Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Judith152

    Judith152 New Member

    Hi, I'm new here but interested on your view. You say she did not understood the document. Could you please, explain page 93 then, please? "Capture/torture Americans in living color on prime time" and this, is only an example. Thank you. image.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's part of a longer list of what an anti-US power (like, say, Iran) might do. On the previous page you have:

    RMA = "Revolution in Military Affairs", i.e. a significant change in the way war is fought.
    It's often hard to follow these documents as they are intended for a military literate audience, and there's a lot of terminology that regular people are unfamiliar with.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    The whole document is "educated guesses" as to what technologies and strategies a future enemy of the US might use and that list on page 93 is no different. As stated on page 6...

  4. Judith152

    Judith152 New Member

    I understand and I saw that is hard to follow this but I must insist on this particular page (93). What are we/ am I mistaken here? It clearly says what it says about capturing and killing Americans in color on prime TV (exploit CNN Syndrome) what else, if not what it says, could mean? Any specific idea to clarify that specific point? I have the whole document and there is more that clearly states what it is written. There is the possibility of making mistakes when trying to understand much of the information in this document but there are a few, clear, very clear statements that made my blood freeze. If you have the entire document, please, would you be so kind as to try and explain what exactly do they mean on pages 8,9,10,13, 14,22, 29,30,31,34,35,41,43,49,50,51,52,53,55,56,58,61,65,66(!),71,72,73,76(!),77,79,81,82,83,88,90,98(!),100,101,104(!).What I this pages, not only is talking about war with the "enemy". It talks about making up victims, making up "terrorists", etc. it talks about hurting their own people through many ways ( food, air, water, plants, nano implants, etc) it talks about illegal attacks and destruction. It talks about fabricating wave tidals, affecting planes, trains, roads, energy supply. And it is only about war, its about illegal ways and wit intention to make serious damage. Why is it not important? It doesn't matter how old the doc is, after all it talks up and until circa 2025. Why is this not being taken seriously? It affects us all. Thank you for replying.

    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 26, 2013
  5. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    It's just speculation on what tactics a potential enemy of America might utilize. How does anybody have trouble understanding that?

    If a terrorist group, or individual, wanted to shock the American public, they might kidnap a journalist, behead them and record it. Or they might try to set off bombs at a popular sporting event. Hmmmm, sound familiar?
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Judith152

    Judith152 New Member

    Totally familiar but you seem to forget that the document speaks about NOW and Future circa 2025. Many if the mentioned things are happening right now. The use and abuse/ manipulation of TV (CNN syndrome). The genetics work where spider genes have been mixed with goats, the chemtrails, GMOs. HAARP, weather manipulation, brain manipulation, bills that are taking the freedoms away, vaccines, diseases that are being purposely spread, the economic situation worldwide, it is happening. Why then do you refuse to link both: document and actual facts? Just, please, give me a straight answer to that. Why do we see those links now and here year 2013? It is about war against "terrorist". No, is not. Talks ONLY about the future? No. If I was to blindly believe what the doc says I would not have seek help to understand more but trying to just "brush" away actual " coincidences", does nothing but reinforce that part of me telling me it is more than meet the eye. And I wll end with this (waiting for your reply though) because I don't plan on being on and on with the same with no possibility of a mild reflection. I'm not blind, neither are you. Being skeptic shouldn't mean one closes all doors to other readings and to facts. Right? Thank you.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Judith, many of the topics you have brought up have been discussed quite extensively here. I suggest you look around, particularly regarding chemtrails, where there is a whole sub-forum, and my other site:

    Again though, this is purely a speculative document about future possibilities. It does not suggest any actions the American government or military would take against the American people.

    If you'd like to ask questions here, I respectfully ask that you ask only one at a time, make sure it's a clear question, and be prepared to discuss the answer before asking a new question.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  8. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    Here's the one thing I don't understand about things like this that get released...
    We can't release evidence of a crime scene, or certain information about what our country is doing is 'classified', or Snowden releases documents about our programs that are somehow hurtful to the country's security...
    How does releasing a huge list of things enemies could do to us not fit in with these types of security related documents and instances?
    I can't grasp how we can release an entire document saying all the things we can expect the enemy to do to us (way to give them ideas, huh?) but revealing a program about our own government invading our privacy and using that information without our knowledge is somehow damaging to our security?
    Arrrrggh 'national security' is annoying.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Because it's all just speculation - it's exactly the same stuff that's in loads of futurist books (and even in a lot of science fiction books). And it's from 12 years ago.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Judith152

    Judith152 New Member

    You mean, this is one chance at it and that's it? I shall then think you are in possession of the truth and is not debatable. Well, thank you and respectfully I'm going to leave now for good :) have a good day.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  11. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    No he just means one question per thread. If you have other questions please create a new thread for each new question.

