How much would you charge to be a body-double for Assange even if there was bullet-proof glass? Or a food taster? How much do you suppose that the bribes to Ecuadorian security personnel are up to by this time? Doesn't matter for this operation; if Assange has gotten on the announcement it's a fair bet that the info will be released no matter what. And in the worst case scenario, a hell of a lot of other info besides. Wouldn't it be something if Assange is noted in the history books as the main player who steered humanity away from a one-world corporate dictatorship? As awful as his sacrifices have been, many others have payed a much more dear price for vastly fewer rewards. Never was there a better illustration of the pen being mightier than the sword. For my part, I retain open the hypothesis that Assange, Snowden, Binney, and the rest are part of a sophisticated psychological operation. That said, their continued performance continues to erode the strength of the hypothesis. Such a hypothesis is unlikely to be completely dead until long after the principle actors involved are. Such are the workings of a complex world. |
|
|
|
...
It sucks that physics works out the way it does, but you have to get past this blindingly narrow ideological approach to life. Inaction now is blatant violence towards those who have no say in having their environment turned upside down and destroyed in some ways.
'Action' (not 'inaction') in the way the 'consensus' describes it (however nebulously) is blatant violence against all but the upper 1% or less of the world's population. For probably 25% at least it is effectively a death sentence. It is a genocidal program, or at least a major component there-of. |
|
|
|
Yet another attempt to lay a foundation to attack real science in the court system since doing so in the lab or on the chalkboard is becoming increasingly impossible as the years drift by and the fraudulent model world vanished over the horizon.  Bah. No. It is trying to show how there are people that hold out against what is common sense. It is this bias caused by anti-government crap. Every time I've encountered anyone who has a bachelors or high and they are very against the idea of global warming, there is also some additional component. ALWAYS. It is NEVER pure science. Last guy I got into it with was some buffoon who went to Columbia and started ranting about Marxists. Common sense applied to the chart says that your theories about the dangers of evil fossil fuel use are all a load of horse shit. The chart spaghetti are the model predictions and the solid line is observed reality. The endless cronyism and wealth generated in the 'sustainability' movement is a direct result of the now discredited 'science' which produced the flawed models. My 'conspiracy theory' is that this was no accident. Other charts show that reality is now outside the error bar on the spaghetti. Until a few years ago, the defense against 'common sense' was to 'hide the decline' and try to explain it away, assure the mouth-breathing public that disaster was still right around the corner, and propose that the fact that reality was not playing ball only meant in some nebulous that the danger was even worse than previously predicted. The new strategy seems to be to simply deny the existence of the problem with the theory and hope that Joe Sixpack is to fuckin' stupid to notice. Sadly that has turned out to be a surprisingly effective strategy. Maybe not effective enough though, in which case the fallback which is being set up is to simply criminalize 'denial' be it science based or not. This is why I consider you guys 'regressive'. Regressing right back to the dark ages when the priests of the Catholic church defined reality and the earth was flat. The analog between the church and it's priest class vs. the IIPC and it's 'scientismist' class is startling. edits: minor Your chart has C growing at .25 C when everywhere else says .75-.85 ? If it went back to the beginning of 1900s then we could figure out if your chart is valid. Why? Your complaints matter not. Why? The goal of the chart is to demonstrate that the climate models, and thus the 'science' upon which they are based, are shit. The computer models don't go back to 'the beginning of the 1900's because the bogus science was not constructed at that time, and because the defective sims were not run on Hollerith machines (though they may as well be for the results they produce.) Seems that the only 'legal' data is that which is diddled by the scientpriests. Since it is more challenging to diddle the present readings upward without being caught, the usual technique these days is to 'homogenize' the historic readings downward. As Orwell famously stated, 'Those who control the present...' Just so you know, I personally don't doubt that we are in a warming trend here on Earth at the present time, and I don't know of anyone who does. It's been going on in fits and starts since the earth was colder than it is now, and nobody doubts that at many times it was. My complaint is that it is ever more obvious to me that humans burning fossil fuels have very close to zero impact on the trend. We humans cause enough needless problems that we don't need to invent non-existent ones to attack. Unless, of course, there are other reasons to do so and 'the ends justify the means' so to speak. |
|
|
|
First, it's been calculated that a given amount of degree T change, in the cold direction kills ten times as many as in the warm direction. Second, I believe the problem is the distribution of people today makes them more susceptible to any cooling trend.
You know, thinking things over, and given that a decade or so back, the propaganda shifted from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change," we could lean toward having some level of respect for Alarmists Equally for Warming or Cooling (if there were any, which I doubt).
But even the propaganda Masters seemed to get tired of Warmers such as our resident few.
In my relatively short lifetime the scares have already been through a 'coming ice-age' to 'catastrophic warming' to 'climate change' cycle. The latter being a good catch-all I suppose. If a Maunder-minimum is the sun's plan, the immediate issue is that the scienpriests have amasses a mountain of BS 'proving' that evil humans are making the earth boil over (and thus, they want to take control in order to save it.) The fun thing will be to see how spin things to 'prove' that evil humans are making the earth freeze (and thus, they want to take control in order to save it.) Looks like they make take the easy route and simply criminalize scrutiny of their certified scientpriests' utterances.
On another subject, there is no stratospheric seeding using contrails by Global Overlords. Nope.
Do you have any actual rationale for stating this, or is it just what pops up in your playbook for this topic? And what does the playbook say for the "Global Overloards + 'diet, injection, and injunction'" topic? Lemme guess: "Nope." |
|
|
|
.... the fallback which is being set up is to simply criminalize 'denial' be it science based or not. This is why I consider you guys 'regressive'. Regressing right back to the dark ages when the priests of the Catholic church defined reality and the earth was flat. The analog between the church and it's priest class vs. the IIPC and it's 'scientismist' class is startling.
A concern about global cooling is certainly warranted. Here is an article from the Huffington Post (not exactly a bunch of right wing conspiracy theorists, are they ? ) Anyone who wants to shut down discussion of this or criminalize it is bat shit crazy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/solar-lull-little-ice-age-sun-scientists_n_4645248.htmlSun Scientists Debate Whether Solar Lull Could Trigger Another ‘Little Ice Age’ But a relatively quiet sun could cause problems. Some scientists say that this period of weak solar activity may mirror what happened before the so-called Maunder Minimum of 1645 to 1715 — a period named after solar astronomers Annie and E. Walter Maunder, who studied sunspots and helped identify the sun’s strange activity in the latter part of the 17th Century. That time period saw only 30 sunspots (one one-thousandth of what would be expected) and coincided with a “Little Ice Age” in Europe, during which the Thames River and the Baltic Sea froze over. Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at the University of Reading in the U.K., estimated that we have u p to a one-in-five chance of being in Maunder Minimum conditions 40 years from now.TPTB ('the powers that bank') are 'predicting' a 400% increase food prices in the coming decade and a variety of other hardships to befall the pleb class. It's a fair hypothesis that they 'know' things that others don't...in addition to the rather obvious one that they know how to get wealthy and stay that way. Even at the heart of the last ice-age, glaciation never got to my little corner of earth so I'll be building a greenhouse. Actually, it's not a long duration cold snap that concerns me since even a 'mini' one is unlikely to impact me in my life-cycle. It's more that as everything that the the city dwelling populations consume, from food through medications through water, is dictated by a rapidly consolidating multinational corporate entity structure (see the merger of Bayer (formerly IG Farben of NAZI gas chamber fame) and Monsanto.) Such operations as the great global warming hoax are only 'sustainable' by neurologically damaging the population as the standard propaganda techniques become to absurd to be suitably effective on their own. |
|
|
|
Yet another attempt to lay a foundation to attack real science in the court system since doing so in the lab or on the chalkboard is becoming increasingly impossible as the years drift by and the fraudulent model world vanished over the horizon. Bah. No. It is trying to show how there are people that hold out against what is common sense. It is this bias caused by anti-government crap. Every time I've encountered anyone who has a bachelors or high and they are very against the idea of global warming, there is also some additional component. ALWAYS. It is NEVER pure science. Last guy I got into it with was some buffoon who went to Columbia and started ranting about Marxists. Common sense applied to the chart says that your theories about the dangers of evil fossil fuel use are all a load of horse shit. The chart spaghetti are the model predictions and the solid line is observed reality. The endless cronyism and wealth generated in the 'sustainability' movement is a direct result of the now discredited 'science' which produced the flawed models. My 'conspiracy theory' is that this was no accident. Other charts show that reality is now outside the error bar on the spaghetti. Until a few years ago, the defense against 'common sense' was to 'hide the decline' and try to explain it away, assure the mouth-breathing public that disaster was still right around the corner, and propose that the fact that reality was not playing ball only meant in some nebulous that the danger was even worse than previously predicted. The new strategy seems to be to simply deny the existence of the problem with the theory and hope that Joe Sixpack is to fuckin' stupid to notice. Sadly that has turned out to be a surprisingly effective strategy. Maybe not effective enough though, in which case the fallback which is being set up is to simply criminalize 'denial' be it science based or not. This is why I consider you guys 'regressive'. Regressing right back to the dark ages when the priests of the Catholic church defined reality and the earth was flat. The analog between the church and it's priest class vs. the IIPC and it's 'scientismist' class is startling. edits: minor |
|
|
|
At one point you said this is all "proven". Previously you said it was rare for anyone to know anything. Which is it? YOu basically give credibility to the paper I posted. You guys have huge cognitive biases because of your political views which unfortunately prevent you from looking at things logically. You can look all around and see direct evidence of the earth warming at a rate far greater than anything in man's history. Maybe not in your backyard... but.. it doesn't take much. Ironically, I'm coming around to 'your way of thinking.' As I've 'proven' to a significant degree, evil humans burning fossil fuel has nearly zero to do with it. OTOH, an idea which I initially rejected, is that geo-engineering could have some impact on global temperatures. It is increasingly obvious that it can have wide-scale impacts on 'climate', and with certain feedbacks, an impact on global temperatures also seem plausible. Don't take my word for it. NOAA has already admitted that there is 'accidental' geo-engineering due to commercial aircraft, and CIA director (and former communist voter) Brennan is pretty ga-ga about the idea of using geo-engineering as an inexpensive irrigation system servicing chosen entities (and, presumably, dis-servicing others.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCP4x9dVvE4What really spurred my interest in geo-engineering was my own eyes looking into the sky above my own home. As little as three years ago I nearly completely wrote it off as a wild conspiracy theory. I entertain the hypothesis that the 'anthropogenic climate change' fraud as couched by the likes of you guys is as much as anything about trying to produce justification for weather modification. Of course that is not to say that the promoters (like yourself) would have the foggiest clue that that is the real game. |
|
|
|
... Here is the conclusions. 2 Conclusion
There is considerable evidence that the rejection of (climate) science involves a component of conspiracist discourse....pseudo-scientific...incoherent, which ...conspiracist ideation....blah, blah, blah.
Yet another attempt to lay a foundation to attack real science in the court system since doing so in the lab or on the chalkboard is becoming increasingly impossible as the years drift by and the fraudulent model world vanished over the horizon. |
|
|
|
See you said any 'any quasi-scientist knows that one rarely knows anything'. Then later you say -" Slightly less well known is that while human generated fossil fuel use _rates_ have increased it is not matched in global CO2 concentrations which have not even realized an observable impact. In scientific terms, this means that your theory is proven false."
These 2 states are at great contradiction. You guys are so full of them. THe paper lays them out. If you really are a smart guy, then you should strive to be a smart guy, and you should strive to eliminate all these weird contradictions in your reasoning that allow your biases to perpetuate.
To me, and to genuine scientists, 'know' means 100% and this is a very very high bar. I'll give you a little lesson about how to operate in such a challenging world: The continuous nature of the slope describing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is measured at Mao Loa (sic?), say, 99% likely to be accurate enough to represent a delta if it did indeed exist. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/4keeling3.jpgThe computation of anthropogenic CO2 releases based on economic records is, say, 99% likely to be accurate enough to compute a significant delta at around y2k. http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/CO2_Emissions_IPCC_1024.jpg(By chance, both plots I found happen to be from a warmunista shill site (which doesn't proxy, so click to view.)) So clearly, the idea that humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and it builds up to cause a problem, has at least 98% chance of being wrong. Roughly, but close enough. This is about as close to 'knowing' something as is practical in the real world. As it happens, there are a whole chain of additional ludicrously small probability suggestions and/or utter absurdities between the theory that handing over $100's of TRILLIONS of dollars over the next decade and control of the global economy to a gaggle of bozos at the UN will save the planet certain death. It's hard to believe that anyone above idiot rating would actually believe this, but so it seems to be. A good illustration of the quality of propaganda that money can buy these days. https://www.corbettreport.com/and-now-for-the-100-trillion-dollar-bankster-climate-swindle/ |
|
|
|
The abstract makes zero sense, as for example it does not handle the matter of a whole lot of highly esteemed solar physicists who are strongly warning that the sun may be entering a cooling phase.
