I agree. I don't think labeling every 13 second video clip of something odd should have the word "PROOF!" As part of the title.
Just provide as much context as you can and maybe offer another mainstream source to cross reference with. I understand they are liars. So if the mainstream source either has no audio, cuts out before the aid leans in, or just cuts out that few seconds all together, then you've got no other choice but to go with what we see here.
With that being said, when I saw the "inauguration" video I noticed how large her mask was and prior to that, I noticed pelosi's mask getting larger after her 4 day absence when she made those several remark at the podium and in the chambers. Her hair is different, her body proportions are different and her mannerisms are different as seen here and the inauguration video. So I do believe what I'm seeing here to be solid evidence (not PROOF) of a stand-in.
I agree, there’s plenty to be suspicious about. Plenty to look into. The footage of the inauguration with the 2 different sets of people in the background is very interesting.
I just think it does a disservice when people claim something is irrefutable PROOF, when there are literally dozens of other possible explanations.
I agree. I don't think labeling every 13 second video clip of something odd should have the word "PROOF!" As part of the title.
Just provide as much context as you can and maybe offer another mainstream source to cross reference with. I understand they are liars. So if the mainstream source either has no audio, cuts out before the aid leans in, or just cuts out that few seconds all together, then you've got no other choice but to go with what we see here.
With that being said, when I saw the "inauguration" video I noticed how large her mask was and prior to that, I noticed pelosi's mask getting larger after her 4 day absence when she made those several remark at the podium and in the chambers. Her hair is different, her body proportions are different and her mannerisms are different as seen here and the inauguration video. So I do believe what I'm seeing here to be solid evidence (not PROOF) of a stand-in.
I agree, there’s plenty to be suspicious about. Plenty to look into. The footage of the inauguration with the 2 different sets of people in the background is very interesting.
I just think it does a disservice when people claim something is irrefutable PROOF, when there are literally dozens of other possible explanations.
Well said.