Debunked: FEMA Coffins (plastic grave liners)

Jazzy

Closed Account
I have always said that I would rather be tossed in a dead furrow and just plowed over. :) But I'll be happy to be cremated at the Wat (Thai Buddhist temple) and have my ashes spread out in my rice fields. Never did understand the cemetery, embalming thing...
I want to be buried beneath an oak sapling. After I'm dead, of course. I have one already pre-prepared by my brother. He's a professional astrologer...
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I want to be buried beneath an oak sapling. After I'm dead, of course. I have one already pre-prepared by my brother. He's a professional astrologer...

Now that made be chuckle. In all seriousness I have already donated my body to the local medical school. They emailed and said that at the time as I live close they will come to collect me. I emailed back and told them I was fine as I live on the bus route but I might need some help getting off. They appear quite insistent on the issue.
 

lotek

Active Member
I know this is old, but id like to add that it is rather rare for a diversified company to own their own injection molding factory.

Many(most) companies which sell or produce products such as these will draw the item up via a free lance or on staff mechanical engineer, do a few expensive low number prototype runs for testing and quality checks, then pay a company that does nothing but run injection molding machines to produce several tens of thousands of units. the more units, the cheaper. vastly so. 5 prototypes may cost the same as 300 units the whole cost, minus electricity and plastic pellets, which are both cheap, is producing the mold and getting your mold in que behind other customer's orders.

nothing about this is weird at all. to think it is only shows just how separate you are from manufacturing and where the goods you use in your everyday life come from. the little plastic tray that your cookies come sitting in all wrapped up inside plastic wrap, it is made the same way, designed the same way, purchased the same way, and stored the same way stacked and upside down, but inside of a warehouse.

My father is a prototyping mechanical engineer for a company which produces high end treadmills and i witnessed this process countless times. His company happened to be lucky, the injection company they used was not too far away from their factory so i got see it a couple times.

So i am actually kind of surprised they didnt have a field with 5 million of these in it to be honest.

thats the whole reason the 3d printing industry is in a boom....
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
(I) told them I was fine as I live on the bus route but I might need some help getting off. They appear quite insistent on the issue.
You must have made them nervous.

Pete Tar said:
Never did understand the cemetery, embalming thing...
"Modern Man" denies the Earth, even in death. Pathetic. He dies in denial.

I would rather honor it, returning myself to its eternal nutrient flow. Caesar's dying breath, and all that...
 

Indridious

New Member
The main problem with this "debunk" is if you put an air tight container under ground and water rises from under it, IT WILL FLOAT, and it will come out of the ground. ANyone with a general knowledge of physics know this. It has happened before.
 

Indridious

New Member
They don't bury people under the water table.


Then why is a coffin container necessary, oh because waters rise in some instances? Not debunked, do you have such blind faith in US government? IF you think they wouldn't kill any of their citizens to put a dollar in their pocket, i am afraid you will find yourself in one of these plastic coffins.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Then why is a coffin container necessary, oh because waters rise in some instances? Not debunked, do you have such blind faith in US government? IF you think they wouldn't kill any of their citizens to put a dollar in their pocket, i am afraid you will find yourself in one of these plastic coffins.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_vault_(enclosure)
A burial liner is similar to a burial vault. The main difference between a burial vault and liner is that the liner only covers the top and sides of a casket, whereas a burial vault completely encloses a casket. In a burial liner, the bottom of the casket in this case is in direct contact with the ground. A burial liner serves to protect a casket during burial from being crushed and keeps the casket from being crushed when the heavy equipment that many modern cemeteries use pass over the grave. A liner helps keep the ground over the grave from sinking in, and helps keeps the ground even. To prevent sunken graves, many modern cemeteries require that either a burial liner or vault be used in burials.
Content from External Source
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Then why is a coffin container necessary, oh because waters rise in some instances? Not debunked, do you have such blind faith in US government? IF you think they wouldn't kill any of their citizens to put a dollar in their pocket, i am afraid you will find yourself in one of these plastic coffins.

So you think there is no such thing as plastic grave liners? Go to your local funeral home and ask them if you can order one up.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
So the government, according to this theory is, smart enough to plan and carry out secret murders that would need to involves 'disappearances' yet they are not smart enough to pick a place to bury the victims where it wont flood? Or just save the money all together and use mass graves.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Better yet try to arrange a funeral at a modern cemetery without using a vault or grave liner.
 

mynamehere

New Member
During my research of this and other theories pertaining to FEMA, martial law, etc. I came across this site. I know I'm a little late here but better late than never. I do believe that in the not so distant future, the government is going to launch some form of massive attack on the people. I also believe that as a result of this attack, there will be massive numbers of dead involved. However, I don't believe that they are stockpiling these plastic "coffins" or "liners" in response to the anticipated number of dead. I might have entertained this theory if I didn't know the government. It would be hard to imagine them spending that kind of money on anything that didn't profit them directly. As a few have already stated, it would be way cheaper and easier just to pile us up and burn us. Think of the time, effort and cost that would be required to contain and bury every casualty from say a biological attack for example. The number of dead would be insurmountable. Consider this... you can't hardly get any help from them now to bury the average number of people when they die, what makes you think they are going to care when millions are dead?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
During my research of this and other theories pertaining to FEMA, martial law, etc. I came across this site. I know I'm a little late here but better late than never. I do believe that in the not so distant future, the government is going to launch some form of massive attack on the people. I also believe that as a result of this attack, there will be massive numbers of dead involved. However, I don't believe that they are stockpiling these plastic "coffins" or "liners" in response to the anticipated number of dead. I might have entertained this theory if I didn't know the government. It would be hard to imagine them spending that kind of money on anything that didn't profit them directly. As a few have already stated, it would be way cheaper and easier just to pile us up and burn us. Think of the time, effort and cost that would be required to contain and bury every casualty from say a biological attack for example. The number of dead would be insurmountable. Consider this... you can't hardly get any help from them now to bury the average number of people when they die, what makes you think they are going to care when millions are dead?

What purpose would a massive attack on the people serve? Even in the most pessimistic view, the people are the government's tax base.
Do you mean an attack involving troops and bombs and bullets and destruction to property, or a 'soft kill' approach as in bio-warfare?
What has led you to believe this?
 

mynamehere1

New Member
What purpose would a massive attack on the people serve? Even in the most pessimistic view, the people are the government's tax base.
Do you mean an attack involving troops and bombs and bullets and destruction to property, or a 'soft kill' approach as in bio-warfare?
What has led you to believe this?
Well Pete, what purpose do nuclear weapons serve? In the event that the nukes are launched, there would be no winners but yet they are still loaded and ready to go. They are there as a demonstration of power and control. That's what it all boils down to isn't it? Power and control. Yes the people are the government's tax base true enough but that's assuming that all people are actively contributing tax paying citizens. Unfortunately that isn't the case. You have the very young, the very old and all those in between that sit on their butts doing nothing collecting welfare. It is only a matter of time before the decision is made to thin the herd. If you think the government wouldn't try to eradicate these "drags on the economy", think again. What use are people that take more than they give? As to the type of attack, I think it will begin at the biological level. Then I think troops and guns will be involved. All the government needs is a pandemic to initiate martial law. What would be an easier way to start a pandemic than through the use of vaccines and who are the main target groups of these vaccines? The very old and the very young. Now I'm sure you are saying to yourself that this would affect everyone that gets the vaccine, not just the young and the old and you would be right. There will be those that don't fall into the "drag" category that will die as a result. These people will be considered "acceptable losses". You can bet that those who are considered useful won't be included in this. Now to address your question as to what has led me to believe this. Anyone with a mind to think and open eyes can see the gross misuse of power that occurs on a daily basis. Slowly but surely our rights are being taken away until one day we will be totally defenseless. It all comes back to power and control. To take a few lines from the Megadeth song Symphony of Destruction..."You take a mortal man and put him in control. Watch him become a god, watch people's heads roll. Just like the Pied Piper led rats through the streets. We dance like marionettes, swaying to the Symphony Of Destruction".
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The very young are the workers of tomorrow. Do you have any evidence for this 'thinning the herd'?

It would seem the easiest way would be to convince some folks to ignore getting vaccinations and to doubt modern medicine, that way you 'thin the herd' by allowing folks to choose to be thinned. Since everything I see from 'government' is running contrary to that, I think that there is NO evidence.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...Now to address your question as to what has led me to believe this. Anyone with a mind to think and open eyes can see the gross misuse of power that occurs on a daily basis. Slowly but surely our rights are being taken away until one day we will be totally defenseless. It all comes back to power and control. ....
I don't quite see how misuse of power logically leads you to the conclusion they are planning to exterminate a large portion of the citizens.

What it does make me think is that is what you would want do if you were in power, and that's why it seems a logical conclusion to you.
 

mynamehere1

New Member
I don't quite see how misuse of power logically leads you to the conclusion they are planning to exterminate a large portion of the citizens.

What it does make me think is that is what you would want do if you were in power, and that's why it seems a logical conclusion to you.
"What it does make me think is that is what you would want do if you were in power, and that's why it seems a logical conclusion to you."
Nothing could be farther from the truth. I believe in the people and the rights and freedoms that two of my sons joined the USMC to uphold and defend. I realize that I have made some pretty bold statements and they may seem insignificant coming from an average Joe such as myself but what if you heard it directly from the horses' mouth?

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” - Ted Turner, founder of CNN.

“Advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” - The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, p. 60, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz


“The elderly are useless eaters” -Dr. Henry Kissinger

“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” -Bill Gates


“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” -David Rockefeller

These are quotes from some of the most influential people in the world. Still think the powers that be have your best interests at heart?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” - Ted Turner, founder of CNN.

“Advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” - The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, p. 60, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz


“The elderly are useless eaters” -Dr. Henry Kissinger

“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” -Bill Gates


“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” -David Rockefeller

These are quotes from some of the most influential people in the world. Still think the powers that be have your best interests at heart?


Let's look at those 'quotes'

The first one. was taken out of context


The proliferation of ballistic
and cruise missiles and long-range
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will make
it much easier to project military power
around the globe. Munitions themselves
will become increasingly accurate, while
new methods of attack – electronic, “non-
lethal,” biological – will be more widely
available. ...

Although it may take several decades
for the process of transformation to unfold,
in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and
sea will be vastly different than it is today,
and “combat” likely will take place in new
dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and
perhaps the world of microbes. ...

Space itself will become a theater of war, as
nations gain access to space capabilities and
come to rely on them; further, the distinction
between military and commercial space
systems – combatants and noncombatants –
will become blurred. Information systems
will become an important focus of attack,
particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to
short-circuit sophisticated American forces.
And advanced forms of biological warfare
that can “target” specific genotypes may
transform biological warfare from the realm
of terror to a politically useful tool. ...

This is merely a glimpse of the possi-
bilities inherent in the process of transfor-
mation, not a precise prediction. Whatever
the shape and direction of this revolution in
military affairs, the implications for con-
tinued American military preeminence will
be profound.
Content from External Source
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf


Can you find evidence of the Kissinger quote, and it's context?

What is wrong with Bill Gates quote? Or do you feel that more population is better for the world, the environment and even for people?

The David Rockefeller quote was misquoted and It was debunked here.


https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...risis-and-the-nations-will-accept-the-nwo.174


"This present window of opportunity which during a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built will not be open for too long.Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts "
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mynamehere1

New Member
Let's look at those 'quotes'

The first one. was taken out of context


The proliferation of ballistic
and cruise missiles and long-range
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will make
it much easier to project military power
around the globe. Munitions themselves
will become increasingly accurate, while
new methods of attack – electronic, “non-
lethal,” biological – will be more widely
available. ...

Although it may take several decades
for the process of transformation to unfold,
in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and
sea will be vastly different than it is today,
and “combat” likely will take place in new
dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and
perhaps the world of microbes. ...

Space itself will become a theater of war, as
nations gain access to space capabilities and
come to rely on them; further, the distinction
between military and commercial space
systems – combatants and noncombatants –
will become blurred. Information systems
will become an important focus of attack,
particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to
short-circuit sophisticated American forces.
And advanced forms of biological warfare
that can “target” specific genotypes may
transform biological warfare from the realm
of terror to a politically useful tool. ...

This is merely a glimpse of the possi-
bilities inherent in the process of transfor-
mation, not a precise prediction. Whatever
the shape and direction of this revolution in
military affairs, the implications for con-
tinued American military preeminence will
be profound.
Content from External Source
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf


Can you find evidence of the Kissinger quote, and it's context?

What is wrong with Bill Gates quote? Or do you feel that more population is better for the world, the environment and even for people?

The David Rockefeller quote was misquoted and It was debunked here.


https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...risis-and-the-nations-will-accept-the-nwo.174


"This present window of opportunity which during a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built will not be open for too long.Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts "
Content from External Source
The Kissenger quote is derived from a book written in 1976 entitled "The End of Days" by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Unfortunately, I was unable to pull up the full version of this book without paying for it so the complete context of the quote is unknown but I can't really see where saying "The elderly are useless eaters" would be acceptable in any context. Also, judging from other comments he has made such as “Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns" and “World population needs to be reduced by 50%”, it's clear that he is a real humanitarian. In regard to the Bill Gates quote, I suppose there is nothing wrong with what he said if you don't care about your family. It's good to know that there are people out there such as yourself that would be willing to sacrifice their loved ones and friends because it is "better for the world." The link that you provided, https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...risis-and-the-nations-will-accept-the-nwo.174, claiming to have debunked the Rockefeller quote does nothing of the sort. That thread is about debunking gurus.

"Thought would destroy their paradise. Ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise".- Thomas Gray
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
You seriously think Bill Gates is advocating killing off members of your family, rather than reducing population growth which will reduce pressures on your family? How is it sacrificing any loved ones simply not to over-breed?

I don't think anyone is under any delusions Henry Kissinger is a great humanitarian. Him having the opinions he does, does not equate a government plan to kill you.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...sis-and-the-nations-will-accept-the-nwo.1741/

Is the correct link.

Don't you find it odd that no one has included the context of that quote? I do and you should also. For all we know he was quoting someone else, or making a tasteless joke. I believe you will find that many of those other quotes were taken out context. To me, any quote where the context is not revealed is suspect.

One needs to see the reference. What was in the book was this "Military men are 'dumb, stupid animals to be used' as pawns for foreign policy." The part in quotes is what he said, the rest was added by others.

I bet the other quote is also not direct.

http://akio.tumblr.com/post/15761244430/internet-meme-falsified-quote-military-men-are-just

How is the Gate's quote sacrificing anyone's family? Vaccines save lives, so does allowing women to choose the number of children they want and can afford.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mynamehere1

New Member
You seriously think Bill Gates is advocating killing off members of your family, rather than reducing population growth which will reduce pressures on your family? How is it sacrificing any loved ones simply not to over-breed?

I don't think anyone is under any delusions Henry Kissinger is a great humanitarian. Him having the opinions he does, does not equate a government plan to kill you.
How many children qualify one to be over breeding and who determines this number? What number of children exactly should we be allowed to have?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I don't see anyone in a Western country telling women how many children they can have. A woman or family should be able to decide that on their own.

China did and India is pushing women to limit families. In most of the world the average family size is going down, for several reason. The availability of birth control is one, the reduction of diseases that allow more children to survive is another, the change from children as a labor force is another. In Nigeria, some 20 years ago, women wanted 10 children, they have went back and asked their daughters the same question and they want 4 children. When asked why, they said that that was the most that they could afford to feed, clothe and send to school.

The more educated women are, the less children they want. That has been true through history. I believe it was Aristotle that complained that the slaves of Greece were out producing the free citizens of Greece.

Do you like to see children starving to death? Dying of preventable disease? Women treated like a broodmare?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
How many children qualify one to be over breeding and who determines this number? What number of children exactly should we be allowed to have?
There is a direct relationship between number of children and health and life-expectancy and poverty. Change the health of the environment (vaccines, poverty reduction) and people don't breed to excess out of desperation.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
There is a direct relationship between number of children and health and life-expectancy and poverty. Change the health of the environment (vaccines, poverty reduction) and people don't breed to excess out of desperation.

Is that your personal opinion or do you have some source to back that up?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
It's my opinion.

http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn126manupured

http://www.fpi.org.nz/about_us/the_issues/poverty_and_population_growth

http://rprogress.org/training_manual/20-PopulationPoverty.pdf

http://www.globalissues.org/article/206/poverty-and-population-growth-lessons-from-our-own-past

In the United States, the move to two-children families took place only after a society-wide transition that lowered infant death rates, opened opportunities to women outside the home, and transformed ours into an industrial rather than agrarian economy, so that families no longer relied on their children's labor. If we contrast Lappé's grandmother's story to a latter-day urban middle-class family, we can see that children who were once a source of needed labor are now a source of major costs, including tuition, an extra room in the house, the latest model basketball shoes, and forgone earnings for every year that a professional mom stays home with the kids.

The United States advanced through the falling-birth-rate phase of the demographic transition in response to these societal changes, well before the advent of sophisticated contraceptive technologies, even while the government remained actively hostile to birth control. (As late as 1965, selling contraceptives was still illegal in some states.)22

Content from External Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12262264

http://www.populationmedia.org/issues/population/population-and-poverty/


Rapid population growth aggravates poverty in developing countries by producing a high ratio of dependent children for each working adult. This leads to a relatively high percentage of income being spent on immediate survival needs of food, housing, and clothing, leaving little money for purchase of elective goods or for investment in the economy, education, government services, or infrastructure. Lack of available capital continues to frustrate the attempts of many developing countries to expand their economies and reduce poverty.
Only about 20% of the current world’s population has a generally adequate standard of living. The other 80% live in conditions ranging from mild deprivation to severe deficiency. This imbalance is likely to get worse, as more than 90% of future population growth is projected to occur in the least developed countries.
Content from External Source
http://www.unep.org/training/progra...upplemental/Poverty_and_Population_Growth.pdf

Conversely, high population growth contrib
-
utes to poverty. High fertility rates affect the
health of mothers and families, increasing
the risk of maternal, infant and child mortal
-
ity, all of which combine to entrench poverty.
At a societal level, rapid population growth
increases the number of people in need of
health care, education and livelihoods. This
in turn requires more financial, material and
natural resources. With the exception of a
few oil-rich states, no country has risen from
poverty in recent times whilst still maintaining
high levels of fertility.
http://www.populationmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/D15Poverty.pdf
Content from External Source
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Around the world, better education for women=less children


http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2105295.html

According to data from Demographic and Health Surveys for nine Latin American countries, women with no education have large families of 6-7 children, whereas better educated women have family sizes of 2-3 children, analogous to those of women in the developed world.
Content from External Source

http://www.prb.org/Educators/TeachersGuides/HumanPopulation/Women.aspx

Women's access to education, health care, family planning, and employment all affect family size. Studies show that women who have completed primary school have fewer children than those with no education. Education is key because educated women are more likely to know what social, community, and health services, including family planning, are available and to have the confidence to use them. In addition, women with more education have more opportunities outside the home and can see the benefits of education for their children. Women who achieve a relatively high level of education are also more likely to enter the labor force before they marry or begin childbearing, and ultimately to have smaller families than women who marry in their teens. This trend is evident in almost every country where data are available. As the figure "Women's Education and Family Size" shows, women with a secondary school education have substantially smaller families than women with less education.
Content from External Source


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/97facts/edu2birt.htm

A women's educational level is the best predictor of how many children she will have, according to a new study from the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study, based on an analysis of 1994 birth certificates, found a direct relationship between years of education and birth rates, with the highest birth rates among women with the lowest educational attainment.
Content from External Source

http://globaleduc.wordpress.com/201...h-korean-is-higher-education-really-to-blame/

A recent article says that the quality of their higher education is to blame.

Historically low birth rates in South Korea

There was an interesting story in the Financial Times last week (2nd January 2013), “Low South Korean birth rate raises fears“, concerning low fertility rates in South Korea and the link to education. In 2010, the birth rate sank to an all-time low of 1.2 children per women. This figure is even more stunning when you consider that China has a rate of 1.6 children per woman despite its one child policy.
Content from External Source

http://www.pobronson.com/factbook/pages/225.html
In both Lebanon and Jordan, women's increasing educational attainment and literacy rates have seemed to have the effect of lowering fertility, and the "average number of births for a non-educated Jordanian mother is much higher than that of a mother who attended high school or received an education beyond high school."
Content from External Source
 

Marcus Mudd

Member
I am not convinced by this debunking, tho it is very interesting. There are far too many coffin liners to believe the explanation. 100,000 containers to that only fit a low probability situation of death is far too many. However this goes a long way from proving they are for mass sacrifice, there are still many questions that have no answer. I would like to commend mick on the thouroughness of the original post, his skepticism always effectively narrows the argument to logical terms instead of illogical theory.

Tho its not proven they are for death camps, the evidence mick has provided definitively suggests they are used for something aside from the stated purpose, tho I know that was opposite of his intentions, lol. The supply greatly exceeds the demand, this deserves to be investigated specifically because the explanation is insufficient
 

solrey

Senior Member.
I am not convinced by this debunking, tho it is very interesting. There are far too many coffin liners to believe the explanation. 100,000 containers to that only fit a low probability situation of death is far too many. However this goes a long way from proving they are for mass sacrifice, there are still many questions that have no answer. I would like to commend mick on the thouroughness of the original post, his skepticism always effectively narrows the argument to logical terms instead of illogical theory.

Tho its not proven they are for death camps, the evidence mick has provided definitively suggests they are used for something aside from the stated purpose, tho I know that was opposite of his intentions, lol. The supply greatly exceeds the demand, this deserves to be investigated specifically because the explanation is insufficient

Around 2.5 million people die each year in the US, that's plenty of demand for coffin liners.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=us+deaths+per+year&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
 

Marcus Mudd

Member
mick posted earlier abt 900,000 people are buried every year. that seems high but I trust micks reporting. How many of those are adults that need a specific style of waterproof/airtight containers? this seems like an extremely specific burial style to keep two facilities stocked at above capacity for. Even for 'pre death' orders this seems extraordinarily high.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
mick posted earlier abt 900,000 people are buried every year. that seems high but I trust micks reporting. How many of those are adults that need a specific style of waterproof/airtight containers? this seems like an extremely specific burial style to keep two facilities stocked at above capacity for. Even for 'pre death' orders this seems extraordinarily high.
Apparently in many states it is a legal requirement for some burial plots ( or at least a contractual requirement by the cemetary). I would think stockpiling makes good fiscal sense. A massive production run will make more money over time once you account for inflation.

I am certain also that the government has had contingency plans for massed casualties since the Influenza epidemic 1918 but it makes one wonder why move from mass graves to individual burials. Guess they must be more caring now :p
 

Marcus Mudd

Member
Apparently in many states it is a legal requirement for some burial plots ( or at least a contractual requirement by the cemetary). I would think stockpiling makes good fiscal sense. A massive production run will make more money over time once you account for inflation.

I am certain also that the government has had contingency plans for massed casualties since the Influenza epidemic 1918 but it makes one wonder why move from mass graves to individual burials. Guess they must be more caring now :p
I can see both those arguments, but i am still skeptical. Seems excessive as a business model. The fact that they can be used in pandemic situations, but as an unstated usage, is also disturbing to me.

there are many questions. Why not disclose a second facility initially to curtail inquiry?

why mass move the containers after an investigation?

are there any container sales reports that justfy sch a bulk buy, besides death figures?
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
I can see both those arguments, but i am still skeptical. Seems excessive as a business model. The fact that they can be used in pandemic situations, but as an unstated usage, is also disturbing to me.

there are many questions. Why not disclose a second facility initially to curtail inquiry?

why mass move the containers after an investigation?

are there any container sales reports that justfy sch a bulk buy, besides death figures?

It's far more economical to set up the machines to do big than than lots of small runs. I used to work at a plastics moulding company and we would always try and put orders for the same product into one large batch rather than produce them individually
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
what im saying is we need perspective. a sense of scale to accurately gauge what is too many.

Do you have any evidence to support any of your claims? 100,000 liners. I've only seen evidence for 50,000. As mentioned elsewhere on this thread FEMA will not use these vaults for mass casualties. Bodybags are more efficient.
 

Marcus Mudd

Member
Why don't you research how many people are buried per year. That's a good number for perspective.
900,000, by your research. Im sensing a pattern in debunking methods here, focusing on a single aspect of a single aspect, and by comparison implying debunk of the entire concept. This is not a complete strategy, though an important component of one. a grouping of ideas possibly could be addressed, in order to add validty and credibtlity to some aspects of investigation, while eliminating others. Both are very important however, in a broader sense.

I am researching sales numbers now mick, because the amt buried obviously is insufficient to gauge scale.
 
Top