Sarcasm. Just kidding. Uh-huh.
Your reading comprehension is terrible. I don’t wish to hijack this thread so I’ll just say to anybody looking at this to go look at that post - or anywhere in that thread or anyplace else - and show me where I said there WAS a wax double in the casket. My argument is that there was nothing resembling a body in that casket - based on the one inside-casket image that we know is genuine from that funeral. Sheesh. What do they teach in schools these days anyway?
What I brought to this thread was the same standard/epistemology that was applied to me: that if somebody decides that the conclusion you might reach is unacceptable, they will forbid your evidence.
You, CatherineofAragorn thought it was laughably crazy to think that the regime (or whoever) would fake a death, complete with faked funeral, so you watched the other thread with amusement and agreed when I was told not to speak of the evidence any more.
Did you do the same in the thread about dozens of Benghazi witnesses being given new identities to evade Congressional investigation? It’s the same thing, CatherineofAragorn. Is that such an incredible, ridiculous, BATSH!T CRAZY conclusion that you got great entertainment out of watching the people who brought forth evidence being ridiculed and silenced in that thread?
Oh, wait. That didn’t happen to them, did it? Why not? How do you suppose they give new identities to people? How do they get rid of the old ones?
If somebody suggests in this thread that the EPA or other federal agencies are trying to keep land from being farmed to produce food - for Agenda 21 purposes, anti-fracking purposes, or whatever - will their theory and any evidence of it be called “batsh!t crazy” and shut down?
What I’m talking about here is an epistemology. I go where the evidence takes me. If that’s not acceptable - if some evidence is out of bounds for “respectable” people - then I and any other evidence-based people are in the wrong place, and people here better be careful what they say. Better look over their shoulder before speaking just like they have to do with the regime.
Is that really how we want things to be here?