But there IS a lot of evidence of Tim Ballard being, at the very least, a fraud. It looks much like the Eliza Bleu situation, but on a much larger scale.
I used to be a supporter of Operation Underground Railroad and promoted "Sound of Freedom" to everyone I could when it was coming out, but when I started actually looking into Tim Ballard, my intuition started ringing "alarm bells". There were so many warning signs and suspicious things, including his Clinton Administration connections, the fact that many of his stories contradict all available evidence of the events in question, and his connections to the upper echelons of the leadership of the Mormon church (which has been involved in human trafficking since its inception).
Then I discovered the investigative reporter Lynn Kenneth Packer (who exposed Paul H. Dunn as a fraud years ago). He made a series of videos on his YouTube channel alleging that Tim Ballard is a fraud who made up or embellished most of his stories, misused donated funds to make himself and his family rich, etc.
Now allegations are one thing - but Packer actually brings the receipts. He has shown some very damning evidence, including police reports that prove Ballard to have been lying on multiple occasions. Unlike the mainstream media, Packer is also fair - when he comes across an allegation about Ballard that doesn't have the evidence to back it up, he makes it clear that the claim is unfounded.
I would love it if Packer is wrong and Ballard is a genuine hero, but the preponderance of evidence points strongly in the other direction.
Dude, judge people by the fruits of their labour. Sound of Freedom opened up so many normies to understand the extent of pedo problem. You can actually talk about it without being labled a "conspiracy QAnon guy" any more.
Here is the real question you should be asking. Has anyone provided any compelling evidence that Tim Ballard did not rescue any children. If not, no one who has not saved a child can throw stones on any other aspect - be it who funded him to whether he was connected to Clinton Administration, or whether he lied to the police.
And lying to the police? Is that a measure for anything when you are working against the system where police are part of it? Where they can actually coerce the very women you have rescued to turn against him?
Seriously, if you have anything to prove that he has not rescued any children I would be the first to watch it. If not, anyone who expends their ammo to "expose" him are basically the real controlled oppositions.
Unlike the mainstream media, Packer is also fair
This is the hallmark of a real controlled opposition. They are someone that the community implictly trusts.
There is no better litmus test for sniffing out controlled opposition that SOF.
Ballard may have been forced to do Pennance with that movie. Maybe he was caught and had to make up for it. I agree it opened eyes. Was that what opened your eyes? It wasn't what opened mine. I already knew what was going on years back.
Pizzagate was what opened my eyes. I dont think there are many Anons here who first heard about pedophiles from SOF. No, SOF was never aimed at Anons. It was aimed at normies. Hence its such an important redpill material for us. We are the digital soldiers, and stuff like SOF are our powerful ammunition.
The moment someone convinces us that Ballad is "controlled opposition" and we stop using this ammunition, the enemy has succeeded in weakening us.
Also to add, to be honest, SOF is not even as aggressive or comprehensive as I would have loved to see - but the funny thing is that it is really powerful for the normies who never even knew about the systemic pedophilia problem. I am sure it has paved the way for much more powerful and deeper movies/documentaries/disclosures that are to come.
I have personally seen people moved to tears watching it. I appreciate that movie for the effect it has on the normies than the actual content. Such is the strangeness of this 5G warfare.
Seriously, if you have anything to prove that he has not rescued any children I would be the first to watch it.
The question is not whether he saved any children at all (which seems to be a recorded fact not in dispute). The question is whether he has actually devoted his life to saving many children (as he claims) and uses the money donated to him for that purpose to the best of his ability, or only has saved a few children (or pretended to in staged events) for appearances' sake and spends the vast majority of the donated money on things other than saving children.
Also to add, to be honest, SOF is not even as aggressive or comprehensive as I would have loved to see - but the funny thing is that it is really powerful for the normies who never even knew about the systemic pedophilia problem. I am sure it has paved the way for much more powerful and deeper movies/documentaries/disclosures that are to come.
What if it's a ploy by the Deep State, though? Here's a possible scenario that I can't stop considering ever since discovering the suspicious aspects of Tim Ballard:
Imagine that you're the Deep State and want to discredit Pizzagate and other such movements to expose large-scale and elite child trafficking. You find out that Tim Ballard is running a fraudulent operation, pretending to be rescuing large numbers of children when in fact he is saving few if any, and spending massive amounts of donated money on himself and his family.
He gets a movie made about himself to promote his organization and sells it to 20th Century Fox. You come up with a plan that involves this movie. But the timing isn't right yet. You want to release it at the right moment. You use Disney's buyout of Fox as a way to shelve the movie until the right time. You have Disney sit on the movie for years. You could have Disney keep it from ever being released if you wanted, but that's not your plan. Instead, you wait until the time is right, then let the filmmakers buy back the rights and get the movie distributed through Angel Studios.
When the movie releases, you have your people in the mainstream media attack the movie, associate it with Q and Pizzagate, etc, knowing full well that this will only make it more popular and make many people vociferously defend and support it. Through this method, you link the idea of mass child trafficking being a real thing and the movie together in the public mind. You cause the supporters of the movie to see its success as a major win, and to mentally and emotionally see any lack of belief in Ballard as a lack of belief that child trafficking is truly happening on a mass scale.
Then you wait a few more years, until the right moment for maximum psychological impact (perhaps right before evidence on some elite pedos is set to come out), and have Tim Ballard and possibly some of his associates arrested for crimes they are genuinely guilty of. You make a large public spectacle of the trial, and don't introduce any damning evidence until late in the game. You want Ballard's supporters to believe he is innocent and being railroaded for as long as you can. You want them to be very vocal about it for everyone to see.
Then you finally deliver the finishing blow: you introduce irrefutable evidence that Ballard is a fraud. He is convicted both in a court of law and the court of public opinion. Suddenly, everyone who ever supported him or his movie looks gullible to those on the outside, and the morale of those who did support Ballard and/or the movie is dealt a large blow. The "victory" they gained with "Sound of Freedom" becomes utterly pyrrhic. You bring out the mainstream media to loudly gloat "I told you so!" The entire movement to expose child trafficking to the public is set back decades.
But there IS a lot of evidence of Tim Ballard being, at the very least, a fraud. It looks much like the Eliza Bleu situation, but on a much larger scale.
I used to be a supporter of Operation Underground Railroad and promoted "Sound of Freedom" to everyone I could when it was coming out, but when I started actually looking into Tim Ballard, my intuition started ringing "alarm bells". There were so many warning signs and suspicious things, including his Clinton Administration connections, the fact that many of his stories contradict all available evidence of the events in question, and his connections to the upper echelons of the leadership of the Mormon church (which has been involved in human trafficking since its inception).
Then I discovered the investigative reporter Lynn Kenneth Packer (who exposed Paul H. Dunn as a fraud years ago). He made a series of videos on his YouTube channel alleging that Tim Ballard is a fraud who made up or embellished most of his stories, misused donated funds to make himself and his family rich, etc.
Now allegations are one thing - but Packer actually brings the receipts. He has shown some very damning evidence, including police reports that prove Ballard to have been lying on multiple occasions. Unlike the mainstream media, Packer is also fair - when he comes across an allegation about Ballard that doesn't have the evidence to back it up, he makes it clear that the claim is unfounded.
I would love it if Packer is wrong and Ballard is a genuine hero, but the preponderance of evidence points strongly in the other direction.
Here's Packer's YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@lynnkennethpacker8389/videos
Dude, judge people by the fruits of their labour. Sound of Freedom opened up so many normies to understand the extent of pedo problem. You can actually talk about it without being labled a "conspiracy QAnon guy" any more.
Here is the real question you should be asking. Has anyone provided any compelling evidence that Tim Ballard did not rescue any children. If not, no one who has not saved a child can throw stones on any other aspect - be it who funded him to whether he was connected to Clinton Administration, or whether he lied to the police.
And lying to the police? Is that a measure for anything when you are working against the system where police are part of it? Where they can actually coerce the very women you have rescued to turn against him?
Seriously, if you have anything to prove that he has not rescued any children I would be the first to watch it. If not, anyone who expends their ammo to "expose" him are basically the real controlled oppositions.
This is the hallmark of a real controlled opposition. They are someone that the community implictly trusts.
There is no better litmus test for sniffing out controlled opposition that SOF.
Ballard may have been forced to do Pennance with that movie. Maybe he was caught and had to make up for it. I agree it opened eyes. Was that what opened your eyes? It wasn't what opened mine. I already knew what was going on years back.
Pizzagate was what opened my eyes. I dont think there are many Anons here who first heard about pedophiles from SOF. No, SOF was never aimed at Anons. It was aimed at normies. Hence its such an important redpill material for us. We are the digital soldiers, and stuff like SOF are our powerful ammunition.
The moment someone convinces us that Ballad is "controlled opposition" and we stop using this ammunition, the enemy has succeeded in weakening us.
Also to add, to be honest, SOF is not even as aggressive or comprehensive as I would have loved to see - but the funny thing is that it is really powerful for the normies who never even knew about the systemic pedophilia problem. I am sure it has paved the way for much more powerful and deeper movies/documentaries/disclosures that are to come.
I have personally seen people moved to tears watching it. I appreciate that movie for the effect it has on the normies than the actual content. Such is the strangeness of this 5G warfare.
The question is not whether he saved any children at all (which seems to be a recorded fact not in dispute). The question is whether he has actually devoted his life to saving many children (as he claims) and uses the money donated to him for that purpose to the best of his ability, or only has saved a few children (or pretended to in staged events) for appearances' sake and spends the vast majority of the donated money on things other than saving children.
What if it's a ploy by the Deep State, though? Here's a possible scenario that I can't stop considering ever since discovering the suspicious aspects of Tim Ballard:
Imagine that you're the Deep State and want to discredit Pizzagate and other such movements to expose large-scale and elite child trafficking. You find out that Tim Ballard is running a fraudulent operation, pretending to be rescuing large numbers of children when in fact he is saving few if any, and spending massive amounts of donated money on himself and his family.
He gets a movie made about himself to promote his organization and sells it to 20th Century Fox. You come up with a plan that involves this movie. But the timing isn't right yet. You want to release it at the right moment. You use Disney's buyout of Fox as a way to shelve the movie until the right time. You have Disney sit on the movie for years. You could have Disney keep it from ever being released if you wanted, but that's not your plan. Instead, you wait until the time is right, then let the filmmakers buy back the rights and get the movie distributed through Angel Studios.
When the movie releases, you have your people in the mainstream media attack the movie, associate it with Q and Pizzagate, etc, knowing full well that this will only make it more popular and make many people vociferously defend and support it. Through this method, you link the idea of mass child trafficking being a real thing and the movie together in the public mind. You cause the supporters of the movie to see its success as a major win, and to mentally and emotionally see any lack of belief in Ballard as a lack of belief that child trafficking is truly happening on a mass scale.
Then you wait a few more years, until the right moment for maximum psychological impact (perhaps right before evidence on some elite pedos is set to come out), and have Tim Ballard and possibly some of his associates arrested for crimes they are genuinely guilty of. You make a large public spectacle of the trial, and don't introduce any damning evidence until late in the game. You want Ballard's supporters to believe he is innocent and being railroaded for as long as you can. You want them to be very vocal about it for everyone to see.
Then you finally deliver the finishing blow: you introduce irrefutable evidence that Ballard is a fraud. He is convicted both in a court of law and the court of public opinion. Suddenly, everyone who ever supported him or his movie looks gullible to those on the outside, and the morale of those who did support Ballard and/or the movie is dealt a large blow. The "victory" they gained with "Sound of Freedom" becomes utterly pyrrhic. You bring out the mainstream media to loudly gloat "I told you so!" The entire movement to expose child trafficking to the public is set back decades.