Everywhere you look at, pure theoretical physics is dying, as his actors
abandon it in mass, due to the fact that not even scifi can fed them with
new ideas.

Stupid inductive reasoning about imaginary reality like: "IF I pull a coin from
the bag and it'd a penny, THEN, all the coins in the bag MUST BE pennies",
which plagued modern physics since March 1905 is reaching the dead
end in any of the alleys were it tried to go through.

The right kind of physics, based on deductive reasoning supported by
facts is emerging, once again, as the only way to advance physics at any
of his highly departmentalized areas. Most of this areas, dominated by
corporations, are supported by the learning base that technology has to
provide, and are highly dependent of cross-fertilization between many
other branches of science: physics itself, engineering, chemistry,
mathematics and, above all, computer sciences.

Then, applied physics and experimental physics, that generated many of
the advances in the XIX and XX century, are regaining its prestige and
stand as the supreme and only way to find explanations of mysteries of
nature above us and below us.

- Cosmology tried to challenge the basis of the GRAND DESIGN, and have
failed and keep failing even more with the most absurd theories being
proposed. Cosmologists want to, but can't, to see millions of years in
the past, at unreachable distances, and keep disgracing themselves.

- Theoretical quantum physicists tried to challenge the basis of the GRAND
DESIGN by trying to understand what is not allowed for us to see in the
microworld, and after decades of smashing the smallest things to see
what comes out and put the pieces together, they reached the limits of
the reason. There is nothing more to break into pieces in the subatomic
world and there is nothing to be "studied" by accelerating charges as
close as "c" as they can, using monstrous and expensive machines for
nothing. As Heisenberg sentenced, years before his death: "These guys
are trying to understand how a radio works by broken it into pieces,
without knowing how to put together what is left".

Even scify, the food of theoretical physicists, is running out of ideas after
decades of sucking the milk of the "relativity cow". They have left the cow
dead and empty of any liquid substance.

Now is the turn of a new generation: Engineer physicists. Yes, both together,
in a fusion of way of thinking and developing things. And all of this, thanks
to engineering, the most ancient science in the history of civilization.

Preons within quarks, proton decay, dark matter&energy, supersymmetry, black&white holes, fractional "e"
electric charges, etc.

Meanwhile, nobody dares to study the possibility that is the energy stored in accelerated electric charges
what increases its momentum OR that the electric field of such accelerated charges can't draw more
energy of the drivers in accelerators as its velocities approach the speed of light.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> Preons within quarks, proton decay, dark matter&energy, supersymmetry,
> black&white holes, fractional "e"
> electric charges, etc.
>
> Meanwhile, nobody dares to study the possibility that is the energy
> stored in accelerated electric charges
> what increases its momentum OR that the electric field of such
> accelerated charges can't draw more
> energy of the drivers in accelerators as its velocities approach the speed of light.
>

Go right ahead and make a real theory.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 5:33:50 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > Meanwhile, nobody dares to study the possibility that is the energy
> > stored in accelerated electric charges
> > what increases its momentum OR that the electric field of such
> > accelerated charges can't draw more
> > energy of the drivers in accelerators as its velocities approach the speed of light.

> Go right ahead and make a real theory.

Isn't it hate speech?
(I'm kidding)

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 2:58:05 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Preons within quarks, proton decay, dark matter&energy, supersymmetry, black&white holes, fractional "e"
> electric charges, etc.
>
> Meanwhile, nobody dares to study the possibility that is the energy stored in accelerated electric charges
> what increases its momentum OR that the electric field of such accelerated charges can't draw more
> energy of the drivers in accelerators as its velocities approach the speed of light.

That's not even grammatical, and certainly doesn't make sense.

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 12:36:12 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Everywhere you look at, pure theoretical physics is dying,

No one gives a shit about the opinion of the pathetic crank named Richard Hertz.

On 06-Sep-21 5:36 am, Richard Hertz wrote:

>
> Stupid inductive reasoning about imaginary reality like: "IF I pull a coin from
> the bag and it'd a penny, THEN, all the coins in the bag MUST BE pennies",
> which plagued modern physics since March 1905 is reaching the dead
> end in any of the alleys were it tried to go through.

You're the one who seems to want to work with an imagined reality - one
that fits your notion of how things should be.

Notwithstanding the apparent failure of super-symmetry, real theoretical
physics attempts to describe the results of real experiments.

Sylvia.

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 9:25:41 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 2:58:05 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Preons within quarks, proton decay, dark matter&energy, supersymmetry, black&white holes, fractional "e"
> > electric charges, etc.
> >
> > Meanwhile, nobody dares to study the possibility that is the energy stored in accelerated electric charges
> > what increases its momentum OR that the electric field of such accelerated charges can't draw more
> > energy of the drivers in accelerators as its velocities approach the speed of light.
> That's not even grammatical, and certainly doesn't make sense.

I manage English on a grade about 6/10, enough for me to write here. You can rephrase it with your perfect
command of English. For the idea behind, can check what I just wrote at this thread:

"What is the nature of the electric charge "e" of an electron and why it's energy isn't considered in E=mc2"
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/wzXD6jt2aGc

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 10:28:08 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 06-Sep-21 5:36 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> >
> > Stupid inductive reasoning about imaginary reality like: "IF I pull a coin from
> > the bag and it'd a penny, THEN, all the coins in the bag MUST BE pennies",
> > which plagued modern physics since March 1905 is reaching the dead
> > end in any of the alleys were it tried to go through.
> You're the one who seems to want to work with an imagined reality - one
> that fits your notion of how things should be.
>
> Notwithstanding the apparent failure of super-symmetry, real theoretical
> physics attempts to describe the results of real experiments.
>
> Sylvia.

Sylvia, don't take me so seriously. It's easier for an outsider in physics to criticize credences
which are not firmly established yet, even after 50 years.

Take for example the conflict between those who support the SMEP model for particles (quantum world)
and those who support Lambda-CDM model of the universe (cosmology). The last ones claim that SMEP
doesn't verify LCDM requirements and, also, many quantum physicists are moving to cosmology, as they
find the SMEP has been stuck for the last decades.

Also, in between, the raise and fall of String Theory is a sign of the confusion in theoretical physics in this
two particular branches. Nothing to say with other theoretical models of nature, like in biophysics, etc.

I post this article looking for the future in physics:

https://physicsworld.com/a/and-now-for-the-next-20-years/

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 12:58:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Preons within quarks, proton decay, dark matter&energy, supersymmetry, black&white holes, fractional "e"
> electric charges, etc.
>
> Meanwhile, nobody dares to study the possibility that is the energy stored in accelerated electric charges
> what increases its momentum OR that the electric field of such accelerated charges can't draw more
> energy of the drivers in accelerators as its velocities approach the speed of light.

People like you ALWAYS assume that everybody else except them is an idiot. EVERYTHING you say has
been tried every which way in billions of variations. It doesn't work. People are not stupid, get over that.
Progress in physics is more difficult than you think.

Remember what frequently happens when you try to join some forum and all the user name handles you'd
like to use have been taken already? The forum program itself suggests some unintelligible sequence of
letters and digits instead but you don't give up, you keep trying more and more obscure but still TO YOU
reasonably meaningful and easy to remember handles but every time it squeaks back "name taken
already". Even the most "clever" combinations you can think of, involving snippets of Marcel Proust,
Robert Musil, and Marquis de Sade, even most obscure quotes from them - all taken! Have you seen that
happen? I'm sure you have.

Same thing here. It's all been done, whatever you can think of, it's all been done (assuming it's
not nonsense out of the box).

--
Jan

JanPB wrote:

>> Meanwhile, nobody dares to study the possibility that is the energy
>> stored in accelerated electric charges what increases its momentum OR
>> that the electric field of such accelerated charges can't draw more
>> energy of the drivers in accelerators as its velocities approach the
>> speed of light.
>
> People like you ALWAYS assume that everybody else except them is an
> idiot.
> EVERYTHING you say has been tried every which way in billions of
> variations. It doesn't work. People are not stupid, get over that.
> Progress in physics is more difficult than you think.

nonsense. The speed of light is fiction. It's about a resonance delay.

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 4:51:59 PM UTC-4, C6H12O6 wrote:
<snip>

Spam reported.
I incite others to do the same.

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 5:01:59 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 12:58:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Preons within quarks, proton decay, dark matter&energy, supersymmetry, black&white holes, fractional "e"
> > electric charges, etc.
> >
> > Meanwhile, nobody dares to study the possibility that is the energy stored in accelerated electric charges
> > what increases its momentum OR that the electric field of such accelerated charges can't draw more
> > energy of the drivers in accelerators as its velocities approach the speed of light.

> People like you ALWAYS assume that everybody else except them is an idiot..

Not me, Jan. Don't generalize.
I don´t think that most people here is some kind of idiot. Not you, for example.
I have in high regard your knowledge in mathematics and, in a lesser degree, in physics.
I'm not even close to understand mathematics the way you do, as an example.
Or to understand the world of physics the way Tom Roberts does, be sure of this affirmation.
But I can challenge, on equal basis, the views of Moroney, Paul, prokaryotic and others like them.
Why? Because we were, in some way, taught to do technical things with strict regulations in accuracy,
performance, costs, reliability, etc.

> EVERYTHING you say has > been tried every which way in billions of variations. It doesn't work.
> People are not stupid, get over that. Progress in physics is more difficult than you think.

I know that applied physics is complex, because it's similar to what engineering research does. The only
difference is that applied physicists, when developing an instrument or applying one/many to test something
is not concerned by the same "industrial regulations" that engineers are..

Pure theoretical physicists are other quite different breed. Unless they are working within corporations,
with dead lines to accomplish or target results to be provided, they are mostly free from chains of reality
and their only compromise is that their work gain peers acceptance, no matter what abstract be the work.

But they are limited in the range of explorations on any give topic, as I know. Not a single theoretical
is going to work against established base of knowledge, specially if it is decades old. They could challenge
both relativities in their first three or four decades but, once it was absorbed by establishment, it became
something ALMOST written in stone.

For instance, someone willing to challenge E=mc2 after 1945-1950 and propose that it's actually
E= 1.237.mc² would receive a suggestion to drop the subject or be terminated (a cranck, who better
would find a job as high school teacher or run a business).

The same thing may have happened with infinity energy stored in electric fields of elementary particles.
After nuclear physics developments, do you think that such search would be tolerated? That explanations
other than E= mc² would be tolerated and that our world can be modeled under Coulomb's law? That the
energy liberated from the atomic nucleus can be explained under Coulomb and not by the axiom E= mc²?.

I have this example at hand, regarding how the basis of nuclear power was explained to the top 20 or
30 physicists that worked under Oppenheimer in the Manhattan project by Robert Serber. They received a
booklet and a small lecture (both produced by Gerber) about how the energy liberated at U-235 was due
to electrostatic repulsion. The booklet was called "The Los Alamos Primer", and now is very hard to find.
Only one page or two and the memory of Gerber, in 1992 (5 years before his death), when was cleared to
talk about it.

The Los Alamos Primer
The First Lectures on How to Build an Atomic Bomb
by Robert Serber (Author), Richard Rhodes (Introduction)

https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520344174/the-los-alamos-primer

Many years ago, I was able to get a copy for free. Now the book with his memories of those times are
under a pay-wall everywhere. Still you can have a brief glimpse of two pages with handwritten corrections
that Gerber used in 1942 at Los Alamos.

Now, such theory is BURIED, and E=mc² prevails. And don't dare to challenge it or...........

So, Jan, free and cheap energy from electrostatic fields was a subject under study and was taught until WWII.
Then, every single bit of such knowledge was censored and the fairy tail replaced it.

On 9/6/2021 10:56 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

[snip crap]

>
> The Los Alamos Primer
> The First Lectures on How to Build an Atomic Bomb
> by Robert Serber (Author), Richard Rhodes (Introduction)
>
....

>
> Now, such theory is BURIED, and E=mc² prevails. And don't dare to challenge it or...........
>
Available from Amazon. Hardly "BURIED".

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 12:59:02 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

> > Now, such theory is BURIED, and E=mc² prevails. And don't dare to challenge it or...........
> >
> Available from Amazon. Hardly "BURIED".

The THEORY, Moroney! The theory!
You really think that I'm some kind of incoherent retarded, isn't it?

Really, Moroney. You are better than this!

On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 22:01:59 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> People like you ALWAYS assume that everybody else except them is an idiot. EVERYTHING you say has
> been tried every which way in billions of variations. It doesn't work. People are not stupid, get over that.
> Progress in physics is more difficult than you think.

People like you ALWAYS assume that everybody else except them is an idiot. EVERYTHING you say has
been tried every which way in billions of variations. It doesn't work. People are not stupid, get over that.
Your moronic lies won't win.

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 9:15:11 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 12:59:02 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> > > Now, such theory is BURIED, and E=mc² prevails. And don't dare to challenge it or...........
> > >
> > Available from Amazon. Hardly "BURIED".
> The THEORY, Moroney! The theory!
> You really think that I'm some kind of incoherent retarded,

Yep

On 9/7/2021 12:15 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 12:59:02 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>> Now, such theory is BURIED, and E=mc² prevails. And don't dare to challenge it or...........
>>>
>> Available from Amazon. Hardly "BURIED".
>
> The THEORY, Moroney! The theory!

And you gave that "hard to find" book as an example. Took me a few
seconds to find it.

> You really think that I'm some kind of incoherent retarded, isn't it?

Do you really want me to answer that?

> Really, Moroney. You are better than this!
>
Which is why I'm not saying much more than I have...

On Sep 5, 2021 at 3:36:10 PM EDT, "Richard Hertz" <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> Everywhere you look at, pure theoretical physics is dying, as his actors
> abandon it in mass, due to the fact that not even scifi can fed them with
> new ideas.
>
> Stupid inductive reasoning about imaginary reality like: "IF I pull a coin from
> the bag and it'd a penny, THEN, all the coins in the bag MUST BE pennies",
> which plagued modern physics since March 1905 is reaching the dead
> end in any of the alleys were it tried to go through.
>
> The right kind of physics, based on deductive reasoning supported by
> facts is emerging, once again, as the only way to advance physics at any
> of his highly departmentalized areas. Most of this areas, dominated by
> corporations, are supported by the learning base that technology has to
> provide, and are highly dependent of cross-fertilization between many
> other branches of science: physics itself, engineering, chemistry,
> mathematics and, above all, computer sciences.
>
> Then, applied physics and experimental physics, that generated many of
> the advances in the XIX and XX century, are regaining its prestige and
> stand as the supreme and only way to find explanations of mysteries of
> nature above us and below us.
>
> - Cosmology tried to challenge the basis of the GRAND DESIGN, and have
> failed and keep failing even more with the most absurd theories being
> proposed. Cosmologists want to, but can't, to see millions of years in
> the past, at unreachable distances, and keep disgracing themselves.
>
> - Theoretical quantum physicists tried to challenge the basis of the GRAND
> DESIGN by trying to understand what is not allowed for us to see in the
> microworld, and after decades of smashing the smallest things to see
> what comes out and put the pieces together, they reached the limits of
> the reason. There is nothing more to break into pieces in the subatomic
> world and there is nothing to be "studied" by accelerating charges as
> close as "c" as they can, using monstrous and expensive machines for
> nothing. As Heisenberg sentenced, years before his death: "These guys
> are trying to understand how a radio works by broken it into pieces,
> without knowing how to put together what is left".
>
> Even scify, the food of theoretical physicists, is running out of ideas after
> decades of sucking the milk of the "relativity cow". They have left the cow
> dead and empty of any liquid substance.
>
> Now is the turn of a new generation: Engineer physicists. Yes, both together,
> in a fusion of way of thinking and developing things. And all of this, thanks
> to engineering, the most ancient science in the history of civilization.

Induction didn't start in 1905. It actually started before and Newton had four
rules for it.
Newton's Principle: Whatever is true of everything we've seen is true of
everything in the universe.
Without induction we get nowhere.

rotchm wrote:

> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 4:51:59 PM UTC-4, C6H12O6 wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Spam reported.
> I incite others to do the same.

you report "<snip>"?? You stupid cretinoid. That post was above your
level, not intended for uneducated, incompetent, crackpots like you. lol

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 7:56:36 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 5:01:59 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 12:58:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > Preons within quarks, proton decay, dark matter&energy, supersymmetry, black&white holes, fractional "e"
> > > electric charges, etc.
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, nobody dares to study the possibility that is the energy stored in accelerated electric charges
> > > what increases its momentum OR that the electric field of such accelerated charges can't draw more
> > > energy of the drivers in accelerators as its velocities approach the speed of light.
>
>
> > People like you ALWAYS assume that everybody else except them is an idiot.
> Not me, Jan. Don't generalize.

But you DO! That's the point: you most definitely do assume that everyone
from Einstein in 1905 on until today is a moron.

This is the ONLY logical conclusion one can reach when reading your posts.
Even the fact that you never retract the nonsense you post but keep insisting
it's correct, forever replacing one naive claim with another as if it was a
revelation from on high that nobody ever thought of.

> Pure theoretical physicists are other quite different breed. Unless they are working within corporations,
> with dead lines to accomplish or target results to be provided, they are mostly free from chains of reality
> and their only compromise is that their work gain peers acceptance, no matter what abstract be the work.

No. It doesn't work this way at all. The actual criterion is hard to describe but it's basically something
like the "necessity" of a solution or, as Feynman would put it, the "beauty" of a theory. Nobody cares
about peers acceptance unless this directly impacts one's salary or grants somehow (which can
happen, of course).

> But they are limited in the range of explorations on any give topic, as I know. Not a single theoretical
> is going to work against established base of knowledge, specially if it is decades old.

Again, this is false. I don't know how many times I have already told you that there are physicists
currently trying to either overthrow or replace relativity. The first physicist to accomplish this
will get a Nobel just for starters. What IS true is that, for example, a PhD advisor will not recommend
his student to try to make this kind of project his PhD thesis, obviously.

> They could challenge
> both relativities in their first three or four decades but, once it was absorbed by establishment, it became
> something ALMOST written in stone.

It doesn't matter. Part of what scientists do is they constantly challenge things, no matter how well
established. I really don't understand where so many people get this idea of science operating
somehow like it's still the year 1600 or something.

> For instance, someone willing to challenge E=mc2 after 1945-1950 and propose that it's actually
> E= 1.237.mc² would receive a suggestion to drop the subject or be terminated (a cranck, who better
> would find a job as high school teacher or run a business).

All that person has to do is perform the relevant experiment. There is nothing wrong with that.

[etc.]

--
Jan

On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 20:50:16 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 7:56:36 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 5:01:59 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 12:58:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > Preons within quarks, proton decay, dark matter&energy, supersymmetry, black&white holes, fractional "e"
> > > > electric charges, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Meanwhile, nobody dares to study the possibility that is the energy stored in accelerated electric charges
> > > > what increases its momentum OR that the electric field of such accelerated charges can't draw more
> > > > energy of the drivers in accelerators as its velocities approach the speed of light.
> >
> >
> > > People like you ALWAYS assume that everybody else except them is an idiot.
> > Not me, Jan. Don't generalize.
> But you DO! That's the point: you most definitely do assume that everyone
> from Einstein in 1905 on until today is a moron.

Of course we're not sharing your "I'm a GURU!!"
approach. Just you and your fellow cultists, that's
all.

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 3:50:16 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> > > People like you ALWAYS assume that everybody else except them is an idiot.

> > Not me, Jan. Don't generalize.

> But you DO! That's the point: you most definitely do assume that everyone
> from Einstein in 1905 on until today is a moron.

> This is the ONLY logical conclusion one can reach when reading your posts..

<snip>

No, Jan. I don't think that they are morons or anything close to that.

For me, and since the beginning of relativity wave (about 1892, when Lorentz started to
focus on the FitzGerald proposal of length contraction to explain MMX outcome), scientists
like Poincaré started to talk about the need of a new physics (he was contradicting Lord Kelvin).
Poincaré gave lectures about it (i.e. St. Louis, 1904), wrote essays and books like "Science and
Hypothesis", which was devoured by Einstein and his friends at the Olympia Academy, and
anticipated Minkowski (not Einstein) by 8 years.

The rest of the physics community had three choices:

1) Mount the wave, as "early bird" supporters (Voigt, Lorentz, Poincaré, Larmor, Planck, Ehrenfest, etc.)
2) Reject relativity since the start (Michelson, Millikan, Essen, Rutherford, Guillaume, Mach, Wien, Lenard, etc.)
3) Quietly observed how the subject developed, in particular between 1908 and 1919, before
adopting a firm position about relativity (whichever).

After 1920 and until today, thousands of very smart and bright scientists adopted relativity either with fanatic
positions or with mild convictions. Some others, with a similar intellectual caliber, didn't accept it.

Putting fanatics aside (you can't argue with a fanatic of any kind: religion, politic, science, etc.), I believe that what
moves the mild adherents is a quite simple reason: they want to be part of ....., for personal convenience.

Humans lie, are cynic and hypocritical (we all do it, in order to survive this complex world). Mild adherents can
adopt one position or other, but they don't want problems so they live with their "white lie". And they do that
just by using a simple relationship between risks and benefits (watch the finance market, for instance).

Romantic times when people devoted their life to science with religious fervor are gone for a long time.

In this post-WWII world, a crazy and sick world, people (from dumbest to brightest) do whatever they need
to put food on their tables, to have some privileges, to enjoy life and MOSTLY to avoid conflicts in order to
live peacefully.

I don't think that they are like Homer Simpson. There are many studies with gaussian curves for IQ distribution
to prove it otherwise.

I say that most of the adherents to relativity, today, do it for personal gains within the herd.

And this is an undisputed fact in a world where Kardashians or rappers win 100's of millions just
by taking the OTHER people as idiots, not them.

And most scientists, at any branch, are more willing to become a celebrity and earn "free" money, than
live their lives as a secluded monk. Of course, they have to have the right personality to fit in, as not
everyone has the showmanship of Hoyle, Feynman, Sagan, Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson (or Dr. Fauci).

No, Jan. We are the morons, not you or most of who profits with physics (or chemistry, medicine, astronomy, etc.).

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 1:10:01 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> . We are the morons,

You sure are

JanPB wrote:

>> Not me, Jan. Don't generalize.
>
> But you DO! That's the point: you most definitely do assume that
> everyone from Einstein in 1905 on until today is a moron.
> This is the ONLY logical conclusion one can reach when reading your
> posts.
> Even the fact that you never retract the nonsense you post but keep
> insisting it's correct, forever replacing one naive claim with another
> as if it was a revelation from on high that nobody ever thought of.

capitalist fake moon landing nasa, went into the extermination business,
for years now. Proofs:

NASA War Documents Depopulation Deborah Tavares 2025
https://www.bitchute.com/video/wwoMONNx44TK/