Hurricane Patricia was a threat to Mexico from the U.S. about staying in line. ( conspiracy )

submitted by ElspethTirel

The fastest growing ever category 5, strongest hurricane EVER in recorded human history- even going beyond the measurements we use to put them in categories. Yet no deaths? No mass devastation? Katrina and Sandy were nothing compared to Patricia. Yet it rolled into Mexico, across a stretch of land with NOTHING on it, and between two major cities?

HAARP. That's all.

un1ty

Going into the ground for fracking and into bottles for Nestle.

Voopin__Voopin

hey what about that northern-lights looking shit that NASA did about a month ago?

the headlines did mention the ionosphere if i recall correctly, and the articles were pretty much all saying "nevermind why they are doing this, just look at the WOOOOOOOO PRETTY LIGHTS!!!"

i wanted to see the woo pretty lights, but i missed them. :(

CredAndBercuses

"We're moving on to other ways of managing the ionosphere, which the HAARP was really designed to do. To inject energy into the ionosphere to be able to actually control it. But that work has been completed," David Walker, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for science, technology and engineering, told congress. s

And people actually refute the claim that HAARP modifies weather. Please.

Gizurr

At first I thought OP was suggesting that [someone] has control over the weather...

Nothing to see here folks ... move along.

6double5321

Google before Spewing dissent.

darkmuffin

The fastest growing ever category 5, strongest hurricane EVER in recorded human history- even going beyond the measurements we use to put them in categories.

Weather Channel notes that Patricia's maximum sustained winds at landfall were estimated at 165 mph, with gusts of up to 211 mph . Hurricane Katrina topped 170mph at landfall, making them comparable in strength. This is not beyond any measurements.

Yet no deaths?

Unlike the US, Mexico had an efficient mass evacuation program in place that appears to have worked . Funny thing there.

No mass devastation?

It's largely considered to be no mass devastation because it's only the homes of the poor that got messed up. Landslides, flooding, downed trees and power outages don't count if they're not affecting the resorts. And the resorts in Manzanillo seem to have made it through, so that's all that really matters now isn't it.

Yet it rolled into Mexico, across a stretch of land with NOTHING on it, and between two major cities?

No, Mexico's coast is not nearly as inhabited as the US coasts. Obviously a sign of a conspiracy.

HAARP. That's all.

El Nino , more likely.

3/10.

Ender1337

You're doing the Lord's work my friend.

CredAndBercuses

Or Satan's. You can never really tell which since they're pretty much interchangeable. False prophets etc.

darkmuffin

I'll do Satan's work any day. The fellow's a cool dude.

Ender1337

Hahaha! Agreed. Who were Satan's prophets btw? False or otherwise, I'm unfamiliar with that. Or were you just talking smack?

entropyosaurus

funny that the article you cite doesn't say anything about efficient mass evacuation programs. this is all that was said:

"Landslides and flash floods were reported, but the mass evacuations that occurred before the hurricane's arrival appeared to have worked in saving lives."

darkmuffin

Critical thinking is a lost art...

Ender1337

You mean because it didn't use the words efficient or programs? You can't be serious...

entropyosaurus

"reported mass evacuations" isn't the same as "Mexico, known for their long history of efficient mass evacuation programs"

Ender1337

Well, on the one hand you're absolutely right, those two things are not the same. Then again, that's not what he wrote so... I'm not sure where you're going with that. He/she didn't say either of those things.

Is English not your first language? Forgive me for asking, it's just that you seem to be having trouble with reading comprehension.

entropyosaurus

ok let me spell it out for you.

The poster said: "Unlike the US, Mexico had an efficient mass evacuation program in place"

The article said: "the mass evacuations that occurred"

Ender1337

I believe they were referring to Katrina. You're old enough to remember Katrina right? It hit New Orleans, which is in the U.S. people didn't evacuate "efficiently" and it was a disaster. Now unlike the U.S. The people in Mexico did evacuate en mass i.e. "efficiently" implying that some kind of program would've been in place, so much less of a disaster than it could've been. You're missing the point, but thanks for trying to spell it out for me. ;)

entropyosaurus

ok, let me do your critical thinking for you too: You can't infer that because no deaths occurred, there was an "efficient mass evacuation program in place." There are many other possible reasons to explain why no deaths occurred, e.g., that the storm wasn't actually that strong when it made landfall -- perhaps due to weather modification, which was the point OP was trying to raise.

Your simply stating "The people in Mexico did evacuate en mass i.e. "efficiently" " doesn't make it true.

Ender1337

Please don't try and do my critical thinking for me, you seem pretty awful at it and are struggling to even understand what I'm trying to say.

Ok let me do your reading comprehension for you.

I'm not inferring that there was an efficient evacuation plan in place because there were no deaths. Are you daft? I'm inferring it because mass evacuations took place!

As far as the rest of your line of "reasoning" is concerned they are all moot points because that's not what I was arguing.

Let me try doing some critical thinking for you now since you bring it up. Yes I think that there being few people present at an event just might be a contributing factor in few or no people being hurt or killed at that event. I'd even go as far as to say that it would be a likely explanation.

