Debunked: Belfort Group "Case Orange" conclusions & recommendations

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Press Alt Mt Temp Dew RH
hPa C C

247.0 10689 -50.9 -56.9 49
238.0 10929 -52.5 -60.0 40
235.0 11011 -53.1 -61.1 37
231.0 11120 -54.0 -62.0 37
208.0 11786 -59.3 -67.3 35
205.0 11876 -60.0 -68.3 33
200.0 12030 -61.1 -70.1 29
199.0 12061 -61.1 -70.1 29
195.0 12188 -61.1 -70.1 29
191.0 12315 -61.7 -71.3 27

Could somone here tell me what I might expect to see with regard to aircraft trails given this set of radiosonde data? The heights are 35,000ft to 40,500ft, the corridor in which most commercial traffic operates. Thanks

Probably not too much in that particular altitude range, and in the precise location where the balloon was, and at that time.

However, radiosonde data alone is not always a useful predictor. It's usually nowhere physically near, or close in time, to the actual contrail observations. That particular station is on the tip of Cornwall in the far south-west of the UK, so will not match condition in, say, London. It was also taken at 12Z, today 23rd Sept 2011, , (1PM UK local time),

There's also plenty of traffic below 35,000 feet over the UK, and it looks plenty cold enough, and humidity is higher, up to 64% at 30,839 feet (you generally need above 70%). So given the variables involved, I'd not be at all surprised if there were quite a few contrails in the UK today.

03808 Camborne Observations at 12Z 23 Sep 2011


307.0 9243 -40.3 -44.9 61 0.23 247 19 326.3 327.2 326.3
300.0 9400 -41.3 -45.5 64 0.22 245 20 327.0 327.9 327.1
291.0 9605 -42.6 -47.2 61 0.19 235 22 328.0 328.8 328.1
284.0 9768 -43.7 -48.5 59 0.17 235 20 328.8 329.5 328.8
280.0 9864 -44.3 -49.3 57 0.15 235 21 329.2 329.9 329.3
272.0 10054 -45.8 -51.1 55 0.13 235 24 329.8 330.3 329.8
264.0 10251 -47.4 -52.9 53 0.11 230 25 330.3 330.7 330.3
250.0 10610 -50.3 -56.3 49 0.07 235 24 331.1 331.5 331.2
247.0 10689 -50.9 -56.9 49 0.07 235 24 331.4 331.7 331.4
238.0 10929 -52.5 -60.0 40 0.05 235 24 332.5 332.7 332.5
235.0 11011 -53.1 -61.1 37 0.04 239 24 332.8 333.0 332.8
231.0 11120 -54.0 -62.0 37 0.04 245 23 333.1 333.3 333.1
208.0 11786 -59.3 -67.3 35 0.02 241 23 334.9 335.0 334.9
205.0 11876 -60.0 -68.3 33 0.02 240 23 335.3 335.4 335.3
200.0 12030 -61.1 -70.1 29 0.02 240 21 335.9 335.9 335.9
199.0 12061 -61.1 -70.1 29 0.02 235 21 336.3 336.4 336.3
195.0 12188 -61.1 -70.1 29 0.02 235 23 338.3 338.4 338.3
191.0 12315 -61.7 -71.3 27 0.01 235 25 339.3 339.4 339.3


You usually get a better idea if your observations match weather condition by looking at the MODIS satellite images, where you can see the broader picture.

http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01

T
he Terra image is up already, and you can see there are a lot of contrails, and you can see the cause - an approaching weather system:

http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Europe_2_01.2011266.terra.1km

subsets.jpg

And for the VERY broad picture, the LANCE Web Mapping Service is excellent. See the big swirly weather system off the coast of Europe. That's the source of the moisture in the the air:

http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/...6.18359&layers=B0000FFFFFFT&datum1=09/23/2011


 

Pogopoint99

Senior Member.
I started a paragraph-by-paragraph debunk of that "report". I got a bit over half way through and ran out of enthusiasm for it.

LOL... I just found the Case Orange "study" last night. I got up to page 38, section 5.1.1 when I read the following regarding chemtrails and HAARP as weather manipulation systems:

"Policy makers write these off as a hoax, because there is no hard scientific evidence for their existence."

