California Fires Burning Only Homes/Bldgs Not Trees, Anyone Care To Explain?

[Waynish]

@managing I took a brief look at your posting history. Why are you even here? You seem to be pushing mainstream agendas very consistently. Calling anyone who wants to study race scientifically or anyone who believes in a heritable basis for intelligence a racist? So lay it out. Are you an atheist who voted for Hillary and believes vaccines are important - and often calls others conspiracy theorists? Then when they present evidence - as I did - you come back and say you don't want to deal with the time spent to look into it. Then you continue to dirty the discussion with trolling?

 

[aquaman]

They are not mutually exclusive.

It’s actually invisible aliens going around lighting the fires. I know because someone posted a picture of one in the smoke. And if you don’t believe this, then you’re being conned by the MSM.

 

[managing]

I don't get the eagerness to shut down questioning on this topic. The title & topic are questioning the causality behind the fires. Sure all the crazy eye witness reports of engine blocks being melted through and various blue zaps causing fires could be fallacious. But this is the type of forum where people share information on issues like this - if not here, then where else? If my house was burned down, then I'd be very curious about the causality.

What harm could come from this information spreading and getting discussed?

So you can only speculate here? If somebody posts something fallacious, it shouldn't be shown to be? Are you really saying that responding in a contrary manner just harshes your conspiracy mellow too gosh darn much? So you want a safe space where nobody will tell you there is no such thing as unicorns and wizards?

 

[managing]

@managing I took a brief look at your posting history. Why are you even here? You seem to be pushing mainstream agendas very consistently. Calling anyone who wants to study race scientifically or anyone who believes in a heritable basis for intelligence a racist? So lay it out. Are you an atheist who voted for Hillary and believes vaccines are important - and often calls others conspiracy theorists? Then when they present evidence - as I did - you come back and say you don't want to deal with the time spent to look into it. Then you continue to dirty the discussion with trolling?

If I were an atheist who voted for Hillary what would that mean to you? That you could then, having successfully labeled me as something already, in your mind, discredited, that you could then discount the things I say? Wouldn't you serve yourself better by engaging those things on their own merit?

What is the litmus test? What do my politics and personal views have to be to be able to post here? To be credible on their own merits?

Just kidding, I didn't really thing you wanted to have an engaging conversation. I ruined the echo chamber I suppose.

BTW, I know its fun to paraphrase my conversations because nobody here will go read them and might just think I am some horrible <gasp> liberal as you are trying to paint me. But attempting to prove didactically (not scientifically, you mischaracterized) that black/African people are inferior intelligence because <throw the word SCIENCE in, it will mean its TRUE> is in fact racist, repugnant, and disgusting.

 

[Jpkoepse]

I'm glad threads like this exist for the mere fact that it helps identify the kooks so I can make better judgement on who's advice to really listen to.

 

[x-ray peat]

It also helps to understand the mechanics of peer pressure and self-censorship as a means of control. It's no wonder their false flags have become more and more brazen.

 

[Waynish]

So you can only speculate here? If somebody posts something fallacious, it shouldn't be shown to be? Are you really saying that responding in a contrary manner just harshes your conspiracy mellow too gosh darn much? So you want a safe space where nobody will tell you there is no such thing as unicorns and wizards?

Accusing me of wanting a safe space... Now let's try evidence again. What evidence is there that I want a safe space? I believe @x-ray peat started this thread to discuss evidence - and you keep making this personal. We want to focus on evidence and not on the people who are providing the evidence. If you're in a conversation and a friend asks you to play devil's advocate, then do you try to do it or do you instead insinuate that your friend is an idiot for even wanting to consider the strong points on each side of the discussion? So far you seem to prefer the latter. This is why people who love each other are hard on each other; like a father is on his son.

 

[managing]

Accusing me of wanting a safe space... Now let's try evidence again. What evidence is there that I want a safe space? I believe @x-ray peat started this thread to discuss evidence - and you keep making this personal. We want to focus on evidence and not on the people who are providing the evidence. If you're in a conversation and a friend asks you to play devil's advocate, then do you try to do it or do you instead insinuate that your friend is an idiot for even wanting to consider the strong points on each side of the discussion? So far you seem to prefer the latter. This is why people who love each other are hard on each other; like a father is on his son.

So you want to focus on evidence, just not my evidence (or presumably other evidence that contradicts your preferred data set). Got it. Might not indulge it, but, got it.

BTW, I think the closest I got to insulting was calling the idea "silly". Definitely didn't call anybody an idiot. Plenty of intelligent and well-intentioned people believe silly ideas. I would still consider it much more likely than not that you and @x-ray peat are intelligent and well-intentioned. So I am a long way off from getting insulting. Is calling an idea that is obviously dear to you "silly" getting personal to you? Honest question. If it is, I genuinely apologize. I wouldn't have taken it personally, but I often find I have thicker skin than most, so I often cross that line w/o realizing it.

Now, about that evidence . . .

 

[aquaman]

I don't get the eagerness to shut down questioning on this topic. The title & topic are questioning the causality behind the fires. Sure all the crazy eye witness reports of engine blocks being melted through and various blue zaps causing fires could be fallacious. But this is the type of forum where people share information on issues like this - if not here, then where else? If my house was burned down, then I'd be very curious about the causality.

