Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kyle Howells

    Kyle Howells New Member

    no I would thank you for my mistake good sir but it is just an example
     
  2. Kyle Howells

    Kyle Howells New Member

    I understand this and thank you for replying, I can also understand where you are coming from but I believe the theory should at least be given a chance, I'm sure in the years to come we can all agree that more facts will be revealed and this will be proved wrong I hope. The thought of it is disturbing. I'm merely saying that we can't prove him/her wrong yet and we should wait till we do have facts to criticise him/her over also I would like to thank Mick for replying.
     
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    If someone makes a claim of evidence, then it's entirely reasonable to investigate and analyze that claim. It's not personal.
     
  4. Kyle Howells

    Kyle Howells New Member

    then all we can do is wait then
     
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No, we can examine the claimed evidence. And debunk it if it is false.
     
  6. Kyle Howells

    Kyle Howells New Member

    I mean for more evidence to debunk
     
  7. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    Do some research......explore the web looking for unbiased answers.....if you find something that makes no sense, search this site, then ask. People here love to help answer difficult questions........and are very appreciative if those questions come from someone who has seemed to have done their homework beforehand....it leads to a better understanding for everyone. That's the fun part (unfortunately often on some very disturbing topics).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member




    I'll bet you heard all that on the internet.
     
  9. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    HAARP is currently shut down - how come the earthquakes are still happening??
     
  10. Raz

    Raz New Member

    I saw the video that apparently began this debate, and I found the video disconcerting.
    However, having now read the NASA document, I come away with this:
    NASA correctly points out that the U.S. is failing in its educational standards and that more coding comes out of India than here.
    It also speculates that future wars will be more bio/robotic ... and cheaper.
    It provides many probability details of what a potential enemy may throw at the U.S., noting that 80% of our population is coastal.
    But nowhere did I perceive that it provides a plan for our military to attack our citizens.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    There's the key.

    Unfortunately the crowd thinks in images and key words, not with science and reason. So the majority of people who view the video will believe the claims made about it. It's the brick wall of debunking.
     
  12. Dean Page

    Dean Page New Member

    Hi everyone. Just joined and have read and enjoyed this thread greatly. I think a lot of people would be quite shocked reading this NASA Pdf as to what it contains from 2001 and to what many say is happening now. I also have reservations to the fact that the original document was edited and who was it edited by? Maybe some hi-jinx? Can the edit date be manipulated, could it be a more recent edit than 2001? I'm not very computer literate and have no dealings with Pdf's personally.

    I say this as there could be an agenda at work when it comes to those pushing the chemtrails conspiracy. Long version pdf Page 43 / Micro Dust Weaponry.

    This is not on the shorter version link you posted up Mick. Ok it's meant to omit certain pages....to be shorter, but maybe it wasn't really there in the first place?

    Equally you could say the shorter version has omitted it because of the chemtrail issue being uncovered and a greater awareness in the public domain ? Have you any indication what year this version was first put on-line?

    To finish I find this newspaper article interesting in connection with long version pdf page 55 heading... What is Apparently “Legal”
    • Chemical Personnel Incapacitation Weaponry
    [“Non-Warfare” (e.g. Hostage/Terrorism) only]

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-use-on-rioters-scientists-fear-6612084.html

    It's getting late but I will peruse this document a little more as I find it very interesting and maybe post some more of my findings if any?.
     
  13. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    A 'news' article that has nothing other than some mostly unnamed folks for a source. No credibility there.

    Do you have a link to this 'long form"?

    This document was only a discussion of might bes, not planned bes.
     
  14. Dean Page

    Dean Page New Member

    The long form pdf ?

    The link that Mick posted on page 1 of this thread.

    Doesn't the credibility come from the fact it was a working group put together by The Royal Society?...If the news article is to believed of course.

    And if it's not.. there's another conspiracy involving The Independent, why would they report untruths ?

    When does a might be become a planned be?
     
