Most people have been brainwashed to believe "official" (read cabal) sources of information. It's something in their brain that takes more than reasoning or evidence for them to change their minds.
I remember I was doing this project with a group of class mates and I predicted the answer only because it was the most logical outcome. Just a if A and B are true then C can't be kind of situation. It was just logic.
One classmate was like "What is your proof that's the answer?" I explained my logic. The whole group agrees with me, but he still keeps saying "There is no proof of it!"
We hand it in. I was right. He's still insists "But you didn't have proof of that. You were just lucky!"
Same people who don't get how "evidence" works. You almost never have "absolute evidence" of anything. People get put to death based on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is basically when you have so many coincidences that it can't be just random.
If Tom was seen at the shop around the time of the murder, he had the means, the motive and was in the vicinity of the crime, then is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he is the killer? Again, there may be no Absolute Proof (like Tom confessing) but the jury may still pronounce him guilty.
Q proofs also work by the same method. When you create a set of coincidences so great that they could not be random then you create "proof" that these are by design.
But shills and liberal sheep will still go, "Proof? Proof? That's just a coincidence!"
Many crime dramas like CSIC brainwashed people into believing that "absolute proof" was how you solved crime. In Columbo the villains always confesses when confronted with the truth. In real life even when you have the person on video murdering the person the criminal will stay "That wasn't me".
Absolute proof is a fantasy. It almost never happens in the court system. Yet people have been brainwashed to belief that something can't be true if you don't have absolute proof. Even if you do have absolute proof they'll still refuse to believe it and ask "How can you be absolutely sure this is absolute proof?"
The DS wanted it this way. They wanted you to dismiss everything as mere coincidence no matter how absurd and impossible it was. Their comm system worked by creating ridiculous coincidences.
Comedian John Candy died at 43 on 3/4. We are supposed to go "what a coincidence". DS minions know it means murder. John Candy the day before his death seemed to be saying goodbye to everyone like he knew something was up.
Daily💔
I actually like talking to the shills, but you have to attack with their own buzz words, it breaks their cognitive dissonance
horse paste hesitancy really really triggered them. I had such good fun with that one, thanks to one of the big-brained anons revealing it on here.
show em schwab in a bikini lol, thats enough secret society for me
We don't want to blind them, fren. Kek!
I'm gunna need a source for this question before I can answer.
Most people have been brainwashed to believe "official" (read cabal) sources of information. It's something in their brain that takes more than reasoning or evidence for them to change their minds.
Yes, I even say imo or I think.....it just doesn't seem to hit the mark lol
we're getting pretty close to a theistic discussion here
"what is the source of the source of knowledge?"
"what is the source to all things?"
I remember I was doing this project with a group of class mates and I predicted the answer only because it was the most logical outcome. Just a if A and B are true then C can't be kind of situation. It was just logic.
One classmate was like "What is your proof that's the answer?" I explained my logic. The whole group agrees with me, but he still keeps saying "There is no proof of it!"
We hand it in. I was right. He's still insists "But you didn't have proof of that. You were just lucky!"
Same people who don't get how "evidence" works. You almost never have "absolute evidence" of anything. People get put to death based on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is basically when you have so many coincidences that it can't be just random.
If Tom was seen at the shop around the time of the murder, he had the means, the motive and was in the vicinity of the crime, then is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he is the killer? Again, there may be no Absolute Proof (like Tom confessing) but the jury may still pronounce him guilty.
Q proofs also work by the same method. When you create a set of coincidences so great that they could not be random then you create "proof" that these are by design.
But shills and liberal sheep will still go, "Proof? Proof? That's just a coincidence!"
Some people are hopeless.
Many crime dramas like CSIC brainwashed people into believing that "absolute proof" was how you solved crime. In Columbo the villains always confesses when confronted with the truth. In real life even when you have the person on video murdering the person the criminal will stay "That wasn't me".
Absolute proof is a fantasy. It almost never happens in the court system. Yet people have been brainwashed to belief that something can't be true if you don't have absolute proof. Even if you do have absolute proof they'll still refuse to believe it and ask "How can you be absolutely sure this is absolute proof?"
The DS wanted it this way. They wanted you to dismiss everything as mere coincidence no matter how absurd and impossible it was. Their comm system worked by creating ridiculous coincidences.
Comedian John Candy died at 43 on 3/4. We are supposed to go "what a coincidence". DS minions know it means murder. John Candy the day before his death seemed to be saying goodbye to everyone like he knew something was up.
Whats your source?
https://greatawakening.win/p/141roHAs0P/
see you on Truth homie
Wikipedia won't even allow me to use my own published books as sources to add info to Wikipedia entries.
Anonymous sources, which cannot be named.
Turn it around on them and ask them to prove it otherwise… ie. to prove you wrong
When someone asks me for source i say "ah, at last you're asking the right questions ;-)"
yep, you get used to the usual trolls who just want to make you work then come back to say "lol <youtube for example> isn't a sawce!"