It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What if the release of information were reversed?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Seeing as the public is well aware that Fluoride has been added to our water to "protect our teeth" since 1945, we can have relatively civilized discussions as to whether or not it is safe and does what they claim it is supposed to do. Although nobody can dispute the fact that Fluoride occurs naturally in water, the type of Fluoride that is natural compared to what they're adding is worthy of attention.

So, seeing as our government has admitted to adding Fluoride to the water, what if history had been reversed in regards to what information the public was allowed to be knowledgeable about?

Really. Think about this.
What if our government revealed that they are using aircraft CONtrails to ward off global warming by releasing manufactured aerosols into the environment thus creating synthetic clouds to reflect the sun's rays, but never admitted to adding Fluoride to our water? What if we could only find evidence of them considering adding Fluoride to the water, but could never find conclusive evidence demonstrating that they were already doing this? We would be left to argue symantics all day every day with Fluoride naysayers and, those of us who think-outside-the-box and aren't so trusting of our "leaders", would be left to assume that this information was still classified and this is the reason why no concrete evidence could be uncovered.

We already know that they've contemplated the many uses of CONtrails and technology in the past.
www.fas.org...

Disruption of communications and radar via ionospheric control. A variation of the capability proposed above is ionospheric modification to disrupt an enemy's communication or radar transmissions. Because HF communications are controlled directly by the ionosphere's properties, an artificially created ionization region could conceivably disrupt an enemy's electromagnetic transmissions. Even in the absence of an artificial ionization patch, high-frequency modification produces large-scale ionospheric variations which alter HF propagation characteristics. The payoff of research aimed at understanding how to control these variations could be high as both HF communication enhancement and degradation are possible. Offensive interference of this kind would likely be indistinguishable from naturally occurring space weather. This capability could also be employed to precisely locate the source of enemy electromagnetic transmissions.



Exploding/disabling space assets traversing near-space. The ionosphere could potentially be artificially charged or injected with radiation at a certain point so that it becomes inhospitable to satellites or other space structures. The result could range from temporarily disabling the target to its complete destruction via an induced explosion. Of course, effectively employing such a capability depends on the ability to apply it selectively to chosen regions in space.



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.



One major advantage of using simulated weather to achieve a desired effect is that unlike other approaches, it makes what are otherwise the results of deliberate actions appear to be the consequences of natural weather phenomena. 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.52 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.

So, we already know that they have the capabilities to make these ideas come to fruition. The question is, why can we not find documentation stating the reasons for using or abandoning such "innovative" ideas?

Getting back to my main topic, would we be arguing over whether or not Fluoride in drinking water is natural or synthetic? Would we be arguing about whether Fluoride is harmful or not? Would we be arguing over which "experts" are more credible than others? Would we be calling people "stupid" because they believed that the government was adding Fluoride to the drinking water? What would convince the Fluoride naysayers that the government was indeed adding Fluoride to the drinking water?

In my opinion, if they are using aircraft to curb global warming or for any other purposes associated with human health, this information has not been released to the public yet and it won't be until they feel that their use of said technology cannot be disputed any longer.

So, I ask everyone, what if the release of information had been reversed?
I can see this happening. I can easily see where it could have happened this way. If they had discovered in 1945 that CONtrail technology would benefit the planet and released that they were currently using this technology and people started to complain, how cautious do you think they would be about telling an already chemical critical public twenty years later that they have decided to taint our water?
I think they would do this and keep a tight lid on it for fear of criticism and public back lash. They would go to bed at night believing that they know what's good for us and that we are better off not knowing. They reassure themselves that once the technology has enough beneficial evidence backing it that they'll release the details of the project and we'll rally around them kissing their feet for saving our lives.

Really though. Is this "fictional" historical reversal that far fetched?
I don't think so.




posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

So, we already know that they have the capabilities to make these ideas come to fruition. The question is, why can we not find documentation stating the reasons for using or abandoning such "innovative" ideas?

No, we do not know that. Besides the fact that your first two external paragraphs are about activities outside of the proper atmosphere and are thus irrelevant to your speculation, you have neglected to note that the source is a piece of speculation itself.

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.

This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.

www.fas.org...

Going back to your main topic, yes your fictional account is far fetched. You see, there is evidence of artificial fluoridation. There is no evidence of manufactured aerosols being deployed.
edit on 2/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hi, Phage.
I'm taking it that you don't appreciate hypothetical situations?
Our government seems to enjoy dicussing how they can spend our tax dollars to offset global warming in a hypothetical fashion. I'm just sticking with the current trend.
Do you have a comment on whether or not this situation I proposed could happen? If not, why not?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Also,


There is no evidence of manufactured aerosols being deployed.

Yes. I already stated this in my Op. Do try to keep up.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Phage
 

Also,


There is no evidence of manufactured aerosols being deployed.

Yes. I already stated this in my Op. Do try to keep up.


What I'm debunking is the claims that there IS evidence. So I guess we are in agreement.

Regarding your fluoride thought experiment. You could just test the water.

