Thank you. For a long time I thought it was me who did not understand chemistry!
A long time ago a former friend who believes the science is settled, was discussing some of these micro-things and I asked her if she could bring me a bucket of H2O. She stared at me without answering Then she started explaining that pure H2O does not exist in nature... so no she could not give me a bucket of pure water...
One of the best articles I have ever read. Contender of the year 8 day's in. Bravo Jamie.
So many hilarious points to pick out but one of the concluding ones was a favourite "The absolute absurdity of the claim that you can see something by waving a needle above it furiously is the most spasticated anti-reality thing this side of the Dark Ages"
Great read, Jamie. I got a good chuckle out of the fuzzy image of the Tinker Toy molecule. Would they honestly think that if they made a true imaging breakthrough that allowed them to see something that hasn’t been seen before that it would look anything like a cartoon that was drawn 50 years ago?
This is the rub. It will always come down to “just what the fuck are we looking at here?”
Once I realized that viruses are bullshit I wondered about chemistry, so I'm glad you validated my suspicions or at least my skepticism.
I'm not denying that if you throw a block of sodium into a pond it blows up real good. I'm not claiming that the mere fact that I don't understand something makes it fake. But I keep asking, "How do they know?" If a chemical bond is said to be "an attraction between atoms," and if the attraction "may be seen as the result of different behaviors of the outermost or valence electrons of atoms," then someone has to answer, "How do they know?" It's foundational to chemistry as a science, so...? Prove it. This stuff has been asserted for hundreds of years, so what's the basis for stating that with confidence? They're not visualizing any of it.
If they just said up front that the language of chemistry is an agreed-upon shorthand to explain interactions between substances and to organize our knowledge of things that can't be directly observed, then fine. But do they say that? Is it even necessary to know? Can people invent better potato chip packaging without invoking covalent or ionic or metallic bonding? I don't know. It's just more stuff that 2020 made me start thinking about.
Medical science (quite the misnomer) has been nothing more than Star Trek presented in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. In other words, it is pretty much invented to fit the mold of what has already been concluded without any science.
For something you can not see or proves exists, you can make any claim you want and invent any conclusion you want. Then, it is up to anyone to say yes...its does exist or no it doesn't. Unfortunately, most of the medical mafia's existence depends on believing in fantasy. It has created a $5 trillion market based in hot air.
Paul Rudd may be the most 'un-jewwy' Jew in Hollywood but Vince Vaughan surely must be the most jewwy non-Jew. Btw I'm a lot like Vince and probably why I'm about the only goy getting invites to Bah Mitzvahs in a tiny town in Oz! Hilarious.
Jamie, I wish you would take up the no nukes issue. It has been written that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were fakes and impossible to produce because nuclear fission produces heat and radiation, not a chemical explosion. Fission is only possible through slowing down neutrons to the point that they have a greater chance of striking the nucleus and causing the chain reaction. You need a nuclear power plant to do this, it can’t be done in a nice tidy little bomb package. I obviously can’t explain what I have read and probably not comprehended well in this comment but I would really like to see you take it on with your approach. Of course all this is related to conventional chemistry so it might be dicey.
Hey Richard, well it is quite difficult to do specific articles on every fraud in science because there are only 24 hrs in a day. For that reason I go for the fundamentals and show that if they cannot work, the rest logically must be flawed. I.e what is a Neutron? How is it verified, show me an image of it. If there is nothing tangible there, then the results of it must be bollocks. Will maybe try and include a short nod to this when writing articles on the topic of chemistry.
The “no nukes” thing is fun. I mean “nuclear fission weapons have not been shown to work”.
I have to admit, I believed civilian nuclear power stations were broadly as described. I saw no necessary conflict and, like everyone else, reasoned that the gigawatts of energy weren’t fake.
After reading Dr Michael Palmers free pdf book, “Hiroshima Revisited”, I recognised the hallmarks of the PsyOp.
So, how do you go about faking a blast equivalent to a 20 kilo ton pile of TNT?
I’ve asked a four year old & a six year old and both knew the answer immediately. You’ve got it already.
