I provided multiple links to the nuclear weapons fraud.

I provided you a link to an article on CERN. Nothing they wrote is incorrect.

Which means that there’s fraud occurring by multiple governments in collusion just like with the faux pandemic fraud.

There’s no evidence of a collider there, rather, it’s the central data hub for the Global Bio-ID Panopticon, Central Banking, Digital Currency, mass surveillance, data collection, slave grid.

People need to discover the innumerable instances of fraud in science, on their own. I provide more than enough links as a jump off point.

What data? Models? All they have is modelling and some quantum math.

The only fission technology I’m aware of, is “nuclear“ power. The alleged waste produced from plants and spent rods has already been shown to be neither deadly or dangerous by Winsor. Expensive steam plants, off limits to the public. It’s just more racketeering.

That’s where the controllers are headed with the zero carbon emissions, climate change scam.

They will propose nuclear plants everywhere and that’s where the subsidies and racketeering come forth. It’s a racketeering scam to provide ultra expensive, rationed energy and more debt foisted on the public. Where there is a racketeering opportunity you’ll find fraud. The two go hand in hand.

Each person has to do their own research

Why? You could just share the info you have right here. This is about facts not a personal journey of enlightenment.

If I told you, you wouldn’t believe me. You believe in fission and fusion etc.

I will believe anything if the evidence is good enough. I don’t ‘believe’ in fission or fusion. I just understand the prevailing theory based on data. If there’s better evidence that shows fission/fusion don’t happen I’m interested to see it.

Do you question the entire current understanding of particle physics? Unstable isotopes etc?

What of all the technology that relies on fission taking place?

Thanks again R.

Not sure what I think about Gematria really; though there is something tidy and symmetrical about it that I find appealing.

Afraid I don’t seem to have the patience to watch video info. Pity as I have many saved that would repay a watch.

If you are interested in Gematria, check out this channel.

Fission happens every day, yes. It happens in nuclear reactors which are controlled ‘critical mass chain reactions’. It happens in experimental labs.

Fission is the energy source for a nuclear bomb

The Vela incident and its cover up? I smell propaganda. What seems obvious to me is that the nuclear weapons hoax is simply ongoingly perpetuated so they’ll push out this that and the other to keep it going.

There is abundant evidence astronauts landed on the moon. I’m simply baffled at the number of people who think it’s a hoax. I mean I think just about everything else is … but not the moon landings.

For me there is a great distinction between events that are psyops and other events. Psyops have a very distinctive MO where they give you loads of gratuitous clues and never fake anything so well that anyone who believes their story can brandish it in defence of it. There is such a clear MO.

When I first started to look at the moon landings I was all prepared to disbelieve them but when I got to the audio of astronauts speaking with mission control it stopped me dead in my tracks. It sounded so authentic and I couldn’t possibly imagine guys who’d been test pilots sitting in a studio recording hours of what is totally boring unless you were actually there at the time or you’re an absolute Apollo nut. Compare the audio for the faked Collateral Murder used to infiltrate Wikileaks. Immediately you can see the signs of fakery – it’s stitched together bits of genuine audio of soldiers communicating, not a smooth scripted audio which might fool you but genuine bits (or mostly) stitched together which results in 13 call signs – which makes no sense because supposedly the two Apache helicopters weren’t even in communication with Ethan McCord’s ground crew, a massive anomaly of itself.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/wikileaks-controlled-opposition.html

When they hoax us they let us know good and proper. There is at least one hoax connected to the moon landings though – Bill Kaysing, the first person to say we didn’t go. He has psyop fingerprints all over him – gee they had fun with him. So what was Bill’s purpose? Bill’s purpose was to encourage those who tend to disbelieve government into disbelieving the moon landings and thereby undermine themselves (and those of us who recognise their truth) when they call out the real lies – a kind of Boy Who Cried Wolf Effect. Plus, they just like to control everyone’s minds. They don’t want to just control those who’ll easily believe them, they must control the minds of those who don’t believe them and the moon landings were the perfect opportunity because it was one of the rare true things they told us … that also seemed highly unlikely and I will admit, it does seem a kind of miracle. I think it was a case of all the stars aligning.

I’m sorry, Victor, that you think my statement “speaks volumes” about my method because what I see so much evidence of is people being led astray by avoiding focus on the easily-ascertained significant facts while going into territory they are not authoritative in or is not relevant.

