Debunked: NASA War Document Exposed (The Future is Now)

Status
Not open for further replies.

NZF

Member
Here's a copyable copy (113 pages):
View attachment future-strategic-issues-and-warfare.pdf

And a condensed version (48 pages)
View attachment FutureWarfare.pdf

Which gives background:


Dennis M. Bushnell
Chief Scientist
NASA Langley Research Center

Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare [Circa 2025]
Capabilities of the “Enemy After Next”
-Ongoing Worldwide Technological
Revolutions
-Economic Trends
Potential Nature of Farther Term Warfare


This is the “Readers Digest” version of a 2-hour Presentation put together at the request of the Army War College/SSI

Presentation has been written up by Bill Stryker of DIA/Futures as the Future Threat for Global War Games etc., available on INTELNET


Utilization/Application of 2025+ Projections
  • Inputs to Future Warfighting Concepts Development(s) (Enemy After Next & Blue)
  • Inputs to New Procurement Decision (15+ years to Produce, 40+ years in Inventory
  • “Heads Up” for Intel Community (“Watches and Warnings”)
  • Inputs to DOD R&D Planning

Content from External Source
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.

Here's a similar thing that Bushnell did for the navy.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_10/bushnell_shape.html

And again, it's 12 years old!
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?
 

NZF

Member
"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:

nanotchi

Member
I'd like to know the Debunkers conclusion regarding this subject. What do you Officially declare about the documents from NASA, and also, what is Your reason for the topic to now be 'debunked'. Please bulletpoint in order of conclusion.
I thought it was that the document was real, but it's years old and not exactly secret?
 

NZF

Member
I thought it was that the document was real, but it's years old and not exactly secret?
I shall re-phrase. I would like to know the overall reason of this topic being successfully Debunked. In bulletpoint order of conclusion.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
They are genuine. I don't think that's in dispute. What's not genuine are the claims about what they mean. It's just ordinary futurist speculation from 12 years ago. High school stuff really. There's really very little to add on top of that.
 

NZF

Member
They are genuine. I don't think that's in dispute. What's not genuine are the claims about what they mean. It's just ordinary futurist speculation from 12 years ago. High school stuff really. There's really very little to add on top of that.
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.
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?

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.
 

NZF

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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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?

I don't debunk topics. I debunk claims. The claim being that these documents were some unusual revelation. They clearly are quite ordinary, as seen by countless similar things.

What do you think the claim is here?
 

NZF

Member
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.
Are you stating that the PDF documents from NASA are not genuine. Because I can prove that they are.
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.
 

NZF

Member
We'll your response seems, rather irrelevant because the person who I made that reply to was nothing but co-operative to follow up his statement with an answer to my reply.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
We'll your response seems, rather irrelevant because the person who I made that reply to was nothing but co-operative to follow up his statement with an answer to my reply.
Since you directly replied to one of my comments I fail to see how it's irrelevant.
upload_2013-12-22_13-33-44.png
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.

Topics are based on claims. If the claims are baseless, then the that's all we need to look at.

What claim of evidence are you making here? What do you think is evidence, of what, and why?
 

NZF

Member
I do have an answer for that, you will get it once you go back to my previous comment and answer my questions. Keep them in context.
 

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.
 

NZF

Member
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.)
 

NZF

Member
Yes I have the report, hard copy, if you mean NASA. Since you've asked please start with "CNN Syndrome". The context of this phrase or term Is Existent. Not future-tense speculation.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
What is CNN syndrome?
Answer:
Some quotes associated with "CCN Syndrome" are:

"Our best intelligence is the media" and "CNN runs ten minutes faster than the NSA"

Basically, it means that Media plays a role in developing an opinion to a story and is a strong policy driver because it directly reaches the people and does it faster than the government.
Content from External Source
I don't see anything I would disagree with.

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.

...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.

Why do we need to explain that?


