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.
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.