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.
Why are your sources ok, but those of others are not ok? Do you, or do you not, think the credibility of a source is a valid concern?
Originally posted by XanaX
I never said my sources were okay and others' sources were not. Again you choose to put words in my mouth.
In my educated opinion, AIDS was man-made. You don't have to believe that. You can just realize that it is my opinion based on my research. If you dislike my research, than so be it.
Originally posted by XanaX
They also give strong reason to suspect a case of scientific fraud.
Gosh ZZZ, it looks like the 1959 case of AIDS you describe or that your wife described may have been made up to distract people from the truth. Which is so unusual in our wonderful world. Like Lee Harvey Oswald was used to take our minds off the truth of the JFK assassination. Such things are so unusual in such a free and wonderful country as ours.....
Nice to see someone else is Open-Minded not Close-Minded......and willing to DENY IGNORANCE!
Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
And Sofi, I appreciate the reading but I was not getting to the microbiological relations of AIDs/HIV within the body. It was pointed out as "clear evidence" that AIDs was manufatured and by way of "proof" a 1969 DOD paper was put forward as "easily found evidence". I pointed out that a case of HIV was found before that DOD paper by 10 years (not counting the 5-10 year future statement in the document) and even when confronted by a counter that David Carr's case was invalid...still showed that was a smoke screen defense.
Personally there are theories on both sides...honestly, neither side is proven. IMO the natural progression side has more proof, but that is simply personal opinion.
What you find "antagonistic" is only the fact that you claimed to be able to show conclusive proof easily found on the internet, which you have not done,
She paraphrased and stated so. You said:
So at the core, I do support the hypothesis presented by this thread's author
Population is a political problem. The extreme secrecy surrounding the takeover of nuclear weapons, NASA and the space program and the development of numerous bio-weapons labs is a threat to civil society, especially in the hands of the military and corporations.
The fascist application of all three of these programs can be used to achieve established U.S. government depopulation policy goals, which may eliminate 2 billion of the world’s existing population – through war, famine, disease and any other methods necessary.
Originally posted by XanaX
If she's going to paraphrase:
1. She shouldn't put it in quotes
2. She didn't paraphrase, she said something totally different from what I did. That is not a paraphrase.....
...and colloidal silver.
I have provided the other side of the coin with actual science, nothing of which you could refute...although you tried.
Paraphrase:
1. A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning.