It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi
Do the magnetic particles imply that the venom is in the vax (given the many claiming to see magnetic phenomena after getting the shots)? If the magnetic particles are in the water, a magnetic separator would remove them. Hard UV or heat will denature the protein, so hot beverages should be safe as should water treated by UV.
ETA: I think that just the logistics of large-scale poisoning water supplies with venom would be problematic.
originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: pteridine
I did notice after rona started it was very difficult to find distilled water
originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
Whoa! Gilbert Gottfried just died, according to his family after a "long illness."
Does anybody know what that was?
-----
On a happier note, it appears that Zuck is already looking to cut his losses over CNN+.
I have to wonder if this project was set up to fail, as a way to justify letting CNN go under completely.
Texas Governor @GregAbbott_TX carries out his pledge to transport illegal migrants to Washington, DC. The bus pulled up right in front of the building that houses @FoxNews, @NBCNews and @cspan
originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
a reply to: Charliebrowndog
Cbd, what you mention about Looking Glass is quite possible.
My take, FWIW, is that Looking Glass (or another program name) exist(s/ed), but was not a timeline-gazing piece of futuristic tech. Rather, it is/was a very powerful computer model that used large amounts of data to project the trajectory of developments: social, political, economic, technological, etc.
Possibly, those running the model may have realized that given the data available, variations in the input still produced essentially the same results ("all timelines coming together").
All the above is a guess and nothing more.
Cheers
DEFUND THE FBI!!!
Anonymous ID: hHkrVD7x No.148154137 📁
Nov 5 2017 19:49:15 (EST)
Now is the time to pray.
We're operational.
God bless the United States of America.
Q
Q !xowAT4Z3VQ ID: db01ff No.914461 📁
Apr 5 2018 23:22:15 (EST)
Think Navy Ship crashes.
Bigger than you know.
We ARE active.
Q
Q !!mG7VJxZNCI ID: a17382 No.5930410 📁
Mar 27 2019 19:27:16 (EST)
7f4e49fb67285ed5ef4419641539cc41df6c6d249edd954fc68090b436664262.png
Shall we play another 'Q Proof' game?
Q
originally posted by: Thoughtful1
Rel I am wondering if The Crucifixion link refers to inversion with respect to the plandemic.
People crucified/killed Christ and water/blood was spilled but he made that sacrifice to save us. Now we have inversion where good, as in the medical side, have injected something toxic which is causing death. 100% inversion.
...
The battle lines thus are drawn, but the Court cannot resolve this standoff prior to trial. In United States v. Gaudin, the Supreme Court unanimously held that because materiality is an element of a § 1001 offense, it is a question that generally must be answered by a jury. 515 U.S. 506, 512 (1995). Indeed, all the cases Sussmann cites where courts have found alleged false statements to be immaterial were decided after a trial and on appeal from post-trial motions under Rule 29. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 19 F.4th 248 (3d Cir. 2021); United States v. Litvak, 808 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2015); United States v. Camick, 796 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2015). So, while Sussmann is correct that certain statements might be so peripheral or unimportant to a relevant agency decision or function to be immaterial under § 1001 as matter of law, the Court is unable to make that determination as to this alleged statement before hearing the government’s evidence. Any such decision must therefore wait until trial. See United States v. Cisneros, 26 Supp. 2d 24, 41 (D.D.C. 1998) (declining to decide § 1001 materiality on a pretrial motion to dismiss brought by former HUD Secretary “before the Government has had the opportunity to present its evidence at trial”). Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED
that Defendant’s [39] Motion to Dismiss the Indictment is DENIED.
SO ORDERED
. CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge Date: April 13, 2022
originally posted by: Caled
My biggest issue with this theory is that I've had every variant, and I have well water. That means either you only need brief exposure, or it isn't filtered out when they produce soft drinks. Maybe rainwater?