.ca

BPH, I appreciated the thread for it's own sake, still do, and apologise for using it to make a rhetorical point, just too juicy to resist pouring my feelings into. Not least of which: what the fuck happened Tuesday/Wednesday?

Interesting fwiw data...Iran's earthquake activity over the last week (104; 15 on Wednesday, 1/8/20) from a chronicle of daily earthquakes all over the world:

https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/earthquakes/iran.html

No apologies necessary. In reply to this:

Harvey » Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:17 pm wrote:Techtonic guns seem like, overkill, beside the power to do all that.

I'd say "overkill" is an excellent one word description of the MICs MO. We have a new space force, a new generation of nuclear weapons, "big, powerful and lethal" hypersonic missiles in the words of der fuhrer and god really knows what else. As Jack says, if it's feasible they will pursue it, especially if they think other governments are. Their resources are essentially unlimited. I don't think that we will likely discover "what else" here, but coincidences make me suspicious. More later.

https://anonhq.com/did-the-collider-at- ... rthquakes/

There are the CERN-Nepal theories as well. Equal and opposite reaction... or anti-matter force.

JackRiddler » Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:35 pm wrote:.I shall be doggedly agnostic on this. Seems like it should be possible, and of course if it's possible the masters of war want to try it. Let's say it proved feasible and has been developed. Even if it is designed to aim at such well-chosen points that it mostly unleashes potential energy stored in tectonic tension, triggering that would still require a lot of input.

I'm not a seismologist or a geologist or in fact a scientist of any sort. You're probably right. I wonder though if there aren't particular scenarios that require less input to trigger an earthquake. A fault might reach a point of equipoise where it requires very little energy to get the fault to slip. You'd have to know when the fault was ready to slip and it would have to coincide with a separate, uncontrollable timeline or you would have to create those conditions (set a trigger). That seems like a lot of dicking around to create a quake when a few drone strikes would accomplish the same thing. Or would it. Maybe there are other reasons a quake attack is advantageous. It does have the benefit of stealth, unless of course some sort of signature is left, as you suggest. But then your victim is left running around the UN with a tinfoil hat on claiming they are being attacked by tectonic weapons. But let's suppose in fact causing the quakes on demand shortly after the missile attacks would require a shit ton of energy. At least in Iran we have a very seismically active area. The Iranian coastline is where the Eurasian and Arabian plates meet. That would be a prerequisite.

What is the energy source? How would it be possible to hit the required spot without leaving a measurable signature? Or rather, since this is impossible: what is the signature, if it was one of these speculative weapons?

One possible scenario occurs to me. If one could directionally drill access holes to place bombs of sufficient force in the right place relative to the target fault/s that might produce the desired result or not. It's interesting that Chavez thought it was a US Navy weapon that had induced the Haiti quake. There are no international waters in the Persian Gulf, but we have the fifth fleet deployed there. If you do a google maps satellite view of Iran's nuclear reactor you can see how close it is to the coastline. And if there was anywhere in the world where you have state of the art drilling expertise it would be the middle east. The quakes on Jan 8th might have been a total failure. If their intent was to cause damage as opposed to a proof of concept threat then they were a failure.

Or fuck man, I dunno. Maybe it is some super secret directed energy weapon, that magically leaves no trace. It's what god uses when he wants to punish the gays.

I have not read all the various links posted in the thread so far. Maybe I'll find something plausible.

Joe Hillshoist » Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:17 am wrote:

JackRiddler » 10 Jan 2020 10:24 wrote:Sure, if it's thinkable, they will look into whether it's possible, and if it seems feasible, they will sink money into it, and see where that takes them. I mean, obviously. Militaries made the atom bomb, invented poison gas and concentration camps, burn millions of acres of grain, burn millions of people, plan invasions of everywhere and genocides of everyone as contingencies. Of course they'd want an earthquake gun. But whether it's doable, right now, I can't help doubting, especially when those who think it's already happening aren't up to the task of telling us what the signature would be. Because whatever it is, it needs to transmit ENERGY. It would have a signature. The only definite earthquake gun I can think of has a signature, it's called a nuclear weapon, and I've been thinking testing in non earthquake zones probably has been setting off later earthquakes at the fault lines as collateral damage.

