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.

 

Shocking Annoucment about Chemtrails on MSM

page: 30
67
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdRock69
 


Here's a piece of usual chemtail nonsense that is in the report as a conclusion:


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.


The only reference there that might support such a conclusion is to the "Owning het weather" paper from the 1990's - which is well known as NOT being US policy at all - and hence the statement that "This research paper contains a proven track record to support that statement." is debunked.

Here's another goodie:


4. Since the patents are owned by the main defense contractor for the U.S. armed forces (Raytheon) or the U.S. department of defense itself and given the history record it is obvious that current climate manipulation programs are organized and directed by the United States government.


There is no evidence presented to support this conclusion anywhere in the report - other than that Raytheon is a defence contractor and owns the patents in question.

Those 2 premises do NOT support either of the conclusions that are made - firstly that there are "current climate manipulation programs", and secondly that they are "organized and directed by the United States government".

It does not take a scientific study to realise that the premise do not support the conclusion - it takes a little logic and rational thought.

Sorry you have been fooled by them - but your salvation is in your own hands.




edit on 26-2-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


It is clear that you are totally confused by perspective. Was it not clear enough on the video that I posted? Surely it can't be that difficult to comprehend?

Is this aircraft shooting up into the sky?



What do you think it would look like to someone 20-30 from the location of the cameraman from a side angle?


It's a rocket, it's a missile, no, it's a ... BY ADAM LINHARDT Citizen Staff alinhardt@keysnews.com On New Year's Eve, some Florida Keys residents were awed by an unusual sight in the south to southwest skies off Key West. Recreational boaters, commercial fishermen and others snapped photographs they sent to the Navy, asking what the fast-moving object was that left a thick plume in its long wake, which glowed orange in the setting sun. Some speculated, and worried, that it was a rocket or missile, or military test. "To me, at first, it really looked like a missile," said commercial fisherman Lee Starling. After seeing video of the object on YouTube, Navy officials this week said the sighting was a less nefarious seasonal phenomenon. "Not until we saw the YouTube video could we really see that it's an airplane," Naval Air Station Key West spokesman Jim Brooks said. "But we get calls all the time over the holidays." To accommodate the increased air traffic during the holidays, the U.S. government allows international commercial airliners to fly in areas that typically are restricted airspace, Brooks said. The uncommon sight is coupled with the curvature of the Earth, which makes the planes appear to be flying vertically, he said. "We looked at it and it's a contrail," Brooks said of the visible trail of condensed water vapor made by the exhaust of the aircraft engine. "Not only that, but looking at the direction, it's probably coming from the Yucatan Peninsula. ... Because that's normally restricted airspace, we don't see it all the time. But we see them enough to know that it's not a strange or new phenomenon." Liberty Clipper Capt. Ron Opiela said he's seen it before. And he and Starling said they saw two more planes in the same general airspace a few days later. "There's nothing supernatural or covert," Opiela said. "The planes flying from the west use Key West as a way point. It wasn't a missile, but it's always pretty cool to see."


keysnews.com...

You are witnessing nothing else but persistent contrails. Nothng is 'shooting up!'



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


You're entitled to your opinion and so am I.

My opinion is in agreement with the opinions expressed in that report.

I provided that report in response to BenReclused.

The whole idea of a discussion is to express thoughts, ideas, opinions and theories.

The Case Orange Report is a detailed, well thought out, well put together outline of this debate.

It's purpose was to attract attention from the public and bring awareness to World leaders about this topic.

So that a more formal scientific study and investigation can take place.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





The only reference there that might support such a conclusion is to the "Owning het weather" paper from the 1990's - which is well known as NOT being US policy at all - and hence the statement that "This research paper contains a proven track record to support that statement." is debunked.




Is that what you call debunked?


Well I'll see your debunkery and raise you a Ben Livingston



Debunkery Debunked



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdRock69
 


What is it that you think debunking is??
Pointing out the errors of reasoning is debunking - if you think otherwise then you need to get a bit better informed.

Operation Popeye was cloud seeding to extend the effect of the monsoons and make life difficult for the Vietcong along the Ho Chi Minh trail.

