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.
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.
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.
It's a rocket, it's a missile, no, it's a ... BY ADAM LINHARDT Citizen Staff [email protected] 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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your points prove nothing they only attempt to cast doubt which is not "debunking"
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.
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.
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.
My points show that the premisesdid not support the conclusions.
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"?
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).
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
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.
Again you demonstrate ignorance of basic logic.
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).
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.
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.
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.