.net
All site revenue goes to charity

Subject: Overrated Underated


Date: Fri Dec 22 01:00:19 2017
User: Dr.Bombay
Message:
Brett Favre Aaron Rogers

Date: Fri Dec 22 07:32:13 2017
User: The_Interpreter
Message:
cilantro chicken gizzards

Date: Fri Dec 22 08:10:02 2017
User: FilthyMcNasty
Message:
Monogomy Personal hygiene

Date: Fri Dec 22 11:58:51 2017
User: byronsmoot
Message:
Breaking Bad Breaking Even

Date: Fri Dec 22 23:54:46 2017
User: joeygray
Message:
John Ringo

Date: Sat Dec 23 11:03:20 2017
User: hotnurse
Message:
Facebook Family time

Date: Sat Dec 23 16:54:38 2017
User: outskirts
Message:
Football Ice dancing

Date: Mon Dec 25 21:55:21 2017
User: JackK2017
Message:
Streaks Winning %

Date: Tue Dec 26 01:02:37 2017
User: redberet
Message:
skill luck

Date: Thu Feb 22 01:01:46 2018
User: Dr.Bombay
Message:
Tom Brady Dan Marino

Date: Thu Feb 22 01:05:27 2018
User: Dr.Bombay
Message:
Bode Miller Lindsey Vonn

Date: Thu Feb 22 01:36:30 2018
User: Klepp
Message:
Caitlyn Jenner Bruce Jenner

Date: Thu Feb 22 03:39:29 2018
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Although I *think* I get your point about Jenner............and maybe don't disagree in (perhaps) the sense you mean it...........yet it's pretty hard to say Bruce was underrated in any empirical way. I mean, dang, (world record) decathlete, Olympic champion ("World's Greatest Athlete"), Cheerios box and all. It's hard to say that's "underrated".

Date: Mon Mar 12 00:32:30 2018
User: Dr.Bombay
Message:
rpi elo

Date: Mon Mar 12 00:33:32 2018
User: Dr.Bombay
Message:
Xavier, Xavier Big Ten

Date: Wed Oct 21 22:50:25 2020
User: Dr.Bombay
Message:
Copernicus Ptolemy PBS is re-running Ancient Skies - and I can’t stop thinking that Copernicus is and has been waaaay underrated for busting the complicated miasma that Ptolemy had seduced all the bad scientists of the world with for centuries. Of course, this isn’t unique to the past, tons of bad scientists have been seduced by the same complicated miasma that was String Theory for most of the past four decades. I find the parallels interesting.

Date: Thu Oct 22 05:39:54 2020
User: malr
Message:
Edison Tesla

Date: Thu Oct 22 09:05:31 2020
User: FilthyMcNasty
Message:
chastity chastity belts

Date: Thu Oct 22 10:22:10 2020
User: malr
Message:
U2 Mundy Turner

Link: Mundy Turner

Date: Thu Oct 22 13:33:52 2020
User: cellmate
Message:
streaks playing it til you win

Date: Thu Oct 22 23:51:16 2020
User: mrbuck
Message:
designated hitter pitching a complete game

Date: Thu Oct 29 23:21:19 2020
User: Kaos
Message:
Adele Tom Petty & Jeff Lynne Sooner or later, I keep coming back to everyone in the Travelling Willbury’s

Date: Fri Oct 30 13:05:23 2020
User: Kumquat-of-Conciliation
Message:
There's considerable wisdom in that last sentence.

Date: Fri Oct 30 13:10:45 2020
User: outskirts
Message:
Jeff is totally underrated! He got the Wilburys together!

Date: Fri Oct 30 13:15:45 2020
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Well, sorta - and sorta not. I think(?) it was George's idea, and he definitely wanted Bobby included.

Date: Fri Oct 30 16:57:24 2020
User: subitatinidutilibacifironoh
Message:
Heaven Hell

Date: Fri Oct 30 21:29:02 2020
User: rbw--3
Message:
"Caitlyn Jenner Bruce Jenner" But a woman won the men's decathlon, an event that will probably never be repeated. How can she be overrated?

Date: Fri Oct 30 21:48:20 2020
User: Dr.Bombay
Message:
rbw—3, I think the point is that Bruce Jenner, winning the decathlon in the cold and the dark in Montreal in 1976 is underrated vs. the media ho that is Caitlyn

Date: Fri Oct 30 22:24:10 2020
User: rbw--3
Message:
My comment had a touch of sarcasm.

Date: Tue Nov 9 22:51:19 2021
User: Kaos
Message:
Moneyball: great book, fantastic movie The Artist: overrated trifle

Date: Wed Nov 10 02:22:21 2021
User: Klepp
Message:
I always root for Billy Beane...too bad he's never won the Series.

Date: Wed Nov 10 16:29:29 2021
User: Malr
Message:
If by Rudyard Kipling Just.if.I’d by me If you can keep your head while all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you Is it possible that you need further training In the safe use of the office guillotine? If you can keep your head while all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you Hell, take that guillotine and when kids flout you As we all know some are inclined to do - Cut off their heads - you know they'll hardly miss them Not having used them much since they were small Except to hunt down folks like you and diss them Cut them down, then, diving, take that fall That always gets the referee's attention While others on their team are playing foul Which winds some players up to useful tension So that they lose their rag, throw in the towel And go and catch a ball from cleaner players In games where thieving scumbags are not proud Where skill still matters - skills in many layers Not money, fame, good lawyers and bad crowds

Date: Thu May 11 00:49:08 2023
User: Kaos
Message:
Hunga Tonga Mt Saint Helens, Krakatoa Watching PBS Nova special on the eruption from a year and change ago of Hunga Tonga. As the dean of common sense, this seems like an extreme case of recency bias. It’s terrible. If the eruption had been the size of Mt. Saint Helens, one third of the population of Tonga would have died. If it had been as big as Krakatoa, all but one or two would have died. The “60-foot” Tsunami was really just a 6-foot wave. Comparing it to the Tsunami’s in Japan and Indonesia (where thousands of more people died) is just bad science and extremely insensitive. Watching the videos of the Tsunami’s back to back to back makes me think the scientists involved must have been confusing millimeters and feet.

Date: Thu May 11 01:29:56 2023
User: Klepp
Message:
I'd like to see a tsunami like 2004's again...that was a mother.

Date: Thu May 11 05:33:11 2023
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Wow, Kaos. I watched the same show, and didn't have the same reaction. As I'm sure you know, there are multiple ways to classify strength/power/"most devastating" eruptions. The most widely accepted for general purposes is the VEI (volcanic explosive index), which goes up to an 8. Nothing in "modern times" (a nebulous delineator) has exceeded a 7, and those include Samalas (Indonesia), Santorini, and Tambora, among a few other older ones. Krakatoa and Pinatubo are 6s. Mt. St. Helens is considered to be a 5, as is Tonga. I include a link at the bottom about VEI. Within that link, near the bottom, is another list ("Lists of notable eruptions"), which further breaks down 'severity' by different definitions. Remember, the Tonga eruption was ~70 km (40 miles) away from the centers of population, so more 'leeway' (safety due to distance) than from St. Helens. Not to mention, St. Helens was mostly a sideways blast, to the east, away from the population centers of the NW. (Which is not meant to minimize its power.) This link: https://earthsky.org/earth/tonga-volcano-biggest-of-21st-century/ .......may be part of, or the genesis of, tonight's "Nova". The timing seems correct for that, as it also goes into detail about the underwater stuff that went on. And it says that it was as big as Krakatoa (somewhat different than the VEI article states). Here's another one, compiled before Tonga, that doesn't even list Mt. St. Helens: https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science-environment/2017/01/the-worlds-10-most-devastating-volcanic-eruptions/ ................so it somewhat comes down to definition(s). That's why VEI was developed. All that said..........................................I think you must have missed something in the show about the tsunami. The scientist on-site examining the debris and aftereffects clearly showed how he calculated the 60 ft. height. He was standing, he said, 13m above sea level, which could be seen behind him. And the debris from the destroyed cell phone tower was 6m up in a tree, which they clearly showed. So that's where he got his (conservative, it would seem), 19m (~60+ ft.) I can't quite see how you could dispute that. (Unless you think he was lying about the 13m.) Perhaps that's available online and you can re-watch it. And the few residents who were there described the devastation, too, altho that in itself is no reliable data to determine wave height. No way that feet and mm were confused. As an additional reasoning on that, "Nova" wouldn't allow that to pass their editing without proper documentation. They just wouldn't. The tsunamis in Japan, and Indonesia were WAY more devastating because of population proximity. I happen to be someone who peruses these lists from time-to-time, just because I like extreme events, I guess, so I already knew about where Tonga fit historically. And I've also been to Mt. St. Helens (early '90s), and the scale of the devastation there is indeed truly awesome. But I suggest you might want to re-think your comments about the tsunami.

