It seems there are a number of people who have survived shrapnel damage to one hemisphere. Eve is reported as the first person ever to survive total destruction in both hemispheres. Effectively, according to the paper, her frontal lobe was completely destroyed. 9 months later she could walk, talk and was back at school. - ?????
"Post mortems were reportedly conducted, for most of the 22 alleged victims, within two days of their apparent deaths". How convenient. If this was a false flag event, then so was Covid 19 and then autopsies stopped. How convenient.
I am thinking we are being played in a 'game' and on line influencers are just a part of it as are politicians. Don't criticise them if you are turning a blind eye to your own role in feeding the beast.
The first thing I notice is how incredibly short it is just 10 pages.
For comparison I had travel insurance policy document that was 80 pages
Then when you read it most of it is general information about procedures
The amount that is supposed to be about the Manchester attack is very small.
This is supposed to cover many severe injuries and medical procedures for those injuries for many patients.
No victims are named so no information about injuries or procedures can be tied to any individual.
We can conclude that any of the XRAY or computer generated MRI images belong to any of the alleged Manchester victims.
There is also conflicting information regarding Shrapnel damage and the XRAY images,
"Shrapnel injuries however, are usually relatively low velocity
injuries and therefore do not cause as extensive cerebral damage
as seen with high velocity bullets"
"A piece of shrapnel in the form of a large metal nut
was retrieved from left fronto-temporal soft tissue"
soft tissue so not bone. Also how large is a large nut there should be a size here 20mm or something.
"in the region, planning for up to 300 casualties. A regional
major incident simulation exercise was performed a few months
prior to the attack, with the scenario involving a suicide bomber
at a large shopping complex. This provided a practical, real time
overview of local response times and personnel and resource
management across our major trauma centres "
The Trafford centre exercise was on the 10th of May 2016 The Manchester Arena attack was on the 22nd of May 2017 just over a year after the exercise. Not a few months prior as stated in this report.
Is this a continuity error was this document started a few months after the The Trafford centre exercise?.
It seems to me that they have taken an existing document about medical procedures for blast injuries and tagged on the Manchester information but have been careful to be non specific.
So it is not possible to cross check any injuries against any individuals with a later story.
We don't know the time that the PHOTO was taken, if one was taken at all - it could be a doctored mock up or something. We might know what time it was TWEETED. On the assumption that there was no timing mechanism, world timing discrepancies, or funny business on the twitter platform in the case under discussion, the tweet was 18:53. MH ASSERTS that the PHOTO was taken at 18:46. A gap of 7 minutes between the alleged PHOTO time and TWEET time.
The most charitable reconstruction time-wise would be: orders made, menus removed, starters refused but starters cutlery not removed, photo taken, starter cutlery removed after that. On this hypothesis, they had, between 18:46 (assuming the PHOTO was taken when MH said) and 19:30-ish to: (1) eat a main course, which would have needed time to cook, (2) pay bill, get coats, (3) ?walk? to venue (could anyone with Manchester knowledge elaborate on this?), (4) get past ticketing in the venue and get to the vip box.
If the TWEET time (18:53 was it?) is accurate, any meal was unlikely to have been served before or during then, as that was the time that MH was on his phone tweeting the picture. One would not usually fiddle on one's phone during the very start of a meal. Consequently, that is 37 minutes to perform all of those actions.
There are other hypotheses that are less charitable, such as: they had starters, desserts, took time to pay the bill, get coats, kitchen was slow, service was slow, walk was disrupted and slow due to crowds, etc., etc.
If there had been inquests these would not have helped much.
I know from my own experience with the inquest into my brothers death
We had informed the coroner ahead of the inquest the circumstances of my brothers death and our suspicions of murder before the inquest. The inquest was conducted without a jury by a temporary magistrate who was unaware of any of the evidence and who chose the witness and asked almost no questions. I was not informed in advance that I would be able to question the witness. When I questioned the pathologist he said no tests were carried out and no samples kept for analysis. The result was an open verdict. I applied for a new inquest but this was denied. The Home Office wrote to Bridgend Police and told the to investigate my brothers death but no investigation followed.
But talk about a lone voice in the wilderness. All I can hear is crickets and a deafening silence from the same old washed-up, morally bankrupt, legacy media stooges we've come to know so well.
The corruption of our public institutions becomes ever more glaringly apparent, when examples of this magnitude are laid bare by outstanding journalism like yours.
It's irrelevant! There might be 300 photos, all manipulated, but they'd still add no material weight to the matter of whether the Hibberts attended the concert that night.
"We all know he didnt attend the concert- are you really so stupid to think that is even an issue anymore? What is an issue is does Eve even exist as depicted ?"
We don't all KNOW that the Hibberts didn't attend the concert. All we have is Martin Hibbert's assertion, without any clear evidence to confirm it one way or the other.
The issue of Eve's existence/appearance is a matter that ought to be considered separately. It doesn't help to conflate two distinct evidentiary issues.
Your continued ad hominems are actually quite amusing.
What you've said here is fascinating and I have no beef with any of it. The lack of any other Hibbert photos from that night is, by itself, somewhat implausible (totally baffling, really), but you're making a different argument to that concerning photo manipulation. You've shifted the goalposts and I cry "foul!"
At the risk of repetitive strain injury, nothing you've said has any bearing on the central point Iain is making, with reference to the restaurant photo.
If there is to be any credibility in Martin Hibbert's account, it needs to be established beyond all doubt that he and Eve attended the concert. In that regard, by itself, the restaurant photo is meaningless. It can confirm neither that they attended, nor that they did not.
However, in the absence of any other supporting evidence - further photos/video footage from the arena/witness statements, etc - we cannot be certain that the Hibberts attended the concert, which makes Martin's assertions ring hollow and most likely false. Consequently, there is no need to establish whether there was any manipulation in the restaurant photos.
If somebody has been shot to death with a pistol, it doesn't add any further weight to a murder charge that a knife was also employed by the assailant.
In fixating upon photographic manipulation, you're looking to bolster an argument by introducing elements that don't add anything of substance to the very simple question at the heart of the matter - namely, did the Hibberts attend the concert or not?
Firstly, thank you for reminding me about the different version of the "infamous" San Carlo photo. I have decided to update the post to include some brief discussion of it as it is, at least, interesting.
However, I am not convinced by the arguments it was photo-shopped or, even if it was, that this is particularly relevant. Clearly, Hibbert is being deceptive merely by trying to assert it "proves" they were there. Which obviously it doesn't.
Which brings me to your utterly ludicrous controlled opposition accusation.
Given everything we have discussed over the last 9 articles your contention is that both Richard D Hall and I are "controlled opposition" because I don't find the so-called evidence of image manipulation, which you find compelling, convincing. therefore, I have not included it in this series for some deceptive purpose.
What is that purpose do you imagine?
As you suggest I have "phuked up," presumably nothing I have reported is believable, and I will lose subs (which I already have as a result of posting this series). That's your assessment is it?
Can I just ask how this controlled opposition thing you allege is supposed to work?
Richard D. Hall has fiercely challenged the official Manchester Arena narrative. He has presented a considerable body of evidence, been attacked by the legacy media, taken to court and suffered hardship but remains firm in his analysis.
Because he is practically alone in standing up for the evidence that shows Manchester was a hoax, I have done all that I can to support him, taken significant time out of my better paid work to do it and lost subs as a result. Which, I have to say, is what I expected.
But you suggest, that he, and now I, are doing all this because we are somehow trying to promote the official narrative by trying to demonstrate it is false. How does that work then?
From what you've written, you have come to this strange conclusion because I don't find some of the evidence reported about the image convincing and have chosen not to report it.
I've been wondering if you'd respond to such silly insinuations. I have mixed feelings about the fact you did: I can understand why you'd want to defend your position, but at the same time I think it's unlikely to make much of an impression on those who seem to enjoy throwing mud grenades whilst hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.
If it's any consolation I engaged with them too a while back. In my defence I was kind of provoking them into leaving long rambling answers that I could then analyse (the irony of that being a kind of statement analysis now becomes apparent).
Originally I thought there were three of them, which is why I nicknamed them the three stooges (ram, dub, and the other one is 'trollhunter'). It now appears there's another one, 'from another world'. So 4 stooges.
I've got a few theories now about them. First, obviously they are a gang, which suggests tag-team stuff. Second, it's just one person with multiple accounts. Third, it's a very sophisticated AI (I've had my suspicions about AI for a while now - I had a few convos with ChatGPT a while back and (lol, more statement analysis) the answers were sometimes contradictory, mainly in terms of what must've been the 'temporary memory file' (established for each conversation, then, according to ChatGPT, wiped 'for privacy reasons' - I don't believe that for a moment - suggesting the 'real' AI learning computer is much, much deeper, and ChatGPT is just the interface/data gathering subroutine). This means the cabal's AI capabilities are much, much greater than they want people to know (I can well believe that).
Here, however, is a fourth option, which is a little discomforting to put it mildly. Essentially option four is that it is one person, but they have MPD (multiple personality disorder). It was their mention in these comments about child abuse and the birth certificates of the alleged victims that sparked (or triggered) off this idea (i.e. the child victims of Manchester are part of the Network (see IGSP studies)), and faking their deaths means 'no one will ever know'. Likewise, given the prevalence of snuff movies in the Network, they may have already been killed (especially at the adolescent age, when they are no longer 'children'). In fact, this idea of 'real life snuff movies' for the purposes of 'terrorist attacks' shouldn't be dismissed - that is something that really did only just occur to me. What has occurred to me before, though, is the possible use of Monarch victims to carry out attacks (American high school shootings, for example). I have no idea whether this would be relevant to Manchester though - all the evidence you have presented suggests it never happened so is a different category of event. Unless both the official narrative and the fake narrative are both fabricated, and something 'real' did happen, but all the evidence and footage for it has been removed and relocated for 'someone's benefit'. I really don't like to even contemplate that.
We know that serious and sustained abuse leads to MPD. Likewise, they make clear allusions to Monarch mind control details (I mean real details which you'd have to know a hell of a lot about to mention). Likewise, the 'sudden outbursts' of seriously deranged language and massively aggressive self-defensive reaction. Furthermore, as soon as the 'trigger' happens, they start repeatedly 'projecting', almost as if it's a kind of triggered subroutine, or 'program' (in the MK sense). And they simply don't stop until the person they are talking to no longer replies. So when they accuse others of being trolls, that's what they are doing.
Notice also the fixation on just one topic (in this case, the photos). From a 'cognitive infiltration' perspective this is just obvious misdirection, but when you combine it with the intense psychology, it becomes something else. A rational disinformation agent would simply draw you in to ever greater analysis, but they would not combine it with insults, because that defeats the purpose of a misdirection intended to keep someone occupied. It's obvious in this case after all that it is irrelevant whether the restaurant photos were faked - it's about them possibly not being at the Arena. Photos being faked wouldn't change that.
Given that psychologically they kind of fit the profile of a Monarch victim, I really am leaning towards my option four, because if it was any of the three other options, by simply hurling insults they would be defeating the purpose of those options. It is interesting, however, that they chose this particular episode to launch into their attack. This suggests the content of this episode is the one that worries them the most. Either as cognitive infiltrators (state-affiliated subversives) or for some psychological trigger reason.
Obviously, there is an option five which is simply that they are extremely nasty trolls. There are people like that in the world, after all.
Anyhow - in the end, I just blocked all four of them. If you do opt for 'engagement', I would highly recommend stopping after maximum two replies/comments.
Your outstanding contribution has made me feel completely disinfected!
As to which of your brilliantly elaborated options is the most likely, I freely confess I have no idea. But it's fair to assume you're in the right ballpark with at least one of them.
You know something? I've never been so creatively insulted in my entire life. If that's ChatGPT, it's damn good. Maybe, I'm a just a narcissist who craves any kind of attention, no matter how demented or puerile.
With your last sentence, did you mean they are a narcissist who craves any kind of attention no matter how demented or puerile? Because I can't see that description applying to you!
But yeah, I reckon at least one of my options must be the correct one. Kind of Holmesian thinking, you know.
Anyhow, like I said, I just ended up blocking them. It's not worth it. If you keep engaging they will feel they've 'caught' you - they never acknowledge any logical/rational point you make, they simply keep repeating their point and ordering you to respond (even if you clearly have responded).
I do think the AI possibility deserves a real in-depth study, though. By now it should be much better than ChatGPT. ChatGPT often makes really dumb continuity errors. You then point that out to it and it says 'yes, you're right, I should've said...' and then redoes the calculation. So on the one hand it displays a high level of computational ability, but on the other, it's got basic memory problems. I'm not buying it.
Anyway - I am so glad you are feeling disinfected. It is a lovely feeling...
The other psychological tell is the attention-seeking, which to me seems like a cry for help. The fact they are fixated on the photo, and want to know what happened to the children likewise.
I agree the case is theatre but that doesn't mean Hall won't be punished as a result. Hall has in no way contributed to that theatre. He is subject to it.
If we should take your advice and trust no-one , why should we give your claims any more credibility than Iain's?
Your hectoring tone opens the door to the possibility that you're some sort of operative, or, at least, a vexatious commenter with a personal grudge.
Some of your specific claims are right at the fringe of, possibly well beyond, credibility.
For example, your assertion of photographic manipulation, with regard to Eve Hibbert, seems to me to be entirely without foundation. Please help me understand, if you think I'm wrong.
Iain has the distinction of only examining those things for which there is clear supporting evidence. If he withholds an opinion on a matter you believe to be manifestly obvious, that doesn't make him a shill, just properly cautious.
After all, he has a reputation to consider, whereas I don't think you do.
Some of the other stuff you've posted is very good, I'll grant you that.
I have nothing to apologise for, even if I'm wrong. I've stated my views sincerely and without prejudice.
If there is good evidence to support photo manipulation, put it up here for all to see.
However, Iain has made it quite clear, in his recent response to another post, that the issue of manipulation has no material bearing on his argument. The whole point of the restaurant photo is that it does nothing to support Martin Hibbert's assertion that he and Eve must have attended the AG concert on the night of the bang.
Iain - one ancient story as regards shrapnel in the head to consider....
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Phineas-Gage
It seems there are a number of people who have survived shrapnel damage to one hemisphere. Eve is reported as the first person ever to survive total destruction in both hemispheres. Effectively, according to the paper, her frontal lobe was completely destroyed. 9 months later she could walk, talk and was back at school. - ?????
Yup fishier than mackerel guts on the quayside.
"Post mortems were reportedly conducted, for most of the 22 alleged victims, within two days of their apparent deaths". How convenient. If this was a false flag event, then so was Covid 19 and then autopsies stopped. How convenient.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7291342/
I am thinking we are being played in a 'game' and on line influencers are just a part of it as are politicians. Don't criticise them if you are turning a blind eye to your own role in feeding the beast.
Having read the Manchester Arena Attack: management of paediatric penetrating brain injuries
https://annas-archive.org/scidb/10.1080/02688697.2020.1787339
The first thing I notice is how incredibly short it is just 10 pages.
For comparison I had travel insurance policy document that was 80 pages
Then when you read it most of it is general information about procedures
The amount that is supposed to be about the Manchester attack is very small.
This is supposed to cover many severe injuries and medical procedures for those injuries for many patients.
No victims are named so no information about injuries or procedures can be tied to any individual.
We can conclude that any of the XRAY or computer generated MRI images belong to any of the alleged Manchester victims.
There is also conflicting information regarding Shrapnel damage and the XRAY images,
"Shrapnel injuries however, are usually relatively low velocity
injuries and therefore do not cause as extensive cerebral damage
as seen with high velocity bullets"
"A piece of shrapnel in the form of a large metal nut
was retrieved from left fronto-temporal soft tissue"
soft tissue so not bone. Also how large is a large nut there should be a size here 20mm or something.
"in the region, planning for up to 300 casualties. A regional
major incident simulation exercise was performed a few months
prior to the attack, with the scenario involving a suicide bomber
at a large shopping complex. This provided a practical, real time
overview of local response times and personnel and resource
management across our major trauma centres "
The Trafford centre exercise was on the 10th of May 2016 The Manchester Arena attack was on the 22nd of May 2017 just over a year after the exercise. Not a few months prior as stated in this report.
Is this a continuity error was this document started a few months after the The Trafford centre exercise?.
It seems to me that they have taken an existing document about medical procedures for blast injuries and tagged on the Manchester information but have been careful to be non specific.
So it is not possible to cross check any injuries against any individuals with a later story.
Teleport version:
https://imgur.com/a/qlrwQXq
Whether we use the teleport photo or the regularly discussed photo, the "M" / claw sign in the background is noted.
