Hard to choose only 3. COVID had a bunch, like the virus being from the Wuhan lab with US funding but covered up as revealed in Fauci's emails, collusion with vaccine manufacturers as indicated by the furin cleavage site's exact sequence in 2016 Moderna patent and Ralph Baric receiving vaccine candidates in December 2019, fatality of the virus obviously exaggerated, positive cases deliberately inflated, vaccines safe and effective and so on. Earlier ones include the assassination of Julius Caesar, the Phoebus cartel, the creation of the Federal Reserve and the secret societies around Cecil Rhodes.
There was no “direct” (using your definition) evidence of covid 19 originating in that lab, nor that Fauci had funded research that produced covid 19, simply indirect evidence in the form of documents showing that the NIH, under Fauci, funded a group with different people overseeing it, and that group went on to fund “gain of function research on bat origin corona viruses” (something to that effect, and probably not even stated so directly) around 2014. Also I’ve never seen “direct” evidence that any of that other stuff you mention was done maliciously either. It obviously was, but -
It’s all indirect and inferences. And as much as I believe that all (what you laid out) to be the case, I don’t pretend like there is “direct evidence” of it. But it’s still obviously the case. Similar to the subject of the thread.
Your other examples are…lol… let’s stick to the last hundred years shall we? Julius Caesar lol
Regardless, like I said, watch that doc and if your opinion hasn’t changed after that, then this might get interesting.
There absolutely was direct evidence of those claims but you're muddying the waters by saying there also needs to be an admission of malicious intent. There's a clear difference between "this primary source says X" and "this primary/secondary source is best explained by X".
With the pyramids the primary source is how the stones are laid which doesn't tell you what technology was used and you have to use inference to the best explanation, which is often wrong and the two of us can't even agree on the best explanation yet.
I ain’t muddying shit nigga, show me direct evidence of any of the things you claimed there is direct evidence for. You won’t be able to. Because it’s all based on indirect evidence and inference.
Just watch the fucking documentary or miss me with this shit.
No need to be rude. I did already tell you what the direct evidence is for a couple of them, which you could look up.
In Fauci's emails one of his aides draws his attention to their funding of EcoHealth Alliance in relation to the origin of Sars-CoV-2 and Fauci had meetings with a number of other people like Jeremy Farrar about the origin and some of them expressed by email that there's no way it could have been of natural origin but then a few days later signed the Lancet statement that it was zoonotic. Is that 100% proof it came from the lab? No, but it's direct evidence that not only did Fauci and co know it likely came from a lab with their funding and that their public statements did not represent their actual views or knowledge, implying they were covering up the truth.
The moderna patent containing the exact sequence which supposedly evolved naturally in Sars-CoV-2 is also strong evidence from primary sources of collusion between Moderna and the creation of the virus, even if there's a 1 in a trillion chance the two sequences matched by chance. Ralph Baric receiving vaccine candidates is further direct evidence.
Do I have to go through all the other conspiracies I mentioned?
Stuff They Don't Want You to Know by Ben Bowlin et al. gives several theories that do meet this test, namely the government admitted them later, including Bernays, HAARP, Tuskegee experiment, early cloud seeding, off the top of my head. Naturally they take a safe path by picking on the relatively boring ones and describing the more sensational ones without credence (such as the first man to report being contacted by MIB). They have a podcast and are wide open to discussion.
And now apparently Amelia Earhart ran a spy plane, she was kidnapped into the East with her copilot, and the government now admits it couldn't admit it and allow that conclusion for 80 years.
I guess we can add psychic powers, remote viewing, people on mars and all the other shit the government admits they’ve funded as “proven direct evidence conspiracy theories”
Or maybe the entire distinction is retarded and a red herring
Oh, I was trying to be helpful about your request for "direct-evidence-based". An official retraction is often one of the clearest evidences. But you seem to mean evidence like the rocks are there (and then everyone should come to the same interpretation of them?). The pot with copper in it really was there and really has been proven to be a functional battery, so they could've had some control of electricity for instance. But until we have objective agreement on how to view evidence the discussion is, um, restrained. I was trying to find out what the evidence was for the razor claim or for the appeal to ignorance of how it was built, but nobody wanted to summarize it, including myself, so a summary didn't happen.
Hard to choose only 3. COVID had a bunch, like the virus being from the Wuhan lab with US funding but covered up as revealed in Fauci's emails, collusion with vaccine manufacturers as indicated by the furin cleavage site's exact sequence in 2016 Moderna patent and Ralph Baric receiving vaccine candidates in December 2019, fatality of the virus obviously exaggerated, positive cases deliberately inflated, vaccines safe and effective and so on. Earlier ones include the assassination of Julius Caesar, the Phoebus cartel, the creation of the Federal Reserve and the secret societies around Cecil Rhodes.
There was no “direct” (using your definition) evidence of covid 19 originating in that lab, nor that Fauci had funded research that produced covid 19, simply indirect evidence in the form of documents showing that the NIH, under Fauci, funded a group with different people overseeing it, and that group went on to fund “gain of function research on bat origin corona viruses” (something to that effect, and probably not even stated so directly) around 2014. Also I’ve never seen “direct” evidence that any of that other stuff you mention was done maliciously either. It obviously was, but -
It’s all indirect and inferences. And as much as I believe that all (what you laid out) to be the case, I don’t pretend like there is “direct evidence” of it. But it’s still obviously the case. Similar to the subject of the thread.
Your other examples are…lol… let’s stick to the last hundred years shall we? Julius Caesar lol
Regardless, like I said, watch that doc and if your opinion hasn’t changed after that, then this might get interesting.
There absolutely was direct evidence of those claims but you're muddying the waters by saying there also needs to be an admission of malicious intent. There's a clear difference between "this primary source says X" and "this primary/secondary source is best explained by X".
With the pyramids the primary source is how the stones are laid which doesn't tell you what technology was used and you have to use inference to the best explanation, which is often wrong and the two of us can't even agree on the best explanation yet.
I ain’t muddying shit nigga, show me direct evidence of any of the things you claimed there is direct evidence for. You won’t be able to. Because it’s all based on indirect evidence and inference.
Just watch the fucking documentary or miss me with this shit.
No need to be rude. I did already tell you what the direct evidence is for a couple of them, which you could look up.
In Fauci's emails one of his aides draws his attention to their funding of EcoHealth Alliance in relation to the origin of Sars-CoV-2 and Fauci had meetings with a number of other people like Jeremy Farrar about the origin and some of them expressed by email that there's no way it could have been of natural origin but then a few days later signed the Lancet statement that it was zoonotic. Is that 100% proof it came from the lab? No, but it's direct evidence that not only did Fauci and co know it likely came from a lab with their funding and that their public statements did not represent their actual views or knowledge, implying they were covering up the truth.
The moderna patent containing the exact sequence which supposedly evolved naturally in Sars-CoV-2 is also strong evidence from primary sources of collusion between Moderna and the creation of the virus, even if there's a 1 in a trillion chance the two sequences matched by chance. Ralph Baric receiving vaccine candidates is further direct evidence.
Do I have to go through all the other conspiracies I mentioned?
Stuff They Don't Want You to Know by Ben Bowlin et al. gives several theories that do meet this test, namely the government admitted them later, including Bernays, HAARP, Tuskegee experiment, early cloud seeding, off the top of my head. Naturally they take a safe path by picking on the relatively boring ones and describing the more sensational ones without credence (such as the first man to report being contacted by MIB). They have a podcast and are wide open to discussion.
And now apparently Amelia Earhart ran a spy plane, she was kidnapped into the East with her copilot, and the government now admits it couldn't admit it and allow that conclusion for 80 years.
Golly, c/GovernmentApprovedConspiracies, sounds so fun and interesting.
I guess we can add psychic powers, remote viewing, people on mars and all the other shit the government admits they’ve funded as “proven direct evidence conspiracy theories”
Or maybe the entire distinction is retarded and a red herring
Oh, I was trying to be helpful about your request for "direct-evidence-based". An official retraction is often one of the clearest evidences. But you seem to mean evidence like the rocks are there (and then everyone should come to the same interpretation of them?). The pot with copper in it really was there and really has been proven to be a functional battery, so they could've had some control of electricity for instance. But until we have objective agreement on how to view evidence the discussion is, um, restrained. I was trying to find out what the evidence was for the razor claim or for the appeal to ignorance of how it was built, but nobody wanted to summarize it, including myself, so a summary didn't happen.