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:

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.
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...
 

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:

As the NASA document states:

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:

As the NASA document states:

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 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.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
nickrulercreator [Debunked] Apollo 14 Flag Waving Before Ascent? Science and Pseudoscience 21
P Debunked: NASA Nukes Alien Moonbase UFOs and Aliens 15
Santa'sSickRibs Debunked: Apollo 10 "Space Music" UFOs and Aliens 16
Mick West Debunked: AnonSec's NASA Hack, Global Hawk Hijack, Evidence of Chemtrails [Public Domain Data] General Discussion 32
Pete Tar Debunked: Most recent NASA study shows ice growth in Antartica Science and Pseudoscience 15
Josh Heuer Debunked: UFO in NASA live feed [The Moon] UFOs and Aliens 14
J Debunked: Blurred NASA image on Mars [Stitched in part of the Rover] UFOs and Aliens 13
Mick West Debunked: Nasa: Strange Markings Across The Globe 'Might Have Been Made By Aliens' UFOs and Aliens 26
Mick West Debunked: Giant Bird In Flight On Mars Caught In NASA Billion Pixel View UFOs and Aliens 31
Leifer Debunked: NASA cloud chart is faked Contrails and Chemtrails 31
MikeC Debunked: NASA Scientist Admitting 'Chemtrails' for decades (actually Sounding Rockets) Contrails and Chemtrails 17
U Debunked: Moon Landing and NASA Photo - non parallel shadows Conspiracy Theories 13
Oystein Debunked: Gibraltar cancels Christmas Coronavirus COVID-19 1
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
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 and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
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 and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top