Below is a shot suggesting approximate positioning of person with camera, assuming restaurant layout is relatively unchanged across time:
https://imgur.com/3vryckI
We don't know the time that the PHOTO was taken, if one was taken at all - it could be a doctored mock up or something. We might know what time it was TWEETED. On the assumption that there was no timing mechanism, world timing discrepancies, or funny business on the twitter platform in the case under discussion, the tweet was 18:53. MH ASSERTS that the PHOTO was taken at 18:46. A gap of 7 minutes between the alleged PHOTO time and TWEET time.
The most charitable reconstruction time-wise would be: orders made, menus removed, starters refused but starters cutlery not removed, photo taken, starter cutlery removed after that. On this hypothesis, they had, between 18:46 (assuming the PHOTO was taken when MH said) and 19:30-ish to: (1) eat a main course, which would have needed time to cook, (2) pay bill, get coats, (3) ?walk? to venue (could anyone with Manchester knowledge elaborate on this?), (4) get past ticketing in the venue and get to the vip box.
If the TWEET time (18:53 was it?) is accurate, any meal was unlikely to have been served before or during then, as that was the time that MH was on his phone tweeting the picture. One would not usually fiddle on one's phone during the very start of a meal. Consequently, that is 37 minutes to perform all of those actions.
There are other hypotheses that are less charitable, such as: they had starters, desserts, took time to pay the bill, get coats, kitchen was slow, service was slow, walk was disrupted and slow due to crowds, etc., etc.
If there had been inquests these would not have helped much.
I know from my own experience with the inquest into my brothers death
We had informed the coroner ahead of the inquest the circumstances of my brothers death and our suspicions of murder before the inquest. The inquest was conducted without a jury by a temporary magistrate who was unaware of any of the evidence and who chose the witness and asked almost no questions. I was not informed in advance that I would be able to question the witness. When I questioned the pathologist he said no tests were carried out and no samples kept for analysis. The result was an open verdict. I applied for a new inquest but this was denied. The Home Office wrote to Bridgend Police and told the to investigate my brothers death but no investigation followed.
As a once trainee lawyer, I hate to say this, but if you want justice don't look to the English legal system to give it to you.
My condolences about your brother. I lost mine last year, to alcoholism.
"no more need be said or written about you, and 'your sort of people'
Please take your own advice!
Excellent segment, Iain.
Your attention to detail is beyond comparison.
But talk about a lone voice in the wilderness. All I can hear is crickets and a deafening silence from the same old washed-up, morally bankrupt, legacy media stooges we've come to know so well.
The corruption of our public institutions becomes ever more glaringly apparent, when examples of this magnitude are laid bare by outstanding journalism like yours.
Where lies hope?
I wish I had an answer.
It's irrelevant! There might be 300 photos, all manipulated, but they'd still add no material weight to the matter of whether the Hibberts attended the concert that night.
"We all know he didnt attend the concert- are you really so stupid to think that is even an issue anymore? What is an issue is does Eve even exist as depicted ?"
We don't all KNOW that the Hibberts didn't attend the concert. All we have is Martin Hibbert's assertion, without any clear evidence to confirm it one way or the other.
The issue of Eve's existence/appearance is a matter that ought to be considered separately. It doesn't help to conflate two distinct evidentiary issues.
Your continued ad hominems are actually quite amusing.
What you've said here is fascinating and I have no beef with any of it. The lack of any other Hibbert photos from that night is, by itself, somewhat implausible (totally baffling, really), but you're making a different argument to that concerning photo manipulation. You've shifted the goalposts and I cry "foul!"
At the risk of repetitive strain injury, nothing you've said has any bearing on the central point Iain is making, with reference to the restaurant photo.
If there is to be any credibility in Martin Hibbert's account, it needs to be established beyond all doubt that he and Eve attended the concert. In that regard, by itself, the restaurant photo is meaningless. It can confirm neither that they attended, nor that they did not.
However, in the absence of any other supporting evidence - further photos/video footage from the arena/witness statements, etc - we cannot be certain that the Hibberts attended the concert, which makes Martin's assertions ring hollow and most likely false. Consequently, there is no need to establish whether there was any manipulation in the restaurant photos.
If somebody has been shot to death with a pistol, it doesn't add any further weight to a murder charge that a knife was also employed by the assailant.
In fixating upon photographic manipulation, you're looking to bolster an argument by introducing elements that don't add anything of substance to the very simple question at the heart of the matter - namely, did the Hibberts attend the concert or not?
Thanks. Have decided to update article to include the paper. Reading now.
