I lost faith in RDH years ago. The name escapes me but he reported on a young girl who was in France with her parents and mysteriously disappeared, the implication being a Jon Benet Ramsey-type affair. RDH demonstrated no skepticism at all about the incident being real.
Jon Benet - I studied it in depth and wrote about it on my blog, years ago. I'll just mention one aspect - somebody broke into the morgue in Boulder, CO, and stole the page where Jon Benet's arrival would have been reported. The reason for stealing that page can only be that she was NOT listed on it. It might be prudent to suspect that Eve Hibbert, like Jon Benet Ramsey, is not a real person.
They really got us going on Jon Benet Ramsay, didn't they? Just like Madeleine McCann and to a much lesser degree, a little boy in Australia, William Tyrell ... and the little French girl you mention although I don't know her.
Just to say it was Portugal. Miri AF has written quite a bit about MM - she was onto RDH with MM and it was Miri’s first post on RDH and Manchester that alerted me to it.
I’ve always had the feeling that RDH was CO - not sure why - and so I’ve not paid him much attention although that isn’t necessarily a good reason not to pay attention to someone.
Have you looked at Miri’s substack? This is a post you will definitely enjoy and might consider reposting.
Thanks. I read her open letter article in which she overuses the word "experts" to great effect. Roughly translate, that word means "Stop thinking for yourself. Now!"
Great questions which is the bedrock of any comprehensive investigative journalism. The most troubling aspect for me is when the very substantial and comprehensive insight into participants/actors is stripped away (book and all), there's no public figure(s) exposed for all to see by RDH. Why not?
It's a very safe hoax event for the Establishment to rub in everyone's faces. It doesn't inconvenience anyone of significance at all. The spotlight remains on the Hibberts, victims of a sort in this saga (not obviously by any bomb though!), who matter not.
"The most troubling aspect for me is when the very substantial and comprehensive insight into participants/actors is stripped away (book and all), there's no public figure(s) exposed for all to see by RDH. Why not?"
Great questions, Petra. These are the facts and the only two explanations are: he's an agent who did it all on purpose, OR he's so staggeringly incompetent and inept, he set this up this perfect backdrop for an anti-free speech case law precedent "by accident".
In either event, he's obviously a dangerous liability who we shouldn't trust an inch.
Miri, I heard you explaining to James Delingpole that you started seriously questioning the narrative when you were asked to have a 2nd measles vax at university in America or face being deported because you were on a student visa. How old were you then, late teens, early 20's?
You said that you challenged them and demanded a titer blood test to show that you had the antibodies and therefore didn't need the additional jab. Whilst not impossible, I do find it a stretch to believe that any young adult, especially a humanities student, would have the knowledge of titer blood tests and the presence of mind to demand one let alone the balls considering the potential consequences in a foreign country.
I mention this, not because it proves anything about you, but because it proves nothing about you. Just like everything you and others such as Petra are "revealing" about RDH proves nothing about him. We know nothing about RDH's background, paymasters or motives and we nothing of your background (eastern European?), paymasters or motives.
We do know your name though, all of a sudden, so does that mean you're in the game? Or will that only be guaranteed once the Daily Fail have crowned you the sickest woman in England? How strange, I thought, that you should covet such an accolade.
We know your name now, Gus. What an absurdity. If we know their name ... AND they appear to be on the opposition side AND they're getting taken to court or similar. There's a certain subtext that needs to be understood.
Well, Gus, how very disingenuous of you. If you'd actually quoted the entirety of what I said to James rather than cherry picked to suit your "case", you would know I mentioned I was a mature student so found it much easier to stand up to the staff than a teenager. You know universities are open to adults of all ages, not just teenagers? You should easily be able to find out my specific age at the time by doing the smallest bit of proper investigation.
As for my background, I talk about it all the time in my articles and have mentioned many, many times my heritage, details about my parents and grandparents, and so on. But again, you display no ability to do any proper investigation (how many of my articles have you read, 2?), I've been publicly speaking out for nearly 10 years - having launched my first vaccine information site in 2015 - and was posting "conspiratorial" stuff on social media for years before that. Just because YOU have just come across me doesn't mean I've only just emerged.
My "paymasters" are my readers. I derive no income, not even from advertising, other than donations and subscriptions from readers.
Please do dig all you like into my background and please present your findings to the world, especially if you think you can present a case that proves I'm an "agent".
The fact is that Richard D. Hall has been instrumental in passing an anti-free speech law and I haven't. Nothing you have "accused" me of equates to anything. You suspect I might have been lying about my university vaccine experience (I wasn't) and that I might have Eastern European ancestry (I do). And this you think proves... what?
Rather than cherry picking, it's more accurate to attribute my bias to hearing and remembering what I wanted to from that 1 hour plus Delingpod which didn't capture my interest enough to listen to a 2nd time just to improve my recollection of some semi-intriguing observations about the latest wannabe interweb talking head.
I already answered your question when I stated that it all proves nothing. That point seems to sailed right over your pretty little head. It proves nothing just like your forensic investigative skills have proven precisely nothing about RDH, contrary to your increasingly bold claims about his involvement (implicit or otherwise) in the crafting of the latest load of bollocks "laws" from the British establishment plc.
In all your bluster you do seem to have somewhat sidestepped the question of how a 20 something humanities student from Grimthorpe with a penchant for amusing hats came to be so knowledgeable about virology and titer blood tests.
Oh deary me, I might be a "humanities student" and not a maths one but even I can tell you that your deduction about my age at the time I attended university continues to be completely wrong. How old is it you think I am now? Should be pretty simple for a great investigator like you to find out. I went to university as a mature student in 2013. So, as they say over there, "do the math". Then you might appreciate it's hardly uncommon for an adult in their thirties to understand how vaccines work.
Miri, you little tease. Keep sidestepping like that and you'll end up with all those mincers on Strictly Come Dancing. Perhaps that's where you'll be able to launch your bid to become Britain's sickest woman.
In my 50 odd years I've never once heard anyone mention titer blood tests. And then along came Miri...
I'm trying to help you become the great pioneering investigative journalist you clearly long to be, Gus. Finding out someone's age is pretty rudimentary, no? And to use the standard of "I've never heard of something therefore nobody else could know about it" is..... interesting.
Great questions, it all feels a bit too much like the Alex Jones / Sandy Hook thing. Nice to see Anaconda again, reality is so f-ed, good to be able to have a laugh about it!
These are excellent questions! This will just be an opinion, as I have no facts to back it up, but this reminds me of the Wolfgang Halbig sham trial after Sandy Hook and the same type of show trial with Professor James Tracy, after the same event. Not exactly the same, but similar. Neither Halbig nor Tracy were public figures though, like Hall is.
Anyway, I'd love to hear Hall's responses to these great questions, even knowing the answers wouldn't be truthful.
Hello everyone, I'm the author of the 90-min documentary September Clues which exposed the 9/11 psyop for the crass TV show that it was. Some of you may be familiar with my old 2008 documentary which, laboriously translated in 12 languages (and after having miraculously reached millions of views) was eventually banned by Youtube in 2018 for "violating their hate speech community standards". But those who aren't may still be interested to know that the 'investigative journalist' Richard D. Hall was - for several years - among the most devious, aspiring debunkers of my painstaking work. Make of it what you will – but I certainly wouldn’t buy a used car from the man. https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2378137#p2378137
Hi Simon, Thank you for all your great work on psyops, especially 9/11. I might still be pretty clueless if not for cluesforum and I could have saved myself so many wasted hours if I'd paid much better to attention to the wealth of information on CF from the moment I discovered it. It is completely ridiculous that only two years ago I saw on CF that you posted on the fakery of the building destructions over a decade ago and even more ridiculous that it is only in the last couple of months that I've really taken a look although as soon as I saw that you said they were fake I thought it highly likely while being completely unsuspecting prior. The interesting thing is that as soon as you apply the "fake" lens you can see the fakery so obviously. It is quite hilarious. I love the clip with the Chrysler building nestling behind the twin towers - peek-a-boo - when it's 60 blocks up the road and appears as a speck in photos taken from the WTC now.
I don't know what prompted the thought initially but I've suspected RDH of being CO pretty much from the beginning and have simply not paid any attention to him so it's interesting to know that he tried to debunk your 9/11 stuff.
The one point on which we disagree is the moon landings and I invite you to take a look at my page on it calling the moon landings hoax a psyop like Flat Earth. I've actually tried to join CF to post on the moon landings but I never get a response to my request to join. I will email you separately.
I took a look at the thread on your forum (to which you posted a link above).
Perhaps I misunderstood what you said here but I took it that the link would be to where evidence could be seen of Hall's "most devious" attempted debunking of your work. I could not see anything that Hall posted in that thread that shows him being devious. Where can his devious attempted debunking be seen.
As an aside, I followed the link (in your opening post of the News Media Gamekeeping thread) to the CGI collapse footage thread and read through that, which was very interesting. In your lengthy post at the bottom of page 31 (which you posted on 5 February 2016 (4:45am) you include a section headed "THE MICHELLE CHARLESWORTH 9/11 ABC CLIP" in which you set out your views about the authenticity of the ABC footage. You claim that the reporter (Michelle) is obviously in a studio with some pre-recorded imagery from the Westside Highway being projected on to a greenscreen.
You also claim that your claim (about pre-recorded imagery) can be proved, scientifically. To do this you say that it is scientific fact that on any September 11 morning (at 9:55am) in New York, the sun angle is at ca. 45°of elevation therefore shadows should be the same length as the height of any object/ person and not much longer (as can be seen in the footage).
You then say the following: "Please verify this for yourself. And YES, this is firm, scientific proof of the fakeness of the 9/11 broadcasts. Don't let the word 'scientific' put you off: REAL science - by REAL folks - is your friend. The sun is also your friend - and it NEVER lies."
In support of your claim you show a screenshot from the NOAA Solar Position Calculator that states the 'Solar Elevation' (sun angle) to be 45.1 degrees, which backs up that the length of a shadow (on a horizontal surface) would be about the same height as a vertical object.
However, whilst you have correctly entered the location (NYC), date (11 Sep 2001) and time (09:55) into the calculator, you have incorrectly set the Daylight Saving Time option to "No" but for September, this should be set to "yes". If the daylight saving is correctly set, the sun angle is 36.12 degrees (not 45.1 degrees). Accordingly, the length of shadows of objects would be approx. 140% of their vertical height (not 100%).
Accordingly, what you claim to be "firm, scientific proof" is actually a misrepresentation of the actual data and is therefore misleading. I am not (for a second) suggesting that you did this deliberately but merely highlighting that people can sometimes be wrong with their opinions (when they think they are 100% correct).
There's a link in the page that links to a post where RDH puts forward the hypothesis that a plane was used to project a hologram of Flight 175 in order to imply that the broadcasts were legit and the media's cameras captured a hologram simulating "Flight175" and thus the TV networks are all innocent victims of the scam. Now that really, really is a good one. It seems RDH tries to imply people are guilty of things they're not and not guilty of things they are. I wonder why??
"thus the TV networks are all innocent victims of the scam." .. Well RDH is part of this etwork. I doubt he would "shit on" his dear collegues. Remember his website name has the TV in it. I do not trust ppl in general that use tv or "journalist" to describe / name themselves: These words are so tainted that I would be even insulted if someone would call me eg a journalist. But that´s just me and I wanted to get rid of this :) I know also Simon will not respond to Bills critique just like "Ass-ling" did not answer his interesting question(s). Or my friendly demands for her to give us at least 3 watertight proof SandH being real. Ignored. So it is a waste of time basically (same ofc w/ ur beloved moon landing where u also ignored all demands from ppl to given even 1 proof)
But it is a sign of snowflake and woke "troofers" these days to ignore critique or even just block or ban. Like Simon and/or "mod" did and before making ppl "jumping through hoops" to even get approved for his forum. .
Same w/ the person calling himself "Max Igan" (real name Rich Rowe) even answers but ofc with insults. Also gives no proofs of his "genocide idea"...these ppl are NOT different to MSM at all. (may be a bit OT :P).
Plus ofc Hall has 70+ entries of richplant.TV at IMDB incl. Pics with his slimy friend Johnson showing fake "alien" skulls etc LOL
Simon's opening post here provided a link to an article he posted in which he identified 9 people; and he provided a "concise summary" of the antics of 7 of these people. Since RDH is the topic of discussion here, I was concentrating on what Simon said under the section that referred to "Judy Wood, Richard D. Hall and Andrew Johnson" and not what he said under the "Jim Fetzer" section.
The thread that I identified in my reply here to Simon was from a link in the second paragraph of the section specifically summarising the antics of RDH (as well as Wood & Johnson). I assumed that such link would have related to RDH hence why I read through that linked thread.
With regard to the article in the link you provided, Simon is referring to a video by RDH. Unfortunately, the link to it in his article is no longer active (YouTube removed the video) so I was wondering if you know if the video is still available to watch elsewhere and, if so, can you please provide a link to it?
Do you have an answer to my question whether investigative journalist, Richard D. Hall, submitted any FOIs or in any other way engaged with the authorities on Manchester and if so, what ways?
In relation to what, specifically, do you consider he should have submitted any FOI's?
Also, in what other ways (if any) do you consider he should have engaged with "the authorities" and which specific authorities do you consider such engagement should have been with?
I, myself, a very casual "investigator", emailed paediatric orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Ibrar Majid, at Manchester Hospital, about the discrepancy between his words "wounds you would see on a battlefield" and the images of children we see in hospital perfectly consistent with "drill" and completely inconsistent with people who've suffered injury from a nail bomb. Of course, I got no response.
I'm not saying he SHOULD have submitted FOIs or engaged with the authorities on any particular subject but as he seemed to do extensive research I'd tend to think that kind of engagement would probably be part of it. You don't think he wouldn't have had questions to ask the authorities about discrepancies in the narrative?
If he did communicate with the authorities that would tend to favour genuine whereas if he didn't engage with the authorities in any way preferring instead to lurk around people's houses I think that's cause to ponder.
I'm already aware that UKCT submitted the FOI in the video you linked. If my recollection is correct, RDH referred to such in one of his videos/ films. If UKCT had already obtained this information and provided it to RDH then it would be pointless him seeking the same information again.
Notwithstanding this, for his book, RDH concentrated his investigations on what happened around 10:30pm on 22 May 2017 in the City Room (foyer) and the accounts of the people that were allegedly there. The main objective of which was to address (1) Was there a real bomb? (2) Did people get injured at the arena? (3) Did people die at the arena?. Part of the purpose of his book was to provide a comprehensive database of all the "participants" (that were in and around the foyer area at the time of the alleged incident) and thus be a useful reference tool for others who want to further investigate the case. Therefore a drill circa 2 months prior would not assist with these investigations.
Since publishing his book, significant amounts of further information (from authorities) became available through the Public Inquiry. RDH reviewed all the open hearing videos (over 1,000 hours of footage) and thousands of documents, which he analysed in great detail. From such he was able to demonstrate further major anomalies and discrepancies in the information made available to the public.
Despite me asking you to identify specifically what you consider he should have submitted an FOI; and to identify the other ways he should have engaged with authorities (and identify which specific authorities), you have not done so. Instead you have set out an enquiry that you made to a paediatric orthopaedic surgeon at a Manchester hospital in respect of which you conclude by saying "Of course, I got no response." This strongly suggests that, in advance of doing so, you knew your enquiries would be fruitless.
As an aside, it seems somewhat hypocritical and inconsistent with your criticisms of RDH (that he undertook Statement Analysis on people you say are "crisis actors") that you made enquiries about what a Surgeon said in respect of some of the same people that you consider to be "crisis actors".
You have also told me now that you DO NOT consider that he should have submitted FOI's or engaged with any authorities. Given that, coupled with you knowing enquiries with authorities would be fruitless, I am at a loss to understand why you asked me your question.
You close by saying that "If he did communicate with the authorities that would tend to favour genuine" however you provide no reasoned explanation or substantiaon for such a claim. Notwithstanding that, you seem to be ignorant that he sought the Courts to order disclosure of CCTV footage and medical records. He also sought information from the DVLA (Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency) in respect of the suspicious Audi that was parked near the Arena prior to the bang (from which a person matching the description of the alleged perpetrator was seen leaving and going towards the Arena; and later, after the bang, being apprehended by police following a car chase).
Finally you make reference to a preference to "lurk around people's houses". You seem to be confused about what RDH did and/or do not know the meaning of 'lurk' (which means be or remain hidden so as to wait in ambush for someone or something).
I wouldn’t expect RDH to ask for things already asked for by others obviously and I’m not saying he should have asked for anything in particular just that investigators often submit FOIs and make other similar requests. I see that he DID request material but this was at the court stage - please confirm. What we can see in the court proceedings is massive non-following of standard protocols. It’s not a huge indicator if he didn’t request materials during his investigation but if he did that would work in his favour for not being CO I think.
I’m not an investigator and it didn’t even occur to me to submit an FOI or ask for records - I don’t see that as my role - as I’ve said, what prompted my email to Dr Majid was annoyance that he participated in an event against his own religion. So even though I knew what I did would be fruitless, making official requests for information I’d expect would have a better chance than my email at least.
“As an aside, it seems somewhat hypocritical and inconsistent with your criticisms of RDH (that he undertook Statement Analysis on people you say are "crisis actors") that you made enquiries about what a Surgeon said in respect of some of the same people that you consider to be "crisis actors".
I do not put a high-ranking Muslim representative of a hospital who is willing to participate in an event that makes people of his own religion look like nutcases in the same category as common and garden crisis actors. Sure, he’s a crisis actor too but it’s not the same. Besides, there’s no speculation with him whereas there’s no EVIDENCE that the girl died. Can you not appreciate how bits of evidence add together to gain more weight? It’s not just the SA, it’s the fact that there’s no evidence that the girl died and it is stupid to speculate about it.
I can’t keep discussing this Bill.
As far as I’m concerned the SA is a dealbreaker for the hypothesis of genuine … and then when you add it to the fact of the court case obviously being orchestrated for an agenda plus previous form in other events …
I will read further responses from you but this is my final word on the matter.
If you can find out the exact orientation of the towers (in relation to North) then I will be able to check/ review (and amend if necessary) what I set out below.
I was unable to find the exact orientation of the towers but based upon Figure 1, which has North identified on it, in the paper linked below (which may or not be accurate) the towers would appear to have been built approx. 30 degree (clockwise) away from a N/S & E/W orientation.
The link you posted has imagery at the time of the alleged plane impact on the South Tower, which I understand to be reported as happening at 9:03am.
At that time (in NY that day), the azimuth of the sun (angle in relation to North) would be 109.7 degrees. Because the 'North' face of each of the towers did not lie perpendicularly (at 90 degrees) to North, but at approx. 120 degrees to North, the sun would still have been shinning on the north faces of the towers.
Based upon the towers being orientated 30 degrees off a N/S & E/W orientation, it would appear the north faces would still have received sunlight up until approx. 9:54am.
Below is a website that I often use to determine angles & elevations of the sun, which also (helpfully) gives the length of a shadow for a 1 metre vertical object.
MANY thanks, as these shadow and sun things are not my forté . Lets hope Simon responds which I doubt - same as Assling also did not answer our questions, all lost snowflakes and time wasters. BUT u asked also for the RDH 9/11 radar video, here the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYoIB3wv-cM
Thanks for the link to the video and apologies for not replying sooner.
I've now watched RDH's video and also looked at what Simon says in the Cluesform post about the video (for which Petra posted the link). I also recall seeing a post somewhere by Simon in which he says that he and Andrew Johnson (who seems to be an acquaintance of RDH) used to be quite friendly but that friendship had soured.
With regard to RDH's video, he seems to have endeavoured to check if the flightpath of the plane (whose image is seen in multiple different videos) were consistent with each other, which RDH claims they are. I have neither the software nor the inclination to check what he says stacks up or not.
At the end of his video (starting at 21:07), RDH says this:
"If we consider the two official flight paths it stands to reason that both sets of radar data cannot be correct either one or possibly both have to be fraudulent.
Let's make an assumption that the military radar data is correct. This would mean that Daniel Arbor's radar report is fraudulent and has been constructed to match the images that were witnessed on video. So we are saying the military radar detected a real solid object and that object was not recorded by cameras and presumably not seen by witnesses.
Is it not possible this object was some kind of drone aircraft with stealth
capability making it invisible to the naked eye using a projection system to generate a visual image of a plane in the sky? Meaning the videos were real and the plane was fake, not a fake video of a real plane as some have put forward.
This sounds far-fetched but it explains all of the observed data and remember classified military technology is decades ahead of what we see in the commercial world."
I agree that it sounds far-fetched however, like many hypotheses (that try to explain unresolved mysteries on that day), just because they may sound far-fetched does not mean they are definitely wrong, or not possible.
RDH notes himself that all the flight data (for both paths) may be fabricated. That seems to be a common theme for using any information about that day. It is unknown to what extent (if not all) information (of all types) has been fabricated. Accordingly, any hypotheses that are based upon fabricated information will be inherently flawed.
RDH's assertion that videos were real and the planes were fake (not fake videos of planes) is stated after he says "Let's make an assumption that the military radar data is correct", therefore his assertion is clearly qualified on the basis that military flight data is correct. But he has also acknowledged that such data may be fabricated therefore he is not, definitively, saying that Simon's hypothesis of fake videos of a plane is wrong. RDH is merely advancing another hypothesis (which he agrees sounds far-fetched).
Simon's post about the video (linked by Petra) is written as if RDH is personally attacking Simon. At the end of his post, Simon gives his summation of the "underlying gist" of RDH's video, which includes the following ("quotes" no.2 & 4):
- "September Clues is wrong about the trajectories not matching. None of the claims of September Clues prove TV FAKERY - every single anomaly/aberration pointed out in SC can be explained away. Again, the news media was not in on it".
- Dick Hall's conclusion: "September Clues may well be a cointelpro distraction - to lead people away from the REAL truth".
That is not how I interpreted the video and I suggest that any reasonable person giving an objective opinion would not share Simon's interpretation. Simon has clearly done some excellent work but his objectivity seems to be impaired. This could possibly be due to the souring of his friendship with Andrew; or him being immersed so much to his own hypothesis/ theory (that he finds it difficult to consider other alternatives); or some other reason(s).
I certainly did not interpret the underlying gist of RDH's video to be that Simon "may well be a cointelpro distraction". Anything but.
Leaping to conclusions like this (that he is personally being attacked) and accusing others of being gatekeepers, disinfo agents, etc. because they do not share (or endorse) the same views and opinions is not just sad but also rather immature.
People should be able to hold differing opinions without being accused of being CO, etc. merely for doing so. And people with differing opinions should be able to, respectfully, discuss such differences or (if they can't), respectfully, agree to disagree.
Finally, in his post here, Simon says that RDH was "among the most devious, aspiring debunkers of my painstaking work". I asked Simon to identify where such could be seen. He did not reply. The video that you linked does not support his claim so I am none the wiser with regard to what RDH did that was "devious" (as alleged by Simon).
Good info, btw ur also kind of an asshole, u banned me back in the days from ur forum (and/or ur strange mod there). And I am one of the only real persons in the nets :) Ur loss it was I guess, but at LR forums they were friendlier plus better research there.
But ofc w/ the media fakery and “september clues” at 9/11 u were correct. They love to stage now such fake trials, all modelled from the AlexJ one which was a total scam…But anyway - I posted much about RDH and his buddy pushing JEWDY WOODS crap etc. So i was ofc on guard when this person suddenly appeared in the media being “sued” etc.
BTW: You should edit this here: "Phil Jayhan (who at some stage enthusiastically promoted September Clues) spends most of his time defending the authenticity of the 9/11 imagery and inventing ways of making people believe that they are REAL images. His "Let's Roll" forum now features an entire.... " cuz this is wrong LR forums VERY much looked into fake images ands cgi. Better then CF in fact, u just lie about LRF cuz u have(had?) a dislike for Phil and/or Larry I guess.
"In summary, why did RDH pursue a course of inquiry where the results whatever they were – that is, signs of injury or no signs of injury – would not serve to confirm that the event was staged?
This is retarded, and the same line of thinking shown by Miri. It is so sus that people would think this is even a legitimate argument
What is retarded is investigating injuries that you know at the outset are completely impossible. Why would you investigate something you know is impossible? The thing is RDH tells us the person he saw was displaying injuries but he didn't say, "Whatever injuries she was showing weren't commensurate with the impossible injuries they told us about," though, did he? This was the end of his enquiry. It was as if - injuries here, cannot argue against the claims about her when it didn't matter WHAT the girl was displaying it wouldn't be commensurate with the impossible injuries they told us about.
If Hall had managed to confirm that Eve WASN'T injured, as Hibbert was claiming an impossible injury in the msm, he would have prima facie PROOF that he was lying.
If the video he took showed an uninjured Eve (who was the same girl as in the restaurant photo), he would have primary evidence to put before the public or even a court to prove Hibbert was committing fraud.
He failed to do this, and just confirmed that a girl, who was likely to be Eve, was indeed seriously injured.
THIS is the point of 'investigation' - to try to collect damning evidence.
That he documents what he finds which both supports AND doesn't support theses is a good indicator that he's an honest reporter.
And you claim 'the thing RDH tells us', and 'but he didn't say ...', when we've now established that you don't actually know what he said, not being familiar with his work.
You are just writing hitjob material and, like Miri & Aisling too, this makes YOU appear more of an 'agent' than Hall.
I don't personally think either of you are agents though - I think you are just three ignorant woman spouting off about things you don't actually understand.
But that's just my opinion based on what the three of you have written.
But first of all you have the problem of the media reporting one thing and Hibbert reporting another. If RDH is going by what Hibbert said then the only reality that supports his words is no more Eve - she would have died according to his description - no need to go looking. If she's alive then we know he's lying ... as we all did anyway.
On the other hand, if we go by the media and simply "struck" in the head then it's possible that in the space of two years Eve would have recovered sufficiently to not be showing obvious signs of brain injury even, in fact, if she were still suffering from them.
So the thing is whatever the results of RDH's investigation there's no clear conclusions to be drawn. Can you not see that?
You've actually answered your own question really.
We DID have that problem - we didn't know what was lies & what was true..
Then Hall investigated Eve, the reason being that we had a problem, and he confirmed that a girl who appeared to be Eve was seriously injured.
And you are WRONG - Hibbert was in the media AT THE TIME saying Eve was severely disabled.
If Hall had witnessed, or better videoed a completely healthy Eve, it would have been primary evidence that Hibbert was actively lying on msm.
The clear 'conclusion' was that this much of what Hibbert (a, by this time known serial liar) was saying was actually true, which moved the investigation forward, in as much as that Eve was injured, as was he (although likely not in the ways he was claiming).
But you are right that this didn't prove WHERE their injuries occurred.
Bear in mind that at that time, it wasn't even clear if Eve existed,
I personally have seen enough evidence now to be fairly certain that she does (although some are STILL debating this), and this is an element that Hall also confirmed, although not with primary evidence.
I regard the selfies she posted on twitter back in 2014 as being fairly strongly supporting she exists, but I don't think they had been discovered when Hall did his investigation. Then there's Hall's (admittedly) hearsay about what he saw, and identity documents put into court this year which show her likeness and, of course' the infamous restaurant photo.
If ALL that had been available had been the restaurant photo(s), I might still wonder if she actually exists.
This is where I don't understand your thinking.
You seem to think investigating is all about 'either something proves the whole shebang, or it's a waste of time & effort', when this is NOT the case.
A model of an event is pieced together with many, many small pieces of evidence, and VERY occasionally a piece of hard, inarguable prima facie
evidence for something being true or false is found.
It's the same whether on a screen or on the ground, but the only real way to confirm some things is on the ground.
Which is what Hall does in his investigations.
You seem to not really understand what it is he does.
He carries out investigations, which is what this was.
And do you not think the State might be a bit annoyed with investigative journalists who carry out investigations in an attempt to prove to the general public that the State carry out criminal activities like Manchester Arena very much appears to be?
Which makes more sense to you;
State is looking for a vehicle to clamp down on investigative journalists who challenge msm & State narratives and picks an obvious target?
State HIRES an investigative journalist to investigate and expose a hoax terror attack to the general public and THEN vilifies & uses him as a vehicle to clamp down on investigative journalists?
You miss point so often you give away your slime-like dishonesty here on this Petra.
The point of looking for Eve is to prove she actually exists, as there is no convincing images of her anywhere, The two most convincing attempts are the restaurant images , which in effect prove case of obvious manipulation= if your brain is engaged.
You claim Hall is in error because no professional investigator would do such things. Well I know 2 professional investigators & they do it all the time for Divorce settlements.
Also Hall is not a professional except maybe regards funding. He is trying to be keen quizzical mind, covering various unusual angles of life. The fact that he is sometimes rubbish is nothing worse than you with NASA brain damage wankery.
Now, you may well think Hall was surveying Eve for different reasons as you claim, but that is irrespective of standard MO of investigation which is using surveillance prerogative for confirmation.
I read Miri's Catfish article. I find it intriguing and suspicious that 'only paid subscribers can comment on this post'.
I also found it intriguing and suspicious that she throws in MK-Ultra almost off-hand and then immediately dismisses it in the very next sentence, then rambles on for another 2k words. That's a classical psychological trick to deter people away from the most important limited hangout/truth.
And of course she presents as the voice of sensible reason amongst all the catfish/cognitive infiltrators.
Now I'm wondering if all her posts are 'paid only comments'.
I guess I'll have to subscribe (for free - I'm far too poor to afford paid subscriptions), just to keep a psychological eye on her. She's definitely at 70-80 on my suspicion scale, though. And I'll read that other article you link to soon (after lunch, I'm hungry).
For what it's worth I think she's dead wrong about Madelaine (child abuse network - this German woman could be a front alter) and she's also dead wrong about American gun control being the reason for school shootings. The PTSB love Americans with guns because Americans are so easily led, it maintains a strategy of tension, and having a manufactured civil war leading to total fascism would be just what the quack doctor ordered.
MK-Ultra, child abuse network and so on are far more important such that they need to be covered up and misdirected from.
On the other paw, I am thoroughly enjoying this back and forth between all these 'influencers'. The RDH saga has clearly put a catfish amongst the piggy-ons. Classic subversion. Gotta love it.
[It’s doing that hiding the reply button shit again].
Actually not allowing comments is important. If you are genuine you would want to encourage community and discussion and such like. I suspect the real reason she doesn't allow comments is to prevent intelligent people like me from pointing out the various flaws in her arguments as well as exposing the sleight of hand techniques she uses.
I don't buy the 'boosting income' argument. She has over 6k subscribers (how?!!). I can't remember what she charges for a subscription but for every 100 paid subscribers that's like 5k a year at least.
So in her case, combined with the other suspicious points, I'm going to give her a +10 for that one. Sleight of hand (to suppress important stuff, like MK and child abuse) +40. Some of the ideas she pushes +20 (it would be +30 but it’s associated with the sleight of hand value). Another +10 and that would be +80, which in game theory psychology is a magic number.
Anyway, I think she perfectly fits the profile of an Agent 3 type. They're the most dangerous of all, of course, and quite high level. Maybe you could think of me as an Agent 4 type, exposing the Agent 3's of this world (I didn’t mention that one, did I lol!). That would make me the highest level. Unless of course I'm just a playful and mischievous fantasist. You definitely shouldn't rule out that option.
One thing I am glad about with you, Petra (and Iain, for that matter) is that you do allow anyone to comment, and you don't block people just for disagreeing with you. I admire that. So even if you were an Agent I wouldn’t expose you simply out of a kind of courtesy. Besides, until an Agent gets dangerous it’s always best to let them do their thing so you can observe them and gather the appropriate info. That’s a sign of self-confidence, of course. I don’t think there’s much of that in the 5 eyes these days (t’was ever thus, frankly). I have a very funny joke about the Aussie intelligence services which I may have to share with people sometime. You’d love it, now I know you do have a sense of humour.
Anyway, I decided to subscribe (for free) to Miri for that purpose. Maybe I’ll do a Witchfinder article on her sometime. I don’t know much about her biography, though, which is a bit of a hindrance.
Ramble ramble. Must go and collect wood for the fire for an impending risotto.
Ur on the right track ... these ppl are all CONnected... now Petra and Miri are good friends. Miri ofc (like others found out also has CONnections to some ameriKKKan big player and her dad was a biggie in the Brits system). Now only the 3rd con "girl" is missing.. who could that be? Mh... "Aisling" perhaps? This is a shill shitshow here not better then BC but I have fun cuz these shills and con ops are a hobby :))) Re Petra: Her climate and moon/Nasa propaganda I found at wordpress lead me to register here, ofc she never backed anything up she said. She just ignores questions she does not like to answer :)) But wants others to stand on her inquisition ??LOL Btw I also found it curious (as an observer of behaviours) that this Iani Davis answered to Petra? But ignores all other critics mostly...
Der Arbeitsplatzgrenzwert (AGW) ist die zeitlich gewichtete durchschnittliche Konzentration eines Stoffes in der Luft am Arbeitsplatz, bei der eine akute oder chronische Schädigung der Gesundheit der Beschäftigten nicht zu erwarten ist.
Yes better not to swallow the Arbeitsplatzgrenzwert
With regards to Petra, she doesn't fit the same profile. For a start she doesn't embrace right-wing views, which is to her credit, and is one of the many reasons I like her.
When one does profiling one can't fall into the trap of just looking at one or two factors in isolation. It's always a constellation, and one has to be mindful of how each factor reinforces each other or combines (or even cancels each other out - there's an algorithm for this of course).
So when it comes to being chummy with Miri (now there's a good title for a podcast), that's not particularly suspicious in itself. I'd only give that a +5 (on the 0-100 suspicion scale) at the most. Miri has 6.5k subscribers. At least 99% of them are civilians. I don't know how many paid subs she has but let's say it's 5%. So multiply it by 20. Although a greater percentage of them would be assets, or asset-bots even.
Anyway, Petra's definitely not a bot. Unless she's some weird terminator from the future. Except they don't do terminators with Aussie accents. Although that would be fucking hilarious and I'd so watch that movie.
Knock, knock.
<door opens>
G'day - are you Sheila Connor?
No, I'm Sarah Connor.
Hah! Gotcha. Bang!
The movie would have to start on Bondi I reckon. So the terminator appears in his ball of electricity - starkers, of course - then quickly scans the beach, and spies a bunch of surf dudes having a barbie. So he strolls mechanically over there.
G'day dude. I need ya shrimps, ya tinnies and ya surfboard.
Oh yeah, no worries mate! D'ya want me keks an' me sunglasses too?
Oh fair dinkum mate! cheers.
There'd have to be an 'I'll be back' moment. So maybe terminator goes into a bar and orders a pint of the amber nectar, then realises he hasn't got any money. So he leans over the bar and says, "I'll be back".
Then he strolls over the road to the cashpoint, sticks his mechanical finger in and takes out a wad of Aussie dollars. Then goes back to the pub.
There would also have to be the ubiquitous long chase scene. Maybe involving the terminator on a surfboard, being chased by a great white. Ah, or better still a megalodon.
Yes! Aussie Terminator vs. Megalodon! Fuck yes!
Now if that doesn't have blockbuster written all over it I don't know what does!
Forgive me if I'm being an idiot but my brain can't think of what 'BC' stands for here?
I don't know enough about Aisling to offer an opinion. I've only heard of her since Iain mentioned her with regards to this ongoing hoohah about RDH.
I have been mulling over this 'agency' phenomenon, and there is a definite caveat, or 'get out clause' for some (which could obviously be a clever cover story, but for now we'll give them the benefit of the doubt), which is that a lot of these people who manifest as 'agents' are not actually assets at all, they are simply people who have developed certain usually right-wing views largely due to having a chip on their shoulder (what Nietzsche called 'resentment') and not having the emotional or psychological or spiritual maturity to get over it. Or develop basic human compassion, for that matter (you can tell that by their writing style). These sorts don't actually need to be 'recruited', because they are pushing the desired narratives naturally without being asked to do it. All the junior support officers in the asset-running section need to do is just amplify these voices - i.e. put reinforcing comments in the comments section, share posts, make recommendations and so on, and then that person ends up with several thousand subscribers (also creating a nice echo chamber).
Psychologically, this of course makes them feel very good about themselves and solidifies their views. That's important in itself because if they started off with resentment then that's a sign of insecurity, so having a load of people agreeing with them makes them feel better, more self-confident and less insecure (and remember this is a large part of the containment strategy implicit in the cognitive infiltration itself, with regards to the 'conspiracy theory community' - many of whom are indeed just people who are unhappy for whatever reason, and start questioning the epistemic authorities - they need honeypots).
They can also be drip-fed the desired ideas in the comments section by people (junior support officers) who have gained their trust, simply by including suggestions and links etc. Like 'nice post! I agree completely. have you heard of such and such? here's a link...'. AI/bots can do all this too of course.
When you challenge the views of such people, the psychology itself does the work for the asset-runners, because to change their opinions would mean a return to the insecurity they were fleeing from in the first place. So they naturally resist that, simply out of self-defence (often manifesting in aggression and spitefulness etc.).
This is a much more important observation than it might seem - it's important not to get paranoid and think that anyone pushing the official narratives (i.e. the cognitive infiltration narratives) must be an agent. They could simply fit the profile I just described. Also remember there are a lot of gammas around, with Dunning-Kruger syndrome, and they will believe whatever makes them feel better and included in a particular social group. To manipulate such types isn't difficult, you just play to their psychological needs. Likewise, the gamma thing also means they will naturally attach themselves to opinions and theories which seem logical and valid, but are in fact wrong. Just they lack the intelligence (analytical ability) and/or the information to realise those theories are wrong.
Whether such people would prefer to be seen as an asset, or a resentment-motivated gamma, is not a question on which I'm prepared to comment right now. But I will say this - if they are assets, it's often best not to provoke them too far because remember they have an entire agency section behind them and if threatened they can and will do a lot of damage. In my experience their form of 'defence' is aggressive, vindictive, and spiteful. The typical profile of the modern intelligence officer is a nasty little sociopath or even psychopath - and such people are seriously dangerous when they feel threatened (trust me, I know). In true 'art of war' style, if you don't want to take a fawning response, sometimes it's better to just withdraw from the field, and present them as not-assets. This makes them feel less threatened, and I'm sure they can live with the likes of me burbling on about Nietzsche. I think they'd prefer that.
BC = Bitchute. Only FAKEs are pushed there in "popular" and "trending" videos. When ur new to this site you will get flooded w/ SHILL after SHILL as "recommended" . but as i also said there we "almost" need to be thankful that they do not delete and censor comments (but this will come to there too I guess). Yes they allow "real truth" there but how will someone NEW to this all find it when it is buried by mountains of crap
PS: I also agree w/ u about the gun thingie, YES the cabal loves to sell MORE guns. All this gun control talk is cop op topic. As they sell MORE guns and guns never are forbidden in the US. In fact the so called "gun lobby" (in the US) never called out these fake events/"shootings" (they would call fake shootings OUT - if they were real)
And can give me the link to this "German woman" you named, I am "German" and I am interested also in "German" psyops.
Miri mentioned her in her article. I’ll look it up and get back to you. Or you could just try what your search engine comes up with. ‘McCann German imposter woman’ or something like that. I suspect she may be the real Maddie, though (faked DNA test - which Miri didn’t consider, apparently) - Manchurian candidates and psyops spring to mind. I’m going to have to delve into this a bit more.
This Mc Cann (=33) affair is not really important but may connect to RichDH being an actor. As i remember he pushed this as a real case? When i googled recently there were many German media reports about a (German) guy in prison having info abt this MADeleine case . But did not read further as imo it is all faked
I'm inclined to believe that it's not actually faked - 'arranged' sure, but not completely faked. I especially think this because we have an asset diverting attention away from this possibility - RDH saying the parents murdered her, for example.
I think therefore there is a lot more to the story. Fortunately, I am fluent in German myself so I'll be able to look up some original German articles. Thanks for that tip about the guy in prison allegedly with info btw. I'll look that up and read between the lines.
I wouldn't read too much into the 33 thing myself. I think that hand gets overplayed. I'd be inclined to fold a pair of 3s, let alone deuces. I'll go in for a cheap flop to see if I get trips, but if not, it's a clear fold. Unless I'm a little drunk of course and playing Scandinavian style.
it was a psyop, no one died, they used crisis actors, there was no explosives used, the alleged bomber is still alive c/o MI5, Mr. Hall was not allowed to present the evidence he rightly is entitled to at the court, despite producing his tome as evidence and sending it to the official inquiry, and finally it is not harassment nor creepy to have a male investigation journalist, attempt to verify/establish whether the child involved is alive and or has injuries
Mr. Hall is correct about:
7/7, Jill Dando, London Nail Bombings and Maddy McCann being dead; anyone in any doubt should read the Portuguese police files and the investigator OIC's book on the matter.
World class statement analysist Mr. Peter F Hyatt has eviscerated the statement account of Kate McCann.
Hall couldn't present his 'evidence' in court because it's bunkum - inadmissible in a court of law. Not the poor, persecuted journalist up against the big, bad system as you've been led to believe. You can be sure Hall has misdirected you on every case he's 'investigated' too. I wouldn't believe a word, however convincing.
It's interesting to me how regularly you use the word 'believe'.
I noticed you keep repeating the phrase elsewhere 'I believe the victim testimonies'.
Yet you completely reject the primary evidence of the John Barr footage.
There's nothing 'bunkum' about video evidence from the scene of the crime - this is some of the strongest possible evidence one can put in front of a court.
As a supposed journalist, that you 'believe' hearsay, but dismiss crime scene video as bunkum, makes me think you must be an appallingly bad journalist.
It's slightly ironic that Hall usually ends his shows with the catchphrase 'believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see'.
Whereas your catchphrase appears to be 'I believe some of what I hear, and none of what I see'.
I can't see you as a credible person, let alone a journalist, analyst or commentator, and definitely not an investigator or researcher.
What university did you study journalism at?
If your methods are a product of their teaching, I wouldn't regard them as credible either.
Oh dear, Charles, it's a case of the blind leading the blind. What are your credentials on the subject of "controlled opposition". How many agents or pieces of propaganda have you identified as being controlled opposition?
There are plenty of controlled opposition in the alternative media:
Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, Cernovich, Trump, the so-called "intellectual dark web", Robert Malone, Russel Brand, Steve Kirsch, Mike Yeadon, DeSantis, Corbett, and many more
They’re pretty standard. I’m curious why you think Mike Yeadon is. Initially I thought he was but then he came around on no viruses being proved to exist. Proton Magic who I admire and tend to agree with thinks he’s CO but I’m simply not convinced he is any more. Why do you think he’s CO?
You refer to "his 'evidence'". You seem to be ignorant of what evidence actually is and the role of the court. In a court case evidence does not belong to anyone (or either) side. Evidence (if factually true) only belongs to the truth. The purpose of a court (either the judges(s) or jury depending on the nature of proceedings) is to weigh up all the evidence AFTER it has been presented.
You claim that the evidence that Hall was going to present is "bunkum". Do you actually know the details of all the evidence that Hall wished to present?
Some of the evidence that Hall wished to present was the cctv footage from the Manchester arena (captured on the night of 22 May 2017). Do you consider this evidence to be "bunkum"? If so, because stills from such footage was presented at the Public Inquiry that would mean that you consider such evidence in the the Public Inquiry was "bunkum".
Seems u and Sally are quite "invested" in RDH... I said to Sally already I will say sorry to her AND RDH if I am wrong. But very curious that Sally is only here for RDH and ur posts seem also 90%+ about RDH....perhaps Charles too and so long posts u all make. Why is RDH so important for you? Just curious, I know he was a nice and eloquent man 10 yrs ago. Maybe also good looking for the females like Sally I guess: or ur relatives/ media colleagues from RDH? Nothing wrong to "defend" him then I guess even if not neutral then
You are mistaken if you consider that I am "invested" in RDH.
RDH is just one of many, many different people who I know of and whose work I have read and/or watched/ listened to over many years. Whilst I do not agree with all his opinions, I respect his thoroughness and his transparency (with regard to the information upon which he founds his opinions).
I only, relatively recently, found Iain Davis' substack, after I became aware that he had written an article about the MH/ RDH civil case judgment ('There is no justice, just us - Part 1'), which he posted on 25 October. As I was familiar with the judgment, I posted a comment on 26 October (https://iaindavis.substack.com/p/there-is-no-justice-just-us-part/comments#comment-74156826).
After I had posted it, I read other comments, including one posted by Charles asking about an article Miri AF had written ('Controlled Freaks' dated 25 October). I had never heard of her so I took a look at her article and posted a reply to Charles with some of my initial views about it, which you can read for yourself (if you are interested). https://iaindavis.substack.com/p/there-is-no-justice-just-us-part/comment/74133001?utm_source=activity_item
In short, I was far from impressed as she seems to rely upon figments of her imagination and had fundamental facts completely wrong about the work of RDH. She has a fantastical Madelaine McCann "hypothesis" (this is being over generous as a hypothesis requires some prior research), which had her false assertion about RDH as its cornerstone.
Somebody else, Lynne Sheppard, then opened up a discussion with me and jumped to the defence of Miri and she told me she finds Miri's view "a compelling theory". After I highlighted the factual inaccuracies, she encouraged me to look at a prior article that Miri had written; and she tried to convince me that the RDH part was not the main reason. The other reason was illogical nonsense!
For your information, whilst I did not upload videos to YouTube, back in 2017 when the Manchester event (and many others occurred), I was quite active on another platform; and I assisted (content creator) Youtubers, including UKCT, with research. As a result, I knew quite a lot about that event. RDH built on the work done by UKCT and that is why I had (a still have) a particular interest in RDH's work on Manchester.
The allegations of RDH being CO reminds me of what was happening circa 7 years ago when virtual nobody's (with no credible content) were springing up; and accusing everybody else of being a "shill" and/or CO, with zero substantive basis. Any reasons that were given were either just pure speculation (figments of imagination) or like making a completely different picture based upon a single piece of a 2,000-piece jigsaw.
I am not for a second suggesting that nobody is CO. But if somebody is going to make the allegation then they need to be able to back it up with facts and credible evidence; and not just rely upon a morsel of circumstantial information enveloped in speculative, irrational and illogical drivel.
Call me old-fashioned but I form my opinions after rational and logical consideration of all the relevant facts & credible evidence. If somebody can provide proof that RDH is CO, I'll happily consider it.
Hopefully the above satisfies your curiosity but if you have any queries or need clarification then let me know.
thanks Aisling, the great Iain Davis stated otherwise, he was in the court and the judgement is discussed ad infinitum in his protracted essays on the same..
I've rarely read such a load of presumptions, non sequiturs & misrepresentation of the source material.
Martin Hibbert claimed multiple times that a bolt went right through Eve's head (in one temple and out of the other), and she then lay on the floor for an hour & forty minutes without medical attention, yet was breathing, while people kept putting a t-shirt over her head as if she were dead.
This story is utterly ridiculous for many reasons.
Hall creates investigative documentaries, and his Manchester one is presented in exactly the same style as previous ones, where he details his methodology as well as reporting his results, theories and conclusions.
ANY investigator would want to confirm what the reality of Eve's injuries (or not) were, and he investigated multiple other people.
Did she even exist? (that question is still fascinating posters in Iain's substack comments)
He reported his method and findings as part of the whole investigation.
That is what he has always done with his films.
And this IS how investigations are carried out if one is trying to build a picture of what actually happened at an event.
One follows leads in search of something which helps build the model.
If Eve had emerged from the house evidently completely uninjured (given she was supposed to have had a hole punched right through her head), he would be able to conclude that Hibbert was indeed completely lying. As it happened though, the girl who appeared to be Eve DID have a serious disability, so at least his investiagtion confirmed THAT.
It wasn't enough to draw a solid conclusion beyond that the girl who was most likely to be Eve had a serious disability, in line with what Hibbert had described.
It would still be suspected he lied that she'd suffered a hole right through her head though, as this is almost certainly not a survivable injury, so theses can then be put forward that she had been injured in some other way previously, or Hibbert had just lied about the bolt going right through her head. It doesn't conclusively prove ANYTHING about the Arena event itself, but it is a piece of information which helps to build the model of the event, and he had no way of knowing prior to learning that information how it would bear on the whole picture.
It just appears to me that the people who are making these allegations about Hall lack any actual knowledge or experience of HOW an investigation is carried out.
As much information as it is possible to gather, is gathered.
If Hall managed to find where Eve lived, it would be a rational course of action to visit & try to confirm whether she was injured or not.
Petra, Miri & Aisling seem to completely ignore that he didn't just turn up & spy on her.
He called on some neighbours (which is what investigative journalists do), he knocked their door (which investigative journalists do), and (given that a window was open yet they didn't answer the door, which could be regarded as possibly suspicious), he set up a camera to film a PUBLIC place (not 'in their home' as I've seen Miri misrepresenting what he did) to see whether Eve was injured.
While on this topic, perhaps you ought to be aware of case law on the 'right to privacy' (or absence of), when it comes to investigative journalists. And that Hall did nothing like as unethical as was tested in this case, where two Sunday Sport journos pretended to be doctors to photograph the actor Gordon Kaye when he was in hospital with severe head injuries;
(Perhaps 'professional mainstream journalist' Aisling is aware of the law around this kind of activity? Or maybe not?)
The people who are putting forward this thesis (that Hall deliberately harrassed Eve Hibbert)
are also missing ONE critical point - he DIDN'T.
Judge Steyn defines harassment as 'a course of action calculated to cause alarm and/or distress'.
But there was no evidence presented to the court showing that he CALCULATED his actions to cause alarm/distress to Eve or Martin, and I don't see anyone here presenting evidence that he calculated his actions to alarm or distress them.
His actions were simply to confirm whether or not Eve was suffering any injuries at all, and his conclusion, which he reported, was that a girl of Eve's age, at the house where Eve's mother lived was seen to be suffering serious debilitating injury.
That's it.
THIS is investigative journalism.
Nothing more, and these attempts to portray it as something else are either deeply ignorant, coming from a biased agenda, or possibly from an emotional place where they are empathising with Eve, rather than dispassionately viewing what occurred as an investigative journalist pursuing a lead in trying to expose a probable enormous crime perpetrated against the population of the UK by their (and possibly also foreign) intelligence agencies.
He was probably slightly unwise in the style of how he documented HOW he went about doing what he did, from the point of view of how some people might try to frame what he did, but Hall has a particular style, which I would say that scene was totally consistent with, having watched some of his other investigative documentaries.
There was no stated or implied suggestion that there was ANY reason for him to return to the property or attempt gather futher video, so there would be no reason for Eve, her mother or Martin to be alarmed, and if the situation is interpreted that he intended to cause them distress with his investigation (bearing in mind they were all involved in a major crime if the Arena event was indeed fake), then ALL investigative journalism where ANYONE is approached, videoed or even just looked at, could be considered to be harassment.
It's ludicrous to suggest he harassed them, and obviously politically motivated - this is self-evident in the whole 'Eve's Law' aspect.
I also gather there is an appeal in progress.
If Hall's intention was to 'get himself in trouble' in a theatrical show trial, can someone please explain a credible reason why he would then APPEAL the judgment?
To be frank, I don't think I've ever read such an absolute load of rubbish from supposedly intelligent people.
The thesis that Hall deliberately had himself convicted of harassment requires a ton of evidence to the contrary to be just completely ignored.
Why would he have put out the police radio audio that was leaked to him?
Why would he have bothered trying to witness for himself if Lisa Bridgett did indeed have a finger missing?
Why would he contact John Barr for more information about the footage he posted?
Why would he continue to investigate details after the book & film were published?
Why would he expose the names of retired counter-terror officers who were present that night? (I think this answers a question below).
Why would he create & publish the cctv image viewing facility?
Why would he focus on a detail like the trail of fumes visible in the corner of the City Room?
I could go on for a while at this.
Maybe the three ladies who are pursuing this theory but are supposed to be rational thinkers can get to work on answering some of these questions?
"ANY investigator would want to confirm what the reality of Eve's injuries (or not) were, and he investigated multiple other people."
"Investigator" and "psyop" are not two things that really go together. The truth of psyops is all laid out before us in the media Revelation-of-the-Method style. There is no need to "investigate". We analyse the media stories and see the contradiction between show and tell and other kinds of contradictions that these events are laden with, eg, as you point out, the description of how the person we are told is Eve Hibbert received her injuries and the nature of those injuries is a humungous contradiction of reality. They don't pull any punches with their nonsense. We don't need to do the kind of research demanded of other crimes - no need to wear out shoe leather or tail people or any of that kind of stuff. The truth is all laid out before us underneath the propaganda.
I've worked out psyops independently of others such as the Collateral Murder film being faked and the Operation Northwoods false flag documents being faked. I didn't move an inch from my computer to work out those psyops. Similarly for every other psyop I've looked at whether they're up the street from me (there was an alleged attack by an axe-wielder literally at the end of the street I lived on for awhile) or in the mountains of Nepal or wherever. It's all laid out before us.
I was at a lockdown protest where I was within 3 metres of a woman I'd been chatting to get arrested by the police. At the time I thought she was genuinely arrested. Later I saw her speaking in a video and I realised that she was a controlled opposition agent. With psyops, "being there" is, in fact, less reliable than looking at the media stories. For example, there were probably people at the Manchester Arena who genuinely thought there was a bombing.
So these are simple facts, Sally:
FACT 1: Assuming she's real, Eve Hibbert's injuries and how she acquired them as described were clearly IMPOSSIBLE.
FACT 2: Assuming she's real, she could still have been suffering brain injuries because they use genuinely injured people in their events.
FACT 3: Even if she'd been suffering brain injuries at the time of the event she could have made remarkable recoveries.
FACT 4: Whatever RDH came up with when he went to spy on her it would be useless information. Either:
--- you DO NOT ACCEPT the story of how she received her injuries and their nature and say, "This is nonsense, this is impossible" or
--- you have to start judging whether or not the injuries she showed she were suffering (if she did show signs of injury) were commensurate with the impossible story told (which is an illogical exercise) or whether - if she didn't show signs - whether it was possible for her to have made recoveries (also illogical).
Can't you see how pointless the whole exercise is?
What needs to be done is NOT ACCEPT THE IMPOSSIBLE STORY in the first place. Whatever this person displayed is irrelevant because we know they're telling us something impossible.
My opinion is that this is what Hall was attempting to do.
I totally disagree that what he did was pointless.
Your Fact 1 - we still have to assume that she is real or not - having gone to her mother's home, he confirmed (at least to himself) she was real - if she was completely uninjured, the footage he recorded could have been considered primary evidence of deception, and could maybe even have been broadcast, since it would have been journalistically 'in the public interest' to do so.
Fact 2 - Yes. But he at least confirmed she DID appear to be injured.
Fact 3 - Yes, to a point. But he had no way of knowing what he would see, and Hibbert was describing that she was severely disabled - if she had been seen completely uninjured, it would've been primary evidence that he was lying.
Fact 4 - If Hall had recorded video of Eve completely uninjured, that would've been primary evidence that Hibbert was lying in the msm.
He reported what he saw, and that he failed to evidence that Eve was completely uninjured. That information is useful as it then suggests (but doesn't prove) that she was injured prior to the Arena event, which adds to the model of exactly what did or didn't happen, which is the whole point of investigating.
I made the judgment by about 11.30pm on the 22/5/17 that there were likely to be lies being told about the event, after seeing a photo on twitter of the row of doors from the concourse to the City Room having not a single pane of broken glass.
The chances of a rucksack-sized shrapnel blast occurring in that room diminished to near zero (for me) at that point.
However, there were then photos of what could be, to an inexperienced eye,
injured people, testimonials (that people like Aisling 'believe') and other circumstantial pieces of 'evidence' that indicated a blast DID occur.
Even though I was of the opinion that it was PROBABLY not as we were told, I couldn't PROVE it. And I had many other things going on in my life which meant I had no time to give to research it, so this became yet another event which I thought was probably not as we were told at the time, but I paid no more attention to it.
There was good analysis from people like UKCT which I had no awareness of, and other evidence that I didn't see - particularly the Barr footage, which blows the scene wide open.
I only became aware of Hall in 2021 (from a new friend) and his Manchester work came out not long after that. His work pulled together enough evidence to be able to PROVE that Manchester Arena was a fake event. Maybe UKCT also did that, but I had no awareness of their work until I watched those films via Hall's website.
If Hall hadn't researched & investigated it, I would likely still be unable to PROVE that it was a fake event, and without being able to PROVE that an event was fake, how is it possible to convince anyone else? - which is what has frustrated me for many years about various events I have judged for myself to be not as we were told.
Hall has provided useful evidence about many things, which move me and others closer to being able to PROVE to people what is likely to be real or fake - that appears to be the central purpose of what he does, aside from trying to make a living from this work.
Now what I mostly do is just show somebody the Barr video, but even that isn't enough for some people, so UKCT & Hall's further work has been very useful.
Even better now is Iain Davis' video, which would not have been available if Hall had not carried out his investigation, and published his book & films.
Hall's work has to be looked at in toto, rather than focussing on just this one small element, which is what Spring, the msm, the courts and the rest of the State agencies now have almost everybody doing.
Do you see now how YOU have fallen for yet another psyop, when you claim you are aware how psyops work?
I have also seen how scenes can be created (I have a distant background that involves stage & film SFX and pyrotechnics, and also some military experience) and have also been at both faked and real scenes, which is why I know INVESTIGATION is neccessary to ascertain what is true or false.
Which is what Hall has been doing.
Do you now understand why the State is very keen to legislate against this kind of activity, and why they would vilify Hall for having done so?
This is not complicated stuff we're discussing here.
So much propaganda in truth, Sally, so much propaganda in truth.
"All propaganda is lies even when one is telling the truth."
George Orwell
What RDH does with his observations of Eve is have us working on the premise there was any necessity to do so ... when there was ZERO necessity.
The Daily Mail showed us images of lots of children with dinky little bandages in hospital while we have Dr Ibrar Majid telling "we saw wounds you would see on a battlefield." UKCT submitted an FOI to show pretty clearly that these children visited by the Queen were participating in a drill prior to the event.
Manchester can be disproved on the hospital information alone. Why would you concern yourself with individuals when you can do everything at the higher level, the level where it really counts not at the individual level of crisis actor minions?
Why didn't "investigative journalist", RDH, issue a single FOI request when both UKCT and Pighooey did? Or did he? You're much more up on him than I am obviously. Did he issue a single FOI request and if not, why not?
Assuming UKCT is genuine do you see how the propagandists need to push out someone in parallel to him who looks as though they're doing what UKCT is doing but actually achieving more publicity and causing "greater waves".
If you have competing hypotheses you choose the one that the evidence favours. You have argued and argued against "crisis actors" one way or another - calling the label "crisis actor" child-like really taking the cake.
I will state my facts again and please DO NOT ARGUE AGAINST THE FACTS, OK? DO NOT WASTE TIME ARGUING AGAINST FACTS.
FACT 1 - The Roussos parents are crisis actors and being crisis actors they are scripted.
FACT 2 - It is very odd for RDH to treat the Roussos's words as candid when by definition they will be scripted and as a seasoned analyst he would know that.
FACT 3 - The best he can do in any case is SPECULATE about what their words mean if so very improbably he genuinely didn't account for their being scripted.
FACT 4 - There are numerous FACTS that expose Manchester as fake and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to concern oneself with speculation about the words of parents in the unlikely probability that one doesn't recognise their being scripted.
FACT 5 - In relation to the Roussos's, the behaviour from of RDH is completely inconsistent with that of a genuine analyst but 100% fits like a glove the behaviour of a controlled opposition agent.
I have studied numerous psyops and written about some of those I've studied but many I haven't written about. I've identified agents that no one else on the internet - as far as I can tell - has. I've analysed the 30m 1968 BBC drama, The News-Benders, that those who tend to disbelieve government stories have taken at face value as "telling the truth" as a complete work of propaganda. I'm not delusional, my work is there for all to see. No one is telling me that The News-Benders isn't a work of propaganda, no one is telling me that Chelsea Manning isn't an agent or quite a few others aren't the agents I say they are.
What people do you recognise as controlled opposition? The fact that you call the label "child-like" really makes me wonder. If until now you haven't recognised a single person or a single piece of propaganda as "controlled opposition" then you are really in too ignorant a state of what controlled opposition is to judge. I've done the hard yards, I've experienced the visceral feeling of being a dumb bull in the dark being yanked by the nose-ring this way then that. I've woken up to controlled opposition a number of times, I know what it looks like. I invite you to read one of my posts on controlled opposition because obviously if you've never recognised it, you're not in a good position to judge.
Please identify any speculation from me, Charles. The reason I'm interested in psyops is that they require no speculation, they're all laid out Revelation-of-the-Method style, underneath the propaganda so I'm curious to know where you think I speculate.
Because all the questions you ask in your article could be answered sensibly without having to refer to Hall as an operative, i.e. they are not clear evidence of Hall being an operative, therefore it is speculation. It is pretty obvious that it is speculation tbh, and like I said before, you and Miri have shown your lack of reasoning skills in this endeavor to paint Hall as an operative (note I'm not saying he isn't. He might as well be, but the reasoning skills you guys show to paint him as an operative are trash)
This reminds me of your speculation regarding 911. If I recall correctly, you point to the footage of wtc 1 and 2 disintegrating and say it's fake footage, meanwhile you think wtc 7 crumbling on its footprint is real footage, and provide no reasonable discernment as to why one is fake and the other real, or why specifically the footage of wtc 1 and 2 is fake. You just speculate, and I'm sure in your mind you're not even speculating there.
What I see here is incompetence. You and Miri don't have the technical capabilities and the reasoning skills to be able to make logical arguments about what is speculative or not because you guys don't have the skills to form cohesive logical arguments that would point to Hall being an operative beyond a reasonable doubt. You think you do, but again, your incompetence doesn't allow you to actually do it.
a) So where was this house from Hibbert and/or his daughter? Was it on an island or in some lonely field? No neighbours no shops etc nearby? No bus stop etc nearby?
and:
b) so even if RDH had "exposed" Hi as a liar? What would it matter? Oh someone lied to get benefits for his daughter who was not really injured at this event. Ok. But this does not question (at least not for the MSM,state or sheep) the event itself. Only that Hi is a liar and used his daughter. MSM would report (if we assume MSM was real) Hi is a scammer and used the terrible terror event for fraud. Even re-inforcing the event lol
WOuld do a bit of damage to Hi but to the event itself?
Hall says he first went round & knocked a few neighbours' doors & spoke to a few people - nobody seemed to know they had a seriously disabled young victim of the MA event living on their street.
This doesn't entirely surprise me of city neighbourhoods though.
Yes, Hibbert was known to be making false statements (initially that he was told the bang occurred in the Main Arena, rather than the City Room, for example), but this can be put aside, as it was in the Summary Judgment, by saying that Hibbert suffers PTSD & was initially confused.
I'm currently reading his 'biography' and it's a different account of the event again.
But this is not the same as getting primae facie evidence (video recording) that proves what somebody is saying is false.
Hall reported that he failed to do so, but he had confirmed a part of what Hibbert had been saying was true.
EVERY piece of evidence builds the FULL picture.
I don't understand why the bus stop reference, by the way?
Here another que for you: "This doesn't entirely surprise me of city neighbourhoods though." So this Hi girl lived in a bigger city? Do you know the adress I guess? Or how do you know where he/she live(d)? Has RDH given the adress or the media? Or who gave the adress so you know it is a "city neighbourhood"
Cuz on bus stops are lots of people and bus drivers often are bored and look around a lot...so if anyone had seen this girl wlaking around unhurt(healthy) someone had blown the "whistle" even telling a few friends would be enough to such a blown up story to go around. Same my statement w/ the nighebours etc. Anyone could have seen this girl IF she was not hurt etc. So this makes not much sense to spy after this girl ( execpt there was no one around to note anything, hence my question re location of house eg on an empty island yes then spying would make some sense). PLUS how dumb would the perps of the event be, if they would really claim this girl is hurt so badly in the media etc but then let her walk around unhurt or what?
So I wrote even more at this IANs page.. and can only repeat, either RDH is stupid, naive and very bad at his hobby "journalist" job or he is part of the play
But "The Researcher" reminded me, that there is no proof that RDH was even there to "spy" on anyone or that this girl even exists. So I guess you must have these 2 proofs, when u write superlong texts to defend RDH (or u are a friend of him, do not get me wrong this is ok thatu defend friends. But us others - who are neutral to RDH - have not ur "rosarote Brille")
People at bus stops would notice an unhurt girl walking around, they'd know she was Eve Hibbert & the whistle would be blown?
I don't know the location of Eve's mother's house - it sounded urban (without going back to the text right now, I can't remember what made me think it was a city neighbourhood) - but I've lived in many different places and have found that in city neighbourhoods especially people aren't so aware of who lives up the road.
What surprised me more is that neighbours weren't aware of a girl in a wheelchair - but this could be, as I say, an indication of how un-nosy people tend to be in some places.
There are multiple photos of Eve Hibbert at different ages, her identity was proven in court with documents & there's a twitter account in her name from 2013 which, until very recently, had two selfies of her posted in it.
AND Hall claims to have filmed a disabled girl of her age and her mother outside their house.
I don't have rose coloured spectacles, but I've met Hall, yes.
'How dumb would the perps be'?
Enough to let Hibbert go all over msm making false statements?
Of course, maybe that was their master stroke?
You, like many others seem to be doing, are making what was a very small element of Hall's investigation and work on Manchester Arena, into your focus point for the whole affair.
When looked at in context with the rest of his work, it makes a lot more sense.
Sounds a bit like we may be to different in opinios. As I am quite aware what goes on around me and also to a degree of people living here.... And this storyx in the UK was so big and they named HIBBERT a lot. So ppl should have been aware.. at least some.
"People at bus stops would notice an unhurt girl walking around, they'd know she was Eve Hibbert & the whistle would be blown?"
- or the lack of a hurt girl
"AND Hall claims to have filmed a disabled girl of her age and her mother outside their house"
Claimed. Has he given evidence? And also has he said how he got the adress? Or could u just insert hibberts name in the yellow pages etc and it comes up? Sounds strange for a crisis actor tbh . I would have hidden the adress, but perhaps perps are really dumb
"There are multiple photos of Eve Hibbert at different ages, her identity was proven in court with documents & there's a twitter account in her name from 2013 which, until very recently, had two selfies of her posted in it."
- Aware of these, 1 of them is dubious maybe photoshopped (others say 100% shopped) and this also seems the only 1 with both. Perps make up fictional people all the time in their ops. Perhaps u are new to this type of psyop? Or do you also think that eg "Adam Lanza" was real? And if RDH claims that people in general are real in such ops this makes him again suspicious ofc
"You, like many others seem to be doing, are making what was a very small element of Hall's investigation and work on Manchester Arena, into your focus point for the whole affair."
- Not me but this "trial" (whole affair as u say) does, so we need to focus ofc on the events that these Hibbert(s) sued him for (alledegly ofc only) and the main issue seems to be the stalking Eve issue. The former crap what RDH pushed like Jewdy Woods, Aliens etc is only a small hint he is con op. But now w/ this theater here, we can be more certain what he is. NOTE that this is not something special, they fake(d) "trials" a lot and since the AJ "trial" they are en vogue In 4-5 countries. See also my page I name some more there, even 3 suspect ones in gerMONEY (Füllmeinetaschen, Ba(a)lweg, CJ Hopkins)
(before this we also had the "Sidethorn" one btw at the Sutherland springs op) I thank "the researcher" to remind me on this one.
I also note you don't appear to have actually read what you quoted of me;
"AND Hall claims to have filmed a disabled girl of her age and her mother outside their house"
Claims, yes.
What other word could I use?
Anything on a screen can be faked, anyone saying anything on a forum can be fake, anything anyone ever sees with one's own eyes can be fake, yes, of course.
It's all evidence - primary, hearsay, video, photo, social media, etc.
So you, like others, are ignoring all the evidence Eve Hibbert does exist then, in order to claim she doesn't exist?
Good skills.
Adam Lanza is a different case - why bring him into this?
Are you now deliberately trying to link Hall to Jones? (this is very much what the State & msm would like you to be thinking).
The stuff around how Hall found Sarah Gillbard's address - no idea, but he is a professional investigative reporter, so maybe he has 'methods'.
You then insert yourself into this stuff - 'I would have hidden the address' - but you are not the person in question, are you?
The MAIN issue is that the State carried out an operation and had the media tell us lies about it.
ALL this stuff around Hall is a distraction, and is being used to try to vilify investigative journalism/ts (you are doing it above by repeatedly describing what Hall did as 'spying', and later 'stalking', which is not even in question), and manufacture public support for a change in the Law to criminalise non-msm journalists from attempting to photograph or video anyone involved in certain narratives.
You appear to have made your position clear though, I think.
If Eve Hibbert had been seen walking out of her front door it would've been proof enough that shrapnel from a nail bomb had not passed clean through her brain. There could be no recovery (survival?) from such a catastrophic injury and I'm struggling to understand how you, Miri WTF, or anyone with an average or greater IQ claim not to understand that.
Actually people like you mislead those of us trying to sort out the story. Where does it say "shrapnel from a nail bomb passed clean through her brain."
I see "bolt" "struck her on the head" - no "passing through" although one report says “almost like she had been shot through the head" but "almost like" is different from "shot through". There's no report that I can see where it says shrapnel or a bolt actually passed through.
Can you cite it because if so that would be most interesting.
Martin Hibbert is on several msm-broadcast videos making the claim that a bolt passed right through her head - in one temple and out of the other.
And with hand gestures to mime this as well.
How can you not be aware of this Petra?
It's in Hall's videos.
Are you lying here? (Aisling CERTAINLY is!)
Do you have an agenda with what you are posting, because for you to not know this vital part of this story shows you are either NOT in possession of facts that you are making big claims about, or you are a liar.
Sally, I must confess I haven’t looked at a word RDH or Martin Hibbert has said on videos. I was alerted to RDH and Manchester by Miri AF’s first post and so I’ve just gleaned information here and there to make my case.
What seems to be the situation is that nowhere in the MSM in print form is any reference to bolts “passing through”, they all say bolt “struck” except in the one case cited where it says “almost like she had been shot through the head" but if it really were a case where a flying object had gone through her head it would be clear, no? - “almost like” makes no sense - typical of the reporting of psyops.
So if Martin Hibbert says “passed right through her head - in one temple and out of the other,” what he says is at odds with what is reported in the MSM - different versions also being typical of psyops.
I do have an agenda - a very clear one, same as Miri’s - exposing controlled opposition’s role in bringing in bad laws.
It seems now that you aren't lying - my apologies then for drawing that possible conclusion.
I hope you understand now why an investigator like Hall would want to find out as much as he could about Eve's injuries (or not).
(I hope Miri may be reading these comments too - I'm not paying her to correct her speculation on her substack)
The judge who made the summary judgment (Master Davison) just swept aside the false statements that Hibbert made repeatedly in the media as being due to PTSD, yet those statements gave journalistic grounds for Hall (or any journalist) to investigate him and Eve, and NOBODY in the msm queried those statements either.
This is central to why I think Hall's entire work on Manchester was struck out - to remove very valid grounds for his investigation of Eve's injuries.
"Passing clean through" is common vernacular for the native speaking English. Either the shrapnel passed clean through or it lodged in the girl's head, it couldn't have been both and your own quotes from the so called "evidence" tell us clearly that we're being led to believe that something passed clean through. If you're going to be a pedant then apply it to everything, not just observations about the holes in your own analysis.
I have no desire to be pedantic, I just want to clarify if the media actually told us that anything "passed through" because my impression is that they're only saying "struck" which seems at least plausible (even if we know, of course, it's all lies whatever they say) whereas "passing through" does not. And I see no reference to anything lodging in her head.
My quotes don't suggest anything passed "clean through". "Almost like" is just wishy-washy and doesn't mean anything. Do the media make the clear statement of anything "passing through" or anything about "lodging" because I cannot see it. I can only see "struck".
It was the 'Leg It Podcast', rather than the 'LadBible podcast' where Hibbert describes Eve's injury as 'a bolt went straight through her brain', with hand actions (at 18:45);
It's a central part of the reason I think why Hall went to investigate Eve's injuries.
Perhaps you need to rewatch Hall's flims, before you make serious allegations about him?
EDIT: I just looked to see if Hibbert's interview on the LadBible podcast around 3 years ago, which was an hour and a half long) where he describes 'a bolt going right through her brain' (with hand gestures of in one temple and out of the other) is still there, and it isn't. That has been memory holed in the last few months.
It has luckily been downloaded many times.
It would be good for all those clips of the stories Hibbert told to be edited together and put out as a single video.
I assure you though, this IS the story Hibbert was telling.
He has also told a markedly different story in his book, omitting the part about coughing up blood from the injury to his neck where he originally claimed a bolt ended up in his stomach, having severed two arteries in his neck and passing into his oesophagus.
Hibbert made MANY false statements over several years, and his story has changed MANY times.
I suspect this was further reason for Hall being denied the opportunity to put his evidence into court, as it would have shown CLEAR journalistic reasons to investigate whether Eve's injuries were real or not.
EDIT2 (and I'll repost this above): There's now a shorter LadBible video on youtube, which I think uses Hibbert's appearance on the previous msm documentary about him, where he does it again (at 10:00)
a) So where was this house from Hibbert and/or his daughter? Was it on an island or in some lonely field? No neighbours no shops etc nearby? No bus stop etc nearby?
and:
b) so even if RDH had "exposed" Hi as a liar? What would it matter? Oh someone lied to get benefits for his daughter who was not really injured at this event. Ok. But this does not question (at least not for the MSM,state or sheep) the event itself. Only that Hi is a liar and used his daughter. MSM would report (if we assume MSM was real) Hi is a cammer and used the terrible terror event for fraud. Even re-inforcing the event lol
I don’t understand the relevance of either of your questions.
a) from my memory of the RDH documentary the house was on a regular street with many neighbours. You could watch the film for yourself if it interests you.
b) Hibbert and his daughter were just 1 of scores of data points that RDH investigated in the research he presented. The cumulative impact of the many questionable things related to the event that he exposed leaves us in no doubt that nefarious people have been lying to UK taxpayers.
There is no doubt without any data points related to observing crisis actors outside the media footage. What I'd like to know is did RDH submit any FOIs or in other way approach the authorities for information as UK Critical Thinker and Pighooey did? And if he didn't why didn't he?
So above my answer to ur friend Sally ( I guess u both are good friends and also w/ RDH - as said nothing wrong w/ that, but may "cloud ur judegement")
If you are talking about the house where Eve lives with her mother, Hall went & knocked neighbours' doors first, before approaching the mother's house.
According to Hall, none of the neighbours seemed to know there was a seriously disabled victim of the Manchester Arena event living on the street.
This doesn't entirely surprise me of some city streets though.
Nobody answered the door, when Hall knocked the mother's door a couple of times, despite there being a window open.
Not sure why a bus stop nearby is relevant?
It was already easily provable that Hibbert had made false statements - he said he was told the bang occurred in the Main Arena, so his word was obviously not a reliable.
But that (as happened in the summary judgment) is able to be whitewashed by just saying 'He suffers PTSD & initially, after the event, he was confused'.
I'm reading Hibberts 'biography' at at the moment, and the section about what happened to him at the Arena that night was slightly different again from what he's said in the media previously.
What WOULD have been primary evidence, admissible in a court, would be a recording of Eve completely uninjured, taken at the same time Hibbert was saying publicly that Eve was seriously injured & had to use a wheelchair.
And Hall did the right thing, (but some say possibly in a slightly unwise way), in reporting what he witnessed.
I lost faith in RDH years ago. The name escapes me but he reported on a young girl who was in France with her parents and mysteriously disappeared, the implication being a Jon Benet Ramsey-type affair. RDH demonstrated no skepticism at all about the incident being real.
Jon Benet - I studied it in depth and wrote about it on my blog, years ago. I'll just mention one aspect - somebody broke into the morgue in Boulder, CO, and stole the page where Jon Benet's arrival would have been reported. The reason for stealing that page can only be that she was NOT listed on it. It might be prudent to suspect that Eve Hibbert, like Jon Benet Ramsey, is not a real person.
They really got us going on Jon Benet Ramsay, didn't they? Just like Madeleine McCann and to a much lesser degree, a little boy in Australia, William Tyrell ... and the little French girl you mention although I don't know her.
It is Madeleine McCann, an American who allegedly disappeared in France. As I recall. RDH was all over it.
Just to say it was Portugal. Miri AF has written quite a bit about MM - she was onto RDH with MM and it was Miri’s first post on RDH and Manchester that alerted me to it.
I’ve always had the feeling that RDH was CO - not sure why - and so I’ve not paid him much attention although that isn’t necessarily a good reason not to pay attention to someone.
Have you looked at Miri’s substack? This is a post you will definitely enjoy and might consider reposting.
https://miri.substack.com/p/vile-af-open-letter-to-all-msm-news
Thanks. I read her open letter article in which she overuses the word "experts" to great effect. Roughly translate, that word means "Stop thinking for yourself. Now!"
Great questions which is the bedrock of any comprehensive investigative journalism. The most troubling aspect for me is when the very substantial and comprehensive insight into participants/actors is stripped away (book and all), there's no public figure(s) exposed for all to see by RDH. Why not?
It's a very safe hoax event for the Establishment to rub in everyone's faces. It doesn't inconvenience anyone of significance at all. The spotlight remains on the Hibberts, victims of a sort in this saga (not obviously by any bomb though!), who matter not.
"The most troubling aspect for me is when the very substantial and comprehensive insight into participants/actors is stripped away (book and all), there's no public figure(s) exposed for all to see by RDH. Why not?"
Exactly.
fishy for sure!
Great questions, Petra. These are the facts and the only two explanations are: he's an agent who did it all on purpose, OR he's so staggeringly incompetent and inept, he set this up this perfect backdrop for an anti-free speech case law precedent "by accident".
In either event, he's obviously a dangerous liability who we shouldn't trust an inch.
But he didn't do any of this "by accident".
LOL. No of course he didn't. Everything he did fits their agenda like a glove and makes no sense for a genuine analyst.
Miri, I heard you explaining to James Delingpole that you started seriously questioning the narrative when you were asked to have a 2nd measles vax at university in America or face being deported because you were on a student visa. How old were you then, late teens, early 20's?
You said that you challenged them and demanded a titer blood test to show that you had the antibodies and therefore didn't need the additional jab. Whilst not impossible, I do find it a stretch to believe that any young adult, especially a humanities student, would have the knowledge of titer blood tests and the presence of mind to demand one let alone the balls considering the potential consequences in a foreign country.
I mention this, not because it proves anything about you, but because it proves nothing about you. Just like everything you and others such as Petra are "revealing" about RDH proves nothing about him. We know nothing about RDH's background, paymasters or motives and we nothing of your background (eastern European?), paymasters or motives.
We do know your name though, all of a sudden, so does that mean you're in the game? Or will that only be guaranteed once the Daily Fail have crowned you the sickest woman in England? How strange, I thought, that you should covet such an accolade.
We know your name now, Gus. What an absurdity. If we know their name ... AND they appear to be on the opposition side AND they're getting taken to court or similar. There's a certain subtext that needs to be understood.
Well, Gus, how very disingenuous of you. If you'd actually quoted the entirety of what I said to James rather than cherry picked to suit your "case", you would know I mentioned I was a mature student so found it much easier to stand up to the staff than a teenager. You know universities are open to adults of all ages, not just teenagers? You should easily be able to find out my specific age at the time by doing the smallest bit of proper investigation.
As for my background, I talk about it all the time in my articles and have mentioned many, many times my heritage, details about my parents and grandparents, and so on. But again, you display no ability to do any proper investigation (how many of my articles have you read, 2?), I've been publicly speaking out for nearly 10 years - having launched my first vaccine information site in 2015 - and was posting "conspiratorial" stuff on social media for years before that. Just because YOU have just come across me doesn't mean I've only just emerged.
My "paymasters" are my readers. I derive no income, not even from advertising, other than donations and subscriptions from readers.
Please do dig all you like into my background and please present your findings to the world, especially if you think you can present a case that proves I'm an "agent".
The fact is that Richard D. Hall has been instrumental in passing an anti-free speech law and I haven't. Nothing you have "accused" me of equates to anything. You suspect I might have been lying about my university vaccine experience (I wasn't) and that I might have Eastern European ancestry (I do). And this you think proves... what?
Thanks for your swift response Miri.
Rather than cherry picking, it's more accurate to attribute my bias to hearing and remembering what I wanted to from that 1 hour plus Delingpod which didn't capture my interest enough to listen to a 2nd time just to improve my recollection of some semi-intriguing observations about the latest wannabe interweb talking head.
I already answered your question when I stated that it all proves nothing. That point seems to sailed right over your pretty little head. It proves nothing just like your forensic investigative skills have proven precisely nothing about RDH, contrary to your increasingly bold claims about his involvement (implicit or otherwise) in the crafting of the latest load of bollocks "laws" from the British establishment plc.
In all your bluster you do seem to have somewhat sidestepped the question of how a 20 something humanities student from Grimthorpe with a penchant for amusing hats came to be so knowledgeable about virology and titer blood tests.
Oh deary me, I might be a "humanities student" and not a maths one but even I can tell you that your deduction about my age at the time I attended university continues to be completely wrong. How old is it you think I am now? Should be pretty simple for a great investigator like you to find out. I went to university as a mature student in 2013. So, as they say over there, "do the math". Then you might appreciate it's hardly uncommon for an adult in their thirties to understand how vaccines work.
Miri, you little tease. Keep sidestepping like that and you'll end up with all those mincers on Strictly Come Dancing. Perhaps that's where you'll be able to launch your bid to become Britain's sickest woman.
In my 50 odd years I've never once heard anyone mention titer blood tests. And then along came Miri...
I'm trying to help you become the great pioneering investigative journalist you clearly long to be, Gus. Finding out someone's age is pretty rudimentary, no? And to use the standard of "I've never heard of something therefore nobody else could know about it" is..... interesting.
Good questions. Make it make sense!
Great questions, it all feels a bit too much like the Alex Jones / Sandy Hook thing. Nice to see Anaconda again, reality is so f-ed, good to be able to have a laugh about it!
We are all agreed that this is just soooo Martin..
These are excellent questions! This will just be an opinion, as I have no facts to back it up, but this reminds me of the Wolfgang Halbig sham trial after Sandy Hook and the same type of show trial with Professor James Tracy, after the same event. Not exactly the same, but similar. Neither Halbig nor Tracy were public figures though, like Hall is.
Anyway, I'd love to hear Hall's responses to these great questions, even knowing the answers wouldn't be truthful.
Wonderful post!! Thank you!! 🙂🙋🏻♀️
Hello everyone, I'm the author of the 90-min documentary September Clues which exposed the 9/11 psyop for the crass TV show that it was. Some of you may be familiar with my old 2008 documentary which, laboriously translated in 12 languages (and after having miraculously reached millions of views) was eventually banned by Youtube in 2018 for "violating their hate speech community standards". But those who aren't may still be interested to know that the 'investigative journalist' Richard D. Hall was - for several years - among the most devious, aspiring debunkers of my painstaking work. Make of it what you will – but I certainly wouldn’t buy a used car from the man. https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2378137#p2378137
Hi Simon, Thank you for all your great work on psyops, especially 9/11. I might still be pretty clueless if not for cluesforum and I could have saved myself so many wasted hours if I'd paid much better to attention to the wealth of information on CF from the moment I discovered it. It is completely ridiculous that only two years ago I saw on CF that you posted on the fakery of the building destructions over a decade ago and even more ridiculous that it is only in the last couple of months that I've really taken a look although as soon as I saw that you said they were fake I thought it highly likely while being completely unsuspecting prior. The interesting thing is that as soon as you apply the "fake" lens you can see the fakery so obviously. It is quite hilarious. I love the clip with the Chrysler building nestling behind the twin towers - peek-a-boo - when it's 60 blocks up the road and appears as a speck in photos taken from the WTC now.
Anyone reading this comment - https://cluesforum.info is a goldmine.
I don't know what prompted the thought initially but I've suspected RDH of being CO pretty much from the beginning and have simply not paid any attention to him so it's interesting to know that he tried to debunk your 9/11 stuff.
The one point on which we disagree is the moon landings and I invite you to take a look at my page on it calling the moon landings hoax a psyop like Flat Earth. I've actually tried to join CF to post on the moon landings but I never get a response to my request to join. I will email you separately.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/moon-landings-hoax-psyop
Simon,
I took a look at the thread on your forum (to which you posted a link above).
Perhaps I misunderstood what you said here but I took it that the link would be to where evidence could be seen of Hall's "most devious" attempted debunking of your work. I could not see anything that Hall posted in that thread that shows him being devious. Where can his devious attempted debunking be seen.
As an aside, I followed the link (in your opening post of the News Media Gamekeeping thread) to the CGI collapse footage thread and read through that, which was very interesting. In your lengthy post at the bottom of page 31 (which you posted on 5 February 2016 (4:45am) you include a section headed "THE MICHELLE CHARLESWORTH 9/11 ABC CLIP" in which you set out your views about the authenticity of the ABC footage. You claim that the reporter (Michelle) is obviously in a studio with some pre-recorded imagery from the Westside Highway being projected on to a greenscreen.
You also claim that your claim (about pre-recorded imagery) can be proved, scientifically. To do this you say that it is scientific fact that on any September 11 morning (at 9:55am) in New York, the sun angle is at ca. 45°of elevation therefore shadows should be the same length as the height of any object/ person and not much longer (as can be seen in the footage).
You then say the following: "Please verify this for yourself. And YES, this is firm, scientific proof of the fakeness of the 9/11 broadcasts. Don't let the word 'scientific' put you off: REAL science - by REAL folks - is your friend. The sun is also your friend - and it NEVER lies."
In support of your claim you show a screenshot from the NOAA Solar Position Calculator that states the 'Solar Elevation' (sun angle) to be 45.1 degrees, which backs up that the length of a shadow (on a horizontal surface) would be about the same height as a vertical object.
However, whilst you have correctly entered the location (NYC), date (11 Sep 2001) and time (09:55) into the calculator, you have incorrectly set the Daylight Saving Time option to "No" but for September, this should be set to "yes". If the daylight saving is correctly set, the sun angle is 36.12 degrees (not 45.1 degrees). Accordingly, the length of shadows of objects would be approx. 140% of their vertical height (not 100%).
Accordingly, what you claim to be "firm, scientific proof" is actually a misrepresentation of the actual data and is therefore misleading. I am not (for a second) suggesting that you did this deliberately but merely highlighting that people can sometimes be wrong with their opinions (when they think they are 100% correct).
There's a link in the page that links to a post where RDH puts forward the hypothesis that a plane was used to project a hologram of Flight 175 in order to imply that the broadcasts were legit and the media's cameras captured a hologram simulating "Flight175" and thus the TV networks are all innocent victims of the scam. Now that really, really is a good one. It seems RDH tries to imply people are guilty of things they're not and not guilty of things they are. I wonder why??
https://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2372562#p2372562
"thus the TV networks are all innocent victims of the scam." .. Well RDH is part of this etwork. I doubt he would "shit on" his dear collegues. Remember his website name has the TV in it. I do not trust ppl in general that use tv or "journalist" to describe / name themselves: These words are so tainted that I would be even insulted if someone would call me eg a journalist. But that´s just me and I wanted to get rid of this :) I know also Simon will not respond to Bills critique just like "Ass-ling" did not answer his interesting question(s). Or my friendly demands for her to give us at least 3 watertight proof SandH being real. Ignored. So it is a waste of time basically (same ofc w/ ur beloved moon landing where u also ignored all demands from ppl to given even 1 proof)
But it is a sign of snowflake and woke "troofers" these days to ignore critique or even just block or ban. Like Simon and/or "mod" did and before making ppl "jumping through hoops" to even get approved for his forum. .
Same w/ the person calling himself "Max Igan" (real name Rich Rowe) even answers but ofc with insults. Also gives no proofs of his "genocide idea"...these ppl are NOT different to MSM at all. (may be a bit OT :P).
Plus ofc Hall has 70+ entries of richplant.TV at IMDB incl. Pics with his slimy friend Johnson showing fake "alien" skulls etc LOL
Petra,
Thanks for the link.
Simon's opening post here provided a link to an article he posted in which he identified 9 people; and he provided a "concise summary" of the antics of 7 of these people. Since RDH is the topic of discussion here, I was concentrating on what Simon said under the section that referred to "Judy Wood, Richard D. Hall and Andrew Johnson" and not what he said under the "Jim Fetzer" section.
The thread that I identified in my reply here to Simon was from a link in the second paragraph of the section specifically summarising the antics of RDH (as well as Wood & Johnson). I assumed that such link would have related to RDH hence why I read through that linked thread.
With regard to the article in the link you provided, Simon is referring to a video by RDH. Unfortunately, the link to it in his article is no longer active (YouTube removed the video) so I was wondering if you know if the video is still available to watch elsewhere and, if so, can you please provide a link to it?
Do you have an answer to my question whether investigative journalist, Richard D. Hall, submitted any FOIs or in any other way engaged with the authorities on Manchester and if so, what ways?
I don't know if he did or didn't.
In relation to what, specifically, do you consider he should have submitted any FOI's?
Also, in what other ways (if any) do you consider he should have engaged with "the authorities" and which specific authorities do you consider such engagement should have been with?
UK Critical Thinker submitted an FOI on drills - https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=RR18XB1D1HK6
I, myself, a very casual "investigator", emailed paediatric orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Ibrar Majid, at Manchester Hospital, about the discrepancy between his words "wounds you would see on a battlefield" and the images of children we see in hospital perfectly consistent with "drill" and completely inconsistent with people who've suffered injury from a nail bomb. Of course, I got no response.
I'm not saying he SHOULD have submitted FOIs or engaged with the authorities on any particular subject but as he seemed to do extensive research I'd tend to think that kind of engagement would probably be part of it. You don't think he wouldn't have had questions to ask the authorities about discrepancies in the narrative?
If he did communicate with the authorities that would tend to favour genuine whereas if he didn't engage with the authorities in any way preferring instead to lurk around people's houses I think that's cause to ponder.
Petra,
I'm already aware that UKCT submitted the FOI in the video you linked. If my recollection is correct, RDH referred to such in one of his videos/ films. If UKCT had already obtained this information and provided it to RDH then it would be pointless him seeking the same information again.
Notwithstanding this, for his book, RDH concentrated his investigations on what happened around 10:30pm on 22 May 2017 in the City Room (foyer) and the accounts of the people that were allegedly there. The main objective of which was to address (1) Was there a real bomb? (2) Did people get injured at the arena? (3) Did people die at the arena?. Part of the purpose of his book was to provide a comprehensive database of all the "participants" (that were in and around the foyer area at the time of the alleged incident) and thus be a useful reference tool for others who want to further investigate the case. Therefore a drill circa 2 months prior would not assist with these investigations.
Since publishing his book, significant amounts of further information (from authorities) became available through the Public Inquiry. RDH reviewed all the open hearing videos (over 1,000 hours of footage) and thousands of documents, which he analysed in great detail. From such he was able to demonstrate further major anomalies and discrepancies in the information made available to the public.
Despite me asking you to identify specifically what you consider he should have submitted an FOI; and to identify the other ways he should have engaged with authorities (and identify which specific authorities), you have not done so. Instead you have set out an enquiry that you made to a paediatric orthopaedic surgeon at a Manchester hospital in respect of which you conclude by saying "Of course, I got no response." This strongly suggests that, in advance of doing so, you knew your enquiries would be fruitless.
As an aside, it seems somewhat hypocritical and inconsistent with your criticisms of RDH (that he undertook Statement Analysis on people you say are "crisis actors") that you made enquiries about what a Surgeon said in respect of some of the same people that you consider to be "crisis actors".
You have also told me now that you DO NOT consider that he should have submitted FOI's or engaged with any authorities. Given that, coupled with you knowing enquiries with authorities would be fruitless, I am at a loss to understand why you asked me your question.
You close by saying that "If he did communicate with the authorities that would tend to favour genuine" however you provide no reasoned explanation or substantiaon for such a claim. Notwithstanding that, you seem to be ignorant that he sought the Courts to order disclosure of CCTV footage and medical records. He also sought information from the DVLA (Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency) in respect of the suspicious Audi that was parked near the Arena prior to the bang (from which a person matching the description of the alleged perpetrator was seen leaving and going towards the Arena; and later, after the bang, being apprehended by police following a car chase).
Finally you make reference to a preference to "lurk around people's houses". You seem to be confused about what RDH did and/or do not know the meaning of 'lurk' (which means be or remain hidden so as to wait in ambush for someone or something).
OK Bill.
I wouldn’t expect RDH to ask for things already asked for by others obviously and I’m not saying he should have asked for anything in particular just that investigators often submit FOIs and make other similar requests. I see that he DID request material but this was at the court stage - please confirm. What we can see in the court proceedings is massive non-following of standard protocols. It’s not a huge indicator if he didn’t request materials during his investigation but if he did that would work in his favour for not being CO I think.
I’m not an investigator and it didn’t even occur to me to submit an FOI or ask for records - I don’t see that as my role - as I’ve said, what prompted my email to Dr Majid was annoyance that he participated in an event against his own religion. So even though I knew what I did would be fruitless, making official requests for information I’d expect would have a better chance than my email at least.
“As an aside, it seems somewhat hypocritical and inconsistent with your criticisms of RDH (that he undertook Statement Analysis on people you say are "crisis actors") that you made enquiries about what a Surgeon said in respect of some of the same people that you consider to be "crisis actors".
I do not put a high-ranking Muslim representative of a hospital who is willing to participate in an event that makes people of his own religion look like nutcases in the same category as common and garden crisis actors. Sure, he’s a crisis actor too but it’s not the same. Besides, there’s no speculation with him whereas there’s no EVIDENCE that the girl died. Can you not appreciate how bits of evidence add together to gain more weight? It’s not just the SA, it’s the fact that there’s no evidence that the girl died and it is stupid to speculate about it.
I can’t keep discussing this Bill.
As far as I’m concerned the SA is a dealbreaker for the hypothesis of genuine … and then when you add it to the fact of the court case obviously being orchestrated for an agenda plus previous form in other events …
I will read further responses from you but this is my final word on the matter.
Good observation, lets see what Simon Hytten has to say about this.. and btw here he said the same on this image collage (should this then also be a wrong conclusion from him "the sun never lies"): https://septclues.com/PICTURES%20sept%20clues%20research/SUN_NEVER_LIES_001.jpg
Frank,
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner.
If you can find out the exact orientation of the towers (in relation to North) then I will be able to check/ review (and amend if necessary) what I set out below.
I was unable to find the exact orientation of the towers but based upon Figure 1, which has North identified on it, in the paper linked below (which may or not be accurate) the towers would appear to have been built approx. 30 degree (clockwise) away from a N/S & E/W orientation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267304546_Initial_Model_for_Fires_in_the_World_Trade_Center_Towers
The link you posted has imagery at the time of the alleged plane impact on the South Tower, which I understand to be reported as happening at 9:03am.
At that time (in NY that day), the azimuth of the sun (angle in relation to North) would be 109.7 degrees. Because the 'North' face of each of the towers did not lie perpendicularly (at 90 degrees) to North, but at approx. 120 degrees to North, the sun would still have been shinning on the north faces of the towers.
Based upon the towers being orientated 30 degrees off a N/S & E/W orientation, it would appear the north faces would still have received sunlight up until approx. 9:54am.
Below is a website that I often use to determine angles & elevations of the sun, which also (helpfully) gives the length of a shadow for a 1 metre vertical object.
Link 1:https://www.suncalc.org/#/40.7114,-74.0132,17/2001.09.11/09:03/1/3
Link 2:https://www.suncalc.org/#/40.7114,-74.0132,17/2001.09.11/09:54/1/3
I hope this is of some assistance.
Cheers,
Bill
Edit was to add a 2nd link to Suncalc website. Link 1 is at 9:03am and 2nd link is at 9:54am.
MANY thanks, as these shadow and sun things are not my forté . Lets hope Simon responds which I doubt - same as Assling also did not answer our questions, all lost snowflakes and time wasters. BUT u asked also for the RDH 9/11 radar video, here the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYoIB3wv-cM
Frank,
Thanks for the link to the video and apologies for not replying sooner.
I've now watched RDH's video and also looked at what Simon says in the Cluesform post about the video (for which Petra posted the link). I also recall seeing a post somewhere by Simon in which he says that he and Andrew Johnson (who seems to be an acquaintance of RDH) used to be quite friendly but that friendship had soured.
With regard to RDH's video, he seems to have endeavoured to check if the flightpath of the plane (whose image is seen in multiple different videos) were consistent with each other, which RDH claims they are. I have neither the software nor the inclination to check what he says stacks up or not.
At the end of his video (starting at 21:07), RDH says this:
"If we consider the two official flight paths it stands to reason that both sets of radar data cannot be correct either one or possibly both have to be fraudulent.
Let's make an assumption that the military radar data is correct. This would mean that Daniel Arbor's radar report is fraudulent and has been constructed to match the images that were witnessed on video. So we are saying the military radar detected a real solid object and that object was not recorded by cameras and presumably not seen by witnesses.
Is it not possible this object was some kind of drone aircraft with stealth
capability making it invisible to the naked eye using a projection system to generate a visual image of a plane in the sky? Meaning the videos were real and the plane was fake, not a fake video of a real plane as some have put forward.
This sounds far-fetched but it explains all of the observed data and remember classified military technology is decades ahead of what we see in the commercial world."
I agree that it sounds far-fetched however, like many hypotheses (that try to explain unresolved mysteries on that day), just because they may sound far-fetched does not mean they are definitely wrong, or not possible.
RDH notes himself that all the flight data (for both paths) may be fabricated. That seems to be a common theme for using any information about that day. It is unknown to what extent (if not all) information (of all types) has been fabricated. Accordingly, any hypotheses that are based upon fabricated information will be inherently flawed.
RDH's assertion that videos were real and the planes were fake (not fake videos of planes) is stated after he says "Let's make an assumption that the military radar data is correct", therefore his assertion is clearly qualified on the basis that military flight data is correct. But he has also acknowledged that such data may be fabricated therefore he is not, definitively, saying that Simon's hypothesis of fake videos of a plane is wrong. RDH is merely advancing another hypothesis (which he agrees sounds far-fetched).
Simon's post about the video (linked by Petra) is written as if RDH is personally attacking Simon. At the end of his post, Simon gives his summation of the "underlying gist" of RDH's video, which includes the following ("quotes" no.2 & 4):
- "September Clues is wrong about the trajectories not matching. None of the claims of September Clues prove TV FAKERY - every single anomaly/aberration pointed out in SC can be explained away. Again, the news media was not in on it".
- Dick Hall's conclusion: "September Clues may well be a cointelpro distraction - to lead people away from the REAL truth".
That is not how I interpreted the video and I suggest that any reasonable person giving an objective opinion would not share Simon's interpretation. Simon has clearly done some excellent work but his objectivity seems to be impaired. This could possibly be due to the souring of his friendship with Andrew; or him being immersed so much to his own hypothesis/ theory (that he finds it difficult to consider other alternatives); or some other reason(s).
I certainly did not interpret the underlying gist of RDH's video to be that Simon "may well be a cointelpro distraction". Anything but.
Leaping to conclusions like this (that he is personally being attacked) and accusing others of being gatekeepers, disinfo agents, etc. because they do not share (or endorse) the same views and opinions is not just sad but also rather immature.
People should be able to hold differing opinions without being accused of being CO, etc. merely for doing so. And people with differing opinions should be able to, respectfully, discuss such differences or (if they can't), respectfully, agree to disagree.
Finally, in his post here, Simon says that RDH was "among the most devious, aspiring debunkers of my painstaking work". I asked Simon to identify where such could be seen. He did not reply. The video that you linked does not support his claim so I am none the wiser with regard to what RDH did that was "devious" (as alleged by Simon).
Good info, btw ur also kind of an asshole, u banned me back in the days from ur forum (and/or ur strange mod there). And I am one of the only real persons in the nets :) Ur loss it was I guess, but at LR forums they were friendlier plus better research there.
But ofc w/ the media fakery and “september clues” at 9/11 u were correct. They love to stage now such fake trials, all modelled from the AlexJ one which was a total scam…But anyway - I posted much about RDH and his buddy pushing JEWDY WOODS crap etc. So i was ofc on guard when this person suddenly appeared in the media being “sued” etc.
BTW: You should edit this here: "Phil Jayhan (who at some stage enthusiastically promoted September Clues) spends most of his time defending the authenticity of the 9/11 imagery and inventing ways of making people believe that they are REAL images. His "Let's Roll" forum now features an entire.... " cuz this is wrong LR forums VERY much looked into fake images ands cgi. Better then CF in fact, u just lie about LRF cuz u have(had?) a dislike for Phil and/or Larry I guess.
I love that acting awards clip. Hilarious.
I'm also glad to see you do have a sense of humour, Petra. More please!
"In summary, why did RDH pursue a course of inquiry where the results whatever they were – that is, signs of injury or no signs of injury – would not serve to confirm that the event was staged?
This is retarded, and the same line of thinking shown by Miri. It is so sus that people would think this is even a legitimate argument
What is retarded is investigating injuries that you know at the outset are completely impossible. Why would you investigate something you know is impossible? The thing is RDH tells us the person he saw was displaying injuries but he didn't say, "Whatever injuries she was showing weren't commensurate with the impossible injuries they told us about," though, did he? This was the end of his enquiry. It was as if - injuries here, cannot argue against the claims about her when it didn't matter WHAT the girl was displaying it wouldn't be commensurate with the impossible injuries they told us about.
I dealt with this above.
If Hall had managed to confirm that Eve WASN'T injured, as Hibbert was claiming an impossible injury in the msm, he would have prima facie PROOF that he was lying.
If the video he took showed an uninjured Eve (who was the same girl as in the restaurant photo), he would have primary evidence to put before the public or even a court to prove Hibbert was committing fraud.
He failed to do this, and just confirmed that a girl, who was likely to be Eve, was indeed seriously injured.
THIS is the point of 'investigation' - to try to collect damning evidence.
That he documents what he finds which both supports AND doesn't support theses is a good indicator that he's an honest reporter.
And you claim 'the thing RDH tells us', and 'but he didn't say ...', when we've now established that you don't actually know what he said, not being familiar with his work.
You are just writing hitjob material and, like Miri & Aisling too, this makes YOU appear more of an 'agent' than Hall.
I don't personally think either of you are agents though - I think you are just three ignorant woman spouting off about things you don't actually understand.
But that's just my opinion based on what the three of you have written.
But first of all you have the problem of the media reporting one thing and Hibbert reporting another. If RDH is going by what Hibbert said then the only reality that supports his words is no more Eve - she would have died according to his description - no need to go looking. If she's alive then we know he's lying ... as we all did anyway.
On the other hand, if we go by the media and simply "struck" in the head then it's possible that in the space of two years Eve would have recovered sufficiently to not be showing obvious signs of brain injury even, in fact, if she were still suffering from them.
So the thing is whatever the results of RDH's investigation there's no clear conclusions to be drawn. Can you not see that?
You've actually answered your own question really.
We DID have that problem - we didn't know what was lies & what was true..
Then Hall investigated Eve, the reason being that we had a problem, and he confirmed that a girl who appeared to be Eve was seriously injured.
And you are WRONG - Hibbert was in the media AT THE TIME saying Eve was severely disabled.
If Hall had witnessed, or better videoed a completely healthy Eve, it would have been primary evidence that Hibbert was actively lying on msm.
The clear 'conclusion' was that this much of what Hibbert (a, by this time known serial liar) was saying was actually true, which moved the investigation forward, in as much as that Eve was injured, as was he (although likely not in the ways he was claiming).
But you are right that this didn't prove WHERE their injuries occurred.
Bear in mind that at that time, it wasn't even clear if Eve existed,
I personally have seen enough evidence now to be fairly certain that she does (although some are STILL debating this), and this is an element that Hall also confirmed, although not with primary evidence.
I regard the selfies she posted on twitter back in 2014 as being fairly strongly supporting she exists, but I don't think they had been discovered when Hall did his investigation. Then there's Hall's (admittedly) hearsay about what he saw, and identity documents put into court this year which show her likeness and, of course' the infamous restaurant photo.
If ALL that had been available had been the restaurant photo(s), I might still wonder if she actually exists.
This is where I don't understand your thinking.
You seem to think investigating is all about 'either something proves the whole shebang, or it's a waste of time & effort', when this is NOT the case.
A model of an event is pieced together with many, many small pieces of evidence, and VERY occasionally a piece of hard, inarguable prima facie
evidence for something being true or false is found.
It's the same whether on a screen or on the ground, but the only real way to confirm some things is on the ground.
Which is what Hall does in his investigations.
You seem to not really understand what it is he does.
He carries out investigations, which is what this was.
And do you not think the State might be a bit annoyed with investigative journalists who carry out investigations in an attempt to prove to the general public that the State carry out criminal activities like Manchester Arena very much appears to be?
Which makes more sense to you;
State is looking for a vehicle to clamp down on investigative journalists who challenge msm & State narratives and picks an obvious target?
State HIRES an investigative journalist to investigate and expose a hoax terror attack to the general public and THEN vilifies & uses him as a vehicle to clamp down on investigative journalists?
Very well put
It is so sus that these ladies cannot grasp basic logic and reasoning
I think, I agree with you. Itms mostly incompetence
You miss point so often you give away your slime-like dishonesty here on this Petra.
The point of looking for Eve is to prove she actually exists, as there is no convincing images of her anywhere, The two most convincing attempts are the restaurant images , which in effect prove case of obvious manipulation= if your brain is engaged.
You claim Hall is in error because no professional investigator would do such things. Well I know 2 professional investigators & they do it all the time for Divorce settlements.
Also Hall is not a professional except maybe regards funding. He is trying to be keen quizzical mind, covering various unusual angles of life. The fact that he is sometimes rubbish is nothing worse than you with NASA brain damage wankery.
Now, you may well think Hall was surveying Eve for different reasons as you claim, but that is irrespective of standard MO of investigation which is using surveillance prerogative for confirmation.
I read Miri's Catfish article. I find it intriguing and suspicious that 'only paid subscribers can comment on this post'.
I also found it intriguing and suspicious that she throws in MK-Ultra almost off-hand and then immediately dismisses it in the very next sentence, then rambles on for another 2k words. That's a classical psychological trick to deter people away from the most important limited hangout/truth.
And of course she presents as the voice of sensible reason amongst all the catfish/cognitive infiltrators.
Now I'm wondering if all her posts are 'paid only comments'.
I guess I'll have to subscribe (for free - I'm far too poor to afford paid subscriptions), just to keep a psychological eye on her. She's definitely at 70-80 on my suspicion scale, though. And I'll read that other article you link to soon (after lunch, I'm hungry).
For what it's worth I think she's dead wrong about Madelaine (child abuse network - this German woman could be a front alter) and she's also dead wrong about American gun control being the reason for school shootings. The PTSB love Americans with guns because Americans are so easily led, it maintains a strategy of tension, and having a manufactured civil war leading to total fascism would be just what the quack doctor ordered.
MK-Ultra, child abuse network and so on are far more important such that they need to be covered up and misdirected from.
On the other paw, I am thoroughly enjoying this back and forth between all these 'influencers'. The RDH saga has clearly put a catfish amongst the piggy-ons. Classic subversion. Gotta love it.
If people make a living out of writing then only allowing paid subscribers to comment is a way of boosting income and is perfectly valid.
The notion of Miri being limited hangout I find very amusing. If you think that what she says puts her under suspicion, Evelyn, then so be it.
[It’s doing that hiding the reply button shit again].
Actually not allowing comments is important. If you are genuine you would want to encourage community and discussion and such like. I suspect the real reason she doesn't allow comments is to prevent intelligent people like me from pointing out the various flaws in her arguments as well as exposing the sleight of hand techniques she uses.
I don't buy the 'boosting income' argument. She has over 6k subscribers (how?!!). I can't remember what she charges for a subscription but for every 100 paid subscribers that's like 5k a year at least.
So in her case, combined with the other suspicious points, I'm going to give her a +10 for that one. Sleight of hand (to suppress important stuff, like MK and child abuse) +40. Some of the ideas she pushes +20 (it would be +30 but it’s associated with the sleight of hand value). Another +10 and that would be +80, which in game theory psychology is a magic number.
Anyway, I think she perfectly fits the profile of an Agent 3 type. They're the most dangerous of all, of course, and quite high level. Maybe you could think of me as an Agent 4 type, exposing the Agent 3's of this world (I didn’t mention that one, did I lol!). That would make me the highest level. Unless of course I'm just a playful and mischievous fantasist. You definitely shouldn't rule out that option.
One thing I am glad about with you, Petra (and Iain, for that matter) is that you do allow anyone to comment, and you don't block people just for disagreeing with you. I admire that. So even if you were an Agent I wouldn’t expose you simply out of a kind of courtesy. Besides, until an Agent gets dangerous it’s always best to let them do their thing so you can observe them and gather the appropriate info. That’s a sign of self-confidence, of course. I don’t think there’s much of that in the 5 eyes these days (t’was ever thus, frankly). I have a very funny joke about the Aussie intelligence services which I may have to share with people sometime. You’d love it, now I know you do have a sense of humour.
Anyway, I decided to subscribe (for free) to Miri for that purpose. Maybe I’ll do a Witchfinder article on her sometime. I don’t know much about her biography, though, which is a bit of a hindrance.
Ramble ramble. Must go and collect wood for the fire for an impending risotto.
Ur on the right track ... these ppl are all CONnected... now Petra and Miri are good friends. Miri ofc (like others found out also has CONnections to some ameriKKKan big player and her dad was a biggie in the Brits system). Now only the 3rd con "girl" is missing.. who could that be? Mh... "Aisling" perhaps? This is a shill shitshow here not better then BC but I have fun cuz these shills and con ops are a hobby :))) Re Petra: Her climate and moon/Nasa propaganda I found at wordpress lead me to register here, ofc she never backed anything up she said. She just ignores questions she does not like to answer :)) But wants others to stand on her inquisition ??LOL Btw I also found it curious (as an observer of behaviours) that this Iani Davis answered to Petra? But ignores all other critics mostly...
Just to update you, Frank, I don’t swallow the AGW thing anymore … but still believe in the moon landings.
Der Arbeitsplatzgrenzwert (AGW) ist die zeitlich gewichtete durchschnittliche Konzentration eines Stoffes in der Luft am Arbeitsplatz, bei der eine akute oder chronische Schädigung der Gesundheit der Beschäftigten nicht zu erwarten ist.
Yes better not to swallow the Arbeitsplatzgrenzwert
With regards to Petra, she doesn't fit the same profile. For a start she doesn't embrace right-wing views, which is to her credit, and is one of the many reasons I like her.
When one does profiling one can't fall into the trap of just looking at one or two factors in isolation. It's always a constellation, and one has to be mindful of how each factor reinforces each other or combines (or even cancels each other out - there's an algorithm for this of course).
So when it comes to being chummy with Miri (now there's a good title for a podcast), that's not particularly suspicious in itself. I'd only give that a +5 (on the 0-100 suspicion scale) at the most. Miri has 6.5k subscribers. At least 99% of them are civilians. I don't know how many paid subs she has but let's say it's 5%. So multiply it by 20. Although a greater percentage of them would be assets, or asset-bots even.
Anyway, Petra's definitely not a bot. Unless she's some weird terminator from the future. Except they don't do terminators with Aussie accents. Although that would be fucking hilarious and I'd so watch that movie.
Knock, knock.
<door opens>
G'day - are you Sheila Connor?
No, I'm Sarah Connor.
Hah! Gotcha. Bang!
The movie would have to start on Bondi I reckon. So the terminator appears in his ball of electricity - starkers, of course - then quickly scans the beach, and spies a bunch of surf dudes having a barbie. So he strolls mechanically over there.
G'day dude. I need ya shrimps, ya tinnies and ya surfboard.
Oh yeah, no worries mate! D'ya want me keks an' me sunglasses too?
Oh fair dinkum mate! cheers.
There'd have to be an 'I'll be back' moment. So maybe terminator goes into a bar and orders a pint of the amber nectar, then realises he hasn't got any money. So he leans over the bar and says, "I'll be back".
Then he strolls over the road to the cashpoint, sticks his mechanical finger in and takes out a wad of Aussie dollars. Then goes back to the pub.
There would also have to be the ubiquitous long chase scene. Maybe involving the terminator on a surfboard, being chased by a great white. Ah, or better still a megalodon.
Yes! Aussie Terminator vs. Megalodon! Fuck yes!
Now if that doesn't have blockbuster written all over it I don't know what does!
Forgive me if I'm being an idiot but my brain can't think of what 'BC' stands for here?
I don't know enough about Aisling to offer an opinion. I've only heard of her since Iain mentioned her with regards to this ongoing hoohah about RDH.
I have been mulling over this 'agency' phenomenon, and there is a definite caveat, or 'get out clause' for some (which could obviously be a clever cover story, but for now we'll give them the benefit of the doubt), which is that a lot of these people who manifest as 'agents' are not actually assets at all, they are simply people who have developed certain usually right-wing views largely due to having a chip on their shoulder (what Nietzsche called 'resentment') and not having the emotional or psychological or spiritual maturity to get over it. Or develop basic human compassion, for that matter (you can tell that by their writing style). These sorts don't actually need to be 'recruited', because they are pushing the desired narratives naturally without being asked to do it. All the junior support officers in the asset-running section need to do is just amplify these voices - i.e. put reinforcing comments in the comments section, share posts, make recommendations and so on, and then that person ends up with several thousand subscribers (also creating a nice echo chamber).
Psychologically, this of course makes them feel very good about themselves and solidifies their views. That's important in itself because if they started off with resentment then that's a sign of insecurity, so having a load of people agreeing with them makes them feel better, more self-confident and less insecure (and remember this is a large part of the containment strategy implicit in the cognitive infiltration itself, with regards to the 'conspiracy theory community' - many of whom are indeed just people who are unhappy for whatever reason, and start questioning the epistemic authorities - they need honeypots).
They can also be drip-fed the desired ideas in the comments section by people (junior support officers) who have gained their trust, simply by including suggestions and links etc. Like 'nice post! I agree completely. have you heard of such and such? here's a link...'. AI/bots can do all this too of course.
When you challenge the views of such people, the psychology itself does the work for the asset-runners, because to change their opinions would mean a return to the insecurity they were fleeing from in the first place. So they naturally resist that, simply out of self-defence (often manifesting in aggression and spitefulness etc.).
This is a much more important observation than it might seem - it's important not to get paranoid and think that anyone pushing the official narratives (i.e. the cognitive infiltration narratives) must be an agent. They could simply fit the profile I just described. Also remember there are a lot of gammas around, with Dunning-Kruger syndrome, and they will believe whatever makes them feel better and included in a particular social group. To manipulate such types isn't difficult, you just play to their psychological needs. Likewise, the gamma thing also means they will naturally attach themselves to opinions and theories which seem logical and valid, but are in fact wrong. Just they lack the intelligence (analytical ability) and/or the information to realise those theories are wrong.
Whether such people would prefer to be seen as an asset, or a resentment-motivated gamma, is not a question on which I'm prepared to comment right now. But I will say this - if they are assets, it's often best not to provoke them too far because remember they have an entire agency section behind them and if threatened they can and will do a lot of damage. In my experience their form of 'defence' is aggressive, vindictive, and spiteful. The typical profile of the modern intelligence officer is a nasty little sociopath or even psychopath - and such people are seriously dangerous when they feel threatened (trust me, I know). In true 'art of war' style, if you don't want to take a fawning response, sometimes it's better to just withdraw from the field, and present them as not-assets. This makes them feel less threatened, and I'm sure they can live with the likes of me burbling on about Nietzsche. I think they'd prefer that.
BC = Bitchute. Only FAKEs are pushed there in "popular" and "trending" videos. When ur new to this site you will get flooded w/ SHILL after SHILL as "recommended" . but as i also said there we "almost" need to be thankful that they do not delete and censor comments (but this will come to there too I guess). Yes they allow "real truth" there but how will someone NEW to this all find it when it is buried by mountains of crap
Thanks for the heads up. I'm not really familiar with Bitchute (bitch-ute?!) - I've only ever encountered it via links people have posted.
PS: I also agree w/ u about the gun thingie, YES the cabal loves to sell MORE guns. All this gun control talk is cop op topic. As they sell MORE guns and guns never are forbidden in the US. In fact the so called "gun lobby" (in the US) never called out these fake events/"shootings" (they would call fake shootings OUT - if they were real)
And can give me the link to this "German woman" you named, I am "German" and I am interested also in "German" psyops.
