SOMETHING BIG IS COMING! MASSIVE CLUSTERS OF GIANT OCEAN WAVES BEING SPOTTED ON RADARS! | REBEL CALL
IS IT STRANGE THAT A "PORTAL" JUST APPEARED CONNECTING NYC TO DUBLIN AS CERN TRYS TO OPEN ONE
Are T.H.E.Y. trying to escape using a portal?
Rev. 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out to the Earth, and his angels (you - Luke 9:55) were cast out with him (Matthew 25:41). King of kings' Bible - Revelation
THE VATICAN DOCUMENT ON DISCERNING SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA THIS THURSDAY
A Vatican press conference this Thursday will provide guidelines for apparitions and other supernatural phenomena.
We Stood on Both Sides of the New York–Dublin Portal and It Was Glorious
Hundreds of people and two WIRED reporters gathered at the Portal, which is open again after being closed due to “inappropriate behavior.”
The video portal connecting New York to Dublin has reopened, after bad behavior on both sides forced it to close for four days.
The Portal, which initially opened on May 8 to tens of thousands of visitors, was intended to be a “bridge that unifies and an invitation to rise above prejudices and disagreements,” according to its organizers.
But like everything involving technology these days, almost immediately things went to shit. Irish Portal users played New York crowds footage from 9/11 on their phones, New Yorkers waved potatoes in response. People did drugs, other people decided to expose themselves. Inevitably, the whole thing got shut down on May 14.
Two WIRED reporters went to the freshly reopened Portal on Tuesday—David Gilbert in Dublin, Amanda Hoover in New York. Instead of seeing each other over Zoom, they waved at each other silently across a different, giant screen that beamed them across the Atlantic.
The first 4 minutes consists of very naively or dishonestly cherry picked "proof".
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. If you agree with what I've just written, then you would agree that others are entitled to theirs. That is the case with the video as well. Beginning with the eclipse on April 8th, I did not doubt it as a real occurrence and posted numerous videos and articles ahead of the event, UNTIL, on April 8 whilst watching it on the t.v. (MSM), I realized that either the eclipse was fake and/or the news presentation was fake. It looked totally staged. You'll have to take my word on this matter as I do not have a clip to present to you. Upon seeing that fake media report, I began to question the reality of the eclipse. It may not have been real.
No, I don't believe it's just an opinion but something that can be proven by listening to the video (4 first minutes) and verifying that what he is saying is either the truth mainly by comparing what he is saying with the source material which he is citing. Do you agree with this, please?
0:29 ...Government operations that they pretend they don't have documented, like project Bluebeam .These are things that you can find out are documented...[then he bunches this together with other things like HAARP, weather modification]
I don't believe there's ever been shown a document by them about Project Bluebeam. I believe there's not much more than the original report by Serge Monast and then the rest is referring to him.
0:42 There's patents for these things.
Like I explained in another thread; Even though something might be patented doesn't mean that it works or that it is in use so it's not a very strong piece of evidence.
1:00 Quite clear that it was an artificial eclipse.
No it was not. It is not hard to track the moon using various software simulations or by hand with paper and pen and your own eyes and verify that the eclipse was real. For someone who does this often claiming that an eclipse was artificial is RIDICULOUS.
Have you ever used Stellarium?
The hurdles involved in the creation of an artificial are eclipse are, in my view, insurpassable
1:09
Here he's building up a straw man which is something like: "the simple sheeple who believes in the media and looks up when they tell you and doesn't verify the orbit of the moon." This is not true. There are plenty of people all over the world who actively look at, track, document the stars, planets and the moon.
1:25 A simulation happening..
Why would one jump to the conclusion that they have technology capable of somehow faking an eclipse using some kind of "simulation".
Would it be a wise thing to outline some of the specifications on what faking a solar eclipse would have to entail? (Could it be done by human beings in the year 1920? 1980? 2000? 2024? Why not for what years and why for some reason? What technologies would be used?
Where was the eclipse seen? How big an area is that? Can it be verified? Did people you know see it around the country? What would be needed to block out the sun with something in an area this large? etc etc
What is meant by the word simulation in this case?
1:35 We weren't supposed to get an eclipse in 2024, how did that happen
This needs a source, otherwise we would just have to trust him on it, and why would one trust a strange person just like that?
1:46 An article that says "Europe's Proba-3 mission will create an 'artificial eclipse' to the study sun's corona". Without first looking at the article we can see that the creator of the video neglects to inform us of a detail in the title that cannot be ignored. Can you spot it? It's that 'artificial eclipse' is surrounded by '' marks, which I believe implies that it's not really in the same scope of a real eclipse. Let's see what the article says.....
Much like the moon passes in front of the sun during a solar eclipse, the two satellites — an occulter and a specialized instrument called a coronagraph — will mimic a natural solar eclipse by lining up 144 meters (472 feet) apart, such that the former blocks out the sun's glaring disk for the latter.
2:22 They're admitting that they have the ability to create an artificial eclipse, OK?
No they are not.
It's just one satellite blocking out the sun for another satellite.
Did the video creator not read the article? Did you?
2:30 The next topic is that they have the ability to create an artificial sun
Article title:-
"Artificial sun" sets record for time at 100 million degrees in latest advance for nuclear fusion.
Did we learn anything from the previous item and can see where this is going, please?
Them having been able to someonehow with fusion create temperatures hotter than the sun doesn't really mean that they've created an artificial sun, does it? I'm not expert enough to say how close the processes are. Let's ask Chatgpt 4o
The term "artificial sun" used in reference to nuclear fusion reactors, such as those in South Korea and China, is somewhat of a metaphorical expression rather than a literal one. These reactors aim to replicate the same fundamental nuclear processes that power the sun, which involves fusing atomic nuclei to release energy.
In the sun, nuclear fusion occurs naturally under immense pressure and high temperatures at its core, around 15 million degrees Celsius. On Earth, fusion reactors like the Korea Superconducting Tokamak Advanced Research (KSTAR) and China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) attempt to recreate these conditions by using magnetic fields to confine plasma at temperatures significantly higher than those in the sun's core — up to 100 million degrees Celsius or more>【10†source】【11†source】【12†source】.
However, despite these similarities, there are also significant differences. The sun's fusion process is sustained by its gravitational pressure, which is not replicable on Earth. Instead, reactors use magnetic confinement to maintain the high temperatures and pressure necessary for fusion. Moreover, achieving and maintaining these extreme conditions in a controlled manner on Earth is highly challenging and still under experimental stages.
The "artificial sun" analogy is therefore used to highlight the ambition and the nature of the fusion process rather than to imply that these reactors replicate the sun in all aspects【13†source】. The term effectively communicates the potential of fusion reactors to provide a nearly limitless and clean energy source, akin to the sun's role in our solar system.
3:04: [artificial sun] We've seen simulations go up in China.
I've seen this before and believe that he's seen articles about China creating an artificial sun and not understood that it's a metaphore. Then he's also seen a video of a rocket launching into space with such lighting settings that the rocket isn't visible, only the fire coming out of the rocket and appearing as a ball. Lens flare, IIRC. I've seen this video but can't seem to locate it now.
I'm going to stop or pause here since it's becoming a bit long. IIRC the next part about HAARP creating Northern Lights is again the same case as above. He's misunderstanding and has not read + understood the article.
Does it appear that way to you, and if so, how and why, please? I've shown myself using it from time to time, yes mainly I strive to use the vast "I" (Intelligence) and databanks explained in twh.pdf 
It strikes like an adder and squeezes like a constrictor anyone wishing to fight it with emotion.
You have been repeating that ever since I took your side in an argument by presenting to you that rude fellow from No Bots Allowed who stated the same in his video. I cannot locate my post to you in regards to that to confirm/show you, but it is somewhere here on the forum. Basically, the argument was (and we were in agreement) that there is no evidence or direct correlation between nano tech in a human body and someone remotely controlling that human body with a push of a button. Jeff, from his No Bots Allowed channel referred to a patent, but emphasized that the patent was not proof that it was actually happening. To make a blanket statement using that patent argument to suit your "opinion" on a matter is not correct either. We are talking about secret agendas, and the very fact that there IS a patent is telling within itself. So, pooh -poohing it is not appropriate either. I cannot at this time respond to everything you said in your comment refuting the first 4-minutes of the video by Rebel Call. Perhaps, you can comment on what you do agree with. That would be refreshing.
It? What specifically are you referring to? Me? My messages on this forum, or the pieces of text I've sometimes worked out together with ChatGPT and pasted here and marked them as such, please?
Have you not read and remembered what twh.pdf says about emotion and fighting with emotion?
Well, let's take it step by step then and look at "Project Bluebeam". What patent IS there, that proves that it exists, please?
I'm hoping that you are able to respond at some point.
The video outlines such a fantastical specific thing (Somehow faking a solar eclipse) that for me to comment on what I agree with in that video would not quite make sense before first explaining why I don't agree with it. Does that make sense, please?
I'll see what I can do that my messages are refreshing, stimulating, new, reinvigorating.
Keep up the good work 
I fed some of the discussion here into ChatGTP 4o and learned some new fallacies that I hadn't realized before. What do you, dear reader, think, please. It ChatGPT 4o right or wrong?
- Appeal to Authority:
- Example: NancyDrewberry relies on her own experience of watching the eclipse on TV and claims it looked fake. This appeals to her personal authority without providing verifiable evidence.
- False Dichotomy:
- Example: NancyDrewberry implies that because the media report looked fake, the eclipse might not have been real, presenting only two options (real or fake) without considering other explanations (e.g., misinterpretation of the broadcast).
Ignored Questions and Responses
- Cybe2's Question Ignored by NancyDrewberry:
- Question: "Do you agree with this, please?" (regarding verifying claims in the first four minutes of the video)
- Ignored by: NancyDrewberry, who doesn't address whether she agrees that claims should be verified against source material.
- Cybe2's Technical Questions Ignored:
- Questions: "Have you ever used Stellarium?" and follow-up technical points about the difficulties of creating an artificial eclipse.
- Ignored by: NancyDrewberry, who does not respond to these specific technical queries about astronomical verification.
- NancyDrewberry's Questions Ignored by Cybe2:
- Question: "Perhaps, you can comment on what you do agree with."
- Response: Cybe2 explains why they disagree with the video instead of addressing any points of agreement.
- Clarification Ignored by Gareth:
- Question: "It? What specifically are you referring to? Me? My messages on this forum, or the pieces of text I've sometimes worked out together with ChatGPT and pasted here and marked them as such, please?"
- Ignored by: Gareth, who does not clarify what "it" refers to in his previous statement.
Summary of the Discussion Analysis
The conversation contains several logical fallacies such as ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, appeals to authority, false dichotomies, and cherry-picking evidence. There are instances where participants ignore direct questions, which hinders constructive dialogue. Specifically, NancyDrewberry does not address Cybe2's questions about verification and the use of Stellarium, while Cybe2 does not directly respond to NancyDrewberry's request for agreement on any points from the video. Gareth's comments also lack clarification on the ambiguous term "it."