    Edit: If there is not already a thread about that question. Please search first.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    It is hard enough to debate one topic at a time.

    There are several threads on chem trails and on GMO crops and on HAARP. That why you need to check there and see if you have additional questions that they have not answered.
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No, you can have as many questions as you like. Just one at a time.
  14. Ashley Banks

    Ashley Banks Member

    Mick West, [...]. I have a few questions for you, to answer individually.

    1) How do you know this information about the document?
    2) Where is the evidence for these claims you make?
    3) The documents graphics aren't standard NASA images. NASA would not have pixellated graphics, why are they pixellated?
    4) The document cannot be downloaded from any OFFICAL places, why is this?
    5) If the document is regarding "possible" future warfare, why IS this stuff happening now?

    I look forward to your reply.

    [Admin: Edited for politeness]
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2013
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I looked up the various terms and words on Google. I also read it in depth, and read other similar documents

    If you could pick one, we can discuss that.

    It's an old document, from 12 years ago.

    It's out of date, as it's 12 years old. But there are a LOT of similar docs on official .mil sites:

    Generally it isn't, people are just repeating claims they heard on the internet. But if you'd like to raise a specific point, then we can discuss that.
  16. Ashley Banks

    Ashley Banks Member

    Okay, so your opinion on it is better than anyone elses? I understand you have read it all in depth, but so have I.
    I do not know exactly what to think about this document, but there is no proof that it originates from NASA. I would like to see the ORIGINAL powerpoint file so that I can check all of the details attached, date created, created by etc.. If we do not have this proof we cannot even be sure it is from 2001.

    There are a lot of points I would like to address, we can get to those through this converstion.

    That does not answer the pixellation, even 12 years ago we could still make simple images (like the NASA badge) in very high detail.

    I can understand that it is out of date, but for clarification there should still be access to the file. I checked the link, I do know there are lots of similar documents, but this specific one I believe is most likely a hoax.

    Everything nowadays is heard on the internet and a lot of these things are true. Have you heard of HAARP? That is one of the governments weapons. They have so much secretive stuff going on that we have no idea about. If this is real or a hoax, either way a lot of the things in the document ARE happening. It's all based around control.

    Why did you edit my post simply because I said I don't like the fact that you force your opinion on others?
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Ashley, do you have a specific question?
  18. Ashley Banks

    Ashley Banks Member

    My point is, I do not believe you have "debunked" this case at all.

    I would like you to re-run your evidence, even 12 years ago we had better graphics than that. The whole document is of bad quality and there is still no original powerpoint file. There is no proof it is from NASA.

    I just want to know how you can come to a conclusion that it is a real document. I believed it until I actually saw the document for myself.

    Another question I have is, do you know about the HAARP weather weapon?
  19. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Ashley Banks

    Ashley Banks Member

    HAARP is not only a research program but a weapon, haven't you seen the lights, heard the sounds? SEEN the earthquakes???
    Anyway, I will take the HAARP discussion to the page you linked.
    Back to the topic of this thread, I believe the document is a hoax, can you provide the evidence I asked for?
    I don't mean to offend but I believe that you are either very gullible or if not you're probably paid off by the government to do these "debunks". If I'm wrong, well I don't know what evidence you are looking at.
  21. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    And today you can still use worse graphics. The powerpoint uses 2 graphics that are fairly obviously scanned copies of diagrams or similar, plus a graph or 2.

    So what?

    apart from it existing on a "government website" (.mil) and being said there to be from NASA, it being all over the web as being "from NASA", etc......??

    If you have seen the document yourself then how can you possibly suggest it is not real?? :confused::confused:

    no one knows anything about the HAARP weather weapon.

    Lots of people think they do of course.....:rolleyes:
    • Like Like x 2
  22. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    What is your evidence for that?
  23. Ashley Banks

    Ashley Banks Member

    My evidence for that, is the document itself. Read my comments before.

    1) The NASA logo is pixellated, the graphics were a lot better than that in 2001, I could have done better at home.

    2) The overall quality of the document and layout is poor. I could not see that to have been work done by a NASA scientist.

    3) There is no original powerpoint version of the document ANYWHERE to be found. If this file could be found, we could verify the creator and date.
  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Here's a .PPT of the shorter version of the presentation, from the Federation of American Scientists.

