Of course I wouldn't, actually. There you go putting words in my mouth - as well as taking them out - again.
Debunked: Belfort Group "Case Orange" conclusions & recommendations
- Thread starter Jay Reynolds
- Start date
Of course I wouldn't, actually. There you go putting words in my mouth - as well as taking them out - again.
There was nothing impolite in any of those posts. Why are you using it as an excuse to censor?
You said "The document is a clear statement of intent. It says that the developments will happen.", but then you say that you would not say that they part in the document that says "The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government." is a lie. So how can it be a statement of intent?
What is it other than speculation?
Feel free to repost the information in the posts you are referring to.
What is it other than speculation?
Feel free to repost the information in the posts you are referring to.
I recommend to all reading this to ignore the sophistry and read the document for yourself. Senior members of the military do not sit about speculating meaninglessly, they act - read the document; much of what they speak of already exists and is already in development.
How can I repost it? It started with a post by Jay Reynolds, as you well know. why don't you re-post? It'll take you two seconds
I do not need to do anything of the sort. I recommend to anyone reading this to read the document for yourself.
http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Oh, yes you do, lee. You have endlessly prattled on and on in a vague manner, made vague accusations, vague references to your expertise, every thing about you and all you have written has been dancing like a merry-go-round the maypole. If you have a fault that has always been the most evident, with the exception of your refusal to answer direct questions directly, another sign of vagueness.
You epitomize the word vague, lee. It is your trademark. It is a sign to everybody who reads this that you are not really interested in being honest.
Admit it.
MikeC
Closed Account
The military does not spend all its time "doing things" - it also spends a lot of time thinking about what might happen in various scenarios. In this case it looks to me like strategic thinking is being demonstrated by picking a topic that could be important and writing what would be required to achieve it, how it would be useful, what the hooks are, how it might be integrated in overal military planning etc.
The weather is now, and always has been an important military consideration. Characterising this study as "speculating meaninglessly" shows a fairly simplistic mindset IMO - the military NEEDS to speculate on things that might exist 30 years ahead - as well as things that might happen tomorrow.
It is part of what they get paid for!
The weather is now, and always has been an important military consideration. Characterising this study as "speculating meaninglessly" shows a fairly simplistic mindset IMO - the military NEEDS to speculate on things that might exist 30 years ahead - as well as things that might happen tomorrow.
It is part of what they get paid for!
Ross Marsden
Senior Member.
@ lee h oswald
I completely agree with Jay. You are vague, evasive and non-committal. Passive-aggressive much?
Every post of yours is borderline rude.
I have read that document, too.
Quote any bit that is a "clear statement of intent", or that a particular "development will happen". Go on, quote it.
I completely agree with Jay. You are vague, evasive and non-committal. Passive-aggressive much?
Every post of yours is borderline rude.
I have read that document, too.
Quote any bit that is a "clear statement of intent", or that a particular "development will happen". Go on, quote it.
Presumably you're referring to me saying this: 'Senior members of the military do not sit about speculating meaninglessly'
What are you talking about?
Whereas you are too sure-footed and righteous. Oh, and right, ofcourse.
What's 'borderline' rude? You completely agree with Jay?
Quote any bit that is a "clear statement of intent", or that a particular "development will happen". Go on, quote it. Despite your argument being so persuasive....I'll politely decline, thank you very much; but like I said: read it here folks....http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
Don't listen to any of this nit-picking nonsense, just make up your own minds about it.
A clear statement of intent, right at the beginning, after the acknowledgements:
"development will happen". Go on, quote it.
ok then; from page 2 of the beginning, executive summary again:
You see, you don't have to go too far into it; maybe the one you read had some pages missing? I can give you a link
MikeC
Closed Account
Yep.
Sorry you can't comprehend it.
your only alternatives for this paper seem to be that it is eitehr meaningless speculation", or a well formed plan that is in the process of being deliberately carried out.
You seem tohaveno ability to recognise that ther are many shades in between, and it is part of hte military's job to carry out MEANINGFUL speculation about what might happen in the future.
Last edited by a moderator:
The whole argument there is rather deflated by the disclaimer on the first page:
http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
But I really don't see what your point it. Nobody doubts that the military is investigating an unknown variety of weather modification techniques (such as fog dispersion). The question is how you link this to the "chemtrail" theory.
http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
But I really don't see what your point it. Nobody doubts that the military is investigating an unknown variety of weather modification techniques (such as fog dispersion). The question is how you link this to the "chemtrail" theory.
No, actually. The question is how you link this to the chemtrail theory - I didn't bring up this document, one of your minions did. I am merely commenting on its content and encouraging people to read it. You mention 'fog dispersion' - is that the least offensive bit you could find? How about some of the stuff about warriors and war fighters and domination and coercion? Maybe you've got some pages missing too?
Read it for yourselves folks....if there are any folks out there?
Here it is again! http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
Pogopoint99
Senior Member.
No actually. The Owning the Weather 2025 document was mentioned in the Belfort Group's "Case Orange" report to support the argument that chemtrails are real and part of an ongoing geo-engineering program. Did you not notice the tittle of this thread? If you wanted to merely "comment on its content and encouraging people to read it" in isolation, then you should have started a separate thread.
So, are we to conclude from your vague statements that you don't believe the OTW: 2025 report supports the chemtrail theory?
And you brought it into this discussion as 'evidence' for your 'case'. Yes, I did notice the title and that's why I'm discussing the document that you brought up in relation to it. What is vague about that? Have you ever read any Kafka? You should, you're in one. What isolation is there? Should? Should I?
Conclude what you like
Pogopoint99
Senior Member.
Oh good, so you are trying to make a point.
Now let's try to figure out what it is. let me ask you again. Are we to conclude from your vague statements that you don't believe the OTW: 2025 report supports the chemtrail theory?
You can't figure out the points I've made? You appear concerned with my apparently vague statements - could you indicate exactly where I have made all these vague statements you keep alluding to, and why you're having trouble with them? I'm always happy to clarify.
Which plants would you grow in these highly acidic soils? PH 5 - 4?
I wasn't talking to you
always right there, aren't you?
Anyway, we've been through which of us answers questions more thoroughly, haven't we? You haven't tried to 'debunk' my assertions here, so presume you must agree.
And we're back at that 'belief' thing again. Beliefs are for religious people. Science is mutable; theory awaiting inevitable falsification
I am saying what I think. You lot say what you believe.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
If your soil was 4-5 pH you would probably need to lime for many crops, enough to get the pH up to about 5.5. At that point, aluminum resistant corn, cassava, pigeon peas peanut or cowpeas would probably do pretty well. Down near 5, you would probably have to use only the most aluminum resistant crops. In the subtropics, your options would probably be cereals like oats or barley.
However, in many of the soils for which aluminum resistant GMO crops are being developed, liming really doesn't solve the problem. In many of these cases, even though you lime the topsoil, the subsoil is still acidic and liming can't practically change it. It is in these cases that aluminum resistant GMO seeds will shine.
BTW, in acidic conditions, lack of phosphorus is also a limiting factor. Most likely, GMO creation of varieties not so sensitive to a lack of phosphorus will be needed. I'm sure that those folks who believe they must work tirelessly against the MONSANTODEVIL will find some new conspiracy theory around that.
However, in many of the soils for which aluminum resistant GMO crops are being developed, liming really doesn't solve the problem. In many of these cases, even though you lime the topsoil, the subsoil is still acidic and liming can't practically change it. It is in these cases that aluminum resistant GMO seeds will shine.
BTW, in acidic conditions, lack of phosphorus is also a limiting factor. Most likely, GMO creation of varieties not so sensitive to a lack of phosphorus will be needed. I'm sure that those folks who believe they must work tirelessly against the MONSANTODEVIL will find some new conspiracy theory around that.
If your soil was ph 5-4 then you wouldn't grow much.
At ph 5.5 aluminium uptake is barely an issue.
The biggest cause of problems is solutions.
Monsanto's record: available for all to see for what it is - disgraceful.
firepilot
Senior Member.
If we started referring to Phosporus in relation to the chemtrail hoax, I wonder how long it would take before that would join their list of Aluminum, Barium, Strontium, et al....
The problem of aluminum toxicity already existed.
http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/21454/
I repeat. So, what would you grow in your ph 5-4 soil?
One should grow appropriate crops in the appropriate places, it's quite simple.
Do you think Monsanto's track record is acceptable and would you trust them?
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Wrong, some farmers have 4.5 pH soil to work with. Much of the world. They either farm the soil they have or they don't eat.
They don't have lime or tractors to put it down where the roots get water. Many crops, including the ones I mentioned, COULD GROW WELL AT PH OF 4.5 IF THEY ARE ALUMINUM TOLERANT! This is not bullshit. Just like any freshman in college meteorology can understand that contrails persist, any freshman in college agronomy can understand this. I should know, since I mastered both courses wih "A" grades.
But don't argue with me, go argue with a person like Dr. Leon Kochian of Cornell University:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3741/is_n11_v40/ai_13015687/
http://css.cals.cornell.edu/cals/css/people/faculty.cfm?netId=lvk1
Go tell Dr. Kochian that his solutions cause problems.
Go tell Dr. Kochian that he is disgraceful.
Go debate the issue with some of the many around the world who are seeking solutions to problems:
http://www.maizeforacidsoils.uni-hannover.de/frame.htm
And when they hand you back your shitty conspiracy theory on a platter, show us what they told you.
I will mock your impudent ignorance!
....presenting another emotional response from Jay Reynolds.
Sorry, I must have missed it; probably due to my impudent ignorance: what crops would you grow at ph 4.5?
Well?
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
I've already listed some crops which will grow at the middle of that range.
If you want to dispute me, bring it on, debate the matter.
"One should grow..."
Who made YOU Commisar of Agriculture to tell anyone what they can grow, where they can grow it, or how they can grow it?
It has become quite clearthat you are a control freak who wants to boss the world around, lee.
You are frustrated because the farmers of the world are making their own decisions based on their own self-interests, and you don't like it one bit. Who are YOU to tell any farmer anything at all? You never planted a seed in your life, you never had to depend on your own abilities to grow anything to fed yourself or others, most likely everything you've ever eaten came from Tesco. You have no plans to farm, and never will. It just galls your ass to find that you can't control what farmers grow. And guess what, the world;s farmers don't give a rats ass what you think. Bet that galls you even more!
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
There's no need to trust Monsanto, and they are actually not leading the world in GMO seeds anyway, they have less than 50% of the market here in the US. If you want to fight GMO's you had better learn to speak Hindi, lee.
When farmers try seeds, and they have value, they will be sold for what they are worth, if not, the seeds will not be saleable. It's that simple, and the same for any company that sells products. And the farmers will never take lee into account when making their seed choices, despite his lust to be the
Great and All Powerful World Commissar of Agriculture!
