That's your opinion but I Disagree 100%...The "normies" do not differentiate between past and present(I would bet they don't have any "serious" cases with similar sores to show anybody so what do they do, they put out "Fake" new cases with old pics) And I do understand the usage of Stock photos but in this day and age are you trying to tell me that "they" haven't been able to take a single new photo of any of the new cases?!.....show them a picture and they fall hook, line and sinker...
It's conjecture to assert that because they are using old stock photos to illustrate a disease symptom, this means they "have not been able to take new photos". 80 cases? They are lazy. Why search for the new photo from some obscure doctor in Venezuela (or wherever) just for a hack scare new article? I just do not see them doing that.
The question is not whether there are any cases or not - who believes them anyway? The point is, the use of old stock photos is NOT, in this case, DIRECT or CONVINCING EVIDENCE that they are faking the whole thing up.
I'm not saying normies aren't being manipulated, and I'm not saying the stories aren't bulldust. I'm saying, the assertion that "look, this is an old photo from 2018!!!" is far from conclusive or convincing evidence.... in my opinion.
Are normies going to be convinced by this? I'm quite doubtful. But yeah, opinion. Thanks for sharing yours. I disagree with your reasoning, but its only opinion.
(On the other hand, the ukraine nonsense, that is bald, blanket incontrovertible evidence that the Corp/State news media were passing off lies. LIES. Incontrovertible evidence.)
This stuff here? For me? meh. Highly inconclusive. And if its a normie you're thinking to convince, do you reckon this would convince them? You said yourself that they don't distinguish.
Hey, if you convince some normies by showing them this, that the news is fake, then great. I guess we all apply different thresholds of what we find convincing or unconvincing.
That's your opinion but I Disagree 100%...The "normies" do not differentiate between past and present(I would bet they don't have any "serious" cases with similar sores to show anybody so what do they do, they put out "Fake" new cases with old pics) And I do understand the usage of Stock photos but in this day and age are you trying to tell me that "they" haven't been able to take a single new photo of any of the new cases?!.....show them a picture and they fall hook, line and sinker...
How long has it been?
It's conjecture to assert that because they are using old stock photos to illustrate a disease symptom, this means they "have not been able to take new photos". 80 cases? They are lazy. Why search for the new photo from some obscure doctor in Venezuela (or wherever) just for a hack scare new article? I just do not see them doing that.
The question is not whether there are any cases or not - who believes them anyway? The point is, the use of old stock photos is NOT, in this case, DIRECT or CONVINCING EVIDENCE that they are faking the whole thing up.
I'm not saying normies aren't being manipulated, and I'm not saying the stories aren't bulldust. I'm saying, the assertion that "look, this is an old photo from 2018!!!" is far from conclusive or convincing evidence.... in my opinion.
Are normies going to be convinced by this? I'm quite doubtful. But yeah, opinion. Thanks for sharing yours. I disagree with your reasoning, but its only opinion.
(On the other hand, the ukraine nonsense, that is bald, blanket incontrovertible evidence that the Corp/State news media were passing off lies. LIES. Incontrovertible evidence.)
This stuff here? For me? meh. Highly inconclusive. And if its a normie you're thinking to convince, do you reckon this would convince them? You said yourself that they don't distinguish.
Hey, if you convince some normies by showing them this, that the news is fake, then great. I guess we all apply different thresholds of what we find convincing or unconvincing.