Correct! There is no scientific evidence supporting the chemtrail conspiracy. Many thanks to the authors of Case Orange for pointing that out. What a laugh.
 

Pogopoint99

Senior Member.
I find the Case Orange report, authored by the mysterious Agent Orange, absolutely entertaining. It's so full of inaccuracies, non sequiturs and pure bunk that pointing them all out would require a 70 page report with a 230 page index. I'll give debunking a first try with a go at the first two conclusions...


1. Manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory, but currently the best option in geo-engineering considered by decision makers to counter global warming. The impact of production of artificial Cirrus clouds on temperature and precipitation patterns is supported by adequate hard scientific evidence.

The modification of cirrus clouds may be the best method for countering global warming. However, without evidence that it's actually going on, then it's only a conspiracy theory.

The first conclusion relies heavily on a paper by David L Mitchell called "Modification of Cirrus Clouds to Reduce Global Warming." Agent Orange seems to have completely missed the gist of that paper. The geo-engineering scheme that David Mitchell describes would REDUCE the net amount of cirrus cloud cover over time. Yet AO is using Mitchell's report to support the idea that persistent contrails that turn into Cirrus cloud sheets are really a geo-engineering program, and goes on to talk about how cirrus cloud coverage over Europe is steadily increasing.

"Due to the expected dominance of homogeneous freezing nucleation at temperatures below -40 C, it may be possible to decrease cirrus cloud coverage by introducing efficient heterogeneous ice nuclei at these temperatures where the cirrus greenhouse effect is strongest." David L Mitchell​

It is true that a climate impact study following 9/11 showed that after the attacks, at a time when there was no contrail formation over the United States, there was a 0.8 degree change in the diurnal temperature. They claim this proves jet contrails influence the climate. However, even David Travis, one of the authors of the 9/11 impact study said his assertions are “more like a hypothesis” than a firm conclusion. (link). This is further evidenced in the abstract of a paper published in 2002 "we attribute at least a portion of this anomaly to the absence of contrails over this period.(link).

Since then other studies have come to very different conclusions about the temperature anomaly following 9/11.

"It is shown that the increase of the average daily temperature range (DTR) over the United States during the three-day grounding period of 11–14 September 2001 cannot be attributed to the absence of contrails" (link)

"We indeed find a higher-than-average DTR shortly after the attacks, but we find that the unusually clear weather across the US more than accounts for the observed DTR. " (link)

The Case Orange report has not demonstrated that contrails impact the weather. At best, the evidence presented is inconclusive and debatable.

2. The ambition of the United States is to control the weather by the year 2025, both for civil and military purposes (offensive and defensive strategies). This research paper contains a proven track record to support that statement.

This conclusion can be debunked simply by reading the report the statement is based on. In the mid 90's the Air Force chief of staff commissioned a feasibility study. The product was an unclassified document titled "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025". Since it's publication, conspiracy theorists have claimed the study proves the United States military wants to control the weather or is engaged in geo-engineering programs.

First, the paper does not represent the views or policies of the US government. The study's disclaimer clearly states the following:

"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."​

Next, we need to define what is meant by "controlling the weather". The phrase can be interpreted in two ways. It could mean influencing local weather conditions over a short period of time or manipulating the climate on a global scale. Owning the Weather in 2025 defines weather modification to mean local manipulation ONLY, as large scale manipulation is technically impossible and against UN agreements.

"The primary areas discussed include generation and dissipation of precipitation, clouds, and fog; modification of localized storm systems; and the use of the ionosphere and near space for space control and communications dominance.

Extreme and controversial examples of weather modification—creation of made-to-order weather, large-scale climate modification, creation and/or control (or “steering”) of severe storms, etc.—were researched as part of this study but receive only brief mention here because, in the authors’ judgment, the technical obstacles preventing their application appear insurmountable within 30 years.

If this were not the case, such applications would have been included in this report as potential military options, despite their controversial and potentially malevolent nature and their inconsistency with standing UN agreements to
which the US is a signatory." (csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf)​


That's all I have time for. As a final note I would like to point out a hand written note that appears at the end of Case Orange. In my opinion it's a truly bizarre emotional appeal. Possibly directed to the new age crystal gazing indigo children crowd... I dunno.

On behalf of the Belfort - group and of humanity as a whole... May this document contribute to the wake-up of mankind and the transformation of our species to become again what we were always ment (sic) to be: god-like, spiritual beings...
 

Pogopoint99

Senior Member.
Here's another little something I noticed from Case Orange. The definition of distrails is remarkably similar to Wikipedia's.

"Distrails are created as a result of the elevated temperature of the exhaust gases absorbing the moisture from the cloud. Clouds exist where the relative humidity is 100% and temperature and dew point are thus equal, but by increasing the temperature, the air can hold more moisture, so the relative humidity drops below 100% even for the same absolute moisture density, thus causing the visible water droplets in the cloud to be converted back into water vapor." - Case Orange pg. 11


"Distrails are created by the elevated temperature of the exhaust gases absorbing the moisture from the cloud. Clouds exist where the relative humidity is 100% but by increasing the temperature the air can hold more moisture and the relative humidity drops below 100%, even for the same absolute moisture density, causing the visible water droplets in the cloud to be converted back into water vapour." - Wikipedia


The important point here is that sources were not cited. Was this an oversight on the part of the authors and Peter Vereecke who reviewed, dated and signed the page? I suppose only the team of inside experts who compiled the document can answer that question.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
2. The ambition of the United States is to control the weather by the year 2025, both for civil and military purposes (offensive and defensive strategies). This research paper contains a proven track record to support that statement.

This conclusion can be debunked simply by reading the report the statement is based on. In the mid 90's the Air Force chief of staff commissioned a feasibility study. The product was an unclassified document titled "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025". Since it's publication, conspiracy theorists have claimed the study proves the United States military wants to control the weather or is engaged in geo-engineering programs.

First, the paper does not represent the views or policies of the US government. The study's disclaimer clearly states the following:

"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."


Did you actually read it? I'd put money on 'not really'. It states, unequivocally, that the developments described within the report will happen; they have to according to the authors. They speak of emerging technologies and how to put them to use; give a program for the upgrading of all components for their 'war weather' applications; injecting chemicals and/or energy into storm systems....etc etc ad nauseam. You read the disclaimer and simply believe it - because that's what you want to believe. What is this masquerade of 'critical thinking'? It's a very disturbing document, I urge all to read it and make up their own minds what they think. There's a whole series of '2025' docs from the US military - a bona fide testament to the twisted minds of the people within it. For you? You don't seem to mind that the military is spending your money on producing documents which are ...what exactly? Just a bit of fun? Not to be taken seriously? I say to everyone: have a read - what do you think?

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I've read it. It says that weather modification technology is an inevitable global development, so the US should not get left behind. This seems quite reasonable to me.

The lessons of history indicate a real weather-modification capability will eventually exist despite the
risk. The drive exists. People have always wanted to control the weather and their desire will compel them
to collectively and continuously pursue their goal. The motivation exists. The potential benefits and power
are extremely lucrative and alluring for those who have the resources to develop it. This combination of
drive, motivation, and resources will eventually produce the technology. History also teaches that we cannot
afford to be without a weather-modification capability once the technology is developed and used by others.
Even if we have no intention of using it, others will. To call upon the atomic weapon analogy again, we need
to be able to deter or counter their capability with our own. Therefore, the weather and intelligence
communities must keep abreast of the actions of others.

As the preceding chapters have shown, weather-modification is a force multiplier with tremendous
power that could be exploited across the full spectrum of war-fighting environments. From enhancing
friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to
complete dominance of global communications and counter-space control, weather-modification offers the
war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary. But, while offensive weather
modification efforts would certainly be undertaken by US forces with great caution and trepidation, it is clear
that we cannot afford to allow an adversary to obtain an exclusive weather-modification capability
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Did you actually read it? I'd put money on 'not really'. It states, unequivocally, that the developments described within the report will happen; they have to according to the authors. They speak of emerging technologies and how to put them to use; give a program for the upgrading of all components for their 'war weather' applications; injecting chemicals and/or energy into storm systems....etc etc ad nauseam. You read the disclaimer and simply believe it - because that's what you want to believe. What is this masquerade of 'critical thinking'? It's a very disturbing document, I urge all to read it and make up their own minds what they think. There's a whole series of '2025' docs from the US military - a bona fide testament to the twisted minds of the people within it. For you? You don't seem to mind that the military is spending your money on producing documents which are ...what exactly? Just a bit of fun? Not to be taken seriously? I say to everyone: have a read - what do you think?

