Listen, I posted this 3 days ago and no one grabbed onto it. This 1999 military document completely lays out the tech for mRNA nano-biology and transhumanism mitochondrial micro-chipping. All approved by Bill Clinton. What is the white rubbery stuff morticians are finding in vax veins? Spider silk?!
(media.greatawakening.win)
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
If you had read the preface, it's the second document in a series.
The first one went over well, so they were tasked with drafting a second (this one) to show how to approach the technology commercially.
It wasn't memory holed like your "antipodal bomber" example.
If the White House asked for a follow up, then the research showed promise. This isn't just one of a thousand little scholarly projects that go nowhere. This is at the crux and heart of their transhumanist New World Order. Why should we assume to dismiss it as drivel?
The way I read it, this document is a bonafide stepping stone into the current mRNA gene altering technology likely in use in these "vaccines."
Ultimately, that's my point.
All the horrible things that we suspect these shots are is supported by this document. This is a good red-pill to sway normies that think "oh, that's just scifi movie stuff -- nanomachines aren't real!"
This document right here shows the technology has been most definitely "real" since 1999 at the latest.
I really don't know why you're confrontational, if you are at all. We are well past this just being a pipe-dream. DNA-Based Microchips, by this document, have already proven to be a working technology. We have every reason to assume, by this document and its citations alone, that they have implemented this in some form or fashion -- whether we know about it or not.
It's been 23 years since this info was compiled. Imagine where we are now. Do you really think they would have buried it considering all the strange nonsense we have been seeing out of these "vaccines"?
First, all I know about this document is the single page you showed. There didn't seem to be any links to it.
Second, the Sanger bomber concept has never been "memory holed." A variant called Reusable AerosSpace Vehicle (RASV) was proposed to the Air Force by Boeing in the 1970s. I was part of a proposal to revive the concept (Military Spaceplane) in the 1990s. It is once again under study by a private venture today. But still "no sauce" as this page puts it. So, don't make any assumptions about what I meant. It is clear you do not know anything about the Sanger vehicle, enough to say it was "memory-holed." My point is that documentation alone is not enough to make any assumption that the technology is in play.
You say this isn't just a "scholarly project that goes nowhere." Why not? The Obama administration put big money on Solyndra, and it went bust leaving nothing behind. I can't count the project proposals that have been solicited and left behind, despite money and time and research dedicated to serious intentions. Look what happened to DARPA's XS-1 project: under contract and under way...then the contractor said "Eh, this is not for me after all" and just dropped it. Just because you have a vision doesn't mean you have a plan---and just because you might have a plan doesn't mean you have a program---and even if you had a program, you still might not have what you wanted.
It is funny you present me a list of companies working in the field, when I am the one who pointed out the company cited at the bottom the p. 109's illustration, whose activities I looked up. Why tell me something I told you? What they are doing is arguably more relevant than what this document speculates on doing.
I wouldn't use the term "confrontational," but I can see its justice. What I am is hard-headed, based on 40 years in the defense industry. In my opinion, on this page there is far too much thinking in the form of a logical fallacy: "If it could be true, it must be true." You don't find evidence of any truth from documents of speculation. This is the sort of thing that brings "tinfoil hat" derision, and I would hope we could content ourselves with proven reality. Like the COVID-19 vaccine. I expect much to be revealed about that. But I'm not worried about it putting nanoradios in our brains to turn us into 5G-controlled zombies.
You know what? Fuck it. I put a link to it in the comments. If you aren't gonna do the required reading then I'm done with this.
All the quotes I gave you were from the document.
You're just wanting to take part in a pissing competition. Tell me when you've read the thing through like I did, then we might actually have a worthwhile discussion.
My advice? Don't piss on a parade you didn't even take part in.
I honestly didn't see any links in your post. I had no expectation of links appearing elsewhere. If I wasn't aware of any links, you have no reason to criticize me for an absence of due diligence.
And there is still nothing there that indicates an ongoing program of action. I guess my examples of "military documents" indicating possibilities and intentions and plans---yet still not coming to pass---went over your head.
I figured it out now. You kept rattling on about "provenance" when this entire time I thought you were asking for proof this document was really a military document.
I had no idea you were simply asking for a link to the document, because I had already provided it.
For 22 hours, ever since I posted this thread, the link has been in the comments.
You kept asking for "provenance" but what I thought you wanted and what you thought you wanted were two different things.
Next time you want the source, ask for this exactly:
It would have saved us a TON of effort and confusion.
"Provenance" is a term that includes where something comes from and how to establish it. Very sorry I didn't notice the link in the comments.