The 7/7 Report

[Bob_the_lost]

So the participants turn on the BBC and they still think this is an exercise? Are 'mock broadcasts' that realistic? And any news on the internet, do people assume that is coming in via the exercise as well?

It's easy enough to do, there's been dramatisations of attacks, you can get video footage of drills, it's a piece of piss to just redub the sound and stitch together some stock footage. All you'd need is some pictures of armed police wandering around and possibly some footage of smoke rising over the city taken on a wobbly camera mount.

Odds are that they won't have had the internet, it's not used as a C&C method for the most part, phones are the main source of information and interaction.

Now the other issue you're ignoring is that the people taking part will assume that the broadcasts are real, they will give the benifit of the doubt to thier preconcieved notions about what's happening. If you don't get someone yelling "this is not a drill" you're just going to assume that it's a very realistic one, nothing more.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Here's an idea. Why don't you hire Mr Power for an hour and ask him what his exercises involve? Someone in your crappy group must have a senior enough job to be able to pose as someone who might concievably be interested in his services

But you'd never do that, because you don't actually want to be confronted with evidence from real people like detective boy who clearly know a lot more than you about what these exercises involve.


You'd rather follow links from half baked fraudulent ''charity''websites fronted by talkig terriers, than get off your arse and find the truth.

 

[Prole]

I really think Prole is incapable of reading posts, or anything else, without filtering it all through a prism of conspiraloonery.

Which is why we can explain as much as we want and it just will not ever sink in.

She only sees what she wants to see.

She has made up her mind, and she is incapable of letting go of her ideas.

''Something shifted in me'' according to Prole in the Guardian. Yes, it clearly did. Even when you read that article, you couldn't see how you were being sent up, could you? You genuinely think he was ''trying to get 7/7 truth out.'' You sad person.

Everyone was laughing at you. They still are.


Get help.

The article did manage to get many facts out into the public domain. My ego or how people perceive me is of little consequence. As someone who has contacted me since has pointed out:

"Wasn't Rachel disingenuous when she claimed that you were quoting train time tables rather than actual times the trains ran? Also that the comments on holding back CCTV in order to get witness testimony, many people could see the point in releasing the CCTV images in the effort to get witnesses and the fact that this did not prevent the release of the image of Hussain outside Boots."

Some arguments don't wash with everyone BKl, you are entitled to your views, although they are not shared by everyone, as I am in mine.

Yes somethng 'shifted for me that day' as it did for many who have made contact since. It's called a paradigm shift, an awakening. it's very uncomfortable but once it's happened you have a responsibilty not to ignore it, because life came never go on in the same way it has before.

To quote Rumi:

Whenever a feeling of aversion comes into the heart of a good soul,
it's not without significance.
Consider that intuitive wisdom to be a Divine attribute,
not a vain suspicion:
the light of the heart has apprehended
intuitively from the Universal Tablet.

And I believe that intuition is as valuable a starting place as any. Once the evidence has been released we will all know more, until then we continue to call for an independent Public Inquiry but not held under the Inquiries Act 2005. And the Release of the Evidence. Some of us are not ready to say "we know what happened that day" because we have not seen the evidence to support such a conclusive statement. We are all entitled to make up our own minds and to know the truth BK.

Even me.

 

[Badger Kitten]

''Paradigm shifts?'' ''Awakenings?'' ''Intuition?''

Prole, I am now feeling a bit sorry for you. I can see what you think is happening. It is called mental illness, and it is nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about, but whilst all this clearly does seem very powerful and compelling to you, immersing yourself in conspiracy theories, what seems to be ''intuition ''and ''new consciousness'' is actually far more likely to be paranoia, delusions, or the manifestations of a personality disorder.

See what your family and friends say, if they think that you have noticeably changed your behaviour in the last year. You could check out health, relationships and sexuality, there are a lot of people with wise advice about mental health.

Good luck, I hope you can find some support. I don't think obsessing about 7/7 will help you find it though, and to someone who is clearly a bit vulnerable, to immerse yourself in this world is unlikely to be good for your health. I am making a conscious effort to pull back, once the anniversary is passed.

 

[Azrael23]

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/june2006/270606londonbomber.htm

The cynics don`t know what they`re talking about. As per. The illusion of informancy based on the drippings of mainstream media, how enlightening for us "paranoid dreamers"..... lmao BTW i`m not just talking about 7/7, i`m talking about the whole schibang.

