A few days ago, someone in the comments section here at Substack asked me if I'd read Aisling O'Loughlin's recent article on "investigative journalist", Richard D.
I find it very hard to believe that an explosion that killed 22 and injured more than 100, producing thousands of shrapnel parts, in a concert attended by 1000s of teenagers (every single one carrying a smartphone)… had basically zero irrefutable video/photographic evidence. Nothing. I’ve seen videos of people walking briskly through the train station (proves nothing, apart from people walking briskly). I’ve seen the young patient saying ‘my legs have holes in’ to the queen (again, sorry, not proof). I’ve seen the man shouting feebly for his daughter and telling the camera ‘there’s blood and guts everywhere’ (but again, the video shows nothing). Compare this with the ample evidence of mutilated/burned/disfigured/headless corpses from Gaza (and every other place actual real bombs go off …).
I agree. I think large elements of it were faked, but to quote from my comment to Petra above... I'm not suggesting the Manchester event went down exactly as "authorities" told us it did, and clearly some elements of fabrication were involved, e.g., a lot of what Hall says is probably true. But to understand why he is being given such a wide MSM platform to say it (when as you say, others are completely ignored), we have to dig deeper, and that is what I have attempted to do - to see what the real endgame is. IMO, the fact that the accusation of parents killing their young child and covering it up predominates in both Hall's MM theory, and his Manchester bombing theory, is key to understanding how this will be used against us.
Interesting that the charges aren't actually for what they might seem to be - I shall put my brain to this at another time.
I haven't actually looked at a word Richard Hall has said on Manchester but just from the sense of fanfare I thought this guy will be controlled opposition.
Quite a few of us worked out Manchester within a few days of the event all the way back on that Masonic date 22/5/2017 - it was after all massively done in plain sight - they didn't even bother with a bomb at all, it wasn't an evacuated bombing situation which it often is.
The best analyst on Manchester I think is UK Critical Thinker - who, of course - no one with any kind of profile goes near. Unfortunately, most of his videos disappeared from YouTube and I'm not sure how many are still up but this long one is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRj9K0OCBNE (1h15m)
I have a page on it too - note the images of the children at the hospital being visited by the Queen versus what the orthopaedic surgeon says in a BBC interview about the injuries.
"I have a cousin who lives in Greater Manchester and an ex-colleague of his reckoned his son was at the event. However, 1. his son was seen at a pub at the same time the explosion went off, wearing an Iron Maiden t-shirt, yeah, metal fans love that r'n'b love, miles away from the event, 2. the police drop'd their case against him shortly afterwards for fraud, 3. his dad got a new car (SUV), which he couldn't afford previously being on minimum wage."
Thank you, Petra! Very interesting comments you make. As you correctly deduce, I'm not suggesting the Manchester event went down exactly as "authorities" told us it did, and clearly some elements of fabrication were involved, e.g., a lot of what Hall says is probably true. But to understand why he is being given such a wide MSM platform to say it (when as you say, others are completely ignored), we have to dig deeper, and that is what I have attempted to do - to see what the real endgame is. IMO, the fact that the accusation of parents killing their young child and covering it up predominates in both Hall's MM theory, and his Manchester bombing theory, is key to understanding how this will be used against us.
Yes it's all about the endgame you point out, Miri. I didn't look at anything he said and I was a bit confused by the accusation of parents killing their young child as at the time there were quite a few analysts pointing out the hoax that was Manchester but no one was suggesting that anyone was actually killed. I see Aisling is saying that he and a woman are accusing Saffie Roussos's parents of killing her. OMG! Definitely an agenda here. No genuine analyst would be doing that.
Oh dear. Just read a bit further. Aisling thinks that Saffie really died.
No she didn't, it was all fake ... and very obviously so.
There was no bomb. You really have to laugh. Usually they bomb an evacuated area but there was simply no bombing. Presumably, Saffie's parents are in on this ruse.
That's fantastic, thank you so much. I'll put a link to it in my page.
If he admires UK Critical Thinker so much though why on earth is he accusing parents of killing their child when all the death and injury are so obviously fake ... not to mention there is zero sign of a bombing. Usually, they at least do the bombing for real ... after evacuation but with Manchester they didn't even bother doing that.
You're welcome. It's weird, because I've watched quite a lot of Richard's videos on the Manchester subject (but I have not read his book) and I don't recall him taking that position. Maybe I've overlooked something or his position has become confused with what he said about the MM case (that the parents tested a new drug out on the child, and she died from this). Richard does tend to take opinions during the course of his investigations, and change his opinions later (which he reports on his website show) - like his later change of opinion on the Tommy Mair reports.
If anyone can directly point to where Richard makes such a direct statement about Manchester parents killing their children, then that would be interesting. I do recall him suggesting something about some of the children used in the alleged 22 killed in the arena may have already previously died, and were used by the regime - i.e. their photos and identities as part of the narrative, and possibly in exchange for money.
My thoughts on the Manchester Arena event are still, what on earth was that all for? Why did the regime hoax this event? What was their real intended purpose? I suppose we will never know? Any thoughts?
In response to purpose - apart from the ostensible reason of a "live" drill in order to respond to a real terror - or similar - event, I think they constantly want us to live in fear in order to better control us - also they need to constantly involve agency staff and ordinary people in these events too I think. They need to constantly grease the wheels so to speak. Also, "news" sells. These things are moneyspinners funded by muggles.
Actually, he doesn't outright suggest that parents killed their child before the event, there's just a hint of the possibility that she was already dead before the event in an "accident" involving her parents - I think we can infer very deliberately put forward that way.
'“If there was an accident prior to the concert, maybe it involved her (Saffie Roussos) having her arm pulled or her hand pulled,” says Richard D Hall in an effort to sow seeds of doubt against the grieving parents. Sick.'
I paid zero attention to Alex Jones and the Sandy Hook BS but I'm glad I've kind of been "forced" to look at this just to see the mechanisms of how this kind of after-psyop psyop works.