    Again though, there are hundreds of similar documents dating back over the decades. It's just you are not familiar with the material.
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Ashley Banks

    Ashley Banks Member

    I am talking about the NASA logo mainly.

    That specific file does not exist on that website, that is incorrect. People can say something is from anywhere, that does not mean it is.

    Don't nitpick, I mean whether it is a hoax or not.

    All I can say to you in this thread is, you are very naive.
  26. Ashley Banks

    Ashley Banks Member

    The shortened version? Don't you mean the non-hoax version?
    I think you may have just proven my point.
    Look at the logo from the document you just supplied, it is good quality, then look at the "full" document, BAD quality.
    Oh and by the way, the document was created in 2000. The last save was in 2001, this shows signs of tampering. A little bit of computer knowledge gets you information.

    PS. The last print was also in 2000, 20 days after it was created. The exact dates were creation: 10/10/2000 print: 30/10/2000 and then the next alteration was 22/05/2001.
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2013
  27. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Why not ask the guy who's name is on the front??

    so no actual evidence that it is fake at all - just a suspicion based on 3 things you don't like.
  28. Ashley Banks

    Ashley Banks Member

    And read the last comment, another piece of evidence.
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You will notice the short version references the long version on page 2.


    Why don't you just pick one thing in the document that you think is actually suspicious. I really don't see anything that has not been discussed before in one form or another.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  30. Ashley Banks

    Ashley Banks Member

    Ok, well you avoided the timestamps? This document is likely to have been edited.
    And also the difference in the logo, the long version is not the second part of this document or the graphics would be the same.
  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No, it shows signs of editing. That's what people do with presentations that they give more than once.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    An again, what is even suspicious about the content of the document? Pick one.
  33. Ashley Banks

    Ashley Banks Member

    Oh and if it's real, what is with the "This presentation based upon "futures" work for/with" and the list of organisations?
  34. Ashley Banks

    Ashley Banks Member

    The WHOLE thing!!! The things that it suggests, you can clearly not read it with an open mind as you have been brainwashed by the government for too long.

    I'm only 19 and I can see the things you are clearly missing. By the way, don't try and palm me off as gullible or stupid, I'm highly intelligent and I look for facts.
  35. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Pick one thing in it you want me to explain.
  36. Ashley Banks

    Ashley Banks Member

    You cannot explain any of it!!
    I don't understand how you can think that you can just explain it.. I am educated enough to know what the government does to the world. And no, I do not believe all of the stupid conspiracies. Some of the things you call "conspiracies" are actually true stories and do have fact to back them up. You seem like you've researched a lot, how can you not see the lies that have been spread to deceive people from what is really going on? Either you're working for the government or you cannot tell fact from fiction anymore.
    This document, probably does point to the things they are going to do. It's true, there are too many humans on the Earth, and we are sucking up it's resources. The government knows that can't go on and they are going to react the only way they know, with violence. You could learn a lot from me Mick. Something maybe you would be interested in: I am going to be writing up my ideas for a world government and when I say ideas.. I mean a whole policy. Maybe when I upload it to youtube you would like to take a look? I am actually more intelligent than you know, it may seem big headed but I don't care. A government of my creation, would be perfect. It would run in harmony.. Of course, as with anything it would take time.. I have ideas of removing religion, borders and split currency, using renewable energies, having full disclosure of information.. and a lot more. BUT, it would work, 100%.
    I may be going on a bit, and I'm sorry for that, but I am passionate about this subject. The governments are not out to help us, they are greedy, selfish (insert swear word). MY world government.. Would fix the world.. I am so certain of that.. But I have no idea how to get it out there. Hence the reason, I am going to write up a policy, and start with youtube.
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2013
  37. Ashley Banks

    Ashley Banks Member

    I want you to explain what I already asked:
    Oh and if it's real, what is with the "This presentation based upon "futures" work for/with" and the list of organisations?
  38. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    "Futures" is short for "Futures studies". It's plural because there are many possible futures.

    See several more examples from the military:"futures+studies"

    Here's an example of their use of "Futures" (single word, in quotes):

    The list of organization is just a list of organizations that they have done that type of work with.
  39. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Oh, how you will chuckle when you re-read this in ten years time. :)

    You remind me of me, when I was young.
    • Like Like x 2
  40. Ashley Banks

    Ashley Banks Member

    You think you are so wise because of your age, I guarantee I could challenge you in terms of intelligence.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.