What harm could come from this information spreading and getting discussed?

There’s no shutting down. There just rebuttal.

Anyway, this is called the Ray Peat Forum.. and Ray Peat explains the causality perfectly in generative energy.

Instead of accepting this, people suggest invisible government laser beams as causing the fires. The videos show before and after pics claiming there is no damage to trees when in fact their own pics show the trees have burnt up. And there’s a 2 second video of a spotlight in the smoke which is meant to show the “invisible” high energy laser beams.

All these theories feed into the idea that nothing can be done to stop the issue. You can’t fight against invisible laser beams. It feeds ultimate learned helplessness. And it feeds the mega-Rich being allowed to totally degrade your environment without any restrictions, because of course it has nothing to do with the clear environmental degradation, but all to do with the Globalists laser beams.

 

[managing]

There’s no shutting down. There just rebuttal.

Anyway, this is called the Ray Peat Forum.. and Ray Peat explains the causality perfectly in generative energy.

Instead of accepting this, people suggest invisible government laser beams as causing the fires. The videos show before and after pics claiming there is no damage to trees when in fact their own pics show the trees have burnt up. And there’s a 2 second video of a spotlight in the smoke which is meant to show the “invisible” high energy laser beams.

All these theories feed into the idea that nothing can be done to stop the issue. You can’t fight against invisible laser beams. It feeds ultimate learned helplessness. And it feeds the mega-Rich being allowed to totally degrade your environment without any restrictions, because of course it has nothing to do with the clear environmental degradation, but all to do with the Globalists laser beams.

Excellent job of bringing it back to Ray Peat's ideas.

I would add also that appealing to an "authority" like John Lord is also contrary to "Perceive, Think, Act."

 

[x-ray peat]

Excellent job of bringing it back to Ray Peat's ideas.

I would add also that appealing to an "authority" like John Lord is also contrary to "Perceive, Think, Act."

Im not quite sure you understand the concepts you’re using. Ironically you repeat an appeal to authority argument in the same post as you incorrectly attack the testimony of a valid authority.

 

[managing]

Im not quite sure you understand the concepts you’re using. Ironically you repeat an appeal to authority argument in the same post as you incorrectly attack the testimony of a valid authority.

Peat would question all appeals to authority. You are absolutely right about mine. At least, you are right if you mean that I used my presence on the scene with a real set of eyes, ears, etc to suggest that I am authority of sorts. But you can't seem to question your own, which is based on extrinsics like given titles and claims.

The difference is, the authority of an eyewitness is unquestionable. Their motives, judgment, etc are of course still questionable. The authority of an "expert" is automatically suspect, at least in Peatland.

 

[managing]

Im not quite sure you understand the concepts you’re using. Ironically you repeat an appeal to authority argument in the same post as you incorrectly attack the testimony of a valid authority.

Hey, @Waynish : it seems @x-ray peat has repeatedly questioned my intelligence. Are you going to police him/her for personal attacks?

 

[x-ray peat]

edit

 

[x-ray peat]

Peat would question all appeals to authority. You are absolutely right about mine. At least, you are right if you mean that I used my presence on the scene with a real set of eyes, ears, etc to suggest that I am authority of sorts. But you can't seem to question your own, which is based on extrinsics like given titles and claims.

The difference is, the authority of an eyewitness is unquestionable. Their motives, judgment, etc are of course still questionable. The authority of an "expert" is automatically suspect, at least in Peatland.

Hey, @Waynish : it seems @x-ray peat has repeatedly questioned my intelligence. Are you going to police him/her for personal attacks?

I have never questioned your intelligence. I have merely pointed out instances where your arguments and reasoning fall flat. If you are going to use terms like appeals to authority to attack valid points of view , then you should really understand what you are saying and how that term applies. You are not an authority, Ray is not an authority, but yes Fire Captain John Lord is an Authority. Taking into account the expert opinion of an authority along with all other facts on the issue is not an appeal to authority argument.

The idea that we should listen to you because you were an eyewitness is an appeal to authority. FYI eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable about what they actually saw.
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

 

[managing]

I have never questioned your intelligence. I have merely pointed out instances where your arguments and reasoning fall flat. If you are going to use terms like appeals to authority to attack valid points of view , then you should really understand what you are saying and how that term applies. You are not an authority, Ray is not an authority, but yes Fire Captain John Lord is an Authority. Taking into account the expert opinion of an authority along with all other facts on the issue is not an appeal to authority argument.

The idea that we should listen to you because you were an eyewitness is an appeal to authority. FYI eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable about what they actually saw.
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

I understand. I will only pry this conspiracy theory "from [your] cold dead hands."

 

[x-ray peat]

I understand. I will only pry this conspiracy theory "from [your] cold dead hands."

Now that would be an ad hominem attack. The last gasp of a losing argument

 

[managing]

Now that would be an ad hominem attack. The last gasp of a losing argument

 

[x-ray peat]

Another contributing factor, though Im sure my two debunking friends would say that chemtrails are natural too

 

[aquaman]

I think you’re a PR shill for the wood and paper industry. You want to protect the rights of logging companies to destroy the natural environment.

Ps I found another video of a directed energy beam like your videos show: