So they should have said Czech Republic...that certainly does not discount the truth of the article...yes...incorrect name of the country....but that was not the main fact of this substack...
Yes, but he's publishing uncomfortable truths as he knows them. When citizens report, the standard drops noticeably. But I applaud him for going on the record to share what he's found. You (and I) are not his audience, but if he has one, he's doing his best to give them big red pills. Most of the significant stuff is just copied from Cathy O'Brien or the one agent who blew up The Finders case. But it's good for the next round of people who are getting up to speed, at least to open their own digs.
Kind of a trivial thing to make you stop reading the rest of the article, no? This article looks more like a cut and paste of other researchers work so maybe you'll reconsider?
LIke all of us I am faced with a firehose of independent researchers. Some of them are high-effort autists, some are low-effort wasters, some of them are controlled opposition, some are just confused and unintelligible.
Whatever, I like everyone else have to make judgement calls. None of us have time to filter everything. If someone doesn't even know the name of the country they are investigating then what am I supposed to think?
How much credibility would you give my own research if I told you I had bombshell evidence relating to the Clintorian Foundation in Arkanzona?
"Bohemia is situated in modern Czechoslovakia today."
I stopped reading right there. Czechoslovakia has not existed these last thirty years. This researcher is totally clueless.
So they should have said Czech Republic...that certainly does not discount the truth of the article...yes...incorrect name of the country....but that was not the main fact of this substack...
FYI - they changed their name to Czechia in 2016 but Czech Republic is still valid as well.
Well...that is good to know...I am 50% Czech...good, hardworking, salt of the earth people...
Yes, but he's publishing uncomfortable truths as he knows them. When citizens report, the standard drops noticeably. But I applaud him for going on the record to share what he's found. You (and I) are not his audience, but if he has one, he's doing his best to give them big red pills. Most of the significant stuff is just copied from Cathy O'Brien or the one agent who blew up The Finders case. But it's good for the next round of people who are getting up to speed, at least to open their own digs.
Kind of a trivial thing to make you stop reading the rest of the article, no? This article looks more like a cut and paste of other researchers work so maybe you'll reconsider?
LIke all of us I am faced with a firehose of independent researchers. Some of them are high-effort autists, some are low-effort wasters, some of them are controlled opposition, some are just confused and unintelligible.
Whatever, I like everyone else have to make judgement calls. None of us have time to filter everything. If someone doesn't even know the name of the country they are investigating then what am I supposed to think?
How much credibility would you give my own research if I told you I had bombshell evidence relating to the Clintorian Foundation in Arkanzona?