richard_smith237

15 minutes ago, Merrill said:

Conspiracy theories a great phrase to control the narrative. 

No... Its a simple is a term used to describe the belief or explanation that significant events or situations are covertly orchestrated by powerful, often malevolent entities, rather than unfolding through transparent or natural means.

At times, such theories have proven to hold elements of truth - where dominant narratives were indeed shaped or manipulated to conceal inconvenient realities.

In other instances, however, these theories spiral into the realm of the irrational and unhinged, driven not by evidence but by an entrenched anti-establishment mindset. For those lingering at the fringes of reason, suspicion becomes a lens through which all truth is distorted, and paranoia masquerades as insight.

While some conspiracy theories have, over time, been vindicated or revealed to contain elements of truth, it would be a categorical error to treat all such theories as equally credible. The existence of valid conspiracies does not grant automatic legitimacy to every claim that wears the same label. To group them all under one umbrella and regard them with the same level of seriousness is to ignore the vast spectrum that exists - ranging from plausible skepticism to outright delusion.

8 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Thanks Richard, I will see what other people have to say, but if there is any doubt, we will play it safe and my wife will go to the Thai embassy (fortunately she is in the Paris area) to obtain the PoA.

One of the other facets to consider - the Passport Office in Thailand may want to see an Original Document - thus: Timing plays a key factor in getting the original posted over.

I'm not sure of this of course - but Thailand does like its 'originals'...  With other documents when an original is required, I've sometimes got away with a coloured print (depending on the office and individual officer).

6 minutes ago, Johno57 said:

On 4/17/2025 at 6:46 PM, richard_smith237 said:

But... what really surprised me with this video - when crossing the road, how such a lack of self preservation was shown, and more so for a parent to show a lack of preservation for their child when crossing by not looking, not even hesitating.

 

 

The speed in which they were hit and the change of lanes at the last 50 yards contradics your theory....totally the drivers fault.. 

What...  you mean the video is wrong and the pedestrians did actually look as they crossed ?

Its not a theory that the German pedestrians showed a lack of awareness and a lack of regard for their own well being - its clear from the video that they strolled across the crossing without looking.

I agree with you that the Songthaew driver is 100% at fault from a legal perspective. 

But, I the video also shows the pedestrians showed a high level of disregard for their own safety when crossing without paying any attention at all for any oncoming traffic 

----------------------

Where did the 'Songthaew change lanes' ?  - is there another video we haven't seen on this thread ?

Even, if the Songthaew it did approach at high speed and change lanes its would have been easy for the pedestrians to avoid impact had they looked and taken greater care.

I recall from renewing my Sons Thai's passport - both Parents need to be present.

If one of the parents is not present, I believe a Power of Attorney from Thai Embassy / or consulate must be secured.

------

Regarding 'exiting' Thailand on an expired Thai Passport and using the Passport of Dual Nationality (French in this case) to travel on - I think its risky and Immigration may not permit exit on an expired Thai Passport. 

I'd advise to cover my bases and get the PoA, then have the Passport renewed in Thailand.

33 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

You are mistaken in your assumption that I avoid mainstream content. I don't, in fact I follow it just as intently as I follow fringe content. I reject nor adhere to neither blindly, I try (as difficult as that is) to look at things as objectively as possible.

 

My various interactions with a multitude of people has led me to conclude that perhaps my "difference" (for lack of a better word) lies in my willingness to entertain the notion that mass-scale deception is absolutely possible.

In other discussions, I’ve noticed you challenged Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, which is a bold stance stance, to say the least.

At the same time, your insights into the sonoluminescence of distant celestial bodies have genuinely intrigued me.

No offence intended, by the way - I enjoy our exchanges and the intelligence with which you write.... But I have also observed that you often diverge from mainstream perspectives. Perhaps it’s a case of playing devil’s advocate to stimulate discussion, or perhaps you genuinely lean toward alternative frameworks because you want to be an 'alternative thinker' and naturally have 'anti-establishment' bias.

Some of the ideas you've posted directly contradict well-established, demonstrable physics, while others carry a hint of plausibility - especially given the inherent gaps in our understanding of phenomena occurring far beyond our reach (such as distant celestial bodies).

It’s always an engaging debate with you, and I find myself genuinely pausing to consider my responses carefully - rather than instinctively thinking, “Oh, give over, you utter fool.” .....

That alone makes our exchanges far more worthwhile than, say, arguing whether circles exist (a point I made in the thread).

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

As for the rest of your post, thanks for the reminder on the official version, that is useful indeed.

It’s easy to think of yourself as an independent thinker, but leaning into fringe theories while avoiding mainstream, fact-based science often leads to conspiracist thinking rather than an informed understanding. 

As interesting and thought provoking as your input is, its readily debunked.

You are ultimately an example of why this thread exists.

48 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Some compelling facts from Dr. Suzanne Humphries, regarding “polio”:

First off, polio never actually disappeared. According to Dr. Humphries, “Polio is still here. Polio is still alive and well.”

 

What changed? The definition. Once the vaccine was introduced, the medical establishment redefined what counted as “polio.”

 

Humphries explains: “Polio is called different things today. Whereas back in the 1940s, 1950s, the criteria for diagnosing polio were completely different to the year that the vaccine was introduced. The playing field, the goalposts – everything was changed… they were able to show a complete cascading drop of paralytic polio simply because of the way they changed the definitions of what polio is and what could cause it.”

 

Suddenly, cases that would’ve been labeled polio were now called Guillain-Barré syndrome, coxsackievirus, echovirus – or simply chalked up to heavy metal poisoning. “They didn’t have virus, or they had coxsackievirus or echovirus, or they were lead poisoned or mercury poisoned, which was – the mercury and lead were the leading treatments of the day,” she said.

Dr. Suzanne Humphries argues that polio never truly disappeared, but was simply renamed after the introduction of the vaccine - reclassified as Guillain-Barré syndrome, coxsackievirus, echovirus, or heavy metal toxicity.

She claims that by changing diagnostic criteria, the medical establishment manufactured a dramatic decline in paralytic polio to credit the vaccine. While this theory has gained traction in alternative health circles, it misrepresents the nature of scientific progress and relies on correlation without causation.

In reality, polio - defined specifically as paralysis caused by poliovirus infection - has decreased by over 99.99% worldwide since the launch of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative in 1988. From 350,000 paralytic cases annually in 125 countries in the 1980s, we now see fewer than 200 cases per year, primarily limited to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The reduction in cases occurred alongside mass vaccination campaigns, not simply a change in how paralysis was labelled. While diagnostic criteria were refined in the 1950s to require laboratory confirmation and longer-lasting paralysis, this was a product of improved technology and understanding- not manipulation.

Moreover, Guillain-Barré syndrome occurs at a rate of 1–2 per 100,000 people per year globally, while non-polio enteroviruses like coxsackie and echovirus cause millions of mostly mild infections annually, with only a small fraction leading to neurological symptoms.

These conditions are biologically and clinically distinct from poliomyelitis. And while substances like DDT, mercury, and lead were used widely and are neurotoxic, their epidemiological footprint never matched the scale or seasonal/geographic pattern of true polio outbreaks.

Ultimately, polio wasn’t renamed or disguised - it was nearly wiped out through decades of coordinated vaccination, surveillance, and public health efforts.

If it had simply been reclassified, we’d still be seeing tens of thousands of children in wheelchairs or iron lungs worldwide. Instead, those numbers have plummeted - because the virus, not just the diagnosis, has been driven to the edge of extinction.

48 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

But it gets worse.

 

The rise of polio, she says, directly mirrored the use of toxic pesticides like DDT. “The tonnage of production of DDT absolutely mirrored the diagnosis for polio.” And even today, “the countries that still make DDT today is where we’re still seeing this paralytic polio situation happen.”

 

According to Dr. Humphries, polio didn’t disappear because of vaccines. It disappeared behind a curtain of redefinitions, misdiagnoses, manmade disasters – and a whole lot of propaganda.

Polio is caused by a virus (poliovirus), not a toxin.

The virus was isolated in the 1900s, well before DDT was invented.

Polio outbreaks occurred before DDT was used, though they were smaller.

Most scientists say the apparent correlation is just that - a correlation, not causation.

However, DDT is a known neurotoxin, and it can affect the immune system, so it’s not impossible that it made polio infections more severe in some people.

48 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

She was recently on Joe Rogan's show:

So was Eddie Bravo - a flat earth fruit cake...    just because someone gets airtime on The Joe Rogan Experience it doesn’t automatically make their ideas valid or truthful.

Joe Rogan gives a platform to anyone, no matter how wild or unconventional their views might be, which allows for a wide range of perspectives, whether they’re controversial or not.

3 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

It was you Sir, who said 150+ years. All the medical procedures that were stated, were done during that time.

 

Point me to one study/paper/experiment/trials that has Isolated a virus. I'll save you the trouble. You can't. There are not any.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/9/10/848

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6254221_Ilheus_Virus_Isolate_from_a_Human_Ecuador

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(23)00682-5/fulltext

Three very reputable publications...  Information regarding the isolation of viruses is widespread.

Isolated SARS-CoV-2 Virus - here >>

https://www.flickr.com/photos/niaid/albums/72157712914621487/

3 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

 

IMO, no vaccine has every been safe. effective or necessary.

 

There is no such entity as an anti-viral drug.

 

The flu is a natural body function.

 

Yawn...   seriously - this is similar to listening to someone convinced that the earth is not an oblate spheroid... oh, thats you too... Ok, I'll again, this is similar to listening to someone convinced that circles do not exist... 

And yet again, I fell sullied and just a little more stupid for even entering the debate with such silliness.

6 hours ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

Probably the son of a foreigner with mental health issues. 

 

Poor parenting from Scottish father 

Wow - you still managed to shoe-horn a 'farang bash' out of this - very impressive !!

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Those threads tend to spiral - gracefully, then grotesquely into absurdity. When one party decides to deny the very existence of viruses, meaningful dialogue becomes a challenge.

Pathogenic viruses do not exist IMO.

 

Viruses - any viruses - have never been isolated, and accordingly, never been shown to cause any transmission of sickness. from one to another.

 

No good burying yer head in the sand Richard bud. The truth don't need any embellishment.

You've made my point better than I did... 

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

...  The guy in the video managed to maintain a straight face too... 

 

 

 

That's not a proper response ... so you got nothing.

And you refuse to admit how silly it appears when you take a model airplane and move it across the so-called globe. 

I watched the video and, for a fleeting moment, entertained the idea that it might be satire - because no one could possibly be this disastrously uninformed.

I’ll waste no more breath on such absurdities, not because I have no rebuttal, but because to stoop to that level would be entertain dialogue with a brand of stupidity so terminal, it insults the very concept of reason.

8 minutes ago, johng said:

27 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

While there’s ongoing research into potential biological or environmental causes,

 

Nothing to do with "safe and effectives"  though right  ?

couldn't be them for sure for sure,  the science has been proven  although ongoing studies continue ?

Correct - the increase in autism has nothing to do with vaccines... The fallacy here is the false causality - implying that because autism rates have risen over time, vaccines must be the cause.

This is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc, where the assumption is made that because one thing (vaccines) happens before another (autism diagnoses), one must be causing the other. It’s an illogical leap.

There is no credible evidence linking vaccines, including the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine, to autism. Decades of research - including large-scale studies, peer-reviewed journals, and extensive reviews by reputable institutions like the CDC, WHO, and NIH - have found no correlation.

The initial study that started this whole controversy, led by Andrew Wakefield in 1998, was fraudulent and thoroughly debunked. He lost his medical license, and the paper was retracted.

As for “ongoing studies,” yes, research is always happening - but it’s not because scientists are still exploring this old discredited theory. It’s because science never stops looking for new insights, not to prove a false link that’s already been debunked.

So, no, vaccines aren’t the problem. The rise in autism is more likely tied to better recognition, broader definitions, and improved diagnostic practices.

But... that doesn't stop the nut-jobs spreading baseless conspiracy theories when the science is clear.

7 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Please watch this video and give me your rebuttal of why you think it's bs.

And anyone else who wants to chime in.

...  The guy in the video managed to maintain a straight face too... 

11 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Why don't you offer to adopt it, and take on all the responsibility for the animal, including all the costs of feeding it, looking after it, and when it savages another person, paying for ALL the damages and costs?

Indeed....   as commented earlier...    If owners were routinely held fully responsible, how long would it take for ownership of these ticking time-bombs to diminish ?

20 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

IF owners were routinely held to account with no-nonsense prosecutions and actual jail time every time one of these genetic landmines mauls a child or kills a passer-by. How long, would it be before the appetite for owning such animals dried up overnight?

 

The bravado would vanish the moment the handcuffs clicked shut 

 

On 4/18/2025 at 7:03 AM, Red Phoenix said:

On 4/18/2025 at 12:24 AM, richard_smith237 said:

 

As evidenced by a number of the posters on this forum (and in this thread) - I think the rates of autism used to be higher !

Expand  

The autism rate continues increasing relentlessly, now up to 1 in 12.5 boys in the most recent California survey

And this is precisely why your commentary consistently misses the mark - it leans on shallow soundbites and cherry-picked stats instead of engaging with any real critical thought.

For clarity: my original comment was a joke aimed at the conspiracy-addled dimwits who genuinely believe this nonsense. But instead of clocking the satire, you took it at face value and ran with a tired, misinformed narrative - one I’ll now dismantle with a little common sense.

Over the past 50 years, the reported rate of autism has increased significantly, but this rise is largely due to changes in how we define, diagnose, and understand autism rather than a true surge in how many people are actually autistic.

Earlier definitions were narrow, often recognising only the most severe cases. But over time, autism has come to be understood as a spectrum, capturing a wider range of traits and behaviours - including those previously overlooked or mislabelled.

Updates in diagnostic manuals (like the DSM), along with greater public and professional awareness, have led to more people being assessed and diagnosed.

Other factors contributing to the rise include improved access to services that require a formal diagnosis, and "diagnostic substitution" - where individuals who might once have been diagnosed with other conditions (such as intellectual disability or language disorders) are now recognised as autistic.

While there’s ongoing research into potential biological or environmental causes, most of the increase can be attributed to broader criteria, better tools, and more awareness, not a true spike in prevalence.

Hence - the statistic you presented is a utter pile of rubbish... perhaps you were one of those who went undiagnosed...

8 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:

 

I've listened to both sides of the debate on the moon landing and both sides have good arguments. At the very least they were successful in planting seeds of doubt and since I wasn't on the shuttle myself I'll never know for certain. 

 

Same for 9/11. It really does look like a controlled demolition. It's hard to envision what happened with the pillars and how they could melt at free fall speed. Whether jet fuel can burn at that temperature is debated also. I've heard the testimony of engineers who explained how that fire would likely have happened and I've heard the counter arguments. Then the fact it was used to spark an illegal war on false pretenses was extremely suspect. As it stands it looks like 9/11 was probably a conspiracy, or least their arguments were more convincing for me personally.

 

However things like flat earth are too stupid to entertain. I tried to give them a chance and listened a little but it's just too stupid on it's face to believe.

I completely agree - it’s crucial to evaluate each conspiracy individually rather than lumping them all together under a broad "pro" or "anti" label. Personally, I’m firmly convinced the moon landings were real - there’s far too much scientific evidence to deny it. The "Fly Me to the Moon" movie from last year does an excellent job of satirizing the moon landing hoax narrative.

As for 9/11 conspiracies, I believe the scale makes it unlikely to be valid. The distrust many people have for authority figures, particularly in the US, has fuelled these theories, especially when distortions are introduced - like the claim that the steel melted at free-fall speed. The reality is that it didn’t melt; it destabilised over hours, and the collapse was occured once it reached its structural limit and the structural collapse cascaded as  pancaked down.

Yet these misrepresentations often weave a narrative that sounds plausible but collapses under scrutiny. Much of the so-called "evidence" - like traces of thermite or claims of planted charges - is either deeply misleading or simply non-existent outside conspiracy theorist commentary. There’s no credible, peer-reviewed support for such claims. Observations of “flashes” during the collapse have also been wildly overstated; in a structure wired with millions of volts, electrical flashes and discharges are entirely expected when it fails catastrophically. It’s not proof of sabotage.

The problem is, these distractions twist technical realities into something sinister for those already inclined to distrust the official narrative.

Then, of course, there’s the utterly ridiculous stuff, like flat Earth theory. It doesn’t deserve serious attention, though I’ll admit, some of the outlandish comments can be unintentionally entertaining.

13 minutes ago, PopGun said:

31 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

This isn’t about cruelty. It’s about recognising that when something is man-made and dangerous, we have the right, and perhaps the obligation to unmake it.

 

 

 

Expand  

You mean things like Bombs, Guns, Knives, etc' 

 

Seriously though.

Selectively breeding a dog to fight to the death, is not for the perceived benefit of the human race.

In my opinion.

The Bully dog should be phased out.

I've seen arguments as daft as 'humans kill more than Pitbulls'...     thankfully that level of asininity hasn't reached this thread yet... 

5 minutes ago, redwood1 said:

The Earth is Flat

 

This is not speculation it is a fact......

 

Why do you think they  call SeaLevel  Sea LEVEL ?   Because the sea is LEVEL as in flat.

2 minutes ago, UWEB said:

Yes, totally fake. They have landed on the back side of the flat Earth.

In response to the thread, the two reasons outlined above illustrate why some individuals interpret such comments as validation - essentially providing oxygen to their belief in various conspiracies.

6 minutes ago, bunnydrops said:

I am not sure if that last line was an attack, but if it was, it was uncalled for.

The comment wasn’t directed at you in the slightest, but rather at those attempting to troll and derail the conversation.

On the contrary, you've kept this thread thoughtful and engaging.

6 minutes ago, bunnydrops said:

I never said that I did not believe man went to the moon; I only stated that at the time, I saw things that made me realize there was a "possibility" that it was fake. Doubting is a part of discovery.

Absolutely... 

6 minutes ago, bunnydrops said:

What if nobody doubted that the Earth was flat?

In light of the overwhelming evidence, indulging in such speculative ‘what-if’ scenarios—such as imagining a world where everyone believes the Earth is flat - is a fruitless exercise. It is no more meaningful than pondering a reality in which water is dry: a notion inherently self-defeating and devoid of reason.

6 minutes ago, bunnydrops said:

Anyway, all I was saying is that if I had seen that video back then, I would not have given the idea a second thought. What I saw was black and white and no where as clear as that.

This is precisely why I’ve approached your questions and comments with respect - they’ve been thoughtful inquiries, ones that many might have.

I’ve watched 'moon landing denier' videos myself, and they are undeniably convincing on the surface, I’ve also taken the time to watch the rebuttals, grounded in scientific evidence and facts. It quickly becomes clear that those who perpetuate these conspiracies do so with a deliberate disregard for the overwhelming proof that debunks their claims.

Just now, Chris49 said:

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Why is it that pit bull-type breeds require specialised training and highly experienced handling just to ensure they don’t become violent - while breeds like Golden Retrievers need no such intervention to be safe?

 

The answer is simple: breeding.

 

Golden Retrievers were never bred with aggression as a base trait. Their lineage comes from a desire to create calm, obedient, people-friendly dogs. You don’t need to “correct” a Golden’s nature - because its nature is inherently safe.

 

Pit bulls, on the other hand, were historically bred for fighting - selected over generations for traits like gameness, tenacity, pain tolerance, and aggression.

That doesn’t mean every individual is dangerous, but it does mean the breed as a whole carries a baseline temperament that makes it higher-risk without proper control.

 

We don’t train Golden Retrievers not to attack. But with pit bulls, people argue they just need the “right owner” or “strong leadership.”  That alone speaks volumes about what’s been bred into them.

 

 

 

 

Although Pitt Bulls may have beed bread to display aggressive behaviour, that does not mean that every Pitt Bull born is going to be aggressive.  

Let me quote the very comment that you replied to:  [[ That doesn’t mean every individual is dangerous, but it does mean the breed as a whole carries a baseline temperament that makes it higher-risk without proper control. ]]

Just now, Chris49 said:

In many cases irresponsible individuals acquire Pitt Bulls and then fail to handle them responsibly.

<<We don’t train Golden Retrievers not to attack. But with pit bulls, people argue they just need the “right owner” or “strong leadership.”  That alone speaks volumes about what’s been bred into them >>

Just now, Chris49 said:

A Pitt Bull in most cases that is raised with love and proper care is in turn going to be a beautiful Family Pet. I have seen this in many instances. This does not mean that the dog must be taken for Special Training. 

But it must be 'very well trained'...  you made that very point yourself..

[[ In many cases irresponsible individuals acquire Pitt Bulls and then fail to handle them responsibly. ]]

Just now, Chris49 said:

Raise a dog responsibly an you will get the required results. I do agree with your Golden's characteristics and argument. 

Which is also the very argument 'against' breeds such as pitbulls - the only way I see such dogs being handled safely is if people are trained and licensed to handle such canines....  This of course will not happen in Thailand and its too hard to enforce elsewhere. 

It might sound harsh, especially to someone who loves the breed, but the truth is, pit bulls aren’t a product of natural evolution. They were deliberately engineered by humans for traits like aggression, endurance, and pain tolerance, all for bloodsport and control.

We created them with a purpose in mind. And if that purpose is no longer acceptable in modern society, if the risks now outweigh the rewards, then it’s entirely within our power and responsibility to phase them out.

This isn’t about cruelty. It’s about recognising that when something is man-made and dangerous, we have the right, and perhaps the obligation to unmake it.

This individual is receiving an unfair amount of criticism on this forum.

He genuinely cares about his work and consistently demonstrates dedication to protecting the local national park areas - often in the face of resistance. There are numerous videos showing him boarding fishing boats, party boats, and dive charters, always calmly and respectfully explaining that they are in restricted zones.

He is an active enforcer of existing environmental laws, doing his job with commitment at a time when many of us here are quick to criticise the police for perceived apathy or inaction.

I believe he may have overreacted to the "Nee-how" comment - his response did seem overly sensitive and somewhat exaggerated. While the comment was racially insensitive, possibly even triggering, it could also be viewed as ignorant rather than malicious - no more harmful than someone greeting a British police officer with “Bonjour” or “Hola.” Most wouldn’t even flinch.

Should any of this have cost him his job? Absolutely not. I read in the Thai media that he was forced to resign, and I can’t help but feel that this has more to do with the fact he’s been upsetting the status quo. He holds people to account and enforces standards - and in doing so, he’s ruffled a few feathers.

His departure is a loss for the local environment. Without his presence, there’s a real risk that locals will once again feel emboldened to exploit protected areas, damaging fragile ecosystems that desperately need safeguarding.