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

Vague again as usual, lee. Please quote where the words emerging, upgrading, and injecting are used, and considering the context, explain why the statement disturbs you so much. Regarding spending money on the document, the research paper was produced by students and faculty at the Air University for the benefit of my country(not necessarily yours). I am very happy that so long as these 'Watchmen on the Wall' are employed by me already, their expertise can be put to use to maintain my country's position as the foremost defenders of freedom in the entire world.

If you don't like it, tough shit.
Both my grandfather and father bailed your country out when it was almost on its knees.
Twice, already.
You ungrateful ass.

A least the the writers of this document had the guts to show their names, a level of honesty and responsibiity which you have yet to attain.

If anyone wants to read more of what lee didn't tell you, and probably doesn't wish you to know, this link is a good place to start.
http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/index.htm
 

Pogopoint99

Senior Member.
Did you actually read it? I'd put money on 'not really'.

Did you actually understand it? I'd put money on 'not really'.


It states, unequivocally, that the developments described within the report will happen; they have to according to the authors.

No. It states, unequivocally, that some of the developments described within the report will happen, other developments could happen and yet others are beyond the limits of our ability. The point is, it's all the opinion of the authors and it does not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.


You read the disclaimer and simply believe it - because that's what you want to believe.

I have no reason not to believe it. However, I'll change my mind on a dime if someone can show me that the official policy of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government is to control the weather by 2025.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Did you actually understand it? I'd put money on 'not really'.




No. It states, unequivocally, that some of the developments described within the report will happen, other developments could happen and yet others are beyond the limits of our ability. The point is, it's all the opinion of the authors and it does not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.




I have no reason not to believe it. However, I'll change my mind on a dime if someone can show me that the official policy of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government is to control the weather by 2025.

The 'official' policy? Are you having a giraffe? You do live in the real world, don't you? You might have heard that some govts keep secrets. I know it's shocking, but it's true! And you haven't read it all, have you?
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
So yes government keeps secrets, but a lack of evidence, is not evidence. And if it was secret, then why has this research paper ever been publicly accessable for so long?

Officers at the Air War College, Squadron Officer School, etc, spend 3 months or longer and part of their academic program is writing papers, brainstorming and thinking forward. Just because some officers in 1996 had a paper about how great it would be to be in control of the weather, does not mean that was an actual air force program to do so. And if it was an actual air force program, it would not have been written by officers who were students at the air war college at Maxwell AFB.
 

Pogopoint99

Senior Member.
The 'official' policy?

Yes. That is the wording used in the disclaimer. The authors of "Owning the Weather: 2025" state the report is not the official policy of the US government.

You read the disclaimer and simply believe it - because that's what you want to believe.

What's not to believe about the disclaimer? Even you argued that the US government has no official policy to control the weather by 2025.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Vague again as usual, lee. Please quote where the words emerging, upgrading, and injecting are used, and considering the context, explain why the statement disturbs you so much. Regarding spending money on the document, the research paper was produced by students and faculty at the Air University for the benefit of my country(not necessarily yours). I am very happy that so long as these 'Watchmen on the Wall' are employed by me already, their expertise can be put to use to maintain my country's position as the foremost defenders of freedom in the entire world.

If you don't like it, tough shit.
Both my grandfather and father bailed your country out when it was almost on its knees.
Twice, already.
You ungrateful ass.

A least the the writers of this document had the guts to show their names, a level of honesty and responsibiity which you have yet to attain.

If anyone wants to read more of what lee didn't tell you, and probably doesn't wish you to know, this link is a good place to start.
http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/index.htm

I urge all to read the document.

At last - your true colours are coming through: ...the Air University for the benefit of my country(not necessarily yours). I am very happy that so long as these 'Watchmen on the Wall' are employed by me already, their expertise can be put to use to maintain my country's position as the foremost defenders of freedom in the entire world.

Great stuff: Defenders of freedom?! LOL. Really. I must have missed that meeting. The US has been responsible for the overthrowing of over 50 governments since 1945. Thirty of those were democratically elected governments. Whose 'freedom' are we talking about? Yours? Have a read of The Patriot Act - a brilliant piece of egalitarian legislation.
You borrow money from China to fund your military while the working class got thrown overboard forty years ago. You can't afford it any more. You're doing it all on the credit card! The Chinese gold card. You've shown yourself and where you're coming from. No surprise, but thanks for clarifying. Even this...

If you don't like it, tough shit.
Both my grandfather and father bailed your country out when it was almost on its knees.
Twice, already.
You ungrateful ass.


Pardon? War is a racket; get used to it. Freedom? Tell it to 900,000 dead Iraqi civilians (since 2003). Fact. 4.5million since 1990. Fact. Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos? 3 million estimated. Panama? Chile? Honduras? Guatamala? East Timor? Nicaragua? Death squad El Salvador? School of the Americas (look it up people)? Training college for US sponsored terrorism. What was that about freedom again? Maybe it means something different where I come from.

Here's another fact about your military: link to video of US troops in Iraq firing live rounds and throwing stun grenades at their prisoners:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/174186.html ...they don't show this on Fox or CNN or anywhere in our media for some reason....want some more? There's some really graphic stuff if you need it.

Run up the flag Reynolds.

But which one?


US Navy building Coronado, California.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Yes. That is the wording used in the disclaimer. The authors of "Owning the Weather: 2025" state the report is not the official policy of the US government.



What's not to believe about the disclaimer? Even you argued that the US government has no official policy to control the weather by 2025.

I recommend to anyone reading this who might be interested in the subject, to read it for yourself and make up your own mind what you think. I think it's very interesting.

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
So yes government keeps secrets, but a lack of evidence, is not evidence. And if it was secret, then why has this research paper ever been publicly accessable for so long?

Officers at the Air War College, Squadron Officer School, etc, spend 3 months or longer and part of their academic program is writing papers, brainstorming and thinking forward. Just because some officers in 1996 had a paper about how great it would be to be in control of the weather, does not mean that was an actual air force program to do so. And if it was an actual air force program, it would not have been written by officers who were students at the air war college at Maxwell AFB.

They were senior officers as well as 'students'.

I don't think anyone should be playing around with our weather - especially not the military. And, to quote Mick's quote:

The lessons of history indicate a real weather-modification capability will eventually exist despite the
risk. The drive exists. People have always wanted to control the weather and their desire will compel them
to collectively and continuously pursue their goal. The motivation exists. The potential benefits and power
are extremely lucrative and alluring for those who have the resources to develop it.
This combination of
drive, motivation, and resources will eventually produce the technology.

...weather-modification is a force multiplier with tremendous
power that could be exploited across the full spectrum of war-fighting environments.... to
complete dominance of global communications and counter-space control, weather-modification offers the
war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary
.

Twisted minds. There's a lot of it about, it seems
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Twisted minds. There's a lot of it about, it seems
I see yours as a twisted mind, lee.
I also am aware that you hate my country, while I love it, as do hundreds of millions of others.
Millions of people emigrate here evey year, seeking some of what we've got that they couldn't get elsewhere.
You are just another envious sour grapes person angry that you can't have what we have.
We outnumber you, and besides you personally are just some anonymous bits on a screen, no real name,
a vague, inconsequential babbler with no real substance at all, and really no effect on anything.

I have come to understand that you haven't an audience after all, though you probably wish you did.
Sad, that.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I see yours as a twisted mind, lee.
I also am aware that you hate my country, while I love it, as do hundreds of millions of others.
Millions of people emigrate here evey year, seeking some of what we've got that they couldn't get elsewhere.
You are just another envious sour grapes person angry that you can't have what we have.
We outnumber you, and besides you personally are just some anonymous bits on a screen, no real name,
a vague, inconsequential babbler with no real substance at all, and really no effect on anything.

I have come to understand that you haven't an audience after all, though you probably wish you did.
Sad, that.

You are aware that I hate your country? What an absurd idea. Lots of people do hate your country though, can you think why that might be? Because they're jealous? No - more likely because they're pretty sick of people like you going about stealing other people's resources and wealth. While you lot get fat, really fat, on chinese credit and burgers and more oil than your fair share; and all because you have a bigger gun.
Are you proud of those brave soldiers shooting live rounds at prisoners? Isn't that a, er, war crime?

You are just another envious sour grapes person angry that you can't have what we have. So this is what your argument is reduced to - don't you want to debunk swastika buildings for the US Navy? Oh yes, it was you who didn't believe NASA was populated with Nazis, wasn't it?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Vague again as usual, lee. Please quote where the words emerging, upgrading, and injecting are used

Ok.