I guess paying one's own money for gibberish makes it meaningful and more 'coherent' to some. To me, that it makes one more of a horses' ass. I suppose that most people who punch through the pay-wall to get at such drivel actually use my tax dollars to do it though. For now. Lol you babbling retard. I am not part of any education institution. I clicked on it and was able to read it. That was it. Why you guys have such problems, I don't know. I should try from another browser without the cookies I suppose... OH well, I'm sure it'd be some other bullshit so you can cognitively be at peace with yourself. That paper explains why you guys think the way you do. If you had the capacity to read it objectively and apply it within the framework of your own world views, you'd understand how solidly it nails what you're about. I can see from the abstract that the screed is full of shit. Any quasi-scientist understand that one rarely 'knows' anything, making the suggestion that we 'deniers' hold mutually conflicting views absurd. I was actually disposed to believing that 'global warming' was real until I actually looked into the science behind it. This occurred after wilikon started this thread in fact. It only took a few days of study for me to realize that it was a sham of epic proportions, and almost everything I've seen since only strengthens my hypothesis here. Again, the 'anthropogenic global warming is a hoax' hypothesis is remarkably coherent and corroborated by observations. It may have escaped you, but the models upon which a lot of policy and false 'hope' were based are old enough not to be verified against reality and they have failed miserably. Slightly less well known is that while human generated fossil fuel use _rates_ have increased it is not matched in global CO2 concentrations which have not even realized an observable impact. In scientific terms, this means that your theory is proven false. Yet people want to stick with the pre-supposed solution (which is, give a certain group of people vast amounts of money and control of the global economy) for some reason. <chuckle>
Epic that you turn this into some anti-government rant. You guys are like so far out there. You got the feds looking in your windows at night or what?
Ever heard of a guy named Snowden? |
|
|
|
In the wake of a hot WW-III (much more likely under a globalist minion like Hillary), Russia does not have the boots to defend against a physical Chinese takeover. In such a
Russia has a lot of nuclear weapons. Why would they need boots? My text specified that I believe the suggestion that a nuclear war would necessarily end human life on earth to be false. It would be a high mortality event, of course, but I believe that there would be plenty of survivors, and that especially the case if the nuclear attacks (and defenses) were reasonably well choreographed. If one reads the information from back in the early cold-war days when U.S. civilians were provided with survival tips, one notices that lethal radiation levels drop off fairly quickly (short half-life isotopes are the ones which get you) so if one can stay 'underground' for a while, one has some chance of survival. I'm war-gaming what could happen after such an event. And again, while a nuclear war causes 'some problems'...to understate things slightly...it also produces some solutions to others. Different people gauge different problems differently, and one fixation of 'the elite' seems to be their feeling that there are to many of us walking the earth. Again, I see the main thing joining Trump and Putin is a shared idea that a nuclear war would suck and is to be avoided. If Clinton had a safe bunker and a reasonable expectation that she and a few people that she actually cares about would come out on top at the other end of the tunnel, I would not be surprised to see her push the button. Especially if she has a minimal amount of time to live anyway. |
|
|
|
In the wake of a hot WW-III (much more likely under a globalist minion like Hillary), Russia does not have the boots to defend against a physical Chinese takeover. In such a scenario Russia's best hope would be that the globalists turn their sino manpower force toward Oceana or the disputed territories but if they end up lacking that capability which could be unfeasible from a technical perspective, they'll likely settle for Mother Russia proper and make that nation a historical footnote for good. That could be handy if it is actually true that Putin really is a nationalist who is not playing ball.
...
