Is there any uniting on Manchester?

Child injured in the Manchester bombing which, according to Wikipedia, resulted in 22 dead and 1,017 injured! (a much higher number of injured since I last looked). Paediatric orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Ibrar Majid, told us, “What we saw was essentially war wounds so the kinds of wounds you would see on a battlefield.”

“If you know their name, they’re in the game.” — Miri Finch

---

Aisling O’Loughlin, Abi Roberts, Iain Davis, James Delingpole, and Miri Finch have all put forward their arguments with regard to the Manchester bombing and the successful suit against Richard D. Hall (RDH) by the Hibberts for alleged harassment in the form of RDH admitting to spying on their daughter, Eve, to check if she were faking injury by the Manchester bombing although at the time of his admission he also admitted recognising she really was disabled.

I put forward six points that favour the hypothesis that Manchester was a hoax and Richard D. Hall is an agent and his trial is a show trial used as a vehicle to vilify and silence those who speak against official narratives. (This hypothesis was suggested to me by the work of Miri Finch who I highly recommend although she approaches the subject slightly differently.)

1. Revelation of the Method (RoM) or Hidden in Plain Sight: There is not a single piece of evidence that favours the reality of the Manchester bombing over fake while there are both:

• numerous pieces of evidence that favour fakery, eg, an alleged bomb scene that is perfectly consistent with a drill and in no way consistent of expectations of a scene where a bomb has killed 22 people and injured 1,017

• no pieces of evidence that are inconsistent with the fake hypothesis

  

  The only photo across all media at different levels of crop and zoom of the alleged bomb scene. Interesting analysis by UK Critical Thinker of the metadata of this photo.

In other words, the Manchester bombing employs the essential element of psyop MO: Revelation of the Method (RoM) or Hidden in Plain Sight.

2. RoM means zero requirement for investigation: Given the fact that Manchester was done Hidden in Plain Sight there is zero requirement for the investigation carried out by RDH to prove anything. Sufficient information is exposed in the media narrative that tells us the truth underneath the propaganda.

3. Many analysts “prove” Manchester from their phones and computers or make FOI requests: At the time of the alleged bombing and since, many analysts whose videos were taken off YouTube put forward compelling analyses showing Manchester was a hoax, merely from their phones and computers. One who did a little more digging was the prolific Mancunian, UK Critical Thinker, who made at least 40 videos which were removed from YouTube but then appeared on RDH’s website but recently gone (why?). Here is one of his videos analysing Paula Robinson, the “Pied Piper” of Manchester. And here is his On the Face of It (1h15m) - highly recommended. UK Critical Thinker went to the site of the alleged bombing and other relevant sites and he spoke to people in the area to ask their opinion about the event. He also issued an FOI about drills prior to the event. No one is taking him to court.

4. Investigating crisis actors is like investigating street drug dealers: If RDH felt the need to investigate why not issue FOIs as UK Critical Thinker did or investigate at a higher level? When it comes to drugs, at least nominally, the police are more interested in the bigger fish and will do deals with the street dealers if they can help nab them. In the case of psyops no need for help from crisis actors. We know that those in the police, hospital and other services were involved in the hoax and obviously this event will involve people at the highest level. Why didn’t RDH approach the police and hospital personnel and ask them about all the anomalies in the story? Of course, they’re only a little way up the ladder themselves but aren’t they a better place to start than the ones at street level so to speak?

I did, in fact, do a tiny bit of “investigating” myself. I emailed Dr Ibrar Majid (referred to in the caption of the headlining photo) and asked about the contradiction between the show-and-tell of children showing nary a scratch and his description of “wounds from a battlefield”. No response - of course.

5. Saffie Roussos’s parents’ words scripted and speculation is strange: If Saffie Roussos’s parents are crisis actors they will be scripted so if the inference can be made from their words that Saffie had already died that will mean they were scripted to do that and this fact would surely be apparent to RDH who recognises Manchester as a hoax. Three important questions arise:

• Why were they scripted so that such an inference can be made?

