Wednesday 12 October 2022

How long does it take?

It would be amusing seeing those still feet first in that river in Egypt … amusing, that is, were it not so dire.  Death from the wrong treatment, for example, for thousands upon thousands, whilst another efficacious remedy was at hand … that strays into criminal territory.  Nurses and doctors losing their livelihoods … yeah, really amusing.

And the climate bollox?  Carbon targets ignored by the jeterati?

Then there is the treatment of the unvaxxed for three years by a sea of karens, mocking in their pig ignorance … the ignorati at large.  We are not in the least amused.  But the least amusing thing of all is the painstaking gathering by people who have taken the effing time to explore, just airily dismissed, ‘Don’t tell me you believe in that!’  If the evidence points that way, yes, only a lazy fool does not at least heed it and further explore. If it doesn’t hold up, then at least you’ve taken the effing time to go through it, not dismissive lip service.

Here are some examples from the last few years:

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/here-are-7-times-disinformation-turned-out-be-just-opposite

That was posted Wednesday evening, Thursday morning there is this:



Thirteen pages only in the search engine at the time of posting this, every single item uniform in its narrative, no dissenting voices anywhere, not one.  Does that not in itself tell you something?

Many of our ragtag have said for a long time that AJ is controlled opposition. $965m? This thing stinks.  It stank soon after the event, it stinks now.  They’ll have made their point with the public about all ‘conspiracy theorists’, dismissing any dissent as just that, trivialising it.  Building Jones up as our icon, our icon then ‘concedes’ he was wrong, therefore in Deep State eyes, the public can only also concede one thing. About any ‘conspiracy’.

Come on, as the paedo non-Pres would say.  Sandy Hook stinks from top to bottom.

3 comments:

  1. What if the person takes the effing time to go through it, then comes up with the answer, 'Don't tell me you believe in that?'

    The media paints everyone who does not conform to the current narrative as 'Far right'. It's a really easy way to dismiss people they don't agree with.
    If you arranged a protest and people turned up with swastika flags and started making Hitler salutes, you'd want them gone sharpish. Otherwise the whole protest would be charged as far right, with obvious evidence, the message would be lost, and eveyone would be dismissed as crackpots, flag or no flag.
    When a conspiracy theory is just that, and all the evidence shows it's a crackpot theory, surely the only response is, 'Don't tell me you believe in that?'.
    When fighting a war, each battle has to be picked very carefully. Stating that Elvis is alive and living on the moon does not help anyone

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If he’d gone through it, rather than quickly looked at the wrong sources, and then asserted, then he would not be wrong. There is copious evidence (but not conclusive) of interference in the atmosphere, here are just two snippets, courtesy of PD:

      Geo-engineering's been around a long time. "Lynmouth Flood Disaster: RAF rainmaking experiment blamed for Devon's worst ever flood disaster"

      https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/lymouth-flood-disaster-raf-rainmaking-3215800

      Or:

      10. "Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques"

      http://www.un-documents.net/enmod.htm

      They’re just two of dozens on file.

      The assumption I object to is that the gainsayer need establish nothing, present no evidence, but still resorts to a mocking tone, whereas the evidence takes years.

      Years ago, the boot was on the other foot. I dropped into a blogger’s site, his blog name was Devil’s Kitchen, and left exactly the same sort of thing, ‘You actually believe that guff, do you?’

      His response was far less polite than I’ve been. Essentially, he was saying just go back through my blog, you ijit, my body of work, over the past year on the topic. That’s your issue, not mine, he said. I’ve not the patience.

      Very simple to gainsay, much harder to collect and post fragmented pieces over years, often taken down by those not wishing for them to be up there for any stumble-upons.

      Right at this moment, there are 57 reader comments removed by someone unnamed, I have copies. Each averages six or seven topics, many related. How much evidence is that which has been quashed? Do the maths.

      Have a good Thursday, the sun is out.

      Delete
  2. Ok, but my comment was not about it the tech exists or if the process works. I did state that. Cloud seeding experiments have been public knowledge for a while now. My dismissal of the theory is based on the impossibility of carrying it out.

    The evidence provided by the conspiracy theorist should be how the chemical tanks are fitted to planes, refilled after use, sprayed when in the air, and about how all the people involved agree to do it and keep it quiet.
    The chemtrail theory states that all passenger jets are spraying chemicals when in the air. Evidence should point to how this is acheived and without it getting out, not that some military experiments have been done in the past, that may or may not have worked.
    It's hard to provide evidence that chemical tanks are NOT fitted to planes, NOT refilled by ground crews and NOT sprayed in the air, but if you want me to provide a link to an article, I can do that. 'Chemtrails' are simply gasses left by the operation of jet engines at altitude: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-jets-leave-a-white/
    That's been common knowledge since jets were invented

    If you have evidence about how this is actually being done, I'll go back through your blog

    ReplyDelete

Unburden yourself here: