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.
view the rest of the comments →
darkmuffin ago
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.
Unlike the US, Mexico had an efficient mass evacuation program in place that appears to have worked. Funny thing there.
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.
No, Mexico's coast is not nearly as inhabited as the US coasts. Obviously a sign of a conspiracy.
El Nino, more likely.
3/10.
entropyosaurus ago
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."
Ender1337 ago
You mean because it didn't use the words efficient or programs? You can't be serious...
entropyosaurus ago
"reported mass evacuations" isn't the same as "Mexico, known for their long history of efficient mass evacuation programs"
Ender1337 ago
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 ago
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 ago
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 ago
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 ago
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 ago
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 ago
You're a hopeless cause. :/ I can't help you. :(
entropyosaurus ago
lol, nice retort. i'll take this as your admission of defeat:) thanks for the reply
Ender1337 ago
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 ago
LOL, three times around the barn? all you've said is that "mass evacuations took place! [because an article told me they did]."
Ender1337 ago
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 ago
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 ago
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 ago
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 ago
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 ago
LOL, not a bad troll yourself:)
Ender1337 ago
A truce then? ;)
entropyosaurus ago
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 ago
So you finally get it. :) I'm glad.
entropyosaurus ago
my only parting advice to you is don't believe everything you read on the internet:)