Trump, Tougher On Putin Than Obama (#11 Is The Update)

Sebastian Gorka goes through a few items that is evidence against the idea that Trump is a Russian asset.

If you think Russia spent money to get Trump in office, that was the biggest waste of money in history.

    1. This admin reversed the policy of the Obama administration, which stood silently when Putin’s Russia annexed Crimea and attacked Ukraine. The Trump admin has sold the Ukrainians lethal defensive weaponry, including anti-tank missiles designed to destroy Putin’s Russian tanks in the hands of separatist rebels. (THE HILL)
    2. The Trump administration has expelled 60 Russians, labeling them “spies” pretending to be diplomats. (DAILY WIRE)
    3. About 300 men working for a Kremlin-linked Russian private military firm (many were Russian special operatives) were either killed (about 200) or injured in Syria on orders from the Trump administration (WASHINGTON TIMES)
    4. Now, President Donald Trump approved sanctions on 38 different Russian companies and entities in response to Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, its presence in Ukraine, and support for the Assad regime in Syria. These entities include 7 Russian oligarchs, 12 companies they own and control, 17 Russian senior government officials, and a state owned Russian weapons trading company…. even sanctioning a member of Putin’s family. (DAILY CALLER)
    5. President Trump is pressuring Germany to stop paying Russia BILLIONS of dollars a year via the gas-pipeline deal (YOUTUBE).
    6. Donald Trump employed jawboning to persuade, arm-twist, and threaten NATO member-states if they didn’t raise the level of their spending on defense…. “by the end of next year, NATO allies will add hundred – 100 billion extra U.S. dollars toward defense.” (FOX)
    7. The Obama Administration worked unsuccessfully to persuade the Kremlin to stand down the program through diplomatic talks. The Trump Administration, in contrast, directly confronted the violation by funding development of its own missile. The research is allowed under the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty), and only breaches the deal if that missile is ever tested or deployed (TIME). “We’ll have to develop those weapons, unless Russia comes to us and China comes to us and they all come to us and say let’s really get smart and let’s none of us develop those weapons, but if Russia’s doing it and if China’s doing it, and we’re adhering to the agreement, that’s unacceptable,” Trump told reporters (DAILYWIRE).
    8. After Sergei Skripal’s poisoning, US exports to Russia that could have military uses — so-called dual use technologies, are cut off completely (CNN)
    9. President Trump signed an executive order to improve America’s critical infrastructure against electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks. (EPOCH TIMES)
    10. President Donald Trump called on Russia to pull its troops out of Venezuela on March 27, following reports that two Russian military planes touched down in Caracas over the weekend with about 100 soldiers aboard. “Russia has to get out,”…. President Donald Trump’s national security adviser warned Russia on Friday about its military presence in Venezuela, saying any move to establish or expand operations there would be considered a “direct threat” to international peace.(EPOCH TIMES | REUTERS)
    11. when oil prices rise above $60-$65 a barrel… fracking increases supply, serving as an effective cap on energy prices. (Broadly speaking, the same principle is true of natural gas prices.) Putin’s government revenue and foreign policy are dependent on high crude prices and foreign nations buying their crude from Russia. Lower prices due to U.S. or other nations’ competition cost him a lot of money, and put the Russian economy and his public support at risk. Even more importantly, it deprives him of the tool of energy blackmail, which he has used to extort other countries into adopting Kremlin-friendly foreign policy choices. This is why Russian intelligence services have been so active in supporting western environmental groups and other interests opposed to fracking. (WASHINGTON EXAMINER — in other words, our energy policy, under Trump, is anti-Putin. By contrast, ALL of the Democratic 2020 candidates energy policies will enrich Putin.)

Here is HUGH HEWITT noting some of the above and more:

Hell of a mole who gets sequester rolled back so DOD can rebuild,  demands NATO increase defense spending, provides lethal weapons to Ukraine, has American military wipe out a Russian force of irregulars in Syria, and urges Russia pipeline to Germany be cancelled (Hewitt: TWITTER) | The @realDonaldTrump-as-Russian-mole theory also must include that he has successfully fooled fmr SecDef Mattis, @SecPompeo @AmbJohnBolton.  Helluva spy.

If Putin paid for Trump, Trump is a smart mother-effer, because he first used Russian interests to get the White House, and then immediately turned on Russia’s interests.

Putin, then, is an idiot, and Trump? The smart-as-hell-tactician.

THE ENTIRE 3-HOURS is magnificent. I wish all Republicans pushed back like this. The truth is on our side!

THE FEDERALIST updated this post:

“Just Like Obama, Trump’s Russia Policy Speaks Louder Than His Words”

….The Helsinki summit did not change my view of the Russian president. As I have reiterated many times, Putin is pure evil. There is no doubt in my mind that U.S. intelligence agencies arrived at the correct conclusion: Russia did meddle in the U.S. 2016 election, and Putin himself directed the operation. Again, I speak from personal experience on this topic: In 2012, Russian intelligence services interfered in the Georgian parliamentary elections, boosting the Kremlin’s preferred candidate through disinformation operations.

Thus, my opinion of President Trump’s policy vis-à-vis Russia is perhaps more positive than one might assume from my background. My reasoning is two-fold: After a lifetime of firsthand experience with Russian aggression, I must evaluate Trump’s actions against the proper historical context. In doing so, I have found that Trump’s actions speak for themselves.

The Outrage Seems Selective

On the first point, I consider it unfair that Trump’s performance in Helsinki has garnered harsher criticism than other incidents in recent memory. In 2012, for example, a hot microphone at a global nuclear security summit picked up then-President Barack Obama assuring Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” to negotiate with Putin after the presidential election.

During a debate with GOP opponent Mitt Romney the same year, Obama casually dismissed the Russian threat, quipping: “The 1980s called; they want their foreign policy back.” Although Trump could certainly have been more forceful by condemning Putin’s crimes, his statements at the Helsinki press conference were nowhere near as concerning as his predecessor’s remarks about Russia.

This brings me to my second point: Trump’s actions toward Russia speak louder than words—and so did his predecessor’s. Indeed, the Obama administration’s foreign policy undermined America’s credibility in my region, which Putin considers Russia’s “backyard.” There are many opinions about Trump’s rhetoric on Crimea, but it is a fact that the Russian land grab in Ukraine happened on Obama’s watch.

How, exactly, did this happen? During and after Ukraine’s revolution of 2014, which ousted a Kremlin-backed dictator, on a daily basis the United States cautioned Ukraine not to escalate in response to Russian aggression. Thus, Putin saw an opportunity to annex Crimea without risking a direct confrontation with the West—and he seized it. Putin is a bully, but not a fool.

What a Difference Two Years Makes

Rather than changing his course after Moscow redrew the borders of Europe by force, Obama doubled down. Despite bipartisan consensus in favor of selling lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine, and vocal support from his own administration officials (including Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton), Obama repeatedly refused to authorize the sales.

Instead of anti-tank weapons, the Ukrainians defending their territory from Russian invasion received hot blankets and canned goods from the Obama administration. At the same time, Obama asserted that the Ukraine conflict had “no military solution.” With these words—and more importantly, these actions—he was perceived by some on the Russian side as accepting the Kremlin’s sphere of influence in Ukraine.

Despite my warnings, the Obama administration also essentially turned a blind eye to Russian meddling in Georgia’s 2012 elections. The result was devastating not only for Georgia, but for American interests: A Kremlin-backed oligarch (who has substantial interests in Russian energy firm Gazprom) ascended to power in a strategic U.S. ally. Moreover, Russia’s meddling in Georgia’s elections functioned as a proving ground for information operations later used in the United States. To his credit, Obama accepted this reality in 2016, when he expelled dozens of Russian diplomats, but this response was too little, too late.

By contrast, Trump authorized the sale of lethal defensive weapons to both Ukraine and Georgia in 2017. The Trump administration went beyond the congressional mandate in sanctioning Russian authorities involved in the annexation of Crimea. Earlier this year, the United States imposed the harshest sanctions yet, targeting Russian oligarchs as well as government officials.

Trump’s rhetoric on energy at the Helsinki summit, which has been largely overlooked, is also a reason for optimism. The backbone of the Russian economy is energy, and Russia’s dependence on fossil fuels is Putin’s Achilles heel. At Monday’s press conference, Trump stated that U.S. liquefied natural gas exports would “compete” with Russian gas in Europe. This reflects Trump’s comments at the NATO summit, where he criticized Germany for supporting the Nord Stream II pipeline. Trump was correct to call attention to this project, which will enrich the Kremlin at the expense of struggling pro-Western allies like Ukraine…..


Stuff That Didn’t Age Well


If there was one thing I have learned over the years of attacks against Bush over eight years, and now Trump… the rule of thumb is to wait about a week (or more) for the truth of the situation to come out. This is a prime example. Many who have a visceral hatred for Trump immediately jump on the band wagon [just like BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome — there is TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome]… and… the below meme is a prime example.

During conversation with a Facebook friend about a meme posted regarding the Dianne Feinstein with Attorney General Bill Barr, I linked the FULL exchange to the exchange. After some talk, the below meme was posted:

Not a day after he posted the above, a writer I check in with daily had this post, entitled: “NBC NEWS MAKES CORRECTION TO TRUMP-PUTIN STORY.” In it she notes:

After incorrectly reporting that President Trump had discussed former White House counsel Don McGhan’s potential testimony in the House with Russian President Vladimir Putin, NBC News was forced to issue a correction:

CORRECTION (May 3,2019, 1:51 p.m. ET): An earlier version of this article incorrectly included one topic that White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Presidents Trump and Putin discussed on Friday. They did not discuss the possibility of former White House counsel Don McGahn appearing before Congress. Sanders was answering a question from reporters about whether McGahn would testify before Congress.

HILARIOUS. I bet “unnamed sources” are at the center of this story. You can add this to the TRUMP IS CHUMMY WITH PUTIN conspiracy the Left and NeverTrumpers have:

Secretary of State Michael Pompeo said the U.S. has a full range of options available to help oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and didn’t rule out “ultimately” using military action on top of diplomatic, political and other pressure points.

“We’re preparing those for him so that when the situation arises, we’re not flat-footed,’’ Pompeo said on ABC’s “This Week,” one of three scheduled appearances on Sunday morning political shows.

[….]

Trump on Friday said Russian President Vladimir Putin assured him he isn’t seeking to “get involved” in the crisis, although Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton both said earlier in the week that the Kremlin talked Maduro out of leaving Venezuela after U.S.-backed Guaido attempted to end his regime by calling for a military uprising.

“The president has made clear, we want everyone out, and that includes the Russians,” Pompeo said.

Scientific Explanations, To Be True Need Also To Be Falsifiable

(Post picture is of Karl Popper) Even though I use the neo-Darwinian theory as my prime example, this applies just as readily to the conspiracy theories revolving around the New World Order, and the like. You can visit my “Conspiracy Mantras” page to go to some of my posts on the various topics, there.

“Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”

Skell, P.S., Why do we invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10, 2005; quoted by Jonathan Sarfati in Creation 36(4):1 September 2014.

Charles “The Hammer” Krauthammer makes this point in regards to the Climate Change frenzy:

Here are some examples (via the CORBETT REPORT)

The following is one of the reasons I reject Darwinian evolution (and, frankly, conspiracy theories like WTC-7 being a conspiracy), and any scientist would reject anything for.

“Insofar as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and insofar as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”

K.R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (London, England: Hutchinson & Co, 1959), 316; found in, Werner Gitt, Did God Use Evolution? Observations from a Scientist of Faith (Portland, OR: Master Books, 2006), 11. (See also: SCIENCE AS FALSIFICATION)

That is to say, if a theory explains everything it explains nothing:

“The underlying problem is that a key Darwinian term is not defined. Darwinism supposedly explains how organisms become more ‘fit,’ or better adapted to their environment. But fitness is not and cannot be defined except in terms of existence. If an animal exists, it is ‘fit’ (otherwise it wouldn’t exist). It is not possible to specify all the useful parts of that animal in order to give an exhaustive causal account of fitness. [I will add here that there is no way to quantify those unknowable animal parts in regards to the many aspects that nature could or would impose on all those parts.] If an organism possesses features that appears on the surface to be an inconvenient – such as the peacock’s tail or the top-heavy antlers of a stag – the existence of stags and peacocks proves that these animals are in fact fit.

So the Darwinian theory is not falsifiable by any observation. It ‘explains’ everything, and therefore nothing. It barely qualifies as a scientific theory for that reason….

The truth is that Darwinism is so shapeless that it can be enlisted is support of any cause whatsoever…. Darwinism has over the years been championed by eugenicists, social Darwinists, racialists, free-market economists, liberals galore, Wilsonian progressives, and National Socialists, to give only a partial list. Karl Marx and Herbert Spencer, Communists and libertarians, and almost anyone in between, have at times found Darwinism to their liking.”