Yes, I agree that there is so much 'crisis' infrastructure in place by our current regime, that they need to act-out in order to justify all of this, plus the added bonus of security companies installing their 'scanning' and 'bio/facial recognition' systems everywhere. UK Critical Thinker outlines this in his conclusion in his 'On the Face of It' film (1). I also recently watched Ole-Dammegard's breakdown of the Trump shooting (2), and was surprised to learn how there is an entire lucrative industry in 'crisis' events (Crowdsondemand.com and the company that provides fake bodies - Simbodies). In addition, UK Critical Thinker talks about all the fundraising that goes on after such events totalling £millions.
Regarding Hall's accussation of the parents killing their own children, I rewatched his The Night of the Bang video (3) again last night. I thought I had overlooked something, and yes he does make a statement about the possibility of Saffi Roussos having died before the Manchester arena event, yet used in the narrative:
In Part 2 (07:00) Hall states "There is a complete lack of reliable photographs showing deceased victims inside the foyer or at the arena either before or after their alleged death. I don't believe any of the deceased were present in the foyer. Not only is there no evidence that I am aware of that any of the dead were ever in the foyer, there is also no evidence that I am aware of - apart from with Saffi Roussos which suggests that any of the 22 even died."
In Part 3 (13:50) Hall States "I suspect in my research that Saffi may have died previously - the previous night or earlier - in an accident, right, and may well be dead, right. Could he (Saffi's father) be remembering from that night because - let's say, let's just say - and I am not saying this is true - that er she died in an accident and the parents were negligent, could that could have prevented it. They would be up on a manslaughter charge so then a detective might be involved."
In Part 3 (21:30) Hall quotes the parent [regarding Saffi] stating 'and the next minute I just hit the floor with a thud. Interesting statement.'
On my first watch of The Night of the Bang (about a year ago). I did not personally pick up on Hall making a statement that parents of the Manchester attack may have killed their children. However, from the comments I've copied out above, I can see how that can be extrapolated - but I don't think it was Hall's objective. He was speculating in my opinion. He did exactly the same in his Maddie McCann videos. However, in hindsight, he may have worded things a little differently. He did not directly accuse anyone involved in the Manchester Arena event of having killed/murdered their child. Does anyone here think I am wrong?
Hmm. I read Hall's book on the bang and actually found it believable that the bombing story, the fake event, was set up by the govt in order to justify and get public support for stricter police powers and more surveiilance of - potential bombers.
That's the ostensible agenda in order to justify it to the people they involve - and to a limited degree it is a "genuine" agenda - but there's obviously a larger agenda in that they do this sort of thing constantly - they fake events all the time, not just these big ones but small ones, simply constantly. We have them in Australia all the time. And then there's the issue of his being sued ... but not because he's saying it's a hoax which is the message they're trying to put forward in order to silence you against calling these things out but for "(alleged) harassment and breaches in data protection."
Exactly Petra. People are being misled into thinking Hall is being persecuted for saying it's a hoax. He isn't. He's allowed to say that, he's allowed to write books about it, and we are allowed to agree with him (or not). But that isn't what this is about - whether Manchester (or any given event) - are hoaxes or not, because that's not what he's in court for. There's a bigger agenda at play.
Like the Christchurch shooting used as the pretext for confiscating guns in Oz and NZ. Didn’t take long thereafter for Oz and NZ to become among the worst oppressed countries during the covid scamdemic. They don’t mind killing people in false flag attacks to push their agenda through.
While they don't care about killing people - look what's happening now with the jab - they don't kill people in their seeming false flags because they prefer to dupe us completely with those. My rule of thumb: if you they tell you they're saving people that's when they're killing them and if they tell you people are killed that's when they're saving them. Christchurch was a total psyop just like Manchester, Sandy Hook ... and 9/11. https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911
I've never seen an event referred to as a "false flag" that wasn't anything other than a 100% psyop where the death and injury were staged.
Gosh I'm exhausted... Algorithms; conspiracies of one type or another; cotrolled op.
Controlled sometimes. A little bit controlled. Or maybe just controlled on a Wednesday.
It hadn't even really ocurred to me that RDH might be on the books of the PTB, but, WTF.
Why not.? I get that he's being done for Harassment, Doorstopping, wearing dodgy
Brown suits and seeing certain situations in Technicolor.
I posted the Delingpole/Davis interview here a few days ago; thinking: this guy could use
some help, not realising the jury was still out on him [see what I've done there !!] But, to be
honest it wouldn't surprise me [don't think he's sluggish enough to be duped]. The whole
Manchester saga is a cover, a scam. And throwing our man in here, with his court case[?] is,
to try and cover it further, if not completely mitigate the whole sorry assed affair. [And yes,
O'loughlin may have apoint there].
Although O'Loughlin does have history and Grievances and a ferocious ego. Herself, and 'Dr'
Anne McCloskey; who features heavily in the comments section of all the three links supplied
by mistress Finch here [deffo worth checking them all], have quite nasty spats up and running
with another Irish journo: Gemma O'Docherty, an 'Alt media/conspiracy theorist: who's
got links with RDH. In the video on the second article, O'Loughlin says: it's on
us - not to believe Hall, we must clean up our acts, do the right thing, sort ourselves out and
clean up our souls. I very much get the impression she has an alternative agenda; this ain't
being done entirely off her own back. Nobody's safe here, till you all believe me [implies
Aisling].
And, let's face it, if these dark nefarious forces want to shift public opinions, nudge, gaslight
propagandise and get us onboard with one scheme or another, Madeleine McCann [as has
been suggested here] - they have all manner of means at their disposal. And to deceive to the
extent they have: not only; child killed by parents [the glaringly obvious theory] But then potentially pulling that child out of a hat at a later stage, well, it involves much more nuanced layers of
skullduggery, treachery and bad Actors. Let's see how that one pans out.
The link to Tony Blair's daughter [attempting to kill herself] is hugely relevant: as in, if the black
team want to keep something out of the spotlight, you can virtually consider it done; mind you
I kinda feel that at that particular time absolutely anything that the Blair entourage deemed
necessary of keeping out of the public mind, would almost certainly have been kept out.
No question of that: The Tonester walked on water. Heralded as the second coming.
Scumbag, really.!!
So regardless of how you cut it; which ever way the cookie crumbles; rightly or wrongly,
good or exceedingly badly, it does take a shitload of fabulously contrived, elaborate, and
painstakingly detailed missives to keep us all thoroughly gaslit.. [all grist for the mill].
And, as they say in Manchester:
It takes a fabulously elaborate, and painstakingly detailed bunch of missives to keep us
Not directly related but interesting also that someone posted a picture of a sign saying Lucy Letbie (spelling) is innocent on a local site. All the replies I saw said she was guilty. The following day an interview with David Davies on GB News (I think) was poorly controlled by the interviewers but the vast majority of responses were that it needs further investigation. What do you think?
Interesting also that the business tycoon who recently died when his Yacht sank was apparently aiming to launch an investigation into the Letby trial …
"Hiding the whereabouts of 22 people is not something counter-terrorism police or intelligence agencies would find particularly difficult. Suggesting any of the 22 deceased victims are still alive and possibly living “covert” lives is extremely contentious, but I hope my reason for making that statement is now clear: all the observable physical evidence—the primary evidence—demonstrates that Salman Abedi did not detonate a large TATP shrapnel bomb inside the City Room."
Taken from: 'The Manchester Attack: An Independent Investigation' by Iain Davies (£4.99 Amazon Kindle) which compliments many of Miri's thoughts.
We should also be concerned about the legal contrivances surrounding Lucy Letby.
I have to say, I don't fully understand all this. I don't really know about Richard D Hall, though UKC have been covering him (on the whole, it seems to me, fairly favourably). Is Miri saying here that RDH may be a set-up? If so, wow! It's all so confusing. Gaslighting on steroids. That's what our world has become and I have to say that it totally confuses me! Best to concentrate on the Bible and our only true deliverer/rescuer/ransomer, Jesus Christ.
Yeah, he's controlled opposition. Manchester was worked out years ago. What's this guy saying that wasn't pointed out years ago and is so patently obvious to anyone who recognises the phenomenon of "staged event"?
Yes, what? And what is Miri saying differently? I need time to read through her article with lots of attention and I don't really have the time or energy right now.
Miri is suggesting that Richard D Hall may unwittingly become controlled opposition, by investigating red herring’s / traps set by the “security”services to lure in investigators to a false version of the event. That was my reading of this article.
Yes, I'm going to have to look carefully at the part I quote below myself.
"However, it is crucial to note here that he [Richard Hall] is NOT being sued for saying the attack was a hoax: he is, as his lawyer pointed out, "perfectly entitled" to hold that belief.
He is being sued for (alleged) harassment and breaches in data protection, things which one is not "perfectly entitled" to do, regardless of whether one believes the persons in question are "crisis actors" or not.
However, the media is cleverly conflating the two, by focusing a lot of coverage on Hall's "hoax" theory, and then declaring he's being sued by "the victims", therefore implying he is being sued for his beliefs, and, consequently, frightening people out of questioning events or sharing their opinions, lest they get taken to court."
Fascinating and provoking article. As always. If it it is legal to express an opinion there must be an implication you can give your reasons so long as you do not infringe other's rights. Is this is a grey area? After all could the McCann's take legitimate legal offence at anyone who alleges the events as claimed by them did not happen? Hall has been denied the right to challenge the official Report so the Courts are even closing down the rigjt to prove they are a lie.
Thank you Jas, I think it all comes down to whether one has used one's beliefs to participate in or incite harassment. There is nothing illegal about any belief (apart from certain beliefs about the Holocaust in certain countries!), and no law saying you cannot state your belief that "the McCanns killed Madeleine" or "The Manchester bombing was a hoax". What the law does say is you can't use your beliefs to endanger other people, so - even if Hall was able to prove irrefutably in court the bombing was a hoax - that still doesn't vindicate him on harassment charges. Harassment is never legal, including of crisis actors, and even known criminals (that would be "taking the law into one's own hands" etc).
The way the overlords are going to try and shut down free speech is asserting to "prove" that those of us who hold certain beliefs, use these beliefs to harass and endanger others. And people like Hall are helping with that agenda. Perhaps not intentionally - but they nevertheless are.
The case was lodged, not by the claimants or their legal representatives, but by the BBC.
On 10th August 2022, the BBC assigned its first-ever social media and specialist 'disinformation correspondent', Marianna Spring, to email an interview request to Hall. Spring wrote: I am getting in touch about speaking to you for an upcoming documentary & podcast series, which we're aiming to broadcast in a few months' time. Believing the BBC to be a propaganda arm of the state, Hall declined the interview. But the BBC team continued to pursue Hall, who repeatedly asked them to desist. On 7th October 2022, the BBC doorstepped Hall at his indoor market stall. There, in public, Marianna Spring levelled numerous allegations against him. Here's a sampling: Do you understand the harm that this can cause to the victims who are the survivors of these attacks who are at the heart of [your] theories, who are being targetted? [. . .] Is there anything I can say that will make you trust me? [. . .] You’re profiting from the worst day of these people’s lives [. . .] How does that make you feel? Just a couple of weeks after this confrontation, on 24th October, the BBC aired a podcast series called “Disaster Trolls.” This was followed, on 31st October, by an accompanying BBC Panorama documentary titled “Disaster Deniers.” In both the podcast series and the documentary, Hall was accused of “harming” the Manchester victims. Unsurprisingly, neither presentation reported any of the relevant Manchester Arena evidence Hall had unearthed. In December 2022, four months after the BBC first contacted Hall, lawyers for two of the reported Manchester Arena victims, Martin and Eve Hibbert, sent a letter before claim[4] to Richard D. Hall, informing him of their intention to sue him for harassment and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) breaches. The Hibberts’ legal team formally notified Hall of the High Court claim lodged against him in May 2023, approximately nine months after the BBC first contacted Hall. But by that time, Hall was already aware that the claim had been filed. He was informed that the case had been lodged, not by the claimants or their legal representatives, but by the BBC. Marianna Spring wrote an email to Hall on 31st March 2023 informing him “Mr Hibbert’s legal team have told us they have now filed a claim against you."
Taken from: Davis, Iain. The Manchester Attack: An Independent Investigation (p. 23). Kindle Edition.
Well said. I do believe that Richard D Hall’s work is done in good faith and is generally rigorous but, perhaps because of this, his methods and inclinations will have been highly studied by security services. They’ll have watched all his stuff on Jill Dando, Jo Cox, Derek Bird etc and absolutely will have developed strategies for leading him up the garden path where it suits them to do so. Because he came up through UFO investigation, it’s perhaps easier to paint him as a looney if it suits them to do so. I definitely believe both RDH and Iain Davis that the MEN arena bombing doesn’t add up, but very little does these days. As RDH says, believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.
Have to disagree there. I think Miri's on the money on this one.
You don't have to intimate that parents might have killed their child or follow anyone around. You don't need to do any of that. You can just analyse the info as UK Critical Thinker and many others have done - including me. Part of the reason I analyse psyops is that I'm lazy and wouldn't be bothered to pound the pavement investigating things. It's all laid before you so anyone intimating that a child was killed in relation to Manchester is 100% some kind of agent. What about all the other children who allegedly died? Did their parents kill them too?
Why are they paying massive attention to someone who's intimating parents killed their child and zero attention to the many other analysts (including me) who simply say the whole thing was a total hoax?
I knew nothing of what Richard Hall's charges consisted of (not sure I even knew there were any) so I'm grateful to Miri for alerting me to what they're actually for - and it's not calling hoax - but I was virtually certain he was controlled opposition because of all the fanfare when I heard he was calling it a hoax.
I’m not disagreeing with Miri. She said that RDH may well be well intentioned. I think it is somewhat of a hot take to say that someone is an “agent” (I presume you mean a paid intelligence asset who knows they are misleading people) with 100% certainty, based on them saying something unpalatable about the potential cause of a child’s death. I’ll remain on the fence about what is going on, other than that the official story doesn’t add up.
These would be my points in favour of his being an agent.
1. Miri points out that a big fuss is made of him while no fuss is made of anyone else calling out hoax. I thought the same although I thought it before I was aware of any legal action made against him, I just thought it on the basis that there seemed to be a fuss made of him calling out Manchester when a number of people called it out years ago and no attention was paid to them in the media.
2. Crisis actors always say deliberate things that don't add up - that's part of their role - so why would he make anything that Saffie Roussos's parents say mean anything in particular?
3. Regardless, as he doesn't have clear evidence that Saffie's parents killed her why would he go there? It's really not relevant to the "hoax" claim and it unnecessarily exposes him to vilification - why would you do it? You have to wonder why it would even strike him that the parents killed their child when absolutely no one else calling hoax thinks anyone at all died.
4. Alex Jones is obviously an agent and we see a very similar situation.
Having read most of the comments on this article, my main question is
Who wrote the article and what have you done with MiriAF?
The only good that has come out of it is that it brought out the disinfo agents who were just dying to badmouth a journalist of solid reputation - Richard D Hall.
From falsely representing Hall's work and insinuating that he's disingenuous, it's a disgraceful use of Miri's pen.
"You may conclude a certain event is a hoax, whilst others may be certain it's real, and that's okay: we can disagree, debate, that's what free speech is all about.
So it's not ultimately about proving irrefutably whether certain events are hoaxes or not, as we'll never have a complete consensus on that: ..."
We'll certainly never have consensus on events being hoaxes, however, that doesn't mean that there isn't irrefutable evidence that certain events are hoaxes and that there is zero evidence favouring real death and injury over staged.
The perps are scrupulous - and yes that really is the right word I think - in their implementation of their psyops. They always give us the clues above and beyond their base narrative - which of itself is often very low on the plausibility scale - that they're hoaxing us by following their Revelation of the Method rule ... and - most importantly - they never mix up truth with lies in such a way that any evidence presented for real death and injury favours staged. They certainly mix truth with lies but not in that way.
Although I'm a stalwart defender of free speech I think it's good where facts can be established to speak of them as facts. It's not as if we can state factually that no one dies or is injured in staged events or did or didn't die before or after, however, we can state as 100% fact (and I've tested this with people who support the "real" hypothesis for various events) there is no evidence provided that favours real over fake.
Before I finally got around to recommending your post to Aisling, Miri, I put forward the case that Manchester was completely staged. As might be expected Aisling wasn't on board and she put forward "testimonies" as a response to one of my comments. I never have any fear whatsoever that any piece of evidence brandished by a believer of the story will set me back on my heels - I know from vast experience that no piece of evidence ever favours real (or on the very, very odd occasion it might there's always a way to show the story falls over in many other ways) - so I asked her to give me a testimony that she found convincing. In response she presented that of Adam Lawler. Had no familiarity with him - so very many people involved in this hoax - but I had no trouble dismantling his story pretty much immediately. https://aislingoloughlin.substack.com/p/evil-richard-d-hall-and-genevieve/comment/68340876
I find it very hard to believe that an explosion that killed 22 and injured more than 100, producing thousands of shrapnel parts, in a concert attended by 1000s of teenagers (every single one carrying a smartphone)… had basically zero irrefutable video/photographic evidence. Nothing. I’ve seen videos of people walking briskly through the train station (proves nothing, apart from people walking briskly). I’ve seen the young patient saying ‘my legs have holes in’ to the queen (again, sorry, not proof). I’ve seen the man shouting feebly for his daughter and telling the camera ‘there’s blood and guts everywhere’ (but again, the video shows nothing). Compare this with the ample evidence of mutilated/burned/disfigured/headless corpses from Gaza (and every other place actual real bombs go off …).
I agree. I think large elements of it were faked, but to quote from my comment to Petra above... I'm not suggesting the Manchester event went down exactly as "authorities" told us it did, and clearly some elements of fabrication were involved, e.g., a lot of what Hall says is probably true. But to understand why he is being given such a wide MSM platform to say it (when as you say, others are completely ignored), we have to dig deeper, and that is what I have attempted to do - to see what the real endgame is. IMO, the fact that the accusation of parents killing their young child and covering it up predominates in both Hall's MM theory, and his Manchester bombing theory, is key to understanding how this will be used against us.
I have very similar questions, for similar reasons, about the "shot ear" seen around the world on July 13.
Great article, Miri.
Interesting that the charges aren't actually for what they might seem to be - I shall put my brain to this at another time.
I haven't actually looked at a word Richard Hall has said on Manchester but just from the sense of fanfare I thought this guy will be controlled opposition.
Quite a few of us worked out Manchester within a few days of the event all the way back on that Masonic date 22/5/2017 - it was after all massively done in plain sight - they didn't even bother with a bomb at all, it wasn't an evacuated bombing situation which it often is.
The best analyst on Manchester I think is UK Critical Thinker - who, of course - no one with any kind of profile goes near. Unfortunately, most of his videos disappeared from YouTube and I'm not sure how many are still up but this long one is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRj9K0OCBNE (1h15m)
I have a page on it too - note the images of the children at the hospital being visited by the Queen versus what the orthopaedic surgeon says in a BBC interview about the injuries.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/manchester-bombing.html
This is what a commenter said:
"I have a cousin who lives in Greater Manchester and an ex-colleague of his reckoned his son was at the event. However, 1. his son was seen at a pub at the same time the explosion went off, wearing an Iron Maiden t-shirt, yeah, metal fans love that r'n'b love, miles away from the event, 2. the police drop'd their case against him shortly afterwards for fraud, 3. his dad got a new car (SUV), which he couldn't afford previously being on minimum wage."
Thank you, Petra! Very interesting comments you make. As you correctly deduce, I'm not suggesting the Manchester event went down exactly as "authorities" told us it did, and clearly some elements of fabrication were involved, e.g., a lot of what Hall says is probably true. But to understand why he is being given such a wide MSM platform to say it (when as you say, others are completely ignored), we have to dig deeper, and that is what I have attempted to do - to see what the real endgame is. IMO, the fact that the accusation of parents killing their young child and covering it up predominates in both Hall's MM theory, and his Manchester bombing theory, is key to understanding how this will be used against us.
Yes it's all about the endgame you point out, Miri. I didn't look at anything he said and I was a bit confused by the accusation of parents killing their young child as at the time there were quite a few analysts pointing out the hoax that was Manchester but no one was suggesting that anyone was actually killed. I see Aisling is saying that he and a woman are accusing Saffie Roussos's parents of killing her. OMG! Definitely an agenda here. No genuine analyst would be doing that.
Oh dear. Just read a bit further. Aisling thinks that Saffie really died.
No she didn't, it was all fake ... and very obviously so.
There was no bomb. You really have to laugh. Usually they bomb an evacuated area but there was simply no bombing. Presumably, Saffie's parents are in on this ruse.
UK Critical Thinker's video archive can be found on Hall's website:
https://www.richplanet.net/richp_guest_menu.php?person=18
Hall has stated that it was UK Critical Thinker's work which originally inspired him to continue further with the subject.
That's fantastic, thank you so much. I'll put a link to it in my page.
If he admires UK Critical Thinker so much though why on earth is he accusing parents of killing their child when all the death and injury are so obviously fake ... not to mention there is zero sign of a bombing. Usually, they at least do the bombing for real ... after evacuation but with Manchester they didn't even bother doing that.
You're welcome. It's weird, because I've watched quite a lot of Richard's videos on the Manchester subject (but I have not read his book) and I don't recall him taking that position. Maybe I've overlooked something or his position has become confused with what he said about the MM case (that the parents tested a new drug out on the child, and she died from this). Richard does tend to take opinions during the course of his investigations, and change his opinions later (which he reports on his website show) - like his later change of opinion on the Tommy Mair reports.
If anyone can directly point to where Richard makes such a direct statement about Manchester parents killing their children, then that would be interesting. I do recall him suggesting something about some of the children used in the alleged 22 killed in the arena may have already previously died, and were used by the regime - i.e. their photos and identities as part of the narrative, and possibly in exchange for money.
My thoughts on the Manchester Arena event are still, what on earth was that all for? Why did the regime hoax this event? What was their real intended purpose? I suppose we will never know? Any thoughts?
In response to purpose - apart from the ostensible reason of a "live" drill in order to respond to a real terror - or similar - event, I think they constantly want us to live in fear in order to better control us - also they need to constantly involve agency staff and ordinary people in these events too I think. They need to constantly grease the wheels so to speak. Also, "news" sells. These things are moneyspinners funded by muggles.
Actually, he doesn't outright suggest that parents killed their child before the event, there's just a hint of the possibility that she was already dead before the event in an "accident" involving her parents - I think we can infer very deliberately put forward that way.
From Aisling's post:
https://aislingoloughlin.substack.com/p/the-great-con-richard-d-hall-has
'“If there was an accident prior to the concert, maybe it involved her (Saffie Roussos) having her arm pulled or her hand pulled,” says Richard D Hall in an effort to sow seeds of doubt against the grieving parents. Sick.'
I paid zero attention to Alex Jones and the Sandy Hook BS but I'm glad I've kind of been "forced" to look at this just to see the mechanisms of how this kind of after-psyop psyop works.
Yes, I agree that there is so much 'crisis' infrastructure in place by our current regime, that they need to act-out in order to justify all of this, plus the added bonus of security companies installing their 'scanning' and 'bio/facial recognition' systems everywhere. UK Critical Thinker outlines this in his conclusion in his 'On the Face of It' film (1). I also recently watched Ole-Dammegard's breakdown of the Trump shooting (2), and was surprised to learn how there is an entire lucrative industry in 'crisis' events (Crowdsondemand.com and the company that provides fake bodies - Simbodies). In addition, UK Critical Thinker talks about all the fundraising that goes on after such events totalling £millions.
Regarding Hall's accussation of the parents killing their own children, I rewatched his The Night of the Bang video (3) again last night. I thought I had overlooked something, and yes he does make a statement about the possibility of Saffi Roussos having died before the Manchester arena event, yet used in the narrative:
In Part 2 (07:00) Hall states "There is a complete lack of reliable photographs showing deceased victims inside the foyer or at the arena either before or after their alleged death. I don't believe any of the deceased were present in the foyer. Not only is there no evidence that I am aware of that any of the dead were ever in the foyer, there is also no evidence that I am aware of - apart from with Saffi Roussos which suggests that any of the 22 even died."
In Part 3 (13:50) Hall States "I suspect in my research that Saffi may have died previously - the previous night or earlier - in an accident, right, and may well be dead, right. Could he (Saffi's father) be remembering from that night because - let's say, let's just say - and I am not saying this is true - that er she died in an accident and the parents were negligent, could that could have prevented it. They would be up on a manslaughter charge so then a detective might be involved."
In Part 3 (21:30) Hall quotes the parent [regarding Saffi] stating 'and the next minute I just hit the floor with a thud. Interesting statement.'
On my first watch of The Night of the Bang (about a year ago). I did not personally pick up on Hall making a statement that parents of the Manchester attack may have killed their children. However, from the comments I've copied out above, I can see how that can be extrapolated - but I don't think it was Hall's objective. He was speculating in my opinion. He did exactly the same in his Maddie McCann videos. However, in hindsight, he may have worded things a little differently. He did not directly accuse anyone involved in the Manchester Arena event of having killed/murdered their child. Does anyone here think I am wrong?
Links
(1) On the Face of it - UK Critical Thinker: https://www.richplanet.net/richp_guest.php?ref=825&part=1&person=18
(2) IA - Renowned False Flag Researcher Ole Dammegard - Trump, Shot - Or Not: https://odysee.com/@lancewdetrick:b/IA---Renowned-False-Flag-Researcher-Ole-Dammegard---Trump,-Shot---Or-Not:3
(3) The Night of the Bang: https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=283&part=1&gen=9
Hmm. I read Hall's book on the bang and actually found it believable that the bombing story, the fake event, was set up by the govt in order to justify and get public support for stricter police powers and more surveiilance of - potential bombers.
That's the ostensible agenda in order to justify it to the people they involve - and to a limited degree it is a "genuine" agenda - but there's obviously a larger agenda in that they do this sort of thing constantly - they fake events all the time, not just these big ones but small ones, simply constantly. We have them in Australia all the time. And then there's the issue of his being sued ... but not because he's saying it's a hoax which is the message they're trying to put forward in order to silence you against calling these things out but for "(alleged) harassment and breaches in data protection."
Exactly Petra. People are being misled into thinking Hall is being persecuted for saying it's a hoax. He isn't. He's allowed to say that, he's allowed to write books about it, and we are allowed to agree with him (or not). But that isn't what this is about - whether Manchester (or any given event) - are hoaxes or not, because that's not what he's in court for. There's a bigger agenda at play.
Like the Christchurch shooting used as the pretext for confiscating guns in Oz and NZ. Didn’t take long thereafter for Oz and NZ to become among the worst oppressed countries during the covid scamdemic. They don’t mind killing people in false flag attacks to push their agenda through.
While they don't care about killing people - look what's happening now with the jab - they don't kill people in their seeming false flags because they prefer to dupe us completely with those. My rule of thumb: if you they tell you they're saving people that's when they're killing them and if they tell you people are killed that's when they're saving them. Christchurch was a total psyop just like Manchester, Sandy Hook ... and 9/11. https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911
I've never seen an event referred to as a "false flag" that wasn't anything other than a 100% psyop where the death and injury were staged.
Madeleine McCann initials MM = 33 = Masonic hoax code.
Gosh I'm exhausted... Algorithms; conspiracies of one type or another; cotrolled op.
Controlled sometimes. A little bit controlled. Or maybe just controlled on a Wednesday.
It hadn't even really ocurred to me that RDH might be on the books of the PTB, but, WTF.
Why not.? I get that he's being done for Harassment, Doorstopping, wearing dodgy
Brown suits and seeing certain situations in Technicolor.
I posted the Delingpole/Davis interview here a few days ago; thinking: this guy could use
some help, not realising the jury was still out on him [see what I've done there !!] But, to be
honest it wouldn't surprise me [don't think he's sluggish enough to be duped]. The whole
Manchester saga is a cover, a scam. And throwing our man in here, with his court case[?] is,
to try and cover it further, if not completely mitigate the whole sorry assed affair. [And yes,
O'loughlin may have apoint there].
Although O'Loughlin does have history and Grievances and a ferocious ego. Herself, and 'Dr'
Anne McCloskey; who features heavily in the comments section of all the three links supplied
by mistress Finch here [deffo worth checking them all], have quite nasty spats up and running
with another Irish journo: Gemma O'Docherty, an 'Alt media/conspiracy theorist: who's
got links with RDH. In the video on the second article, O'Loughlin says: it's on
us - not to believe Hall, we must clean up our acts, do the right thing, sort ourselves out and
clean up our souls. I very much get the impression she has an alternative agenda; this ain't
being done entirely off her own back. Nobody's safe here, till you all believe me [implies
Aisling].
And, let's face it, if these dark nefarious forces want to shift public opinions, nudge, gaslight
propagandise and get us onboard with one scheme or another, Madeleine McCann [as has
been suggested here] - they have all manner of means at their disposal. And to deceive to the
extent they have: not only; child killed by parents [the glaringly obvious theory] But then potentially pulling that child out of a hat at a later stage, well, it involves much more nuanced layers of
skullduggery, treachery and bad Actors. Let's see how that one pans out.
The link to Tony Blair's daughter [attempting to kill herself] is hugely relevant: as in, if the black
team want to keep something out of the spotlight, you can virtually consider it done; mind you
I kinda feel that at that particular time absolutely anything that the Blair entourage deemed
necessary of keeping out of the public mind, would almost certainly have been kept out.