This is the book
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Top-World-Manchester-Kilimanjaro-Wheelchair/dp/180247174X
You could try your local library.
Firstly, thank you for reminding me about the different version of the "infamous" San Carlo photo. I have decided to update the post to include some brief discussion of it as it is, at least, interesting.
However, I am not convinced by the arguments it was photo-shopped or, even if it was, that this is particularly relevant. Clearly, Hibbert is being deceptive merely by trying to assert it "proves" they were there. Which obviously it doesn't.
Which brings me to your utterly ludicrous controlled opposition accusation.
Given everything we have discussed over the last 9 articles your contention is that both Richard D Hall and I are "controlled opposition" because I don't find the so-called evidence of image manipulation, which you find compelling, convincing. therefore, I have not included it in this series for some deceptive purpose.
What is that purpose do you imagine?
As you suggest I have "phuked up," presumably nothing I have reported is believable, and I will lose subs (which I already have as a result of posting this series). That's your assessment is it?
Can I just ask how this controlled opposition thing you allege is supposed to work?
Richard D. Hall has fiercely challenged the official Manchester Arena narrative. He has presented a considerable body of evidence, been attacked by the legacy media, taken to court and suffered hardship but remains firm in his analysis.
Because he is practically alone in standing up for the evidence that shows Manchester was a hoax, I have done all that I can to support him, taken significant time out of my better paid work to do it and lost subs as a result. Which, I have to say, is what I expected.
But you suggest, that he, and now I, are doing all this because we are somehow trying to promote the official narrative by trying to demonstrate it is false. How does that work then?
From what you've written, you have come to this strange conclusion because I don't find some of the evidence reported about the image convincing and have chosen not to report it.
Have I summed up your position correctly?
As far as I can tell, you most definitely have.
Do you really need subscribers like that, Iain?
I've been wondering if you'd respond to such silly insinuations. I have mixed feelings about the fact you did: I can understand why you'd want to defend your position, but at the same time I think it's unlikely to make much of an impression on those who seem to enjoy throwing mud grenades whilst hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.
You're probably right. Perhaps it was rash.
If it's any consolation I engaged with them too a while back. In my defence I was kind of provoking them into leaving long rambling answers that I could then analyse (the irony of that being a kind of statement analysis now becomes apparent).
Originally I thought there were three of them, which is why I nicknamed them the three stooges (ram, dub, and the other one is 'trollhunter'). It now appears there's another one, 'from another world'. So 4 stooges.
I've got a few theories now about them. First, obviously they are a gang, which suggests tag-team stuff. Second, it's just one person with multiple accounts. Third, it's a very sophisticated AI (I've had my suspicions about AI for a while now - I had a few convos with ChatGPT a while back and (lol, more statement analysis) the answers were sometimes contradictory, mainly in terms of what must've been the 'temporary memory file' (established for each conversation, then, according to ChatGPT, wiped 'for privacy reasons' - I don't believe that for a moment - suggesting the 'real' AI learning computer is much, much deeper, and ChatGPT is just the interface/data gathering subroutine). This means the cabal's AI capabilities are much, much greater than they want people to know (I can well believe that).
Here, however, is a fourth option, which is a little discomforting to put it mildly. Essentially option four is that it is one person, but they have MPD (multiple personality disorder). It was their mention in these comments about child abuse and the birth certificates of the alleged victims that sparked (or triggered) off this idea (i.e. the child victims of Manchester are part of the Network (see IGSP studies)), and faking their deaths means 'no one will ever know'. Likewise, given the prevalence of snuff movies in the Network, they may have already been killed (especially at the adolescent age, when they are no longer 'children'). In fact, this idea of 'real life snuff movies' for the purposes of 'terrorist attacks' shouldn't be dismissed - that is something that really did only just occur to me. What has occurred to me before, though, is the possible use of Monarch victims to carry out attacks (American high school shootings, for example). I have no idea whether this would be relevant to Manchester though - all the evidence you have presented suggests it never happened so is a different category of event. Unless both the official narrative and the fake narrative are both fabricated, and something 'real' did happen, but all the evidence and footage for it has been removed and relocated for 'someone's benefit'. I really don't like to even contemplate that.