Then again your idea of a magic weather machine making that happen is a terribly convincing one. I'll have to put on my special thinking cap and certainly lose sleep over this agonizing decision. Which is more likely? Truly, I have no idea.

entropyosaurus

I'm not taking an opinion on the extent of current weather modification capabilities (which have existed since the 1950s ), but to surmise that "mass evacuations" took place, and were efficient because no one died, based on reading one sentence in an online news article is fallacy.

To put it more simply and directly for you, what I'm saying is that reading one sentence in an online news article, which is all you and the poster did, simply stating that "mass evacuations" occurred is insufficient evidence to conclude that Mexico has the civil and physical infrastructure required to transport 50,000 people in 24 hrs out of the way of the strongest hurricane ever observed in the Western Hemisphere. Sorry, but blaring radios, tv's, and bullhorns on the backs of pickups does not qualify as an "efficient mass evacuation program."

Ender1337

You're a hopeless cause. :/ I can't help you. :(

entropyosaurus

lol, nice retort. i'll take this as your admission of defeat:) thanks for the reply

Ender1337

It just that three times around the barn is enough for me. It doesn't seem to matter what I say, you're simply incapable of seeing reason.

entropyosaurus

LOL, three times around the barn? all you've said is that "mass evacuations took place! [because an article told me they did]."

Ender1337

To believe evacuations didn't take place for no apparent reason seems even more silly to me. I can respect a certain amount of healthy scepticism, but what you're doing is just ridiculous.

entropyosaurus

I'm not saying some or even many people didn't evacuate, but to assume that no one died because Mexico's evacuation system is above and beyond what any other nation can do is absurd. I think it's more likely that the hurricane wasn't as bad as it was made out to be when it made landfall, or that there are deaths that haven't been reported.

Ender1337

It's no wonder you think I'm wrong, despite my best efforts to communicate with you, I can't seem to get my point across to you without you missing it entirely. I'm not assuming any of the things you seem to think I'm assuming and not for the reasons you seem to think I'm assuming them for. You keep misrepresenting my attempts such that I'm beginning to suspect it's intentional. At this point I can't tell if you're an honest idiot or a masterful troll.

entropyosaurus

Alright, let's do the cliff notes version for you:

-- poster says unlike the US, Mexico has an efficient mass evacuation program

-- i call bullshit

-- you jump in and state "Mexico does have an efficient mass evacuation program in place! and that's why no one died in the strongest hurricane the Western hemisphere has ever seen"

-- I point out that your only source for your claim that a mass evacuation took place is an LA Times article that described the evacuation as follows: "In the hours before and after the storm, warnings blared on radio and television broadcasts across the region. Government pickups with loudspeakers circulated through neighborhoods."

-- You reply that a "mass evacuation did take place!"

If you have another point to make, please do.

Ender1337

My god man, just stop. This is embarrassing. It's not what I said, it's not what I meant. You're never going to get it. Just, just stop. For all that is holy, I'll even make you a brand new tin foil hat. Are you on the spectrum?

entropyosaurus

LOL, not a bad troll yourself:)

Ender1337

A truce then? ;)

entropyosaurus

if you want to call it that, sure. but you still haven't made a point other than to say effective mass evacuations did happen.

Ender1337

So you finally get it. :) I'm glad.

entropyosaurus

my only parting advice to you is don't believe everything you read on the internet:)

darkmuffin

Jesus mother fucking Christ, do your own goddamn research before you start spouting off BS: http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-patricia-manzanillo-20151025-story.html

entropyosaurus

So this is the "efficient mass evacuation program" you were talking about then:

"In the hours before and after the storm, warnings blared on radio and television broadcasts across the region. Government pickups with loudspeakers circulated through neighborhoods.

Tens of thousands of people evacuated their homes. More than 1,200 shelters were set up. But the fears never materialized."

Ender1337

Did you read the whole article or just that bit? Because again, incredibly, you seem to be missing the point here. You're just messing with us right? Please tell me you're joking. :(

entropyosaurus

I did read the whole article, and that was all that was said about Mexico's "mass evacuation programs" that you seem to think so highly of. If all that was required for efficient, flawless, all-life-saving evacuations was "notice" with radio, tv and pick-up trucks, we'd never have any deaths from natural disasters or hurricanes.

pray_the_gay_away

Idk. I'm over here in CA and its dry as shit and its affecting our economy (and therefore the investments of the elites). If they really could control the weather, I feel like they would do something more useful with it than threaten Northern Mexico, which is mostly butthole empty mountains and high desert.

Gizurr

I'm over here in CA and its dry as shit and its affecting our economy (and therefore the investments of the elites). If they really could control the weather, I feel like they would do something more useful with it...

Think about it another way:

  • Creating drought in California effects food production for most of the United States. If you can't grow your own food, where are you going to get it from? Answer: buy it from other countries. This helps to create links which strengthen the push for one-world economic systems. If all regions are interconnected and dependent upon each other (e.g., food and money) it's easier to advance globalism. Starving people are also easily manipulated. Without food, you'll do anything to survive.

  • If there is a severe drought, then the Government can introduce 'emergency' measures which they normally wouldn't be allowed to do. This could give them the ability to take control of sources of water and distribution to 'more effectively manage' it. The purpose is complete centralized control of all food and water sources.

The globalists think on a much larger and longer scale. They don't care about short-term profits. They would rather own the entire economy and every source of drinking water. The end-goal is one-world government and totalitarian control.