No question of that: The Tonester walked on water. Heralded as the second coming.
Scumbag, really.!!
So regardless of how you cut it; which ever way the cookie crumbles; rightly or wrongly,
good or exceedingly badly, it does take a shitload of fabulously contrived, elaborate, and
painstakingly detailed missives to keep us all thoroughly gaslit.. [all grist for the mill].
And, as they say in Manchester:
It takes a fabulously elaborate, and painstakingly detailed bunch of missives to keep us
all on the straight and narrow. Hmm.!!
Not directly related but interesting also that someone posted a picture of a sign saying Lucy Letbie (spelling) is innocent on a local site. All the replies I saw said she was guilty. The following day an interview with David Davies on GB News (I think) was poorly controlled by the interviewers but the vast majority of responses were that it needs further investigation. What do you think?
Thanks Richard, I don't know if you saw my article on Lucy Letby?https://miriaf.co.uk/lucy-letby-is-a-totem-for-technocracy/
Interesting also that the business tycoon who recently died when his Yacht sank was apparently aiming to launch an investigation into the Letby trial …
I found this interview with Peter Hyatt to be very persuasive when considering the MM case
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kad-Kuj04_w
"Hiding the whereabouts of 22 people is not something counter-terrorism police or intelligence agencies would find particularly difficult. Suggesting any of the 22 deceased victims are still alive and possibly living “covert” lives is extremely contentious, but I hope my reason for making that statement is now clear: all the observable physical evidence—the primary evidence—demonstrates that Salman Abedi did not detonate a large TATP shrapnel bomb inside the City Room."
Taken from: 'The Manchester Attack: An Independent Investigation' by Iain Davies (£4.99 Amazon Kindle) which compliments many of Miri's thoughts.
We should also be concerned about the legal contrivances surrounding Lucy Letby.
I have to say, I don't fully understand all this. I don't really know about Richard D Hall, though UKC have been covering him (on the whole, it seems to me, fairly favourably). Is Miri saying here that RDH may be a set-up? If so, wow! It's all so confusing. Gaslighting on steroids. That's what our world has become and I have to say that it totally confuses me! Best to concentrate on the Bible and our only true deliverer/rescuer/ransomer, Jesus Christ.
Miri is very good but cannot be right on everything.
Very true!!
That doesn’t have to mean that RDH knows he’s being set up.
Yes, you're right of course.
Yeah, he's controlled opposition. Manchester was worked out years ago. What's this guy saying that wasn't pointed out years ago and is so patently obvious to anyone who recognises the phenomenon of "staged event"?
Yes, what? And what is Miri saying differently? I need time to read through her article with lots of attention and I don't really have the time or energy right now.
Miri is suggesting that Richard D Hall may unwittingly become controlled opposition, by investigating red herring’s / traps set by the “security”services to lure in investigators to a false version of the event. That was my reading of this article.
Ok, that makes sense. Thank you, Nicholas.
Yes, I'm going to have to look carefully at the part I quote below myself.
"However, it is crucial to note here that he [Richard Hall] is NOT being sued for saying the attack was a hoax: he is, as his lawyer pointed out, "perfectly entitled" to hold that belief.
He is being sued for (alleged) harassment and breaches in data protection, things which one is not "perfectly entitled" to do, regardless of whether one believes the persons in question are "crisis actors" or not.
However, the media is cleverly conflating the two, by focusing a lot of coverage on Hall's "hoax" theory, and then declaring he's being sued by "the victims", therefore implying he is being sued for his beliefs, and, consequently, frightening people out of questioning events or sharing their opinions, lest they get taken to court."
Whatever it all is, it's done to basically gaslight, I think.
Yes, gaslight and frighten ... in order ultimately to make you comply.
Fascinating and provoking article. As always. If it it is legal to express an opinion there must be an implication you can give your reasons so long as you do not infringe other's rights. Is this is a grey area? After all could the McCann's take legitimate legal offence at anyone who alleges the events as claimed by them did not happen? Hall has been denied the right to challenge the official Report so the Courts are even closing down the rigjt to prove they are a lie.
Thank you Jas, I think it all comes down to whether one has used one's beliefs to participate in or incite harassment. There is nothing illegal about any belief (apart from certain beliefs about the Holocaust in certain countries!), and no law saying you cannot state your belief that "the McCanns killed Madeleine" or "The Manchester bombing was a hoax". What the law does say is you can't use your beliefs to endanger other people, so - even if Hall was able to prove irrefutably in court the bombing was a hoax - that still doesn't vindicate him on harassment charges. Harassment is never legal, including of crisis actors, and even known criminals (that would be "taking the law into one's own hands" etc).
The way the overlords are going to try and shut down free speech is asserting to "prove" that those of us who hold certain beliefs, use these beliefs to harass and endanger others. And people like Hall are helping with that agenda. Perhaps not intentionally - but they nevertheless are.
The case was lodged, not by the claimants or their legal representatives, but by the BBC.
On 10th August 2022, the BBC assigned its first-ever social media and specialist 'disinformation correspondent', Marianna Spring, to email an interview request to Hall. Spring wrote: I am getting in touch about speaking to you for an upcoming documentary & podcast series, which we're aiming to broadcast in a few months' time. Believing the BBC to be a propaganda arm of the state, Hall declined the interview. But the BBC team continued to pursue Hall, who repeatedly asked them to desist. On 7th October 2022, the BBC doorstepped Hall at his indoor market stall. There, in public, Marianna Spring levelled numerous allegations against him. Here's a sampling: Do you understand the harm that this can cause to the victims who are the survivors of these attacks who are at the heart of [your] theories, who are being targetted? [. . .] Is there anything I can say that will make you trust me? [. . .] You’re profiting from the worst day of these people’s lives [. . .] How does that make you feel? Just a couple of weeks after this confrontation, on 24th October, the BBC aired a podcast series called “Disaster Trolls.” This was followed, on 31st October, by an accompanying BBC Panorama documentary titled “Disaster Deniers.” In both the podcast series and the documentary, Hall was accused of “harming” the Manchester victims. Unsurprisingly, neither presentation reported any of the relevant Manchester Arena evidence Hall had unearthed. In December 2022, four months after the BBC first contacted Hall, lawyers for two of the reported Manchester Arena victims, Martin and Eve Hibbert, sent a letter before claim[4] to Richard D. Hall, informing him of their intention to sue him for harassment and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) breaches. The Hibberts’ legal team formally notified Hall of the High Court claim lodged against him in May 2023, approximately nine months after the BBC first contacted Hall. But by that time, Hall was already aware that the claim had been filed. He was informed that the case had been lodged, not by the claimants or their legal representatives, but by the BBC. Marianna Spring wrote an email to Hall on 31st March 2023 informing him “Mr Hibbert’s legal team have told us they have now filed a claim against you."
