Thanks for the reply. By and large, I agree with your first paragraph. And I think you articulate it well.
This, however....
most of us are aware of the fact that the JB we are seeing is not the original Biden.
The problem is, this is not "a fact". It is certainly not an established fact. It is a theory. It is a perspective. It is an opinion. And that is what prompted my query to you in the first place. Because when people start treating theories as fact, without accounting for alternative possibilities, then we begin to move out of the questioning and critical thinking space into the realm of doctrine, orthodoxy and group think.
In my view, one thing that is critical to effectively processing information in the current 5G information and psywar is drawing the proper distinctions between beliefs, theories, convictions and opinions on one hand with facts, empirical data, and evidence on the other. The former are formulated and rest within the subjective space of each person's mind, the latter are objective and therefore quite different in nature.
Evidence itself is the bridge, where a person will usually have their own threshold at which evidence forms the basis for them to accept something as 'proven' or otherwise. But that personal threshold, too, is subject to many factors including biases, mental habits, and others.
One thing I pay a lot of attention to with regards to certain topics (theories or ideas) is how they are handled (here and elsewhere) and how people engage with them.
It seems to me that there are some topics and ideas that consistently elicit a knee-jerk response wherein some people simply cannot conceive of alternative perspectives or thinking. Consider the mentality of people suffering from TDS or who were unable to even consider that the governments and establishment during the covid hoax might be wrong or might even NOT have the people's best interests at heart.
You couldn't argue with such people, because they simply could not even conceive of or entertain an alternate view.
The "Fake Joe Biden" theory is one of those ideas that seems to elicit the same response in some people, and I think that it is worth questioning why. Consistently, from what I've observed here at GAW, the majority of takes on this are always based on (oversimplification here, but anyway) "look. It's obvious! You must be dumb if you cannot see it! it's OBVIOUS!" And yet, there has been, to my knowledge, never any tangible concrete foundation.
For me, I am yet to see any critically developed analysis by anyone trained in geriatric biology, forensic biology, anatomical research, etc. As with a good number of other theories, it's usually a mish-mash of photos, supposition (aka highly subjective interpretations), 'evidence' of "Comms" almost always taken out of context (just look at this post) and without consideration and deliberation of alternative counter-arguments. To me, that sort of basis simply does not meet my threshold for conclusion.
There is certainly no proof. It's almost all cases, it's simply people's pre-conceived (layman) ideas of what someone should look like or act like combined with a certain direction or argument and reasoning. Moreover, foeme, a tell-tale sign of a less than robust grounding in conclusion is when a lot of proponents move from "This is what I believe and this is my theory, and I stand by it" to "this is an obvious fact (and therefore I do not need or want to engage with or consider alternatives or counter-arguments)."
The second part of that sentence ("and therefore I do not need or want...") is usually never voiced or even recognized by the proponents themselves.
That's the first thing I noticed with this post. Personally, I don't think the approach or mentality is productive.
I've had some good discussions with bubble bursts regarding his view and my view re: "the fake joe biden" theory and I found his arguments reasoned and they increased my perspective, although my fundamental position didn't change very much.
And while I have my view and opinion aka "my position" I am very able to recognize "I have my view, but I simply do not know". And I'm Ok with that.
But when I see many if not the majority of elements that I consider when visiting this topic simply ignored - either mentally or in discussion - by the majority of proponents, to me that's an indicator that I see time and time again with a certain variety of topics. To me, that behavior - ignoring certain factors - is an indicator that weakens, in my view, the argument of the proponents.
Does this make sense? Can you follow my line of thinking? IMO, HOW people engage with their own beliefs and views and ideas is the CORE PART of the Great Awakening issue. It's a feature of conditioned thinking, which in the extreme is brainwashing or trance, that people are unable to question their own views and break out of or move beyond their own subjective perspective.
I should mention that I know this to some extent by personal experience. I tend to be a very subjective thinker, so I've found it critical and necessary to learn to question my own beliefs, recognize the limitation of my own reasoning, and simply be open to considering that others might see things differently. Ignoring or disparaging those alternative views is an easy trap to fall in to. It's fundamental to the more limiting (immature) aspects of human psychology.
So when I read the subject title of the OP, it immediately raised a few red flags to me.
Take a look at the subject title:
And sorry but, it’s time we all acknowledge that the meat suit we’re watching isn’t the real Biden, and stop worrying about being called conspiracy theorists because we’re better at noticing things than normies and NPCs
Let's consider one analysis:
"And sorry (feigned apology, condescending), it's time we ALL acknowledge (everyone must join the group (ALL) think because, well, we (who think this way) are right), that [the belief: the meat suit we’re watching isn’t the real Biden], and stop worrying about being called conspiracy theorists (assertion here: the reason you do NOT conform to us and our belief is because you are worried about being call a conspiracy theorist!!!!
In other words, [OPs assertion] your disagreement is based in fear and worry about personal appearance, obviously. And the implication of that is that a) you obviously cannot have any reasonable or considerable reason for NOT holding OPs view, and b) I (we) don't need to even consider that there might be valid alternative views or that in fact there is anything relevant that I (OP) am not considering.....
I personally do not think this sort of mentality has anything to do with Q. It's essentially the approach that "hey, my (our) opinion is correct because (assertion) it's the majority view and obviously, the majority view = it's true". And, if you disagree, it's because you're worried about [trivial, immature and petty concern]. Aka, you don't have enough guts to stand up and agree.
I got my fill of people displaying this mentality during 2020 and 2021. I would think that we all did, and I'm rather surprised that more people who are otherwise awake cannot recognize the same matrix-level behavior in themselves or here on an otherwise aware board.
I wonder if you yourself will notice your language.
Overall though it seems to me there are enough astute thinkers here that seed the threads and keep the rest on track that I thought I could confidently state that most of us are aware of the fact that the JB we are seeing is not the original Biden.
Implied meaning (as far as I read it, correct me if I've misread or you think I'm wrong): if you do not agree with THE view here, then you are not an astute thinker.
IMO, the ability to flagrantly equate a belief, opinion or theory with "a fact" is one of the hallmarks of fundamentalist and doctrinal thinking.
Q posted the following content in no less than 8 drops:
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
Moreover, Q also dropped:
The Great Awakening ('Freedom of Thought’), was designed and created not only as a backchannel to the public (away from the longstanding ‘mind’ control of the corrupt & heavily biased media) to endure future events through transparency and regeneration of individual thought (breaking the chains of ‘group-think’), but, more importantly, aid in the construction of a vehicle (a ‘ship’) that provides the scattered (‘free thinkers’) with a ‘starter’ new social-networking platform which allows for freedom of thought, expression, and patriotism or national pride (the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment).
When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative and/or the stable.
When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable (‘group-think’ collective), and have ‘free thought’.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
When you are awake, you are able to clearly see.
The choice is yours, and yours alone
So, when a post on a topic comes out and says: "Sorry, it's time we ALL conform and accept as a fact something that is not proven to be fact", it raises a good number of flags for me.
And, one of the features I also noticed in the comment sections is frogs like yourself expressing an inability to be able to conceive of how any alternative view might be grounded, reasoned or legitimate. And that's why I asked you the question: Why do you think it is that you "I don’t know how anyone can think it’s the real Biden"?
Because to me the key point here is: you do not know. You admit that. You do not know how anyone could have a perspective that is not in agreement with yours.
You also stated: "I really can't believe anyone ....." Again, you are admitting an inability to believe something. As if your inability to conceive or know or believe anyone might have an alternative view is evidence in itself that you MUST be right.
We've shared some really great interactions in the past, Damn, so please don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to attack you or beat you down or win some argument. I'm simply trying to articulate my view, and (obviously) I do that because I think there are important points of merit in that view. I want that to be clear. I want to discuss. Not to win an argument.
In closing this reply, I'll disclose that a) I am a BIG fan of Patel Patriot's work and especially the devolution power hour with Just human and Burning bright, and my thinking is quite influenced by theirs (it resonates with me), and those guys make a lot of fun about people who buy into the "fake Joe Biden' narrative. And I agree with them.
I also think that Derek Johnson is a self-aggrandizing ego-chaser, and I agree with Jon Harold that DJ took most of his (JH's) work and set out to make it appear as if it is his own.
I've done some serious digging on DJ and one of his good buddies Pascal Najadi, and to me, they scream of fake sensationalist opportunists. They highlight more extreme and sensationalist (appealing to the emotions) narratives, and then exploit the following they generate.
But hey, that's just me. Just wanted to mention that.
You may disagree with any or all of what I've said here in this comment, and that's OK. I would only suggest that you might consider that there may be other views that have valid reasoning, even if you don't agree with them.
Lol...such a long response! However, I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to give me your perspective and helping me tweak my own.
I have to wholeheartedly agree with you that it is a slippery slope here on GAW in that after a while we assume consensus equals fact. I know I often fall into that. With that being said, most of the conclusions we anons come to are derived from a bit of info here a comm there, Q drop here and comment from DJT there. We don't really have the luxury of cold, hard facts very often to back up our speculations. I get what you're saying about making the leap from speculation to assuming it's a proven fact. I see that that is exactly what I have done with the fake Biden senario. However, in my defense I really don't see how anyone can look at the original Biden and think this current Biden looks the same.
With that said, I really have to eat humble pie in my tendency to become smug and obnoxious about my own convictions and allow for other points of view. Otherwise, we have no room for discussion.
I am sincerely grateful to you for reminding me that if not fact then it is conjecture and if conjecture don't assume anything about anyone. As we know assuming makes an ass out of me.
Thank you for making me your fren and helping me be a better anon. Checks and balances are always welcome. It is a privilege to serve here with you FractalizingIron. 🙏
What a great reply, and so well articulated. It's a pleasure to read things like this.
Because I've been in and out of the Fake Biden thing so often (most of us have), AND because, these days, it very often feels like some people have arrived at their position and are no longer interested in questioning their conclusions, I'm hesitant to even approach the discussion. Which is why, with the current post, I decided to take a different tack, and talk about the HOW to engage with the topic rather than the WHAT.
But, you've raised a point that I think I can address and it might open up some territory for further discussion or at least thought.
However, in my defense I really don't see how anyone can look at the original Biden and think this current Biden looks the same.
OK. Here we are getting to the nitty gritty.
think this current Biden looks the same
Here's the real nib, the real tip of the blade. Folks like me or who disagree with the "Fake Joe Biden" theory do not think he "looks the same". Its very clear he does not look the same.
But where the thinking diverges here is how we interpret that information. Lots of folks look at the pictures or footage and go, he doesn't look the same. When they ask themselves why, they conclude (very quickly and directly it seems) the only thing that can account for that is that this one is a different person altogether.
Others look at the footage and pictures and go, he doesn't look the same. What might account for that? Age? Natural processes? Surgery? Lighting and angles? All of the above?
And for me, this is what I notice. I have never come across any analysis from someone trained in geriatric (old person) or other anatomy, or forensic biology, that explains, with facts, evidence and rigorous empirical-based reasoning, WHY the person we see in the images now could NOT be the one we saw in previous images or footage.
The absence of such rigorous and scientifically grounded analysis and approach is a glaring vacuum for me. Because IF in fact there was an actual scientifically grounded (based in the sciences of anatomy, biology, and geriatrics, etc,) foundation for arguing that Biden A is not or could not be Biden B, then I think those analyses would be out there.
The fact that they are not, and I mean studies or analysis performed by people trained in those fields, at a minimum means there is an absence of evidence.
Here is another approach that might actually lend academic (i.e. disciplined) evidence for the argument. Take a study of 20 different people who have lived in the public sphere, and do a point by point comparison with them over the same period that people are comparing with Biden.
Not all people age the same, so there will be some discrepancies, but a rigorous compare and contrast exercise would lend strength to any argument. For lack of a better comparison, the other subjects of such an analysis would perform the role of a 'control' which one needs when doing experiments.
But we don't have that. No one seems to think it worth the time and effort to actually develop grounded foundations for the arguments. All we have are pictures of "Joe Biden", in which "Joe Biden" appears different, and the conclusions are leapt to: It MUST be a different person! No control, no exhaustive or even moderate comparison with other subjects.
I'm older than I used to be (kek), and I look different. Man, compare photos of me 20 years ago and now, and well, Do I look the same?
Over a period of 20 years I spent a lot of time with my father and mother in the elderly stages of their lives, when my dad moved from being an energetic 70 year old to a much slower 88 year old. In the case of my mother, I was in constant interaction with her as she went through the same period of her life.
The physical differences were apparent and clear.
I don't think all the differences we can see in the images can be explained merely by aging alone, but I personally think many can. (That's an opinion, but not a professionally trained one! Only based on personal observation of changes in my parents as an example.)
Add to that modern techniques of surgery, plastic surgery, and everything else, for someone who is both loaded (elite criminal) and more in the public arena than 99.9% of human beings, and perhaps there are other possible explanations for perceived differences in appearance.
So that's just the area of 'physical appearance'. There are of course many other factors. But I hope I've outlined how persons like myself do not necessarily think that "Biden A looks the same as Biden B". Rather, the difference in perspective - the conclusions drawn or line of thinking - comes from different ways that information is interpreted.
Maybe that helps. I agree with you. Biden of "60 years of age" (for example) does NOT look like Biden of "80 years of age". Although I admit, in some cases, Fake Joe Biden proponents may not simply be looking at different appearances over time, but different appearances on the same time (Biden at 75 vs Biden at 75) but that's another topic.
I think there is a lot of evidence that Biden 2021-24 is somehow cooperating or at least indirectly helping the Patriots and the Awakening, and for me that's a strong argument for this being the OG Biden. Why? Because I find morally unacceptable the proposition that any 'White Hats' could perpetrate a deception on the American people of the magnitude of having a fake and fraudulent puppet who is not even the person placed and controlled in the White House.
Evil has been doing that, putting puppets in place and controlling the People via deception. I personally find it a morally unacceptable proposition that any 'white hats' seeking to restore law and order and freedom and honesty, etc, could use such a method.
That's another factor that I slip in to my "How to consider the idea of a Fake Joe Biden" quiver.
EDIT: I think that Bubble has a different view here, that the Cabal actually switched out Biden but then the replacement got compromised and now controlled by white hats. That's potentially morally acceptable, because the one perpetrating the fraud are not the white hats but the cabal. But anyway....
I'll admit: I work with what I've got. I think that others may see things differently and consider other aspects re: the morality of directly putting a fraudulent puppet in place, etc, and have different reasoning around that. That's OK. I don't need to feel reconciled to how others view the matter. I only need to feel reconciled within myself, that the conclusions or positions I draw make sense to me in the overall scheme of things.
And, I expect that in most cases, it's the same for others. BUT at the end of the day, I think we HAVE to admit that we do not know, and it is wise to be open to consider other views that may actually enhance or increase our field of view.
In any case, thanks a bunch for the great reply. I'm glad you are there at GAW.
Plus, I personally don't think it's immoral for the whitehats to replace the original Biden with an actor. If the whitehats are controlling whoever this is does it really matter if it's the real guy or an actor?
But, you are right at the end of the day we really don't know and may never know. The important thing is to understand the comms and be open minded to many possibilities. My overall conviction is that the Patriots are in control to the degree they can be and that we will win the war against the satanic cabal.
Thanks, again for taking the time to dialogue we me. I so appreciate your generosity. 🐸🧡
Thanks for the reply. By and large, I agree with your first paragraph. And I think you articulate it well.
This, however....
The problem is, this is not "a fact". It is certainly not an established fact. It is a theory. It is a perspective. It is an opinion. And that is what prompted my query to you in the first place. Because when people start treating theories as fact, without accounting for alternative possibilities, then we begin to move out of the questioning and critical thinking space into the realm of doctrine, orthodoxy and group think.
In my view, one thing that is critical to effectively processing information in the current 5G information and psywar is drawing the proper distinctions between beliefs, theories, convictions and opinions on one hand with facts, empirical data, and evidence on the other. The former are formulated and rest within the subjective space of each person's mind, the latter are objective and therefore quite different in nature.
Evidence itself is the bridge, where a person will usually have their own threshold at which evidence forms the basis for them to accept something as 'proven' or otherwise. But that personal threshold, too, is subject to many factors including biases, mental habits, and others.
One thing I pay a lot of attention to with regards to certain topics (theories or ideas) is how they are handled (here and elsewhere) and how people engage with them.
It seems to me that there are some topics and ideas that consistently elicit a knee-jerk response wherein some people simply cannot conceive of alternative perspectives or thinking. Consider the mentality of people suffering from TDS or who were unable to even consider that the governments and establishment during the covid hoax might be wrong or might even NOT have the people's best interests at heart.
You couldn't argue with such people, because they simply could not even conceive of or entertain an alternate view.
The "Fake Joe Biden" theory is one of those ideas that seems to elicit the same response in some people, and I think that it is worth questioning why. Consistently, from what I've observed here at GAW, the majority of takes on this are always based on (oversimplification here, but anyway) "look. It's obvious! You must be dumb if you cannot see it! it's OBVIOUS!" And yet, there has been, to my knowledge, never any tangible concrete foundation.
For me, I am yet to see any critically developed analysis by anyone trained in geriatric biology, forensic biology, anatomical research, etc. As with a good number of other theories, it's usually a mish-mash of photos, supposition (aka highly subjective interpretations), 'evidence' of "Comms" almost always taken out of context (just look at this post) and without consideration and deliberation of alternative counter-arguments. To me, that sort of basis simply does not meet my threshold for conclusion.
There is certainly no proof. It's almost all cases, it's simply people's pre-conceived (layman) ideas of what someone should look like or act like combined with a certain direction or argument and reasoning. Moreover, foeme, a tell-tale sign of a less than robust grounding in conclusion is when a lot of proponents move from "This is what I believe and this is my theory, and I stand by it" to "this is an obvious fact (and therefore I do not need or want to engage with or consider alternatives or counter-arguments)."
The second part of that sentence ("and therefore I do not need or want...") is usually never voiced or even recognized by the proponents themselves.
That's the first thing I noticed with this post. Personally, I don't think the approach or mentality is productive.
I've had some good discussions with bubble bursts regarding his view and my view re: "the fake joe biden" theory and I found his arguments reasoned and they increased my perspective, although my fundamental position didn't change very much.
And while I have my view and opinion aka "my position" I am very able to recognize "I have my view, but I simply do not know". And I'm Ok with that.
But when I see many if not the majority of elements that I consider when visiting this topic simply ignored - either mentally or in discussion - by the majority of proponents, to me that's an indicator that I see time and time again with a certain variety of topics. To me, that behavior - ignoring certain factors - is an indicator that weakens, in my view, the argument of the proponents.
Does this make sense? Can you follow my line of thinking? IMO, HOW people engage with their own beliefs and views and ideas is the CORE PART of the Great Awakening issue. It's a feature of conditioned thinking, which in the extreme is brainwashing or trance, that people are unable to question their own views and break out of or move beyond their own subjective perspective.
I should mention that I know this to some extent by personal experience. I tend to be a very subjective thinker, so I've found it critical and necessary to learn to question my own beliefs, recognize the limitation of my own reasoning, and simply be open to considering that others might see things differently. Ignoring or disparaging those alternative views is an easy trap to fall in to. It's fundamental to the more limiting (immature) aspects of human psychology.
So when I read the subject title of the OP, it immediately raised a few red flags to me.
Take a look at the subject title:
Let's consider one analysis:
"And sorry (feigned apology, condescending), it's time we ALL acknowledge (everyone must join the group (ALL) think because, well, we (who think this way) are right), that [the belief: the meat suit we’re watching isn’t the real Biden], and stop worrying about being called conspiracy theorists (assertion here: the reason you do NOT conform to us and our belief is because you are worried about being call a conspiracy theorist!!!!
In other words, [OPs assertion] your disagreement is based in fear and worry about personal appearance, obviously. And the implication of that is that a) you obviously cannot have any reasonable or considerable reason for NOT holding OPs view, and b) I (we) don't need to even consider that there might be valid alternative views or that in fact there is anything relevant that I (OP) am not considering.....
I personally do not think this sort of mentality has anything to do with Q. It's essentially the approach that "hey, my (our) opinion is correct because (assertion) it's the majority view and obviously, the majority view = it's true". And, if you disagree, it's because you're worried about [trivial, immature and petty concern]. Aka, you don't have enough guts to stand up and agree.
I got my fill of people displaying this mentality during 2020 and 2021. I would think that we all did, and I'm rather surprised that more people who are otherwise awake cannot recognize the same matrix-level behavior in themselves or here on an otherwise aware board.
I wonder if you yourself will notice your language.
Implied meaning (as far as I read it, correct me if I've misread or you think I'm wrong): if you do not agree with THE view here, then you are not an astute thinker.
IMO, the ability to flagrantly equate a belief, opinion or theory with "a fact" is one of the hallmarks of fundamentalist and doctrinal thinking.
Q posted the following content in no less than 8 drops:
Moreover, Q also dropped:
So, when a post on a topic comes out and says: "Sorry, it's time we ALL conform and accept as a fact something that is not proven to be fact", it raises a good number of flags for me.
And, one of the features I also noticed in the comment sections is frogs like yourself expressing an inability to be able to conceive of how any alternative view might be grounded, reasoned or legitimate. And that's why I asked you the question: Why do you think it is that you "I don’t know how anyone can think it’s the real Biden"?
Because to me the key point here is: you do not know. You admit that. You do not know how anyone could have a perspective that is not in agreement with yours.
You also stated: "I really can't believe anyone ....." Again, you are admitting an inability to believe something. As if your inability to conceive or know or believe anyone might have an alternative view is evidence in itself that you MUST be right.
We've shared some really great interactions in the past, Damn, so please don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to attack you or beat you down or win some argument. I'm simply trying to articulate my view, and (obviously) I do that because I think there are important points of merit in that view. I want that to be clear. I want to discuss. Not to win an argument.
In closing this reply, I'll disclose that a) I am a BIG fan of Patel Patriot's work and especially the devolution power hour with Just human and Burning bright, and my thinking is quite influenced by theirs (it resonates with me), and those guys make a lot of fun about people who buy into the "fake Joe Biden' narrative. And I agree with them.
I also think that Derek Johnson is a self-aggrandizing ego-chaser, and I agree with Jon Harold that DJ took most of his (JH's) work and set out to make it appear as if it is his own.
I've done some serious digging on DJ and one of his good buddies Pascal Najadi, and to me, they scream of fake sensationalist opportunists. They highlight more extreme and sensationalist (appealing to the emotions) narratives, and then exploit the following they generate.
But hey, that's just me. Just wanted to mention that.
You may disagree with any or all of what I've said here in this comment, and that's OK. I would only suggest that you might consider that there may be other views that have valid reasoning, even if you don't agree with them.
In the meantime, dayum. You ARE good!
Stay loose, frog.
EDIT: Minor grammatical errors
Lol...such a long response! However, I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to give me your perspective and helping me tweak my own.
I have to wholeheartedly agree with you that it is a slippery slope here on GAW in that after a while we assume consensus equals fact. I know I often fall into that. With that being said, most of the conclusions we anons come to are derived from a bit of info here a comm there, Q drop here and comment from DJT there. We don't really have the luxury of cold, hard facts very often to back up our speculations. I get what you're saying about making the leap from speculation to assuming it's a proven fact. I see that that is exactly what I have done with the fake Biden senario. However, in my defense I really don't see how anyone can look at the original Biden and think this current Biden looks the same.
With that said, I really have to eat humble pie in my tendency to become smug and obnoxious about my own convictions and allow for other points of view. Otherwise, we have no room for discussion.
I am sincerely grateful to you for reminding me that if not fact then it is conjecture and if conjecture don't assume anything about anyone. As we know assuming makes an ass out of me.
Thank you for making me your fren and helping me be a better anon. Checks and balances are always welcome. It is a privilege to serve here with you FractalizingIron. 🙏
Thank you damn. Damn, you ARE good!
What a great reply, and so well articulated. It's a pleasure to read things like this.
Because I've been in and out of the Fake Biden thing so often (most of us have), AND because, these days, it very often feels like some people have arrived at their position and are no longer interested in questioning their conclusions, I'm hesitant to even approach the discussion. Which is why, with the current post, I decided to take a different tack, and talk about the HOW to engage with the topic rather than the WHAT.
But, you've raised a point that I think I can address and it might open up some territory for further discussion or at least thought.
OK. Here we are getting to the nitty gritty.
Here's the real nib, the real tip of the blade. Folks like me or who disagree with the "Fake Joe Biden" theory do not think he "looks the same". Its very clear he does not look the same.
But where the thinking diverges here is how we interpret that information. Lots of folks look at the pictures or footage and go, he doesn't look the same. When they ask themselves why, they conclude (very quickly and directly it seems) the only thing that can account for that is that this one is a different person altogether.
Others look at the footage and pictures and go, he doesn't look the same. What might account for that? Age? Natural processes? Surgery? Lighting and angles? All of the above?
And for me, this is what I notice. I have never come across any analysis from someone trained in geriatric (old person) or other anatomy, or forensic biology, that explains, with facts, evidence and rigorous empirical-based reasoning, WHY the person we see in the images now could NOT be the one we saw in previous images or footage.
The absence of such rigorous and scientifically grounded analysis and approach is a glaring vacuum for me. Because IF in fact there was an actual scientifically grounded (based in the sciences of anatomy, biology, and geriatrics, etc,) foundation for arguing that Biden A is not or could not be Biden B, then I think those analyses would be out there.
The fact that they are not, and I mean studies or analysis performed by people trained in those fields, at a minimum means there is an absence of evidence.
Here is another approach that might actually lend academic (i.e. disciplined) evidence for the argument. Take a study of 20 different people who have lived in the public sphere, and do a point by point comparison with them over the same period that people are comparing with Biden.
Not all people age the same, so there will be some discrepancies, but a rigorous compare and contrast exercise would lend strength to any argument. For lack of a better comparison, the other subjects of such an analysis would perform the role of a 'control' which one needs when doing experiments.
But we don't have that. No one seems to think it worth the time and effort to actually develop grounded foundations for the arguments. All we have are pictures of "Joe Biden", in which "Joe Biden" appears different, and the conclusions are leapt to: It MUST be a different person! No control, no exhaustive or even moderate comparison with other subjects.
I'm older than I used to be (kek), and I look different. Man, compare photos of me 20 years ago and now, and well, Do I look the same?
Over a period of 20 years I spent a lot of time with my father and mother in the elderly stages of their lives, when my dad moved from being an energetic 70 year old to a much slower 88 year old. In the case of my mother, I was in constant interaction with her as she went through the same period of her life.
The physical differences were apparent and clear.
I don't think all the differences we can see in the images can be explained merely by aging alone, but I personally think many can. (That's an opinion, but not a professionally trained one! Only based on personal observation of changes in my parents as an example.)
Add to that modern techniques of surgery, plastic surgery, and everything else, for someone who is both loaded (elite criminal) and more in the public arena than 99.9% of human beings, and perhaps there are other possible explanations for perceived differences in appearance.
So that's just the area of 'physical appearance'. There are of course many other factors. But I hope I've outlined how persons like myself do not necessarily think that "Biden A looks the same as Biden B". Rather, the difference in perspective - the conclusions drawn or line of thinking - comes from different ways that information is interpreted.
Maybe that helps. I agree with you. Biden of "60 years of age" (for example) does NOT look like Biden of "80 years of age". Although I admit, in some cases, Fake Joe Biden proponents may not simply be looking at different appearances over time, but different appearances on the same time (Biden at 75 vs Biden at 75) but that's another topic.
I think there is a lot of evidence that Biden 2021-24 is somehow cooperating or at least indirectly helping the Patriots and the Awakening, and for me that's a strong argument for this being the OG Biden. Why? Because I find morally unacceptable the proposition that any 'White Hats' could perpetrate a deception on the American people of the magnitude of having a fake and fraudulent puppet who is not even the person placed and controlled in the White House.
Evil has been doing that, putting puppets in place and controlling the People via deception. I personally find it a morally unacceptable proposition that any 'white hats' seeking to restore law and order and freedom and honesty, etc, could use such a method.
That's another factor that I slip in to my "How to consider the idea of a Fake Joe Biden" quiver.
EDIT: I think that Bubble has a different view here, that the Cabal actually switched out Biden but then the replacement got compromised and now controlled by white hats. That's potentially morally acceptable, because the one perpetrating the fraud are not the white hats but the cabal. But anyway....
I'll admit: I work with what I've got. I think that others may see things differently and consider other aspects re: the morality of directly putting a fraudulent puppet in place, etc, and have different reasoning around that. That's OK. I don't need to feel reconciled to how others view the matter. I only need to feel reconciled within myself, that the conclusions or positions I draw make sense to me in the overall scheme of things.
And, I expect that in most cases, it's the same for others. BUT at the end of the day, I think we HAVE to admit that we do not know, and it is wise to be open to consider other views that may actually enhance or increase our field of view.
In any case, thanks a bunch for the great reply. I'm glad you are there at GAW.
Be well, fren.
Some thoughts. I think there have been people giving as much proof as may be available at this time that there is a replacement Joe. One example;
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1802449247973048496
Plus, I personally don't think it's immoral for the whitehats to replace the original Biden with an actor. If the whitehats are controlling whoever this is does it really matter if it's the real guy or an actor?
But, you are right at the end of the day we really don't know and may never know. The important thing is to understand the comms and be open minded to many possibilities. My overall conviction is that the Patriots are in control to the degree they can be and that we will win the war against the satanic cabal.
Thanks, again for taking the time to dialogue we me. I so appreciate your generosity. 🐸🧡