You could test contrails too, it's just a lot more expensive. And as you noted, there's no evidence of spraying, so why test?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Folks don't seem to be understanding my thread, so I'll clarify.

I'm wanting to discuss why or why not this situation could be a possibility.
Since our government has discussed using certain technologies, is there evidence that they have or have not decided to implement their ideas? If they have decided against geoengineering our atmosphere, wouldn't there be documents stating that they have come to the conclusion that their ideas can not be implemented as well as the reasons why they have come to this conclusion?

As it stands, nobody can provide documents that their hypothetical discussions have or have not been acted upon.

We know that they have decided that Fluoride is for our own good, but why have they not made any decisions related to curbing global warming? They've obviously placed a lot of time and energy into discussing it, yet no conclusions to these discussions can be located.
Does this mean that their conclusions and activities regarding this information are classified?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
I'm wanting to discuss why or why not this situation could be a possibility.
Since our government has discussed using certain technologies, is there evidence that they have or have not decided to implement their ideas?


There's no evidence that they HAVE decided to implement them. Certainly no evidence that any geoengineering has taken place (which is pretty good evidence that it is not taking place, unless they are somehow doing it in an undetectable manner, which would kind of defeat the purpose)



If they have decided against geoengineering our atmosphere, wouldn't there be documents stating that they have come to the conclusion that their ideas can not be implemented as well as the reasons why they have come to this conclusion?

As it stands, nobody can provide documents that their hypothetical discussions have or have not been acted upon.

We know that they have decided that Fluoride is for our own good, but why have they not made any decisions related to curbing global warming? They've obviously placed a lot of time and energy into discussing it, yet no conclusions to these discussions can be located.
Does this mean that their conclusions and activities regarding this information are classified?


They are still very actively discussing it. The problem has not gone away. The potential usage of geoengineering is still in the future. Governments around the world have said it's something they are looking into researching, but are proceeding with great caution.


edit on 3-2-2012 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
As an example of "them" not having come to a conclusion yet, here's the latest from the UN's Convention On Biological Diversity:

www.cbd.int...

And in particular this document:
www.cbd.int...

Which is current as of last week, and describes many of regulatory issues associated with geoeingeering oversight. It covers a wide variety of techniques, and also references a large body of relevant legislation. It has many references at the end, most from within the last four years.

I would suggest this seems like very strong evidence that they have not decided not to do any geoengineering, and also that they have not done any yet.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Originally posted by Uncinus


There's no evidence that they HAVE decided to implement them.

There's no evidence that they have NOT decided to implement them either.


Certainly no evidence that any geoengineering has taken place (which is pretty good evidence that it is not taking place, unless they are somehow doing it in an undetectable manner, which would kind of defeat the purpose)

Why would doing it in an undetectable manner be out of the scope of how they work? Also, why would it defeat the purpose? I mentioned in my Op that the public currently does not view chemicals in a positive light, so why would they make it obvious when they know it would lead to ridicule? Prior to the Internet, people couldn't easily do their own research about the dangers of Fluoride. Now that they can, several countries have discontinued and/or banned Fluoride's use. Seeing as people can look up the discussions governments have had in regards to geoengineering and creating clouds with the chemicals aircrafts release, I find it interesting that there aren't any documents discussing a conclusion to these discussions. All ideas either die or give birth to action. Why can we not find either result from their discussions? Tax payers trust that their governments are spending their time wisely discussing future actions that are going to be helpful. So far, all I see is a bunch of people who are sitting on their hands. It is their responsibility to tell the public why or why not they are using the technology they've discussed.


They are still very actively discussing it. The problem has not gone away. The potential usage of geoengineering is still in the future.

What problems are these exactly?
Our "leaders" in 1945 were able to make decisions, yet tooth decay is still around. Yet, our "leaders" of today are not able to decide even today that the "leaders" of yesterday were incorrect in their decisions to taint our water.

Governments around the world have said it's something they are looking into researching, but are proceeding with great caution.

Are there any documents stating when they are going to make a decision and how they're planning on using "great caution"?
Also, you use the word "researching", but isn't that what they are talking about? The "research" they've already done, which has led to their possible solutions for global warming? They're past the research phase. They are now in the action or inaction phase as far as documentary evidence indicates.
edit on 3-2-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


I appreciate you supplying that information and I'm currently reading it.
Here is the link again. www.cbd.int...

So, far, I'm concerned with lines 160-163.
I'm unable to copy and paste the information, but I'll type it here:

Rapid termination of SRM, that had been deployed for some time and is masking a high degree of warming, would almost certainly have very large negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services that would be far more severe than those resulting from gradual climate change.


SRM means Solar Radiation Management. From the above text, it clearly states that they are currently using SRM and it is combating global warming, but they fear stopping it in a sudden manner because it would lead to even worse results.

So, they have begun acting on their ideas and using the technology to curb global warming. They also do not like the idea of terminating the activities.

Thanks again for the paper. I'm going to continue reading and will post any other information I find relevant.
edit on 3-2-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
SRM means Solar Radiation Management. From the above text, it clearly states that they are currently using SRM and it is combating global warming, but they fear stopping it in a sudden manner because it would lead to even worse results.

