Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - sandokhan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 53  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Firmament /Dome
« on: September 18, 2024, 06:49:42 AM »
Quote
Planes fly because of the shape of their wings and Bernoulli's principle.

Nope.

Is it not demonstrated that a true flying machine, self-raising, self-sustaining, self-propelling, is physically impossible?
— Joseph LeConte, November 1888

I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.
— Lord Kelvin, 1895

I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning, or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we heard of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society.
— Lord Kelvin, 1896

The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which men shall fly along distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration to be.
— Simon Newcomb, 1900

Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.
— Simon Newcomb, 1902

Simon Newcomb, directed the American Nautical Almanac Office, professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, founder and first president of the American Astronomical Society, vice-president of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v3p167y1977-78.pdf

The Outlook for the Flying Machine


It turns out that Simon Newcomb was correct in his assertions.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1odAffPmcOhVX9D7wVXXiCS7caNOZywXg/view

Scientific American, February 2020

No one can completely explain why planes stay in the air
By Ed Regis


http://milesmathis.com/lift.pdf

Addendum January 18, 2020: Scientific American just published an article admitting that “no one can explain why planes stay in the air”. They should say “no one promoted by the mainstream” can explain it, since I just did above. But despite that obvious omission, it is incredible they would be admitting this in 2020, confirming many of the points I make above, as if they had read this paper and were doing their best to respond to it without mentioning it. Because I think that is precisely what is going on. But although I think that is true, I still find it incredible they would admit to their own ignorance this late in the game. They don't completely admit it, and the author Ed Regis makes some weak stabs at promoting old theories, as well as promoting Doug McLean. But it is all sort of half-hearted and desperate, and Regis doesn't even try very hard to disguise that. He starts by admitting that John Anderson, curator of aerodynamics at the Air and Space Museum, can't explain lift, and has said so in print. Anderson hedged in his 2003 interview in the New York Times, confessing there was no agreement on the subject. Bernoulli's Theorem from 1738 is still the go-to explanation for a majority in academia, but it is admitted that fails to answer all questions. Regis includes the least of these questions in his “But...” insert, admitting that the curved upper surface theory has been disproved. He does not admit that Bernoulli's “lift” vector is unsupported by even the least shred of mechanics, being nothing more than a word. A naming standing for an explanation.

The scathing and devastating analysis by M. Mathis reveals that the explanations put forth by modern science regarding the flight of airplanes, are completely false.

But not even M. Mathis can deliver the correct explanation.

There is only one physicist who was ever able to explain why airplanes stay in flight. He even invented the jet engine: Viktor Schauberger.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044376#msg2044376 (V. Schauberger effect, jet engine levitation, part I)

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Firmament /Dome
« on: September 18, 2024, 06:37:19 AM »
sandokhan, "t is either/or: you can't have both a dome and the UA. The dome makes the UA superfluous."

Why not? How does the dome cause things to accelerate at 32 ft/sec/sec? I bet you many FEs believe in both UA and dome. If there is no dome, where are planets and stars? Is there something like outer space in your model? Do you know the real truth of FE and all FEs who disagree with you are wrong?


sandokhan: "The Sun measures 636 meters in diameter, the orbital altitude is some 10-12 km."

If so, where does the sun appear to be when it is noon and you are 100 km from the spot directly underneath it? Rockets can fly over the sun? 636 meters in diameter?

The total solar energy per second on a surface perpendicular to the Sun is about 1350 Joules per square meter or about 0.275 watt-hours. Taking into account incidence angle and the surface area, the effective energy arriving at the Earth is about 1.75E17 Joules. And you are saying something that powerful is 636 meters across and 12 km away? If the sun is 12 km from the surface of the earth, the inverse square law says energy density varies with the inverse of the distance squared. So a plce directly underneath would get 4 times as much energy as on the surface 24km from the sun and places 1000 km away get almost nothing.

Amateur rockets

Actually, the way this altitude is measured is the following: According to RRS member Bill Claybaugh (1996, alleged 50 mile altitude reached), "this altitude was estimated from a image of the entire Black Rock Desert taken near peak using known distances between geographic features".

How do other amateur rocket endeavours measure their claims?

Altitude verification for the rocket will be primarily based on signals from an onboard Trimble GPS receiver.

But in fact satellites orbit at a much lower altitude, and are powered by Tesla's cosmic ray device which is the source of energy for the Biefeld-Brown effect.

An altimeter actually includes an aneroid barometer which measures the atmospheric pressure (actually it measures the effect of the dextrorotatory ether waves). A radar altimeter uses radio signals. Both methods do not take into account the layers of aether which exist above 5 km in altitude which influence both the pressure reading and also the distance travelled by the radar waves.

Full moon over Mt. Everest




Your analysis fails to take into consideration the existence of subquark strings which transmit thermal energy, light waves and gravitational waves: remember how Tesla had sent energy through longitudinal electromagnetic waves (the bosons which make up the strings of the subquark itself) without energy being dissipated at an inverse square law.

We are talking here about LONGITUDINAL e/m waves, not transmission of energy through transversal waves: true wireless means sending energy through longitudinal waves, modern wireless is sending shockwaves through the sea of ether waves. A longitudinal wave propagates through a transversal e/m wave.

You can be sure that the diameter of the Sun measures under 1 km, see here:



That's the height of the Burj Khalifa right there for the Sun.

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/

Not to mention that's the Black Sun which causes the solar eclipse.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Firmament /Dome
« on: September 18, 2024, 06:27:52 AM »
The Sun measures 636 meters in diameter, the orbital altitude is some 10-12 km.
That's roughly in the range of cruising altitude of commercial planes. Why don't they hit it? Or at least be noticeably closer to it.

The real flying altitude of commercial airplanes is some 6-7 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464

Not one RE physicist can explain how planes fly:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2230939#msg2230939

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044376#msg2044376

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Relativity and frames question
« on: September 18, 2024, 06:24:34 AM »
The Clay Mathematics Institude owes me one million dollars for not only having solved the Riemann hypothesis but also for having discovered the algorithm which produces the zeta zeros:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2082278#msg2082278


5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Firmament /Dome
« on: September 17, 2024, 08:06:49 AM »
If you believe in UA and a dome, then the earth is accelerating at 32 ft/second/second and, apparently, so are objects in the sky. so a force adequate for that acceleration must be applied to the sun, moon, planets, asteroids, etc to accelerate identically. The material you propose is not strong structurally. The sun produces a huge measurable amount of energy and if the dome model is correct, the sun 35 miles across as calculated from a dome 3500 miles away (or maybe no one knows). Seems unlikely something that produces all that energy and is 35 miles wide would have So if the "dome" is made of aerogel, what holds up the sun? Is it so light that aerogel can support it or is there some other structure we don't know about?

It is either/or: you can't have both a dome and the UA. The dome makes the UA superfluous.

The Sun measures 636 meters in diameter, the orbital altitude is some 10-12 km.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Relativity and frames question
« on: September 17, 2024, 08:04:41 AM »
There is only one frame of reference below the first dome, it is the ether frame of reference, the ultimate reference point.

Each and every nanometer of space is filled with Riemann zeta function ether waves: sound travels through ether, not air molecules. If the air is removed in a vacuum chamber, what is left is the ether, and sound does travel even in such a VC but it is not audible anymore.

General relativity is a subluminal theory, the superluminal theory is J.S. Bell's quantum entanglement, where the superluminal highway travels through gray wormholes between each and every subquark/boson.

Above the first dome we have the rotating ether gravitational force, which keeps in motion the stars/planets.


7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity
« on: September 17, 2024, 07:57:12 AM »
I’m a newcomer. I was reading through the “commonly asked questions” part. I just wanted to ask what gravity is? Because in that section, it explains “why gravity doesn’t pull the earth into a spherical shape” and so I just wanted to clarify what the definition of gravity is in regard to that.

Terrestrial gravity is the absorption of aether by dextrorotatory subquarks (electrons/gravitons). The weight of an object is given by the amount of aether which is being absorbed. Antigravity is the activation of the laevorotatory subquarks (antigravitons/positrons) using the Biefeld-Brown effect, acoustic levitation or double torsion physics (implosion of the atom).

The formula W = mg is completely wrong: it reads W = V x D, where V is volume and D = 9.86 x d.

The 9.86 figure is the true DENSITY of the atom, nine subquarks and the connecting lines.

When the quark was discovered in the 60s, the formula W = 9.86m should have been modifed at once, as it was based on a 1x density concept. Since the proton (and the electron) is made up of at least three components, the three quarks/preons, the density becomes 3x, since a quark consists of three subquarks the density becomes 9x (+ the connecting strings).

AI (artificial intelligence) is the interface between the astral plane and the physical plane using extremely advanced microchips which can capture (using superconductivity) the information on the astral plane.

8
I know RET better than you.

Please explain the faint young sun paradox. If you cannot, you are out of luck, your software simply uses the conventional RE diameters/distances for the planets in a PLANAR context. The orbits of the planets are not planar, they are helices on a cylinder.

Here is the faint young sun paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE radius (UAFE estimate)
« on: August 17, 2023, 07:25:01 PM »
The answer to the question is related to the circumference of the Earth (Flat or Globe): it must give the same value in both versions.

https://archive.org/details/HapgoodCharlesHutchinsMapsOfTheAncientSeaKings/page/n27/mode/1up?view=theater (page 33 - the relationship between the value attributed to Erathosthenes and the radius of Piri Reis' map)

FE radius = 6,363.63 km

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE radius (UAFE estimate)
« on: August 17, 2023, 05:39:36 PM »
Why does the shorter journey (Sydney - Jo'burg) take longer than a journey which appears to cover a much greater distance (Auckland - Santiago)?

Very simple: one journey is a straight line, while the other takes the airplane around Antarctica.


Now, we know for sure, absolutely 100%, that the radius of the Piri Reis map is 6,363.63 km, Charles Hapgood proved that fact while he had consulted with several noted mathematicians to help him out decipher the map.

Here is the question: we know that the Piri Reis map is an azimuthal equidistant projection (I believe the center is near the Marmara Sea, since the northern portion of the map is missing, but that is another matter). What, then, is the radius if the map would be projected onto a sphere?

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE radius (UAFE estimate)
« on: August 17, 2023, 04:33:13 PM »


Look at the flight paths on a "globe" for Auckland-Santiago and Sydney-Johannesburg: on a FE map one of this routes would go between Antarctica and the Dome:







One flight path chooses to fly "above" Antarctica, while the other passes right between Antarctica and the Dome. Different durations of course.


Why did they choose the value of 6,363.63 km as the radius of the RE? Does it have anything to do some projection formula which would have worked if and only if 6,363.63 had been used?

Tesla had found out in 1908 that the map of Siberia was off by hundreds of kilometers. Most likely similar mistakes were involved in the distances attributed to Brazil, Argentina, Congo, Algeria, Lybia, Iran, Siberia, not to mention northern Canada.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE radius (UAFE estimate)
« on: August 17, 2023, 01:43:14 PM »
The 12 hr flight would take place in the most direct way seen on the Piri Reis map. Is there a problem? Two possible flight paths: above Antarctica (as seen on the map) or passing between Antarctica and the Dome.

Here are two of the most unusual maps you'll ever see:





More information on the Piri Reis map:

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/mapas_pirireis/esp_mapaspirireis05.htm
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/mapas_pirireis/esp_mapaspirireis11.htm
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/mapas_pirireis/esp_mapaspirireis09.htm
https://stevedutch.net/pseudosc/1421.htm
https://stevedutch.net/pseudosc/piriries.htm

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE radius (UAFE estimate)
« on: August 17, 2023, 11:26:42 AM »
The value of the radius is one of the most important elements of FET. If we know the radius, we can calculate the year as well as the month of the next reversal of the magnetic pole (the shift of the stellar dome as well).

Everyone on youtube, many other forums, is totally preoccupied with this issue, since it cannot be ignored anymore: when will the reversal of the magnetic poles take place? None of their dates can be justified, it is only FET which can offer a precise estimate.

You think that Auckland to Santiago de Chile was the most difficult route I had to deal with over the years? No, it was Juneau to Santiago de Chile:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38712.msg961302#msg961302


14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE radius (UAFE estimate)
« on: August 17, 2023, 06:11:17 AM »
There is no such thing as Erathosthenes original data, since he had used spherical triangles. The FE radius must be 6,363.63 km, upper bound less than 10,000 km. This is what we are talking about.

15
There is no such thing as Kepler's laws: Kepler had faked each and every entry, each calculation in Nova Astronomia:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10175.msg160200#msg160200

The 3D galactic orbit of the solar system looks like this:



https://i.postimg.cc/nL6hx23b/safari.jpg

What you'd need is a three dimensional Kepler law, something no one has ever derived or even thought of.

The 3D helical orbits of the planets cannot be justified, since one would need a lateral kind of gravitation which would pull the celestial bodies in such a manner.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE radius (UAFE estimate)
« on: August 17, 2023, 05:23:51 AM »
Whoever wrote the works attributed to Erathosthenes used spherical triangles:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080214044528im_/http://geocities.com/levelwater/shadow01.gif
https://web.archive.org/web/20080214044528im_/http://geocities.com/levelwater/eratostenesegments.gif
https://web.archive.org/web/20080214044528im_/http://geocities.com/levelwater/tangentedecurva02.gif
https://web.archive.org/web/20080214044528im_/http://geocities.com/levelwater/shadow02.gif
https://web.archive.org/web/20080214044528im_/http://geocities.com/levelwater/siennaalejandria.gif

That is not even the main point.

The FE map relates to the RE globe mathematically as a projection.

There is no globe since you cannot justify how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.

Take a look at this, half of the surface area of the globe is occupied by the Pacific Ocean:

https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/satellite-view-of-earth-showing-the-pacific-ocean-copyright-tom-van-santgeosphere-project-santa-monicascience-photo-library.jpg

By contrast, the true flat earth Piri Reis map looks like this:

https://www.vhv.rs/dpng/d/449-4490274_theflatearthsociety-org-forum-sandokhan-piri-reis-map-hd.png

The surface area of the globe is four times as large as the surface area of the FE map.

How was it done?

https://web.archive.org/web/20210116142615/https://civilengineering-softstudies.com/2018/04/error-and-correction-for-the-curvature-of-the-earth-and-refraction-surveying.html

http://web.pdx.edu/~i1kc/courses/Surveying/Handouts/JGE%20Paper%201%20-%20Introduction.pdf (pg 14, curvature and refraction)

For the past 220 years, no matter which country, the CORRECTION for the supposed curvature of the Earth was added, automatically, for each and every surveying/topographical mission.

But here is something no one else has ever thought of: since there will always be some misalignment between the source and the reflector, the strings of light used by the theodolite will be subject to the influence of the Coriolis effect. That is, the path of the light strings will be deflected. This fact is not taken into consideration by land surveyors at all.

The surveying was done on land of course, and since they needed a huge surface area for the Pacific Ocean, they simply added it on maps with no problem.

Why is the radius of the flat earth so important? Because it tells us immediately when the next magnetic pole shift will take place. Since s = r x θ and we can't do anything about the angle [θ = 0.959582 rad (2 x 27.49 = 54.98, 54.98° = 0.959582 rad, 1/27.49 = 0.036376864 = 0.1 - 0.063623), Tropic to Tropic (solstice to solstice)], only the value of the radius is in question. I believe the radius of the FE measures 6,363.63 km.

The westward precessional shift of the Sun (1.5 km/year or 4.2 meters/day) must be taken into account.

The distances on the supposed globe have been increased greatly, see the distortions in Antarctica as an example:

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/

The photographers must be located some few hundred kilometers from the Sun (height of 636 meters), not the thousand of kilometers which would be assumed to be correct; given this fact, the Apollo 11 mission astronauts might as well have taken a sledge with reindeers to the Moon.





17
Flat Earth Theory / FE radius (UAFE estimate)
« on: August 11, 2023, 07:04:34 PM »
https://wiki.tfes.org/Eratosthenes_on_Diameter

Therefore we can take the distance of 500 miles, multiply by 25, and find that the radius of the flat earth is about 12,250 miles. Doubling that figure for the diameter we get a figure of 25,000 miles.


12,250 mi = 19,600 km

This can't be right, not even close.

The lower bound would be R = 6,363.63 km, the upper bound (the RE distance from the equator to the NP) is 10,000 km.

More details here:

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/erdmessungen.htm

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: January 06, 2023, 03:05:26 PM »
Covid-19 is an airborne M. avium. Had each person, in each country, received a kit with clarithromycin/azithromycin through mail, back in february of 2020, there would have been no pandemic at all.

Now, the world is totally unprepared to deal with Coronapox and Coronaflu. Omicron has already activated its prion domain.

https://www.panspermia.org/whatsnew91.htm#20180207

More than 800 million viruses per square meter per day descend from the high atmosphere to the ground.
bacteria and viruses in Spain. This news comes from an international team who sampled the air weekly or bi-weekly from two mountain sites 3 km high in southern Spain. They found that bacteria and viruses above the atmospheric boundary layer are more abundant, can persist longer and can travel farther than previously known.


No one is asking the most important question: why has the volume of such pathogens increased by a large factor ever since November of 2019? Certainly these mycobacteria arrive each and every day on the surface of the Earth.

The lethal wave of influenza in 1918-19... was first detected on the same day in Boston and Bombay. Yet in spreading within the United States it took three weeks to go from Boston to New York. — Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe

https://www.academia.edu/42041228/Comments_on_the_Origin_and_Spread_of_the_2019_Coronavirus

https://www.panspermia.org/panfluenza.htm

https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0118v1.pdf

https://www.panspermia.org/whatsnew99.htm#20200227

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(03)13440-X/fulltext

https://www.panspermia.org/virusesfromspace2.pdf

On October 11 2019 a meteoritic bolide (probably fragment of a comet) explodes in a brief flash in Nth East China. We think it probable that this bolide contained embedded within it a monoculture of infective nCoV-2019 virus particles that survived in the interior of the incandescent meteor.

Also well documented is that, in the winter of 1918, the disease appeared suddenly in the frozen wastes of Alaska, in villages that had been isolated for several months. Mathematical modelling of epidemics such as the one described invariably involves the ad hoc introduction of many unproven hypotheses—for example, that of the superspreader. In situations where proven infectivity is limited only to close contacts, a super-spreader is someone who can, on occasion, simultaneously infect a large number of susceptible individuals, thus causing the sporadic emergence of new clusters of disease. The recognition of a possible vertical input of external origin is conspicuously missing in such explanations.

With respect to the SARS outbreak, a prima facie case for a possible space incidence can already be made. First, the virus is unexpectedly novel, and appeared without warning in mainland China. A small amount of the culprit virus introduced into the stratosphere could make a first tentative fall out East of the great mountain range of the Himalayas, where the stratosphere is thinnest, followed by sporadic deposits in neighbouring areas. If the virus is only minimally infective, as it seems to be, the subsequent course of its global progress will depend on stratospheric transport and mixing, leading to a fall out continuing seasonally over a few years. Although all reasonable attempts to contain the infective spread of SARS should be continued, we should remain vigilant for the appearance of new foci (unconnected with infective contacts or with China) almost anywhere on the plant. New cases might continue to appear until the stratospheric supply of the causative agent becomes exhausted.


https://cosmictusk.com/wickramasinghe-predicted-coronavirus-pandemic-in-november-2019/

On November 25th, 2019, Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe made the following stark warning, weeks before the coronavirus emerged.