China is very unlikely to invade Russia, or any of its stronger neighbors. Despite the huge manpower resources, technologically, the PLA is in very bad shape. Their military technology is ages behind that of Russia and Japan. Their bullying only works against weak nations, such as the Philippines, Vietnam, India, and Myanmar. Certainly you are right for the here and now. Also historically China has been quite inward looking and, out of necessity, defensive. I don't want to get off topic to much, but I'm envisioning a scenario where there is a simultaneous world war which brings down population levels and 'creates opportunities', and takeover of most of the world by globalists (generally what are currently our banking and multi-national corporate leaders with input from academia.) The population of China is pre-conditioned to non-democratic rule of this type already so there is little doubt in my mind that they would be easy game, and I'm of the opinion more and more that this population and society is already being used as a test-bed for various ideas. It's relatively straightforward to move a society which has a totalitarian political structure, and the nation has been used by the globalists as a cheap labor pool for a generation giving them a lot of opportunities to develop leverage already. Depending on how much of the population is left after an event, it seems like China may be a good source of manpower for global clean-up operations. |
|
|
|
Seems to me like Clinton won that hands down. Trump came across as rattled and uninformed, while Clinton made some good points. Neither are great options but Clinton is the lesser of two evils here. Not only would Trump alienate the US from the rest of the world, but he would also get nothing done domestically. He can't compromise or negotiate to save his life it seems. I guess you don't have to when you're dad loans you tens of millions straight off the bat.
For the record, I think it was 1 million that his father loaned him. For real estate in New York, that's a tiny, tiny amount of money. $14M was not even all that much money back in the day considering the success of the family. Old man Drumpf wanted to make his kid work for it I guess. Turning 14x10^6 into 10x10^9 is not to shabby even if it took years and there were some touch-n-go patches. I actually expected a lot more dirt to come out on the Donald by this time, particularly as he played around with casinos. So far, the only thing I heard was that he overplayed for some concrete to 'work with' the mob/union contingent once. One would think that if there were a lot more, Hillary would not have had to dig back to 1973 when Daddy Trump was still kicking and everyone and there brother was getting sued by the feds for being mean enough to want their rent to be paid (which I suppose to be at the heart of the matter.) It looks to me like it is possible to make bucks in the building business in two ways: - Low income residential, where being a HUD-linked crony capitalist is the way to succeed. - High income. What Trump migrated to. If you ask me, Trump figured out how to fairly tax the rich by observing that they would willingly pay absurd amounts of money to hit a little white ball around and chase after it. That they will fly their private jets around the world to do so benefits a whole swath of citizens. Kudos to him for doing it as 'right' as seems morally possible in our immoral world. |
|
|
|
The abstract makes zero sense, as for example it does not handle the matter of a whole lot of highly esteemed solar physicists who are strongly warning that the sun may be entering a cooling phase.
I guess paying one's own money for gibberish makes it meaningful and more 'coherent' to some. To me, that it makes one more of a horses' ass. I suppose that most people who punch through the pay-wall to get at such drivel actually use my tax dollars to do it though. For now. |
|
|
|
... Here is the abstract. Science strives for coherence. For example, the findings from climate science form a highly coherent body of knowledge that is supported by many independent lines of evidence: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human economic activities are causing the global climate to warm and unless GHG emissions are drastically reduced in the near future, the risks from climate change will continue to grow and major adverse consequences will become unavoidable. People who oppose this scientific body of knowledge because the implications of cutting GHG emissions—such as regulation or increased taxation—threaten their worldview or livelihood cannot provide an alternative view that is coherent by the standards of conventional scientific thinking. Instead, we suggest that people who reject the fact that the Earth’s climate is changing due to greenhouse gas emissions (or any other body of well-established scientific knowledge) oppose whatever inconvenient finding they are confronting in piece-meal fashion, rather than systematically, and without considering the implications of this rejection to the rest of the relevant scientific theory and findings. Hence, claims that the globe “is cooling” can coexist with claims that the “observed warming is natural” and that “the human influence does not matter because warming is good for us.” Coherence between these mutually contradictory opinions can only be achieved at a highly abstract level, namely that “something must be wrong” with the scientific evidence in order to justify a political position against climate change mitigation. This high-level coherence accompanied by contradictory subordinate propositions is a known attribute of conspiracist ideation, and conspiracism may be implicated when people reject well-established scientific propositions.
As framed, the 'consensus' on anthropogenic global climate change attributable to global greenhouse gasses is even worse than 'incoherent.' It is both logically and observably wrong. The idea that a certain group of people have conceived of and implemented the scam in order to justify controlling the economic activity of the planet is both coherent and matches the evidence extraordinarily well. "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."
http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally |
|
|
|
|
What worked for me was to move to a place with no cell phone coverage. After a year of not even remembering to bring my trac-phone when I went to town, I let the sim go broke and have not renewed it.
Actually, I worked for a company who developed cell phone software once and didn't own one because it was not very interesting to me, so I was apparently never very prone to be attracted to them I guess. Back in the day the pager was much more useful to me. The killer-app for me with smart-phones are driving directions but I can live without that most of the time. I also considered them to be Orwell's 1984 'telescreen' on steroids from very early on which never had much appeal to me, but wasn't the primary reason I avoided them.
Ironically I have a pretty good stack of pretty nice phones since one of my companies used to give them out like candy. I also bought one of the early Android phones to play around with custom software since it could be compiled (well...some of it.) I still carry one of my phones since it has a nice cam, tells time, and the GPS is quite accurate which is handy when inventorying my holdings. It's almost always in airplane mode.
|
|
|
|
Trump is the death of American supremacy in the world. All who vote for him will regret it. Your children will curse You !
I sense I'm chatting with an AI bot, but I will say that I very much welcome the 'death of American supremacy in the world.' At this point it is a curse for us and for pretty much everyone. We have the basic foundation to create and maintain a decent life for our citizens, and enough left over to provide a little bit of actual support for others out of genuine good-will if/when they request it. That is not at all what is happening currently. |
|
|
|
Looking at how trump got the votes, it seems to me that the Americans have gone mad ! Hillary is also not very General but trump is an idiot !
You do not seem to be an American citizen, and a majority of your posts here are in Russian. Let the Americans make their choice. It will be best if the outsiders stay away from this. It is quite evident that you don't know much about Hillary. If you had known a fair bit about her, then you'll be praying for a Donald Trump victory. In the wake of a hot WW-III (much more likely under a globalist minion like Hillary), Russia does not have the boots to defend against a physical Chinese takeover. In such a scenario Russia's best hope would be that the globalists turn their sino manpower force toward Oceana or the disputed territories but if they end up lacking that capability which could be unfeasible from a technical perspective, they'll likely settle for Mother Russia proper and make that nation a historical footnote for good. That could be handy if it is actually true that Putin really is a nationalist who is not playing ball. People of the world have been brainwashed for years into thinking that global thermonuclear war would mean the end of the world. I, for one, doubt this very much on technical grounds (though it would certainly suck big-time.) Mostly it would solve some human overpopulation problems and open up some giant possibilities for those who are prepared. If it were planned and choreographed, the possibilities would be much greater. |
|
|
|
[mg]https://i.imgur.com/kvRMQMR.jpg[/img] --------------------------------- A direct threat to a presidential candidate... Trump is evil ! He will lead America to war and to the ruin ! The Americans are very difficult choice, but it will have to do. And the answer for it will have. I imagine that such a thing really is much easier said than done, and especially in the context of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. There is fallout to consider. A great many people within the government and without have some real concerns about the future of the country under the fairly modern Left. Not just the standard annoyances of crony capitalism and corruption, but rather of genuine treason which could easily lead to the dissolution of the nation or more likely, the incorporation of the nation and it's assets under a one-world government type model where horrors of the highest magnitude would likely be realized by nearly all. Under this set of concerns, there are many people who would be induced to become whistleblowers. This is probably the main reason for Obama's unprecedented war on such people, and there is every indication that the Clinton faction would be much more brutal in this regard. Still, a fair number of people in all levels of government would feel compelled to take the chance for lack of a reasonable future otherwise. So, there probably are many people in Secret Service who are very serious about protecting Trump to the fullest, and I've noticed a few inexplicable event cancellations which have been swept under the carpet. If an assassination was successful, there is a fairly high likelihood that the whistle would be blown in a manner which was impossible to be hidden from the general public. The same probably goes for a staged attempt on the globalist candidate (currently Hillary Clinton.) As I said, a perp must consider the likely fallout. Any perp with the capability of pulling off a successful operation will be easily capable of understanding these considerations. Of course your run-of-the-mill Twitter or Youtuber yahoo has no where near this ability and don't pose much of a threat either of course. |
|
|
|
Prisons and military units are especially convenient places in which to perform reasonably controlled medical experiments for reasons which are fairly obvious to anyone who understands the basics of science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT25HhAVhhUNicolson above mentioned Borrelia but focused on mycoplasmas. MacDonald has done a variety of work on the former which is most associated with Lyme, but according to MacDonald's work with DNA probes, with a lot of other diseases as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZnY871HZhMAnyway, we only have 60% prescription drug usage in the U.S. now. 'We' might be able to get that up to 95% with a little more work, and seem to be on that trajectory. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