It says "that had been deployed" not "that have been deployed".

It does not say SRM has been deployed, it is specifying some of the problems with are likely to be involved if it is deployed. There is no indication the document that SRM has been deployed.

Uniform dimming of sunlight through an unspecified generic SRM technique, to compensate for the temperature increase from increased CO2 concentrations, would be expected to reduce the greenhouse-gas induced temperature change experienced by most areas of the planet.

Not is expected. Not is reducing.
You have produced no evidence that SRM is being deployed. This document, like all others, speak of potential benefits and drawbacks.


edit on 2/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It states that it has already been used and they are concerned that stopping it would lead to more negative consequences.
.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 

No.
It does not say that SRM has been deployed. It addresses concerns if it is ever deployed.

edit on 2/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Look. Your interpretation does not fit the language being used. I don't have a degree in science, but I do have a Bachelor's degree in English literature. I am more than capable of reading and comprehending higher level documents.

Now, if you'd kindly hold your comments and opinions until I have finished reading the documents Unicus was kind enough to supply, I'll be back with my final assessment and post any further information I find relevant.
Thank you.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 

My interpretation fits the language (Have you ever heard the term prospective aspect?) as well as the context of the entire document.

"Hold my comments", seriously?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
One last thing before I continue reading this lengthy paper,

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Afterthought
 

No.
It does not say that SRM has been deployed. It addresses concerns if it is ever deployed.

edit on 2/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



Rapid termination of SRM, that had been deployed for some time and is masking a high degree of warming, would almost certainly have very large negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services that would be far more severe than those resulting from gradual climate change.

You claim that they're thinking about deploying it, but how can something can be terminated before it even begins?

Definition of 'terminate'
www.thefreedictionary.com...

ter·mi·nate (tûrm-nt)
v. ter·mi·nat·ed, ter·mi·nat·ing, ter·mi·nates
v.tr.
1. To bring to an end or halt: "His action terminated the most hopeful period of reform in Prussian history" (Gordon A. Craig).
2. To occur at or form the end of; conclude or finish: a display of fireworks that terminated the festivities.
3. To discontinue the employment of; dismiss: a company that terminated 300 workers.
v.intr.
1. To come to an end: The oil pipeline terminates at a shipping port. Negotiations terminated yesterday. See Synonyms at complete.
2. To have as an end or result: "The Peloponnesian war ... terminated in the ruin of the Athenian commonwealth" (Alexander Hamilton).


Plus

Rapid termination of SRM, that had been deployed for some time and is masking a high degree of warming, would almost certainly have very large negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services that would be far more severe than those resulting from gradual climate change.


Definition of 'had'
www.thefreedictionary.com...

had [hæd]
vb
the past tense and past participle of have


Definition of 'deployed'
www.thefreedictionary.com...

de·ploy (d-ploi)
v. de·ployed, de·ploy·ing, de·ploys
v.tr.
1.
a. To position (troops) in readiness for combat, as along a front or line.
b. To bring (forces or material) into action.
c. To base (a weapons system) in the field.
2. To distribute (persons or forces) systematically or strategically.
3. To put into use or action: "Samuel Beckett's friends suspected that he was a genius, yet no one knew . . . how his abilities would be deployed" (Richard Ellmann).


I'm sure most can understand how the term 'for some time' means 'an extended duration'.

The term 'is masking' is in the present tense.

Now, as the Terminator said, "Ahl be bahck."
edit on 3-2-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
What if our government revealed that they are using aircraft CONtrails to ward off global warming by releasing manufactured aerosols into the environment thus creating synthetic clouds to reflect the sun's rays...


Science would be utterly mystified as to why they were doing something that was having the opposite of the intended effect, and wonder why the US govt didn't bother asking them first before wasting billions of dollars on deliberately contributing to global warming.

Other nations might then have questions about why the US govt had deliberately caused global warming, whilst they were undertaking efforts to reduce it.

The US Govt would be fined $500 trilllion, collapse totally, and possibly be bought by Lithuania for 5 cents.

No wonder they want to keep it secret!



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


You claim that they're thinking about deploying it, but how can something can be terminated before it even begins?


Terminating my daughter's allowance, after I had been giving it to her for a while, would be a good way of punishing her if she does something wrong.

My daughter doesn't get an allowance. If she ever does, I can use removing it as "incentive" to behave.

If SRM is deployed, suddenly stopping it could be a bad thing.

See how it works? Like I said, it's the application of the prospective aspect. There is no indication that SRM has been deployed.
edit on 2/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yes. Your hypothetical situation would make sense if the word 'if' were in the sentence I quoted in the literature.
You surprise me. I thought you didn't appreciate hypotheticals, yet you have no problems using them.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


Ok.

Terminating my daughter's allowance, after I had been giving it to her for a while, would almost certainly make her sad.

The point is not the hypothetical situation. The point is that the statement which you claim states that that SRM is in use, does not.
edit on 2/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join