Astronomy is fake and gay. What is this, normie reddit?
Bob Lazar is a fed spewing ridiculous disinfo. I wouldn't even give him the benefit of the doubt and call him a clueless patsy. ETs are demons rebranded. They've been with us since day 1.
Crawl back in your hole, shill.
They're from the '69 but the tapes were recorded 20 years later. Here's the book version of the tapes: https://archive.org/details/new_order_of_barbarians/mode/2up
So the less than 1% fringe groups will split the whole nation?
Transhumanism is the religion of the antichrist. It's a complete inversion of God's law. It will ultimately fail.
Things in Eastasia are dire indeed and serpentza is cool. But they have always been and we have bigger problems here.
This is the society that is waiting for us if we let commies take over America.
Can't get more boomer than that. They took over long ago and they're not commies. They transcend the left-right fake dialectic if you haven't noticed. They are as socialist as they're capitalist - they're technocrats who merge the public with the private sector in one centralized global system we call the NWO.
I base my assumptions on available information. I may not have proof for Tucker or the others, but I can prove James O'Keefe is one of them.
The NWO people leave a paper trail. Plus there are insiders who spill the beans like Dr. Day in 1969. 90% of what he talked about back then came to pass. I'd say they're running a tight ship.
Jokes aside, freemasonry is super gay and cringe. That's the biggest hurdle of the whole NWO actually. Their whole worldview is ridiculous and demented. Have you read their writings? Weishaupt, the French Revolution guys, Marx and Engels, Pike, Crowley, Blavatsky, G.B. Shaw, H. G. Wells, J. Huxley, B. Russel, Club of Rome, Klaus... embarrassing stuff.
Tucker interviewed Putin recently who talked about Tucker applying to the CIA. Do you think a man who used his KGB/FSB connections to leverage a position as the most powerful man in Russia would invite the CIA to interview him? I do not. Putin may be a tyrant but he is not a stupid man.
Why not? Given he seems pretty confident in his wit he can deal with a fedboy. But Putin could very well be in on the show too. The cooperation between the soviets and the west was much greater than admitted in mainline history. We've seen Putin playing the coof game - do you believe he wasn't aware of what it was about? Insofar Putin's war appears to play right into the globalists cards - the transition they made from the coof to Ukraine was unbelievable and a war is a perfect backdrop for the mother of all economic crises they caused years ago.
That was nearly five years ago, every day that has passed they've progressively lost more control. What does it mean to suggest the "alt scene" is off? What and when are you comparing it to? I think you are assuming a level of competence that does not exist. Everyone thinks they know what they are doing and believe they are doing it well but that is not the case.
I don't claim to know these things for a fact. I'm speculating but doing so in an informed manner. There's a reason behind my claims and I wouldn't say I overestimate my understanding. I can provide argumentation and sources. The alt scene seems off because it has become too mainstream and too gimmicky. Things get suspicious at that level, because they got famous through msm and social media which we very well know is controlled. Not only that, they continue to thrive on those platforms. People who present a danger to their agenda get suppressed, shut down and sometimes killed. They don't get the Robert Malone or JP treatment.
I put my faith in God and His Church. Everything of this world is fallen and corruptible. It's Satan's playground.
I agree the CIA application thing is not much but it makes absolute sense for tptb to attempt infiltrating their opposition and run it from within. Tucker comes from well-connected circles, he works in media - there's zero chance he wasn't approached and they most likely have dirt on him. This is how the espionage/blackmail game is played on all levels - politics, entertainment, media, science. They can either prop up their own assets or recruit already established names. The question is how successful are they with such psy-ops?
We've seen the level of influence they have during the coof. We know they have control over media and the global financial system through their central banks. I'd say they can pull off a Tucker, a Joe Rogan and a JP. That's my reading and I can't prove it, but looking at it something's off with the alt scene. They seem like the needed anti-thesis to the NWO thesis in this contrived dialectic. Looking at the big picture, it seems inorganic and forced. I also hope they are not compromised and do what they do in good faith, but can't fully trust them. That's the curse of being too popular and influential in our time.
Idiot.... I said you start by proving CONTAGIOUSNESS.... I didn't say you start by assuming a microscopic pathogen that only lives in human cells.
Are you by chance retarded or just a common liar? The study told you they couldn't produce the disease by exposing healthy subjects to symptomatic patients , meaning they couldn't prove contagion, to which you replied:
Okay so now we're just going to pretend that neither of us have ever first hand witnessed a single flu case spread through an entire office, school, or home?
And I logically pointed out this observation tells you nothing of how and why the disease occurs - you're assuming contagiousness but you haven't proven it hence it's begging the thing in question. Are you playing dumb with me running in circles? How are you supposed to do science when you can't do logic?
What proof?! You presented "Koch's Assumptions" and called that proof.
Then you changed the goal posts and said they couldn't get Spanish flu to spread with a citation of "trust me bro".
Lying like a dirty gypsy once more. But why? No one else is reading our little argument. Look back at who brought up Koch in the first place. Then look at what I replied. I've already quoted it a couple comments ago:
Since Koch was fake and gay also, let's put him and his postulates aside. How does one go about proving a hypothesized pathogen caused the symptoms or the disease observed to fulfil the scientific requirement for knowledge?
Then I did provide a source of my citation about the Spanish flu, you disingenuous little bitch. And you refused to comment on it but instead went on deflecting about Koch's fake and gay assumptions (sure I grant you that) as if my argument hinges on them.
I'm done here.
The only thing that matters to me is truth. I have no sacred cows and I'd love to hear some actual arguments being made instead of "everyone criticizing people I like is a fed". I like them too, so what?
What if the reason they talk things we like is to get a following and influence the lolbert/christian/anti-government/conspiratards/alt-right people, dangerous for our democracy? That'd be a great strategy for control, if only the feds could think of it... Sounds almost like operation Mockingbird II and the CIA ran 60's counter-culture movement rehashed (our guru JP even looks kinda like a Tim Leary - they don't even bother to change the main characters). But they can't be doing the same thing they've been doing for decades, right? Isn't it time we wake up and smell the flowers?
I forgot Elon, he's one too.
Okay so now we're just going to pretend that neither of us have ever first hand witnessed a single flu case spread through an entire office, school, or home? We're going to pretend like neither of us have been personally infected in such a way?
You're begging the question. How does witnessing lots of people in close proximity getting sick inform you it's a microscopic contagious pathogen causing the disease and not other environmental factors? Isn't that why experiments to determine mode of transmission are conducted? And yet they couldn't successfully transmit the disease even when using over-the-top methods. Meanwhile we're supposed to believe these viruses are so contagious that we need masks and social distancing to not get infected.
bro I'm so done with these novels. You're clearly not worth my time.
Cope. I'm not surprised at all. You didn't even engage with the proof I presented. You're obviously not good faith and don't care about the truth of the matter but have some sort of an agenda. All you do is ad homs and pearl clutching - much empty talk about "muh science" and no actual scientific evidence presented. At least take the L like a big boy.
are you aware that such trivial and easy experiments with COVID-19, the flu, the common cold, gential herpes, and HIV will not fail?
I just told you they failed with the flu - what makes you think they will not fail with those others viruses? I personally can attest to not getting the flu or covid while being in close contact with people who were sick without having prior infection myself. That's anecdotal and I'm not serving it as proof.
Now reevaluate the truth of that statement without the arbitrary and undefined modifier "normal contact".
are you saying the disease cannot spread to anybody under any circumstances? No, once again you're cherry picking arbitrary criteria again.
"Nobody has proven the cold is contagious.......Over a radio broadcast."
"nobody has ever proven HIV is transmissible..... from a wink and a nod."
"No one has ever proven a virus can infect people.... After being removed from all living cells, and killed on a petrie dish."
Dude, they had people sneezing in the face of the subject and injecting mucous in their veins. How much more definite can one get?
Stop strawmaning - we're talking direct contact between infected and healthy individuals, where droplets, supposedly carrying billions of virions coming into contact with the mucous membrane of the subject failed to produce the disease.
Not culturing, not in vitro experiments but good ol' fashioned sneezing, then injecting mucous and then inoculating mucous on the eyes of the subjects. Nothing happened. Not a single fucking case. Explain that.
Present the studies with the experiments proving viral contagion or stfu.
You first start by devising an experiment that proves contagiousness, which is absolutely trivial and easy to do. You just start by recording the fact that the disease can be transmitted from person to person.
Are you aware that all such trivial and easy experiments during the Spanish flu and later during the polio epidemic failed? They had symptomatic patients in close contact and sneezing multiple times in healthy subjects' faces (who weren't exposed to the disease prior to that) and couldn't get a single person sick. They tried injecting them with mucous and even that failed. Those experiments proved said diseases are not contagious, meaning the contagious pathogen hypothesis goes down the drain. So what now?
From 1933 to present day, virologists have been unable to present any experimental study proving that influenza spreads through normal contact between people. All attempts were met with failure.
What tells you we're "built the same as animals", retard? Do I have to point once again your logic is flawed? Did your dog tell you it has reason? Where was the last time you reasoned with your dog? Do you even know the difference between reason and consciousness?
I know what a soul is in my worldview. I asked what you think it is and what makes you think animal souls are like human souls (if they have one)?
Always has been
This observation doesn't tell you one evolved out of the other or there was a common progenitor unless you presuppose evolution. Both dog and man could have been created by the same creator as they are, who just happens to do legs that way because it makes sense to Him as an author. Just like I'd paint hands in a similar way in all my paintings.
We either ALL have souls, or none of us.
Why? What's a soul and what makes you believe every living being owns one? Humans have reason - does it follow other animals have reason too?
That's a strawman. Darwinism and the evolutionary myth are false and bad for society regardless of what Tucker, Joe or whoever says about them. It's an objective truth. I didn't even know it was discussed by those guys.
Based. Monkey-boy darwinists are seething here.
Do you consider my suspicion unwarranted given Tucker's applying for CIA in the past and Joe's podcast exploding and becoming a pop culture precedent with a huge influence among the younger msm and politically skeptical "red-pilled", "soft conspiracy" demographic? Add Jordon Peterson and you'll have the holy trinity of the intel-ran counterculture movement.
I agree with many things Tucker says and I think he's pretty based but that doesn't mean he can't be propped up as controlled opposition.
Two glowies talking about the deep state. Hilarious.
That 2nd mouse is not a control because the experiment is not performed on it, and therefore it doesn't provide any results to measure against the other group.
Of course it is. The experiment is whether a sample from a healthy animal, lacking the suspected pathogen will give the same result as the sample from the infected animal when cultured. Then he inoculates the healthy animal with the culture from the diseased animal and if we observe the same pathology, then Koch concludes it's the bacteria causing the disease. What other control would you expect? To inoculate another healthy animal with a pure culture? Provided the culture is neutral (and not full of toxic drugs and cancerous cells as in the virus culture they're using) this is redundant.
It's just a graphic showing that he ASSUMES there is no virus present in a healthy animal, which is he himself realized wasn't true, causing him to abandon postulate #1, and also invalidating #3 in the process as well.
Here we go again - Koch didn't work with viruses, but with bacteria he could observe. His experiment doesn't make sense in the case of non-observable pathogens. Bacteria (or rather germs) do exist. Koch never had to prove their existence because he could take a sample from an animal, having symptoms of a disease, and see the germs under a microscope BEFORE culturing it. That's not the case with viruses, and that's why it's existence is dubious.
So then.... Why are you trying to use it as evidence for a completely different claim that it's not even testing?
It's like I'm arguing with a wall. Just try being good faith for a change. Did I appeal to Koch? What I said was:
Since Koch was fake and gay also, let's put him and his postulates aside. How does one go about proving a hypothesized pathogen caused the symptoms or the disease observed to fulfil the scientific requirement for knowledge?
Since we both agree Koch's postulates were not devised for proving the existence of a non-observable pathogen (and are not ideal for proving causation for that matter) stop trying to red-herring me into defending Koch and his fake and gay postulates, and give me a scientifically sound experiment that can be used for that. You're the one arguing viruses exist and cause disease - ok how do you prove that claim?
Shut up, he was fighting the "fascists". Russia's murderous atheist regime was good back then and western "intellectuals" loved it. Now that they're embracing their Christian Orthodox tradition and conservatism, they're evil fascists. Don't spoil my belief in the false left/right dialectic.