The above is from an article by Tom Bethell in The American Spectator (magazine), July/August 2007, pp. 44-46.

Another Quote

DARWIN CONCEIVED OF EVOLUTION in terms of small variations among organisms, variations which by a process of accretion allow one species to change continuously into another. This suggests a view in which living creatures are spread out smoothly over the great manifold of biological possibilities, like colors merging imperceptibly in a color chart.

Life, however, is absolutely nothing like this. Wherever one looks there is singularity, quirkiness, oddness, defiant individuality, and just plain weirdness. The male redback spider (Latrodectus hasselti), for example, is often consumed during copulation. Such is sexual cannibalism the result, biologists have long assumed, of “predatory females overcoming the defenses of weaker males.” But it now appears that among Latrodectus hasselti, the male is complicit in his own consump­tion. Having achieved intromission, this schnook performs a character­isti somersault, placing his abdomen directly over his partner’s mouth. Such is sexual suicide—awfulness taken to a higher power.

It might seem that sexual suicide confers no advantage on the spider, the male passing from ecstasy to extinction in the course of one and the same act. But spiders willing to pay for love are apparently favored by female spiders (no surprise, there); and female spiders with whom they mate, entomologists claim, are less likely to mate again. The male spider perishes; his preposterous line persists.

This explanation resolves one question only at the cost of inviting another: why such bizarre behavior? In no other Latrodectus species does the male perform that obliging somersault, offering his partner the oblation of his life as well as his love. Are there general principles that specify sexual suicide among this species, but that forbid sexual suicide elsewhere? If so, what are they Once asked, such questions tend to multiply like party guests. If evolutionary theory cannot answer them, what, then, is its use? Why is the Pitcher plant carnivorous, but not the thorn bush, and why does the Pacific salmon require fresh water to spawn, but not the Chilean sea bass? Why has the British thrush learned to hammer snails upon rocks, but not the British blackbird, which often starves to death in the midst of plenty? Why did the firefly discover bioluminescence, but not the wasp or the warrior ant; why do the bees do their dance, but not the spider or the flies; and why are women, but not cats, born without the sleek tails that would make them even more alluring than they already are?

Why? Yes, why? The question, simple, clear, intellectually respect­able, was put to the Nobel laureate George Wald. “Various organisms try various things,” he finally answered, his words functioning as a verbal shrug, “they keep what works and discard the rest.”

But suppose the manifold of life were to be given a good solid yank, so that the Chilean sea bass but not the Pacific salmon required fresh water to spawn, or that ants but not fireflies flickered enticingly at twi­light, or that women but not cats were born with lush tails. What then? An inversion of life’s fundamental facts would, I suspect, present evo­lutionary biologists with few difficulties. Various organisms try various things. This idea is adapted to any contingency whatsoever, an interesting example of a Darwinian mechanism in the development of Darwinian thought itself.

A comparison with geology is instructive. No geological theory makes it possible to specify precisely a particular mountain’s shape; but the underlying process of upthrust and crumbling is well understood, and geologists can specify something like a mountain’s generic shape. This provides geological theory with a firm connection to reality. A mountain arranging itself in the shape of the letter “A” is not a physically possible object; it is excluded by geological theory.

The theory of evolution, by contrast, is incapable of ruling anything out of court. That job must be done by nature. But a theory that can confront any contingency with unflagging success cannot be falsified. Its control of the facts is an illusion.

David Berlinski, The Deniable Darwin & Other Essays (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2009), 45-47. 

So too is the conspiratorial view of history (Bilderbergers, Council of Foreign Relations, Banking Institutions, Rosicrucians, The Knights Templars, on-and-on). It is used as an over-arching meta-narrative by Marxists, libertarians, anarcho-leftists, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, druggies (stoners), to Christian Evangelicals.

Illuminati - New World order

If someone or something disproves an aspect of this theory that person is branded a “shill” ~ or the fact has been “planted” by those in power who wish people to believe this “counter-point.” It explains everything and therefore nothing.

It becomes a metaphysical explanation… religious, so-to-speak. God, or theism, while having evidential aspects, IS ultimately a metaphysical program, and thus, outside of material explanations. So is evolutionary naturalism as well as the New World Order — taking into account the above.


Post-Script


Before getting to two fun videos, I want to give an example of the depth of people not self-reflecting on what they are saying… applying it to themselves to see if their sweeping statements are true or just platitudes. After explaining via another site’s excellent work refuting yet another convoluted “matrix” of conspiratorial shenanigans regarding World Trade Tower Seven (WTC-7),  I got this “challenge”?

  • Shaun your proof that Chemtrails are working!

Besides spelling my name wrong, here is my response (reformatted for ease of reading… but response 100% intact):

Jeffrey M.C., you believe in chem-trails?

As with other issues, like with an atheist saying Christianity is a crutchnot realizing that this argument cuts both ways and that atheism can be a crutch to escape judgement and wanting to live under an umbrella of full autonomy in the universe [being your own god]this argument cuts both ways.

If chemtrails were a program to control one’s thinking in some way, why would it be proof if someone rejected “conspiracies”? Why couldn’t people who believe in whatever conspiracy theory be evidence for the program?

Like I point out in my “Alex Jones Section,” and elsewhere conspiracy people think Jones is being controlled by the New World Order to spread misinformation — leading people away from the more important conspiracies.

And that is the pointsmall phrases like “pull-it” are taken [ripped] from their context, the evidence from the two parties involved in those [actual] conversations are ignored, and a matrix of unfounded and false evidence is then laid on top of this phrase and then after this is distorted… people move on to the next myopic point to do the same.

MUCH LIKE when skeptics or the cults come in and rip a small portion of the text out of context, ignore the clear testimony of those involved in the verse itself, and lay a false history or hermeneutic over the textmoving on to do the same with another verse. [Like Jehovah’s Witnesses as an example with John 1:1]

In other words

  • your contention,
  • or the person who says these programs are to obfuscate the “real conspiracies,”

use the same amount of evidence [hint, inference only] and the competing contentions raised by conspiracy theorists are not provable of disprovable. BECAUSE there will always be another contention [twisted as discussed inferred] to explain away the refutation.

For instance, I make good arguments against the main propositions used to support the deliberated destruction of WTC-7and I am tricked by chemtrails. You see, there is no winning

…[and I linked to this post]…

And thus, no information [truth] is passed on.

I further explain for people who cannot pick-up what I am laying down:

In other words

I could simply respond to Vytas S. when he said,

  • “Sean, I remember watching a CNN video of the countdown to when Building 7 came down,”

by saying:

  • Vytas, you’re proof that Chemtrails work!

[“Proof” ~ as used above ~ should be in quotation marks signifying another intent for it.]

Here is M.C.’s response (try not to laugh):

On the same Note Sean how do you know your information is correctthink about it. Most media information is impregnated with NWO progressive Liberal Spinbull. Alex has dedicated his life exposing mainstream media no matter who is in White House. If he is only right 30% of the time we are screwed. I will say he is right about 83% of the time and have watched his truths come to the forefront. ChemTrails are real…. and a threat to all of us. Weather Manipulation IS FOR REAL!. The Fight between Republicans and Democraps is a manipulated NWO Farce to keep us occupied and seperated…. WAKE UP AMERICA!

There is no way to argue reasonably with such a person… he will explain e v e r y t h i n g as a conspiracy — so I tap out — as truth is unknowable in his scenario.


Movie Time


Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theories Obliterated (Glenn Greenwald)

Here are the areas (plus a little more) that Larry was reading from, via GLENN GREENWALD:

THE TWO-PRONGED CONSPIRACY THEORY that has dominated U.S. political discourse for almost three years – that (1) Trump, his family and his campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, and (2) Trump is beholden to Russian President Vladimir Putin — was not merely rejected today by the final report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. It was obliterated: in an undeniable and definitive manner.

The key fact is this: Mueller – contrary to weeks of false media claims – did not merely issue a narrow, cramped, legalistic finding that there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump associates for conspiring with Russia and then proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That would have been devastating enough to those who spent the last two years or more misleading people to believe that conspiracy convictions of Trump’s closest aides and family members were inevitable. But his mandate was much broader than that: to state what did or did not happen.

That’s precisely what he did: Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened. As Mueller himself put it: “in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.”

[….]

All criminal investigations require a determination of a person’s intent, what they are thinking and what their goal is. When the question is whether a President sought to kill an Executive Branch investigation – as Trump clearly wanted to do here – the determinative issue is whether he did so because he genuinely believed the investigation to be an unfair persecution and scam, or whether he did it to corruptly conceal evidence of criminality.

That Mueller could not and did not establish any underlying crimes strongly suggests that Trump acted with the former rather than the latter motive, making it virtually impossible to find that he criminally obstructed the investigation.

THE NATURE OF OUR POLITICAL DISCOURSE is that nobody ever needs to admit error because it is easy to confine oneself to strictly partisan precincts where people are far more interested in hearing what advances their agenda or affirms their beliefs than they are hearing the truth. For that reason, I doubt that anyone who spent the last three years pushing utterly concocted conspiracy theories will own up to it, let alone confront any accountability or consequences for it.

But certain facts will never go away no matter how much denial they embrace. The sweeping Mueller investigation ended with zero indictments of zero Americans for conspiring with Russia over the 2016 election. Both Donald Trump, Jr. and Jared Kushner – the key participants in the Trump Tower meeting – testified for hours and hours yet were never charged for perjury, lying or obstruction, even though Mueller proved how easily he would indict anyone who lied as part of the investigation. And this massive investigation simply did not establish any of the conspiracy theories that huge parts of the Democratic Party, the intelligence community and the U.S. media spent years encouraging the public to believe.

Those responsible for this can refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing. They can even claim vindication if they want and will likely be cheered for doing so.

But the contempt in which the media and political class is held by so much of the U.S. population – undoubtedly a leading factor that led to Trump’s election in the first place – will only continue to grow as a result, and deservedly so. People know they were scammed, that their politics was drowned for years by a hoax. And none of that will go away no matter how insulated media and political elites in Washington, northern Virginia, Brooklyn, and large West Coast cities keep themselves, and thus hear only in-group affirmation while blocking out all of that well-earned scorn.

 

Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald Discuss the Russian Conspiracy

  • Back from Vacation, this was awesome. I didn’t watch much politics on TV on the trip. But I did catch this:

Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election.

The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald alleged Monday on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that MSNBC banned him and other “left-wing journalists with very high journalistic credentials” because of their coverage of the Mueller probe. (DAILY CALLER). [Editors note: I disagree with Greenwald on the Iraq War (WMDs)but that proves his Leftism well.]

Behold a Pale Horse (Book Review)

I am posting these because like the EX-CONSPIRACY THEORIST, I too had my exodus from the movement (I will post an excerpt explaining my exodus from conspiracism via an excerpt from a chapter in my “book” — after the media below). I also liked the below because it tackled a book and person well. Bringing information to those who will never read such nonsense — rightly so. That is a book I myself never read — but saw at the conspiracy book store I use to shop many years ago.

PART 1: Behold a Pale Horse Book Review

PART 2: Who was William Cooper?


MY OWN EXODUS


From my chapter on the Emergent Church:

Learning Curves
Before continuing, I want to challenge the reader who has already made up their mind in regards to the emerging movement to allow me to be conversant with them.  All persons in my opinion should be introduced to debate, two sides of any topic or subject.  This is sometimes the best way one can come to an understanding in regards to evidence a particular subject has or lacks.  This is, in fact, what the pro-life movement wants; a presentation of all the facts, confident that once viewed the young mother will choose life much more often.  Debate typically sheds light on positions that often times are ignored or hard to digest.  A prime example is myself.

My pre-Christ life would make the chief of sinners, Paul, wag his head (1 Tim 1:15); my post-Christ life would make Moses break the tablets a second time.  During seasons in my life as the Holy Spirit points me towards maturity, often times dragging me kicking and screaming, I have firmly believed in an aspect of reality one way — and then when presented evidence that is contrary to what I first believed I will often times change my position with deep contemplation or the proverbial smack across the back of the head.  Nature, history, truth, theology, aspects of reality, etc, all these positions changed under direction of the Holy Spirit via God’s Word and the Body of Christ, the book of nature, and Christian luminaries (if there is such a thing).  One example I can give specifically are my positions concerning history and eschatology.[1]

As a renewed Christian just out of the L.A. County jail system,[2] I became immersed in everything to do with Jesus Second Coming.  Often times this type of intense study will lead to the idea that there is a secret cabal pulling the strings of history behind such organizations as the Trilateral Commission, the Council of Foreign Relation, the Bilderbergers, Illuminati, Masons (Freemasons), Skull and Bones, and the like.   I am sure that most reading this have seen the movie The Da Vinci Code, the same thinking by conspiratorial advocate, Ralph Epperson, follows:[3]

The Accidental View of History: historical events occur by accident, for no apparent reason. Rulers are powerless to intervene.