So, allegedly it works by interferometry.

Two waves that are acting as carrier signals for "energy" (in the physics sense) collapse each other releasing the energy.

The energy is the form of some structure made up of equal and opposite vectors of energy that have a net scalar value of zero.

The collapse of the signal carrier destroys the structure with net scalar value of zero by eliminating one of the vectors keeping it balanced at zero. The remaining energy is released into the immediate environment.

I dunno if that's 100% right either.

There's a lot about it that is sketchy and I dunno if it's physically possible to do it.

There's pages of maths put out by a sketchy character Et in Arcadia Ego and I had come across seperately. If this is a real thing the only way to accurately describe it is with maths. But I'm not that into maths.

Ok. So I've spent a few hours reading about scalar weapons. Three times I've had a dozen windows open. This is all ringing bells now. I've been down this rabbit hole before and it's all very entertaining. I remember thinking the technobabble was just legitimate sounding enough that as a layperson I couldn't dismiss it out of hand and finally giving up and then researching the debunkers to see if they could explain why Beardon is a whacko spouting gibberish. I concluded that Beardon is a whacko spouting gibberish. A telltale sign of such gibberish is that it is insular and non-falsifiable. If you're not basing your theory on evidence then you can just make any shit up you want. Which, if done well, can be very entertaining.

Which is not to say that the MIC has not found a way to weaponize the covert transmission of power without traditional infrastructure. That certainly seems like it would be a pretty handy capability to have.

I ran across the following video:



Which reminded me of when I was a kid and I discovered that I could push over very large dead trees. I lived in Georgia at the time and spent a lot of time in the woods which consisted mostly of pines trees. I started with smaller trees, which were pretty easily pushed over. When I tried to push over larger trees I initially felt that pushing with all my might had no effect. But if I looked up at the top of the tree I could see that it moved in response to my pushing. I then began feeling the response of the tree with my hands more carefully and realized that it was moving ever so slightly, even at the height of my hands. I could feel this pulse of energy as it traveled up the trunk and back down to the base of the tree. I then began to time my pushes so as to maintain that energy and add to it with each push. Each tree would have it's own unique frequency. This would take quite some time, but I could push over 40 foot trees. The top of the tree would sway and oscillate with greater and greater amplitude with each push until roots would begin to crack. I stopped doing this once I got to trees that either would be dangerous as fuck to push over or that I just couldn't generate enough energy to get swaying.

As an aside, does anyone else feel the CNN article in the OP, at least the part I excerpt, is written in a way that leads the reader to wonder if the quakes were natural or not?

The militaries of the world didn't just make atom bombs or weaponized anthrax. They have literally endeavored to engineer humans without sympathy and compassion as to make them more efficient killers. Take a look at the Russians sadistic experiment to create a soldier who didn't need sleep. It's not for the faint of heart. And we have given them carte blanche by allowing our fears to supersede logic. Hancock says it's psychotic to think wars are normal. Guess it takes decades of subversion to remove compassion from humanity.

Just happened to be reading some old articles by John Keel, and came across this, which – while not altogether nullifying the speculations put forth in the material quoted in my previous post here – does provide some additional context for them :

PRE-EARTHQUAKE PHENOMENA (OCTOBER 1973)

One of the things that interested Charles Fort was
the occurrence of various phenomena preceding
earthquakes, almost invariably dismissed by the
“experts” as being “unrelated” to the quake.
Despite this, the common man has continued to
report such things as glows in the skies, odd dark
clouds, etc., before earthquakes. This has now
become almost “respectable,” because of the near
necessity for finding some way to predict
earthquakes, so that at least some precautions can
be taken, or arrangements made to provide relief
for the victims afterwards.


A recent earthquake in Mexico was preceded by
flashing red glows, similar to “heat lightning,” and
sounds of thunder in a clear blue sky. White
flashes were seen after the quake.

Soviet scientists studying the 1966 earthquake that
wrecked Tashkent have announced that the sky
there did glow for several hours before the quake,
and that the cause was a “redistribution of electric
charges in the earth-atmosphere system.”

