I appreciate your research on this. I have no opinion on the topic, but like seeing info instead of claims without basis.
Seems like the Khazarian empire is little known from what I can find. If Jews weren't an influential group they wouldn't have gotten a large group to convert to Judaism. If the rank and file weren't influential but a few in a small circle were, then Jews were still an influential group.
Jews go out of their way to discourage anyone from converting.
The other possibility seems equally implausible: Jews migrating from Israel to Europe and wielding influence without leaving a traceable path.
None of it makes any sense.
Also, I've read that ashkenazi jews are 80% of the jews in Europe; what about shephardic? That doesn't make any sense either.
DNA research from around the time of Christ shows that Jews then were closest to Arabs just east of there now. This is not really surprising but defeats the most common ideas we see here on the topic.
Thanks. I'm pointing out that from Gen 10 to the beginning of any Khazarian empire was about 3,000 years, so it seems impossible that these people with similar names are the same.
Ok thanks.
Don't give them ideas.
Can you show anything that demonstrates this same symbol meaning Moloch?
Khazars are also known as Ashkenazim, named after Togarma’s brother. Togarma was the brother of Ashkenaz and the son of Gomer. Look up Gen 10:3
This is quite a leap. Please connect these dots.
The decision to 'become jewish' was such a choice of alliance.
How were jews enough of an influence then and there to make anyone want to convert en masse?
Pepe?
So many firsthand accounts.
Ok just checking. And I agree, this is a proxy war. We had boots on the ground from day 1 and Putin was never fooled about this.
The genocide is on white people, it's white people suffering and dying. That's part of the super big (worldwide) picture and not the only factor, obviously.
Where I'm going with this line of thought: proxy war / and cold war are both for the stated purpose of avoiding nuclear war. Do you believe no nuclear weapon exists?
By 1969 Feds were selling pure, cheap LSD as part of MK Ultra. Ukraine is currently a cold war. Is that a psyop too? Nobody's actually suffering or dying?
The cabal is real people with names and addresses. Common language is needed, good point. There's no agreed upon usage, but here's what I think is most relevant:
those who originally formed the Federal Reserve in 1913 are all dead. There was maybe only one Congress critter who knew what was going on. In 1950 his Son announced in Congress that they will have one world government, whether voluntarily or by force. And there will be nothing you can do about it.
That's their stated goal.
The current owners of the Fed extend way beyond just Rothschilds. Also, IMF & BIS & WEF are part of the cabal, as are central banks around the world. Very few Countries are an exception to this, and Russia is one I'm not sure about.
The original owners of the Fed had owned the AP (Associated Press) long before 1913. In our lifetime we've seen all MSM outlets bought up. I'm not dogmatic about calling this part of the cabal or just DS. Others have said that MSM is the PR wing of the Democrat party, and I won't disagree with that.
This same circle of influence got big pharma rolling by the 1930's.
The CFR was founded in 1921.
ALL of this is part of the same problem! I'm fine with anything anybody wants to call it as long as they recognize they are the common enemy of We the People. D & C (divide and conquer) is one of their main strategies, they hope to keep us from overthrowing these tyrants. What would you like to call them? This is not "just a concept," they need to get dead. There is no political solution.
Right altitude. Enough lift for that much weight?
There will be a fake alien hoax. I doubt they need to use it soon though.
Quercetin goes well with zinc. NAC goes well with antioxidants and a meal high in protein.
I had fraud fillings put in as a kid too. Dad had great insurance; horrible pay, but great insurance. Dentist made work for himself.
And take a protocol, not just Ivermectin. Many available online, most are similar.
Might want to start more than one day in advance, to fight off the spike better.
None of what you're saying is honest. You're either deliberately creating strawmen, a bot, or can't read.
The use of specific balloons in the US is the topic. Not Ukraine or other wars. The overwhelming assumption is that China doesn't want to get into a kinetic, hot war. At least not here. Taiwan maybe, but not now.
Enough thrust to have some control over your route is far different from unlimited LIFT, or enough for any payload you want which is what you started with. Using a balloon in the first place suggests light weight, and that seems to be the case.
None of this should be surprising to you, you're failing the Turing test.
Thrust is a long established feature on a balloon. We don't know if these had it, according to the official narrative that they destroyed everything.
Nothing was launched at whatever we destroyed it with.
I wouldn't think a balloon would be a useful countermeasure, no; you seem to be throwing buzzwords around without purpose. From the beginning.
You persist with a strawman of your own creation.
In fact your whole spiel is dishonest.
Also, clearly it DOES matter what it (they?) were designed to do.
We don't know any of this. You're presenting what seems plausible to you, nothing more. Be honest about it. I merely presented a range of possibilities, including that this could have been a test run.
For a balloon to be an effective delivery system for a bioweapon, which is NOT anything I claimed this was, it should descend a great deal before releasing its payload. Balloons can do that and the weight requirement for this is minimal. Presumably that could be controlled remotely. I expect the ideal altitude for such a purpose is known. Far greater dispersal like this than from a bomb hitting anything solid. Lightweight payload that multiplies is ideally suited to a balloon, which has certain obvious advantages you pretentiously thought you needed to introduce.
That's only one possibility, which could be eliminated by recovering the electronics.
No need to mince your words, you can't write. If you can comprehend, you can't convey that.
You could have an object using part balloon, upper atmosphere, stealth, and part thrust
You skip over lift. That's not something you can skip. If you've got mechanized lift it's not a balloon, it defeats the whole purpose of using a balloon.
There is no blind spot, just a question of recalibrating radar for what they weren't used to picking up.
Who knows what it was doing. Except it shouldn't be doing it. Even as a weather balloon wasn't permitted access.
Obviously it was. From Alaska to off the S Carolina coast. And bioweapons have the problem of concentration. 125,000 feet is enough of a problem, around the world would either dissipate to not a problem at all or a massive error in planning. After turning wuflu loose your idea is hilarious..
Entirely too much attention is paid to hypersonics, the amount of weight isn't practical for a balloon over such long distances, it survives by such high altitudes.
Spying is also a red herring, China is not deficient in satellites.
Bioweapons are light, this is the most likely use. And trial runs are a thing.
EMP going off at the same altitude as the balloon is ideal. Again, it'd need the weight of the warhead, but not a separate delivery system thus making this use slightly more practical.
I don't believe for a minute that all its electronics were destroyed, that would tell what its purpose was. They just don't want us to know.
OP says these same things all the time.
There are real problems with the OP article and stance, but also substance for some of it. As far back as 2005 Putin was consistently telling the world what conditions would cause him to go to war over Ukraine. It was actually worse before he officially invaded, although the rebels in the east wouldn't have been able to do anything without Russian assistance.
That means 4 US administrations could have prevented this war, yet none lifted a finger to stop it. Since there were two Presidents from each party that tells us this comes from higher up than elected Officials.
It's a leap to claim that the goal is "regime change." Typically US does that by military action; we aren't invading Russia. When you talk about weakening either Russia or Putin, you're talking about ending the war militarily, without invading or attacking Russia at all. I don't think that strategy can possibly succeed, but Russia at full strength could make the war more difficult. None of this is surprising.
The article also cites elections as reasons to give Crimea and the Donbas to Russia; that's a very tired argument.