Miri mentioned her in her article. I’ll look it up and get back to you. Or you could just try what your search engine comes up with. ‘McCann German imposter woman’ or something like that. I suspect she may be the real Maddie, though (faked DNA test - which Miri didn’t consider, apparently) - Manchurian candidates and psyops spring to mind. I’m going to have to delve into this a bit more.
This Mc Cann (=33) affair is not really important but may connect to RichDH being an actor. As i remember he pushed this as a real case? When i googled recently there were many German media reports about a (German) guy in prison having info abt this MADeleine case . But did not read further as imo it is all faked
I'm inclined to believe that it's not actually faked - 'arranged' sure, but not completely faked. I especially think this because we have an asset diverting attention away from this possibility - RDH saying the parents murdered her, for example.
I think therefore there is a lot more to the story. Fortunately, I am fluent in German myself so I'll be able to look up some original German articles. Thanks for that tip about the guy in prison allegedly with info btw. I'll look that up and read between the lines.
I wouldn't read too much into the 33 thing myself. I think that hand gets overplayed. I'd be inclined to fold a pair of 3s, let alone deuces. I'll go in for a cheap flop to see if I get trips, but if not, it's a clear fold. Unless I'm a little drunk of course and playing Scandinavian style.
Ah yeah cool. Btw can u explain what " Daughter of Danuih & the double binary. " means ? Just curious. Grüezi
Danuih is the Atlantean name for this planet (or the planetary intelligence, like Gaia). The double binary is Sirius.
Iain Davis has answered all these points:
it was a psyop, no one died, they used crisis actors, there was no explosives used, the alleged bomber is still alive c/o MI5, Mr. Hall was not allowed to present the evidence he rightly is entitled to at the court, despite producing his tome as evidence and sending it to the official inquiry, and finally it is not harassment nor creepy to have a male investigation journalist, attempt to verify/establish whether the child involved is alive and or has injuries
Mr. Hall is correct about:
7/7, Jill Dando, London Nail Bombings and Maddy McCann being dead; anyone in any doubt should read the Portuguese police files and the investigator OIC's book on the matter.
World class statement analysist Mr. Peter F Hyatt has eviscerated the statement account of Kate McCann.
Have you tried speaking with Mr. Hall?
Can you identify any people you would consider "controlled opposition" agents, Jonathan?
Hall couldn't present his 'evidence' in court because it's bunkum - inadmissible in a court of law. Not the poor, persecuted journalist up against the big, bad system as you've been led to believe. You can be sure Hall has misdirected you on every case he's 'investigated' too. I wouldn't believe a word, however convincing.
It's interesting to me how regularly you use the word 'believe'.
I noticed you keep repeating the phrase elsewhere 'I believe the victim testimonies'.
Yet you completely reject the primary evidence of the John Barr footage.
There's nothing 'bunkum' about video evidence from the scene of the crime - this is some of the strongest possible evidence one can put in front of a court.
As a supposed journalist, that you 'believe' hearsay, but dismiss crime scene video as bunkum, makes me think you must be an appallingly bad journalist.
It's slightly ironic that Hall usually ends his shows with the catchphrase 'believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see'.
Whereas your catchphrase appears to be 'I believe some of what I hear, and none of what I see'.
I can't see you as a credible person, let alone a journalist, analyst or commentator, and definitely not an investigator or researcher.
What university did you study journalism at?
If your methods are a product of their teaching, I wouldn't regard them as credible either.
Very well said, Sally. A very refreshing light of logic among all this nonsense
Oh dear, Charles, it's a case of the blind leading the blind. What are your credentials on the subject of "controlled opposition". How many agents or pieces of propaganda have you identified as being controlled opposition?
We need credentials now? Oh my...
There are plenty of controlled opposition in the alternative media:
Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, Cernovich, Trump, the so-called "intellectual dark web", Robert Malone, Russel Brand, Steve Kirsch, Mike Yeadon, DeSantis, Corbett, and many more
Am I credentialed yet?
They’re pretty standard. I’m curious why you think Mike Yeadon is. Initially I thought he was but then he came around on no viruses being proved to exist. Proton Magic who I admire and tend to agree with thinks he’s CO but I’m simply not convinced he is any more. Why do you think he’s CO?
You refer to "his 'evidence'". You seem to be ignorant of what evidence actually is and the role of the court. In a court case evidence does not belong to anyone (or either) side. Evidence (if factually true) only belongs to the truth. The purpose of a court (either the judges(s) or jury depending on the nature of proceedings) is to weigh up all the evidence AFTER it has been presented.
You claim that the evidence that Hall was going to present is "bunkum". Do you actually know the details of all the evidence that Hall wished to present?
Some of the evidence that Hall wished to present was the cctv footage from the Manchester arena (captured on the night of 22 May 2017). Do you consider this evidence to be "bunkum"? If so, because stills from such footage was presented at the Public Inquiry that would mean that you consider such evidence in the the Public Inquiry was "bunkum".
Seems u and Sally are quite "invested" in RDH... I said to Sally already I will say sorry to her AND RDH if I am wrong. But very curious that Sally is only here for RDH and ur posts seem also 90%+ about RDH....perhaps Charles too and so long posts u all make. Why is RDH so important for you? Just curious, I know he was a nice and eloquent man 10 yrs ago. Maybe also good looking for the females like Sally I guess: or ur relatives/ media colleagues from RDH? Nothing wrong to "defend" him then I guess even if not neutral then
Frank,
You are mistaken if you consider that I am "invested" in RDH.
RDH is just one of many, many different people who I know of and whose work I have read and/or watched/ listened to over many years. Whilst I do not agree with all his opinions, I respect his thoroughness and his transparency (with regard to the information upon which he founds his opinions).
I only, relatively recently, found Iain Davis' substack, after I became aware that he had written an article about the MH/ RDH civil case judgment ('There is no justice, just us - Part 1'), which he posted on 25 October. As I was familiar with the judgment, I posted a comment on 26 October (https://iaindavis.substack.com/p/there-is-no-justice-just-us-part/comments#comment-74156826).
After I had posted it, I read other comments, including one posted by Charles asking about an article Miri AF had written ('Controlled Freaks' dated 25 October). I had never heard of her so I took a look at her article and posted a reply to Charles with some of my initial views about it, which you can read for yourself (if you are interested). https://iaindavis.substack.com/p/there-is-no-justice-just-us-part/comment/74133001?utm_source=activity_item
In short, I was far from impressed as she seems to rely upon figments of her imagination and had fundamental facts completely wrong about the work of RDH. She has a fantastical Madelaine McCann "hypothesis" (this is being over generous as a hypothesis requires some prior research), which had her false assertion about RDH as its cornerstone.
Somebody else, Lynne Sheppard, then opened up a discussion with me and jumped to the defence of Miri and she told me she finds Miri's view "a compelling theory". After I highlighted the factual inaccuracies, she encouraged me to look at a prior article that Miri had written; and she tried to convince me that the RDH part was not the main reason. The other reason was illogical nonsense!
By then I had subscribed to Iain's substack and I then watched the video he uploaded with him having a "chat" with Miri. I posted a couple of comments to Iain, not under that video, but elsewhere (https://iaindavis.substack.com/p/there-is-no-justice-just-us-part/comment/78921467?utm_source=activity_item) which should assist your understanding of my views about people who make baseless claims.
For your information, whilst I did not upload videos to YouTube, back in 2017 when the Manchester event (and many others occurred), I was quite active on another platform; and I assisted (content creator) Youtubers, including UKCT, with research. As a result, I knew quite a lot about that event. RDH built on the work done by UKCT and that is why I had (a still have) a particular interest in RDH's work on Manchester.
The allegations of RDH being CO reminds me of what was happening circa 7 years ago when virtual nobody's (with no credible content) were springing up; and accusing everybody else of being a "shill" and/or CO, with zero substantive basis. Any reasons that were given were either just pure speculation (figments of imagination) or like making a completely different picture based upon a single piece of a 2,000-piece jigsaw.
I am not for a second suggesting that nobody is CO. But if somebody is going to make the allegation then they need to be able to back it up with facts and credible evidence; and not just rely upon a morsel of circumstantial information enveloped in speculative, irrational and illogical drivel.
Call me old-fashioned but I form my opinions after rational and logical consideration of all the relevant facts & credible evidence. If somebody can provide proof that RDH is CO, I'll happily consider it.
Hopefully the above satisfies your curiosity but if you have any queries or need clarification then let me know.
Cheers,
Bill
[*Edit was to correct grammatical errors.]
thanks Aisling, the great Iain Davis stated otherwise, he was in the court and the judgement is discussed ad infinitum in his protracted essays on the same..
All my very best x
I've rarely read such a load of presumptions, non sequiturs & misrepresentation of the source material.
Martin Hibbert claimed multiple times that a bolt went right through Eve's head (in one temple and out of the other), and she then lay on the floor for an hour & forty minutes without medical attention, yet was breathing, while people kept putting a t-shirt over her head as if she were dead.
This story is utterly ridiculous for many reasons.
Hall creates investigative documentaries, and his Manchester one is presented in exactly the same style as previous ones, where he details his methodology as well as reporting his results, theories and conclusions.
ANY investigator would want to confirm what the reality of Eve's injuries (or not) were, and he investigated multiple other people.
Did she even exist? (that question is still fascinating posters in Iain's substack comments)
He reported his method and findings as part of the whole investigation.
That is what he has always done with his films.
And this IS how investigations are carried out if one is trying to build a picture of what actually happened at an event.
One follows leads in search of something which helps build the model.
If Eve had emerged from the house evidently completely uninjured (given she was supposed to have had a hole punched right through her head), he would be able to conclude that Hibbert was indeed completely lying. As it happened though, the girl who appeared to be Eve DID have a serious disability, so at least his investiagtion confirmed THAT.
It wasn't enough to draw a solid conclusion beyond that the girl who was most likely to be Eve had a serious disability, in line with what Hibbert had described.
It would still be suspected he lied that she'd suffered a hole right through her head though, as this is almost certainly not a survivable injury, so theses can then be put forward that she had been injured in some other way previously, or Hibbert had just lied about the bolt going right through her head. It doesn't conclusively prove ANYTHING about the Arena event itself, but it is a piece of information which helps to build the model of the event, and he had no way of knowing prior to learning that information how it would bear on the whole picture.
It just appears to me that the people who are making these allegations about Hall lack any actual knowledge or experience of HOW an investigation is carried out.
As much information as it is possible to gather, is gathered.
If Hall managed to find where Eve lived, it would be a rational course of action to visit & try to confirm whether she was injured or not.
Petra, Miri & Aisling seem to completely ignore that he didn't just turn up & spy on her.
He called on some neighbours (which is what investigative journalists do), he knocked their door (which investigative journalists do), and (given that a window was open yet they didn't answer the door, which could be regarded as possibly suspicious), he set up a camera to film a PUBLIC place (not 'in their home' as I've seen Miri misrepresenting what he did) to see whether Eve was injured.
While on this topic, perhaps you ought to be aware of case law on the 'right to privacy' (or absence of), when it comes to investigative journalists. And that Hall did nothing like as unethical as was tested in this case, where two Sunday Sport journos pretended to be doctors to photograph the actor Gordon Kaye when he was in hospital with severe head injuries;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaye_v_Robertson
(Perhaps 'professional mainstream journalist' Aisling is aware of the law around this kind of activity? Or maybe not?)
The people who are putting forward this thesis (that Hall deliberately harrassed Eve Hibbert)
are also missing ONE critical point - he DIDN'T.
Judge Steyn defines harassment as 'a course of action calculated to cause alarm and/or distress'.
But there was no evidence presented to the court showing that he CALCULATED his actions to cause alarm/distress to Eve or Martin, and I don't see anyone here presenting evidence that he calculated his actions to alarm or distress them.
His actions were simply to confirm whether or not Eve was suffering any injuries at all, and his conclusion, which he reported, was that a girl of Eve's age, at the house where Eve's mother lived was seen to be suffering serious debilitating injury.
That's it.
THIS is investigative journalism.
Nothing more, and these attempts to portray it as something else are either deeply ignorant, coming from a biased agenda, or possibly from an emotional place where they are empathising with Eve, rather than dispassionately viewing what occurred as an investigative journalist pursuing a lead in trying to expose a probable enormous crime perpetrated against the population of the UK by their (and possibly also foreign) intelligence agencies.
He was probably slightly unwise in the style of how he documented HOW he went about doing what he did, from the point of view of how some people might try to frame what he did, but Hall has a particular style, which I would say that scene was totally consistent with, having watched some of his other investigative documentaries.
There was no stated or implied suggestion that there was ANY reason for him to return to the property or attempt gather futher video, so there would be no reason for Eve, her mother or Martin to be alarmed, and if the situation is interpreted that he intended to cause them distress with his investigation (bearing in mind they were all involved in a major crime if the Arena event was indeed fake), then ALL investigative journalism where ANYONE is approached, videoed or even just looked at, could be considered to be harassment.
It's ludicrous to suggest he harassed them, and obviously politically motivated - this is self-evident in the whole 'Eve's Law' aspect.
I also gather there is an appeal in progress.
If Hall's intention was to 'get himself in trouble' in a theatrical show trial, can someone please explain a credible reason why he would then APPEAL the judgment?
To be frank, I don't think I've ever read such an absolute load of rubbish from supposedly intelligent people.
The thesis that Hall deliberately had himself convicted of harassment requires a ton of evidence to the contrary to be just completely ignored.
Why would he have put out the police radio audio that was leaked to him?
Why would he have bothered trying to witness for himself if Lisa Bridgett did indeed have a finger missing?
Why would he contact John Barr for more information about the footage he posted?
Why would he continue to investigate details after the book & film were published?
Why would he expose the names of retired counter-terror officers who were present that night? (I think this answers a question below).
Why would he create & publish the cctv image viewing facility?
Why would he focus on a detail like the trail of fumes visible in the corner of the City Room?
I could go on for a while at this.
Maybe the three ladies who are pursuing this theory but are supposed to be rational thinkers can get to work on answering some of these questions?
"ANY investigator would want to confirm what the reality of Eve's injuries (or not) were, and he investigated multiple other people."
"Investigator" and "psyop" are not two things that really go together. The truth of psyops is all laid out before us in the media Revelation-of-the-Method style. There is no need to "investigate". We analyse the media stories and see the contradiction between show and tell and other kinds of contradictions that these events are laden with, eg, as you point out, the description of how the person we are told is Eve Hibbert received her injuries and the nature of those injuries is a humungous contradiction of reality. They don't pull any punches with their nonsense. We don't need to do the kind of research demanded of other crimes - no need to wear out shoe leather or tail people or any of that kind of stuff. The truth is all laid out before us underneath the propaganda.
I've worked out psyops independently of others such as the Collateral Murder film being faked and the Operation Northwoods false flag documents being faked. I didn't move an inch from my computer to work out those psyops. Similarly for every other psyop I've looked at whether they're up the street from me (there was an alleged attack by an axe-wielder literally at the end of the street I lived on for awhile) or in the mountains of Nepal or wherever. It's all laid out before us.
I was at a lockdown protest where I was within 3 metres of a woman I'd been chatting to get arrested by the police. At the time I thought she was genuinely arrested. Later I saw her speaking in a video and I realised that she was a controlled opposition agent. With psyops, "being there" is, in fact, less reliable than looking at the media stories. For example, there were probably people at the Manchester Arena who genuinely thought there was a bombing.
So these are simple facts, Sally:
FACT 1: Assuming she's real, Eve Hibbert's injuries and how she acquired them as described were clearly IMPOSSIBLE.
FACT 2: Assuming she's real, she could still have been suffering brain injuries because they use genuinely injured people in their events.
FACT 3: Even if she'd been suffering brain injuries at the time of the event she could have made remarkable recoveries.
FACT 4: Whatever RDH came up with when he went to spy on her it would be useless information. Either:
--- you DO NOT ACCEPT the story of how she received her injuries and their nature and say, "This is nonsense, this is impossible" or
--- you have to start judging whether or not the injuries she showed she were suffering (if she did show signs of injury) were commensurate with the impossible story told (which is an illogical exercise) or whether - if she didn't show signs - whether it was possible for her to have made recoveries (also illogical).
Can't you see how pointless the whole exercise is?
What needs to be done is NOT ACCEPT THE IMPOSSIBLE STORY in the first place. Whatever this person displayed is irrelevant because we know they're telling us something impossible.
It's one thing 'not accepting' a story.
It's another thing PROVING it is a lie.
My opinion is that this is what Hall was attempting to do.
I totally disagree that what he did was pointless.
Your Fact 1 - we still have to assume that she is real or not - having gone to her mother's home, he confirmed (at least to himself) she was real - if she was completely uninjured, the footage he recorded could have been considered primary evidence of deception, and could maybe even have been broadcast, since it would have been journalistically 'in the public interest' to do so.
Fact 2 - Yes. But he at least confirmed she DID appear to be injured.
Fact 3 - Yes, to a point. But he had no way of knowing what he would see, and Hibbert was describing that she was severely disabled - if she had been seen completely uninjured, it would've been primary evidence that he was lying.
Fact 4 - If Hall had recorded video of Eve completely uninjured, that would've been primary evidence that Hibbert was lying in the msm.
He reported what he saw, and that he failed to evidence that Eve was completely uninjured. That information is useful as it then suggests (but doesn't prove) that she was injured prior to the Arena event, which adds to the model of exactly what did or didn't happen, which is the whole point of investigating.
I made the judgment by about 11.30pm on the 22/5/17 that there were likely to be lies being told about the event, after seeing a photo on twitter of the row of doors from the concourse to the City Room having not a single pane of broken glass.
The chances of a rucksack-sized shrapnel blast occurring in that room diminished to near zero (for me) at that point.
However, there were then photos of what could be, to an inexperienced eye,
injured people, testimonials (that people like Aisling 'believe') and other circumstantial pieces of 'evidence' that indicated a blast DID occur.
Even though I was of the opinion that it was PROBABLY not as we were told, I couldn't PROVE it. And I had many other things going on in my life which meant I had no time to give to research it, so this became yet another event which I thought was probably not as we were told at the time, but I paid no more attention to it.
There was good analysis from people like UKCT which I had no awareness of, and other evidence that I didn't see - particularly the Barr footage, which blows the scene wide open.
I only became aware of Hall in 2021 (from a new friend) and his Manchester work came out not long after that. His work pulled together enough evidence to be able to PROVE that Manchester Arena was a fake event. Maybe UKCT also did that, but I had no awareness of their work until I watched those films via Hall's website.
If Hall hadn't researched & investigated it, I would likely still be unable to PROVE that it was a fake event, and without being able to PROVE that an event was fake, how is it possible to convince anyone else? - which is what has frustrated me for many years about various events I have judged for myself to be not as we were told.
Hall has provided useful evidence about many things, which move me and others closer to being able to PROVE to people what is likely to be real or fake - that appears to be the central purpose of what he does, aside from trying to make a living from this work.
Now what I mostly do is just show somebody the Barr video, but even that isn't enough for some people, so UKCT & Hall's further work has been very useful.
Even better now is Iain Davis' video, which would not have been available if Hall had not carried out his investigation, and published his book & films.
Hall's work has to be looked at in toto, rather than focussing on just this one small element, which is what Spring, the msm, the courts and the rest of the State agencies now have almost everybody doing.
Do you see now how YOU have fallen for yet another psyop, when you claim you are aware how psyops work?
I have also seen how scenes can be created (I have a distant background that involves stage & film SFX and pyrotechnics, and also some military experience) and have also been at both faked and real scenes, which is why I know INVESTIGATION is neccessary to ascertain what is true or false.
Which is what Hall has been doing.
