I'd like to know how you have mentally concluded that "Capturing and Torturing Americans in "living color" on prime time" as a means to exploit CNN Syndrome is only part of Fair and Innocent Military Conducted Research and Analysis?
Debunked: NASA War Document Exposed (The Future is Now)
- Thread starter Chuck
- Start date
- Status
"All it is is speculation about what the future of warfare MIGHT be like, so that that the military can think about what they might want to do. There's no plan in there. It's all just speculation." Although it is true that this Could be speculation since it is based on the future. The disturbing parts of this information are actually just the thoughts of Bushnell. His opinion of 'humans', the 'CNN Syndrome'. Those are not pre-cautionary future speculations, they are current and happening now as the context of the document. How do you explain that.
Last edited by a moderator:
I shall re-phrase. I would like to know the overall reason of this topic being successfully Debunked. In bulletpoint order of conclusion.
See post #2, which contains bullet points.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...nt-exposed-the-future-is-now.1851/#post-51214
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...nt-exposed-the-future-is-now.1851/#post-51214
Perfect. So these bulletpoints represent the decision of meta bunk that the age of these documents, and their (according to Mick West) commonplace on the matter of Futuristic Warfare are the conclusion to this topic being 'debunked'. Am I correct?
solrey
Senior Member
Context, context, context... That is talking about an ENEMY capturing and torturing US citizens, something like oh, I don't know... the Iran hostage crisis, which IIRC was mentioned in the document. Members of the armed forces take an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Domestic enemies would be groups like neo-nazi militias, and I fully support preventing groups like that from running amok. Any military that hopes to be effective and successful is going to plan for as many scenarios and contingencies as they can think of utilizing as many resources as they have available, including identifying potential future enemies and the weapons that might be available to them. Nowhere in the document does it say or even elude to the US public in general being the target of US military aggression or tactics. That is the issue that's being debunked.
Well hang on, you can't debunk based on that because That answer is speculation in itself! You have no real grasp on which context this is in. In fact you've just made a different, opinionated opposition to my 'context'. So you can just take that 'debunking' badge right off this thread mate.
Hang on, Mick, why have you just thrown in the distracted detail between topic and claim? Can you please explain to me, How these 'claims' are ordinary, and (that's And. Not Or) have been seen by 'countless other things'. The vagueness of that part astounds me. What I think of this claim is simple, and I will use a reference from the last page of the 113 page presentation: [Usual Reactions to this Presentation]. Some Disbelief but acceptance as there is too much to disregard. Please answer all I have said above before you rebut this part of my reply.
Bill
Senior Member
The comment had nothing to do with NASA. This comment was a response to "jealouszealots" off topic discussion of Larry Silverstein and the standards of proof she offered to support her claims. She said I hadn't even read the information before dismissing it. I showed that I had. When you favorite conspiracy web site's only references are other conspiracy web sites and they don't cite any original sources as proof it's not evidence, it's gossip.
Pete Tar
Senior Member
It's simple - if you go back to the first post you can see what is being claimed about the document - *that* is being debunked, not the document itself. ie. The idea that this document is "exposed" or classified information that has leaked.
It's clearly a speculative thought exercise based on plausible forecasting, not a policy plan to be put into action and implemented.
Whether things exist that parallel it is not the issue here.
It's clearly a speculative thought exercise based on plausible forecasting, not a policy plan to be put into action and implemented.
Whether things exist that parallel it is not the issue here.
You guys have NOT debunked this TOPIC. One 'claim' of this 'topic' is what this woman believes of the NASA files, the 'Base' of her 'claim' is the NASA war files! If you debunk that to your satisfaction then you have covered only ONE 'claim' of this Topic. As the thread creator posted he wanted debunking of her 'claims'. You've covered one of many **THIS TOPIC HAS NOT BEEN DEBUNKED** She has referenced the Iron Mountain Report, Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, the CNN Syndrome, they are heavy contributors and BASES to her 'Claims'. There are even a few other 'claims' she has expressed which need 'debunking' but it's not actually my job to reaffirm you to the accuracy of Your job. I'll look forward to the detailed report of all which you still are yet to debunk rather than one out of 4+.
Pete Tar
Senior Member
Well they will on be debunked depending on whether they have bunk or not. If they are factual it's not going to be debunked.
What can be debunked is an erroneous interpretation or unwarranted assumptions.
What exactly would you like some opinion on?
(and Mick made it clear that he is not debunking the TOPIC, just the claim made about it.
The report exists.)
What can be debunked is an erroneous interpretation or unwarranted assumptions.
What exactly would you like some opinion on?
(and Mick made it clear that he is not debunking the TOPIC, just the claim made about it.
The report exists.)
Pete Tar
Senior Member
I don't see anything I would disagree with.External Quote:
I'm sorry, you may need to just repeat exactly what you are disputing/want discussion on, as your point is being obscured in the posts.
Why do we need to explain that?
ETA another definition of CNN syndrome...
External Quote:
Re: Why do we need to explain that. You need to explain that because they were strong points to the woman's testimony of the NASA PowerPoint that you claim to have 'debunked', and furthermore you have stated that the NASA file is regarding Speculation for the future. So you see now you have conflicting points, because she was very clear on the bizarre shock regarding "CNN Syndrome", which was not debunked and is not excluded from the present, like (in your terms) the presentation as a whole Is.
Bill
Senior Member
If you are talking about the slide labeled "Exploit "CNN Syndrome"" they are talking about any future enemy exploiting the 24 hour new cycle and the tendency for the news to report the current "news" without checking the facts beforehand in an effort to be the first to break a story. It has the potential for spreading anti-US propaganda, fear and misinformation that can make it harder for the government to take action. The news will be eventually corrected but handled correctly the cycle can be used to demoralize the viewers. They could refer to it in present tense because the condition existed at the time of the presentation. They also make it clear in a later slide they expect "CNN Syndrome" to be around in 2025 and that it will have an impact on US forces.
solrey
Senior Member
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
Let me try to put this into perspective for you NZF. Lots of these documents have and do exist.. they're not classifed (for the most part) and are exactly what Mick's been saying they are... a thought experiment. The debunking, in this case, is whether or not this is some super secret NASA document designed as a plan of attack. It isnt.
From personal experience I can tell you flat out, that scenarios like this are thought up as a "what if." As a "what if" you come up with solutions.. war games are basically the exact same thing. They're not "plans to invade" this or that.. they are offensive and defensive practice for scenarios that we all hope to God never occur. If they DO occur, we have options ready to roll.
Think of documents like this as baseball practice. Just because the batter knocks pop fly after pop fly to the outfield it doesnt mean that EVERY batter is going to pop to the outfield. You practice to make your reactions automatic rather than having the delay of having to think about what you're going to do. The Military works exactly the same way. You play through scenarios, practice for scenarios so that when/if the time does come you dont lose as many people. SWAT runs through thousands of scenarios that they hope and pray they never have to actually go through.. but they're prepared none the less. This is how civilian casualties are minimized, this is how the Military/SWAT minimizes their own injuries.
There is absolutely nothing sinister about this document what-so-ever other than people reading into things that arent there, then screaming at the top of their lungs 'THEY'RE OUT TO GET US!!' This is another case of "I dont understand; therefore conspiracy..." if they do understand then they're being deliberately misleading which is a totally different kettle of fish.
From personal experience I can tell you flat out, that scenarios like this are thought up as a "what if." As a "what if" you come up with solutions.. war games are basically the exact same thing. They're not "plans to invade" this or that.. they are offensive and defensive practice for scenarios that we all hope to God never occur. If they DO occur, we have options ready to roll.
Think of documents like this as baseball practice. Just because the batter knocks pop fly after pop fly to the outfield it doesnt mean that EVERY batter is going to pop to the outfield. You practice to make your reactions automatic rather than having the delay of having to think about what you're going to do. The Military works exactly the same way. You play through scenarios, practice for scenarios so that when/if the time does come you dont lose as many people. SWAT runs through thousands of scenarios that they hope and pray they never have to actually go through.. but they're prepared none the less. This is how civilian casualties are minimized, this is how the Military/SWAT minimizes their own injuries.
There is absolutely nothing sinister about this document what-so-ever other than people reading into things that arent there, then screaming at the top of their lungs 'THEY'RE OUT TO GET US!!' This is another case of "I dont understand; therefore conspiracy..." if they do understand then they're being deliberately misleading which is a totally different kettle of fish.
You guys are sick!
Pete Tar
Senior Member
And you have severe comprehension problems.
Why are they sick?
What exactly do you think we are advocating? We are trying to explain the existence of something to you that you seem to think is something it is not - because we can see the reason it exists does not mean we endorse it, agree with it, support it or advocate it.
Why are they sick?
What exactly do you think we are advocating? We are trying to explain the existence of something to you that you seem to think is something it is not - because we can see the reason it exists does not mean we endorse it, agree with it, support it or advocate it.
nanotchi
Member
Ok NZF, you sound really angry about this, CNN Syndrome was explained of course, but then again, it wasn't the main focus of the thread. Maybe if you tell us why we're wrong then we can look more into it. But as it stands, this is debunked. We're not debunking the document. It exists, but the idea that "OMG it's secret!!!!" Is not.
Wrong again buddy. This thread was created to debunk the VIDEO. Not convince people that what you tell them is right. Where is the evidence regarding meta bunks explanation for "CNN Syndrome"?
Pete Tar
Senior Member
There's been several posts explaining it.
What exactly do you need explained about it?
Try to actually make sense in one post before you hit post.
ETA..
Specifically, this post is a fair overview of CNN syndrome.
What do you think is wrong about it, what are you claiming about it that we are not, or what have we claimed about it that you disagree with?
What exactly do you need explained about it?
Try to actually make sense in one post before you hit post.
ETA..
Specifically, this post is a fair overview of CNN syndrome.
What do you think is wrong about it, what are you claiming about it that we are not, or what have we claimed about it that you disagree with?
Last edited:
Ya clearly haven't watched it all have ya pal... Have a look through previous comments so you can see I've done meta bunks job for them by pointing out some clear details of what they have missed
Where's your evidence regarding your answer to "CNN Syndrome". SIMPLE.
I will answer that when you answer my question. Just be honest.
- Status
Similar threads
