The performer formerly known as Hanson, Pritchard, Poster GaGa, et cetera, in #35 above told a member he was as irrelevant as a dog barking in the night.
Holmes explained to Watson the importance of the dog which didn't bark.
No one saw Greer fire anything at anybody.
In addition to Jackie and Nellie and Kellerman, there were persons on both sides of Elm who did not see Greer fire anything at anybody.
And the McDill AFB request for software to manage multiple plausible online identities comes to mind.
The fifty-year rash is appearing.
After fifty years we're not having comic books--hear that, Tom Hanks?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2969[/ATTACH]
Phil Dragoo Wrote:And the McDill AFB request for software to manage multiple plausible online identities comes to mind.
The "Prichard" entity is outside the walls now. Be of good cheer.
But the software is certain to generate another.
The game of Hydra and Seek is afoot.
Be aware: The way this sometimes works is that identity "A" appears as an ally, only to be followed by identity "B" -- in this case "Prichard" -- that draws attention to itself and gives identity "A" opportunities to demonstrate its bona fides by attacking entity "B".
Thus we are expected to welcome identity "A" to our bosom.
To which it attaches an asp.
Got it?
Stay tuned.
In the mean: Did they think we were sufficiently naive so as not to recognize the return of the "Prichard/Hanson" entity? Or was it meant to be recognized?
Or was it all a probe?
Bottom line? We were afforded the opportunity to present valuable lessons in how disinformation works, how to recognize it, how to blunt its thrusts.
Next!
Charles Drago Wrote:Phil Dragoo Wrote:And the McDill AFB request for software to manage multiple plausible online identities comes to mind.
The "Prichard" entity is outside the walls now. Be of good cheer.
But the software is certain to generate another.
The game of Hydra and Seek is afoot.
Be aware: The way this sometimes works is that identity "A" appears as an ally, only to be followed by identity "B" -- in this case "Prichard" -- that draws attention to itself and gives identity "A" opportunities to demonstrate its bona fides by attacking entity "B".
Thus we are expected to welcome identity "A" to our bosom.
To which it attaches an asp.
Got it?
Stay tuned.
In the mean: Did they think we were sufficiently naive so as not to recognize the return of the "Prichard/Hanson" entity? Or was it meant to be recognized?
Or was it all a probe?
Bottom line? We were afforded the opportunity to present valuable lessons in how disinformation works, how to recognize it, how to blunt its thrusts.
Next!
Thats good CD my biggest regret is Zach getting caught up in it. Or more precisely me pulling him in. I hope he makes a return.
Phil Dragoo Wrote:No one saw Greer fire anything at anybody.
In addition to Jackie and Nellie and Kellerman, there were persons on both sides of Elm who did not see Greer fire anything at anybody.
Which is exactly why I don't believe it, Phil. Thanks for that summary.
Cooper's version of the Z-film was so bleached out, you could hardly see anything.
When someone takes an original video and distorts it in order to offer "proof" of something, it would be wise to remain skeptical about it.
IOW, the truth doesn't need lies to support it.
Charles Drago Wrote:But the software is certain to generate another.
The game of Hydra and Seek is afoot.
Be aware: The way this sometimes works is that identity "A" appears as an ally, only to be followed by identity "B" -- in this case "Prichard" -- that draws attention to itself and gives identity "A" opportunities to demonstrate its bona fides by attacking entity "B".
Thus we are expected to welcome identity "A" to our bosom.
To which it attaches an asp.
Got it?
Stay tuned.
In the mean: Did they think we were sufficiently naive so as not to recognize the return of the "Prichard/Hanson" entity? Or was it meant to be recognized?
Or was it all a probe?
Bottom line? We were afforded the opportunity to present valuable lessons in how disinformation works, how to recognize it, how to blunt its thrusts.
Next!
I think it has multiple purposes:
to waste our time refuting and spinning our wheels reinventing same
to discredit the Forum by hosting such nonsense and nonsensical threads
to create fighting and infighting - making us all look less dignified and diligent/serious
to annoy - revenge of the Big Lie
to see how the active members will react
to try to confuse and confound lookie-loos who only read, don't participate and are often [not always] not well versed on 11/22 and all the pitfalls/faux theories
to earn their keep for their masters
etc.
I'm sure there will be MUCH more of this kind of stuff as we get closer to the 50th! :darthvader: :wirlitzer:
Gil Jesus Wrote:Which is exactly why I don't believe it, Phil. Thanks for that summary.
Cooper's version of the Z-film was so bleached out, you could hardly see anything.
When someone takes an original video and distorts it in order to offer "proof" of something, it would be wise to remain skeptical about it.
IOW, the truth doesn't need lies to support it.
Gil, I hear 'ya, but that is quite an understated! Anyone who takes an original video, photo, statement, other evidence and distorts it on purpose to offer alternative 'proof' needs more than skepticism....even more than scorn....they need to be condemned! :wirlitzer: ....be they the FBI, CIA, Mil Intel, JCS, Presidents, Police Departments, or individuals - 'normal', governmental, or spooks.