Connecting the dots - Is Donald Trump JR trying to tell us something? HRC? DEW? Weird …
🤔💭 Theory Research Wanted 😲💡
Comments (36)
sorted by:
Right or wrong, hat tip for a spectacular decode.
Any updates on missing Maui children?...or any parents on news?
I'm sure the updates are coming any day now. bwahahahaha. You're not allowed to ask questions about that anymore, we've moved on the "next thing".
Add it to our list: JFK justice, 911 justice, trail-of-dead-bodies-behind-Hillary justice, and La Haina justice.
This research lends some credence to the DEW theories. Nothing concrete but you know what they say about coincidences.
I don't understand how I lose the lotto or blackjack at this point given how many koyinkidinks continue to occur...
Nice dig, OP.
Excellent rabbithole -ing! Incredible info here!! Hoping it boomerangs brutality.
Wow, great post. My friend and I both went into the Air Force decades ago. She was at Kirtland working on laser technology. We’ve lost touch but I wonder if she ever worked on this technology. Wow.
I'll be honest, at first I started reading your post and thought, yeah nothing here, just a stretch...then things started to get interesting. I think you are on to something
This is fascinating. I tend to think there's a different symbolism comm for dandelion, and that this is coincidental, but ... if there is, I don't know what it would be. If there are more dandelion DEW connections, you're on to something.
Dandelion is anglicized dent de leon, lion's tooth (because of the leaves).
Lion's tooth could be a disclosure to comms-aware that she's been bitten, or taken down. It's becoming more open.
Kuddos fren! Great research! Thank you!!
Solid dig much respect
From Don Jr. to chemical lasers.
DANDE measures atmospheric density at high altitude because true density deviates a bit from model predictions. Which is a problem because a difference in atmospheric density means a difference in atmospheric drag, which throws off the projected orbits of every satellite, telescope, and space station we have up there.
Optical wavefront control is used for error correction in telescope optics. This technology is being developed in Maui because it has a massive telescope on it, which needs this kind of error correction for more accurate data.
Your link to the chemical oxygen iodine laser has nothing to do with either of the above: as that is specifically designed to be an anti-aircraft weapon whereas the first two are purely for sensing applications. This should go without saying, but weapons-grade laser systems aren't going to be used on sensor equipment or telescopes. Vastly different power and optics requirements. Just because two different things both use lasers doesn't mean they're related; otherwise that would mean every single CD and Blue-Ray player is also involved in this nefarious DEW plot.
DEW advocates have still failed to provide concrete evidence that such weapons exist. All they have apparently is dandelion etymologies and wikipedia articles that vaguely reference barely similar technologies, utterly ignoring the vastly different applications and designs required. They still haven't answered the more obvious questions, such as:
Where do these DEW satellites get their power from?
How much power do these weapons exert?
How on earth did the cabal/white hats overcome the problem of atmospheric diffraction/absorption?
Why don't the cabal/white hats just beam in the power from a lower location, like a plane flying overhead or an offshore ship? This would go a long way toward reducing the atmospheric refraction/absorption problem and be orders of magnitude less expensive.
Why didn't the cabal order assets on the ground to start the Maui fires conventionally? That would be orders of magnitude less expensive than even the previous proposal.
Why did the Maui fires look exactly like normal fires? Every claim that the fire was "different" is based entirely on ignorance of how actual fires work.
DEW theorists are the new flat earthers and terrain theorists. No data, no actual understanding of physics or engineering, just speculation based on science fiction, and vague, subjective
conveniently and arbitrarily employedkeyword association.You were just shown an airplane with a massive megawatt laser on the nose cone but you are saying there is "no evidence of dews"
Yea ok.
The DEW crowd is making very specific claims about what laser weapons are capable of, i.e. melting and setting fire to an entire island from a space based laser weapon. They then point to the YAL-1 as "proof" of their claim without considering any of the following:
Operational effective range is 1-2 miles, tops. How exactly is a space satellite going to punch through 60+ miles of atmosphere with that kind of range? Apparently some people feel like they can just ignore atmospheric refraction and absorption and they'll magically go away.
