Having the military admit that they executed members of Congress X years ago looks exactly like a secret military coup. And it will make the public wonder “who else have they executed without telling us? Aren’t they supposed to work for us and be accountable to us? Why are they acting all secretive like the CIA?” Such an admission would completely and permanently erode public trust in the military.

Any kind of military intervention, no matter how small, will be spun as a coup attempt. There’s no way around it. The key is to not care what the public/normies think in the first place. Which means the military would have been better off taking overt action years if not decades ago.

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.

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.

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.

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

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 employed keyword association.

Now do hollow earth, ancient aliens, quantum mysticism, NESARA, US Corporation theory, terrain theory, Tesla techno magic , etc.

All just as retarded as flat earth and pushed by the same people for the same purpose. Yet they’re all tolerated here.

Well, when it comes to American interventionism in the Middle East, then we are the bad guys.

But that was due to American politicians going directly against our founding principles (isolationism), and tricking the people to go along with them.

Chauvin was convicted because BLM pushed their narrative of police brutality before the evidence came in. When the coroner’s report came out contradicting the narrative, it was suppressed. The jury gave a guilty verdict so that BLM wouldn’t burn their homes to the ground.

The Left, as always, suppressed the truth for the sake of their narrative, and innocent men suffered for it.

Floyd OD’d on fentanyl per the coroner’s report. Chauvin kneeling on his neck had nothing to do with it, such a tactic being commonly used to non lethally control uncooperative subjects.

Simply asserting that anything comes from ET’a is insufficient proof.

Unless these Ancient Alien crackheads actually provide some evidence, then this is not worth considering.

Ancient Alien theories all boil down to the same flawed assumption: we don’t understand it (or they think we don’t understand it when we actually do), therefore aliens.

You are basing a good portion of that knowledge you have, and its obvious you are an intelligent person, on things you cannot prove yourself.

Yes, and so does everyone else. Everyone bases much of their knowledge on things they cannot directly prove. And even if you can directly "prove" something, you're putting faith in yourself that your own senses and mental faculties are reliable. Which, of course, is more useful than just giving up and saying that no one can know anything.

Can you prove by yourself that Covid and its vaccine are bioweapons? Can you prove by yourself that the 2020 election was stolen? No, we both arrive at those conclusions based on the evidence and arguments put forward by others. Should we be concerned about placing faith in these people who have brought evidence for these claims? Of course not, unless there was evidence that the vaccines and election were legit (highly unlikely imo).

My issue with the "(insert topic here) is a lie" groups is that they tend to force "mainstream science" to prove a negative. For example, when someone puts forward the reasons that we know the earth is a globe, flat earthers come out and say, "no, we've all been lied to! You're a sheep who blindly follows mainstream science!" The problem with this argument is that it forces the globe-earther to prove a negative; to prove that the evidence for a globe earth isn't fabricated. The fact of the matter is that it's not the job of the globe earther to prove that their evidence hasn't been faked, as they've already done the legwork to openly display their evidence and show that their theory is valid. It's the job of the flat-earther to prove that the evidence for a globe earth is flawed, and that their system better explains available evidence. Something which they have failed to do on both fronts.

The flat-earth example is perhaps extreme, but it illustrates the principle I'm trying to convey. It's not enough to say "gee, you're placing an awful lot of faith in what we think to be true, are you sure we haven't been lied to?." If one puts forward a theory on any subject, it's their job to prove that their theory is valid, not the job of "mainstreamers" to prove that their position can't be wrong.

We ought to think something is true provided that it is the best explanation for currently available evidence. The only reason to change what we think is true is if 1) someone points out that the current paradigm doesn't adequately explain available evidence, or 2) new evidence comes along that contradicts the current paradigm. Concern about "excessive faith" isn't a substantial enough reason by itself to change what we think is true, otherwise it be almost impossible to hold almost anything as true at all.

To go back to the original topic of CERN, its dectractors have not put forth adequate evidence that CERN creates portals or is anything but a particle accelerator. All they have are worries about a Shiva statue and speculation based on a lack of familiarity with how particle physics actually works. Ironically, there is far more evidence that CERN detractors (not you though) are utterly ignorant of particle physics than there is evidence that CERN is nefarious, based solely on my own interactions with said detractors.

I don't expect anyone to be an expert in particle physics (I'm not, just decently well-read about it), but if anyone is going to criticize or speculate about CERN, then they should have some familiarity with the underlying physics, enough to actually make their case. CERN has done the work to show to the world exactly what it is doing and why. It is now time for its detractors to put in a similar amount of work, not just speculate from their keyboards because some quantum mystic told them that portals are a thing. It is then, not a matter of faith that CERN is exactly what it claims to be, but the only reasonable conclusion based on lack of evidence to the contrary.

Nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate. However, it has to be done based on available evidence. And unfortunately, the popular conception of portals or alternate dimensions has virtually no evidence supporting even its existence, much less that CERN is exploiting such phenomena. While physicists don't know everything about subatomic particles, they have a really good idea of how they behave, and simply smashing a few of them together is not going to have any adverse effect on the environment.

Ditto with the assertion that everything is a lie or at best partial truth. To make an analogy with history, it is within the realm of possibility than aspects of history have been altered or fabricated. However, unless evidence is put forward to support it, simply asserting that history is a lie is both irrational and unhelpful.

I’m still waiting for someone to actually explain how particle accelerators create portals. Using rational arguments and evidence, not quantum mysticism bs.

Every single time this subject comes up, portal theorists are utterly unable to provide support for their position and only reveal their complete ignorance of how particle physics actually works.

Apparently you forgot to read my earlier comment, which illustrates Christ’s usage of Petra vs petros, a distinction that is lost in the English. I showed that Christ uses Petros to christen Peter while using Petra as the actually foundation of the church. I showed that Paul corroborates this distinction by also declaring that the church, like Israel before, follows the true Rock which Christ. Paul uses Petra to refer to Christ just as Christ Himself does. Paul had every opportunity to say that Petros/Peter was the rock we should be following, and staunchly refuses to do so, pointing instead to Christ. The RCC would do well to follow Paul’s example.

The mere fact that the disciples repeatedly argued among themselves who was the greatest strongly indicates that Christ at no point designated one of them as having additional power or authority over the others. If anything Christ rebukes Peter more often and more strongly than the other disciples because Peter constantly refused to realize when he was saying something stupid.

I already said all of these things above; I’m repeating them again until it sinks in that Peter being the first pope and apostolic succession are not biblical principles

And you still have not addressed my other point that the RCC has utterly invalidated itself from being Peter’s successor in any form by teaching fables contrary both to Peter’s teaching and to the rest of scripture.

Corrupt organizations don’t like competition.

the fact that origen was a heretic only strengthens the case because even a heretic understood that Peter is the Rock.

Uh, no, that's not how that works. That it no way eliminates the possibility that Peter being the Rock is just a heretical doctrine.

I could cite 40 other Church Fathers who were not heretics but legit saints.

And I cited scripture. Church fathers, no matter how numerous, are not scripture. Once again, you illustrate the core problem with the RCC by building your doctrine on the traditions of men rather than the Word of God.

Citing Origen doesn't help your case nearly as much as you think it does.

He was a blatant heretic who fabricated a bunch of nonsense that has no biblical support whatsoever, such as the preexistence of souls and universal salvation. His entire life's work boiled down to trying to force Christian teachings into the mold of pagan Greek philosophy.

I don't trust Origen to interpret scripture for the same reason that I don't trust Arius or Mohamed. How far removed one is from the time of Christ has no bearing on the accuracy of one's reading of Christ's words.

I just cited the Bible. The fact that scripture is not a sufficient primary source for your illustrates the core problem with the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC puts the traditions of men above the plain teaching of scripture, which is precisely how it has accumulated all the false teachings that it currently possesses.

If the RCC believes that Peter is the foundation of the church, then they should show more respect by teaching what he and the other apostles actually taught, not their own fables.

Ah, Matthew 16:18-19, one of the most misunderstood verses in the NT because people don't know the Greek.

Simon is called Petros in the Greek here. However, when Christ says "on this rock I will build my church", He uses petra, not petros; the feminine form instead of the masculine form for Peter's name. This change in grammatical gender reflects a difference in connotation. Petros referred to a small stone, whereas petra refers to a larger rock formation like a cliff or a boulder. If Christ meant to say that Peter was the rock upon which the church was built, then He would have continued to use petros instead of switching to petra. If Christ Himself switches to a different word with a different connotation, then it is self evident that He is speaking of two different things.

Further confirmation is found in 1 Corinthians 10:4, where Paul writes, "They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." Here Paul explicitly states that the rock is Christ, and he uses petra, not petros.

Putting these passages together, Christ designates Simon as Petros, the little rock, that points to Petra, the Rock, Christ Himself, who is the true foundation of the church.

Peter himself states that Christ is the Rock in Acts 4:10-11, where during his sermon he identifies Christ as the cornerstone that was rejected, a fulfillment of Psalm 118:22. This would have been the perfect opportunity for Peter to declare himself to be the cornerstone of the church, but he does not, pointing to Christ instead. Paul echoes the exact same sentiment in 1 Cor. 3:11.

If Christ unequivocally designated Peter as the head of His church, why then did the disciples repeatedly argue among themselves who was greatest? The fact that they held multiple debates on who was actually in charge demonstrates that Christ did not explicitly put one of them in charge of the whole church.

At no point in scripture is Peter ever cited as the head or pastor of any church. He was of course an influential evangelist and leader in the early church, but no one in scripture treats him the way catholics treat their pope. Even when the elders and apostles meet to discuss matters of doctrine, as in Acts 15, Peter is never depicted as issuing declarations that everyone else bows down to. Acts 15 records Peter, James, and others providing input as equals, with the apostles agreeing together to write and send the letter mentioned in verses 22-29.

In fact, Peter is corrected and rebuked by other apostles such as Paul, as recorded in Galatians 2:11-14. Peter evidently revered Paul as a fellow apostle and fellow author of scripture from his comments on Paul in 2 Peter 3:15-16. So much for papal infallibility or supremacy.

Furthermore, there is no historical evidence that Peter was the head of any church, much less the one in Rome. There isn't even any historical evidence that Peter ever visited Rome save for his alleged crucifixion there. Peter being a bishop in Rome is complete conjecture created by the RCC to grant themselves a false sense of legitimacy via apostolic succession. Which is itself another fabrication with no biblical support whatsoever. One of the qualifications for apostleship is witnessing the resurrected Christ in person (Acts 1:21-22, 1 Cor. 9:1). Paul was the last person to have done so; no one after him could ever even qualify for apostleship.

Lastly, even if Peter started and led a church in Rome, it is self evident that the RCC has completely invalidated itself from being his successor. Nearly every doctrine that is distinctive of the RCC is either complete fanfiction that has no biblical support, or outright contradicts the clear teaching of scripture. Such doctrines include but are not limited to transubstantion, purgatory, salvation by works, confession to priests, banning priests from marriage, making priests separate from the laity in the first place, the eternal virginity of Mary, the sinlessness of Mary, prayer to deceased saints, replacement theology, etc. The mere fact that the RCC both viciously persecuted Jews for over a millennium and also prohibited the laity from reading the scriptures for themselves for over a millennium puts them at odds with the apostles and Christ Himself.

The Roman Church has always been a corruption and perversion of the gospel. Only now are the eyes of the people being opened to it.

Purgatory seems to be a popular concept, but is unfortunately completely unsupported by scripture, especially since it advocates works-based salvation.

You are correct that the world can be quite hellish. But the current magnitude of evil and suffering in this world just goes to show how much worse the Tribulation and hell will be. The evils of this current world are at least somewhat restrained by the presence of the church and the grace of God.

The only previous/lost civilizations are whatever ones existed before Noah's Flood. That and the cities that were built before the rising sea level claimed them at the end of the post-Flood ice age.

At the end of the Tribulation, Christ comes back with His church to set up His kingdom, which will rule for a thousand years.

So the Christian gets the best of both worlds: we get to avoid the Tribulation and come back to rebuild.

1. & 2. No, once you die your soul travels to either heaven or hell, see Jesus' story of Lazarus and the rich man. You are fully conscious, though how this can be without a body is unknown. When the dead in Christ rise first, that means their souls are reunited with their physical bodies, which have put in in-corruption and immortality per 1 Cor. 15:52-54. The same thing will happen to unbelievers, at judgment day their bodies will be reunited with their souls, only for both to be cast into the lake of fire.

2. The Bible is silent on this issue, at least for unbelievers. Believers will have their physical bodies reassembled and made perfect. What happens to an unbeliever's body during/after judgment day is unknown; I guess we'll have to wait until we see it for ourselves.

3. Not sure what you mean by meeting God's criteria. The only criteria for salvation is accepting Jesus Christ as the Son of God and your Savior. You can't do good works to pay off your sin. Christ has already paid for your sins on your behalf, but just as you can accept or reject a gift that someone gives you, you can accept or reject Christ's payment for your sin, with the appropriate consequences for each choice.

Hope this helps. Read the Bible as much as you can: the more you read it, the better you can understand it.

Are you referring to Rev. 14:15? That passage has little in common with 1 Thess. 4:16-17; they describe two separate events.

The church gets raptured out between Rev. 3 and 4 and doesn’t appear again until Christ come to earth in chapter 19 to set up His kingdom.