Comments

• 

  Drekx Omega November 29, 2021 at 6:48pm

  Roaring said: "This matter may or may not be invisible, but it should cause visible changes in the surroundings. Take the rising helicopter for example, or even a merely hovering one. It must cause a tremendous downwards acceleration of air so that though we don't see the wind itself, we see its effect in the way they blow things up. Likewise since that UFO accelerated upwards near ocean surface. It should have caused alot of waves on the water."
  
  Not necessarily. In fact there was no splash through the water, no displacement of air...The field allows seamless non friction...
• 

  AlternateEarth November 29, 2021 at 6:01pm

  Virologist Alexey Agranovsky: “There is no evidence that (omicron) is more deadly – none at all.”
  https://www.infowars.com/posts/omicron-fails-to-live-up-to-the-hyst...

  

  Omicron Fails to Live Up to the Hysteria

  Doom off.
• 

  judithfaye66 November 29, 2021 at 5:11pm

  Those that follow Telegram will realize this website is always ahead of the game.
• 

  Roaring Lovely November 29, 2021 at 4:55pm

  OK let me explain it this way: for something to accelerate this much, another piece of matter must move in the opposite direction accelerated backwards by a tremendous force. (That is as far as known phyc is concerned).This matter may or may not be invisible, but it should cause visible changes in the surroundings. Take the rising helicopter for example, or even a merely hovering one. It must cause a tremendous downwards acceleration of air so that though we don't see the wind itself, we see its effect in the way they blow things up. Likewise since that UFO accelerated upwards near ocean surface. It should have caused alot of waves on the water.
• 

  Roaring Lovely November 29, 2021 at 4:18pm

  Drekx,
  It looks like something hard to explain with known physics. It is like an action without a reaction force. Let me close exermine it. I will comment on it latter.
• 

  marker dragon November 29, 2021 at 3:05pm

  What does Medicine do (including vaccines)
  1. Masks symptoms
  2. Destroy your immune system
  3. Plant future diseases
  4. Disrupt body alchemy (Chemistry)
  
  What does medicine not do
  1. Cure anything
• 

  Roaring Lovely November 29, 2021 at 2:59pm

  

  To me, theories are only good if they help us UNDERSTAND. They should satisfy the curiosity to understand, not to know. Like I hinted yesterday, we cannot prove scientific theories, no matter how many experiments we perform! We can only prove a consummated event by observation, not an 'always true' type statement about nature. Light bending around the sun is just that: light bending, not 'GR theory'. How sad that theoretical physicists, unable or unwilling to form sensible models, turned scientific theories into dogmas to be believed in rather than models to help us understand the universe.
  
  What should we say when a theory predict something that is latter observed? The only sensible thing we can say is 'we have discovered yet another phenomenon that the theory can explain'. We have not 'proven' the theory! Two contradictory theories can make the same prediction. Math physicist though have perverted logic in order to claim that their dogmas are 'proven'
• 

  Drekx Omega November 29, 2021 at 11:24am

  Following my chat with Roaring about the valid differences between analytical science and theory I wanted to locate another Sirian craft video, seriously examined by truth seekers, among science...
  My last comment/entry on this video blog, shows the Sirian Scout Ship, off the coast of England, in November 2020..
  Feel free to visit my comment, plus video. It came to my attention only recently and was posted recently, also...
  
  https://www.ashtarcommandcrew.net/videos/drekx-omega-sirian-scout-s...

  

  Drekx Omega ~ Sirian Scout Ships Science Behind How They Fly May 7 2015

  http://www.ashtarcommandcrew.net/forum/topics/sirian-scout-ships-the-science-behind-how-they-fly
• 

  Roaring Lovely November 29, 2021 at 11:22am

  

  But scholars realy need not to try to dismiss the possible actual foretelling of the fall of Jerusalem. For then what will they do to the indisputable Zechariah chapter 14? Zechariah clearly talks about a yet another post exilic destruction of Jerusalem and it becomes quite obvious that Jesus and his followers were merely quoting Zechariah. So it was a true prophecy, not a vaticinium ex-eventu! Luke, for instance, was not 'trying to rationalize why Jesus did not come at 70th A.D. He was merely quoting Zechariah 14:3.
  
  Zechariah indeed taught that the 'messiah' will come immediately after the war in Jerusalem. Jesus was fond of quoting Zechariah, eg zech:11:1,10 etc. Jesus preached confidently about 'the comming destruction of Jerusalem' because he believed that it was spoken about by the prophets just as he said: '..in fulfilment of all what was said by prophets'
• 

  Roaring Lovely November 29, 2021 at 11:03am

  

  Early Christians painted the Roman Empire, and especially a certain emperor, as 'the beast' to be soon destroyed by Jesus in his second comming. Now when did the earliest gospel book got writen? They like putting it at around 70th AD merely because Jesus is said to have predicted the first Jewish-Roman war with great accuracy. However, the gospels goes ahead and claim that Jesus would come at around 70th AD giving an headache to those who wanted to date the gospels at periods after 70th AD in an attempt to maket the prophecy a vaticinium ex-dventu.
  
  Since Romans were 'the final enemy', in dead Jesus was expected to appear in 70th AD. But now lets check Jesus's foretelling. He says that an 'abomination that causes desolation' will be set up (by a Roman Emperor). But then he makes a daunting statement: 'spoken of by prophet Daniel', as if Jesus was unaware that this Daniel's prophecy was alluding to Antiochus Ephiphanes. But nevertheless, it further highlights Jesus's foresight of the first Jewish-Roman war. It would be very symmetrical to Hanukkah wars. However, though he saw that it will be a nightmare for the Jews, what he might not have foreseen is that it would not ultimately be like the Hanukkah wars in that a 'messiah' would not follow immediately!
  
  Now the book of Luke seems to try to 'fix' this misunderstanding by talking of some mysterious 'times of gentiles' during which they 'trumble on the holy city'. This indicates, to many scholars, that Luke was writting way after 70th AD and he was here trying to rationalize why Jesus did not come to overthrow the Roman Empire immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem.