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.
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.