The method of Occam’s Razor includes shaving away the unnecessary. If there is sufficient evidence that favours an hypothesis conclusively of an “easily-ascertained-facts” nature then OR says stick with that, don’t go further afield where your knowledge is insufficient to speak authoritatively and avoid areas that really aren’t necessary for whatever reason, eg, we don’t need to concern ourselves with what was going on in WTC-7 before it collapsed – the manner of collapse is really all we need – a controlled demolition and a collapse by fire cannot be confused. All the information they put forward for what was going on inside the building was simply a red herring. Then again, 7’s collapse of itself is a red herring because they didn’t need to bring it down on 9/11 – they did it deliberately to move focus of the anticipated disbelievers of their cockamamie story away from the planes because the planes are far more revealing. The propagandists make it all about the science of the building collapses but the impossible failure of defence is where the focus should really be in my book … and the plane passengers.

Moonhoaxers feel very confident to talk about what’s possible and impossible in rocket travel in space and about all manner of things relating to space which they very obviously do not have a grounding in and they don’t follow the debunking trail and look at all the arguments against the moonhoax hypothesis and test them for validity. To me, the truth that astronauts landed on the moon is very easily ascertained by the clear matching of everything we are shown with the unique lunar conditions. There is an abundance of imagery that perfectly matches the unique conditions and there is no evidence that contradicts the reality of the moon landings only theories about what is and isn’t possible. What is also extremely evident is that the people who say we went to the moon have authoritative knowledge while those who say we don’t do not.

These are my golden rules for ascertaining the truth of something:

— Look at all the easily ascertained facts first and stay with them if they are sufficient to show that the hypothesis they favour is the correct hypothesis and excludes other hypotheses from being correct

— Try to keep your argument to: this FACT favours this hypothesis over that hypothesis because fewer questions and assumptions are raised

— Avoid modal expressions as much as possible in your argument, that is, avoid could (have)/ would (have) /should (have) /must (have) /might /couldn’t /wouldn’t /shouldn’t. Stick to arguing what hypothesis the facts favour, that is, the hypothesis where the fewest questions and assumptions are raised. Using modals tends to produce the logical fallacies, appeal to possibility and argumentum ad speculum (Hypothesis Contrary To Fact).

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Possibility
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Hypothesis-Contrary-to-Fact

The most egregious use of the Hypothesis Contrary to Fact fallacy I think is Chomsky’s, “If the Bush Administration had been responsible for 9/11 they would have chosen Iraqi terrorists.” Firstly, it completely ignores the obvious facts which incriminate the US government and secondly it ignores the seemingly counterintuitive feature of power which is that irrationality works better on us than rationality. The notion that power concerns itself with behaving rationally is completely absurd.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/124952-political-correctness-is-communist-propaganda-writ-small-in-my-study

— Where you are obliged to go into territory you do not have authoritative knowledge of follow the debunking trail. Look at what Expert A says in response to Expert B and then at A’s response to B if there is one. In subjects where we have little knowledge, following the debunking trail can be very helpful in aiding our understanding. So if either you or Sophie can debunk Akio Nakatani’s claim that atomic bombs aren’t possible I’m all ears, Victor, all ears.

— Ensure all the available evidence at least does not contradict or supports and favours your hypothesis over all others. Never ignore pieces of evidence or try to “wave them away”. I give an example where someone pointed out an excess spike in mortality in Europe in April 2020 and asked me to explain it if covid wasn’t responsible. I had no clue how to explain it although I knew there was sufficient evidence to show covid was bogus. I responded that I had no explanation but I’d chew on that data – I didn’t “wave it away” with the explanation that they’d falsified the figures because I somehow felt that even though we’d been massively lied to I just didn’t think they’d falsify the mortality figures – of course, anything’s possible. I’m so glad I didn’t just wave those figures away as “falsified” because two weeks later Dr Sam Bailey came to the rescue with an explanation that showed that the figures were much better explained by aggressive drug trials than the alleged covid, eg, for neighbouring countries, Portugal and Spain, we see no excess spike in Portugal (no aggressive drug trials) while we see a massive excess spike in Spain (aggressive drug trials). When I came back with that information to my questioner do you think it affected his thinking? No, of course not. He had thought he had me snookered and when he realised he didn’t and that, in fact, it was he who was snookered it made no difference to his thinking. So many people not prepared to change their minds according to the evidence. But you’re not one of those people, are you, Victor?

Do you have a set of golden rules for determining the truth, Victor? If so, I’d be most interested to see them.

Main reason was that he wanted to not use US $ in oil transactions. Same with Ghadaffi, he wanted to organise a pan-african currency backed by gold to trade for oil. Both offences punishable by death.
Now, 20 years later, Russia, China, India etc are all dropping the petro dollar and there is nothing Wall St can do about it. Well, they will try, I guess that is the point of this article. Interesting times indeed….

What abou lsrael’s successful quest for the bomb ? The Vela incident and it’s cover up ? And why do you promote the validity of the very obvious moon hoax ?