You just agreed Savita was on the boat in 2019. Therefore Savita is not the Jakarta girl who was murdered before 2015. Therefore all the information about Putri contributes nothing to a conspiracy theory.
What I meant was, if you want to argue that Savita is the girl murdered before 2015, then what everyone agrees is her 2019 appearance must have involved another level of conspiracy such as a stunt double. It seems to me very ridiculous to believe that the first version of this theory was so serious that photos were later staged to debunk it, and then those photos were not used to debunk it but were noticed and added to the first theory and only then relied upon as backup to debunk it. That's not consistent with how theories flow.
Some theories require more manipulation than it's worth, when the simpler explanation is sufficient. Obama had a young girl photographed in his lap in a rather inappropriate position; that simple explanation is sufficiently bad enough. When we find out what he really did, that too will be bad enough for its time. The idea that we can catch liars by reviewing their (vetted) public photos and actions and spotting something nobody else has seen is rather self-gratifying and rarely useful. Q would say stick to military intel for that.
You just agreed Savita was on the boat in 2019. Therefore Savita is not the Jakarta girl who was murdered before 2015. Therefore all the information about Putri contributes nothing to a conspiracy theory.
What I meant was, if you want to argue that Savita is the girl murdered before 2015, then what everyone agrees is her 2019 appearance must have involved another level of conspiracy such as a stunt double. It seems to me very ridiculous to believe that the first version of this theory was so serious that photos were later staged to debunk it, and then those photos were not used to debunk it but were noticed and added to the first theory and only then relied upon as backup to debunk it. That's not consistent with how theories flow.
Some theories require more manipulation than it's worth, when the simpler explanation is sufficient. Obama had a young girl photographed in his lap in a rather inappropriate position; that simple explanation is sufficiently bad enough. When we find out what he really did, that too will be bad enough for its time. The idea that we can catch liars by reviewing their (vetted) public photos and actions and spotting something nobody else has seen is rather self-gratifying and rarely useful. Q would say stick to military intel for that.