For instance, what appears on the video to be a wave with sunlight shimmering off it turns around at one point and you can see what appears to be the face of a black man in a gray hoodie-type outfit, with a yellow light at the top of the “hood”. I showed that image and asked “What do you see?”
Nobody addressed that, but it is there and it is bizarre. Why was that there?
I have great respect for your research re Obama’s beginnings in Hawaii and the discrepancies. You know I do.
I was on that “what do you see” thread and it’s not true that people didn’t say what they saw. I did, Fred did, and lots of others. I spent literally hours picking apart whose body, whose shoes, etc, until I could make out as best as I could what was what, and there were no secret frogmen. There were not.
You kept asking, “what do you see?” And ONLY acknowledged the few who saw a frogman with an oxygen tank. It took me a long time to see the parts of things that made it look a little like a shiny guy in a rain hat but it was like the cloud I saw yesterday that looked a lot like an alligator.
Sometimes one has to rethink. Go for the simplest explanation. I agree Fuddy’s death was suspicious and I think to attempt to use what evidence there is to find a clue is admirable but one answer might be that there isn’t a clue available, whether the death was natural or not.
To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Be cautious of going too far because it could hurt your credibility on something you find that is provable.
Did you see the face inside the hoodie with a light on the top? I believe I mentioned that the yellow everybody was calling the sole of a shoe actually turned around and showed its face.
The interchange of ideas is such that when one person says what they think, others engage on the plausibility of that opinion. How well does it fit with other evidence? I have looked at the unpixelated video frames many, many times. If somebody suggests something that doesn’t fit with other frames/evidence I can mention those things and that can be the basis for engagement.
Nobody would engage with the additional information I brought forth. On my blog I posted additional images to address the “it’s Fuddy’s leg and shoe” theory. Almost nobody responded. Genuine inquiry requires engagement with ALL the available information, to cross-examine any opinion/theory by all the other facts. It’s what I constantly subject myself to because I want to get to the truth, and the truth has to account for all the facts. Nobody else seemed very interested in that part though.
Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing whether you have great respect for anything I have done. I have no way of knowing anything about you. The person who warned ABC to pixelate the videos was somebody on my ping list - a mole who wanted to sabotage my research but who posed as a friend.
Why do my enemies act as moles? Because that’s part of the subversion process. We can read all about Glenn Greenwald’s revelations and it seems far-fetched but it’s happening right here. People have been posing as my friends (while laughing about their “sock puppet accounts” over on fogbow, and how they have to sprinkle in stuff to keep people thinking they’re conservatives) so that when the time is critical, they can turn on me and everybody can say, “See? Even her (sock-puppet) supporters don’t buy her garbage, she’s so crazy...” The very same people who will stage their “concern” posts about how they’re very “concerned” about my credibility, or “concerned” about my sanity are the people who have been posing as somebody they’re not just to create that precise opportunity when it arises and is needed.
It’s a way to re-shape the narrative. And it works because nobody in an anonymous community has any idea who anybody else is. Real people might think the video showed a shoe, or moles pretending to be my friend might be pretending to think the video showed a shoe, and neither I nor anybody else could tell the two people apart. By posing as somebody they’re not, the Alinsky operatives are able to re-shape the perception of what is real, and what real people (non-operatives) see and think.
But a person who wanted the truth would be willing to engage with all the facts presented. And thus far, I’ve found nobody on Free Republic who claimed that it was a shoe who has exhibited that kind of integrity. Everybody - including yourself - backed off and called me crazy when I presented new information and asked how it fits with their pet theory. What does that tell me? It tells me that they are either weak-minded and not really interested in digging out the truth, or they are moles. Or they’re chased off by the underhanded techniques of the leadership on this forum.
I hate having to say that because it may offend people who truly do care and are not moles. I have no way of knowing who is who, so I’ll just say that this is how people build credibility WITH ME. Everybody is concerned about my credibility; why is nobody concerned about their own credibility? Credible truth-seekers engage with all the facts. Everybody on my ping list is a suspect right now on sabotaging my research - sabotaging ANY EXAMINATION of the Puentes video.
Moles and trolls are psy-ops. One of the intended results is that those who are true researchers are isolated from each other because they have no way of knowing who to trust. And all that is made even worse when people are anonymous.
My real name is out there because I was involved in real-life activity to try to change the crap in our government. I testified for a legislative hearing for the Nebraska eligibility bill. They don’t let anonymous people testify. Anonymous people inhabit forums like Free Republic, and trolls and moles constantly work to change the PERCEPTION of what the real public is thinking. In real life, where people have to give their name and put their credibility on the line, people have been threatened and so they will not speak anything except the same garbage the sock puppets speak.
Glenn Beck is a perfect example of how the Alinsky stuff works for real-life people. The media was threatened in October of 2008, with the media companies telling their on-air personalities that their careers would be over and they and/or their families could be killed if they reported anything about Obama’s eligibility problem or his Muslim leanings. Beck was silent until some people tried to force him to address the issue, at which time he lashed out at “birthers”. Then he was stuck in that stance. Later, when his staff was being threatened over other reporting - like the communist and Muslim connections in Obama’s regime - he realized he needed to start his own media company. But by then he was already compromised on the eligibility issue and lost a lot of credibility with people like me.
I am saying all this stuff so people can see the methods being employed against us. The regime does this because it works. These methods are why America is in the shape that it’s in. And until places like Free Republic take these methods seriously, it will keep working, and it will happen because places like this are compromised, becoming tools of the Alinsky-ites because they lend their good reputation to the garbage that is going on here. This is why Saddam Hussein made a deal with CNN, to allow them exclusive access as long as CNN spouted the regime’s propaganda. It was a win-win for both CNN and Saddam. The loser was truth, and the lives of the people Saddam wiped out because he had CNN lending their credible reputation to the propaganda of Saddam.