That tends to happen with say special forces and high level security clearance holders with a mission, I could see that being the case here. They have to be complete ghosts for the job at hand.
What prosecutor has not stood before the media following a trial to give some kind of context to the outcome from their own perspective? Remember how many times we saw Marsha Clark during the OJ trials? Durham has zero events like that?
I haven't found photos of his time as a prosecutor with the government from 1982-1989, nor his more recent years. There are only a couple photos used on everything about him and some verbal videos without imagery.
Ok, I don't have time to follow your links, but I trust your conclusions based on the tone of your writing. Not to say I agree, but I don't immediately disagree, if that makes sense.
Without going into a whole diatribe about something I don't completely understand myself (it's been a long time since University), you need to try more sophisticated search engines than Google.
I'd tell you to ask a librarian, but I believe it's no coincidence libraries are shut down (and public search engines are compromised). You may also be able to access paid search engines and journal databases from your library, online.
If anyone has a comprehensive take on how to ACTUALLY search the Internet using paywalled search engines, I'd love to hear it. Because this is something that I know is a huge weakness in my personal arsenal, and it makes me sick.
Hmmm. The wikipedia article is quite detailed for a person with little verifiable history. Why is this guy deserving of such a wiki entry? It reads like someone is really tying to convince us that this guy is important.
Can anyone still edit wikipedia articles these days? Wasn't there evidence in the past of the CIA editing articles with misinformation?
Now that I look at it closer, the Q posts treat Durham not as a person but as an operation. Language like "Durham Start" and "Month/Day 'Durham' initiated?" comes to mind.
I'm also beginning to see that Q may have been pointing to Durham not as an enabling factor but as an obstacle in getting things moving. In this light, the seemingly random Q statements about Durham make more sense, such as the one about the "DECLAS CoC" where Barr turned out to be somewhat useless: Q3784.
There is also the fact that any photo-video media of Durham is being recycled over and over. Compare for example this 2021 news video and this undated photo, and take note of the microphone, archway and people: they both belong to the exact same scene.
It is extremely hard to believe that in over a decade of ever-improving camera tech, ever-increasing journalists, and an ever-growing library of media content, they had to resort to 13-year-old footage of Durham to illustrate who he is, and substandard footage at that. The camerawork looked as if it were staged on a movie set.
Yeah, I know what you’re saying. But he’s recently started cranking out some funny YouTube videos, so we now know he’s legit... and since he’s obviously got some spare time on his hands, that means he’s likely nearly wrapped up his investigation. That’s gotta be good news!
Oh, so did I. Until I learned here that this is just was they wanted us to think.!
I was positively convinced it was simply a YouTube comedian who only looked like him, and this seemed to be the reasonable explanation after I clicked on the name of the channel right below the video, and it appeared to belong to a guy who merely resembled like John Durham.
But so many people breathlessly posted that video, and then it’s uber-credible follow-up, each subsequent OP understandably unable to determine if it was real or just a deep-fake, but still shrewd enough to completely disregard that obvious misdirection of it actually being some fictional guy named Erik D. Kirk. I mean of course they would put an obviously fake name right below the video. Of course they did. And yeah, I fell for it!
But no more. It’s clear now that that was either the very real John Durham, or a frighteningly convincing deepfake. Hurray for the wisdom of the crowds. “Discretion” is just a tool they invented to control us.
That tends to happen with say special forces and high level security clearance holders with a mission, I could see that being the case here. They have to be complete ghosts for the job at hand.
Look into Shadow Net, my friend. Could explain everything.
Maybe he scrubbed himself from the internet with it.
Or he is fake. I dunno. I would not be surprised if he is indeed fictional.
Dealing with the mob..you need be low low profile..a ghost.. Heres a little something of John. Whitey Bulger is a big thing for Durham. https://www.theday.com/article/20180310/NWS12/180319936
Long history of results
There is supposed to be a John Durham, US attorney, and also a John Durham, Jr. (his son), who is also a US attorney or other government attorney.
Something should at least come up on one of them.
What prosecutor has not stood before the media following a trial to give some kind of context to the outcome from their own perspective? Remember how many times we saw Marsha Clark during the OJ trials? Durham has zero events like that?
I haven't found photos of his time as a prosecutor with the government from 1982-1989, nor his more recent years. There are only a couple photos used on everything about him and some verbal videos without imagery.
Still digging, but the dude is a ghost.
Ok, I don't have time to follow your links, but I trust your conclusions based on the tone of your writing. Not to say I agree, but I don't immediately disagree, if that makes sense.
Without going into a whole diatribe about something I don't completely understand myself (it's been a long time since University), you need to try more sophisticated search engines than Google.
