Fantasyland. The truth is never "extravagant." If anything needs readjustment, it is our own prejudice. I've seen it too many times: "In order to overcome my prejudice, you need to provide extra-special proof...and I get to decide what constitutes proof." No. When the evidence is at par with the previous consensus, then both must be put on the table. Past belief doesn't count. (Remember phlogiston?)
This claim justifies a shotgun spread approach to endless hysteria loops of worthless nonsense. Stay focused, and heavily sourced by more than a Reddit thread or social media personality. I’m personally tired of the epidemic within the truther community of everyone believing anything is possible. We derail quickly with this mentality. Albeit, many possibilities exist, there’s just not enough sourced material to run with. Q explained early on that we have more than we know with all the open source evidence…let’s steer clear of the Corsi types and fun theories and focus.
For instance, we know very little about Rachel Chandler (who was dropped multiple times on posts) yet, if coincidences don’t exist then connecting the dots is very possible.
It's not nonsense and has been done in many cases. Celebrities look a bit different, behave a bit different, etc.
To be a true Anon, one must be open to everything. Remember the mantra of science: Extravagant claims require extravagant proof.
Fantasyland. The truth is never "extravagant." If anything needs readjustment, it is our own prejudice. I've seen it too many times: "In order to overcome my prejudice, you need to provide extra-special proof...and I get to decide what constitutes proof." No. When the evidence is at par with the previous consensus, then both must be put on the table. Past belief doesn't count. (Remember phlogiston?)
This claim justifies a shotgun spread approach to endless hysteria loops of worthless nonsense. Stay focused, and heavily sourced by more than a Reddit thread or social media personality. I’m personally tired of the epidemic within the truther community of everyone believing anything is possible. We derail quickly with this mentality. Albeit, many possibilities exist, there’s just not enough sourced material to run with. Q explained early on that we have more than we know with all the open source evidence…let’s steer clear of the Corsi types and fun theories and focus.
For instance, we know very little about Rachel Chandler (who was dropped multiple times on posts) yet, if coincidences don’t exist then connecting the dots is very possible.
No, you're just fucking retarded. And yes, those claims would need proof, which conveniently you have none.