Electron concentrations were measured at stations
at Alma Ata and Tashkent the night of the quake.
The ionosphere over Alma Ata was found to be
“calm,” but over Tashkent “a silent storm of
electrons” broke out several hours before the
quake, reached its peak before the first tremor,
and then subsided.

[...]

Some very bizarre
and measurable phenomena occurred before the
earthquake that hit Hawaii on the 26th of April
1973 – so bizarre that one scientist said, “It’s too
much like Buck Rogers; we have no explanation
for it yet.”

About an hour before the earthquake struck Hilo
(on Hawaii Island, some 200 miles southeast of
Oahu) the radiowave-reflecting layer of the
ionosphere some 50 miles up “suddenly
disappeared – that is, for some odd reason, the
layer did not reflect radiowaves sent up from the
ground.”

And the Navy’s “Omega Navigational System,”
producing long wavelength (ELF) radio signals to
guide ships far at sea, “began drifting and not
making any sense.” “Omega” hit its maximum drift
just about the time the quake occurred, and then
began to recover; and the ionosphere again began
reflecting radiowaves immediately after the quake.
Discovery that the ionosphere went “missing” was
a serendipitous outcome of studies set up to try to
provide an early-warning system for tsunamis (tidal
waves).

Major tsunamis are commonly preceded by a
particular type of earthquake shockwave – called
Rayleigh waves – which are detectable in the
atmosphere as well as in the ground, and it was
these Rayleigh waves that the observatory at Oahu
(which discovered the “missing ionosphere”) was
looking for. They can be detected by special radio
signals, and it was these that failed to return from
the ionosphere.

The Hawaii earthquake was also abnormal in that
tremors at Oahu continued to be recorded for two
hours, instead of the usual 30 to 45 minutes. The
reason for this is unknown. To date, so far as we
know, there has been no published speculation on
just what happened here, or why.

The widespread reports of flashing lights in the
sky prior to earthquakes may indicate that
“electron storms” are a common event in
conjunction with earthquakes. In the articles
available, there is no mention of such before the
Hawaiian quake, but obviously, something went
“wrong” with the ionosphere.

On the other hand, it would appear that the
ionosphere over Tashkent, though disturbed, did
not disappear before or during the 1966 quake.
Nevertheless, there now seems to be no question
that there are unusual atmospheric concomitants to
earthquakes, and we would suggest that scientists
pay more attention to reports from “natives”
regarding bizarre effects preceding or following
earthquakes.

So there is a known seismic - ionospheric relationship; is it impossible that causal factors could originate at either end, and – if ascertained as being even remotely possible – that this would most certainly have been explored to the fullest extent possible by TPTB (and, needless to add, that the fruits of such research would be subject to the utmost secrecy)? Not saying they can or can't do it at this time, or that even if they can, that this was done in the case at hand, but we definitely can't rule out the possibility that it is now a tool in the arsenal.

A telltale sign of such gibberish is that it is insular and non-falsifiable. If you're not basing your theory on evidence then you can just make any shit up you want. Which, if done well, can be very entertaining.

Which is not to say that the MIC has not found a way to weaponize the covert transmission of power without traditional infrastructure. That certainly seems like it would be a pretty handy capability to have.

How does one go about attempting to falsify – i.e. reveal as unworkable utter nonsense – technologies whose details (and even whose very existence) cannot be made public?

The U.S. Government’s Secret Inventions
Secrecy orders allow U.S. defense agencies to control patents, including those that are privately developed.

By Arvind Dilawar
May 09, 2018


If you look through the U.S. Patent Office’s online database, you’ll find some head-scratching proposals for inventions: for a plan to stack airplane passengers on top of one another, for the process of taking a picture of something on a white background, for chocolate-covered ice-cream bars.

But as of 2017, according to statistics reported by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and published by the Federation of American Scientists, there were 5,784 patents that you can’t see. They’re the U.S. government’s cache of inventions under “secrecy orders.” We don’t know what they’re for, but once-secret patents recently made public have included a laser-tracking system, a warhead-production method, an anti–radar-jamming apparatus, and a stronger net.