Just the photography from the first “nuclear bomb test” location in USA ought to arouse suspicion.
Visitors to Hiroshima shortly after its destruction by an expert who’d toured numerous such destroyed cities was unable to identify anything that distinguished Hiroshima from all the others destroyed by incendiaries. The profile of sickness of those not killed in the firebombing was in accord with mustard gas poisoning, just like in WW1. Obviously there was no nuclear waste problem because they rapidly rebuilt the cities. Surveys in the sediments in the nearby lakebed did recover some radionuclides expected from an atomic bomb but expected quantities were not found & some elements were literally missing, a radionuclide of plutonium, I believe. Later surveys did find the missing plutonium but the dating of the annual mud deposition layers showed that this arrived in the lake after 1945. The fraud just goes on and on.
There’s a guy who once was an explosives & deep sea diving expert. It’s what he used to do for a living. He points out that ALL explosions involve the very rapid elaboration of gases. That’s what explosions are. None of the purported nuclear reactions produce gas as a byproduct.
Steven A Young is a nuclear physicist who describes why atom bombs aren’t a thing even from a theoretical standpoint. He realised in his advanced mathematical detective work that nuclear power stations also could not work. Yet, lots of electricity is produced by them. How? While he doesn’t have a complete answer (or if he did, i didn’t understand it!) he thinks there’s an alchemical reaction going on in the fuel rods involving “yellow cake” (a purified uranium ore, iirc) in the absence of oxygen and this liberates enormous amounts of energy as heat. This is what drives the steam turbines. Not “radioactive decay”.
As is usual in grand deceptions, most people who work in and around the fields of “strategic nuclear defense” & civilian nuclear power have no idea what is happening behind the screens, shell casings, fuel rods etc etc. They will nevertheless fiercely defend their positions. We’re not arguing in the case of civil nuclear energy that they don’t exist. We’re challenging how they work.
9/11 is another PsyOp which relies on people not thinking too hard about what happened. Dr Judy Wood is a kindred spirit though I am nowhere near as smart and courageous. She knew this: not any of the methods we know about to delete those large structures could possibly yield the results we saw, up in the air of the towers or in the rubble pile on the ground. Whatever happened & whoever did it are, in my opinion, secondary to the more important question: HOW were the towers deleted? I don’t know the answer but I do know this: we saw the results of deployment of technology/ies that are kept hidden from us. Why keep it hidden? The most obvious explanation is that the perpetrators intend to use it again.
Recall that we acquire knowledge in two fundamentally different ways. First, there are things you’ve demonstrated empirically yourself. You may be wrong but if so, it’s your error. The second way I describe thus: “Someone told you & you chose to believe it”. Unfortunately, the vast majority of what we think we know for sure belongs to the second category.
Mark Twain said, “Its not what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s the things you absolutely know, that just ain’t so”.
The best part of it is that you don’t have to question nuclear physics, you can use their own paradigm to refute it. No need for something like no viruses so the whole covid thing is moot. You can give them everything and just say show me how nuclear fission produces anything except heat and radiation.
Thanks for the response Jamie. For me the subject would have just been another of those things that are interesting but not a really big deal and good news if true. The problem came when I considered all the ways nuclear weapons have been used to fake out the public and support insane policies that have killed many people. Plus I’m really pissed at all the depressing time I spent thinking about my kids having no future etc( this was back in the ‘80s) until I just gave up on it. Now, as to whether neutrons exist, they exist as a model that is used to predict a material reaction or process, or to explain observed phenomena without being able to actually see it-just like every other damn thing. I trust you to decide what to pursue or not.
Here's just a nano sized quote from within the intricate "mass" of your second link (the preprint one):
"The concept of mass remains profoundly unsettled within contemporary theoretical frameworks, with quantum chromodynamics (QCD), quantum electrodynamics (QED), and general relativity (GR) each conceptualizing "mass" through disparate mathematical and physical approaches. In QCD, hadronic mass (e.g., proyon, neutron, pion) emerges predominantly from non-perturbative dynamics of the strong interaction, while the Higgs mechanism imparts bare masses to quarks via Yukawa couplings...."
I forget who, where, when, but someOne showed Me an image, claiming it to be an atom. It looked like what We see with a cymatic device and sand - waves of energy, not a solid thing.
I don't know what I actually saw, but I suggested that "particles" are standing waves of energy in the aether... Seems a better description of what makes up Our realm here...
In fact, it makes a lot of sense to Me.
Anyway, indeed, The Science™ is anything but truly scientific. Thanks for this look at things!
Ok. I just wanna add that I'm on board with critical thinking but I do believe there are machines that go 'bing' that 'see' things without looking at them. I went to hospital yesterday to have my rather longer nodule on left palm labelled 'Duputreyn's contracture' imaged with....sound. The Ultrasound passed over that which I can feel see and touch (and is gunna screw my piano playing) and 'saw' it. It measured the mass of fibrin or collagen or whatever the hell is fucking up my hand and recorded the image. Was it a cartoon? Dunno but it accurately represented phenomena I know is 'real' (to all the zen Buddhist's and what have you- yes the world may be illusion but I'm working from this mind/body shit fir now ok)
Thnaks for this explanation of another powerful breakthrough in chemistry and microscopy that is bulls--t. There is a book I happened to read years ago that you might find interesting and informative, by philosopher David Kelly, The Eviednce of the Senses.
He traces through how all concepts are formed, from the most tangible and concrete to the most abstract and distant from sensory perception. The base for all conceptualization is 'the evidence of th senses" and concepts are then integraated into a logical hierarchy from the most basic concretes to the most abstract in a consistent logically integrated structure of knowledge.
Thank you. For a long time I thought it was me who did not understand chemistry!
A long time ago a former friend who believes the science is settled, was discussing some of these micro-things and I asked her if she could bring me a bucket of H2O. She stared at me without answering Then she started explaining that pure H2O does not exist in nature... so no she could not give me a bucket of pure water...
One of the best articles I have ever read. Contender of the year 8 day's in. Bravo Jamie.
So many hilarious points to pick out but one of the concluding ones was a favourite "The absolute absurdity of the claim that you can see something by waving a needle above it furiously is the most spasticated anti-reality thing this side of the Dark Ages"
Bullshit baffles brains!
Great read, Jamie. I got a good chuckle out of the fuzzy image of the Tinker Toy molecule. Would they honestly think that if they made a true imaging breakthrough that allowed them to see something that hasn’t been seen before that it would look anything like a cartoon that was drawn 50 years ago?
This is the rub. It will always come down to “just what the fuck are we looking at here?”
Once I realized that viruses are bullshit I wondered about chemistry, so I'm glad you validated my suspicions or at least my skepticism.
I'm not denying that if you throw a block of sodium into a pond it blows up real good. I'm not claiming that the mere fact that I don't understand something makes it fake. But I keep asking, "How do they know?" If a chemical bond is said to be "an attraction between atoms," and if the attraction "may be seen as the result of different behaviors of the outermost or valence electrons of atoms," then someone has to answer, "How do they know?" It's foundational to chemistry as a science, so...? Prove it. This stuff has been asserted for hundreds of years, so what's the basis for stating that with confidence? They're not visualizing any of it.
If they just said up front that the language of chemistry is an agreed-upon shorthand to explain interactions between substances and to organize our knowledge of things that can't be directly observed, then fine. But do they say that? Is it even necessary to know? Can people invent better potato chip packaging without invoking covalent or ionic or metallic bonding? I don't know. It's just more stuff that 2020 made me start thinking about.
Medical science (quite the misnomer) has been nothing more than Star Trek presented in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. In other words, it is pretty much invented to fit the mold of what has already been concluded without any science.
For something you can not see or proves exists, you can make any claim you want and invent any conclusion you want. Then, it is up to anyone to say yes...its does exist or no it doesn't. Unfortunately, most of the medical mafia's existence depends on believing in fantasy. It has created a $5 trillion market based in hot air.
Great post, Jamie 🙌thank you!
All I could think of was that scene from wedding crashes…just the tip, just for a minute, just to see how it feels 🤣🤣🤣
https://youtu.be/WuJzVdIukKI?si=uruvFl7ehYGPw5CP
Fucking hell 😭💀
Paul Rudd may be the most 'un-jewwy' Jew in Hollywood but Vince Vaughan surely must be the most jewwy non-Jew. Btw I'm a lot like Vince and probably why I'm about the only goy getting invites to Bah Mitzvahs in a tiny town in Oz! Hilarious.
Sorry if all that sounded off brand...
Jamie, I wish you would take up the no nukes issue. It has been written that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were fakes and impossible to produce because nuclear fission produces heat and radiation, not a chemical explosion. Fission is only possible through slowing down neutrons to the point that they have a greater chance of striking the nucleus and causing the chain reaction. You need a nuclear power plant to do this, it can’t be done in a nice tidy little bomb package. I obviously can’t explain what I have read and probably not comprehended well in this comment but I would really like to see you take it on with your approach. Of course all this is related to conventional chemistry so it might be dicey.
Hey Richard, well it is quite difficult to do specific articles on every fraud in science because there are only 24 hrs in a day. For that reason I go for the fundamentals and show that if they cannot work, the rest logically must be flawed. I.e what is a Neutron? How is it verified, show me an image of it. If there is nothing tangible there, then the results of it must be bollocks. Will maybe try and include a short nod to this when writing articles on the topic of chemistry.
The “no nukes” thing is fun. I mean “nuclear fission weapons have not been shown to work”.
I have to admit, I believed civilian nuclear power stations were broadly as described. I saw no necessary conflict and, like everyone else, reasoned that the gigawatts of energy weren’t fake.
After reading Dr Michael Palmers free pdf book, “Hiroshima Revisited”, I recognised the hallmarks of the PsyOp.
So, how do you go about faking a blast equivalent to a 20 kilo ton pile of TNT?
I’ve asked a four year old & a six year old and both knew the answer immediately. You’ve got it already.
Just the photography from the first “nuclear bomb test” location in USA ought to arouse suspicion.
Visitors to Hiroshima shortly after its destruction by an expert who’d toured numerous such destroyed cities was unable to identify anything that distinguished Hiroshima from all the others destroyed by incendiaries. The profile of sickness of those not killed in the firebombing was in accord with mustard gas poisoning, just like in WW1. Obviously there was no nuclear waste problem because they rapidly rebuilt the cities. Surveys in the sediments in the nearby lakebed did recover some radionuclides expected from an atomic bomb but expected quantities were not found & some elements were literally missing, a radionuclide of plutonium, I believe. Later surveys did find the missing plutonium but the dating of the annual mud deposition layers showed that this arrived in the lake after 1945. The fraud just goes on and on.
There’s a guy who once was an explosives & deep sea diving expert. It’s what he used to do for a living. He points out that ALL explosions involve the very rapid elaboration of gases. That’s what explosions are. None of the purported nuclear reactions produce gas as a byproduct.
Steven A Young is a nuclear physicist who describes why atom bombs aren’t a thing even from a theoretical standpoint. He realised in his advanced mathematical detective work that nuclear power stations also could not work. Yet, lots of electricity is produced by them. How? While he doesn’t have a complete answer (or if he did, i didn’t understand it!) he thinks there’s an alchemical reaction going on in the fuel rods involving “yellow cake” (a purified uranium ore, iirc) in the absence of oxygen and this liberates enormous amounts of energy as heat. This is what drives the steam turbines. Not “radioactive decay”.
As is usual in grand deceptions, most people who work in and around the fields of “strategic nuclear defense” & civilian nuclear power have no idea what is happening behind the screens, shell casings, fuel rods etc etc. They will nevertheless fiercely defend their positions. We’re not arguing in the case of civil nuclear energy that they don’t exist. We’re challenging how they work.
9/11 is another PsyOp which relies on people not thinking too hard about what happened. Dr Judy Wood is a kindred spirit though I am nowhere near as smart and courageous. She knew this: not any of the methods we know about to delete those large structures could possibly yield the results we saw, up in the air of the towers or in the rubble pile on the ground. Whatever happened & whoever did it are, in my opinion, secondary to the more important question: HOW were the towers deleted? I don’t know the answer but I do know this: we saw the results of deployment of technology/ies that are kept hidden from us. Why keep it hidden? The most obvious explanation is that the perpetrators intend to use it again.
Recall that we acquire knowledge in two fundamentally different ways. First, there are things you’ve demonstrated empirically yourself. You may be wrong but if so, it’s your error. The second way I describe thus: “Someone told you & you chose to believe it”. Unfortunately, the vast majority of what we think we know for sure belongs to the second category.
Mark Twain said, “Its not what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s the things you absolutely know, that just ain’t so”.
The best part of it is that you don’t have to question nuclear physics, you can use their own paradigm to refute it. No need for something like no viruses so the whole covid thing is moot. You can give them everything and just say show me how nuclear fission produces anything except heat and radiation.
Thanks for the response Jamie. For me the subject would have just been another of those things that are interesting but not a really big deal and good news if true. The problem came when I considered all the ways nuclear weapons have been used to fake out the public and support insane policies that have killed many people. Plus I’m really pissed at all the depressing time I spent thinking about my kids having no future etc( this was back in the ‘80s) until I just gave up on it. Now, as to whether neutrons exist, they exist as a model that is used to predict a material reaction or process, or to explain observed phenomena without being able to actually see it-just like every other damn thing. I trust you to decide what to pursue or not.
Thanks for making me think wider.
We're being told what a photon looks like too!... https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/quantum-physics/the-shape-of-light-scientists-reveal-image-of-an-individual-photon-for-1st-time-ever
Speaking of invisible forces, have you ever read this one?...
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202509.1835
Here's just a nano sized quote from within the intricate "mass" of your second link (the preprint one):
"The concept of mass remains profoundly unsettled within contemporary theoretical frameworks, with quantum chromodynamics (QCD), quantum electrodynamics (QED), and general relativity (GR) each conceptualizing "mass" through disparate mathematical and physical approaches. In QCD, hadronic mass (e.g., proyon, neutron, pion) emerges predominantly from non-perturbative dynamics of the strong interaction, while the Higgs mechanism imparts bare masses to quarks via Yukawa couplings...."
Atlas needs help to shrug it off. :-)
I forget who, where, when, but someOne showed Me an image, claiming it to be an atom. It looked like what We see with a cymatic device and sand - waves of energy, not a solid thing.
I don't know what I actually saw, but I suggested that "particles" are standing waves of energy in the aether... Seems a better description of what makes up Our realm here...
In fact, it makes a lot of sense to Me.
Anyway, indeed, The Science™ is anything but truly scientific. Thanks for this look at things!
Ok. I just wanna add that I'm on board with critical thinking but I do believe there are machines that go 'bing' that 'see' things without looking at them. I went to hospital yesterday to have my rather longer nodule on left palm labelled 'Duputreyn's contracture' imaged with....sound. The Ultrasound passed over that which I can feel see and touch (and is gunna screw my piano playing) and 'saw' it. It measured the mass of fibrin or collagen or whatever the hell is fucking up my hand and recorded the image. Was it a cartoon? Dunno but it accurately represented phenomena I know is 'real' (to all the zen Buddhist's and what have you- yes the world may be illusion but I'm working from this mind/body shit fir now ok)
Thnaks for this explanation of another powerful breakthrough in chemistry and microscopy that is bulls--t. There is a book I happened to read years ago that you might find interesting and informative, by philosopher David Kelly, The Eviednce of the Senses.
https://www.betterworldbooks.com/product/detail/the-evidence-of-the-senses-a-realist-theory-of-perception-9780807112687?creative=&curcode=USD&device=c&placement=&shipto=US
He traces through how all concepts are formed, from the most tangible and concrete to the most abstract and distant from sensory perception. The base for all conceptualization is 'the evidence of th senses" and concepts are then integraated into a logical hierarchy from the most basic concretes to the most abstract in a consistent logically integrated structure of knowledge.