Consider again the definition of the “God Particle” which is the stated purpose of the LHC. The search for the particle that gives all other particles “mass”
You may think that it being the first satellites would be too early for sending/receiving data…. but is it? The first official broadcast from satellite relayed broadcast from space was thru President Eisenhower the very next year https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/blog/first-broadcast meaning the Russians were likely sending data before it and obviously afterwards it became standard practice.
A secure way to send/receive data that would otherwise get someone arrested.
...Anyway, just like how SpaceX became patriotic and now funds good ops, it’s not that these entities are evil inherently. This is why Reagan decided to one-up the LHC’s “17 Miles” with one 3 times as large. A counter-punch planned, but then Clinton got in which killed the whole thing.
“You may think that the first satellites would be too early to send/receive data…”
No, I don’t think that at all. If the first satellites couldn’t send/receive data, how else would they communicate with ground based control centers? Also, satellite comms aren’t any more or less secure than any other radio based communication because satellites just use radio waves . It’s your encryption methods that make the difference in terms of security.
I fail to see the point behind all the stuff with Chrome, Sputnik, MKUltra, and Elvis. Yes, all those things exist, but sporadically dropping their starting dates doesn’t even begin to spell out a cohesive argument. How exactly are these things related?
Lastly, Clinton could have cancelled the Texas atom smasher for any number of reasons (probably to get funds to hire attractive interns). Again, it is insufficient evidence to suggest that there’s anything special behind particle accelerators beyond their usefulness in scientific research.
I was referencing someone far more intelligent than I.
It sounds as if you still hold Science, as it is presented to us in the Clown World we live in, with a level of esteem. Or at least, presumed objectivity.
Highly recommend the reading below to destroy such notions. As Q said, the truth would send 99% into the hospital. To reach that number, you'd have to be removing things people believe core to their grasp on how the world works.
To address my estimation of “science” it depends entirely on what field you’re discussing, and what evidence you have that contradicts the mainstream narrative. For example, I do not trust the narrative in the medical field about Covid 19 vaccines because I have found credible sources that demonstrate that the jabs are at best ineffective and at worst extremely harmful (hence why I never have and never will take the Covid jab). For a second example, I do not believe the widely accepted theory of evolution because I have examined the evidence for both evolution and creation and found the latter to have more consistent and more compelling evidence.
When it comes to the conversation surrounding CERN, there are a lot of people asserting that the particle accelerator somehow affects people’s souls and/or splits open a portal to Hell, but they have utterly failed to provide any evidence for this assertion, much less an explanation for the mechanism behind the alleged phenomenon. I have yet to hear a single person explain to me how smashing protons and neutrons together to create a few particles of antimatter somehow crosses dimensional barriers into hell.
Of course I don’t believe everything the government says, but if you want to prove that they’re wrong about something, you have to actually prove it. Making insinuations, then claiming that it’s true because the government disagrees with you, is not a good argument. That’s how flat earthers, NESARA, and Med Bed advocates argue, and such lazy arguments and lack of intellectual rigor reflects poorly on the truther/Q movement.
The article you linked does the same thing, it makes insinuations and then backs them up with conveniently picked dates. Were Heffner and Epstein CIA honeypots? Yes, the evidence points in that direction. Does that have anything to do with nukes? If it does, the article you linked does not do a very good job of connecting the two beyond vague insinuation.
The article even states that nukes don’t exist, and argues that if they did, the Deep State would have used them by now to cull the population. This is a classic logical fallacy called an argument from silence. There are a number of reasons nukes haven’t been deployed. Unpredictable spread of nuclear fallout, mutually assured destruction, or the fact that the Deep State may not want people to panic as they’re being culled. Maybe the white hats stop them from being launched, or the cabal can’t decide among themselves which targets they want to nuke. Or maybe it’s just dumb luck. Asserting that nukes don’t exist, however, goes against direct evidence such as film footage and the irradiated craters they leave behind.
Also, your last link to the decoding website tried and fails to tie CERN to the formation of the internet (DARPA invented the internet, btw). Then it goes on to argue that nukes aren’t real. I’m sorry, but your sources are clickbait garbage.
CERN decoded, one of the harder ones to digest.
"09/02/2008 Chrome Begins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_version_history
09/10/2008 Cern LHC Turns on. https://www.livescience.com/63529-large-hadron-collider-birthday.html
Consider again the definition of the “God Particle” which is the stated purpose of the LHC. The search for the particle that gives all other particles “mass”
Giving mass = Weighted search results.
04/13/1953 MKUltra approved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra
10/01/1953 Playboy founded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playboy
09/29/1954 CERN created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN
04/10/1957 Sputnik-1 PS: First Satellite Launched https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_1
10/17/1957 Jailhouse Rock Elvis Premiered https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jailhouse_Rock_(film)
11/03/1957 Sputnik-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_2
You may think that it being the first satellites would be too early for sending/receiving data…. but is it? The first official broadcast from satellite relayed broadcast from space was thru President Eisenhower the very next year https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/blog/first-broadcast meaning the Russians were likely sending data before it and obviously afterwards it became standard practice.
A secure way to send/receive data that would otherwise get someone arrested.
08/04/1977 MKUltra Senate Hearing
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hearings/95mkultra.pdf
08/15/1977 Wow! Signal
08/16/1977 Elvis Presley Heart Attack on toilet.
...Anyway, just like how SpaceX became patriotic and now funds good ops, it’s not that these entities are evil inherently. This is why Reagan decided to one-up the LHC’s “17 Miles” with one 3 times as large. A counter-punch planned, but then Clinton got in which killed the whole thing.
10/21/1993 Government Cancels the Texas Super Collider – LHC becomes sole collider https://www.amusingplanet.com/2010/12/abandoned-remains-of-superconducting.html "
-DecodingSymbols
https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2021/06/29/cern-nuclear-research/
“You may think that the first satellites would be too early to send/receive data…”
No, I don’t think that at all. If the first satellites couldn’t send/receive data, how else would they communicate with ground based control centers? Also, satellite comms aren’t any more or less secure than any other radio based communication because satellites just use radio waves . It’s your encryption methods that make the difference in terms of security.
I fail to see the point behind all the stuff with Chrome, Sputnik, MKUltra, and Elvis. Yes, all those things exist, but sporadically dropping their starting dates doesn’t even begin to spell out a cohesive argument. How exactly are these things related?
Lastly, Clinton could have cancelled the Texas atom smasher for any number of reasons (probably to get funds to hire attractive interns). Again, it is insufficient evidence to suggest that there’s anything special behind particle accelerators beyond their usefulness in scientific research.
I was referencing someone far more intelligent than I.
It sounds as if you still hold Science, as it is presented to us in the Clown World we live in, with a level of esteem. Or at least, presumed objectivity.
Highly recommend the reading below to destroy such notions. As Q said, the truth would send 99% into the hospital. To reach that number, you'd have to be removing things people believe core to their grasp on how the world works.
https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2021/09/08/nuclear-q/
To address my estimation of “science” it depends entirely on what field you’re discussing, and what evidence you have that contradicts the mainstream narrative. For example, I do not trust the narrative in the medical field about Covid 19 vaccines because I have found credible sources that demonstrate that the jabs are at best ineffective and at worst extremely harmful (hence why I never have and never will take the Covid jab). For a second example, I do not believe the widely accepted theory of evolution because I have examined the evidence for both evolution and creation and found the latter to have more consistent and more compelling evidence.
When it comes to the conversation surrounding CERN, there are a lot of people asserting that the particle accelerator somehow affects people’s souls and/or splits open a portal to Hell, but they have utterly failed to provide any evidence for this assertion, much less an explanation for the mechanism behind the alleged phenomenon. I have yet to hear a single person explain to me how smashing protons and neutrons together to create a few particles of antimatter somehow crosses dimensional barriers into hell.
Of course I don’t believe everything the government says, but if you want to prove that they’re wrong about something, you have to actually prove it. Making insinuations, then claiming that it’s true because the government disagrees with you, is not a good argument. That’s how flat earthers, NESARA, and Med Bed advocates argue, and such lazy arguments and lack of intellectual rigor reflects poorly on the truther/Q movement.
The article you linked does the same thing, it makes insinuations and then backs them up with conveniently picked dates. Were Heffner and Epstein CIA honeypots? Yes, the evidence points in that direction. Does that have anything to do with nukes? If it does, the article you linked does not do a very good job of connecting the two beyond vague insinuation. The article even states that nukes don’t exist, and argues that if they did, the Deep State would have used them by now to cull the population. This is a classic logical fallacy called an argument from silence. There are a number of reasons nukes haven’t been deployed. Unpredictable spread of nuclear fallout, mutually assured destruction, or the fact that the Deep State may not want people to panic as they’re being culled. Maybe the white hats stop them from being launched, or the cabal can’t decide among themselves which targets they want to nuke. Or maybe it’s just dumb luck. Asserting that nukes don’t exist, however, goes against direct evidence such as film footage and the irradiated craters they leave behind.
Also, your last link to the decoding website tried and fails to tie CERN to the formation of the internet (DARPA invented the internet, btw). Then it goes on to argue that nukes aren’t real. I’m sorry, but your sources are clickbait garbage.