Invention secrecy in the U.S. dates back to at least the 1930s, but it really took off in the ’40s, when the development of nuclear weapons was shrouded in classification. It became official policy in 1952 with the Invention Secrecy Act, which allows USPTO to keep patents deemed “detrimental to the national security” on lockdown. Under the act, USPTO’s commissioner of patents became empowered to flag patent applications—even those developed by private citizens—for review by government defense agencies, which could request that certain inventions be kept secret. Patents covered by such “secrecy orders” may be restricted from export, made available only to defense agencies, or even classified. Patent holders can appeal secrecy orders, but the power to rescind those orders remains in the hands of the agencies that made the requests. While there may be a chance those agencies will reconsider, the statistics aren’t promising: According to figures from the Federation of American Scientists, from 2013 through 2017, an average of 25 old secrecy orders were rescinded each year—while 117 new secrecy orders were imposed annually. With so many inventions deemed secret, so few eventually publicized, and the entire process itself obfuscated in classifications, it’s no wonder that critics have questioned whether the current invention-secrecy regime is really working properly.

FAS has been dogging the patent-secrecy system for three decades now. Founded in 1945 as the Federation of Atomic Scientists by the engineers of the Manhattan Project, the organization was originally formed to promote nuclear disarmament. As time passed, it renamed itself the Federation of American Scientists and expanded its scope to address additional issues, like chemical weapons, arms sales, and government secrecy in general. In the ’80s, when the Reagan administration and the National Security Agency sought to limit discussion of cryptography using invention secrecy, FAS entered the fray, successfully fighting off government censorship and tracking the USPTO’s secrecy activity ever since.

At heart, the contention with invention secrecy is not that it should be abolished, but that it needs to stop being so overused. At best, government agencies err on the side of caution and impose secrecy orders on patents that present even the slightest threats to national security. At worst, bureaucrats mindlessly impose secrecy orders and then forget about them, because that’s simpler than carefully considering the implications of new technologies becoming public. Either way, potentially useful or even revolutionary information is kept from the public, and the only recourse is to ask the government to reconsider.

FAS acting President Steven Aftergood points to two particular examples that illustrate issues with the current invention-secrecy regime. The first is solar panels. An initially classified document from 1971 reveals that the Army, the Air Force, and NASA all considered “solar photovoltaic generators” possibly worth restricting. “While these might potentially have military applications for space systems, they could obviously also have significant nonmilitary applications,” says Aftergood.

The second example is much more banal but better indicative of how absurd the system can be. Defense agencies periodically rescind secrecy orders, therefore allowing previously restricted patents to be publicly issued. In 2000, USPTO finally issued a patent that was filed back in 1936. And what was the invention so threatening to national security that it couldn’t be made public for 64 years? A cryptograph used to manually code and decode messages—technology that was decades out-of-date by 2000. “It’s historically interesting, but hardly breathtaking,” says Aftergood.

Two inventors have recently pushed back against this system in a civil case. In 2014, husband and wife Budimir and Desanka Damnjanovic filed a suit against the Air Force, the Department of Defense, and their respective secretaries after the couple’s (now-issued) patent for an anti–heat-seeking-missile measure became subject to two secrecy orders. While the Damnjanovics successfully settled their case in 2015 for $63,000, Aftergood notes that “those sorts of protests are unusual.”

FAS is currently trying to get more information about the process behind invention secrecy—rather than the inventions themselves—but even these details are guarded. “We have attempted to obtain the current invention-secrecy-review criteria that would shed light on current invention topics of security interest or concern, but we have not yet succeeded,” says Aftergood. USPTO confirms this, stating that, on top of patents being withheld for national security, “the criteria is also held under national security.”

Aftergood believes that this buffering of government secrecy with additional government secrecy is more knee-jerk than nefarious. While he admits that sometimes secrecy is deliberately applied for political advantage, “More often, it is a bureaucratic reflex that is more or less unconscious.” It seems that, for government agencies with classified rubber stamps, every subject’s a secret.

brainpanhandler » 12 Jan 2020 00:54 wrote:

Joe Hillshoist » Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:17 am wrote:

JackRiddler » 10 Jan 2020 10:24 wrote:Sure, if it's thinkable, they will look into whether it's possible, and if it seems feasible, they will sink money into it, and see where that takes them. I mean, obviously. Militaries made the atom bomb, invented poison gas and concentration camps, burn millions of acres of grain, burn millions of people, plan invasions of everywhere and genocides of everyone as contingencies. Of course they'd want an earthquake gun. But whether it's doable, right now, I can't help doubting, especially when those who think it's already happening aren't up to the task of telling us what the signature would be. Because whatever it is, it needs to transmit ENERGY. It would have a signature. The only definite earthquake gun I can think of has a signature, it's called a nuclear weapon, and I've been thinking testing in non earthquake zones probably has been setting off later earthquakes at the fault lines as collateral damage.

So, allegedly it works by interferometry.

Two waves that are acting as carrier signals for "energy" (in the physics sense) collapse each other releasing the energy.

The energy is the form of some structure made up of equal and opposite vectors of energy that have a net scalar value of zero.

The collapse of the signal carrier destroys the structure with net scalar value of zero by eliminating one of the vectors keeping it balanced at zero. The remaining energy is released into the immediate environment.

I dunno if that's 100% right either.

There's a lot about it that is sketchy and I dunno if it's physically possible to do it.

There's pages of maths put out by a sketchy character Et in Arcadia Ego and I had come across seperately. If this is a real thing the only way to accurately describe it is with maths. But I'm not that into maths.

Ok. So I've spent a few hours reading about scalar weapons. Three times I've had a dozen windows open. This is all ringing bells now. I've been down this rabbit hole before and it's all very entertaining. I remember thinking the technobabble was just legitimate sounding enough that as a layperson I couldn't dismiss it out of hand and finally giving up and then researching the debunkers to see if they could explain why Beardon is a whacko spouting gibberish. I concluded that Beardon is a whacko spouting gibberish. A telltale sign of such gibberish is that it is insular and non-falsifiable. If you're not basing your theory on evidence then you can just make any shit up you want. Which, if done well, can be very entertaining.

Which is not to say that the MIC has not found a way to weaponize the covert transmission of power without traditional infrastructure. That certainly seems like it would be a pretty handy capability to have.

I ran across the following video:



Which reminded me of when I was a kid and I discovered that I could push over very large dead trees. I lived in Georgia at the time and spent a lot of time in the woods which consisted mostly of pines trees. I started with smaller trees, which were pretty easily pushed over. When I tried to push over larger trees I initially felt that pushing with all my might had no effect. But if I looked up at the top of the tree I could see that it moved in response to my pushing. I then began feeling the response of the tree with my hands more carefully and realized that it was moving ever so slightly, even at the height of my hands. I could feel this pulse of energy as it traveled up the trunk and back down to the base of the tree. I then began to time my pushes so as to maintain that energy and add to it with each push. Each tree would have it's own unique frequency. This would take quite some time, but I could push over 40 foot trees. The top of the tree would sway and oscillate with greater and greater amplitude with each push until roots would begin to crack. I stopped doing this once I got to trees that either would be dangerous as fuck to push over or that I just couldn't generate enough energy to get swaying.

Bearded was working for an oil company when he did all that bullshit too. These days I think it had more to do with agw denial than anything else.

identity » Sat Jan 11, 2020 5:42 pm wrote: How does one go about attempting to falsify – i.e. reveal as unworkable utter nonsense – technologies whose details (and even whose very existence) cannot be made public?

Well yes, exactly. We could argue about whether my original assertion, "Tectonic weapons exist and were used to produce these quakes in Iran in response to the rocket attacks.", is technically non-falsifiable or not. I'd say it is for all practical intents and purposes, since there really isn't any evidence to evaluate. Is it a testable assertion? Well, yes, I suppose, theoretically. And we should be able to make predictions based on the statement, if we had more evidence. But I can't really seem to answer Jack's question of what the signature looks like except in the broadest of terms, like, energy of some sort has to be used on demand at a specific time and location and ideally, that event differentiates itself from natural processes. Really, my original claim is based on a suspicion, a paranoid intuition, that the timing of the quakes relative to the rocket attacks and the importance of the location were signs that the theoretical tectonic weapons exist and were used. I haven't seen any other evidence of any real merit about those particular events. There is no energy signature that I am aware of and nothing stands out as being vaguely, let alone definitively, not natural. But that shouldn't keep us from conjecturing and looking for that evidence, because surely the MIC wants such a weapon and I would wager if they don't have it they are still trying to develop it. Even if for no other reason than that earthquakes can release orders of magnitude more destruction than just about anything militaries can do. And after all, if there is no God, then how are we supposed to have a proper Great Tribulation?

Study offers explanation for earthquakes setting off distant quakes
SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
by Bob Yirka , Phys.org

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with Second University of Naples has developed a model that may help explain how it is that some earthquakes set off other earthquakes up to a thousand miles away. In their paper published in Physical Review Letters, the team describes how they constructed a physical model, watched how it behaved under stress and then came up with their theory.

Earthquakes, as most everyone knows, happen when compressed rock slides against other rock along a fault line—but what researchers have struggled to understand is how or why some earthquakes seem to cause other earthquakes to occur, that are too far away to be chalked up to mere ground vibrations.

To better understand what happens, the researchers set up some rocks in their laboratory, with some round granules between them—then applied pressure. As the rocks finally slipped, mimicking a real earthquake, the team recorded what happened with the grains between them. They found that they emitted acoustic waves. Next, they tried a similar experiment, but this time, broadcast a variety of acoustic waves in the vicinity of the grains—doing so revealed that for certain frequencies, the acoustic waves caused what the team describes as "lathering" where fluid-like motion occurred resulting in a sudden reduction in friction, causing the rocks on either side to slide against one another earlier than they would have otherwise. And that, the researchers suggest, might be what happens when one earthquake sets off another a long distance away—the sound waves created by one earthquake travel long distances to another site, cause the grains in a fault line they encounter to lather, and that is what sets off another earthquake. The lathering occurs, the researchers suggest, due to waves bouncing back and forth inside a fault.

The results beg the question: Why don't all earthquakes set off lots of other earthquakes in distant places? The answer, the team notes lies in the frequency of the acoustics waves—lathering only occurs for any given fault line within a certain narrow frequency range, and the impact they have will depend on the state of other fault lines—they have to be near ready to slip on their own.

The idea put forth by the team should not be too difficult to study in real situations, as acoustic recordings that occur in the vicinity of earthquakes could be compared with those captured at distant sites that have what appear to be, related seismic events.

https://phys.org/news/2015-09-explanati ... uakes.html

'Melting rock' models predict mechanical origins of earthquakes
JANUARY 17, 2020
by Duke University

Engineers at Duke University have devised a model that can predict the early mechanical behaviors and origins of an earthquake in multiple types of rock. The model provides new insights into unobservable phenomena that take place miles beneath the Earth's surface under incredible pressures and temperatures, and could help researchers better predict earthquakes—or even, at least theoretically, attempt to stop them.

The results appear online on January 17 in the journal Nature Communications.

"Earthquakes originate along fault lines deep underground where extreme conditions can cause chemical reactions and phase transitions that affect the friction between rocks as they move against one another," said Hadrien Rattez, a research scientist in civil and environmental engineering at Duke. "Our model is the first that can accurately reproduce how the amount of friction decreases as the speed of the rock slippage increases and all of these mechanical phenomena are unleashed."

For three decades, researchers have built machines to simulate the conditions of a fault by pushing and twisting two discs of rock against one another. These experiments can reach pressures of up to 1450 pounds per square inch and speeds of one meter per second, which is the fastest underground rocks can travel. For a geological reference point, the Pacific tectonic plate moves at about 0.00000000073 meters per second.

"In terms of ground movement, these speeds of one meter per second are incredibly fast," said Manolis Veveakis, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Duke. "And remember that friction is synonymous with resistance. So if the resistance drops to zero, the object will move abruptly. This is an earthquake."

In these experiments, the surface of the rocks either begins to turn into a sort of gel or to melt, lowering the coefficient of friction between them and making their movement easier. It's been well established that as the speed of these rocks relative to one another increases to one meter per second, the friction between them drops like a rock, you might say, no matter the type. But until now, nobody had created a model that could accurately reproduce these behaviors.

In the paper, Rattez and Veveakis describe a computational model that takes into account the energy balance of all the complicated mechanical processes taking place during fault movement. They incorporate weakening mechanisms caused by heat that are common to all types of rock, such as mineral decomposition, nanoparticle lubrication and melting as the rock undergoes a phase change.

After running all of their simulations, the researchers found that their new model accurately predicts the drop in friction associated with the entire range of fault speeds from experiments on all available rock types including halite, silicate and quartz.

Because the model works well for so many different types of rock, it appears to be a general model that can be applied to most situations, which can reveal new information about the origins of earthquakes. While researchers can't fully recreate the conditions of a fault, models such as this can help them extrapolate to higher pressures and temperatures to get a better understanding of what is happening as a fault builds toward an earthquake.

"The model can give physical meaning to observations that we usually cannot understand," Rattez said. "It provides a lot of information about the physical mechanisms involved, like the energy required for different phase transitions."

"We still cannot predict earthquakes, but such studies are necessary steps we need to take in order to get there," said Veveakis. "And in theory, if we could interfere with a fault, we could track its composition and intervene before it becomes unstable. That's what we do with landslides. But, of course, fault lines are 20 miles underground, and we currently don't have the drilling capacity to go there."

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-mechanica ... uakes.html

https://uaf.edu/news/haarp-to%20begin-l ... vatory.php

HAARP to begin largest set of experiments at its new observatory

Oct. 17, 2022

Bouncing a signal off the moon.

Learning more about a mysterious polar light.

Sending a beam to Jupiter.

Those are just some of the 13 experiments for a packed 10 days of science beginning Wednesday at the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program

brainpanhandler » Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:28 pm wrote:

identity » Sat Jan 11, 2020 5:42 pm wrote: How does one go about attempting to falsify – i.e. reveal as unworkable utter nonsense – technologies whose details (and even whose very existence) cannot be made public?

Well yes, exactly. We could argue about whether my original assertion, "Tectonic weapons exist and were used to produce these quakes in Iran in response to the rocket attacks.", is technically non-falsifiable or not. I'd say it is for all practical intents and purposes, since there really isn't any evidence to evaluate. Is it a testable assertion? Well, yes, I suppose, theoretically. And we should be able to make predictions based on the statement, if we had more evidence. But I can't really seem to answer Jack's question of what the signature looks like except in the broadest of terms, like, energy of some sort has to be used on demand at a specific time and location and ideally, that event differentiates itself from natural processes. Really, my original claim is based on a suspicion, a paranoid intuition, that the timing of the quakes relative to the rocket attacks and the importance of the location were signs that the theoretical tectonic weapons exist and were used. I haven't seen any other evidence of any real merit about those particular events. There is no energy signature that I am aware of and nothing stands out as being vaguely, let alone definitively, not natural. But that shouldn't keep us from conjecturing and looking for that evidence, because surely the MIC wants such a weapon and I would wager if they don't have it they are still trying to develop it. Even if for no other reason than that earthquakes can release orders of magnitude more destruction than just about anything militaries can do. And after all, if there is no God, then how are we supposed to have a proper Great Tribulation?

If you're lurking out there BPH, here's Romanian senator Diana Sosoaca addressing the Romanian parliament, I think, and accusing the US of causing the Turkey/Syria earthquakes via HAARP:

https://rumble.com/v29af4c-senator-soso ... o-die.html

If we look carefully at the map of Turkey, we will see that it is furrowed by gas and oil pipelines… 10 seconds before the occurrence of the earthquake, the Turks closed off these pipelines. In addition, 24 hours before the earthquake, 10 countries withdrew their ambassadors from Turkey. 5 days before its occurrence, the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a travel warning for Romanian citizens in Turkey… as did other countries.

The Turkish secret services are investigating a possible “criminal intervention”.

If you know of any good online resources as an introduction to the subject, I'd appreciate it.

https://noagendasocial.com/@Rdwicker/109939916080871760
US military Tectonic Weapons?