4 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

And the first 4 posters in this thread have a negative view on what is obviously a nice story.

What is wrong with you that you can’t see a nice story for what it is?

Yes, its a nice feel good story, But, why is being honest newsworthy in the first place ???

I'm surprised there has been no comment regarding an Indian with a bag of gold necklaces ?? 

... buys them off Ladyboys to sell to the next round of Indian tourist to visit beach-road Pattaya ?

2 hours ago, soi3eddie said:

How much use could this be? I understand a Tsunami warning as it usually has quite some time before hitting. But, an earthquake? How long was it after the seismic activity in Mandalay, Burma before the shockwaves hit Bangkok? Would there be enough time to even get a warning out?

 

This was actually announced last year...  Though I'm not sure why it took so long for trials to be carried out...  20/20 hindsight could offer criticism that it 'could have' been ready for the March 28th quake.... It possibly took time as individual telecoms companies were fighting to get their own versions out.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1321682-thailand-trials-first-mobile-phone-emergency-alert-system/

ough 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1331505-true-corporation’s-emergency-alert-system-unveiled/

As you question, how could it be useful for an earthquake ?

There are different types of waves that hit during an earthquake. 

P-Waves (Primary Waves)

Fastest (6–8 km/s) / Compressional (push-pull motion)

First to arrive / Least damaging 

S-Waves (Secondary Waves)

Slower than P-waves (3.5–4.5 km/s) / Side-to-side or up-down motion / More destructive

Surface Waves (Love & Rayleigh)

Slowest (2–4 km/s) / Travel along Earth’s surface / Most damaging

Rolling, rippling, and twisting motion.

Given the distance between the epicenter near Mandalay and Bangkok, P-waves would have reached the city in approximately 2.5 to 3 minutes, while S-waves would have arrived around 4.5 to 6 minutes after the earthquake occurred, and Surface Waves approximately 8  minutes.

Thus: an alert system would give 'some time' for people to get out of 'high risk buildings' - that said, when buildings are built to withstand a quake, escaping the building is not the recommended course of action due to the risk of falling glass etc - apart from one building, all of Bangkoks buildings survived amicably (none collapsed) - thus staying put was the best option, escaping the riskiest.

Written with 20/20 hindsight - as quakes this large are unprecedented in Bangkok and Thailand, no one knew how the buildings in Bangkok might hold up.

----------------

I was in Japan when an 'Emergency alert' went off - I was in a tall building, the alert went off on my phone and watch (loud buzzing) it worked very well even though I was on a Thai Sim (with roaming) - shortly after the alarm the building swayed - I already knew the magnitude of the quake (from the alert), more importantly I knew was what was going on so didn't feel any concern (I think the quake was about a magnitude 6 on the Richter scale - and I knew buildings in Tokyo are built to handle that)

----------------

This alert would have greater impact for Tsunami early warning and would obviously need to be tied into Thailands 'Tsunami early warning systems' - the maintenance of which has been criticised in the past - But, the alert could also be tied to earthquake warmings from nearby faults such as The Sunda fault, offshore Ache (north Sumatra), which caused the 2004 Tsunami.

5 minutes ago, bunnydrops said:

That is a much better video than I saw way back when. I'm good with that.😊

In this corner of the forum, you'll also find the flat earth and anti-vax sagas - parades of passionate discussion.

It’s genuinely intriguing to observe how drastically human minds can diverge from reason.

Those threads tend to spiral - gracefully, then grotesquely into absurdity. When one party decides to deny the very existence of viruses, meaningful dialogue becomes a challenge.

At that point, we might as well debate whether reality itself is just a construct, a simulation. When ludicrousness overtakes logic, what’s left is little more than a circus of conspiracies where intellect is tossed out.

And now, in this very thread, we witness yet an attempt to derail a conversation - not with argument, but with petulance of individual so fragile that encountering objection seems to rattle their composure beyond repair.