From the front page:
Of course you would say that is a lie. But the bits of the document YOU quote are true?
Of course I wouldn't, actually. There you go putting words in my mouth - as well as taking them out - again.
From the front page:
Of course you would say that is a lie. But the bits of the document YOU quote are true?
Because I'm the decider.
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.
I've read it. It's a collection of different things. You need to be more precise as to what you claim it indicates.
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.I do not need to do anything of the sort.
Characterising this study as "speculating meaninglessly" shows a fairly simplistic mindset IMO
It is part of what they get paid for!
@ 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.
@ lee h oswald
I completely agree with Jay. Passive-aggressive much?
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.
Executive Summary
In 2025, US aerospace forces can “own the weather” by capitalizing on emerging technologies and
focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications. Such a capability offers the war
fighter tools to shape the battlespace in ways never before possible. It provides opportunities to impact
operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures. The purpose of this
paper is to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather-modification system to achieve military
objectives rather than to provide a detailed technical road map.
Current technologies that will mature over the next 30 years will offer anyone who has the necessary
resources the ability to modify weather patterns and their corresponding effects
Presumably you're referring to me saying this: 'Senior members of the military do not sit about speculating meaninglessly'
What are you talking about?
Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school
environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I did notice the title and that's why I'm discussing the document that you brought up in relation to it.
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?
Actually it's more the other way around. Soil is naturally around 7% aluminum. When the soils are too acidic, then the aluminum is disolved, and aluminum ions poison the plant. Adding more aluminum is not going to change anything.
This has always been a problem, so finding aluminum resistent plants that can survive in highly acidic soils is a natural goal.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Aug07/SoilsKochian.kr.html
Why don't you just clarify if you believe the OTW: 2025 report supports the chemtrail theory? Seeing as that was the question you were asked.
Why don't you just clarify if you believe the OTW: 2025 report supports the chemtrail theory? Seeing as that was the question you were asked.
Why don't you just clarify if you believe the OTW: 2025 report supports the chemtrail theory? Seeing as that was the question you were asked.
Why can't you just say what you think?
I don't think you are really interested in having a constructive discussion. Perhaps this is not the right forum for you?
Which plants would you grow in these highly acidic soils? PH 5 - 4?
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.
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.
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.
Aluminum is common in soils--it's a major component of clay--but only in acidic soils does the metal form an ion that can dissolve into liquids and that's toxic to plants. Acidic soils make up as much as half the world's croplands, however, and aluminum toxicity is the main factor holding back crop growth in nearly 20 percent of the world's arable soils, including large areas of the United States east of the Mississippi River and northwestern Europe.
"The problem is, we have all these crop plants--wheat and corn and barley and so on--that didn't evolve or get developed on aluminum-toxic soils," study leader and professor of biochemistry Paul Larsen says. "They don't have natural resistance or tolerance to aluminum." Plant breeders are working on developing strains that can cope better with toxic aluminum, but they have only been able to make incremental improvements, Larsen says.
The problem of aluminum toxicity already existed.
http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/21454/
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.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.
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!
Do you think Monsanto's track record is acceptable and would you trust them?
I've already listed some crops which will grow at the middle of that range.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?
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.Well?