As u/ruffthesuspect states, the article is non-existent as far as I can find. However, that doesn't really matter. The fact that the drone footage shows a blue car and blue umbrellas unburnt, but surrounded by devastation is itself good evidence to support the "anti-blue laser" theory.
Honestly, I think the "blue celebrity house" thing might be intentional C_A fuckery to steer people away from that evidence.
The best way to discredit real evidence is to show the good evidence, then add in "evidence" that can't be corroborated; claims that look a lot like bullshit. This discredits everything by association. It doesn't really, but it does to those who have not yet learned discernment.
Frankly, I think that video has C_A written all over it.
The umbrellas and car were not disputed in the "fact checker" articles, on the contrary, their rhetoric corroborates it. Only the "blue houses" were disputed.
You can find the blue umbrellas and car in the original drone footage.
That doesn't mean it was an "anti-blue laser." I don't have any idea. I think it was a laser, I am not convinced it was of the "anti-blue" variety. But what I said stands. The good evidence in support of the idea was discredited by association, not by direct address. This is exactly the way the C_A does business.
As u/ruffthesuspect states, the article is non-existent as far as I can find. However, that doesn't really matter. The fact that the drone footage shows a blue car and blue umbrellas unburnt, but surrounded by devastation is itself good evidence to support the "anti-blue laser" theory.
Honestly, I think the "blue celebrity house" thing might be intentional C_A fuckery to steer people away from that evidence.
The best way to discredit real evidence is to show the good evidence, then add in "evidence" that can't be corroborated; claims that look a lot like bullshit. This discredits everything by association. It doesn't really, but it does to those who have not yet learned discernment.
Frankly, I think that video has C_A written all over it.
You can fake that as well. I am not saying it is but shit is getting weird for sure. I don't dismiss anything at this point
The umbrellas and car were not disputed in the "fact checker" articles, on the contrary, their rhetoric corroborates it. Only the "blue houses" were disputed.
You can find the blue umbrellas and car in the original drone footage.
8:52: blue umbrellas
9:00: blue car
That doesn't mean it was an "anti-blue laser." I don't have any idea. I think it was a laser, I am not convinced it was of the "anti-blue" variety. But what I said stands. The good evidence in support of the idea was discredited by association, not by direct address. This is exactly the way the C_A does business.
Thanks fren. I definitely want to explore more odd that the frequency of Blue is 666
It's possible that the red house with the metal roof could also have avoid this type of attack (metal roof is uncommon there)