  15. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    A might be is something that might happen and planning on a response to it. Folks do this all the time. If you are going on a long car trip, you may well have your tires and your car checked out before hand. Folks in areas where snowstorms or hurricanes might take out their power, may have a generator and fuel for it ready.

    You see problems in the company you work for, and you go and redo your resume. You spend some time looking for a replacement job, if you realize that you need to improve your skills, you might go take a course or two, just in case. A government and yes even businesses have to plan for what might happen. That is not making it happen.
     
  16. Dean Page

    Dean Page New Member

    Yes and one day that generator may be used.

    Don't use see that even talking about such things let alone a power point presentation to be shared shows intent.
     
  17. Dean Page

    Dean Page New Member

    And by the way, I don't see these people as just folk. They are people with power who are there to work for and protect those with serious power....Who want to keep that power
     
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    What exactly is it you are concerned that they might do? The video in the OP makes a wide variety of entirely spurious interpretation of the document. Basically they don't understand what it is saying, so concoct alarmist interpretations.

    Let's say there was a military paper talking about increasing the accuracy of sniper rifles. Does that then mean they are planning to shoot you?
     
  19. Dean Page

    Dean Page New Member

    Even though as you've stated the language used opens up many interpretations of what these weapons could be, they do point to a more covert weaponry. Very handy for long term use on populations as opposed to out and out war with an army on a battlefield.

    As for the sniper rifle, that wouldn't be very affective on large groups of people as they would soon realise people were falling down dead and they would then try and do something about the sniper

    Are you not concerned at all? Reminds me of the Eloi in the Time Machine
     
  20. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Could be is the word. Not is.
     
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm concerned about the future of civilization. You need to be more specific. Quote something in the document that concerns you, and explain why.
     
  22. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    Well actually the Royal Society group was put together for put together for a wider purpose.

    http://royalsociety.org/news/neuroscience-and-military/

    Their concern is with the ambiguity over the permitted use of chemical agents from that of riot control to individual incapacitants. While the RS is correct to raise the concern is it valid. Given that it is individual forces to decide what they employ and given the changes to the Police Commission. Outside of Northern Ireland police forces have used CS in crowd control around 5 times since the 40's. Since 1996 officers have been able to carry personal CS spray and legislation had to be changed to allow that. However the 2009 statement has allowed forces to change from CS onto a less aggressive PAVA spray without having to seek permission.

    I put it that the Royal Societys issue is mute in the circumstances.
     
  23. Dean Page

    Dean Page New Member

    Because of page 113. They seem to already know how you think about the presentation Mick. You are just a "usual" reaction ;)
     
  24. anna layloria

    anna layloria Banned Banned

    Don't believe what you read, its all just pure speculation. Look over here, the game is on. Trust me, I know its all in her mind and not whats written in black and white.
     
  25. Claire Lumine

    Claire Lumine New Member

    I am continually amazed at how people are so willing to look the other way when anything is disconcerting. There is absolutely no reason for NASA to write such a report, (yes I read it too), and the the 'future' they talk about is 12 years from now! 12 years ago the twin towers blew up (yes, I am also not a complete idiot who thinks planes brought them down). I just wish people would wake up already! Do some real research into our history - The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo, the bombing of Dresden, what FDR knew about Pearl Harbor, etc. Just please... open your eyes, re-read your history, and start asking the important questions before this country is truly lost.
     
  26. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I have read the history and I don't see conspiracies everywhere. Yes we fire bombed Dresden and Tokyo, no one covered that up.

    NO ONE blew up the twin towers.

    I guess that you don't feel that the military needs to plan ahead and try to see what might become a threat, however, planning ahead is what leaders do.
     
  27. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    In the 80's I had a job that enabled me to read several situation papers similar to the NASA study. The two I enjoyed the most involved conflicts with Canada and Mexico. Neither has come to pass. Governments are constantly commissioning "what if" studies from think tanks, research organizations, and branches of the military. The studies are frequently revised and edited as the situation changes. The studies are not guidelines for the government to follow and their revision doesn't imply anything sinister. They are thought exercises, many of them impractical, designed to help different branches of government evaluate different scenarios.

    If a NASA study from 2001 predicted advances in technology that are becoming a reality, it just means that the authors did a good job of predicting the direction in which a technology would develop. It does not mean that the technology will be applied in the manner predicted. The NASA study is a worst case scenario and an examination of its consequences. Nothing more.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  28. Alhazred The Sane

    Alhazred The Sane Senior Member

    Yet here you are, on a site run by someone you claim is being paid to act as a disinfo agent. You probably try to clean under your finger nails with a HB pencil.
     
  29. marcosbuuk

    marcosbuuk New Member

    There is obviously no way to prove what we are going through right now, in the entire world. As we all know, NANOTECHNOLOGY is one of the latest scientific achievements (beyond most people comprehension, at least), so how could we ever show any proof that today, this is being used in an inappropiate way? And I'm not saying "they are using it to control our emotions", just to be polite to myself.
    How can we be talking about DEBUNKING this kind of information, when it all concerns diferent points of view of the same explanatory document from NASA about the current tech and it's possible uses, that was made public? Yes, maybe Debora Tavares made a little bit of a drastic entrance on this, but what was going on in her mind that made her misunderstand this data so wrong??? Again, all information given in that document is based on actual, and current tendencies in uses of new tech in a warfare environment.
    And there are some points that could be highlighted...
    This doc was released only a few months before 9/11.
    The last few years DARPA's guys have been working really hard (and this dramatically increased after 9/11) along with BOSTON DYNAMICS on this PETMAN and some other androids, that have no other use but "Defense and Control". And all of their new investigations and new tech development involves the colaboration of all government agencies. You'd say "of course, it's DARPA, duhhh..." You are right.
    There are CellPhone Towers disguised as trees all over the world.. and this is something new, never saw one before 9/11. I actually have one inside the perimeters of my home, and I get paid for it. The cell company guys came about 5 years ago and said "you are in the perfect place for our tower"... and they paid me and installed the thing. What they do to us? I guess we'll have to wait and see. Are this harmless? .... hmmm...
    Many of the components of our current industrial food have already been proven to be "poisonous" at some level, if not carcinogenic. Definitely not "healthy", to put it in a polite way. But we continue to see the same components in all industrial food with no restrictions by the FDA, at least not happening in latin america. It's all the same in our third world lifes around the globe. In this matter we must include that all methods and procedures for the production of this were standarized by the U.S., back in the 1970's.
    The Smartmeters?... "SMARTMETERSMurder.com"
    The "CNN Syndrom"? The "U.S. NEWS NETWORK SYNDROM", i'd say.
    And on, and on... All we can read on that document it's mostly tech and tactics that are and have been used by the U.S government for years, maybe decades. And how's the panorama for our future worldwide. NASA it's not being polite on that matter. This is the most accurate scenario we could ever imagine if we knew what they know.
    I'm from Argentina, in case you wonder, and my opinion might be only a slightly different than the one that common people have in the rest of the world, except of course, the ones that many north americans like you, Mike, have. But I can assure you one thing that needs no proof, we, the "rest" of the world have our eyes on the U.S. ever since I remember. Can't leave it alone you know?
    For all of us the UNITED STATES Of AMERICA means warfare. That simple. I'm sorry to sound so rude, it's just that I don't know anyone who thinks different on that, and also have not heard of any other country so particularly earring on this subject.
    To me I'm sure it's your government, and all the massive corporations that finance this behavior (and there is actually PEOPLE behind it). But I can't say if others like me, see any difference between the U.S. people, and all your sick leaders in the higher levels.
    And it's so sad to all of us "the rest". Because you don't recognize you might be playing a huge part on in. Imagine if this really is happening, and you can't / don't want to see it / recognize it / help to spread the real truth?
    Your job is done already. And you and your group of debunkers are immediately in the same road as them. Then to the eyes of many people, you are as sick as this exposed terrorism tactics.
    I apologize for the lack of kindness on this post. And if any of you felt insulted by me, I am truly sorry, as that was not my intention at all.
    I was just trying to show a rear view on this, just that. I thought it carefully before sending it, and remembered to not mention the illuminati, to be taken seriously... :) Cheers!
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2013
  30. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    What is the problem with disguising cell phone towers as trees? It is done because folks want their cell phones to work and they object to ugly cell phone towers that will reduce their property value.

    Your post is a Gish Gallop of conspiracy theories and pure nonsense.
     
  31. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    That's the point - if there is not evidence for something, and that something is of an extraordinary nature, it's the ethical position of a sceptic to point out there is no evidence. That's all.
    Imagination of what *might possibly be happening but there is no evidence for other than people's fear* is not a rational basis for a world-view from a sceptic/debunker's point of view. It *possibly might* be happening, but a sceptic approaches the world in terms of what can be known, not whatever can be conceived. (at least that's my understanding of things.)

    Well, thanks for attempting restraint.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  32. marcosbuuk

    marcosbuuk New Member

    "
    I love that term "Gish Gallop", it actually sounds like the answer that cant' be replied.
    I'm quite sure I don't use any strategies to say what I think, but it's ok I wasn't expecting nothing, though your reply it's the most obvious.
    I've given no conspiracy theory. Give it a second and you'll see it's just a different point of view.
    Have you ever considered that this women, like many other people is seriously considering a "Dark Conspiracy" that affects their existence??
    You appear to have fun with that, probably reading and answering with derision. But not everyone does, and you seem to not understand this.
    No offense intentions here. Common people thoughts. You could try to detach from yourself for once, then you'll probably see that you are putting yourselves in an akward place. Some guys even hate you for being mythbusters.
    Like I said, you are not being helpful, and that is the situation here. YOU ARE NOT HELPING. You think you do. Careful, you might be mistaken. I might be mistaken as well. Difference is, I still leave room for doubts. Do you? Peace Caireen.
     
  33. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    No you don't you've committed to a world-view based on unproven possibilities and opposed yourself to those questioning that view by implying they are helping the imaginary forces of evil.

    And good, people hate having their imaginary beliefs proved wrong or baseless. They deserve to, there's enough bullshit in the world.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  34. marcosbuuk

    marcosbuuk New Member

    You are right, definitely. It's just I don't see how your position could help people that feels their lifes are at risk, because of this supposed conspiracies. Fellings are real for them.
    You never seem to find the very root of every myth that is being discussed, I mean, who and why started this? What is their purpose? So the "debunking" job looks like it's not being done properly.
    But really, Who am I to say? This makes me think of only one thing: a massive explanatory breach. Thank you for the reply.
     
  35. marcosbuuk

    marcosbuuk New Member

    I am not commited to unproven, no. I just give the chance to experience what others see/feel, everything/everyone deserves it's momentum, even if they're wrong. And you sound so heartless.
    I mean, this is people like you and me... well maybe like you before all this rush of knowledge that makes you feel that now you are almost in a superior level of understanding. No offense. I'm trying to keep it polite.
     
  36. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Well it is very aggravating to have the simple act of looking into a what is claimed about something and seeing that it is not supported by the evidence turned into 'you're attacking people and you don't know everything and you think you're so smart.'
    None of that logically follows.

    Yes, people deserve understanding and empathy, and no I don't feel like I'm on a superior level.
    I do believe it is better to look into things deeper before reacting to them, so I suppose in that sense it's a 'superior level of understanding'.
    A sceptic believes it is better to evaluate according to evidence, not according to rumour.
    People, generally, react according to their emotions and fear and any hint of danger. So it's the mission of those here to try and show that it is not necessary to feel that fear. People reacting to imaginary dangers are dangerous themselves, and aren't really having a good time. So we try and make the world a better place in that small sense, so people can get on with living life well.

    Specifically, to this subject, what do you object to in what has been presented?
    Are you saying it is wrong to give the context of this document and to point out that it is theoretical?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  37. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    No, they don't. False information needs to be corrected and people that that spread false information either through ignorance or for profit need to called on it. The unchecked spread of false information doesn't contribute to anything but the dumbing down of the population. The view that all ideas have equal merit and deserve equal respect holds us all back.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2013
    • Like Like x 4
  38. marcosbuuk

    marcosbuuk New Member

    I am trying really hard to get to the point here. I think it could all be directed to that particular moment when the document was "exposed", and beyond the fact that it's only a presentation, it's not under consideration the high chances of this being misunderstood, given that there are no further explanations, or maybe a warning about the concrete means of the presentation, in a way it can only be taken as what it is. It could have been done better, as it's easy to think and connect some future possibilities we read on the presentation with some of the realities today; e.g.: DARPA's advances in robotics, and the fact that we know now their androids are going to be a part of the army and police, and the feeling of distrust within society toward this institutions, which is another reality (want it or not), and it's publicly known...
    NASA, the US GOV and ALL AGENCIES, dropped this (a presentation made by people with the higher degrees in all subjects, incredibly smart people who can never be mistaken if you ask me) to a publicly known ignorant society - on it's majority- like it's only an article of a new planet that's been discovered, but actually they are showing us our future possibilities, which are all super bad, with high chances of being spied, poisoned, bombarded with low frequencies, sprayed with nanogases, suddenly kidnapped or maybe even brainwashed, constantly receiving terror propaganda on our favourite news network, we will start being separated from our society and most probably become zombies. I see no interest at all in being informative, or helpful. This is rude. Most of people is ovbiously going to get it wrong, and this guys seem to not care for that at all. This sounds better like a warning to all society. Sounds like they tell us to be prepared for a terrible future, where there's nothing they can do. No solution at all.
    Anyway I don't detract from the sense of goodness that you feel in your actions, it's obvious you have no evil interests in covering up anything (that's ridiculous, a nonsence) and you only think that this is for a good reason. I am not the one who hate you. But you have to know, maybe sometimes you are rude in the way you reply and "debunk", that way you don't generate any change in the mind of frightened people. On the contrary, you provocate more hate, which it's not evilness but FEAR. And they are not guilty or dangerous, they are victims of this TERROR PROPAGANDA disguised as a harmless article, showing situations upon which they see no way out, only death. You only reach the people that already think like you. You don't seem to be making no effort for helping, neither even look like caring for anyone who think different (not on purpose), you are here to receive congrats from those who think like you. And that's it. PERO VIVEN EN UNA BURBUJA, SEGURAMENTE LA MAYORIA DE USTEDES NUNCA SALIO DE LOS PERIMETROS DE SU LÓGICA. ASI QUE HASTA AQUI LLEGAMOS, GRACIAS POR SU ATENCION.
     
  39. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    Actually they are guilty of being gullible, and the fearmongers who scare them are guilty of lying to line their own pockets.
     
  40. Alhazred The Sane

    Alhazred The Sane Senior Member

    I guess that most people on this site that debunk nonsense do it for exactly that reason, to allay people's fears. If someone is worried that their life is at risk because of chemtrails, for example, then surely a site that has gathered together all the counter arguments, a site that examines all the evidence of this chemtrail conspiracy and proves it false ... surely that must help those who felt their life was at risk?

    I first came to the contrailscience site because I was hearing we were being poisoned. I'll admit that it didn't seem logical to me, the means. I'm fortunate enough to have at least a modicum of education in the sciences, and the notion of attempting any kind of influence on a population by adding chemicals to the atmosphere at 40,000 feet seemed ludicrous, and an expensive waste of resources. Why not put it into water? The point is that I was still curious. Some people I knew were genuinely worried, so I decided to investigate.

    Sites like this are important for people who are worried about things they needn't be worried about. If there is something that is freaking you out, simply post it on here, and if there's no reason to freak out then the reasons for that will be made clear.

    I still worry about lots of things. But there are lots of other things I don't need to worry about. Chemtrails is a great example.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.