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 🤔
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.