You can tell when someone hasn`t got a clue, they tend to switch to condescension and petty insults to avoid real debate....now looking down what have we got....oh yes....

 

[Prole]

''Paradigm shifts?'' ''Awakenings?'' ''Intuition?''

Prole, I am now feeling a bit sorry for you. I can see what you think is happening. It is called mental illness, and it is nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about, but whilst all this clearly does seem very powerful and compelling to you, immersing yourself in conspiracy theories, what seems to be ''intuition ''and ''new consciousness'' is actually far more likely to be paranoia, delusions, or the manifestations of a personality disorder.

See what your family and friends say, if they think that you have noticeably changed your behaviour in the last year. You could check out health, relationships and sexuality, there are a lot of people with wise advice about mental health.

Good luck, I hope you can find some support. I don't think obsessing about 7/7 will help you find it though, and to someone who is clearly a bit vulnerable, to immerse yourself in this world is unlikely to be good for your health. I am making a conscious effort to pull back, once the anniversary is passed.

Two words: cognitive dissonance.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Two more: personality disorder

 

[Badger Kitten]

Help is available

 

[Prole]

from 'Are we conspiracy theorists"

"Leaving aside the argument that ‘healthy scepticism’ is subjective to each of us who would make a reasonable judgment based on previously held views about world affairs and what we would consider to be `common sense’; an alternative to this viewpoint is put forward by Michael Hasty in his article The Paranoid Shift:

“In his book, “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower,” William Blum warns of how the media will make anything that smacks of “conspiracy theory” an immediate “object of ridicule.” This prevents the media from ever having to investigate the many strange interconnections among the ruling class -- for example, the relationship between the boards of directors of media giants, and the energy, banking and defense industries. These unmentionable topics are usually treated with what Blum calls “the media’s most effective tool -- silence.” But in case somebody’s asking questions, all you have to do is say, “conspiracy theory,” and any allegation instantly becomes too frivolous to merit serious attention. On the other hand, since my paranoid shift, whenever I hear the words “conspiracy theory” (which seems more often, lately) it usually means someone is getting too close to the truth.”

Later in the article, Hasty gives a few reasons why people might not see these interconnections. The first is that mass opinion is easily manipulated through the exposure to commercial advertising and public relations. Hasty writes:

“The precision of communications technology and graphics; the century of research on human psychology and emotion; and the uniquely centralized control of triumphant post-Cold War monopoly capitalism, have combined to the point where “the manufacture of consent” can be set on automatic pilot.”

The second reason, Hasty explains, is that most people are just so thoroughly decent that they find it virtually impossible to believe that others could be so evil as to portray themselves as the ‘good guys’, while having us believe in a manufactured enemy.

The third explanation is that people, understandably, don’t want to set themselves up for public ridicule by holding an alternative view. Judging by the reactions of Polly Toynbee and another Guardian columnist, Marina Hyde, who dismissed actor Charlie Sheen’s questions regarding the attacks of September 11th with the staggeringly obtuse phrase “You’re insane. Next.” these concerns would be well founded.

The final explanation Hasty gives is this:

“Perhaps the biggest hidden reason people don’t make the paranoid shift is that knowledge brings responsibility…It would be a lot of work. It would also require critical mass. A paradigm shift.”

Now I'm off to enjoy the garden.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/june2006/270606londonbomber.htm

The cynics don`t know what they`re talking about. As per. The illusion of informancy based on the drippings of mainstream media, how enlightening for us "paranoid dreamers"..... lmao BTW i`m not just talking about 7/7, i`m talking about the whole schibang.

You can tell when someone hasn`t got a clue, they tend to switch to condescension and petty insults to avoid real debate....now looking down what have we got....oh yes....

You can tell when someone is a jibbering lunatic by the inability to stick to the topic, to debate points and to accept that they can be wrong among other factors.

Prove me wrong, give enumerated points showing why we should belive that the 7/7 attacks were anything other than what we're lead to belive by offical sources.

 

[Badger Kitten]

1. Why is no-one who was directly involved with the attacks welcoming your site/campaign/theories? Do you not think that anyone calling for a public inquiry, which includes survivors and victims would welcome your efforts - and yet they do not. Could this be because they think you are wrong?

2. Why is the Guardian article laughing at you? Why, having been presented with these ''anomalies'' by you, does this journalist not give credence to the idea that you might be right? Why does he instead talk about ''canards''?

3. Why, in the face of informed evidence from someone who actually does what Power does ( Detective Boy) do you continue to struggle with the idea that you may have got it wrong in considering 'the Power interview' to be an issue?

4. Why are you so insistent that muddled reporting means the bombers were not on the train? For example, having been given the hypothesis that they got the delayed 7.21 train which left c. 7.40am, you still refuse to engage with this.Why?


5. Why do you publish on your site the hypothesis that the bombers were innocent, and publish biographies of them with the clear indication of making them appear to be innocent men?

The four men were chosen or lured in to be patsies in a classic 'false flag operation' or frame-up by a network involved with one or more of the intelligence services.

The four men thought they were going to be delivering drugs or money to various locations round London, but were deceived, set up and murdered along with the others on their tubes and bus when their back packs exploded.



6. Why do you offer the hypothesis that the original power surges story was correct?

The original story of power surges which MetroNet reported at the time of the incidents was correct and the exploding bus in Tavistock Square was related to a long-planned anti-terror 'exercise'.

Why would the train operating companies running the London Underground lie about the source of the explosions on the trains?


7. Why do you wilfully ignore the testimony of police officers, forensic experts, witnesses, injuries, survivors in favour of selective reporting and obsessive sifting of every report from a rolling multi-sourced news investiagtion in favour of anomalies which you immediately leap upon as being evidence of a huge cover-up or conspiracy? Even when given clear and intelligent evidence from experts to the contrary?

8. Will you entertain this idea... the bombers DID get a train to Kings Cross, and they suicide-bombed 3 trains and a bus an hour later when the Northern line closed, messing up the original plan. They carried the bombs in rucksacks which they detonated themselves, on or near to the floor of the trains/bus. The bombers were radiclaised extremists led by Khan, who believed they were ''soldiers'' in a ''war'' and were motivated by anger at Britain's foireign policy which they saw as unjust and oppressive to the global family of Muslims, in accordance with al-Qaeda-inspired ideaology.

The last being the idea that is borne out by the most evidence and is accepted by everyone apart from conspiracy theorists.

 

[Prole]

1. Why is no-one who was directly involved with the attacks welcoming your site/campaign/theories? Do you not think that anyone calling for a public inquiry, which includes survivors and victims would welcome your efforts - and yet they do not. Could this be because they think you are wrong?

2. Why is the Guardian article laughing at you? Why, having been presented with these ''anomalies'' by you, does this journalist not give credence to the idea that you might be right? Why does he instead talk about ''canards''?

3. Why, in the face of informed evidence from someone who actually does what Power does ( Detective Boy) do you continue to struggle with the idea that you may have got it wrong in considering 'the Power interview' to be an issue?

4. Why are you so insistent that muddled reporting means the bombers were not on the train? For example, having been given the hypothesis that they got the delayed 7.21 train which left c. 7.40am, you still refuse to engage with this.Why?


5. Why do you publish on your site the hypothesis that the bombers were innocent, and publish biographies of them with the clear indication of making them appear to be innocent men?

The four men were chosen or lured in to be patsies in a classic 'false flag operation' or frame-up by a network involved with one or more of the intelligence services.

The four men thought they were going to be delivering drugs or money to various locations round London, but were deceived, set up and murdered along with the others on their tubes and bus when their back packs exploded.



6. Why do you offer the hypothesis that the original power surges story was correct?

The original story of power surges which MetroNet reported at the time of the incidents was correct and the exploding bus in Tavistock Square was related to a long-planned anti-terror 'exercise'.

Why would the train operating companies running the London Underground lie about the source of the explosions on the trains?


7. Why do you wilfully ignore the testimony of police officers, forensic experts, witnesses, injuries, survivors in favour of selective reporting and obsessive sifting of every report from a rolling multi-sourced news investiagtion in favour of anomalies which you immediately leap upon as being evidence of a huge cover-up or conspiracy? Even when given clear and intelligent evidence from experts to the contrary?

8. Will you entertain this idea... the bombers DID get a train to Kings Cross, and they suicide-bombed 3 trains and a bus an hour later when the Northern line closed, messing up the original plan. They carried the bombs in rucksacks which they detonated themselves, on or near to the floor of the trains/bus. The bombers were radiclaised extremists led by Khan, who believed they were ''soldiers'' in a ''war'' and were motivated by anger at Britain's foireign policy which they saw as unjust and oppressive to the global family of Muslims, in accordance with al-Qaeda-inspired ideaology.

The last being the idea that is borne out by the most evidence and is accepted by everyone apart from conspiracy theorists.

Hypothesis 3: Homegrown and autonomous action by four British Muslims with no mastermind

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Hypothesis 3: Homegrown and autonomous action by four British Muslims with no mastermind

That's a "i can't answer those questions so i'm avoiding them" then?

 

[Prole]

That's a "i can't answer those questions so i'm avoiding them" then?

Just pointing out to BK that it is one of the 9 hypotheses that we consider.

And until evidence is released they remain hypotheses.

Now I don't want to spoil your enjoyment of the match, so later.

 

[Badger Kitten]

...and Prole's predected responses

1. ''I have as much right to ask questions as anyone else. You, BK control all the survivors and make sure they ''have got their stories straight'' ( Prole actually accused me of this before). Despite badgering survivors' blogs and turning up at a meetign where the audienc eincluded survivors - such as a woman left a double amputee and the train driver, and despite giving them my leaflets - the fact that they are not interested is, erm...well, never mind! Release the evidence! Who cares what eye witnesses say!''


2. ''The Mainstream media will never allow the truth to come out, it is all a conspiracy, and the Guardian, even though it implied we were freaks, has got the anomalies out, which means those with open minds will Surely See The Truth! And Believe! And such is my sense of self-importance I actually believe that an article in which I am gently allowed to hang myself with own rope and am exposed as an eccentric will actually recruit TruthSeekers to my bonkers campaign!''

3. ''I'm struggling with this one, but hang on a mo...Detective Boy is, um, probably just making it up, and since I have decided that POwer is part fo the conspiracy and have invested much time and emotion in this beleif, I am just going to ignore it, because this is all about things joining up to fit a particular world view I have, and I actually do not think I can cope with being wrong. Even though I humbly pretend that it is not about my ego, and use argument against me to bolster my sense of being a martyr, misunderstood heroic figure and so on, I don't actually want to be proved utterly wrong, because it fundementally challenges my sense of self''


4. ''Like I would say *if I was honest, I am very proud of myself for discovering this apparent anomaly, which has led to my new internet friends and the laborious creation of my website over many hours, and I JUST DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT now that I might have made a bit of a tit of myself. I cling to this small thing, and from it I make a whole conspiracy, into which I spiral down and down, ,looking for more anomalies to boster my belief, and ignoring anything that doesn't work for me. I have painted myself into a corner where I have publicly rejected what I call the ''official version''. I have to stick with this position now, and to deflect people who ask me to source and prove and explain my assertions, I will instead ask yet more questions. Or parrot things like ''Release the evidence''. I will meanwhile, continue to ignore all the evidence that doesn't fit with my, rather unusual world-view, in which I have heavy emotional investment.''

5 -8

''Because it all started when I had a funny feeling and ''something shifted'' and my ''intuition'' kicked in. Rather than examine the possibilty that I was having some kind of breakdown, caused by feeling unsafe and very afraid at the idea that I or my loved ones could be killed by suicide bombs on the tube, I decided to go search on the internet. I found some anomalies int eh news reports, which I used to confirm my paranioa. I found new pals and a sense of purpose. Though many of their ideas are clearly bonkers, and their behaviour/thinking antisemitic and hateful, they have accepted me, and given me a sense of excitement and purpose. Rather than examine my own beliefs, and examine the idea that I might be rather vulnerable to paranioa, and see if I needed help, I happily jumped instread into what is here called conspiraloonery and got great satisfaction from my new hobby/obsession. I don't want to/cannot start to think about the fact that I might be insulting or hurtful by insisting that the bombners were innocent when they miurdered and maimed. My ego, my new friends on the internet and my hobby is more important to me. I will even justify what I am doing by saying its is ''for the victims and survivors''. Now that's cognitive dissonance for you.

It certainly is, Prole. It certainly is.

 

[Badger Kitten]

and now, England, and sanity.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Just pointing out to BK that it is one of the 9 hypotheses that we consider.

And until evidence is released they remain hypotheses.

Now I don't want to spoil your enjoyment of the match, so later.

So you can't answer the points BK made then.

(I can multitask, enjoying the match and laughing at the loons work well together)

 

[Prole]

1. ''I have as much right to ask questions as anyone else. You, BK control all the survivors and make sure they ''have got their stories straight'' ( Prole actually accused me of this before). Despite badgering survivors' blogs and turning up at a meetign where the audienc eincluded survivors - such as a woman left a double amputee and the train driver, and despite giving them my leaflets - the fact that they are not interested is, erm...well, never mind! Release the evidence! Who cares what eye witnesses say!''


2. ''The Mainstream media will never allow the truth to come out, it is all a conspiracy, and the Guardian, even though it implied we were freaks, has got the anomalies out, which means those with open minds will Surely See The Truth! And Believe! And such is my sense of self-importance I actually believe that an article in which I am gently allowed to hang myself with own rope and am exposed as an eccentric will actually recruit TruthSeekers to my bonkers campaign!''

3. ''I'm struggling with this one, but hang on a mo...Detective Boy is, um, probably just making it up, and since I have decided that POwer is part fo the conspiracy and have invested much time and emotion in this beleif, I am just going to ignore it, because this is all about things joining up to fit a particular world view I have, and I actually do not think I can cope with being wrong. Even though I humbly pretend that it is not about my ego, and use argument against me to bolster my sense of being a martyr, misunderstood heroic figure and so on, I don't actually want to be proved utterly wrong, because it fundementally challenges my sense of self''


4. ''Like I would say *if I was honest, I am very proud of myself for discovering this apparent anomaly, which has led to my new internet friends and the laborious creation of my website over many hours, and I JUST DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT now that I might have made a bit of a tit of myself. I cling to this small thing, and from it I make a whole conspiracy, into which I spiral down and down, ,looking for more anomalies to boster my belief, and ignoring anything that doesn't work for me. I have painted myself into a corner where I have publicly rejected what I call the ''official version''. I have to stick with this position now, and to deflect people who ask me to source and prove and explain my assertions, I will instead ask yet more questions. Or parrot things like ''Release the evidence''. I will meanwhile, continue to ignore all the evidence that doesn't fit with my, rather unusual world-view, in which I have heavy emotional investment.''

5 -8

''Because it all started when I had a funny feeling and ''something shifted'' and my ''intuition'' kicked in. Rather than examine the possibilty that I was having some kind of breakdown, caused by feeling unsafe and very afraid at the idea that I or my loved ones could be killed by suicide bombs on the tube, I decided to go search on the internet. I found some anomalies int eh news reports, which I used to confirm my paranioa. I found new pals and a sense of purpose. Though many of their ideas are clearly bonkers, and their behaviour/thinking antisemitic and hateful, they have accepted me, and given me a sense of excitement and purpose. Rather than examine my own beliefs, and examine the idea that I might be rather vulnerable to paranioa, and see if I needed help, I happily jumped instread into what is here called conspiraloonery and got great satisfaction from my new hobby/obsession. I don't want to/cannot start to think about the fact that I might be insulting or hurtful by insisting that the bombners were innocent when they miurdered and maimed. My ego, my new friends on the internet and my hobby is more important to me. I will even justify what I am doing by saying its is ''for the victims and survivors''. Now that's cognitive dissonance for you.

It certainly is, Prole. It certainly is.

Difference between us is I have always been respectful to you BK, you might not like my opinions, but I've always played the ball and not the man.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Difference between us is I have always been respectful to you BK, you might not like my opinions, but I've always played the ball and not the man.

So you can't answer the points BK made then.

 

[Prole]

BK said:'Because it all started when I had a funny feeling and ''something shifted'' and my ''intuition'' kicked in.

I have also always believed that a person should trust their instincts and intuition, best way of keeping safe methinks.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I have also always believed that a person should trust their instincts and intuition, best way of keeping safe methinks.

So you can't answer the points BK made then.

 

[Prole]

So you can't answer the points BK made then.

I did answer the point about the hypothesis. The personal stuff I've learnt to ignore, it's irrelevant, misguided and not worth commenting on.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Difference between us is I have always been respectful to you BK, you might not like my opinions, but I've always played the ball and not the man.

Well, that is not the case actually, Prole. You have been all over my blog, leaving comments in which you doubt my veracity and say I change my story. You have repeatedly insinuated that I am a liar. You have said the survivor group is run by me ''to get people's stories straight''. You have said I am '' the very busy...only voice of the survivors..''. You have published my job title and place of work on other boards and inferred that I am manipulating the media to my own ends, that I lie and that I 'weave wondrous webs''. You have refused to answer my points and my questions, and actually, I don't think you have been respectful at all.

I think you have behaved like a mass-murderer-exonerating, conspiracy-theory-toting, wilful obsessive. With ideas - that the bombers did not bomb the trains - that are grossly offensive, and wrong, and then you have the nerve to say you are doing it for the survivors and victims, which is not respectful at all.

It is, in fact, quite loathesome, and delusional.

And are you ever going to answer my questions?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I did answer the point about the hypothesis. The personal stuff I've learnt to ignore, it's irrelevant, misguided and not worth commenting on.

So you can't answer the points BK made then.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4743819&postcount=1721

 

[Badger Kitten]

Here are the questions again.

As you can see they are not personal.

1. Why is no-one who was directly involved with the attacks welcoming your site/campaign/theories? Do you not think that anyone calling for a public inquiry, which includes survivors and victims would welcome your efforts - and yet they do not. Could this be because they think you are wrong?

2. Why is the Guardian article laughing at you? Why, having been presented with these ''anomalies'' by you, does this journalist not give credence to the idea that you might be right? Why does he instead talk about ''canards''?

3. Why, in the face of informed evidence from someone who actually does what Power does ( Detective Boy) do you continue to struggle with the idea that you may have got it wrong in considering 'the Power interview' to be an issue?

4. Why are you so insistent that muddled reporting means the bombers were not on the train? For example, having been given the hypothesis that they got the delayed 7.21 train which left c. 7.40am, you still refuse to engage with this. Why?


5. Why do you publish on your site the hypothesis that the bombers were innocent, and publish biographies of them with the clear indication of making them appear to be innocent men?

The four men were chosen or lured in to be patsies in a classic 'false flag operation' or frame-up by a network involved with one or more of the intelligence services.

The four men thought they were going to be delivering drugs or money to various locations round London, but were deceived, set up and murdered along with the others on their tubes and bus when their back packs exploded.



6. Why do you offer the hypothesis that the original power surges story was correct? When it has been comprehensively disproved?

The original story of power surges which MetroNet reported at the time of the incidents was correct and the exploding bus in Tavistock Square was related to a long-planned anti-terror 'exercise'.

Why would the train operating companies running the London Underground lie about the source of the explosions on the trains?


7. Why do you wilfully ignore the testimony of police officers, forensic experts, witnesses, injuries, survivors in favour of selective reporting and obsessive sifting of every report from a rolling multi-sourced news investiagtion in favour of anomalies which you immediately leap upon as being evidence of a huge cover-up or conspiracy? Even when given clear and intelligent evidence from experts to the contrary?

8. Will you entertain this idea... the bombers DID get a train to Kings Cross, and they suicide-bombed 3 trains and a bus an hour later when the Northern line closed, messing up the original plan. They carried the bombs in rucksacks which they detonated themselves, on or near to the floor of the trains/bus. The bombers were radiclaised extremists led by Khan, who believed they were ''soldiers'' in a ''war'' and were motivated by anger at Britain's foireign policy which they saw as unjust and oppressive to the global family of Muslims, in accordance with al-Qaeda-inspired ideaology.

Still waiting.

 

[Badger Kitten]

I have also always believed that a person should trust their instincts and intuition, best way of keeping safe methinks.

My ''instincts ''and ''intuition'', as well as the evidence of your site and multiple posts and comments on my blog tell me that you are an unpleasant, disordered obsessive. Who claims she is doing what she is doing ''for the victims'' when in fact it is about feeding her disordered fantasies. Who is incapable of answering my questions above.

Care to have a go at proving me wrong?

 

[editor]

I did answer the point about the hypothesis. The personal stuff I've learnt to ignore, it's irrelevant, misguided and not worth commenting on.

Then how about you FINALLY address the relevant, important stuff?

Like explaining exactly how these emails were "verified", by whom, and what their technical qualifications are.

I've asked about five times now. Why won't you answer? It's central to your (ahem) 'argument' so why do you keep running away from it?

 

[Badger Kitten]

She can't answer a straight question directly concerning her hypothesis.And this is a woman who considers herself an independent researcher.

Laughable.

 

[Prole]

She can't answer a straight question directly concerning her hypothesis.And this is a woman who considers herself an independent researcher.

Laughable.

Ed said: Like explaining exactly how these emails were "verified", by whom, and what their technical qualifications are.

Bk said: I think you have behaved like a mass-murderer-exonerating, conspiracy-theory-toting, wilful obsessive

The proles just don't know their place do they?

Where are their 'technical qualifications'?

Who do they think they are to call themselves 'independent researchers'.

They must be mad or deranged to even consider campaigning for truth and justice.

No wonder I don't fit in here! and don't bother replying to that because I can guess all the comments you'd make.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

So you can't answer the points BK made then.