Fermi paradox

[BTGBullseye]

And yet, it has been demonstrated to work in a lab environment at MIT or one of those big name science universities... Even through Faraday cages... And yes, it is completely untraceable since it doesn't require LoS (Line of Sight) or outgoing emissions.

[ThePest179]

And yet, it has been demonstrated to work in a lab environment at MIT or one of those big name science universities... Even through Faraday cages... And yes, it is completely untraceable since it doesn't require LoS (Line of Sight) or outgoing emissions.

 

You have no sources.

[Seattleite]

And yet, it has been demonstrated to work in a lab environment at MIT or one of those big name science universities... Even through Faraday cages... And yes, it is completely untraceable since it doesn't require LoS (Line of Sight) or outgoing emissions.

 

You have no sources.

 

Because he's full of shit.

[BTGBullseye]

https://www.ll.mit.edu/employment/division10.html#103

https://www.ll.mit.edu/employment/division10.html#107

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)#Public_research

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_surveillance#Monitoring_from_a_distance

 

You seem mighty blind from my standpoint.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Guest (see edit history)

[Seattleite]

Funny how both of your non-Wikipedia sources are research group overviews that are so vague they could be designing new sensors to pick up insect mating calls for all it tells us there. Then the first Wikipedia source, assuming we don't discount Wikipedia on account of being Wikipedia, is also a vague project overview that tells us absolutely nothing about how or how well any of this works, and the second is a single paragraph that says how this works in theory with no statement of how it works in practice, much less says "COMPLETELY UNBLOCKABLE! WORKS THROUGH FARADAY CAGES, CONCRETE BUNKERS, INTERVENING POWER GRIDS AND ENTIRE PLANETS!" like it'd have to in order for it to support your position.

 

Get an actual source, BTG, or concede the point. ANYONE can dig up this level of bullshit on ANYTHING. I could find you sources of this calibre and likely quite a bit better for ghost sightings, Illuminati conspiracies and the Mayan apocalypse, this proves nothing.

[BTGBullseye]

You didn't look at the Wiki sources did you?

 

As for that sensor quip, it specifies that it is for SIGINT... That means military SIGnal INTelligence.

 

Also, Faraday cages only block MOST of the signals, not all. Read up on it yourself I don't have the time to find all the relevant links.

 

Lastly... Do you really think the government is going to let you know in plain words exactly how far it has gotten in this area of eavesdropping? (since this tech was developed solely for the NSA and military)

[Seattleite]

You are making a statement without evidence. What can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence at the reader's discretion. Your claim is too outlandish to believe, and you have yet to present so much as a good argument, much less a source, much less evidence, so since in the absence of evidence belief is at my discretion and I see no reason to believe you, disbelieve you I shall.

 

Now if you want to present some EVIDENCE, then THAT would be something. If it's compelling it might just change my mind. But until then, as far as I or any reader can see, you're completely full of shit.

[BTGBullseye]

Because you have provided no evidence to support YOUR argument, YOU are "full of shit".

 

Either contradict my statements with something other than blind insults or quit being an asshole.

[ThePest179]

Because you have provided no evidence to support YOUR argument, YOU are "full of shit".

 

Either contradict my statements with something other than blind insults or quit being an asshole.

 

So because he has no sources and you have no sources, that makes you correct, right? Bullshit. You can get some evidence too, while you're at it.

[Seattleite]

Because you have provided no evidence to support YOUR argument, YOU are "full of shit".

 

Either contradict my statements with something other than blind insults or quit being an asshole.

 

So because he has no sources and you have no sources, that makes you correct, right? Bullshit. You can get some evidence too, while you're at it.

 

Actually, *I* am considered right by default. Burden of proof is upon the CLAIMANT.

[BTGBullseye]

So because he has no sources and you have no sources, that makes you correct, right? Bullshit. You can get some evidence too, while you're at it.

You obviously didn't read my post since I did cite sources.

 

Actually, *I* am considered right by default. Burden of proof is upon the CLAIMANT.

And that is the absolute lamest statement you can possibly use. Can you provide proof that you're right simply because you don't like my sources?

[Seattleite]

So because he has no sources and you have no sources, that makes you correct, right? Bullshit. You can get some evidence too, while you're at it.

You obviously didn't read my post since I did cite sources.

 

Shitty sources with no evidence that don't even support your claim.

 

Actually, *I* am considered right by default. Burden of proof is upon the CLAIMANT.

And that is the absolute lamest statement you can possibly use. Can you provide proof that you're right simply because you don't like my sources?

 

This is the same logic used by creationists. "God is real and made all things in seven days as they are! Here, I have a source!" *points at bible* The only difference is their source actually makes the same claim as them, so you're a whole step BELOW creationists. YOU are the one MAKING the CLAIM. YOU are the one that has to PROVE IT. I don't have to prove SHIT.

[BTGBullseye]

Shitty sources with no evidence that don't even support your claim.

Shitty because you say so, or because you just don't like that I provided evidence that supports my claims? (and it does support mine if you bothered to look at all of it)

 

YOU are the one MAKING the CLAIM. YOU are the one that has to PROVE IT. I don't have to prove SHIT.

And you have yet to counter my claims with anything but an empty argument.

 

You're obviously an Atheist correct? If so, for you to make the statement "there is no God" you would then have to PROVE CONCLUSIVELY AND WITH NO FORM OF WIGGLE ROOM that there is no God, or I can use the exact same argument you just used against me.

 

You aren't going to win this one logically.

[Seattleite]

Shitty because you say so, or because you just don't like that I provided evidence that supports my claims? (and it does support mine if you bothered to look at all of it)

 

Except no, it doesn't. I HAVE looked at it, including the citations Wikipedia listed. And there's NOTHING THERE to support your claim.

 

And you have yet to counter my claims with anything but an empty argument.

 

You've done nothing to substantiate your claim, so I don't need to do anything at all.

 

You're obviously an Atheist correct? If so, for you to make the statement "there is no God" you would then have to PROVE CONCLUSIVELY AND WITH NO FORM OF WIGGLE ROOM that there is no God, or I can use the exact same argument you just used against me.

 

Bullshit. "There is no god" is not a claim, it's a refutation of a claim. The CLAIM is that there is a god, and it's THAT that needs to be proven. If you say there is no celestial teapot between Earth and Mars after somebody tells you there is, who needs proof? You, or the person claiming there's a teapot there? Same deal with god. There's people claiming there's a god, they need to PROVE IT, or I can freely dismiss their claim. And they have no evidence AT ALL, so I do dismiss their claim, just like I dismiss Buddha, Shiva, Zeus, Odin, the Celestial Teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, ghosts, the Illuminati, ancient astronauts, time travel, unblockable super-sensors and so very much more. And it's the only logical thing to do.

 

You aren't going to win this one logically.

 

I already have, because I'm the only one USING logic.

 

Give up, you've lost. All you're doing now is stroking my ego. I can do that myself, thanks.

[ThePest179]

And that is the absolute lamest statement you can possibly use. Can you provide proof that you're right simply because you don't like my sources?

 

He does not need to prove his claims. Why? Because his claims are proven when your claims are full of shit. And they are.

[ThePest179]

https://www.ll.mit.edu/employment/division10.html#103

https://www.ll.mit.edu/employment/division10.html#107

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)#Public_research

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_surveillance#Monitoring_from_a_distance

 

You seem mighty blind from my standpoint.

 

My two cents:

 

Your sources were bogus. Not at one time did I ever see evidence that a "remote completely wireless tap" could go through faraday cages, concrete bunkers, solid earth, or was completely untraceable. You practically put up a few walls of text in a dashed hope that nobody would call your bluff. You failed.

[Seattleite]

https://www.ll.mit.edu/employment/division10.html#103

https://www.ll.mit.edu/employment/division10.html#107

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)#Public_research

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_surveillance#Monitoring_from_a_distance

 

You seem mighty blind from my standpoint.

 

My two cents:

 

Your sources were bogus. Not at one time did I ever see evidence that a "remote completely wireless tap" could go through faraday cages, concrete bunkers, solid earth, or was completely untraceable. You practically put up a few walls of text in a dashed hope that nobody would call your bluff. You failed.

 

Yeah, not only that they not only didn't have evidence, they didn't even support his claim as faintly as "We can do it." or even MENTIONING it, much less provide data or show it in action. It's not just a failure to produce evidence, it's failure to produce a SOURCE. If I wanted to support a claim that a teapot was in orbit of the sun between Earth and Mars, and then I supported it with a page that explains what a teapot is but doesn't mention outer space or orbit, much less a teapot in orbit of the sun, much less provide any evidence this celestial teapot exists, that'd be about as completely, totally fucking meaningless as BTG's sources.

[BTGBullseye]

So much hate over something so little... Why?

[Seattleite]

1. Hate? No sir, this is amusement. I'm enjoying kicking your ass about this, just like I would any other idiot. Especially now that you're thoroughly defeated and you're refusing to admit it.

[Vapymid]

I'm sorry, but I think this has degenerated into an ad hominem spat which no longer has any connection to the underlying thread. Will everyone please calm down and take a deep breath before continuing the conversation.

 

Regards