Posted on 03/31/2014 10:55:40 AM PDT by ethical
Maybe because they’re not allowed to see the true facts.
Or maybe because people are afraid to say the true facts because they’re afraid of being called crazy.
Why should Congress members have any more guts than we little people have? If we little people are afraid of looking like a fool just because of the bigness of the claim - even when the evidence is good - then we’ll never, ever, ever get some hot-stuff Congress critter to be willing to say something non-approved by the propaganda minders. They depend on media approval to get elected.
If we’re too wimpy to say the truth just because we’re afraid of being called crazy, then we can expect nothing of our Congress-critters. If we don’t even have another Freeper’s back, and the Congress-critters can see it, the Congress-critters really would be crazy to go out on a limb for us, knowing we’ll watch them fall to the gorund out of fear of being called crazy.
I can’t ask others to do what I’m unwilling to do myself.
Facts are facts. Imagination is not fact.
In my youtube I made it clear that the images I’ve got are from ABC, trying to prove there was nothing odd about that crash.
But they pixelated the videos when they knew somebody was looking at what’s actually there.
I proved the provenance of the images I used. What is the provenance of your image of the moon?
Found it on the internet.
Where did you get yours?
What exactly do you mean by "pixelated"?
That would be the Russo wing of the DOJ that was/is the blogging unit.
One of the most convincing forms of evidence is an admission against someone’s own interest. What I’ve got in these images is what ABC allowed millions of people to see, claiming that it would blow away the questions that the “crazy conspiracists” had. This is the evidence given by the people who think people like me are crazy.
Is there something wrong with looking at the evidence they presented? Is there something wrong with noting that there are dark-skinned faces that should not have been there?
These images are not as clear as I would prefer, but if ABC thought they were clear enough to show what was going on, then shouldn’t the question be on the table, as to what WAS going on, and what is really in those images? Why did they pixelate the images, if they show what would clearly blow away people like me?
thanks
lmao!
What exactly do you mean by “pixelated”?
__
I was wondering that too. BZ, can you explain it clearly? Then those who see it differently might be able to respond.
And even bigger question is this: why would the Obama Administration, who orchestrated a very complicated water plane landing, pre positioned frogmen to carry out a murder in front of all those people, who have maintained their silence thus far not to mention all the rescue personnel and boats in the area who never saw the murderous frogmen but was clear as day on the “pre pixilated video”, why would they allow a video to be released in the first place? Surely they didn’t miss all this evidence you are alluding to, did they? They planned and executed this very complicated nuder at sea mission, but allowed this video (that “clearly” showed the frogmen) to be released?
Wow, I guess they were not counting on you catching on, eh? Interesting how they hacked into your computer to pixilate those images, when you could just have an “accident” I suppose.
Have your peer group review your evidence. Don’t post it to FR until you’re sure you have the goods. Then write a proper article about it, including who, what, when, how. why, where, straightforward meaningful illustrations, credible references, and your conclusion if you have one. Don’t leave us guessing.
Do not post threads entitled, “What do you see?” with a blank page and a link to something most people have absolutely no idea what it is they’re supposed to be seeing.
You might also include a brief blurb about yourself, your qualifications for investigative journalism (or bloggerism) and a brief history of your investigative successes. Might lend some credibility to your work.
By the way, exposing Dan Rather’s Memo fraud was not the result of some long drawn out wacko conspiracy theory. The fraud was immediately apparent and was proven to be factual within moments. It was an open and shut case.
Whereas the Benghazi scandal, the fast and furious scandal, the IRS scandals, etc, etc, are very much harder to prove, even with law enforcement, congressional investigations, legions of reporters and bloggers, etc, on the job.
The birther thing is even harder to prove. I know the birther industry has a lot invested in this theory, but I don’t think you’re doing yourselves any favors by trying to prove that Obama had Fuddy killed in this plane crash, presumably to prevent her from exposing the truth about the fraudulent birth certificate. Maybe I’m all wet, but it just doesn’t have any credibility whatsoever.
But don’t let me stop you. By all means, check and recheck every damned pixel. Make ABC prove they’re not in on the conspiracy to cover up Obama’s growing list of crimes. Just keep keep it off FR until you really have something to go on. We do defend God’s gifts of life and liberty here (that’s our primary concern), but we’re not really all that interested in delving too deeply into conspiracy theory. That’s why Michael Rivero, Alex Jones, Beforeitsnews, et al, got banned from FR. They just make shit up.
Well, they’ll never blow you away, that’s plain to see,
“By the way, exposing Dan Rather’s Memo fraud was not the result of some long drawn out wacko conspiracy theory. The fraud was immediately apparent and was proven to be factual within moments. It was an open and shut case.”
One of the high points of my FR experience.
.
From ABC’s websites, passing itself off as “news”.
Made it so the resolution is greatly reduced. The images look like they’ve got squares all over them.
Tell me more. Or point me to where I can learn more about that, please.
Smith-Mundt Modernization Act (HR5736), which can be seen at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr5736ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr5736ih.pdf
It passed as part of the NDAA.
Top secret Japanese video technique... don't ask me how I know this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.