Dead Fish

paladius

paladius

Temporal Navigator
tell me what you think....

Millions dead fish, MD. http://cbs3.com/local/Fish.Dead.Ashore.2.1855306.html

Millions dead fish, Bolivia http://www.boliviabella.com/millions-of-fish.html

1000's dead fish, N.C. http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/08/14/629157/nc-biologist-says-dead-fish-likely.html

1000's dead fish, IL. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-fishloss-lasallel,0,5635190.story

1000;s dead fish, MA. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/08/10/thousands_of_fish_wash_up_in_fairhaven/

100's dead fish, MS. http://www.earthboppin.net/talkshop/disasters/messages/3361.html

I know one event is explained as high heat, another explained as extreme cold, another explained as Gulf Oil dispersant, but none of those explanations explain why all these events have happened in the span of 1 week and why no similar events have happened in the Eastern Hemisphere.

WHat is interesting is how these events are opposite the globe where dramatic weather events are happening (Russia and Pakastan)
 
I would say that your dead fish are decreasing in orders of magnitude, which is probably good news if you happen to be a fish.
 
I guess we could test the theory when/if we see broad areas of extreme weather and look opposite on the globe for aquatic animal deaths.
 
I guess we could test the theory when/if we see broad areas of extreme weather and look opposite on the globe for aquatic animal deaths.
Click to expand...

Not if you wanted to be scientific and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. The problem relates to the fact that you did not formulate a real theory above. At best you implied a loose association between cause and effect. You did not even attempt to specify a mechanism behind it, and such a mechanism would be a necessary part of a true theory from which quantifiable measures on that mechanism could be identified and used to formulate an experimental design.

Since I am an engineer, not a theoretical scientist, my recitation of the rigors of theory and experimental design might be somewhat off, but Darby could certainly check what I state above. There are probably other pre-reqs that I have not covered. Such as: How would you designate a control group which could really be controlled?

RMT
 
RMT, you are a smart ass, but already know that. I was just curious as to what you guys may think could be th cause the strange and sudden fish deaths. I'm looking to publish. I'm looking to satisfy curiosity.

But, since you asked, and now that I think about it, Id say that the sunspot 1093 (I think this is the number) last week emitting a stream of EUV light at earth may have compressed the bottom layers of the
thermosphere, thus allowing radio and microwaves to reflect at higher efficiencies than usual. When a Haarp-like technology was used to manipulate weather, the resulting wave reflected off the suppressed thermosphere and was focused and magnified unto specific locations on Earth. The disturbance of the ionosphere by the haarp may have acted like a resonator or primary tesla coil above the reflective thermosphere and amplified the signal to kill the fish.

Break it down.
 
Remember when:

* The fall of the Roman Empire was going to destory civilization as we knew it?

* The Crusades were surely a sign of the apocolypse?

* The Reformation of the Church was going to destroy society?

* The Renaissance was going to lead to total sociological breakdown?

* The Industrial Revolution was going to poison us all?

* World War I and II were going depopulate the Earth?

* The Cold War was assuredly going to end in Global Thermonuclear War?

* The Communists were going to take over the world?

* Rachel Carson said DDT would kill us all?

* We'd all be dead from Chernobyl fallout in 20 years?

* The first Gulf War would inexcorably lead to a nuclear terrorist attack by the year 2000?

* Terrorists would detonate a "dirty bomb" in a major population center?

Pepper into that list a million guys saying the end of days were upon us from rogue asteroids, alien invasions, and the 2nd coming.

All predictions of total doom for humanity have one thing in common... not a single one of them has ever come true. I can't help but notice that the climate change people keep revising their statements, and suppressing the ones they originally made. According to the environmentalists, most of the US coastline should be underwater by now... at least that's what they were saying back in the 80s. Lo and behold, it's still here. Al Gore was whining 10 years ago about how the world would be "drastically different" in ten years. 10 years later, Al, I'm still waiting.

So, when I tell you that your gloom and doom scenarios aren't going to happen, there's a chance I'm wrong... but 99.9999999% chance I'm right.
 
I'd still like to know if all those dead fish are really just from low oxygen becuase its too hot, or becasue it was too cold. That seems unlikely to me. That is all i'm saying.

And in regards to the end of humanity... even a broken clock is right twice a day.
 
Also,

Your first article about Cape May only says "Tens of thousands of fish" not millions.

And the BoliviaBella article is some seriously questionable journalism. Forgive my colonialism, but, a bunch of Bolivian villagers are not a competent authority for making this measurement. I also have issues with their method of counting.

You know, I'm all for recycling and living greener lives. But, I'm totally against these asinine scare tactics the environmentalists are using. When environmentalists act like "they know best" and anyone who questions them is ignorant, it invites a fight. That's when people start to discover that they are less than honest. If they really cared about the environment, they'd be out looking for easily adoptable methods for conservation and cleaner living, rather than trying to browbeat the world into doing what they say. Hugging trees doesn't excuse being a fascist, no matter how high-minded your ideals are.
 
Yes it has happened in the past by many different causes though as of yet not man made causes. So, I will put what I know in a nut shell. Over time the planet will be under-going tempature extremes that will gradually, very slowly, and very painfully make it very difficult if not impossible for man-kind to exist.
Click to expand...

Yuh think?

"Over time", given sufficient time, the Sun will bloat to a red giant and incinerate the Earth, the nickel-iron core of the Earth will eventually give up it's angular momentum and the magnetosphere will disappear leaving the planet naked to ultra-violet radiation, the climate is constantly changing and we will have a new ice age, cosmic expansion will result in a cold, dark universe, etc., etc., etc.

We know absolutely that temperature extremes will eventually make planet Earth uninhabitable. This isn't a secret.

It's a crock of doo-doo to suggest that "the truth is what very few people even the scientist and government want to except". The truth is that there are very few who don't accept that as true.
 
Well, I'm not really sure why this thread is in the conspiracies forum and not like off topic or something like that, but that's beside the point.

Any how, just out of curiosity, Darby or RMT or anybody else for that matter, what do you think the overall chance for human survival is?

It IS a KNOWN fact at some point in the future our sun will give up the ghost and blow. Now nobody really knows if some other major event will take place before then, but given the history of our earth, I'd say there will more likely than not be a major impact from space which will drastically change the earth as we know it. I guess there could be another ice age at some point as well.

Now more than likely this will not occur in our life time or anytime soon I guess I shold say, but in somebody's lifetime it will become a reality.

So the question is, do you think that by the time this event or events occur, human technology will be advanced enough to #1 get off this rock, and #2 have discovered a habitable planet or moon to repopulate our race?
 
As I always make a note to explain: The following are my BELIEFS. I do not purport to be able to back them up with any specific types of evidence. Although some parts I could offer evidence to support the general thought process. But let it be known: I AM NOT MAKING ABSOLUTE CLAIMS (a la the hoaxers around here).

Any how, just out of curiosity, Darby or RMT or anybody else for that matter, what do you think the overall chance for human survival is?
Click to expand...

We are literally a vermin...an infestation of this planet, not unlike the cockroach is to our domiciles. I have no doubt that the human species will survive, in one form or another, after disasters up to (but perhaps not including) the death of Sol. This would presume we never become a true spacefaring species.

So the question is, do you think that by the time this event or events occur, human technology will be advanced enough to #1 get off this rock, and #2 have discovered a habitable planet or moon to repopulate our race?
Click to expand...

#1 is really not as difficult as people make it out to be. We are at least 80% there already. The issue is how much the last 20% will cost, and getting idiots who think life revolves around American Idol to understand how important it is to spend that money so we are ready when the time comes.

#2 is also off to a decent start when you look at the types of things the Kepler probe is already finding. And then again (just a belief), one could posit that we are actually a seeded species to this planet, or a seeded-hybrid (i.e. genetic cross-breed between the native apes and the DNA of an off-world species). Ever wonder why there are so many varying species of apes living all at the same time (gorillas, macaques, orangutans, chimpanzees, etc.) but yet there is really only a single species of homo erectus (and no, blacks, asians, caucasians, do not classify as different species)?

RMT
 
Ever wonder why there are so many varying species of apes living all at the same time (gorillas, macaques, orangutans, chimpanzees, etc.) but yet there is really only a single species of homo erectus (and no, blacks, asians, caucasians, do not classify as different species)?
Click to expand...

Of course I have...but I'm also one of those "nuts" who believe our DNA was messed around with a few thousand years back to cause us not to live all that long compared to what some ancient texts speak of.
 
Back
Top