simon_says 7 points ago +7 / -0

The list is so long, it's actually hard to keep up with.

Some glaring omissions:

-a wide-open Southern Border

-a drained Strategic Petroleum Reserve

-a foreign policy program that has left us teetering on the verge of WWIII

-a monetary policy that has allowed inflation to run rampant endlessly

I could really go on and on here. The failures are so plural that they thwart comprehensive enumeration.

Save America.

simon_says 2 points ago +2 / -0

Excellent find.

Not sure I agree that the root of the problem is the primary dealer system. The core of the problem is that there does not exist -- even on a global basis -- capacity to buy $3T of Treasurys annually. We can't legitimately market them. So we'll blip money into existence and buy them off the banks (our largest banks are the primary dealers, for those who may not know).

simon_says 3 points ago +3 / -0


And, while I am worth next to nothing... Our God listens and is attentive beyond what is merited.

You're wife is in trusted Hands. ...Which is to say: relax. She'll be healed.

simon_says 6 points ago +6 / -0

From Tucker's interview of Paxton...

There are 65 Democrats in the Texas House (which has a total size of 150). These 65 vote as a block.

So if you want to be Speaker, you give those 65 Democrats what they want, and vote with them on matters that are very important to them. So you get their votes. Then you promise 10 friends positions on the most powerful committees. So you get their votes. Plus you vote for yourself. Voila.

So... those 65 Democrats functionally rule the House on matters that are of extreme sensitivity to the Democrat party.

simon_says 9 points ago +9 / -0

I know there are some other attorneys on this board. I'd like them to chime in here.

Looking at the depositions/interviews of witnesses before the J6 Select Committee, two notable absences stand out to me: (1) Dennis Montgomery; and (2) Lin Wood.

Starting with Lin, they ask Byrne about his meeting at Tomotley. They ask Powell about the meeting at Tomotley. They ask Flynn about the meeting at Tomotley. But they never subpoena the guy that organized and hosted the meeting. More than odd.

Same thing with Montgomery. They ask Byrne about Montgomery and Hammer and Scorecard. They ask Powell about Montgomery and Hammer and Scorecard. They ask Flynn about Montgomery and Hammer and Scorecard. But you know who they don't subpoena? Montgomery. And they don't subpoena his data. I don't think they wanted to hear what he had to say, nor did they want to have to face up to his data.

What do others make of this?

simon_says 1 point ago +1 / -0


There is a commercially available system today that permits subscribers to get satellite-based positional data that is within 1 cm. Know why? Because the largest contributor to inaccuracies in the ephemeris is simply time lag. The ephemeris is updated infrequently. And as satellites drift, the data becomes inaccurate.

But, you can buy access to a system that calculates locational data based on up-to-the-second satellite positional information. And it offers accuracy to within 1 cm. (Few use the system, because it is expensive.)

This means that ALL contributions to error resolve to within 1 cm. And that is for a present-day commercial system.

Dude. Our military systems are obviously better than that. Let's not bullshit one another. The problems you cite with regard to position and time are straight-up bullshit. Sorry, but they are.

As for your thoughts about the qualitative aspects of the fire, ask yourself: could embers realistically fly two miles, and then burn two cars to the ground, with wheels melted, only to have the fire contained to a 100 ft x 100 ft area, with no ingress or egress path? Burn that hot and then go nowhere?

Why would an emergency worker say he has a photo of a cat that died standing up, with no fur burnt? Just a dead cat, standing. Not burnt. Cooked.

Moreover, why would General Flynn post a video about directed energy weapons, and say that if you don't want conspiracy theories, you shouldn't start conspiracies?

Nothing you say makes sense. Your arguments shift. The only common aspect from post to post is that you really don't want people to believe these systems could exist. ...This makes me wonder...

simon_says 1 point ago +1 / -0

The GPS system as a whole requires that independent satellites be located to within a tolerance of less than a centimeter and manage the problem of independent time bases. If a particular satellite timestamped its signature with data that was even a little inaccurate, the receiver would calculate a drastically marred positional result. You are (drastically) overstating the difficulty of this.

As for the oddity of the fires, I don't think the issue is that certain metals melted in an immense fire. Smelting is a "thing" -- we all get that. But there are odd isolated burn pockets. No path of burn leading to these pockets, and no path of burn leading away. There is no trace of fire anywhere near these pockets. What started the fires in these pockets? The ordinary function of a forest fire does not and cannot explain that. But a side lobe sure can.

By the way, my SUV caught fire some years back. Long story. Anyhow, yes, the gas tank ignited and there were huge, towering flames, and the whole thing burnt to the ground. Ask me if the rims melted. Nope. None of the metal melted. The fuel in the gas tank is insufficient to cause that result.

Do I think LIDAR was needed to conduct the mission? Perhaps. I couldn't tell you the accuracy of any topological map that may or may not exist. I can tell you that every time any construction is done -- even residential construction such as at my home -- the land is surveyed. They don't say: "hey, I'll just access some pre-existing topological map." Topography changes. So, yes. I think you'd want up-to-date accurate topological data. I certainly would. If you'd prefer to work from old data, even though you possessed the means to derive timely, accurate data, that would be your choice. But I'm pretty sure you know that no one would make such a choice.

As for your avocation relating to "educating" the populace, I'm not so sure you aren't on some sort of other mission.

simon_says 1 point ago +1 / -0


The tweet is dated August 6, while the fire occurred August 8. What do you make of that?


simon_says 4 points ago +4 / -0

In my mind, this should be stickied for at least a full 24, if not 48 hours.

People need to see all of this.

simon_says 9 points ago +10 / -1

Between this, and u/DrMcCoy finding the video evidence of the side lobe (see here https://greatawakening.win/p/17r9Dn7IWr/was-maui-the-product-of-a-dew-at/ ), I think there is a reasonable case for a DEW attack.

Specifically, consider this: anything hooked up to the plumbing system burns. The plumbing system is metal and will spark like crazy and actually melt if subjected to sufficient microwave power over a long enough period. Just google. There are YouTube videos on how to melt metal in your microwave. The "trick" relates to preventing your microwave from being destroyed prior to the metal melting.

Anyhow, that's why all the houses burn. And only: (1) non-metallic things sufficiently proximal to houses burn -- because the burning house catches them on fire; and (2) other metallic things in the region burn -- because of the microwave energy. But... a plastic bin at the curb? Nope. Trees removed from the houses? Nope.

You got it. I never thought I'd be saying this.

simon_says 2 points ago +2 / -0

Would love to talk with you more.

(1) To use a phased array system statically, you'd need a stable relationship between elements. But to use a system one time for one mission, you'd only need to know their positions at the moment of use.

(2) As far as I am aware, the capabilities of satellites of this sort are not made known publicly. And not all are listed on the public ephemeris, for that matter.

(3) I've not seen a wild fire hot enough to melt metal that, yet, is confined to about -- what -- 100 ft in all directions, with no barriers? That's unusual, to say the least.

(4) Agree about off-axis aiming, for the obvious mathematical reasons.

(5) Why would LIDAR be necessary for ANYTHING, if you have topographic maps? Why create it at all? Why use it at all? But, yet, it was created, it was used, and we do need it, despite the existence of such maps. Perhaps our maps do not tell all, in terms of the data needed for every mission.

(6) Agree that if you had an unstable array and knew nothing of its current configuration, all you would get is side lobes.

...WOULD LOVE TO TALK MORE WITH YOU ABOUT THIS AND CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS. For whatever reason, I've not noticed you here, and I'd think I would have, as you're interesting and intelligent. I'm on and off here, so it's probably my fault.

EDIT: oh, and the aperture issues are not issues at all, depending upon how many satellites are participating in the project, over what span of space, with what spacing, and in how many dimensions. ...But I think you may know that...

simon_says 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ha! They're trying to suppress the evidence. I'm actually gobsmacked that there's evidence of a side lobe out there. They plainly don't want knowledgeably people encountering that evidence.

simon_says 2 points ago +2 / -0

That, my friend, could DEFINITELY be an example of a side lobe. Holy shit! Good work!

Please find that video. I'll look too!

simon_says 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sounds good. I just did this the only way I knew how to do it.

Sorry for the double post.

simon_says 1 point ago +1 / -0

It very well could end up there.

Might produce an unusual accumulation of dead aquatic creatures?

I'm hoping the much-vaunted autists here can help out! :-)

simon_says 3 points ago +3 / -0

I hasten to add: with regard to the image of the LIDAR event, that event only spanned perhaps a second or so. Someone had to know in advance that it was going to occur to have filmed it. And then that person had to decide to publish the photo, so we could "remember" the event later, and speculate whether it was significant. Intelligence Community?

simon_says 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thanks for cluing me in on this one. I was away from my post, so to speak, over the long holiday weekend here in the States.

A few things to consider:

-Saying someone is a conman, and putting them under a gag order so they can't tell their side of the story is a common Deep State tactic. And that is what has happened to Dennis.

-We can see for ourselves that Dennis had contracts with the DOD and basically all elements of the Intelligence Community. We can see that they hired Dennis over and over. We can see that they hired him even after they smeared him in the NYT. Why would they do that, if their claims were true?

-We can see that he has multiple non-prosecution agreements from the Feds, in return for delivery of digital evidence. Let's be real: you don't get non-prosecution agreements in exchange for bullshit data. You get them because the Feds know DAMN WELL that what you've got is authentic and damaging. And they want to clean up the crime scene.

-I won't comment upon Arpaio in writing. But there is more to that story.

-The PCAP data will authenticate itself. You will have to believe no one, and trust nobody. The digital signatures in the payload authenticate the data.

-LEGIONS of politicians, judges, executives, and so on have a reason to smear Dennis. The HAMMER was used -- in addition to flipping 2020 -- to locate blackmail material on said legions of individuals. And Dennis has that information.

-Because of the preceding point, there are many parties that want 2020 to be resolved, but do not want the pathway of resolution to proceed through a discussion of the HAMMER and SCORECARD systems. Because such a discussion would risk bringing to light not only its use to flip elections, but also HAMMER's use to collect blackmail material -- and those very powerful people do not want to risk having their personal secrets/scandals coming to light. They'd support fixing 2020 in any other way, but not in a way that brings the HAMMER to light.

On a side note, I've found Mary to be believable, consistent, and friendly (while being guarded against the very real possibility -- from her vantage -- that I may be a covert hostile actor). To the extent I am a judge of character you can count on, you can take that into consideration.


simon_says 2 points ago +2 / -0

Will be interesting to see who Trump's running mate is.

view more: Next ›