Disclosure Imminent? Eight + Underground NWO Bases Destroyed?

On Oct 9, 4:43*pm, Canned Unicorn
wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 10:49:32 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:
Wait for the excuses, no proof is ever forthcoming. In the meantime,
I'm going to hunt me down some 12 year

snip

Keith

good god.

Yes, it is appaling, appaling how people who claim to seriously
advance a fantastic and fanciful story with zero evidence presented to
back it up go so quick to spoofing and post doctoring efforts that
were passe on Usenet 15 years ago. It is a wondrous comment on the
credibility of their other stories and a tremendous indication of
their level of professionalism.

Canned Unicorn wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 10:49:32 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

Wait for the excuses, no proof is ever forthcoming. In the meantime,
I'm going to hunt me down some 12 year old girls to **** hard.

Keith

good god.

Yeah you really shouldnt fake posts like this its bad Karma

Keith

David E. Powell wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:43 pm, Canned Unicorn
wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 10:49:32 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:
Wait for the excuses, no proof is ever forthcoming. In the meantime,
I'm going to hunt me down some 12 year

snip

Keith

good god.

Yes, it is appaling, appaling how people who claim to seriously
advance a fantastic and fanciful story with zero evidence presented to
back it up go so quick to spoofing and post doctoring efforts that
were passe on Usenet 15 years ago. It is a wondrous comment on the
credibility of their other stories and a tremendous indication of
their level of professionalism.

They are so dumb they assume nobody else

a) Can remember what was posted yesterday
b) Can use google groups

Keith

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 13:57:54 -0700 (PDT), David E. Powell wrote:

On Oct 9, 4:43*pm, Canned Unicorn
wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 10:49:32 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:
Wait for the excuses, no proof is ever forthcoming. In the meantime,
I'm going to hunt me down some 12 year

snip

Keith

good god.

Yes, it is appaling, appaling how people who claim to seriously
advance a fantastic and fanciful story with zero evidence presented to
back it up go so quick to spoofing and post doctoring efforts that
were passe on Usenet 15 years ago. It is a wondrous comment on the
credibility of their other stories and a tremendous indication of
their level of professionalism.

Who is it that you are speaking?

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 22:02:08 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

Canned Unicorn wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 10:49:32 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

Wait for the excuses, no proof is ever forthcoming. In the meantime,
I'm going to hunt me down some 12 year old girls to **** hard.

Keith

good god.

Yeah you really shouldnt fake posts like this its bad Karma and the
next thing you know, I'll be humping your 5th grade daughter.

Keith

i don't have a daughter. try www.kindercare.com

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 13:57:54 -0700 (PDT), David E. Powell wrote:

On Oct 9, 4:43*pm, Canned Unicorn
wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 10:49:32 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:
Wait for the excuses, no proof is ever forthcoming. In the meantime,
I'm going to hunt me down some 12 year

snip

Keith

good god.

Yes, it is appaling, appaling how people who claim to seriously
advance a fantastic and fanciful story with zero evidence presented to
back it up go so quick to spoofing and post doctoring efforts that
were passe on Usenet 15 years ago. It is a wondrous comment on the
credibility of their other stories and a tremendous indication of
their level of professionalism.

IF you were forged which you were not why would it matter? Usenet
reputation?

*bahahahahaha*

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 17:12:10 -0400, Canned Unicorn wrote:

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 13:57:54 -0700 (PDT), David E. Powell wrote:

On Oct 9, 4:43*pm, Canned Unicorn
wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 10:49:32 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:
Wait for the excuses, no proof is ever forthcoming. In the meantime,
I'm going to hunt me down some 12 year

snip

Keith

good god.

Yes, it is appaling, appaling how people who claim to seriously
advance a fantastic and fanciful story with zero evidence presented to
back it up go so quick to spoofing and post doctoring efforts that
were passe on Usenet 15 years ago. It is a wondrous comment on the
credibility of their other stories and a tremendous indication of
their level of professionalism.

IF you were forged which you were not why would it matter? Usenet
reputation?

*bahahahahaha*

There it is.

When your life is tied to your "appearance" on Usenet, the gloves come
off and the perversions ultimately show.

On 10/9/2011 3:47 PM, Tom wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 16:43:31 -0400, Canned Unicorn wrote:

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 10:49:32 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

Wait for the excuses, no proof is ever forthcoming. In the meantime,
I'm going to hunt me down some 12 year old girls to **** hard.

Keith

good god.

It appears that the rec.aviation groups are full of pedophiles and
homosexuals with perverse activities.

I suppose the childish tactic of altering someone's post entertains
the likes of you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 13:54:44 -0700 (PDT), David E. Powell wrote:

Let's get the people who wrote the story. As they gave details about
the inside of the base surely they've been in there.

No they have made it very clear that their information is not onsite.
Read the article.

I did.

Telling.

My point being that unless there was an extreme radiation, biological
or chemical hazard, as the writer said there was not, even my
untrained self could go there with a camera and take some pictures.

You're a liar. No, that's too harsh - perhaps you're just a waffling
moron who can't remember from one minute to the next what he wrote. Let
me refresh your addled memory; I'll quote verbatim what you wrote:

"Let's get the people who wrote the story. As they gave details about
the inside of the base *surely they've been in there*"

Truth is simple. You moved the goalposts to cover either for the lie
that you read the article or the establishment that you fail to read
with the lowest level of comprehension.

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 13:54:44 -0700 (PDT), David E. Powell wrote:

So the article asks people to buy some base in an undisclosed location
existed at one time, was destroyed in an unknown way, and there are no
people who have gone down...

Partially correct, neither of the authors have visited the DUMBS there
is no statement that claims that no one has visited them.

because, well, worried over damage, which is ridiculous as things like
Nordhausen and other collapsed underground base complexes have been
entered over the years, in some cases decades after they were
collapsed.

Another lie. I doubt seriously you read the article at all or your
effort to disinform is elementary at best. Either way, this is nothing
more than an effort to be loved and liked by the denizens of these
newsgroups.

I just don't get your motivation. Look in the mirror. What is it in
your personality that makes you crave approval from total strangers?

It's a fancy tale with no proof posited by people who freak out when
asked for some. WIthout proof it is a waste of time.

That's your opinion.