Do you now understand why the State is very keen to legislate against this kind of activity, and why they would vilify Hall for having done so?
This is not complicated stuff we're discussing here.
It just requires clear thinking.
So much propaganda in truth, Sally, so much propaganda in truth.
"All propaganda is lies even when one is telling the truth."
George Orwell
What RDH does with his observations of Eve is have us working on the premise there was any necessity to do so ... when there was ZERO necessity.
The Daily Mail showed us images of lots of children with dinky little bandages in hospital while we have Dr Ibrar Majid telling "we saw wounds you would see on a battlefield." UKCT submitted an FOI to show pretty clearly that these children visited by the Queen were participating in a drill prior to the event.
https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=RR18XB1D1HK6
Manchester can be disproved on the hospital information alone. Why would you concern yourself with individuals when you can do everything at the higher level, the level where it really counts not at the individual level of crisis actor minions?
Why didn't "investigative journalist", RDH, issue a single FOI request when both UKCT and Pighooey did? Or did he? You're much more up on him than I am obviously. Did he issue a single FOI request and if not, why not?
Assuming UKCT is genuine do you see how the propagandists need to push out someone in parallel to him who looks as though they're doing what UKCT is doing but actually achieving more publicity and causing "greater waves".
If you have competing hypotheses you choose the one that the evidence favours. You have argued and argued against "crisis actors" one way or another - calling the label "crisis actor" child-like really taking the cake.
I will state my facts again and please DO NOT ARGUE AGAINST THE FACTS, OK? DO NOT WASTE TIME ARGUING AGAINST FACTS.
FACT 1 - The Roussos parents are crisis actors and being crisis actors they are scripted.
FACT 2 - It is very odd for RDH to treat the Roussos's words as candid when by definition they will be scripted and as a seasoned analyst he would know that.
FACT 3 - The best he can do in any case is SPECULATE about what their words mean if so very improbably he genuinely didn't account for their being scripted.
FACT 4 - There are numerous FACTS that expose Manchester as fake and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to concern oneself with speculation about the words of parents in the unlikely probability that one doesn't recognise their being scripted.
FACT 5 - In relation to the Roussos's, the behaviour from of RDH is completely inconsistent with that of a genuine analyst but 100% fits like a glove the behaviour of a controlled opposition agent.
I have studied numerous psyops and written about some of those I've studied but many I haven't written about. I've identified agents that no one else on the internet - as far as I can tell - has. I've analysed the 30m 1968 BBC drama, The News-Benders, that those who tend to disbelieve government stories have taken at face value as "telling the truth" as a complete work of propaganda. I'm not delusional, my work is there for all to see. No one is telling me that The News-Benders isn't a work of propaganda, no one is telling me that Chelsea Manning isn't an agent or quite a few others aren't the agents I say they are.
What people do you recognise as controlled opposition? The fact that you call the label "child-like" really makes me wonder. If until now you haven't recognised a single person or a single piece of propaganda as "controlled opposition" then you are really in too ignorant a state of what controlled opposition is to judge. I've done the hard yards, I've experienced the visceral feeling of being a dumb bull in the dark being yanked by the nose-ring this way then that. I've woken up to controlled opposition a number of times, I know what it looks like. I invite you to read one of my posts on controlled opposition because obviously if you've never recognised it, you're not in a good position to judge.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/priming-the-disbelievers-the-moon
Very well said
You should seriously consider posting stuff on substack. I’d definitely read it
Your logical skills and clear thinking are a way better read than the speculative drivel coming from Petra and Miri and co.
Please identify any speculation from me, Charles. The reason I'm interested in psyops is that they require no speculation, they're all laid out Revelation-of-the-Method style, underneath the propaganda so I'm curious to know where you think I speculate.
Because all the questions you ask in your article could be answered sensibly without having to refer to Hall as an operative, i.e. they are not clear evidence of Hall being an operative, therefore it is speculation. It is pretty obvious that it is speculation tbh, and like I said before, you and Miri have shown your lack of reasoning skills in this endeavor to paint Hall as an operative (note I'm not saying he isn't. He might as well be, but the reasoning skills you guys show to paint him as an operative are trash)
This reminds me of your speculation regarding 911. If I recall correctly, you point to the footage of wtc 1 and 2 disintegrating and say it's fake footage, meanwhile you think wtc 7 crumbling on its footprint is real footage, and provide no reasonable discernment as to why one is fake and the other real, or why specifically the footage of wtc 1 and 2 is fake. You just speculate, and I'm sure in your mind you're not even speculating there.
What I see here is incompetence. You and Miri don't have the technical capabilities and the reasoning skills to be able to make logical arguments about what is speculative or not because you guys don't have the skills to form cohesive logical arguments that would point to Hall being an operative beyond a reasonable doubt. You think you do, but again, your incompetence doesn't allow you to actually do it.
a) So where was this house from Hibbert and/or his daughter? Was it on an island or in some lonely field? No neighbours no shops etc nearby? No bus stop etc nearby?
and:
b) so even if RDH had "exposed" Hi as a liar? What would it matter? Oh someone lied to get benefits for his daughter who was not really injured at this event. Ok. But this does not question (at least not for the MSM,state or sheep) the event itself. Only that Hi is a liar and used his daughter. MSM would report (if we assume MSM was real) Hi is a scammer and used the terrible terror event for fraud. Even re-inforcing the event lol
WOuld do a bit of damage to Hi but to the event itself?
Hall says he first went round & knocked a few neighbours' doors & spoke to a few people - nobody seemed to know they had a seriously disabled young victim of the MA event living on their street.
This doesn't entirely surprise me of city neighbourhoods though.
Yes, Hibbert was known to be making false statements (initially that he was told the bang occurred in the Main Arena, rather than the City Room, for example), but this can be put aside, as it was in the Summary Judgment, by saying that Hibbert suffers PTSD & was initially confused.
I'm currently reading his 'biography' and it's a different account of the event again.
But this is not the same as getting primae facie evidence (video recording) that proves what somebody is saying is false.
Hall reported that he failed to do so, but he had confirmed a part of what Hibbert had been saying was true.
EVERY piece of evidence builds the FULL picture.
I don't understand why the bus stop reference, by the way?
Here another que for you: "This doesn't entirely surprise me of city neighbourhoods though." So this Hi girl lived in a bigger city? Do you know the adress I guess? Or how do you know where he/she live(d)? Has RDH given the adress or the media? Or who gave the adress so you know it is a "city neighbourhood"
Cuz on bus stops are lots of people and bus drivers often are bored and look around a lot...so if anyone had seen this girl wlaking around unhurt(healthy) someone had blown the "whistle" even telling a few friends would be enough to such a blown up story to go around. Same my statement w/ the nighebours etc. Anyone could have seen this girl IF she was not hurt etc. So this makes not much sense to spy after this girl ( execpt there was no one around to note anything, hence my question re location of house eg on an empty island yes then spying would make some sense). PLUS how dumb would the perps of the event be, if they would really claim this girl is hurt so badly in the media etc but then let her walk around unhurt or what?
So I wrote even more at this IANs page.. and can only repeat, either RDH is stupid, naive and very bad at his hobby "journalist" job or he is part of the play
But "The Researcher" reminded me, that there is no proof that RDH was even there to "spy" on anyone or that this girl even exists. So I guess you must have these 2 proofs, when u write superlong texts to defend RDH (or u are a friend of him, do not get me wrong this is ok thatu defend friends. But us others - who are neutral to RDH - have not ur "rosarote Brille")
You demonstrate your capacity for logic here.
People at bus stops would notice an unhurt girl walking around, they'd know she was Eve Hibbert & the whistle would be blown?
I don't know the location of Eve's mother's house - it sounded urban (without going back to the text right now, I can't remember what made me think it was a city neighbourhood) - but I've lived in many different places and have found that in city neighbourhoods especially people aren't so aware of who lives up the road.
What surprised me more is that neighbours weren't aware of a girl in a wheelchair - but this could be, as I say, an indication of how un-nosy people tend to be in some places.
There are multiple photos of Eve Hibbert at different ages, her identity was proven in court with documents & there's a twitter account in her name from 2013 which, until very recently, had two selfies of her posted in it.
AND Hall claims to have filmed a disabled girl of her age and her mother outside their house.
I don't have rose coloured spectacles, but I've met Hall, yes.
'How dumb would the perps be'?
Enough to let Hibbert go all over msm making false statements?
Of course, maybe that was their master stroke?
You, like many others seem to be doing, are making what was a very small element of Hall's investigation and work on Manchester Arena, into your focus point for the whole affair.
When looked at in context with the rest of his work, it makes a lot more sense.
Sounds a bit like we may be to different in opinios. As I am quite aware what goes on around me and also to a degree of people living here.... And this storyx in the UK was so big and they named HIBBERT a lot. So ppl should have been aware.. at least some.
"People at bus stops would notice an unhurt girl walking around, they'd know she was Eve Hibbert & the whistle would be blown?"
- or the lack of a hurt girl
"AND Hall claims to have filmed a disabled girl of her age and her mother outside their house"
Claimed. Has he given evidence? And also has he said how he got the adress? Or could u just insert hibberts name in the yellow pages etc and it comes up? Sounds strange for a crisis actor tbh . I would have hidden the adress, but perhaps perps are really dumb
"There are multiple photos of Eve Hibbert at different ages, her identity was proven in court with documents & there's a twitter account in her name from 2013 which, until very recently, had two selfies of her posted in it."
- Aware of these, 1 of them is dubious maybe photoshopped (others say 100% shopped) and this also seems the only 1 with both. Perps make up fictional people all the time in their ops. Perhaps u are new to this type of psyop? Or do you also think that eg "Adam Lanza" was real? And if RDH claims that people in general are real in such ops this makes him again suspicious ofc
"You, like many others seem to be doing, are making what was a very small element of Hall's investigation and work on Manchester Arena, into your focus point for the whole affair."
- Not me but this "trial" (whole affair as u say) does, so we need to focus ofc on the events that these Hibbert(s) sued him for (alledegly ofc only) and the main issue seems to be the stalking Eve issue. The former crap what RDH pushed like Jewdy Woods, Aliens etc is only a small hint he is con op. But now w/ this theater here, we can be more certain what he is. NOTE that this is not something special, they fake(d) "trials" a lot and since the AJ "trial" they are en vogue In 4-5 countries. See also my page I name some more there, even 3 suspect ones in gerMONEY (Füllmeinetaschen, Ba(a)lweg, CJ Hopkins)
(before this we also had the "Sidethorn" one btw at the Sutherland springs op) I thank "the researcher" to remind me on this one.
I also note you don't appear to have actually read what you quoted of me;
"AND Hall claims to have filmed a disabled girl of her age and her mother outside their house"
Claims, yes.
What other word could I use?
Anything on a screen can be faked, anyone saying anything on a forum can be fake, anything anyone ever sees with one's own eyes can be fake, yes, of course.
It's all evidence - primary, hearsay, video, photo, social media, etc.
I take it all into account as it is.
No, very much not 'new to this type of psyop'.
So you, like others, are ignoring all the evidence Eve Hibbert does exist then, in order to claim she doesn't exist?
Good skills.
Adam Lanza is a different case - why bring him into this?
Are you now deliberately trying to link Hall to Jones? (this is very much what the State & msm would like you to be thinking).
The stuff around how Hall found Sarah Gillbard's address - no idea, but he is a professional investigative reporter, so maybe he has 'methods'.
You then insert yourself into this stuff - 'I would have hidden the address' - but you are not the person in question, are you?
The MAIN issue is that the State carried out an operation and had the media tell us lies about it.
ALL this stuff around Hall is a distraction, and is being used to try to vilify investigative journalism/ts (you are doing it above by repeatedly describing what Hall did as 'spying', and later 'stalking', which is not even in question), and manufacture public support for a change in the Law to criminalise non-msm journalists from attempting to photograph or video anyone involved in certain narratives.
You appear to have made your position clear though, I think.
Perhaps he was INVESTIGATING?…Just a thought🤔
Ostensibly but not really as my questions indicate.
If Eve Hibbert had been seen walking out of her front door it would've been proof enough that shrapnel from a nail bomb had not passed clean through her brain. There could be no recovery (survival?) from such a catastrophic injury and I'm struggling to understand how you, Miri WTF, or anyone with an average or greater IQ claim not to understand that.
So why would you investigate such nonsense?
I'm off down the patent office, I appear to have discovered a new substance that's impervious to logic!
Actually people like you mislead those of us trying to sort out the story. Where does it say "shrapnel from a nail bomb passed clean through her brain."
I see "bolt" "struck her on the head" - no "passing through" although one report says “almost like she had been shot through the head" but "almost like" is different from "shot through". There's no report that I can see where it says shrapnel or a bolt actually passed through.
Can you cite it because if so that would be most interesting.
https://youtu.be/7-jiJJ29BzU?t=601
At 10:00.
And he did exactly this multiple times, to describe Eve's injury as an object passing RIGHT THROUGH her head or brain.
The hand gestures are unmistakable.
Martin Hibbert is on several msm-broadcast videos making the claim that a bolt passed right through her head - in one temple and out of the other.
And with hand gestures to mime this as well.
How can you not be aware of this Petra?
It's in Hall's videos.
Are you lying here? (Aisling CERTAINLY is!)
Do you have an agenda with what you are posting, because for you to not know this vital part of this story shows you are either NOT in possession of facts that you are making big claims about, or you are a liar.
Which is it Petra?
Sally, I must confess I haven’t looked at a word RDH or Martin Hibbert has said on videos. I was alerted to RDH and Manchester by Miri AF’s first post and so I’ve just gleaned information here and there to make my case.
What seems to be the situation is that nowhere in the MSM in print form is any reference to bolts “passing through”, they all say bolt “struck” except in the one case cited where it says “almost like she had been shot through the head" but if it really were a case where a flying object had gone through her head it would be clear, no? - “almost like” makes no sense - typical of the reporting of psyops.
So if Martin Hibbert says “passed right through her head - in one temple and out of the other,” what he says is at odds with what is reported in the MSM - different versions also being typical of psyops.
I do have an agenda - a very clear one, same as Miri’s - exposing controlled opposition’s role in bringing in bad laws.
Thanks for replying, Petra.
It seems now that you aren't lying - my apologies then for drawing that possible conclusion.
I hope you understand now why an investigator like Hall would want to find out as much as he could about Eve's injuries (or not).
(I hope Miri may be reading these comments too - I'm not paying her to correct her speculation on her substack)
The judge who made the summary judgment (Master Davison) just swept aside the false statements that Hibbert made repeatedly in the media as being due to PTSD, yet those statements gave journalistic grounds for Hall (or any journalist) to investigate him and Eve, and NOBODY in the msm queried those statements either.
This is central to why I think Hall's entire work on Manchester was struck out - to remove very valid grounds for his investigation of Eve's injuries.
Yes read incredible, unbelievable medical paper written about her Petra , object passed through frontal lobe ! 🙄🥱
"Passing clean through" is common vernacular for the native speaking English. Either the shrapnel passed clean through or it lodged in the girl's head, it couldn't have been both and your own quotes from the so called "evidence" tell us clearly that we're being led to believe that something passed clean through. If you're going to be a pedant then apply it to everything, not just observations about the holes in your own analysis.
I have no desire to be pedantic, I just want to clarify if the media actually told us that anything "passed through" because my impression is that they're only saying "struck" which seems at least plausible (even if we know, of course, it's all lies whatever they say) whereas "passing through" does not. And I see no reference to anything lodging in her head.
My quotes don't suggest anything passed "clean through". "Almost like" is just wishy-washy and doesn't mean anything. Do the media make the clear statement of anything "passing through" or anything about "lodging" because I cannot see it. I can only see "struck".
Addendum - I'm yet only human.
It was the 'Leg It Podcast', rather than the 'LadBible podcast' where Hibbert describes Eve's injury as 'a bolt went straight through her brain', with hand actions (at 18:45);
https://youtu.be/1azZ4xSH_vg?t=1094
Yet you ARE being pedantic.
It's a central part of the reason I think why Hall went to investigate Eve's injuries.
Perhaps you need to rewatch Hall's flims, before you make serious allegations about him?
EDIT: I just looked to see if Hibbert's interview on the LadBible podcast around 3 years ago, which was an hour and a half long) where he describes 'a bolt going right through her brain' (with hand gestures of in one temple and out of the other) is still there, and it isn't. That has been memory holed in the last few months.
It has luckily been downloaded many times.
It would be good for all those clips of the stories Hibbert told to be edited together and put out as a single video.
I assure you though, this IS the story Hibbert was telling.
He has also told a markedly different story in his book, omitting the part about coughing up blood from the injury to his neck where he originally claimed a bolt ended up in his stomach, having severed two arteries in his neck and passing into his oesophagus.
Hibbert made MANY false statements over several years, and his story has changed MANY times.
I suspect this was further reason for Hall being denied the opportunity to put his evidence into court, as it would have shown CLEAR journalistic reasons to investigate whether Eve's injuries were real or not.
EDIT2 (and I'll repost this above): There's now a shorter LadBible video on youtube, which I think uses Hibbert's appearance on the previous msm documentary about him, where he does it again (at 10:00)
https://youtu.be/7-jiJJ29BzU?t=601
So also my 2 questions for u I asked Sally:
a) So where was this house from Hibbert and/or his daughter? Was it on an island or in some lonely field? No neighbours no shops etc nearby? No bus stop etc nearby?
and:
b) so even if RDH had "exposed" Hi as a liar? What would it matter? Oh someone lied to get benefits for his daughter who was not really injured at this event. Ok. But this does not question (at least not for the MSM,state or sheep) the event itself. Only that Hi is a liar and used his daughter. MSM would report (if we assume MSM was real) Hi is a cammer and used the terrible terror event for fraud. Even re-inforcing the event lol
I don’t understand the relevance of either of your questions.
a) from my memory of the RDH documentary the house was on a regular street with many neighbours. You could watch the film for yourself if it interests you.
b) Hibbert and his daughter were just 1 of scores of data points that RDH investigated in the research he presented. The cumulative impact of the many questionable things related to the event that he exposed leaves us in no doubt that nefarious people have been lying to UK taxpayers.
There is no doubt without any data points related to observing crisis actors outside the media footage. What I'd like to know is did RDH submit any FOIs or in other way approach the authorities for information as UK Critical Thinker and Pighooey did? And if he didn't why didn't he?
So above my answer to ur friend Sally ( I guess u both are good friends and also w/ RDH - as said nothing wrong w/ that, but may "cloud ur judegement")
If you are talking about the house where Eve lives with her mother, Hall went & knocked neighbours' doors first, before approaching the mother's house.
According to Hall, none of the neighbours seemed to know there was a seriously disabled victim of the Manchester Arena event living on the street.
This doesn't entirely surprise me of some city streets though.
Nobody answered the door, when Hall knocked the mother's door a couple of times, despite there being a window open.
Not sure why a bus stop nearby is relevant?
It was already easily provable that Hibbert had made false statements - he said he was told the bang occurred in the Main Arena, so his word was obviously not a reliable.
But that (as happened in the summary judgment) is able to be whitewashed by just saying 'He suffers PTSD & initially, after the event, he was confused'.
I'm reading Hibberts 'biography' at at the moment, and the section about what happened to him at the Arena that night was slightly different again from what he's said in the media previously.
What WOULD have been primary evidence, admissible in a court, would be a recording of Eve completely uninjured, taken at the same time Hibbert was saying publicly that Eve was seriously injured & had to use a wheelchair.
And Hall did the right thing, (but some say possibly in a slightly unwise way), in reporting what he witnessed.
I certainly NEVER assume the msm is 'real'!
(same with so-called 'alt' media).