Taken from: Davis, Iain. The Manchester Attack: An Independent Investigation (p. 23). Kindle Edition.
Well said. I do believe that Richard D Hall’s work is done in good faith and is generally rigorous but, perhaps because of this, his methods and inclinations will have been highly studied by security services. They’ll have watched all his stuff on Jill Dando, Jo Cox, Derek Bird etc and absolutely will have developed strategies for leading him up the garden path where it suits them to do so. Because he came up through UFO investigation, it’s perhaps easier to paint him as a looney if it suits them to do so. I definitely believe both RDH and Iain Davis that the MEN arena bombing doesn’t add up, but very little does these days. As RDH says, believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.
Have to disagree there. I think Miri's on the money on this one.
You don't have to intimate that parents might have killed their child or follow anyone around. You don't need to do any of that. You can just analyse the info as UK Critical Thinker and many others have done - including me. Part of the reason I analyse psyops is that I'm lazy and wouldn't be bothered to pound the pavement investigating things. It's all laid before you so anyone intimating that a child was killed in relation to Manchester is 100% some kind of agent. What about all the other children who allegedly died? Did their parents kill them too?
Why are they paying massive attention to someone who's intimating parents killed their child and zero attention to the many other analysts (including me) who simply say the whole thing was a total hoax?
I knew nothing of what Richard Hall's charges consisted of (not sure I even knew there were any) so I'm grateful to Miri for alerting me to what they're actually for - and it's not calling hoax - but I was virtually certain he was controlled opposition because of all the fanfare when I heard he was calling it a hoax.
But I do thank Richard Hall for the catalogue of UK Critical Thinker's 40 videos which I thought had all but disappeared. https://www.richplanet.net/richp_guest_menu.php?person=18
I’m not disagreeing with Miri. She said that RDH may well be well intentioned. I think it is somewhat of a hot take to say that someone is an “agent” (I presume you mean a paid intelligence asset who knows they are misleading people) with 100% certainty, based on them saying something unpalatable about the potential cause of a child’s death. I’ll remain on the fence about what is going on, other than that the official story doesn’t add up.
These would be my points in favour of his being an agent.
1. Miri points out that a big fuss is made of him while no fuss is made of anyone else calling out hoax. I thought the same although I thought it before I was aware of any legal action made against him, I just thought it on the basis that there seemed to be a fuss made of him calling out Manchester when a number of people called it out years ago and no attention was paid to them in the media.
2. Crisis actors always say deliberate things that don't add up - that's part of their role - so why would he make anything that Saffie Roussos's parents say mean anything in particular?
3. Regardless, as he doesn't have clear evidence that Saffie's parents killed her why would he go there? It's really not relevant to the "hoax" claim and it unnecessarily exposes him to vilification - why would you do it? You have to wonder why it would even strike him that the parents killed their child when absolutely no one else calling hoax thinks anyone at all died.
4. Alex Jones is obviously an agent and we see a very similar situation.
Having read most of the comments on this article, my main question is
Who wrote the article and what have you done with MiriAF?
The only good that has come out of it is that it brought out the disinfo agents who were just dying to badmouth a journalist of solid reputation - Richard D Hall.
From falsely representing Hall's work and insinuating that he's disingenuous, it's a disgraceful use of Miri's pen.
"You may conclude a certain event is a hoax, whilst others may be certain it's real, and that's okay: we can disagree, debate, that's what free speech is all about.
So it's not ultimately about proving irrefutably whether certain events are hoaxes or not, as we'll never have a complete consensus on that: ..."
We'll certainly never have consensus on events being hoaxes, however, that doesn't mean that there isn't irrefutable evidence that certain events are hoaxes and that there is zero evidence favouring real death and injury over staged.
The perps are scrupulous - and yes that really is the right word I think - in their implementation of their psyops. They always give us the clues above and beyond their base narrative - which of itself is often very low on the plausibility scale - that they're hoaxing us by following their Revelation of the Method rule ... and - most importantly - they never mix up truth with lies in such a way that any evidence presented for real death and injury favours staged. They certainly mix truth with lies but not in that way.
Although I'm a stalwart defender of free speech I think it's good where facts can be established to speak of them as facts. It's not as if we can state factually that no one dies or is injured in staged events or did or didn't die before or after, however, we can state as 100% fact (and I've tested this with people who support the "real" hypothesis for various events) there is no evidence provided that favours real over fake.
Before I finally got around to recommending your post to Aisling, Miri, I put forward the case that Manchester was completely staged. As might be expected Aisling wasn't on board and she put forward "testimonies" as a response to one of my comments. I never have any fear whatsoever that any piece of evidence brandished by a believer of the story will set me back on my heels - I know from vast experience that no piece of evidence ever favours real (or on the very, very odd occasion it might there's always a way to show the story falls over in many other ways) - so I asked her to give me a testimony that she found convincing. In response she presented that of Adam Lawler. Had no familiarity with him - so very many people involved in this hoax - but I had no trouble dismantling his story pretty much immediately. https://aislingoloughlin.substack.com/p/evil-richard-d-hall-and-genevieve/comment/68340876