ETA another definition of CNN syndrome...
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2002/01/23media-journalism
"The CNN Effect": How 24-Hour News Coverage Affects Government Decisions and Public Opinion
Summary
The tenth in a weekly series of forums on media issues arising from the anti-terrorism war, jointly sponsored by the Brookings Institution and the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, examined the so-called "CNN Effect"—the impact of 24-hour-a day, live television coverage broadcast from around the world by all-news cable channels.



This effect was first noted when heartbreaking footage of starving children in Somalia pressured U.S. officials to send troops there. Horrifying footage of Somalis dragging the body of a dead American soldier through the streets followed, prompting U.S. officials to withdraw. Clips from this coverage will be shown at the forum.

Policy-makers acknowledge that they often first learn of new trouble spots around the globe from cable channel coverage. World leaders often direct messages to each other through such news channels, as President Bush has done in the current crisis. And videotaped statements by Osama bin Laden are an example of how America's enemies can take advantage of the all-news channels to spread propaganda against the United States.
Content from External Source
 

NZF

Member
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.
Yes I have the report, hard copy, if you mean NASA. Since you've asked please start with "CNN Syndrome". The context of this phrase or term Is Existent. Not future-tense speculation.
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.
 

nanotchi

Member
Are there any other similar documents from other countries? Or from another time? ;o

The simple thing of course, imo, is that this is a public document. Seems speculative too, so well, saying it's being "exposed" is silly, since it is available to the public.
 

solrey

Senior Member.
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.

Here's some context for you:

Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State.
It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.

Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.
Content from External Source
As the NASA document states:

Potential CAPABILITIES is the future warfare issue, not Who but WHAT.
Content from External Source
Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" is taught at military academies like West Point, the NASA document is just one of hundreds of similar documents in the realm of "many calculations".
 

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.
 

NZF

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.
Here's some context for you:

Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State.
It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.

Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.
Content from External Source
As the NASA document states:

Potential CAPABILITIES is the future warfare issue, not Who but WHAT.
Content from External Source
Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" is taught at military academies like West Point, the NASA document is just one of hundreds of similar documents in the realm of "many calculations".
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.
 

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.
 

NZF

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"?
 

nanotchi

Member
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"?
Isn't the video about how "OMG!!! SECRET DOCUMENT REVEALED!!!"?
 

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.
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.

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:

NZF

Member
Isn't the video about how "OMG!!! SECRET DOCUMENT REVEALED!!!"?
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
 

NZF

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?
Where's your evidence regarding your answer to "CNN Syndrome". SIMPLE.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
So you think it means something else?

The evidence is what the term is used for.
For the SECOND time...


What is CNN syndrome?
Answer:
Some quotes associated with "CCN Syndrome" are:

"Our best intelligence is the media" and "CNN runs ten minutes faster than the NSA"

Basically, it means that Media plays a role in developing an opinion to a story and is a strong policy driver because it directly reaches the people and does it faster than the government.
Content from External Source
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2002/01/23media-journalism
"The CNN Effect": How 24-Hour News Coverage Affects Government Decisions and Public Opinion
Summary
The tenth in a weekly series of forums on media issues arising from the anti-terrorism war, jointly sponsored by the Brookings Institution and the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, examined the so-called "CNN Effect"—the impact of 24-hour-a day, live television coverage broadcast from around the world by all-news cable channels.



This effect was first noted when heartbreaking footage of starving children in Somalia pressured U.S. officials to send troops there. Horrifying footage of Somalis dragging the body of a dead American soldier through the streets followed, prompting U.S. officials to withdraw. Clips from this coverage will be shown at the forum.

Policy-makers acknowledge that they often first learn of new trouble spots around the globe from cable channel coverage. World leaders often direct messages to each other through such news channels, as President Bush has done in the current crisis. And videotaped statements by Osama bin Laden are an example of how America's enemies can take advantage of the all-news channels to spread propaganda against the United States.
Content from External Source
What is your issue?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
My only knowledge of it comes from what other people have written about it. See my edited post for the repeated definitions.

I'm confused why you think we need evidence for a term that explains a social phenomena.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top