• Why did RDH not account for the fact that they were scripted? Why did he analyse their words as if they were candid?

• Why did RDH bother to speculate on something that we cannot know from the available information and is of no import in the scheme of things? We don’t need to know if the child of a couple of crisis actors died prior to the alleged bombing or if she is alive and well - happily ensconced with her parents on a nice little Greek island perhaps? What’s the purpose of speculating about a trivial element when there are so many tangible facts that expose the lie of the Manchester bombing?

Note: I think the evidence actually favours Saffie being alive, in fact - see Personal Extra at the bottom of my page.

6. RDH’s methods bound to attract disapprobation: RDH’s accusatory idle speculation about whether parents are dissimulating in relation to their daughter and his admission to spying on a teenage girl to check if she really had been disabled by the bombing are bound to attract disapprobation. Moreover, as RDH would be aware that people who are amputees and suffer other genuine conditions are used for these events we have to wonder why he chose an avenue of investigation that could so easily prove fruitless when there are so very many other avenues to choose from.

In summary: If RDH is not an agent we can only wonder what he hoped to achieve by the possible exposure of a child faking her injuries or why he would speculate about the possibility of a couple’s child having died prior to the alleged bombing. The event exposes itself at every turn and the details of individual crisis actors in the charade are of minimal interest to those of us who recognise or are willing to recognise that Manchester is a hoax. As an analyst myself it seems very strange for another analyst to spy on a child who was obviously pushed into participating in this event and to speculate about whether a child had died prior to the event. There are so many tangible anomalies in the story why would you waste a second on speculation about whether a child had died previously or not - at least publicly? Crisis actors are just minions participating in these events for a wide variety of reasons including payment, clemency with relation to sentences, waiving of fines, etc. They aren’t the main guilty parties, the perpetrators are … and we know where they are.

---

Let’s see what happens when we test these three competing hypotheses:

H1: A bombing occurred in Manchester killing 22 and injuring 1,017 people as stated in Wikipedia

H2: The Manchester bombing was a psyop and RDH investigated the Manchester bombing in a manner consistent with what is expected of someone wishing to expose the Manchester bombing as a psyop.

H3: The Manchester bombing was a psyop and RDH is an agent whose trial was a show trial, used as a vehicle to vilify and silence those who speak against official narratives.

---

In addition to the case made in the article, a more comprehensive case against H1 is presented here: Occam’s Razor on the Manchester Bombing

For H2, we assume H1 is proven false, but the following questions arise for the second part of the hypothesis:

• Why did RDH focus on alleged victims in such a way as to risk possible court action when every other analyst has managed to avoid that situation - even such prolific analysts as UK Critical Thinker? Why not, say, submit FOIs as UK Critical Thinker did or approach people with a more impersonal connection such as police and hospital personnel?

• Why were Saffie Roussos’s parents scripted so that the inference can be made she’d died before the event in seemingly suspicious circumstances?

• Why did RDH not account for the fact that Saffie Roussos’s parents were scripted? Why did he analyse their words as if they were candid?

• Why did RDH speculate publicly about whether Saffie Roussos had died prior to the event when so many other tangible anomalies expose that Manchester is a hoax and whether or not Saffie had died prior or was still alive is of no import in terms of exposing the event.

• What was the purpose of RDH’s surveillance of a girl to determine if her injuries were fake when, as stated, so many other anomalies expose the event as a hoax and it is of no import to prove that Eve Hibbert is faking her injuries. Moreover, as people with genuine injuries are used in these events she might not be faking her injuries but still be participating in the hoax as has proved to be the case.

• We can only infer that as the Hibberts are crisis actors the proceedings would not be initiated by them but by those connected to the orchestration of the event. The proceedings obviously have an agenda so the question arises as to whether the case is orchestrated only on the one side or both sides and as the one side is orchestrated we can only infer that all efforts would be made to control the other too. Power is always about control.

H3: We assume H1 is proven false. Zero questions arise. Everything fits perfectly, particularly the fact that RDH’s reprehensible behaviour has been splashed all over the media.