Link: Volcanic explosivity index (with a listing)

Date: Thu May 11 18:58:06 2023
User: roo
Message:
It caused massive flooding in Australia.

Date: Fri May 12 23:06:10 2023
User: Kaos
Message:
Looking at the footage of the Tsunami in Japan vs. the Tsunami in Tonga proper it’s like night and day. Maybe the “wave” was 60 feet high when it left Hunga Tonga but it was emminating from a single point so the height quickly diminished. The tsunamis in Japan and Indonesia were true tsunamis. Lots of mass. Not diminishing in size much after traveling 10’s, 100’s, or 1000’s of kilometers. Look at the death toll. 3 for Hunga Tonga. 57 for Mt St Helen’s. Ten’s of thousands for Krakatoa and the tsunami in Japan and 100’s of thousands for the tsunami in Indonesia. I just thought it was really bad science. If Hunga Tonga had occurred in 1980 and Mt St. Helens had occurred in the past few years, the estimates would have been that Mt St. Helens was 20-50 times more powerful. Roo, the tsunami from Japan actually resulted in the death of someone in the USA in San Francisco. Did anyone in Australia die from the Hunga Tonga tsunami - Allegedly twice as high and ten times closer?

Date: Sat May 13 00:03:55 2023
User: roo
Message:
I didn't say the flooding was caused by a tsunami. It was an unexpected weather phenomenon in the southern hemisphere. Many people died.

Date: Sat May 13 05:14:57 2023
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Kaos, you're a smart guy, I know, but if you haven't yet accepted what the scientists have reported, with diligence and peer reviews....................then likely nothing else I can put here will change your mind......................but I'll give it one more go. I'm not a vulcanologist, but I do trust those who are, who've actually done the science, and those who actually went there and documented the evidence. There was an article about it in "Nature"; another in "Science"; and many others in other journals. Do you just think they're all wrong - or lying, along with the peer reviewers? I happened to be online, and watching, in real time, when the earthquake off the coast of Banda Aceh, and then later the one off Japan happened. Of course there was no immediate live footage from Banda Aceh, but some radio accounts, and then pics soon followed. And as we all know, the event in Japan was live-streamed from multiple cameras and was hard to comprehend. There, to my knowledge, has been only *very* fragmentary and jumbled footage of what hit that island shown in the "Nova" show. And that was, again, something like 70km away from the blast. But you didn't make an argument (after my post above) about the 19m wave height. Have you backed off from that? Indeed, the death tolls from Indonesia (not to mention all the way over in Sri Lanka, Thailand, and even India and S. Africa FAR exceeded what happened in Tonga. If you want to make that the criteria, then fine, you can do that. The blast in Tonga isn't remotely close to that one (Banda Aceh) or the one in Japan, by death toll. Within that VEI link, I noted that there was another chart ("Lists of notable eruptions") with links to other ways of judging severity. One of those is by death toll. Here is that link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_volcanic_eruptions_by_death_toll Nobody is claiming the Tonga event is anywhere in that ball park. But most scientists, and the point of the "Nova" show, was judging power, explosivity, etc. How much energy was released? How much ejecta? The 57 people killed around Mt. St. Helens were all within several km of the blast, as far as I know. Certainly none more than 70km, unless somebody downstream by flooding from the rivers that got all messed up. You probably know those details better than I remember them. If the blast in Tonga had been in the southern Cascades, the death toll would have been far more than 3, I think we would all agree. As to Krakatoa, well over 100 villages were utterly destroyed, and well over another hundred were damaged. The population density in the near proximity of Krakatoa is why the death toll was so high. Fortunately completely different from Tonga. VERY importantly.............the tsunamis in Indonesia and Japan were caused by earthquakes underwater - or actually under the sea floor *under* the water. Completely different mechanism. In those everts, a ridiculous amount of water is displaced nearly instantly. In the Tonga blast, remember, the central peak collapsed, causing water to rush in, and then causing a tsunami. The physics was different. I'm not an expert on undersea hydraulics and wave forms, but I know the Sunda Strait is notorious for huge tsunami wave heights. Not to mention............the pyroclastic flow(s) from Krakatoa would have caused many deaths. At 70km, with very sparse population, not much pyroclastic flow - especially since this was mostly an underwater explosion, so very different in that way as well. As a scientist, I'm very aware of recency bias, and I just don't think that's what's going on here. The data seems as good as it can be. I think you really need to think deeply about the differences between a volcano exploding, and a huge underwater earthquake. But if you think all those dozens or hundreds of scientists and reviewers and reporters all are lying...........then you're free to think that. And no, we've never been to the moon.

Date: Sun May 14 22:21:29 2023
User: Kaos
Message:
Jim Garvin, who is the chief scientist at NASA’s Goddard space science center thinks Hunga Tonga eruptive power was in the range of 4-18 megatons of TNT while the estimate for Mt St Helens is 24 megatons of TNT and Krakatoa is at 200. Based on the consequences and filtering through common sense (or, at least my common sense), these estimates make more sense than the hype from the above episode. So, I was already in the skeptical range when what really spun me up was the talk about the 60-foot tsunami from HT vs. the 30-foot tsunami from the subduction earthquake in Japan. Absolutely heinous science. Gross negligence doesn’t begin to describe it. Then, you see the iconic videos of the tsunami in Japan juxtaposed with the video of the “tsunami” in HT and you’d have to be really gullible to believe the narrative that had been spun up until then. Air something like that and I’m going to question the crap out of everything you already said. I’d be curious to know the take on this from Japan. After all, they coined the term tsunami which has pretty much supplanted the western term tidal wave. The thing about a tsunami is that the height in the open ocean might be 1 meter but because of the speed of the wave and the long distance between crests the height when it hits the shore might be 3-10 times higher. The HT tsunami looked like it was less than a 1 meter tsunami by comparison.

Date: Mon May 15 04:27:31 2023
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Well, there's not much more for me to say. You either accept the scientist(s) *on-the-scene* demonstrating, clearly to me, how he got the 19+m wave height - or you don't. Since I've not been there, I can't personally verify his reporting, but what possible motivation would he have to lie about it all? But if you'll read and try to absorb what all I've referenced below.................the 19+m wave height seems to be *very* conservative. 1. First of all..................check out the link from a very respected science news source. They get **90m** wave heights -- "—nine times taller than 2011 Japan tsunami" (part of the title of the article). "The volcano is located approximately 70 km from the Tongan capital Nuku'alofa—this distance significantly minimized its destructive power." ============================================ 2. Then read this, for more confirmation: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/14/tonga-volcano-explosion-equalled-most-powerful-ever-us-nuclear-test "The researchers’ computer simulations of the event, based on a combination of data sources, suggest the western coast of Tofua Island experienced waves of up to 45 metres in height, a result they say is backed up by signs of vegetation scars at the same altitude captured by satellite and drone data. ..................... "The team say the huge waves in parts of Tonga would have been expected to result in a larger death toll – yet this was not the case. “The main factors that led to this, we suggest, are the quirk of the location, a worldwide pandemic, and increased evaluation drills and awareness efforts carried out in the years prior,” they write in the journal Science Advances. Tofua is uninhabited and other areas that experienced large waves were sparsely populated, while tourist resorts were closed because of Covid. “The main settlements in all of Tonga safely face Nuku’alofa Lagoon, the best possible scenario to duck the full brunt of a mega-tsunami,” the authors note, adding that other inhabited islands sit atop a carbonate platform where shallow waters damped down the waves. ..............."Modelling tsunamis from volcano eruptions is a challenging task and this has been nicely done by [the team],” he said. “It is interesting that the results are consistent with our previous study on this event, where we reported a maximum tsunami wave height of 90m.”

Link: This says apparently NINETY METER wave heights (initially)

Date: Mon May 15 04:42:52 2023
User: TNmountainman
Message:
As I wrote earlier, there's oodles of scientific-type publications about this. Here's another way of 'judging': water vapor injected into the atmosphere - altho of course that can't be compared to the earthquakes. (Another part of NASA published this.) (We already know about the absurd amount of ejecta, and that the height of the plume apparently was the highest ever recorded.) The 10% figure noted below is just flabbergasting, even if it's only an estimate. (As a slight aside...............I'm mildly surprised we haven't heard anything about a global cooling due to this. Maybe just a moderating factor on the overall climate changing scale??) “We’ve never seen anything like it,” said Luis Millán, an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California. He led a new study examining the amount of water vapor that the Tonga volcano injected into the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere between about 8 and 33 miles (12 and 53 kilometers) above Earth’s surface. "In the study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, Millán and his colleagues estimate that the Tonga eruption sent around 146 teragrams (1 teragram equals a trillion grams) of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere – equal to 10% of the water already present in that atmospheric layer. That’s nearly four times the amount of water vapor that scientists estimate the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines lofted into the stratosphere.

Link: about the amount of water blasted into the stratosphere

Date: Mon May 15 08:10:27 2023
User: BuzzClik
Message:
One gets the impression that TN and Kaos are arguing a similar (but not the same) point from different directions. Even the experts they are quoting are coming at the discussion from different perspectives.

Date: Mon May 15 09:32:00 2023
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Hmmm...... Could you elucidate further, please? (Obviously?) I don't see that. Thanks. We might need Mr. K o' C for this...

Date: Mon May 15 12:06:25 2023
User: BuzzClik
Message:
Kaos was offended by Nova suggesting that the Hunga Tonga volcano was so powerful. Certainly, our ability and methods to measure such things has increased over recent years, so comparing Hunga Tonga to Krakatoa is difficult. Kaos was most taken aback by the discussion of the tsunamis: "Comparing it to the Tsunami’s in Japan and Indonesia (where thousands of more people died) is just bad science and extremely insensitive." And this is where the discussion went somewhat different directions. TN, you went the hard science approach, which is your style (and one I appreciate). Kaos went more to easily searchable sources (most of which weren't referenced). I was curious about his citing Jim Garvin; Garvin's credentials are fantastic, but his interest in Hunga Tonga is in the newness of the landscape. He has stated frequently that he views Hunga Tonga as an excellent analog for Martian geologic development. Garvin is a fantastic planetary scientist who surrounds himself with a wealth of brilliant minds, including, no doubt, experts in volcanoes. However, they came to their estimate of the strength of Hunga Tonga through satellite imagery and rough estimates of the strength of the rock involved. They may have refined their estimate since that time, but Garvin's interest in the volcano is tangentially (at most) related to the strength of the explosion. The strength of a volcano can, to some degree, be estimated from the magnitude of a tsunami, but comparing Krakatoa to Hunga Tonga based on estimates of tsunamis will be difficult considering the different natures of the events. I am not taking sides on this. Kaos could be 100% correct in his assertions, but they are difficult to evaluate. TN is relying on hard scientific facts, but even that can go awry at times.

Date: Mon May 15 14:23:44 2023
User: Kaos
Message:
OK, let me be more clear. What really got me going was co-opting the term "tsunami" to describe something that wasn't a tsunami - it was a wave (at least initially). Could have been 30 meters high at it's origin and it wouldn't make a difference. Nazaré, Portugal gets waves of those heights maybe once yearly. They have none of the characteristics of a tsunami. Maybe a wave of that height eventually morphs into something more like a tsunami but then it is a .19m tsunami, not a 19m tsunami. A 19m tsunami would have washed over most of the surface area of all the islands in Tonga, even those 100 km away. Once you state something like "it generated a 19m tsunami" and then show videos of said tsunami hitting Tonga (and looking like a .19m tsunami), I'm going to question everything you say. This has happened before so maybe the term tsunami is under increasing attack. A 1958 landslide in Lituya Bay, Alaska generated a wave that washed up the opposing shore to a height of 525 meters. It was coined a mega-tsunami but did no significant damage outside of Lituya Bay. Doesn't sound like a (525m) tsunami to me. The genesis of the term tsunami - and the old English term "tidal wave" - was to describe an event where the water just keeps getting pushed higher and higher once it reaches the shore (due to the very long wavelength and tremendous speed of the wave). That's why I was curious about how this was reported and viewed in Japan. As I mentioned above, the recent devastating tsunami in Japan was actually strong enough to kill one person in San Francisco, 8200 km from its origin. Oh, and besides what I thought was bad science, I also found the comparison of the "tsunami" from Hunga Tonga to the tsunamis in Japan and Indonesia extremely insensitive.

Date: Mon May 15 17:42:35 2023
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Haven't had time to dig into this anymore, but it seems MrFixit is weighing in with his current MOTF: "Arguing with an engineer is a lot like mud wrestling with a pig- pretty soon you realize that the pig likes it."