1. Page vi) 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


2. Page 13 Concept of Operations
The essential ingredient of the weather-modification system is the set of intervention techniques used to
modify the weather. The number of specific intervention methodologies is limited only by the imagination,
but with few exceptions they involve infusing either energy or chemicals into the meteorological process

Oh dear, I said injecting instead of infusing - that probably makes all the difference, eh?

3. Field experiments with lasers have demonstrated the capability.... Generating 1 watt/cm2, which is approximately the US
large power density exposure limit, the system raised visibility to one quarter of a mile in 20 seconds.
Laser systems described in the Space Operations portion of this AF 2025 study could certainly provide this
capability as one of their many possible uses.
With regard to seeding techniques, improvements (upgrades?) in the materials and delivery methods are not only
plausible but likely. Smart materials based on nanotechnology are currently being developed (1996) with gigaops computer capability at their core. They could adjust their size to optimal dimensions for a given fog seeding
situation and even make adjustments throughout the process. They might also enhance their dispersal
qualities by adjusting their buoyancy, by communicating with each other, and by steering themselves within
the fog. They will be able to provide immediate and continuous effectiveness feedback by integrating with a
larger sensor network and can also change their temperature and polarity to improve their seeding effects.15
As mentioned above, UAVs could be used to deliver and distribute these smart materials.

Sounds like upgrading to me. I lost count of the number of times they use the word 'development'. Doesn't that mean about the same as 'upgrade'?

And here's one just for fun -

The technology is there, waiting for us to pull it all together;”2 in 2025 we can “Own the Weather.”
Notes

2 General Gordon R. Sullivan, “Moving into the 21st Century: America’s Army and Modernization,”
Military Review (July 1993) quoted in Mary Ann Seagraves and Richard Szymber, “Weather a Force
Multiplier,” Military Review, November/December 1995, 75.

Vague, eh?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
lee, it looks like you have the goods on us. Yep, you've got it all figured out. Nasa and the US Navy were infilrated by Nazis decades ago and they are using very sneaky tactics, but they are just foolish enough that you were able to discern the Truth. And now you've busted us for owning the weather. I suppose the Chinese will want to buy that, too. Yes, it is futile to argue against your type of logic, lee. You are one in a billion who was able to understand the way the world really works.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
lee, it looks like you have the goods on us. Yep, you've got it all figured out. Nasa and the US Navy were infilrated by Nazis decades ago and they are using very sneaky tactics, but they are just foolish enough that you were able to discern the Truth. And now you've busted us for owning the weather. I suppose the Chinese will want to buy that, too. Yes, it is futile to argue against your type of logic, lee. You are one in a billion who was able to understand the way the world really works.

And there goes your argument. You gripe and moan when I don't bother with your questions, and when I answer them in full you come up with that.

And what's your understanding of the way the world works? This?

I am very happy that so long as these 'Watchmen on the Wall' are employed by me already, their expertise can be put to use to maintain my country's position as the foremost defenders of freedom in the entire world.


Or this?

...you can't have what we have. We outnumber you...


That's not an argument based in fact, logic, detail, verifiable information, reason or anything in the least scientific. Tub-thumping, flag-waving jingoism would be a more accurate precis. 'We outnumber you'? Who are 'we' and 'you', anyway?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
here's another excerpt from Weather as a Force Multiplier; Owning the Weather in 2025

Nanotechnology also offers possibilities for creating simulated weather. A cloud, or several clouds, of
microscopic computer particles
, all communicating with each other and with a larger control system could
provide tremendous capability. Interconnected, atmospherically buoyant, and having navigation capability in
three dimensions, such clouds could be designed to have a wide-range of properties. They might exclusively
block optical sensors or could adjust to become impermeable to other surveillance methods. They could also
provide an atmospheric electrical potential difference, which otherwise might not exist, to achieve precisely
aimed and timed lightning strikes
. Even if power levels achieved were insufficient to be an effective strike
weapon, the potential for psychological operations in many situations could be fantastic.
...In addition, it is potentially relatively inexpensive to do. According to J. Storrs
Hall, a scientist at Rutgers University conducting research on nanotechnology, production costs of these
nanoparticles could be about the same price per pound as potatoes. This of course discounts research and
development costs, which will be primarily borne by the private sector and be considered a sunk cost by
2025 and probably earlier....
Concept of Operations Summary
Weather affects everything we do, and weather-modification can enhance our ability to dominate the
aerospace environment. It gives the commander tools to shape the battlespace. It gives the logistician tools
to optimize the process. It gives the warriors in the cockpit an operating environment literally crafted to their
needs.

It's nice to know all these disciplined minds are working towards the safety of the planet and everyone on it; and what needs do these great 'warriors' have? Oh yes, the best environment possible to visit death and destruction on others (and then spreading a bit of freedom around? Does the freedom bit come before or after the cluster bombs these warriors drop on civilians?)

Here's a list from the upgrade program - some people might be surprised to see what kind of weapons the US military have been developing for quite a while now, remember this paper was written in 1996 - we're 15 years down the line. Should they be spending money on 'domination' and 'warriors' when so much of the world is already plunged in darkness and chaos by the 'freedom defending' of the US military establishment?


ADV Aerospace Delivery Vehicles; DE Directed Energy
AIM Artificial Ionospheric Mirrors; GWN Global Weather Network
CHEM Chemicals; SC Smart Clouds (nanotechnology)
CBD Carbon Black Dust; SENSORS Sensors
COMM Communications; VR WX Virtual Weather
COMP MOD Computer Modeling; WFSE Weather Force Support Element
* Technologies to be developed by DOD
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Maybe not, but that's the mandate they have, so that's what they do.

I think you need to separate the political aspects from the technical aspects if you want to argue about this kind of thing. The military has the motivation and the money to develop technology. But what are they actually doing that we have any evidence for? The military would use the One Ring of Sauron if they could, but there's zero evidence that they are, and technically it's not feasible to create such a ring.

Likewise, while clouds of nano-bots that can create aimed lighting strikes are very cool sounding, it's vastly beyond the realms of current technology - equivalent to magic pixie dust.
 

tryblinking

Senior Member.
That's the point here. This document, so often quoted as evidence of US malice of forethought, is really just a wishlist. It's a letter to Santa from 1996, asking for lots of cool sounding toys for the battles of the future. They may as well have described the situational advantages of paratrooping leprechauns.

Talking about how interesting something might be for the future doesn't necessarily bring us closer to achieving it, especially as most of these goals are almost certainly meteorologically impossible.

[I can feel it coming. Maybe we should coin a version of Godwin's Law for Tesla? oops, too late...]
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
That's the point here. This document, so often quoted as evidence of US malice of forethought, is really just a wishlist. It's a letter to Santa from 1996, asking for lots of cool sounding toys for the battles of the future. They may as well have described the situational advantages of paratrooping leprechauns.

Talking about how interesting something might be for the future doesn't necessarily bring us closer to achieving it, especially as most of these goals are almost certainly not possible.

What do you know of directed energy weapons? Just a wishlist? Microwave technology has been used for years, elf, ulf, lf, emp, laser...it's all just a dream, right? Dream on
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Maybe not, but that's the mandate they have, so that's what they do.

I think you need to separate the political aspects from the technical aspects if you want to argue about this kind of thing. The military has the motivation and the money to develop technology. But what are they actually doing that we have any evidence for? The military would use the One Ring of Sauron if they could, but there's zero evidence that they are, and technically it's not feasible to create such a ring.

Likewise, while clouds of nano-bots that can create aimed lighting strikes are very cool sounding, it's vastly beyond the realms of current technology - equivalent to magic pixie dust.

mandate? I think you need to take on the political aspects of all of this if you are going to have a chance of understanding the twisted minds that populate these organizations.

And you think that nano smart clouds that can issue lightning strikes as a means of war are 'cool sounding'? I think that says a lot. If you read the document again, you might find that this is more than just a pipe dream for a sick mind.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That some things on a wish list are real does not make the other things real.

That list comes up most frequently as some kind of justification for chemtrails being real. It's not. It's just a highly speculative list. Look elsewhere for justification. The military is quite fond of showing off their new weapons like the active denial system. They are not shy about discussing the actual plausibility and desirability of things. There is a VAST amount of documentation about speculative weapons systems like DEWs

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476320.pdf

There's even quite a bit on Nanobots:

http://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=nanobots+site:.mil

There's nothing but denials about chemtrails, or anything like them.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
That some things on a wish list are real does not make the other things real.

