I know it was a controlled demolition, but in the interest of 100% scrutiny in our truth seeking, I will say this:
It is possible that rather than using a reporter in New York, the BBC just put a London reporter in front of a green screen and played live footage behind her that wasn't completely live.
In other words, dishonesty (as usual) but not necessarily evidence of preknowledge.
Does it really matter?
Yes, because we know the cabal propagates red herring evidence so that the spot light will slowly move away from real evidence until, eventually, it is barely even mentioned by anyone.
In this case, it could be meant to pull the spotlight away from the Odigo preknowledge evidence and the put-option preknowledge evidence.
Both of which are strong evidence but have no amusing clip to accompany them.
I know it was a controlled demolition, but in the interest of 100% scrutiny in our truth seeking, I will say this:
It is possible that rather than using a reporter in New York, the BBC just put a London reporter in front of a green screen and played live footage behind her that wasn't completely live.
In other words, dishonesty (as usual) but not necessarily evidence of preknowledge.
Does it really matter?
Yes, because we know the cabal propagates red herring evidence so that the spot light will slowly move away from real evidence until, eventually, it is barely even mentioned by anyone.
In this case, it could be meant to pull the spotlight away from the Odigo preknowledge evidence and the put-option preknowledge evidence.
Both of which are strong evidence but have no amusing clip to accompany them.