Following the motto "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see." - what half of the picture we see we have to believe!?
If we do not know, or are not told, what half to believe - the picture in itself alone does not say a lot.
Put this picture in Daily Mail article or BBC aired materials and the conclusions will be different.
This is where an independent individual research and open discussion is important for an individual to make a conclusion on matters. I see this is as the main Miri's point in the post.
If Iain can't recognise that RDH is an agent he can have no understanding of the phenomenon of controlled opposition and needs some instruction on it.
It's not just the Hibberts it's also the ludicrous Statement Analysis of what Saffie Roussos's parents say. If RDH recognises them as crisis actors he knows they will be scripted and therefore if they're saying things that seem to suggest Saffie had died prior to the event they will be scripted to do that ... but he doesn't factor that in which makes no sense. The thing is we expect in some events at least - definitely 9/11 - that some of the alleged dead died prior to the event or were completely made up. What's the big deal if Saffie had already died? Those orchestrating the event will know that.
I don't think she did though. While the rest of her family was being interviewed Saffie's mother was in hospital allegedly "recovering from serious injuries" which I'd suggest was a cover for both her and her daughter being sequestered off somewhere until the whole family could reunite somewhere else after their chippy was sold.
The idea of investigating individual crisis actors just feels very strange to me. There's no necessity for it. We can tell it's a hoax every which way.
It's not exactly Duper's Delight, it's staged Duper's Delight. DD is really an involuntary give away. When I first started studying these events and people spoke about DD I thought "My goodness that inappropriate smiling and laughing is really over the top." Then when I learnt about Revelation of the Method I realised it was deliberate.
Similar to RDH we see agent, Bradley Manning (now Chelsea Manning), leaving court after his 35 year sentence was handed down with a great spring in his step.
Thanks Petra, and I agree. So true about the "statement analysis"! I have made that point about the McCanns too (who Rich has famously also "investigated"). They're actors, so what's the point in analysing what they say to see if they "give away their guilt"? They've been told what to say by the scriptwriters so everything they say is on purpose!
Yes, I agree. Richie boy is beaming on purpose. Just like he tells us explicitly what he is with his famous sign-off.
I don’t have a horse in this race (Manchester is far away and I didn’t really even know about it until I read your previous posts on this) but I do put my money on your analysis. I watched the interview with Ms O'Loughlin and the lady is clearly not for turning no matter what alternative, more logical argument is presented. A bit like people who fell for the plandemic op and cannot get themselves to admit they were wrong to believe the propaganda / argue with dissenters, no matter how much evidence comes to light. I have such a family member and I just leave her now to it and pray the boosters are saline.
I have just read an article about The "spy cop" and the fur coat bomb by Tom Foot in the Islington Tribune. His final para is "The Undercover Policing Inquiry is already the longest and most expensive in British history - and is probing the work of dozens of officers sent undercover to "infiltrate" left-wing organisations over four decades. Plus ca change....
Thanks Emma, and great point. It's not widely known just how comprehensive intelligence infiltration of many organisations is, and how long it goes on for. I've heard people say "Richard can't be controlled because he's been at it too long". Yet as you say, look how long the undercover policing went on. The ruling classes are well acquainted with playing the long game.
There is infinitesimal doubt in my mind that you’ve nailed it….again! I would like to hear Dom & Chris discuss this on their next podcast because they both seem to have cognitive dissonance when it comes to RDH. Dom still flags up Richard’s fundraiser on every podcast
Given that real people have extremely limited access to information/facts you are correct to “reverse engineer “ the directed consequences of the various projects we are all well aware of . Thanks
Very good, Miri. I knew nothing about the Manchester bombing in the first place, not having bothered to look into it at all, but you make an extremely convincing case and I’m sure you’re right. It’s another case of ‘the end justifies the means’.
Good article and interview. I find it likely that Hall is a useful idiot along with Kollerstrom and the other UFO nerds. Would think it would be quite easy for mi5 to manipulate them ( or any of us) and influence their actions without them being aware.
