Here proof. It isn't only there, known for a long time, the stories and legends are true. But hasn't been incorporated into the narrative. Because it undermines the paradigm's bullshit verison of it.
This is directly proving they emerged back up after surviving underground from an extinction level event.
No it doesn't prove Hollow Earth.
Absolutely. Not fun. I stopped watching Sports completely boycotting them after the COVID hypocrisy where they played to empty stadiums. Everybody else lockdown, and furloughed. Somehow watching them was so essential? No. Disgusting.
Winter Olympics no point unless you ski or icehockey etc. That proportion of the Planet is, not watching a Jamaican bobsled team. Do Jamaicans swim? They run, best at it, sprinting. But there they are creating this other national sport for assholes. It sums up the Winter Olympics.
Olympics have become retarded. It's no different to what we've seen from everybody else. They'll grant citizenship to anybody who plays sports for them. The sports they play aren't even national.
Winter Olympics are ridiculous for most of the planet, exclusively non national. But every nation needs a team if you import them.
The same thing was happening there anyway, it was occurring to the other shoe historically, if it wasn't one it was the other.
But you're arguing against sectarian violence. Hey Karen, how is the rest of Islam working out for you? But surely it's all Israel's fault, Karen?
Haha, welp, aw shucks Karen, you're still trying to convert me to a failed argument.
Palestine was a territory under former provinical governance, it has always been a territory, but suddenly you're claiming it is some other country? And it is because you want to rule Israel. How is that working for you Chuck? Suddenly you want to give Swaziland back to South Africa, or did you want to give Israel back to Islam?
Studies, you won't find on legacy media. But instead have to use common sense to find.
Read my replies. So you deforested, contrary to the narrative, producing and growing agriculture, after resource heavy production you turned crops into biofuel which you're now burning. But with fossil fuel the planet had already recycled it, converting plant and animal matter into a fossil fuel after refining is burnt as fuel. OK the toxicity is an issue which is cleaner. But which common sense is emitting more. Which is costing more? What is more efficient?
The toxicity is highly questionable once considering the other factors. The fact becomes biofuel hasn't done anything else. But there is some recycling of waste being burnt anyway. Not once, or twice, but remarkably more.
No. Sorry. Nobody outside of conjecture can lay much fact on what happened 1-10 billion years ago. They can't even tell me what happened 10k years ago.
But ok, perhaps the geology has identified more carbon in the ground table, and the poles were different, having vegetation.
It is not an argument for quick let's just melt the poles why don't we. Because according to the conjecture we had a different climate then, so let's change ours, now.
But I have agreed, increased carbon can increase vegetation. Trees thrive on it, giving us oxygen in return. Not quite today, when the planet is producing far more carbon than we do, and it is causing an increase in temperature. It is becoming increasingly problematic because we have populated everywhere and are feeling the effects far more.
No, because we haven't got the forest cover. If we had the forest cover it would mitigate absorbing the increased carbon instead of causing increasing warming.
Where there are smaller vegetation blooms due to the increased carbon. But they're not mitigating the carbon increase. The carbon increase at this point is increasingly planetary instead of man made. Natural release like the permafrost melting, natural disaster, oceans warming, the Amazon. We have simply exasperated it due to our habitats. Where we are warming rapidly.
We haven't got the forest cover because of our habitats, agriculture, urbanisation, and resource extraction and production. Forests take a long time to grow before they reduce carbons. Without mitigation our forests are simply increasing the carbon cycle. The fires, even the Amazon is causing increasing carbon now.
I made mistake in earlier replies on biodiesel. Where there was the partial confusion. Because I simply associated Biofuel as Biodiesel when comparing density with diesel. Biodiesel is thicker than diesel. Other Biofuels are different.
Crops require, deforestation, resources to grow and produce, they are completely fallible, but then are converted into fuel to burn. It defeats the very point of a push to use biofuels, lessening emissions.
How is your proposal more efficient at reducing less carbons and creating less pollution? Destroy the planet. Then we can get free gas like on Venus. I swear that's what happens if you burnt all our fossil fuels. First we got dig them all up.
Biofuels are literally another con. A badge for do-gooders who think they solved jackshit. Instead of paying another guy more. Despite of hypocritically recycling some waste, but in that cycle, they emit far more than their fossil fuel counterparts. The debate moves into toxicity, pollution. Reducing it, is foremost. I am not convinced by them. Like in the past Amazon example. Peak their demand now grow even more crops to use.
No they literally need engine conversions unless they're the standard of engine. There is biobutanol = butane gas, it needs no conversion to run in butane engines. These are different engines?
Yes they're different engines. Not the point on if Biofuel is dense and often needs special conversions to run.
Ethanol isn't very efficient, requiring and here's that profit, twice as much, by comparison, and neither are other Biofuels by every comparison, not naming all of them. Ethanol = gasoline, biodiesel = diesel. Biodiesel is far more corrosive, thicker/denser, kills your car even quicker but belief it is less toxic, and it is also less efficent. After factoring in the burn factor. It is more toxic. You deforested growing crops, and made waste for fuel. The planet already made it, with fossil fuels. Despite of any other slicks.
Diesel is denser than unleaded, unleaded than rocket fuel. Biofuel is denser than diesel. Emiting more than its counterpart even with the catalytic convertors.
German, UK buses running on biofuel, because diesel was outlawed, are buying sugar cane, soy, maize from Brazil to convert into biofuel. Okay but to grow stuff, you deforest first, turning woodland scrubland marshland peatland into farmland. Farmland needed to grow ethanol, etc, not naming them all, based crops for biofuel, now that the demand has peaked by the mind control. It is then converted into biofuel and burnt in your engine. Or likewise, worse, if it converted the fat from your fryer. You done the above, growing stuff consuming it, cooking it, then took waste made it into fuel and burn burn burn more than any fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are already recycled the planet did that, they come from decayed plant and animal matter, yes also refined. It is much less than biofuel by every comparison. Except you got your idiot badge from the Greta scouts, use ethanol. So renewable. Burn burn burn.
Every time there's the huge forest fires, the carbon released into the atmosphere is often far more than our man made equivalents. Yes they are also natural and some have good affects. Burn it, it grows back stronger. Fertile soil. But not today. Too many negative affects from our man made habitats counter balance the natural cycle. Deforestation specifically, a lack of forest cover absorbing it, and instead causing temperature to steadily increase. Whether or not, we have no control over an inevitable planetary cycle occurring regardless, also due to many other factors occuring in the cosmos like the sun and planetary alignment.
Yawn, that's mind control.
Real simple Chuck. Biofuel is more dense than diesel after conversion.
What are you converting, not the Amazon, surely? Growing stuff to burn like another forest fire? Except you done that how many times. First you felled the Amazon, then you grew fields of crops requiring resources, transporting them to a refinery converting it. Then you burnt it again. About 3 to 5 times more.
What about if you cooked it first?
Biofuel, is far more emitting than fossil fuel.
Which are you using. So you grown stuff, turned it into food, or fuel. You consumed food, creating waste, emissions, then you're using a toxic fuel. You haven't recycled, you've wasted, it is causing far more emissions. You are burning waste. Fossil Fuel was acquired off of recycled plants and animal matter, it came out of the ground. The planet produced it, with some added refining.
In every single comparison biofuel emits far more than fossil fuels. But at least you incinerated your trash, not once, not twice, but about 3 to 5 times more.
So in Clown World. Uk and German buses operating on biofuels are deforestating the Amazon, buying Brazilian sugar cane, soy to make biofuel for their stupid buses. Some narrative. How about the potato, or fat fryer, fat? What about woodchips compared to coal?
Those cars aren't green. There's almost nothing green about consuming more electricity. In fact it is so contrary to nature, it is diabolical.
The problem becomes increasing EMR. How many pigeons, OK pests, or wildlife, are you seeing today? Since the pylons of 5g all going up on the horizon of every major building. Do you see pigeons? There are some but prior you'd see a bird on the horizon almost everywhere. Where? The cars are silent and are far more deadly to wildlife. They accelerate much quicker. I use 5g, the medium or faster that is needed for them.
EVs, like your TV, phone, are they repaired or replaced? What is the lifetime of electrics? Far less than anything you could previously repair. Who repairs the parts. Nobody they put a replacement in. The battery lasts about 7 years. It like the rest of electrics, today, is replaced like a TV or phone for the next model. Ewaste is one of the most toxic substances on the planet. It doesn't recycle easily. Full of plastics, acids, toxic metals, synthetic materials. These cars are far more resource heavy, requiring increasing resources and infrastructure to operate use and run. They cost far more. They haven't eliminated fossil fuels when they're made out of fossil fuels.
What happens next protest. You comply or die. They can turn them off. Somebody else can remotely disable and hack your vehicle. What happens in extreme weather, they fail by comparison. Electricity suffers worst and it is hit the first in any extreme weather.
If everybody buys a new EV, how many more resources have been used? Decades, more than the existing means. It will take decades before their immediate emissions defect balances over the existing means. It is quite speculatory because of another model, like any other electric with diminishing lifetime replacing even quicker, the parts on maintenance being replaced instead of repaired.
They have nothing to do with anything else except exploiting profit by forcing demand. By control, single source, electricity, automation. Same source fitting you with an ankle bracelet. Your car will be immediately tracked, it has become a beacon. It is on the grid, it has logged into the grid for electricity. Electricity you don't stock, yourself, and pay through the nose constantly inflating to have somebody else retain their control over you. Sure you could set up a football field full of panels to stock your own electricity. How does that work? Above.
My sides. Shots reduce heart attacks. Pure snake oil. Get yer magic elixir, it cures everything, everything from snake bite to coughs. Just like all those other faith healers, believe in miracles. Pay for another shot, and it contains the magic remedy, because the formula is fool's gold.
Yes the documentary showed former, and modern, suggesting how the city transitioned to both while keeping its Soviet era style. Yes traffic a big issue, seen it in others. But the metro, pristine, one of the highest, if not the best rated in the World.
Thank you for the info and the conversation.
The point I was making is a subtle one, regarding the Hegelian dialectic; two sides, but the same coin, what often matters is that coin.
Hence investment, sky rocketing costs, the predicaments, plandemic, and opportunity's generated. This is a global phenomenon, increasing with uncertainty. Where a reset is seemingly occurring, prompted, and even forced.
It is a good series of docs, very good, worth their watch, largely for Europe, and the other countries shown. But rightfully it doesn't scratch the surface, it's just an overview. Showing wildlife, geography, urbanisation, landmarks, heritage, and older relics, like castles, monasteries etc. It doesn't interview opinions or show another side, outside of its narrative. But I was entertained as in I am series linking it.
The documentary I watched on Discovery. It released recently last year, but filming is out by a year or so. Is a series of Docs, where it went around the country's. Places in Europe, Russia, perhaps even in Asia. Called Europe from Above. Or the doc was, Russia from Above, it had multiple episodes there were at least 3. But the Moscow edition, referenced as fact, can sue if not. Showing the city. All those brand new skyscrapers which caused a Navalny protest. Remember cost of living in Moscow. Few years ago. But in it, the reference of the most out of any other city on the planet as residence are Billionaires.
Billionaires move about, but many have permanent base, or residence outside of summer and seasonal homes and a jet-set schedule.
Who controls them when it's Russia? See how that has worked.
Look it up. I don't get facts wrong. It has the largest global collection of billionaires out of any city in the World as its residence. This is current. Or I am gonna sue the latest documentary, Russia from above just released last year. Investment you dumb Russian have you been to Moscow. Look at it. Today.
So who do they deal with. But it didn't fit your narrative even after the facts. Even though it confirmed your proposed conspiracy.
Absolutely. There are legends of a deeper inner Earth in South America.
But the basis behind some of it is found in the Tayos cave system linked, it runs according to their beliefs across South America. Or potentially for 100s of km. At least on some of the current exploration potentially linking Ecuador and Peru. On reading the first linked notes of origin, any artifacts came from a pyramid underground which is seemingly suggested on some of the metal tablets. It supposedly hasn't been discovered yet. But the items are of unknown origin as in the writing on much of them remains undeciphered. There is also the muddled mention of giants linking into its lore.
How and why it hasn't hit the mainstream, despite celebrity attention presidents, astronauts. Come on. Why is it still fringe, conspiracy. It undermines the narrative.