I read it was a cloudflare issue but I don't know.
I really can't take you seriously, lol.
Prove it.
Check my links dumb-ass
It has been a topic of research for some geologists for over 100 years.
Check my links dumb-ass
More than you, liar.
Not until you check my links dumb-ass
So what's the difference between you and Ezra Miller?
Dumb-ass.
There is evidence the planet expanded in the past. It has been a topic of research for some geologists for over 100 years. You know absolutely nothing about it. Just the usual bullshit from you.
The 50% number is based on careful examination of rock age on the sea beds, which are all far younger than the rock above sea level on the islands and continents. The rock on the sea bed ages progressively in bands, with the older bands being near the continental coastlines, and the youngest near the center of the oceans. It's deduced that the planet was first composed only of the continents, which all fit together like a puzzle, but only on a sphere that is 50% smaller than the current earth. The extra surface area on the modern earth is all the ocean beds. In the past this has been incorrectly interpreted as "continental drift" - but they are not drifting, the surface area of the planet became greater, the origin points of new mass being the center of our current oceans, and moved them apart and away from each other. Here's good video summing up some of this, and there is also an excellent book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Othb0xsvZb4
https://www.expansiontectonics.com/wpPDF/ExpansionTectonicsHandout0915.pdf
I think the confusion arises because the Earth is bigger than they say it is. Because they refuse to acknowledge the expanding nature of the planet. My two cents; the planet, it's obviously somewhat spherical, but it's the mass/volume that is at issue. The accepted model has the earth as a fixed mass throughout it's life time. This is going to fuck up all measurements and "ancestral" observations because the planet gradually expanded in size. It was 50% smaller at it's earliest. If you ignore that, then a greater expanse of land would visually appear to be flat where you would expect to notice a curve, and contrary to whatever internet calculators people are using.
I watched some stuff about Aubrey de Grey some years ago, but given what I've discovered since then about psuedoscience like neuro-science, DNA sequencing, the delusion and misconception of microbiology and the like; the corruption of science in general: I reckon he's either delusional or a con man. Death has already been greatly delayed as regards life expectancy. I guess we'll know what upper limit is capable with unlimited funds when we see how old Queen Elizabeth is when she dies (if not already dead), or Rothschild.
However there are stories, and I reckon they have some degree of truth, of old monks who practiced taichi, yoga, qigong and whatnot, living to be 120 or older, and being agile till their last day. and of course there are legends of people living to be hundreds of years old in various ancient texts. It makes me wonder if it's not a case of our modern understanding not living up to what appears to be lost knowledge / wisdom from older civilizations.
I believe this to be the case. There are various proof videos I've seen over the years, not just this one.
I already had a couple beers already so here's my unfiltered thoughts:
I really don't know. My own idea / feeling is that some "elites" have come to realize that there are certain human limitations that they can never hope to even pay to overcome - death and space travel are two major examples, though some may dispute the space travel one.
At the same time they are realizing this (generationally perhaps), they see that the standard of living for everyday plebs has been creeping upwards for decades... almost 2 centuries. It must disturb some of them that they can't gain access to the things they want, things that they would perceive as surpassing the ordinary existence (and they can probably think of things far crazier than I'm able to) and which would make them more special than other humans, such as immortality and proper space travel, (again, just for example);
whereas the "plebs" gain more and more, relatively in their own lives, every year; they live longer and longer, have better and better food etc. access to better tech - again relatively, which is important, because satisfaction is relative, which must make "elites" seethe.
I imagine some of these "elite" would actively seek to make life worse for people in general, based on this perceived discrepancy of progress between their own lives and the lives of ordinary people. This may be conscious or sub-conscious, but I imagine it drives them in some way. There definitely seems to be a desire to have society return to a more feudal state, albeit a modern, technocratic, one.
Watch the documentary "cancer: the forbidden cures" it's on YouTube. Search for "Essiac" which is probably the most immediate, accessable of the potential cures covered by that film.
The books were digitized independently by British man John Wantling, a victim of mercury amalgam poisoning, using the Manchester Library
http://whale.to/a/wantling_h.html
It's easy to suppress older, non-narrative conforming information these days by simply not including such materials in official digitization efforts. The largest digitization of old books effort in the world is literally run by google, a company heavily invested in vaccines; so you could well expect never to find these books included in their efforts.
I see nothing has changed with you.
How do I see what your deleted comment says?
I didn't delete any comment.
Another suggestion: The Great Global Warming Swindle - that was actually shown on British television in 2007 - the wikipedia page for it is full of reeee and seething, lol.
My suggestion is series of videos on the topic of nuclear weapons being a hoax (quotes under each link are by the film maker, Unpopular Opinion) :
No, nuclear weapons aren't real. I know, i know, you think it's ridiculous on the face of it.
Here's a nice video from the 50's showcasing an atomic bomb detonation. They had to fake everything and show a load of gibberish because they didn't have anything real to show you. Quite obvious in retrospect. Fake town being destroyed = no actual detonation + soldiers deployed way too close to ground zero with no casualties = no atomic detonation.
Following on from the previous video, here I look at the Trinity bomb test of 1945.
Continuing the nuclear hoax analysis, we move onto the inadequacies of the gun type fission bomb design and an overview of American firebombing of Japan.
Continuing the Atomic Hoax analysis, we look at Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
A continuation of my series on "Nuclear Weapons are fictional" - this looks at the Operation Crossroads Bikini Atoll tests by the US and the Soviet and UK nuclear bomb projects post-WW2. Contains sarcasm and the comical farce of international superpowers caught blatantly lying.
Final video in the "nukes are fake" series, we look at the bandwagon jumpers of France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Prepare for some truly awful state propaganda.
Makes me think of a sites like reddit or twitter where admin have access to many more years of data - he put this bot together quite easily and it fooled the majority of anons.
6 / 6 / 6 (2+0+2+2)
There was a study testing these self serve touch screens in fast-food joints for the presence of fecal matter - and the amount was sky-high. Who knew so many people had poopy fingers, and that forcing them all to touch the same surface would accumulate that... shit.
I see from looking at the comments under this, and the separated three parts on his channel, that he got a lot of undue flak for this from moon-hoaxers. It makes me wonder if the idea of the challenger astronauts being alive is not actually doing damage to NASA critics. Is it pushed artificially? We know from the Apollo missions, that NASA and it's supporters are not beyond killing innocent people in service to and to perpetuate their hoaxes. Were the challenger astronauts killed for similar ends?
2001 was the actual first year of the new millenium, the 21st century. 2000 was the last year of the 20th century. That's why Arthur C. Clarke chose it, I read somewhere, but can't remember where.
From this 4chan thread:
I'm not sure regenerate is the word should be used - oil wells, that were thought to be depleted, refilled. The implication being the oil seeps or upwells into those wells (accessible to us) from deeper within the earth; like it's oozing out of the mantle, contrary to it coming from bio-matter that came from the surface and was compacted and liquefied. Also implying there is far more of it than we believe and perhaps it goes on being made through some as yet unknown physical process.
The interactive map:
https://www.zeemaps.com/view?group=4410859&x=-89.849631&y=44.059004&z=14