On the basis of this data, there appears to be a prima facie case for expecting new viral strains to emerge over the coming months and so it would be prudent for Public Health Authorities the world over to be vigilant and prepared for any necessary action. We need hardly to be reminded that the spectre of the 1918 devastating influenza pandemic stares us in the face from across a century.

Chandra Wickramasinghe, Current Science, November 25, 2019


https://cosmictusk.com/wp-content/uploads/CurrentScience2020-copy.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079424/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326160954_Comets_and_Contagion_Evolution_Plague_and_Diseases_From_Space

http://journalofcosmology.com/Panspermia10.html

https://www.longdom.org/open-access/the-role-of-viruses-and-viral-infections-in-the-theory-of-panspermia-2332-2519.1000111.pdf

Would it still be possible to achieve herd immunity, even at this late stage of the pandemic? Yes. If the health authorities in each country would distribute clarithromycin to each person, herd immunity could still be achieved.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: January 06, 2023, 09:03:17 AM »
And some iron plus infralasers shouldn't do anything.

But they will.

You are forgetting what happened during the month of March, 2021, in eastern Europe (as an example). All of a sudden, the new exotic variants B.1.1.7, P.1, B.1.351 had emerged all over the place, without any travel history on the part of the infected persons. Using the spike proteins and HeLa cells (for AZ/J vaccines), the mycobacterium did send electromagnetic copies of their cells to the bacteria in the atmosphere, which promptly received the new signal and changed their configuration to reflect the new variants which had been developing in the vaccinees.

Vaccinations do cause strains.

https://www.francesoir.fr/opinions-tribunes/covid-19-questions-sur-les-vaccins

Mais patatras, voilà que l’Académie de médecine s’y met, et maladroitement, car son explication pour ne pas différer la seconde injection, remet dans le circuit le risque de mutations dues aux vaccins. Outre le fait que « le retard peut faire en sorte que des anticorps facilitants créés pourrait exacerber la Covid-19 », le communiqué indique aussi que « le faible niveau d’immunité (après la primo-vaccination) constituera un terrain favorable pour sélectionner l’émergence d’un ou de plusieurs variants échappant à l’immunité induite par la vaccination ». Cela a été répété par Yves Buisson rapporteur, sur France Info.

Seconde question : y a-t-il un lien entre vaccins et derniers mutants ? Le communiqué de l’Académie de médecine dit que c’est possible, et des faits me troublent.

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/sante/maladie/coronavirus/vaccin/vaccins-contre-le-covid-19-en-espacant-les-deux-doses-de-vaccin-on-risque-d-avoir-des-mutations-du-virus-alerte-un-professeur-de-medecine_4255067.html

By spacing the two doses of vaccine, "we risk having mutations" of the virus, alerted Tuesday, January 12 on franceinfo, Professor Yves Buisson of the National Academy of Medicine, president of the Covid-19 cell .

In addition to the fact that "the delay may ensure that facilitating antibodies created could exacerbate Covid-19", the press release also indicates that "the low level of immunity (after the primary vaccination) will constitute a favorable ground for selecting the 'emergence of one or more variants escaping immunity induced by vaccination'.

Second question: is there a link between vaccines and the latest mutants? The press release from the Academy of Medicine says it is possible, and I am troubled by the facts.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: January 06, 2023, 07:00:30 AM »
Plus, the sigal strength is going to be very very small.  So how would it reach into the air to "Talk" to anything?  And how does it control the random electron movement?

Exactly. So, how would you make sure that those bacteria benefit from using both an amplifier and an antenna? Remember this?

https://web.archive.org/web/20210611184613/ https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=lXjjOLhFnHA (remove the spaces)

Twitter from "Trump" in 2017: "covfefe".

Covid ferritin Fe cages. A mobile phone is a non-metallic object. So, you'd need an infrared laser and the quantum Hall effect.

https://stolenhistory.net/threads/sandokhans-link-and-post-collection.5397/page-2#post-100148

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 53  Next >