YAL-1 systems have very limited energy capacity and have to be refueled because they consume chemical fuel to create the laser. Furthermore, real laser weapons operate in the kilowatt range, not the megawatt range.
The laser doesn't actually destroy its target, it deforms and weakens the shell of a missile (what it's actually designed to shoot down) and high-velocity atmospheric drag does all the actual work. This same laser could be pointed directly at a human at point blank range and it would only give them a 2nd degree burn. Setting fire to tropical islands is well outside the capability of known laser weapons systems. The reason for this is because the metal exteriors of missiles interact with lasers differently than organic matter, but DEW theorists conveniently leave this fact out (because they don't even understand the properties of lasers in the first place).
That doesn't even begin to cover all the other problems with DEW theory that I brought up in my first comment.
The DEW crowd is coming up with complete science fiction, then deliberately conflating their theory with known applications of laser technology as a "proof of concept" in lieu of actually providing evidence for their outlandish claims. They borrow actual principles of science and engineering, then absolutely butcher them because they haven't actually studied this stuff, and that becomes more painfully obvious every time they open their mouths. The fact that everything I have said is easy to find on the internet makes such ignorance even more infuriating.
Now do Rods of God. 😉
Rods dropped from orbit actually would work, except they do more penetrative damage than area effect damage like that one G.I. Joe movie depicted. Combined with the fact that its expensive to get things up into space in the first place, you're better off developing better bunker-busting missiles.
Do you follow Starship development?
You can sit here and list all the reasons why it doesn't work, or CAN'T work. But just watch -- they will make it work.
Nope, not how this works.
DEW theorists are making specific claims about an alleged technology and its capabilities. It's their job to prove that 1) such tech works in theory, 2) it actually exists, and 3) it was used to do the things they've said it has done.
The burden of proof is on the advocate of the theory or allegation in question. It is not the job of everyone else to say, "well, we can't prove it isn't possible, therefore we should listen to your theory".
Wild speculation is not validated just because it can't be proven wrong. It is still wild, baseless speculation. You have to use logic and evidence to prove that it's right.
You sound vaccinated
Instead of thinking "laser" we should, I think, be investigating Scalar Electromagnetic Technology, which requires far less energy to be destructive (or productive). c.f. Tom Bearden.
Scalar technology/weaponry is even more absurd than DEW, which at least tries to invoke real things like lasers.
You want to know what a scalar is? Vectors are magnitude and direction, scalars are just magnitude, like a regular number.
A firearm could be considered a "vector" weapon because it launches mass in a specific direction at a specific velocity. But it's not really a vector weapon because vectors don't cause damage or exert energy by themselves; they're just mathematical notion. Mass in motion imparts energy and damage; it's just that mass in three dimensional space has to move in a direction at a velocity at all times, and math just calls this motion a vector.
Scalar weapons (if they actually existed) would then have plenty of power, but no ability to actually aim said power. It wouldn't be able to do an omnidirectional blast, as that is still described by vectors. It would quite simply be a weapon that you cannot fire, aim, or move at all. And like the "vector" weapon above, it still wouldn't be able to do any damage because scalars don't do damage, they're just numbers and notation. It would be the most useless invention in existence.
Scalar tech/weapons/waves haven't been proven to exist, and proponents have to arbitrarily redefine core concepts in math and physics to make them halfway work in theory. And they rely on the public's lack of familiarity with math/physics to avoid being called out on this.
If HRC is a dandelion. DJT is Roundup
A well assembled post. Love it.
For some reason the original post is shifted so cut off on the left side. A tldr would be helpful for this reason as well.
Turn your phone.
yes. No need to be stunned but much like researchers in many fields, you'll have a dozen wrong paths to have a right path that passes muster. This passes 9n my Proud opinion.
Can someone tldr; this
It's not that long.