But you're not drawing evidence from the video, you're drawing your own conclusion. You believe without proof.
I'm not here to do your homework for you, but if you choose to believe in something just because someone told you it happened one way, then you're no better than the people who just regurgitate MSM talking points.
No, I watched the footage and came to my own conclusion. I am better than the MSM believers because I pored through that video evidence, then I considered lots of other opinions to see if there was something I missed, then I fitted the event into my current understanding of politics.
I couldn't do any more in a reasonable time. I used the data and analysis I have access to, and you have shown me no reason to reconsider any of my current conclusions.
But you're not drawing evidence from the video, you're drawing your own conclusion. You believe without proof.
Quit with your gaslighting! I know how I came to my conclusions.
You are trying to invalidate my conclusion without giving me any reason. I question why it is important to you that I agree with you. Are you some sort of beginner glowie? There must be some glowies around here.
Mkay, but you realize there's more you can look at from that footage right? There are named people in the footage, who have families and relatives, who have given interviews. If what you're saying is true, then all of this information would need to be fabricated as well. If I were you, I'd want to dig further. It just seems odd to me that you don't.
Essentially what you're doing is looking at a story from only one angle, when you need to open your eyes and see from other perspectives.
Like, it wouldn't make sense at all to stage the death of a person, only to kill her later, and not kill any of the others involved. If she's a loose end, why aren't the others in the video? WOuldn't they have been "suicided" as well? It makes no sense this way.
You seem to have come to your conclusions by believing what others tell you and show you, instead of doing concrete research.
I don't believe she was killed later, I was just suggesting it was possible and why someone would be motivated to do it. Pure conjecture.
Why on earth would they kill the others who were there? They are not causing trouble. To kill any of them would arouse suspicion. It would not be strategic.
You seem to have come to your conclusions by believing what others tell you and show you, instead of doing concrete research.
Gaslighting again. I told you I didn't do this.
Why are you so exercised about what I think anyway ?
There's also the chance that she sprouted wings and flew away. If we are to include all possibilities, it gets us further than the truth. Eventually it has to come down to probability.
If she were a crisis actor, MANY other things need to also line up for this to take place. All her past relationships, husband, family, parents, kids, childhood friends...all have to be factored in. If she were a crisis actor, did any of them know? If she's not dead, does her family know? her friends?
Some that were in the room are getting arrested now, so why wouldn't they speak out, even if they had no proof themselves? Wouldn't that get more of the public on their side that something fishy is going on? It wouldn't make sense for them to stay silent.
Why shouldn't we exclude it when it is so unlikely that it's true? Why entertain something that is entirely based on speculation?
Ah I see. Okay well I'm not sure why you'd suggest the possibility, and even fight for it, when there is little evidence to suggest that it's true.
You said earlier that they may have killed Babbitt because she was a loose end. If that's true, then therefore those that witnessed the fake death would also be loose ends, since they would know the truth. So there is an inconsistency.
I'm not exercised about what you think, you're free to think what you want. I'm just confused how/why you come to your conclusions without evidence.
It's like if someone claims that the 20 year old cashier at the grocery store is actually a robot, or something wild like that. If your neighbor or peer informs you of a bombshell claim like that, you'd be curious as to why right? It seems so unbelievable, you'd want to know, what is it that makes you think that your cashier is a robot? What have they done to make that a possibility?
That's all. What you're claiming seems very outlandish to me, and I'm just confused on why you (and others) come to these conclusions, but I suppose it all comes down to "because I think so." That's fine, I guess I just don't operate like that.
But you're not drawing evidence from the video, you're drawing your own conclusion. You believe without proof.
I'm not here to do your homework for you, but if you choose to believe in something just because someone told you it happened one way, then you're no better than the people who just regurgitate MSM talking points.
No, I watched the footage and came to my own conclusion. I am better than the MSM believers because I pored through that video evidence, then I considered lots of other opinions to see if there was something I missed, then I fitted the event into my current understanding of politics.
I couldn't do any more in a reasonable time. I used the data and analysis I have access to, and you have shown me no reason to reconsider any of my current conclusions.
Quit with your gaslighting! I know how I came to my conclusions.
You are trying to invalidate my conclusion without giving me any reason. I question why it is important to you that I agree with you. Are you some sort of beginner glowie? There must be some glowies around here.
Get thee hence!
Mkay, but you realize there's more you can look at from that footage right? There are named people in the footage, who have families and relatives, who have given interviews. If what you're saying is true, then all of this information would need to be fabricated as well. If I were you, I'd want to dig further. It just seems odd to me that you don't.
Essentially what you're doing is looking at a story from only one angle, when you need to open your eyes and see from other perspectives.
Like, it wouldn't make sense at all to stage the death of a person, only to kill her later, and not kill any of the others involved. If she's a loose end, why aren't the others in the video? WOuldn't they have been "suicided" as well? It makes no sense this way.
You seem to have come to your conclusions by believing what others tell you and show you, instead of doing concrete research.
I don't believe she was killed later, I was just suggesting it was possible and why someone would be motivated to do it. Pure conjecture.
Why on earth would they kill the others who were there? They are not causing trouble. To kill any of them would arouse suspicion. It would not be strategic.
Gaslighting again. I told you I didn't do this.
Why are you so exercised about what I think anyway ?
There's also the chance that she sprouted wings and flew away. If we are to include all possibilities, it gets us further than the truth. Eventually it has to come down to probability.
If she were a crisis actor, MANY other things need to also line up for this to take place. All her past relationships, husband, family, parents, kids, childhood friends...all have to be factored in. If she were a crisis actor, did any of them know? If she's not dead, does her family know? her friends?
Some that were in the room are getting arrested now, so why wouldn't they speak out, even if they had no proof themselves? Wouldn't that get more of the public on their side that something fishy is going on? It wouldn't make sense for them to stay silent.
Why shouldn't we exclude it when it is so unlikely that it's true? Why entertain something that is entirely based on speculation?
Ah I see. Okay well I'm not sure why you'd suggest the possibility, and even fight for it, when there is little evidence to suggest that it's true.
You said earlier that they may have killed Babbitt because she was a loose end. If that's true, then therefore those that witnessed the fake death would also be loose ends, since they would know the truth. So there is an inconsistency.
I'm not exercised about what you think, you're free to think what you want. I'm just confused how/why you come to your conclusions without evidence.
It's like if someone claims that the 20 year old cashier at the grocery store is actually a robot, or something wild like that. If your neighbor or peer informs you of a bombshell claim like that, you'd be curious as to why right? It seems so unbelievable, you'd want to know, what is it that makes you think that your cashier is a robot? What have they done to make that a possibility?
That's all. What you're claiming seems very outlandish to me, and I'm just confused on why you (and others) come to these conclusions, but I suppose it all comes down to "because I think so." That's fine, I guess I just don't operate like that.