>>2535106
Yes, maybe we are on the wrong thread. I did watch the video. Photo was from 20 second time lapse. With missiles, 20 seconds is a lot of time. There are a lot of missile testing stats on gov archive sites. For example, a rocket launched depth bomb produced a 2,100 ft. spray dome in 16 seconds. She's relying on one picture in a 20 sec. time lapse still shot to say it launched from a cloaked craft, above ground, and points to a small area that did not look perfectly round to me. The sz. (circle) does not look like it could accommodate the sz. of the missile, you can see. And a number of reactions could have produced that area she's calling a cloaked UFO, and the front-end of the launch is not recorded. So I have issues believing it due to insufficient evidence.
Q shows a sub picture. That makes more sense, and she has no experience with sub launches to make determinations that eliminate that possibility. Qs crumb supports sub launch, and we've been dealing with dark op subs a lot.
She actually said the same stuff about Tesla and tech. And the money is obvious, except my research for decades shows Antarctica, NASA and the planning of false flags tied to fake UFO invasions and advanced weaponry.
Your posts were misleading somewhat when you just said UFO without saying they're not from space, but from within our atmosphere, built with our tech.
It's already released news on the cloaking on new generation stealths, so that is not new. Anyway, good luck to all of us in discovering truth.
>>2171500
you may find interesting addressing Antarctica military ops, nuclear tests and Masons planning ff we are looking at now. Posts work down.