The Conspiratorial View of History: historical events occur by design for reasons that are not generally made known to the people.[4]

Mr. Epperson continues by comparing two quotes with this idea in mind:

Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor…. [wrote]: “History is much more the product of chaos than of conspiracy…. increasingly, policy makers are overwhelmed by events and information.” ….Franklin D. Roosevelt who certainly saw many monumental events occur during his consecutive administrations. President Roosevelt has been quoted as saying: “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way.”[5]

This immersion eventually led me to meeting regularly with a group of John Birch Society members.[6] I read many books on the New World Order, which is intimately entwined with the conspiratorial view of history.  A few years later I came across a Jewish radio talk show host who on every full moon would only allow callers who believed in this type of history.  He called the show on that day the Conspiracy Day, and it was not until I heard debate and opposition to my view that I began to weigh the evidences for it.  In the end, my interpretation of history collapsed under the weight of the evidence.  I do not want this to escape the reader, as, this will lead to a more fruitful discussion of the topic at hand – primarily, the postmodern view of history, theology, and ultimately truth.  I mentioned just a moment ago “debate.”  The American Heritage Dictionary[7] defines debate as:

  1. To consider something; deliberate.
  2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

Black’s Law Dictionary[8] defines deliberate, a word used in the American Heritage Dictionary definition, as:

  1. Intentional; premeditated; fully considered.
  2. Unimpulsive; slow in deciding.

You see, it was not until I heard true debate on the topic of whether or not history was guided by an ill-intentioned cabal or not that I even considered revising my position.  This debate allowed me time to deliberate and meditate on the issue causing a healthier picture of history to immerge based on all — or at least more — of the historical information available.  Pride, selfishness, shoddy thinking, presuppositions, (in other words — our nature), will get in the way of us coming to conclusions in our life that could have saved us time, energy, feelings hurt, friends and family lost, as well as faith destroyed… ours – or others around us.  Another point worth mentioning is during this time of formulation, deliberation, and reformulation — I was still saved in the fullest sense of the word.  Jesus and His sacrificial covering of my sins were not affected by my peripheral eschatological viewpoints; no matter how disjointed it made my life.  My unhealthy view of history and my subsequent forcing of Biblical passages to fit that unhealthy view did not affect the person and deity of Christ.

Space to Grow
The question becomes this: What is the church’s role in all of this?  When we are too compulsive in some areas of our life but too slow in deciding on matters that would speed up healthy living, is it the church’s responsibility to fly in — red cape and all — and point fingers?  On the other hand, should it be the church’s role to provide a place where people feel safe by being loved?  I believe it to be the latter.  Another aspect here to keep in mind is that there are misunderstandings on what a person needs to believe, and at what time during their journey.  We are not all robots made identical so that the Holy Spirit can move us along on the same path in the same time period.[9] Ravi again clears up this thinking in his patented cogent way after asked a question by a student at a Q&A forum at Georgia University:

What does it take to be a Christian?  I would tell you to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, that God raised him from the dead… you – with your heart and mind – trust in Jesus Christ.  You are a believer.  What does it take to come and belong to your church?  If you join the church where I am a member now, there are certain doctrinal beliefs that you have to believe.  For example: You cannot believe that the bible is 90% rubbish and 10% good and still be a member of the church… you can’t do that.  There are certain doctrines you are committed to, there is a certain code of conduct you are committed to.  If you belong to a community of believers, it is not just a belief in Christ, but also a certain community expression of that belief that you are submitted to.  What does it take to teach at Whitcliff-Hall Oxford University? Now you have to add even more than that.  So with each line of affiliation you put the plus – plus – plus.  Not because the second or the third make you a Christian, but it places upon you a greater accountability and responsibility as a dispenser of truth to which you are held accountable by a community of believers.[10]

The newer believer needs a place where the concerns of life and faith can safely be expressed and which will allow them to grow in the understanding of their faith and what God has planned for their lives, better influencing the world around them.  Only as the believer is immersed in a healthy-well-balanced church and community can conversation/debate with fellow trusted believers start to zero in on certain mistruths and myths held by many in regards to our faith and history.   The reason for this critique.

It is possible for a person to view the historicity of the virgin birth, for instance, with skepticism and disbelief and still be saved in the truest sense of the word, as I was in regards to my view on eschatology.  However, as the believer matures in his or her understanding of faith, such an issue grows in importance.  The mature believer should keep in mind that focusing in on a doctrinal issue too early in a believers walk may not create dialogue or understanding as much as tension and misunderstanding.   This brings me full circle to the topic at hand, that is, as the person moves up the scale of understanding, say, to the level of a pastor, what is his level of understanding and teaching expected to be?  Is the virgin birth an event that is key to who (and thusly, what) Christ claimed to be?  Is it a doctrine we can forego in our panoply of beliefs?  Is the issue and manner in which Christ was born worth defending or pronouncing as a historical fact?  Is it a unique event? What about some of the other doctrines, such as the Trinity and Resurrection, how important are these?  I will hope to answer some of these questions here.  Before I do however, I must discuss this issue in light of who I am contrasting these views with.  In this case, it is Rob Bell.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Eschatology – “Study of the ‘last things’ or the end of the world.”  Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Louisville, KT: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), cf. eschatology, 92.

[2] I am an ex-con from 20[+] years ago… in case you didn’t follow the footnotes in chapter one.

[3] The following book I would no longer recommend for reading, but find it useful to define this view.

[4] A. Ralph Epperson, The Unseen Hand: An Introduction to the Conspiratorial View of History (Tucson, AZ: Publius Press, 1985), 6.

[5] Ibid., 7.

[6] John Birch was a brash and sometimes controversial figure in history who died near the end of WWII, most would argue as a hero.  The society that was founded in his name was at first concerned primarily with possible infiltration into our government by communist sympathizers.  The organization metamorphosed over the years into what we find today, an organization that would posit that this infiltration is more than merely a communist infiltration, which was bore out as true (see for instance: M. Stanton Evans, Blacklisted By History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthey [New York, NY: Crown Forum, 2007]).  Today, however, the John Birch Society has had issues published of its monthly magazine that would take the position, for instance, that the United States Government was intimately involved in the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Building (see for instance: William F. Jasper, “Proof of Bombs and Cover-up,” The New American 14, no. 15 [July 1998]: 10-15.).  They would believe that our government took down the Twin Towers, as would I have believed if this event took place 15-years ago.  Moreover, they would posit that this infiltration and planned corruption and control of society goes back through most epochs of history to the mystery religions.  The Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War, as examples, were all started by plan and years of preparation to entrench even more the power of these “controllers of history.”

[7] American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed. (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), cf. debate, 468.

[8] 7th ed. (St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1999), cf. deliberate, 438.

[9] I wanted here to reference a beautiful story that some will recognize when they see it, as, it comes from the “king” of evidential apologetics., Josh McDowell. Josh finishes off his rational, historical, fact based argument with his most important chapter.  It details the experiential impact that God had on his life, and in this presentation there is more weight to the changes wrought by Calvary than in the previous 12 fact filled chapters.  In it, you can see that it took Josh almost 18 months to shake his skepticism and embrace what God had planned for him; in his Father’s case it was almost instantaneous.  Let’s read, remember, it is Josh speaking:

I hated one man more than anyone else in the world—my father. I hated his guts. I was mortified that he was the town alcoholic. If you’re from a small town and one of your parents is an alcoholic, you know what I mean. Everybody knows. My high school friends would make jokes about my father’s drinking. ‘They didn’t think it bothered me because I fell in with the joking and laughed with them. I was laughing on the outside, but let me tell you, I was crying on the inside. I would go to the barn and find my mother beaten so badly she couldn’t get up, lying in the manure behind the cows. When we had friends over, I would take my father out to the barn, tie him up, and park his car behind the silo. We would tell our guests he’d had to go somewhere. I don’t think anyone could hate a person more than I hated my father. About five months after I made that decision for Christ, a love from God entered my life so powerfully that it took that hatred, turned it upside down, and emptied it out. I was able to look my father squarely in the eyes and say, “Dad, I love you.” And I really meant it. After some of the things I’d done to him, that really shook him up. After I transferred to a private university, a serious car accident put me in the hospital. When I was moved home to recover, my father came to visit me. Remarkably, he was sober that day. But he seemed uneasy, pacing about the room. Then he blurted out, “Son, how can you love a father like me?” I answered, “Dad, six months ago I despised you.” Then I shared with him the story of my research and conclusions about Jesus Christ. I told him, “I have placed my trust in Christ, received God’s forgiveness, invited him into my life, and he has changed me. I can’t explain it all, Dad, but God has taken away my hatred and replaced it with the capacity to love. I love you and accept you just the way you are.” We talked for almost an hour, and then I received one of the greatest thrills of my life. This man who was my father, this man who knew me too well for me to pull the wool over his eyes, looked at me and said, “Son, if God can do in my life what I’ve seen him do in yours, then I want to give him the opportunity. I want to trust him as my Savior and Lord.” I cannot imagine a greater miracle. Usually after a person accepts Christ, the changes in his or her life occur over a period of days, weeks, months, or even years. In my own life the change took about six to eighteen months. But the life of my father changed right before my eyes. It was as if God reached down and flipped on the light switch. Never before or since have I seen such a dramatic change.

Josh and Sean McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, revised and updated ed. (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2009), 163-165.

[10] The video of this exchange can be seen at my VIMEO or YOUTUBE (last accessed 3-3-19).

A Dylann Roof “Mantra” Still Alive at CNN

NEWSBUSTERS has this conspiracy myth:

On Thursday’s At This Hour on CNN, Symone Sanders joined Angela Rye in the list of liberal CNN political commentators who have repeated a discredited myth that the gunman in the Charleston church massacre, Dylann Roof, was given special treatment by police before being incarcerated.

[….]

Sanders jumped in: “Okay, pardon me. Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, are we really going to … I really think it’s problematic here when we start to demonize the victims in these cases.”

She soon cited the debunked myth of Roof as evidence of special treatment received by white criminals as she soon added:

I’m not going it sit here and let you say that Alton Sterling was basically a criminal that was reaching for his gun and deserved to get shot because, guess what, the young man that shot and killed 17 people on a high school campus the other day, he was taken into custody alive. You know, Dylann Roof, who walked into a church and shot nine people, he was taken into custody alive and then was taken to Burger King to get a burger before they took him to jail. 

So the problem here is, it seems at though when we have suspects or people who are engaged in situations with police officers that are a little bit more melanated than some of our counterparts, they seem to not make it out of the situations alive.

On Tuesday, Rye also repeated the claim about Burger King as she debated conservative CNN political commentator Ben Ferguson on the Alton Sterling case.

But, as documented by Snopes, Roof was not taken to Burger King by police. He was simply supplied with food from Burger King while he awaited transfer to a larger jail because the small jail where he was initially incarcerated did not have the facilities to supply with him in-house food, and the restaurant was nearby. If the liberals want to argue that prisoners should be denied food, that would make an interesting segment…….

Feminist Extraordinaire, Naomi Wolf, Goes Full Retard

This is with thanks to GAY PATRIOT, and can be added to my “CHEMTRAIL” response.

At the start of this past week, a Democrat City Councilman in the capital city of our country speculated that a Jewish conspiracy was manipulating the Earth’s weather in order to control urban areas.  I am not making this up.

[….]

To bookend that, the Democrat Feminist Naomi Wolf (the one who advised Al Gore to wear Earth tones in order to project a more Alpha Male image) blames Chemtrails for controlling the weather over New York City. I am also not making this up.

She also says the evil Nestle Corporation is behind the chemtrails.

  • When we noted major corporations such as Nestle have been buying up municipal water rights, hedge funds betting on water scarcity — and that cloud seeding redirects (doesn’t create) water — we got a flood of trolls. (Corps can hire troll farms, not just Russian). I say we look.

…..(read it all)…..

Stephen Paddock Acted Alone, Sorry Conspiracy Guys

Using exclusive surveillance footage obtained from MGM Resorts, we pieced together the last days of Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas gunman. He plays video poker, laughs with hotel staff and hauls bag after bag of weapons into his suite.

(ABC) Over a number of days after he checks into the hotel, he can also be seen coming and going at the hotel, bringing in luggage and bags.

(NYT) Over and over in the clips, Mr. Paddock is seen leaving the Mandalay Bay for his home in Mesquite, returning with a dark minivan loaded with suitcases. Over and over, valets take his keys; over and over, bellhops stack his luggage on gold carts, helping him transport at least 21 bags over the course of seven days. As they take the service elevator upstairs, Mr. Paddock chats with them. He cracks a joke. He tips.

The O.W.L. Conspiracy

A caller takes Michael Medved on a ride of his life. From owls to Russian sleeper agents. Yep… Medved gets em all – mind you, the caller could be having a bit of fun… but you never know. Makes you laugh either way. One comment on my YouTube humorously notes: “Medved said exactly the same thing a sleeper would say.”

Conspiracy Day | Pearl Harbor False Flag

On the most recent full moon Michael Medved had his usual “Conspiracy Day Show,” and a caller offered a conspiracy I hadn’t heard of — that our own Navy attacked Pearl Harbor. Crazy!

“Everyone Is Colluding With Russia Except Trump” | Mark Steyn

GAY PATRIOT comments on this video:

See more at THE DAILY CALLER

BREITBART compiles “lamemainstream medias” supporting of the facts:

1. CONFIRMED by the New York Times: The former head of Russia’s uranium company (Ian Telfer) made four hidden donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling $2.35 million.
2. CONFIRMED by the New Yorker magazine: Bill Clinton bagged a $500,000 speech in Moscow paid for by a Kremlin-backed bank.
3. CONFIRMED by the New York Times: Despite claims to the contrary, Uranium One has, in fact, exported “yellowcake” out of America and is “routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.”
4. CONFIRMED by The Hill: The FBI has uncovered “substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.”
5. CONFIRMED by CNBC: Clinton Foundation mega-donor Frank Holmes claimed he sold Uranium One before Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the Russian transfer—but his company’s own SEC filings prove otherwise.
6. CONFIRMED by the New York Times: While eight other agencies had to sign off on approving the transfer of 20 percent of all U.S. uranium to Russia, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was the only government agency headed by an official (Hillary Clinton) whose family foundation received $145 million from foreign investors involved in the uranium deal.
7. CONFIRMED by The Hill: FBI agents already have an eyewitness and documents to support the most explosive parts of the Uranium One story.

Here is just one example of the accumulating crimes for the Democrats (The DNC) and the Hillary campaign from the 2016 election cycle — LAW NEWZ:

….According to reports, the Hillary for America campaign paid for the research but routed the payments through Elias’ law firm Perkins Coie and described the purpose of the money as “legal services” on their FEC disclosures. The DNC and the Clinton campaign reported dozens of payments totaling more that $12 million dollars to Perkins Coie over the course of the campaign.

“By filing misleading reports, the DNC and Clinton campaign undermined the vital public information role of campaign disclosures,” said Adav Noti, with the Campaign Legal Center in a statement obtained by LawNewz. Noti previously served as the FEC’s Associate General Counsel for Policy. “Voters need campaign disclosure laws to be enforced so they can hold candidates accountable for how they raise and spend money. The FEC must investigate this apparent violation and take appropriate action.”

According to FEC reports, Clinton’s campaign reported 37 payments to the law firm and reported each disbursement as “Legal Services.” The DNC reported 345 payments to Perkins Coie during the election cycle and marked the payments as “legal and compliance consulting,” “administrative fees,” “data services subscription” and others.

“The purpose of at least some portion of the payments to Perkins Coie was not for legal services; instead, those payments were intended to fund opposition research,” the FEC complaint reads. “This false reporting clearly failed the Commission’s requirements for disclosing the purpose of a disbursement.”

It is legal under current campaign finance law for the Hillary Clinton campaign to commission an opposition research company to dig up dirt on Donald Trump. What is not legal, according to campaign legal experts, is for the campaign to pay a law firm who then hires other to perform campaign related activities without reporting the purpose of the expenditures….

.

Debunking 3 “Proofs” of a 2nd Shooter (UPDATED)

Before getting into these two evidences for a second shooter, I just want to say that yes, it is rare to have an act done in killing people without a clear motive. Typically the killers leave behind a manifesto that explains why they did it. In the case of the Vegas shooter, we have nothing yet. THAT BEING SAID, I do not need a manifesto from a person to know that they are incurably wicked. My guide to this and the next life make this abundantly clear. Mankind is depraved… able to do any wicked deed that comes across their hearts.

Maybe there were demonic forces influencing him. Maybe his anti-depressants brought out the real Stephen Paddock.

SIDE-NOTE — Most men struggle with two main issues that are natural to them: lust and anger. I have friend’s or know people who struggle greatly with sexual issues (lust, attraction, fidelity, etc.). Others struggle with anger… this is me. It runs in my Italian side of the family, and it is what my family had to see me deal with over many years. (Others battle both.) PIVOT — I have Multiple Sclerosis… and there are four drugs they recommend to help suppress it. I opted for the daily shot as it was least offensive to one’s body. The shot COMPLETELY changed my demeanor… all the gains I made over many years of maturing as a man and believer — out the door. As soon, and I mean within days of not using the inhibitor, I was back to normal. So my own experience with some of these more serious drugs makes the below ring true. I reacted to this mild medication, Copaxone, in the most extreme way – a very low percentile reaction.

NOW, whether he was taking any “anti-Depressants I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS IN REPORTS. He was prescribed diazepam — “Valium”… but whether he was taking them regularly is something no one knows. I try to take my vitamins every day, but often times forget about them.

Again, this is just anecdotal evidence meanderings by myself and others.

PADDOCK AT TRUMP RALLY – DEBUNKED

(My original statement) At this point we do not know. What I do know so far is that it looks like he has acted alone. So far. I am inclined to think he was a Leftie, and hated life. It is possible he target the event to kill the most Trump supporters possible. But all I have to go on is that there are pictures of him at a rally with a pink “pussy” hat on and some anti-Trump sign. And? Even I need more.

UPDATED INFO regarding Paddock being at an anti-Trump rally… to be fair, I want to debunk my own claim above. Here is SNOPES dealing with this:

…Here’s the best comparison we could create of photographs allegedly depicting the same man in these two different contexts:

Although these images are blurry, one can spot noticeable differences, such as the two men’s eyebrows (the accused gunman had light eyebrows, while the protester’s eyebrows are dark) and earlobes (the bottom of the gunman’s earlobes are attached, whereas the protester’s appear detached). Even if the man in pink was indeed the Las Vegas shooter, it would be nearly impossible to identify him from this photograph alone. 

It’s as if conspiracy theorists simply searched for photographs of an anti-Trump protester who shared the shooter’s approximate age, race, and gender in order to push the narrative that the latter’s actions were politically motivated. In fact, another video purportedly showing the Las Vegas gunman at an anti-Trump rally identified an entirely different person:

Although this individual is also white, middle-aged, and male, there’s no evidence to suggest that he is the same man who committed the shootings….


OCCUPANT NEXT DOOR TO PADDOCK


So, this first conspiracy theory was an easy one to debunk. It came through my son via a buddy of his. Here is the evidence for a second shooter in Paddocks room, it comes from a blog:

Hotel Guest Next Door To Las Vegas Shooter Saw ‘Multiple Gunmen’

An Australian man who was staying in the room next to the shooter in the Mandalay Bay has confirmed he witnessed multiple gunmen involved in the Las Vegas attack.

“There were multiple people dead and multiple shooters. I was just hiding waiting for police to come get us. I got outside safely and was hiding in bushes,” Brian Hodge told Australia’s Courier-Mail.

Mr. Hodge, who was staying in room 32134, next door to Stephen Paddock in room 32135, also provided important information when he revealed that a security guard was killed by police.

“My floor is a crime scene. They killed a security guard on my floor.”….

(See also the Washington [not so] Standard).

However, Mr. Hodges was not in his room, as THE DAILY MAIL and other outlets report:

…Mr Hodge is thankful that he was not in his room at the time police used controlled explosives to enter room 32134 and locate Paddock.

‘It was hardcore, like it was full machine-guns for 20 seconds and then it stopped for five seconds then it just went again,’ he said, describing how he hid in bushes outside of the hotel for more than three hours.

‘There were so many shots fired, I couldn’t tell you how many.’

Mr Hodge also described the terrifying moment a woman stepped in front of him and urged to turn back because there was a shooter….

So he did not see two shooters that night, as, the conspiracy sites try to make out. NOR was a security guard killed by police. Dumb! TO BE CLEAR, Brian Hodges did not see multiple shooters. Nor has he ever said that a security guard was killed by police.

PUNDIFACT has this:

…In fact, Hodge gave an interview to the Sydney Morning Herald in which he more fully describes what he saw.

Hodge told that newspaper that he never made it to his room on the 32nd floor and after hearing the bullets he first went to a casino kitchen before hiding in a bush outside.

“I was just laying on the ground. It was like a scene from a movie. The shooter was up above, we didn’t know where they were… I didn’t want anyone to know where I was, so I just curled up and hid. It was the most terrifying moment of my life.”

Hodge also posted on Facebook, “There is a live shooter with a gun in my hotel in Vegas right now, but I got outside safely and hiding in bushes.”

More importantly for this fact-check, it’s clear to us the Neon Nettle [a crazy conspiracy site that said it interviewed Hodges] post puts words in Hodge’s mouth. Hodge never said in the Courier Mail article nor in any other article or social media post that the security guard was a shooter…..

He also disputes ever saying “shooters” (multiple), or seeing a guard shot. Here is one response to a comment on his Facebook by someone noting the conspiracy theory (via Pundifact):


MISSING WINDOWS


HAT-TIP TO A.D. LEM

The second conspiracy deals with multiple windows looking as if they were broken on various floors, adding to thew suspicion of other shooters. This photo is starting to take off on the interwebs. Here is the PROOF of multiple shooters:

The only problem is that this is not the same side the shooter was on. Nor do I know the date of this photo. And I also have photos I know the date of:

2010 Pic

2011 Pic

2014 Pic

Even in this shot the taken day after the shooting you can see that the missing windows are on the opposite side of the building. And… so you know, no one died in the line of fire of those missing windows. If there were shooters in them, they were the worst shot ever!

During conversation about this on Facebook, someone posted a video to prove the position that there were multiple shooters. In fact, the opposite is done — it DISPROVES multiple shooters. Here I take the linked video and edit in the above points:

In other words:

  • The angle is impossible;
  • No one was shot on the North-West side of Mandalay Bay;
  • No missing or broken windows were present on the North-East side of Mandalay Bay… besides the windows Paddock broke.

FOURTH FLOOR EVIDENCE


HAT-TIP TO A.H. SMIDT 

Simply put, people are showing videos (taxi driver || far shot) of supposed gun shots Uber driver driving away  Here is a raw video shown in the below video debunking this conspiracy theory, HERE:

Quoting SMIDT’S post:

  • also the visuals of the strobing don’t match with the gunshots. The former is consistent, doesn’t stop. The gunshots came in waves. No match, not even when we consider the differential between sound and light waves.
  • Notice the different missing windows from the pic you posted from the one’s Erin did. Also, notice the many other pics throughout the years of Mandalay Bay’s missing windows. Window maintenance is common at MB. 
  • Also, you’d have to suggest in what way the missing windows on the other side of the building relate to the shooting since there’s no demonstrable evidence of any effects related to those windows or that side of the building in any way. 
  • The reports about police saying the wind blew out the windows are not factual. 
  • Listen to the gunfire. You’d hear overlapping patterns if there were multiple shooters, unless they took turns, which seems inefficient and unlikely (unless we’re going full planned attack to make it seem like a single shooter).

Bruh… this shit is gonna rot your brain.


SIMILARITY TO WTC-7


In one of many refutations regarding World Trade Center number seven, I kept a video by an ex-truther regarding his final week in the movement. These dealt with similar windows. Here is how I prefaced the video on Facebook:

I have listened to the raw audio from the early uploads. It was one shooter. The echo from a gun firing would have been two or three for each bullet fired with massive delays due to the buildings in that vicinity. I also watched the video. Those windows being replaced were on opposite towers/sides than where Paddock was shooting into the crowd from. Last I checked no one was shot en mass on other streets or areas other than what his room over looked.

Edward Current was a long time 9/11 Truther and left the movement when he realized almost all the evidence for his position was founded on innuendo. The week he officially left he cobbled together a fake video and watched his allies go to town putting together elaborate stories surrounding it’s authenticity. A video of his explanation is found via my YouTube, and is explained more on my WTC-7 CONSPIRACY DEBUNKING PAGE.

Unfortunately, Info Wars and Prison Planet [e.g., Alex Jones] type crap is becoming somewhat popular (made all the more so by The Drudge Report and Paul Joseph Watson – who has some good commentary at times). All, one must keep in mind, based on innuendo.