We know that serious and sustained abuse leads to MPD. Likewise, they make clear allusions to Monarch mind control details (I mean real details which you'd have to know a hell of a lot about to mention). Likewise, the 'sudden outbursts' of seriously deranged language and massively aggressive self-defensive reaction. Furthermore, as soon as the 'trigger' happens, they start repeatedly 'projecting', almost as if it's a kind of triggered subroutine, or 'program' (in the MK sense). And they simply don't stop until the person they are talking to no longer replies. So when they accuse others of being trolls, that's what they are doing.
Notice also the fixation on just one topic (in this case, the photos). From a 'cognitive infiltration' perspective this is just obvious misdirection, but when you combine it with the intense psychology, it becomes something else. A rational disinformation agent would simply draw you in to ever greater analysis, but they would not combine it with insults, because that defeats the purpose of a misdirection intended to keep someone occupied. It's obvious in this case after all that it is irrelevant whether the restaurant photos were faked - it's about them possibly not being at the Arena. Photos being faked wouldn't change that.
Given that psychologically they kind of fit the profile of a Monarch victim, I really am leaning towards my option four, because if it was any of the three other options, by simply hurling insults they would be defeating the purpose of those options. It is interesting, however, that they chose this particular episode to launch into their attack. This suggests the content of this episode is the one that worries them the most. Either as cognitive infiltrators (state-affiliated subversives) or for some psychological trigger reason.
Obviously, there is an option five which is simply that they are extremely nasty trolls. There are people like that in the world, after all.
Anyhow - in the end, I just blocked all four of them. If you do opt for 'engagement', I would highly recommend stopping after maximum two replies/comments.
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!
Your outstanding contribution has made me feel completely disinfected!
As to which of your brilliantly elaborated options is the most likely, I freely confess I have no idea. But it's fair to assume you're in the right ballpark with at least one of them.
You know something? I've never been so creatively insulted in my entire life. If that's ChatGPT, it's damn good. Maybe, I'm a just a narcissist who craves any kind of attention, no matter how demented or puerile.
You are very welcome!
With your last sentence, did you mean they are a narcissist who craves any kind of attention no matter how demented or puerile? Because I can't see that description applying to you!
But yeah, I reckon at least one of my options must be the correct one. Kind of Holmesian thinking, you know.
Anyhow, like I said, I just ended up blocking them. It's not worth it. If you keep engaging they will feel they've 'caught' you - they never acknowledge any logical/rational point you make, they simply keep repeating their point and ordering you to respond (even if you clearly have responded).
I do think the AI possibility deserves a real in-depth study, though. By now it should be much better than ChatGPT. ChatGPT often makes really dumb continuity errors. You then point that out to it and it says 'yes, you're right, I should've said...' and then redoes the calculation. So on the one hand it displays a high level of computational ability, but on the other, it's got basic memory problems. I'm not buying it.
Anyway - I am so glad you are feeling disinfected. It is a lovely feeling...
The other psychological tell is the attention-seeking, which to me seems like a cry for help. The fact they are fixated on the photo, and want to know what happened to the children likewise.
We're all human.
I think.
I agree the case is theatre but that doesn't mean Hall won't be punished as a result. Hall has in no way contributed to that theatre. He is subject to it.
If we should take your advice and trust no-one , why should we give your claims any more credibility than Iain's?
Your hectoring tone opens the door to the possibility that you're some sort of operative, or, at least, a vexatious commenter with a personal grudge.
Some of your specific claims are right at the fringe of, possibly well beyond, credibility.
For example, your assertion of photographic manipulation, with regard to Eve Hibbert, seems to me to be entirely without foundation. Please help me understand, if you think I'm wrong.
Iain has the distinction of only examining those things for which there is clear supporting evidence. If he withholds an opinion on a matter you believe to be manifestly obvious, that doesn't make him a shill, just properly cautious.
After all, he has a reputation to consider, whereas I don't think you do.
Some of the other stuff you've posted is very good, I'll grant you that.
I have nothing to apologise for, even if I'm wrong. I've stated my views sincerely and without prejudice.
If there is good evidence to support photo manipulation, put it up here for all to see.
However, Iain has made it quite clear, in his recent response to another post, that the issue of manipulation has no material bearing on his argument. The whole point of the restaurant photo is that it does nothing to support Martin Hibbert's assertion that he and Eve must have attended the AG concert on the night of the bang.
Let's try and stick to what matters, shall we?
Good Intel, but to impugn iains integrity? Hmmm
I have mentioned them.