I myself found that the habit created by main stream was to ask "for evidence", while making you believe that evidence is only hard rock solid "proofs". Even court cases get resolved with far less evidence than the kind we have been trained to demand. And here we are not talking about convicting someone. just what our gut tells us.
What I learnt myself is that, our brain does an amazing job of processing a lot of circumstantial evidence and identifying patterns to give us a good idea about the world view that makes sense to us. This is where instinct and gut feeling comes into picture. Its our brains way to communicate this complex processing.
Not excluded, just not believed until proven. Evidence is grounds for investigation. Investigation can lead to proof, but not always. Right now we have patterns (as you have said) and rumor—enough in my opinion to investigate.
If we go out screeching like Lin Wood, that is when even people who would normally be on our side will reject us. Just like how David Icke discredits all conspiracies for going off the deep-end. Same thing happened with pizza gate. Even though for decades there has been evidence of child trafficking—particularly with government involvement (Franklin Scandal)—but the way it was presented was horrible, and normies rejected it.
We know Roberts has made shitty decisions almost from day 1. There's rumors, his association with people who are suspect (or guilty), so I say let's investigate. If the gov won't do it, maybe we should start pooling our money together and hiring an agency (or multiple ones) to investigate these people ourselves.
Same thing happened with pizza gate. Even though for decades there has been evidence of child trafficking—particularly with government involvement (Franklin Scandal)—but the way it was presented was horrible, and normies rejected it.
Pizzagate was labeled a conspiracy theory by CNN and the rest of the MSM and that was the only presentation the normies received.
As in, circumstantial evidence excluded?
I myself found that the habit created by main stream was to ask "for evidence", while making you believe that evidence is only hard rock solid "proofs". Even court cases get resolved with far less evidence than the kind we have been trained to demand. And here we are not talking about convicting someone. just what our gut tells us.
What I learnt myself is that, our brain does an amazing job of processing a lot of circumstantial evidence and identifying patterns to give us a good idea about the world view that makes sense to us. This is where instinct and gut feeling comes into picture. Its our brains way to communicate this complex processing.
Not excluded, just not believed until proven. Evidence is grounds for investigation. Investigation can lead to proof, but not always. Right now we have patterns (as you have said) and rumor—enough in my opinion to investigate.
If we go out screeching like Lin Wood, that is when even people who would normally be on our side will reject us. Just like how David Icke discredits all conspiracies for going off the deep-end. Same thing happened with pizza gate. Even though for decades there has been evidence of child trafficking—particularly with government involvement (Franklin Scandal)—but the way it was presented was horrible, and normies rejected it.
We know Roberts has made shitty decisions almost from day 1. There's rumors, his association with people who are suspect (or guilty), so I say let's investigate. If the gov won't do it, maybe we should start pooling our money together and hiring an agency (or multiple ones) to investigate these people ourselves.
Pizzagate was labeled a conspiracy theory by CNN and the rest of the MSM and that was the only presentation the normies received.
Ya Media Matters censoring for their chomies.