Date: Mon May 15 19:11:28 2023
User: TNmountainman
Message:
I doubt we'll ever agree on this, but let me point out/highlight one more thing. That short, choppy video they showed on "Nova" was not *THE* tsunami. It was the 'preliminary' tsunami, caused, literally, by the pressure wave of the explosion itself. If that was *the* tsunami, then I would agree that it looked more like 1-2m. But that video was not very clear *at all*. Those people were running for their lives. *THE* tsunami came later - more than an hour later - and to my knowledge there is no video of that event. So if you've somehow seen video of THE tsunami, let us know. From the Phys Org link I posted above: "This 'dual mechanism' created a two-part tsunami—where initial ocean waves created by the atmospheric pressure waves were followed more than one hour later by a second surge created by the eruption's water displacement." And just for good measure (pun intended): "The research team also found that the January event was among very few tsunamis powerful enough to travel around the globe—it was recorded in all world's oceans and large seas from Japan and the United States' western seaboard in the North Pacific Ocean to the coasts within the Mediterranean Sea." --------------- Kaos: "Looking at the footage of the Tsunami in Japan vs. the Tsunami in Tonga proper it’s like night and day." "Once you state something like "it generated a 19m tsunami" and then show videos of said tsunami hitting Tonga (and looking like a .19m tsunami), I'm going to question everything you say." --------------- If that was all we had to go on, then I'd agree. All I can conclude is that he's confusing what little we could see on the "Nova" show with the real one, which to my knowledge there is no video of - or at least when it hit that outlying island there isn't. These people, scientists, who say it was 19+m at landfall on that island, or those who've extensively studied it and done detailed modeling (and yeah, I know - not as persuasive as video) from multiple sources and angles, and say it was NINETY meters, are not some doofuses who just go around making guesses. They have compelling evidence. Yet one more time..............how did the remnants of that cell phone tower get 6m up in that tree (on top of it being 13m above sea level)?? I certainly would agree that that little snippet or two of the initial wave couldn't possibly have *destroyed* that cell phone tower. There followed a MUCH, MUCH bigger wave, that we haven't seen video of. But the evidence is nonetheless pretty confirmatory. And a 1-2m wave isn't going to be felt on the interior coasts of the Mediterranean. Be real. And yes, I know all about Nazaré. In fact, some very good friends of mine just came back from an extended trip there, and they watched that, and we discussed it in some detail. And no, of course that's not a tsunami. As I'm sure you know they're just a result of the freak underwater morphology and the arrival of a huge volume waves from way out at sea. @ Buzz (and anyone else) -- I see Kaos's objections as this, which are similar, but not exactly, the same as the way you phrase it: 1. He refuses to recognize the wave heights as documented by physical evidence and detailed modeling. I remain mystified as to why he's not accepting the evidence of that cell phone tower, if nothing else. One can only conclude he's accusing that scientist, on the scene, of lying about it. 2. He keeps calling these studies "bad science". Certainly bad science exists, but it's *almost* always done from one or two limited sources, studying something almost nobody else is. That's not what's going on here. The data is available to all. These publications are peer-reviewed. If Kaos is right, there are many dozens, or more likely hundreds, of people conspiring to pull the wool over the world's eyes. For what motive?? That's why I threw in the "....no, we've never been to the moon" quip. The amount of effort to construct such a cover-up would be WAY harder than not doing so. Just like it would be harder to cover up lies about going to the moon than actually do it.

Date: Tue May 16 03:15:23 2023
User: Kaos
Message:
Tn, I’m not arguing the “wave” height nor the science behind the estimates for that height. I’m just saying it’s not a tsunami of that height. It’s just a wave (like the waves at Nazare). Oh, and It doesn’t matter that the video shown was of the wave from the atmospheric shock wave and not the “real” tsunami. That just means there was no tsunami (since tsunamis move fast). Also, even without videos of the follow-up “wave” we know it wasn’t a 19m tsunami because only 3 people died. Again, a 19m tsunami would have killed most of the population of the entire country of Tonga. No fancy science needed. Since only 3 people died, we can conclude this part of the Nova broadcast was just hype to generate ratings. Maybe/Likely the scientists aren’t to blame. No matter who is behind it, I see the result as a huge undermining of “real” science.

Date: Tue May 16 04:23:44 2023
User: TNmountainman
Message:
You say you're not arguing the wave height - yet much of your earlier text does just that. At least that's the way they read to me. And for you to say that "there was no tsunami" flies in the face of all these many published, scientific analyses. The "experts" who clearly say it was. The waves at Nazaré aren't tsunamis - but they're also not felt all over the world, as this wave was. But I think you know that. I respect your intellect, but just think you're missing the boat (pun (sorta) again intended) here.


Post follow-up
Username: New user? Create a free account here
Password: Note: username and password are case-sensitive
Message:
Editor by summernote.org
Email notification:

All content copyright ©2024 Freecell.net
By using our games you consent to our minimal use of cookies to maintain basic state.
Maintained by Dennis Cronin