I just had the realisation that this debate as to whether RDH is an agent of the State is yet another division among truth seekers. Since the unity of late 2020 & all of 2021 we have been whittled down by Ukraine, pied piper controlled op “dream team” alt media types, The Israhell false flag & genocide in Gaza & probably the biggest division / distraction of all, the ongoing Trump is our saviour nonsense
I mentioned Dom & Chris is my previous post & they fell for none of the list above but seem reluctant to consider that RDH is an agent purely because they appreciate a lot of his work. Dom has often used the argument when discussing controlled ops within the truth movement (like for example Russel Brand & Nurse Gladys) that he doesn’t know the person and they might be telling the truth, he thinks we should just look at the information they are putting out and judge the material but I think we need a much higher level of discernment than that.
If someone is a bad actor we need to recognise it and then parse their information through that lens. Miles Mathis is a good example of this. There is no doubt he / they are a CIA or similar operation and truthers should be aware of this when reading / discussing his work but there is no doubt that some of the mountain of information he / they put out is absolute truther gold. The problem is that their will be plenty of 🐎💩 in among the gold.
Is there any other evidence that RDH stated that he did not believe Martin was Eve's father until he was shown the birth certificate? The link goes to a BBC article and, as we know, the BBC cannot be trusted to report the truth.
Thanks Heartland - I think your key observation is "I admit I would never have done that myself! No way!". Nobody sincere would, because no matter how passionate they are, they know how utterly terrible it would look and how catastrophic the implications could be. Including and especially if they're a seasoned journalist. Because of his vast experience, it simply isn't plausible to suggest he didn't know what the repercussions of what he was doing could be.
This can happen, but I don't believe Hall is anywhere near naive enough to "accidentally" let it, because not only is he a journalist (a despised enough breed as it is), but an alternative, "conspiratorial" one, so who should be extra vigilant about not giving the establishment ammunition to destroy him.
There was absolutely no purpose to filming Eve.. There were plenty of other victims he could have investigated, although as Petra says above, really investigating individual crisis actors is not necessary because the hoax can be discerned in other ways. But, if you are going to investigate crisis actors, and there are plenty of adults available to you to study, then just leave kids out of it, because the optics are terrible (including because if Eve is a crisis actor, then as a child, that wasn't her free choice and she would have been coerced into it). Richard should have known all this, and if he honestly didn't, then it says a lot about his (lack of) expertise and integrity as a journalist, even if he isn't "controlled".
The obvious thing to do would have been to offer to settle out of court, by holding his hands up and admitting he made a mistake. Admitting that he shouldn't have filmed Eve is not conceding any ground on whether Manchester was or wasn't a hoax. If he'd done that, it would actually have strengthened his credibility - shown that he can admit when he's wrong - and even more importantly, would have stopped this issue going to trial and creating case law precedent that will now affect us all.
All true, and if Eve was the ONLY victim of the Manchester event, then I would give Richard a bit more leeway (although still caution it is as you say a very high-risk strategy and not necessarily worth it when there are so many other ways he could have investigated). But she wasn't. There were plenty of others - all adults - so he could and should have just focused on them (not, to repeat, he actually needed to go down the crisis actor route at all to prove Manchester was a hoax - after all, Iain Davis hasn't).
If he was going to film Eve, then he needs to show us he had credible evidence to believe she wasn't really disabled. What investigation did he do to lead him to this conclusion? Did he talk to her teachers, or parents of her friends, or doctors who had treated her? If he didn't make all reasonable efforts to establish the veracity of her disability BEFORE resorting to filming her, then that makes him look very bad indeed.
But ultimately, the overarching point is that we now have this case law precedent. It's here, and that's going to affect all of us. And, whatever his intentions, it's Richard we have to "thank" for that.
Very astute. It makes complete sense. And a picture paints a thousand words - he looks way too pleased with himself.
The picture does indeed say a lot, or does it?
Following the motto "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see." - what half of the picture we see we have to believe!?
If we do not know, or are not told, what half to believe - the picture in itself alone does not say a lot.
Put this picture in Daily Mail article or BBC aired materials and the conclusions will be different.
This is where an independent individual research and open discussion is important for an individual to make a conclusion on matters. I see this is as the main Miri's point in the post.
Great article as always Miri.
If Iain can't recognise that RDH is an agent he can have no understanding of the phenomenon of controlled opposition and needs some instruction on it.
It's not just the Hibberts it's also the ludicrous Statement Analysis of what Saffie Roussos's parents say. If RDH recognises them as crisis actors he knows they will be scripted and therefore if they're saying things that seem to suggest Saffie had died prior to the event they will be scripted to do that ... but he doesn't factor that in which makes no sense. The thing is we expect in some events at least - definitely 9/11 - that some of the alleged dead died prior to the event or were completely made up. What's the big deal if Saffie had already died? Those orchestrating the event will know that.
I don't think she did though. While the rest of her family was being interviewed Saffie's mother was in hospital allegedly "recovering from serious injuries" which I'd suggest was a cover for both her and her daughter being sequestered off somewhere until the whole family could reunite somewhere else after their chippy was sold.
The idea of investigating individual crisis actors just feels very strange to me. There's no necessity for it. We can tell it's a hoax every which way.
It's not exactly Duper's Delight, it's staged Duper's Delight. DD is really an involuntary give away. When I first started studying these events and people spoke about DD I thought "My goodness that inappropriate smiling and laughing is really over the top." Then when I learnt about Revelation of the Method I realised it was deliberate.
Similar to RDH we see agent, Bradley Manning (now Chelsea Manning), leaving court after his 35 year sentence was handed down with a great spring in his step.
https://youtu.be/110rJ9mTKVg?si=0Crt4jd2y5a40nGi
Thanks Petra, and I agree. So true about the "statement analysis"! I have made that point about the McCanns too (who Rich has famously also "investigated"). They're actors, so what's the point in analysing what they say to see if they "give away their guilt"? They've been told what to say by the scriptwriters so everything they say is on purpose!
Yes, I agree. Richie boy is beaming on purpose. Just like he tells us explicitly what he is with his famous sign-off.
I don’t have a horse in this race (Manchester is far away and I didn’t really even know about it until I read your previous posts on this) but I do put my money on your analysis. I watched the interview with Ms O'Loughlin and the lady is clearly not for turning no matter what alternative, more logical argument is presented. A bit like people who fell for the plandemic op and cannot get themselves to admit they were wrong to believe the propaganda / argue with dissenters, no matter how much evidence comes to light. I have such a family member and I just leave her now to it and pray the boosters are saline.
I have just read an article about The "spy cop" and the fur coat bomb by Tom Foot in the Islington Tribune. His final para is "The Undercover Policing Inquiry is already the longest and most expensive in British history - and is probing the work of dozens of officers sent undercover to "infiltrate" left-wing organisations over four decades. Plus ca change....
Thanks Emma, and great point. It's not widely known just how comprehensive intelligence infiltration of many organisations is, and how long it goes on for. I've heard people say "Richard can't be controlled because he's been at it too long". Yet as you say, look how long the undercover policing went on. The ruling classes are well acquainted with playing the long game.
There is infinitesimal doubt in my mind that you’ve nailed it….again! I would like to hear Dom & Chris discuss this on their next podcast because they both seem to have cognitive dissonance when it comes to RDH. Dom still flags up Richard’s fundraiser on every podcast
🎯
Given that real people have extremely limited access to information/facts you are correct to “reverse engineer “ the directed consequences of the various projects we are all well aware of . Thanks
Very good, Miri. I knew nothing about the Manchester bombing in the first place, not having bothered to look into it at all, but you make an extremely convincing case and I’m sure you’re right. It’s another case of ‘the end justifies the means’.
Good article and interview. I find it likely that Hall is a useful idiot along with Kollerstrom and the other UFO nerds. Would think it would be quite easy for mi5 to manipulate them ( or any of us) and influence their actions without them being aware.
Excellent analysis-thank you.
I just had the realisation that this debate as to whether RDH is an agent of the State is yet another division among truth seekers. Since the unity of late 2020 & all of 2021 we have been whittled down by Ukraine, pied piper controlled op “dream team” alt media types, The Israhell false flag & genocide in Gaza & probably the biggest division / distraction of all, the ongoing Trump is our saviour nonsense
I mentioned Dom & Chris is my previous post & they fell for none of the list above but seem reluctant to consider that RDH is an agent purely because they appreciate a lot of his work. Dom has often used the argument when discussing controlled ops within the truth movement (like for example Russel Brand & Nurse Gladys) that he doesn’t know the person and they might be telling the truth, he thinks we should just look at the information they are putting out and judge the material but I think we need a much higher level of discernment than that.
If someone is a bad actor we need to recognise it and then parse their information through that lens. Miles Mathis is a good example of this. There is no doubt he / they are a CIA or similar operation and truthers should be aware of this when reading / discussing his work but there is no doubt that some of the mountain of information he / they put out is absolute truther gold. The problem is that their will be plenty of 🐎💩 in among the gold.
Is there any other evidence that RDH stated that he did not believe Martin was Eve's father until he was shown the birth certificate? The link goes to a BBC article and, as we know, the BBC cannot be trusted to report the truth.
LYNN ERTELL https://fakeotube.com/video/7403
Thanks Heartland - I think your key observation is "I admit I would never have done that myself! No way!". Nobody sincere would, because no matter how passionate they are, they know how utterly terrible it would look and how catastrophic the implications could be. Including and especially if they're a seasoned journalist. Because of his vast experience, it simply isn't plausible to suggest he didn't know what the repercussions of what he was doing could be.
This can happen, but I don't believe Hall is anywhere near naive enough to "accidentally" let it, because not only is he a journalist (a despised enough breed as it is), but an alternative, "conspiratorial" one, so who should be extra vigilant about not giving the establishment ammunition to destroy him.
There was absolutely no purpose to filming Eve.. There were plenty of other victims he could have investigated, although as Petra says above, really investigating individual crisis actors is not necessary because the hoax can be discerned in other ways. But, if you are going to investigate crisis actors, and there are plenty of adults available to you to study, then just leave kids out of it, because the optics are terrible (including because if Eve is a crisis actor, then as a child, that wasn't her free choice and she would have been coerced into it). Richard should have known all this, and if he honestly didn't, then it says a lot about his (lack of) expertise and integrity as a journalist, even if he isn't "controlled".
The obvious thing to do would have been to offer to settle out of court, by holding his hands up and admitting he made a mistake. Admitting that he shouldn't have filmed Eve is not conceding any ground on whether Manchester was or wasn't a hoax. If he'd done that, it would actually have strengthened his credibility - shown that he can admit when he's wrong - and even more importantly, would have stopped this issue going to trial and creating case law precedent that will now affect us all.
All true, and if Eve was the ONLY victim of the Manchester event, then I would give Richard a bit more leeway (although still caution it is as you say a very high-risk strategy and not necessarily worth it when there are so many other ways he could have investigated). But she wasn't. There were plenty of others - all adults - so he could and should have just focused on them (not, to repeat, he actually needed to go down the crisis actor route at all to prove Manchester was a hoax - after all, Iain Davis hasn't).
If he was going to film Eve, then he needs to show us he had credible evidence to believe she wasn't really disabled. What investigation did he do to lead him to this conclusion? Did he talk to her teachers, or parents of her friends, or doctors who had treated her? If he didn't make all reasonable efforts to establish the veracity of her disability BEFORE resorting to filming her, then that makes him look very bad indeed.
But ultimately, the overarching point is that we now have this case law precedent. It's here, and that's going to affect all of us. And, whatever his intentions, it's Richard we have to "thank" for that.