It is not advanced technology that eth US could develop by 2025 - it was something that existed already in 1965!!


Are you now telling us that cloud seeding is geoengineering?? have you missed all the reasons why that is not true in the discussions over the last few years??


Moreover since it was done back then the Weather modification Convention came into force in the 1970's - and yes the US ratified it in 1979.

If you have any evidence that the US military is breaking that law you should publicise it and lay a complaint with the relevant authorities - in eth current climate (sic) you should have no trouble getting an audience and lots of fame and notoriety!



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdRock69
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


You're entitled to your opinion and so am I.

My opinion is in agreement with the opinions expressed in that report.


The report purports to conclude with facts - opinions are fair enough, but facts are contestable, and the reports factual conclusions have been shown to be false.

If you decide to knowingly believe errors and repeat them then you are no longer holding an opinion - you are spreading disinformation.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Simmer down, bud.

I'll keep this short since I know you don't like reading. Never in any one of my posts on this thread did I say "chemtrails do not exist." In fact, I said I hope they don't exist.

I'm not on a side here, all I know is that if our air is intentionally being sprayed in order to change our climate, it's not public knowledge yet. If the public knew about it- could actually prove it- the activity might slow down, maybe even stop.

I merely gave some suggestions to solve the multiple problems you presented in this thread, and encouraged you to do something about it.

A long list of complaints does not manifest a solution. Action does.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by atomsapple
 


COME on!!! Be real:


I'm not on a side here, all I know is that if our air is intentionally being sprayed in order to change our climate, it's not public knowledge yet.


No, the "air" is not being "intentionally" sprayed!!!

I mean.....THINK!!! Be rational.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 

Oh Dear,
there you go again, saying the air is not intentionally being sprayed when you don't know that.
PLEASE pay attention.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


A CONTRAIL is not "intentional"
Period.

Wake up, and learn some science.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





What is it that you think debunking is?? Pointing out the errors of reasoning is debunking - if you think otherwise then you need to get a bit better informed.


My understanding of the definition of "debunk" means to prove it to be false.

Not point out errors. Your points prove nothing they only attempt to cast doubt which is not "debunking"



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdRock69
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





What is it that you think debunking is?? Pointing out the errors of reasoning is debunking - if you think otherwise then you need to get a bit better informed.


My understanding of the definition of "debunk" means to prove it to be false

Not point out errors.


pointing out errors in the premise that a conclusion is based upon can be sufficient to show the conclusion false.

It is very simple - let's take an example from above:

Here's the Premises:

1/ Raytheon is a defence contractor (for the US Govt)
2/ Raytheon owns various patents people associate with geo-engineering

And from that the conclusion is drawn:

THEREFORE:
the US Govt is directing weather modification programs

This conclusions has 2 statements of fact that should be supported by the premises:
1/ there are weather modification programmes
2/ they are organised and supported by the US government

So how do the premises back up these statements?

Well it seems to me the only connection to the US govt is that Raytheon is a defence contractor.

And the only connection to weather modification is that Raytheon own some patents.

there is nothing in the premises at all about the existence of any programmes, nor is there anything in there about who is organising them.

So the Premises do not actually support the conclusion.

See how it works?



Your points prove nothing they only attempt to cast doubt which is not "debunking"


My points show that the premisesdid not support the conclusions.

That is how you rationally and logically show an argument to be false.

It is also debunking at its simplest.


edit on 26-2-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





The report purports to conclude with facts - opinions are fair enough, but facts are contestable, and the reports factual conclusions have been shown to be false.

If you decide to knowingly believe errors and repeat them then you are no longer holding an opinion - you are spreading disinformation.


Your idea of showing something false is based on circular arguments and biased opinion. You have shown nothing to be false. You merely stated your opinion over and over again.

Just because you say something over and over still does not mean it's true. You claim the report purports to conclude with facts and you provided some quotes. Where is the quote that states the comments you quoted claim to be "FACT"?

You are lying and in so doing you are the one spreading disinformation. There is no claim that the comments you quoted are facts.


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.


Here in the quote itself it states that they are providing a "proven track record to support that statement". The word "support" in and of itself is a word that does not describe something as fact.


4. Since the patents are owned by the main defense contractor for the U.S. armed forces (Raytheon) or the U.S. department of defense itself and given the history record it is obvious that current climate manipulation programs are organized and directed by the United States government.


In your next quoted statement there is nothing false about it. The United States does coordinated climate manipulation programs. What's false about it.

Once again you try to use semantics and word play to confuse and distract from the truth. Typical behavior and complete dis-info




My points show that the premisesdid not support the conclusions.


Your points do nothing of the sort. Ridiculous poppycock
edit on 26-2-2012 by ThirdRock69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdRock69
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





The report purports to conclude with facts - opinions are fair enough, but facts are contestable, and the reports factual conclusions have been shown to be false.

If you decide to knowingly believe errors and repeat them then you are no longer holding an opinion - you are spreading disinformation.


Your idea of showing something false is based on circular arguments and biased opinion. You have shown nothing to be false. You merely stated your opinion over and over again.

Just because you say something over and over still does not mean it's true. You claim the report purports to conclude with facts and you provided some quotes. Where is the quote that states the comments you quoted claim to be "FACT"?


ROFL


Now you are just demonstrating ignorance of basic grammer


Belfort states as one of their conclusions:


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).


That is a statement of fact because they state it as a fact.

If it was an opinion it would a form along the lines of:

"It is likely/possible/etc that 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). "

If you cannot differentiate between something that is stated as a fact and something stated as an opinion then you should go finish school!


edit on 26-2-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





Here's the Premises:

1/ Raytheon is a defence contractor (for the US Govt)
2/ Raytheon owns various patents people associate with geo-engineering

And from that the conclusion is drawn:

THEREFORE:
the US Govt is directing weather modification programs

This conclusions has 2 statements of fact that should be supported by the premises:
1/ there are weather modification programmes
2/ they are organised and supported by the US government




Why did you leave out an important sentence from the premise?


4. Since the patents are owned by the main defense contractor for the U.S. armed forces (Raytheon) or the U.S. department of defense itself and given the history record it is obvious that current climate manipulation programs are organized and directed by the United States government.


I know why you left out that part. Because then your whole argument falls flat on it's face and you can not twist the wording to suit your position. If you want to dissect the premise then you should at least state it accurately and not para phrase or self edit the premise.

Shame on you.




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdRock69
 


No - it makes no difference to my logical construction at all.

There being a previous history of something does not show that something is happening now, nor that the something is being directed by the US Govt.

Again you demonstrate ignorance of basic logic.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





Again you demonstrate ignorance of basic logic.


No you demonstrate ignorance of advanced logic

I'm not wasting my time with you silly circular arguments.

Your points are just another opinion. Which are based on semantics and word play. You have not "debunked" anything. You have not proven anything to be false. You can keep saying it like a child over and over or you can admit that ...IT IS JUST YOUR OPINION......... an ignorant one at that.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



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 document is published and written by the USAF.

Your argument




The only reference there that might support such a conclusion is to the "Owning het weather" paper from the 1990's - which is well known as NOT being US policy at all - and hence the statement that "This research paper contains a proven track record to support that statement." is debunked.



ROTFLMFAO



csat.au.af.mil...

Disclaimer

2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the
concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space
force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school
environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. 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.

This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared
for public release.



So, by your "basic logic" all operations and actions under taken by the USAF are publicly announced US policy?


edit on 26-2-2012 by ThirdRock69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
thats awesome how this stuff is going mainstream!
everyone needs to watch this newest clip of Tosh.0 on comedy central!! he exposes 9/11 as being an inside job blatantly on mainstream TV




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdRock69
 


A key point in the disclaimer that you obviously missed, MathiasAndrew, was this:


csat.au.af.mil...

Disclaimer

2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the
concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space
force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school
environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. 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.


This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared
for public release.


Emphasis is mine.

FICTIONAL.

Not real.


edit on 26/2/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
67
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join