That list comes up most frequently as some kind of justification for chemtrails being real. It's not. It's just a highly speculative list. Look elsewhere for justification. The military is quite fond of showing off their new weapons like the active denial system. They are not shy about discussing the actual plausibility and desirability of things. There is a VAST amount of documentation about speculative weapons systems like DEWs

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476320.pdf

There's even quite a bit on Nanobots:

http://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=nanobots+site%3A.mil

There's nothing but denials about chemtrails, or anything like them.

Using your logic: Just because someone tells the truth about one thing, doesn't mean they tell the truth about everything. When government/military deny something are they always telling the truth?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So how do you pick which government documents to use as evidence? Just the ones you believe to be true? How can you tell the difference?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I have more faith in documents that replicate evidence from other sources - if people all around hte world are getting the same results - or at least results that fit the same model - then that makes it me trust the information as true.

Single sources of information, especially people saying "it must be so" or the equivalent without bothering to provide any credible evidence (see top para) as to the how or why it must be so, are the ones I do not trust.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Exactly. There's a chain of verifiability, references, etc. That's why Wikipedia is actually quite a reliable source, because it's based on other reliable sources, and requires that all claims be sourced. There's also consistency, and plausibility.

One should not blindly believe everything one is told. But that does not mean you simply disbelieve everything.

Similarly you might want to check your blind faith in "common sense" sometimes. Not everything is as it seems. Sometimes things just look odd, without actually being odd, or needing additional entities to explain them.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
That list comes up most frequently as some kind of justification for chemtrails being real. It's not. It's just a highly speculative list.

There's nothing but denials about chemtrails, or anything like them.

That so? What list are you talking about and where did I say it was justification for anything? I await your indication with interest as I doubt you can find it aywhere.
Nothing but denials, eh?..oh well, then it must be true. What kind of rationale is this? No doubt the US military would deny the deaths of 900,000 Iraqi civilians since 2003, does that make it true?

Also - I don't think you should simply remove posts which you don't like - I am referring to Jay Reynold's response to the above exchange on nano tech and my subsequent replies. These have been removed without even a note to mark their removal. Were these taken down without reference because they showed one of your 'colleagues' reducing your argument to attempts at childish point scoring? Surely people have a right to see, in a purportedly 'public' forum, all comments in their context without censorship. I politely request that you reinstate these comments in the interests of freedom of speech and freedom of availability to others to read if they so wish. It's the only fair thing to do.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I was referring to Owning the Weather in 2025. The point is that is somewhat disingenuous to simultaneously use the military as a source, and simultaneously say they are lying. That allows you to simple cherry pick what ever seems to bolster your case, but ignore anything that does not.

It also distracts from the fact that there's no actual evidence.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Any comments I deleted were done because they overstepped the bounds of politeness. Impolite posts may be edited or removed. Feel free to rephrase what you said politely, and post it again.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Any comments I deleted were done because they overstepped the bounds of politeness. Impolite posts may be edited or removed. Feel free to rephrase what you said politely, and post it again.

I was polite - why don't you re-post the originals and let people decide if it's polite or not?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I was referring to Owning the Weather in 2025. The point is that is somewhat disingenuous to simultaneously use the military as a source, and simultaneously say they are lying. That allows you to simple cherry pick what ever seems to bolster your case, but ignore anything that does not.

It also distracts from the fact that there's no actual evidence.

The document is a clear statement of intent. It says that the developments will happen. I think they might know a bit more about it than you lot - I'll take their word for that, not yours. Your attempt at rational thinking is perverse. You seem to be beginning with the axiom that the military always tell the truth. A nine year old would laugh at that.

You are now projecting your own dubious methods towards me.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The document is a clear statement of intent. It says that the developments will happen. I think they might know a bit more about it than you lot - I'll take their word for that, not yours. Your attempt at rational thinking is perverse. You seem to be beginning with the axiom that the military always tell the truth. A nine year old would laugh at that.

You are now projecting your own dubious methods towards me.

From the front page:

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.

Of course you would say that is a lie. But the bits of the document YOU quote are true?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 8
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 75
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 8
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 4
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top