Here's a link I can't really vouch for to get you started. Wish I could do better... https://post.edu/blog/7-great-educational-search-engines-for-college-students/
I'd tell you to ask a librarian, but I believe it's no coincidence libraries are shut down (and public search engines are compromised). You may also be able to access paid search engines and journal databases from your library, online.
If anyone has a comprehensive take on how to ACTUALLY search the Internet using paywalled search engines, I'd love to hear it. Because this is something that I know is a huge weakness in my personal arsenal, and it makes me sick.
Keep digging fren!
Hmmm. The wikipedia article is quite detailed for a person with little verifiable history. Why is this guy deserving of such a wiki entry? It reads like someone is really tying to convince us that this guy is important.
Can anyone still edit wikipedia articles these days? Wasn't there evidence in the past of the CIA editing articles with misinformation?
Everything feels like a psyop these days.
Then who indited the FBI agent who got probation?
So what would that mean? Wasnt the durham investigation supposed to be a big piece of the puzzle?
Didn’t Q say “trust durham” or am I making that up?
Making it up. search yourself qagg.news
Sounds right. Can we compare him to a similar person? Maybe even less popular?
Now that I look at it closer, the Q posts treat Durham not as a person but as an operation. Language like "Durham Start" and "Month/Day 'Durham' initiated?" comes to mind.
https://qalerts.app/?q=durham
I'm also beginning to see that Q may have been pointing to Durham not as an enabling factor but as an obstacle in getting things moving. In this light, the seemingly random Q statements about Durham make more sense, such as the one about the "DECLAS CoC" where Barr turned out to be somewhat useless: Q3784.
There is also the fact that any photo-video media of Durham is being recycled over and over. Compare for example this 2021 news video and this undated photo, and take note of the microphone, archway and people: they both belong to the exact same scene.
https://greatawakening.win/p/12i3pyCzMg/this-image-looks-staged-durham-i/
https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/u-s-attorney-for-ct-john-durham-to-resign-sunday/
Hence, do a TinEye look up on the image and sort by oldest first. The image has hits from as far back as April 2008.
https://tineye.com/search/60d1dfb88a361892b018790b3d169d5f292d2f7b?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1
It is extremely hard to believe that in over a decade of ever-improving camera tech, ever-increasing journalists, and an ever-growing library of media content, they had to resort to 13-year-old footage of Durham to illustrate who he is, and substandard footage at that. The camerawork looked as if it were staged on a movie set.
No.
Durham has made many public speeches as colleges and given several live streamed public press conferences over the years.
If you spent a moment researching your question then you'd already know this.
Don't be so lazy!
Here's a huge public event that Durham gave a speech at a few years ago.
Here's another huge public appearance and speech given by Durham in front of a huge crowd.
There are several events just like this one, where Durham gave public speeches to large crowds.
Now it's your turn to down-vote my comment because I gave you what you asked for.
You asked for examples and now you cry.
There are many more examples waiting for you to discover them.
He asked for examples,
you produced nothing.
YOU got caught.
You are an obvious shill.
Yeah, I know what you’re saying. But he’s recently started cranking out some funny YouTube videos, so we now know he’s legit... and since he’s obviously got some spare time on his hands, that means he’s likely nearly wrapped up his investigation. That’s gotta be good news!
I thought that was fake
Dude. The sarcasm was so obvious, too obvious, and you still didn’t get it.
Wow.
Oh, so did I. Until I learned here that this is just was they wanted us to think.!
I was positively convinced it was simply a YouTube comedian who only looked like him, and this seemed to be the reasonable explanation after I clicked on the name of the channel right below the video, and it appeared to belong to a guy who merely resembled like John Durham.
But so many people breathlessly posted that video, and then it’s uber-credible follow-up, each subsequent OP understandably unable to determine if it was real or just a deep-fake, but still shrewd enough to completely disregard that obvious misdirection of it actually being some fictional guy named Erik D. Kirk. I mean of course they would put an obviously fake name right below the video. Of course they did. And yeah, I fell for it!
But no more. It’s clear now that that was either the very real John Durham, or a frighteningly convincing deepfake. Hurray for the wisdom of the crowds. “Discretion” is just a tool they invented to control us.
Still?!?
You still couldn’t read sarcasm on even that!
?
That’s just amazing.
I guess this place truly has gone so completely gullible to every conspiratorial itch that it’s now become simply impossible to satire.
?♂️
Or maybe you just really suck at sarcasm
Stop trying to make excuses for your stupidity.
Hah! Okay. ?
Very true
those videos people are saying they are fake