After much procrastination THE MERCH STORE is finally here! mentiswave-merch.printify.me/products Also subscribestar is open with some extra content!: www.subscribestar.com/mentiswave
@@justusP9101 What? they are definitely not dangerous to inhale, the elites don't want to be breathing poison. They wouldn't poison the air like that, they have to breathe it too.
I'm glad you try to keep it somewhat apolitical for a chance of someone seeing this video and becoming more able to judge which conspiracy theory is true or not
Whatever else you think of the man, Snowden is a singular hero. He alone had access to the variety of programs that allowed him to compile his case! He saw, he acted! No one else could have or would have done it.
@@cronagorgon6435 Another person. As was stated in the video. The more people involved, the more likely there is to be a whistle-blower. It was inevitable.
@@denofpigs2575 I was meaning that very, very few people would of done what he did. The "who's they" was more asking the question of which other person would, as before Snowden it seemed everyone else was pretty compliant in destroying the rights of the citizens. Hate to say it but doing whats right just isn't profitable anymore. People would be willing to destroy others for a little inch of power.
The Manhatten project was a maintained secret with thousands of people working on it, it remained a secret for the duration of effectiveness and likewise many top people involved had a conscious issue with it. Beyond that segmentation is a valid counter, not all the players know the full board and can't leak everything.
and how many of those had complete or at least significant overview of the project? You may work on something and not know what it really will be used for.
@@maxgucciardi4507 After the fact, and many of the stated reasons were make MAD an actually effective thing, MAD doesn't work if only one party has nukes.
And even then, where it was a project of absolute utmost importance to maintain absolute secrecy during the largest war the country and the world has ever seen, it still ended up leaking to the russians. Perfect evidence actually that even under literally the highest priority possible to strictly protect a secret in the most intense scenario possible, even then if too many know about it then the information will escape.
Another way to describe Ockham's Razor is, from the other direction, "any arbitrary, but not necessarily true, explanation can be constructed if you make it sufficiently complicated." So, the point is to avoid extra assumptions because piling on enough assumptions can make any false theory look true if your only criteria is that it explains all of the data. In science, we call it over-fitting. Or as GK Chesterton would describe it, it's the hyper-rationality of insanity. You can rationalize anything by making your explanation more and more complicated.
The gish gallop is a huge tactic I've seen pro abortion advocates use on abortion abolitionists a lot. They ask a dozen questions and don't give the abolitionist a chance to answer any of them.
Occam's Razor too. Rights exist but equal rights means we have a special right that nobody else has to kill people.... and that's our right because we said so! It's obvious this position violates OR.
@@CollidedatomsNo because pro abortion advocates don't see fetuses as people nor do they assign personhood to them. I am against killing fetuses (I support abortions only up to 2 months in pregnancy) but it is not a fallacious argument.
The Gish Gallop is actually rarely used. It's become more of a a defensive tactic to make that as an accusation by leftists than anything. Not talking about abortion specifically, but the actual Gish Gallop was for the creationist in question to say leap around using all this supporting evidence based on comparisons to computer programming, with most of it being entirely wrong without Gish himself knowing anything about the subject, and hoping his target doesn't either. Typically what happens nowadays is a complicated and multi tiered answer to a serious issue to explain why a leftist's simple, or philosophical answer is wrong. Then the leftist will accuse them of attempting a Gish Gallop as a way to avoid trying to address any of those points, typically because they cannot as they are arguing from a position of philosophy, rather than one of fact, much like Gish himself was. It wasn't until Gish went up against smarter people who weren't themselves arguing from a position of philosophy, like say scientists as opposed to agnostics or atheists who themselves are largely philosophical types, that he started to lose. Gish was trying to make himself seem like the rational one against people using faith based arguments against his own, and it fell apart when he started trying to do that to people who were at their core rationalists and knew the problems, and could actually take him down point by point. Basically we've reached the point where the "Gish Gallop" is now far more frequently used against someone they are being shreeded by, than against an actual Gish Gallop which needs to be a bunch of entirely wrong points, brought to bear against someone they presume is simply ignorant of that material. If it doesn't fit that criteria, it's not a Gish Gallop.
One I liked that ties into the tobacco one is that cigars are less harmful ( in the same way that eating double bacon cheeseburgers you make is less bad than eating one from a fast food joint) than cigarettes since a bunch of cigarette companies would cut the tobacco with shit like fiberglass to make it burn faster, where a proper cigar is just dried rolled up tobacco. Thing is pharma and the government was on a crusade and just blanket stated that plain tobacco and cheap tobacco cut with microplastics are exactly the same back in the day. Still, binging is still binging, whether it's food, liquor, or drugs, and it wreck people regardless.
I would argue that is true(in the sense of cigarette companies adding toxic additives) but only to an extent, it still isn't healthy to do cigars and I haven't heard about fibreglass being in cigarettes.
I’ve mainly heard about fiberglass being in the first cigarette filters forever ago, for modern stuff it’s a common claim it’s in dip to scratch your gums and absorb more nicotine but that seems a little far fetched Most of the tobacco “ingredients” are naturally in there and horribly toxic on their own, the additives are usually flavorings for each brand and/or menthol. Cigars still have the advantage of being essentially uninhalable, where they still cause mouth cancers but those are far less lethal and more treatable than lung disease
My hot take is that flat earthers are really fake and are just agents pretending to be stupid to make actual conspiracies look stupid or agents coaxing idiots into believing stupid stuff on purpose.
2:40 A leak, someone speaking out, does not always lead to the public taking it seriously, especially when the media does not cover it or even ridicules the instance, for whatever reason. Most people stick to doing their jobs, keeping their heads down and getting paid; which is why large bureaucracies function with corruption and against their advertised goals; those get mistaken for "co-conspirators" though. Assume that most of those workers don't even know what's going on; like the mechanics who fix the private jets the super rich take to those special islands. - On top of that come reward/compensation for atrocity, and fear of punishment of the self or (more effectively) cared for ones.
That "drive towards mountain" is why even the earliest written word described the earth as curved. Anyone who substantially travelled any distance - particularly over water - could directly appreciate the continually curved surface. There is the common term in almost every language: horizon, which means the apparent edge of the curved earth.
that's not how reality works though. there is a limit to how far the human eye can observe objects in a distance. after a point, everything gets blurry, and so small, and obscured by dust, bebris, moisture, precipitation, stuff in the air, that whatever you are trying to observe in the distance will disappear from view long before even 1 degree of curvature is a factor. No, im not a flat earther, the earth IS a globe. but it's crazy how people trying to argue for globe earth keep using easily debunked nonsence and invalidating their own position, which gives cannon fodder to the flat earthers, and then wonder why flat earth debate is a thing.
Bullshit. We can see ship sails going over the horizon, and measure the sun's shadows cast on evenly placed sticks. People also know they can see further away by increasing their elevation. A basic first grade understanding of trigonometry proves a spherical earth from human observation.
@@nunyabaznus7851if the earth were perfectly flat, the fade effect would be uniform and look like a simple color gradient shift; objects wouldn't dip _below_ the horizon without us being on a convex surface.
but the point is the math does not add up. if a ship travels 5 miles and then completely disappears, that means every 5 miles equals 30 meter drop of curvature, or whatever the height of the ship is. that would mean the planet earth is smaller than Pluto. literally the only way to actually measure curvature would be to have a surveyor measure perfectly flat area of land, like a very long airport runway, and use a high powered telescope placed in a tower at a long enough distance away. And the equipment would need to be very precise, and meticulously calibrated to detect the slightest 0.00X degree of curvature. An average person standing on a beach looking out with their eyes isn't enough to prove anything. which is what some of these people are suggesting. @@xXx_Regulus_xXx
12:17 I am going to subscribe to your channel now, simply because you mentioned “The Fallacy Fallacy”, which is a personal favorite of mine. People LOVE to call out Fallacies, but they don’t really know how to react when you tell them that calling something a Fallacy doesn’t necessarily mean that it IS a Fallacy, and in fact, it COULD, conceivably, be fallacious on THEIR end of the equation, rather than MINE. In my experience, it forces them to, either, sufficiently explain why my argument was fallacious (which is a good thing because I don’t actually WANT to make fallacious arguments, so I appreciate them for helping me to stop being wrong), or drop it and move on with the discussion (which is a good thing, because it is a tacit admission that I was correct, or else they would’ve been able to convince me otherwise). Win-win, baby! 😎
this. like, slippery slope CAN be a fallacy, if there is no trend or data to substantiate it, but that doesn't mean slippery slope is in of itself always a fallacy. The reason slippery slope is called a lot is because there is a lot of patterns that make the claim reasonable.
One problem with the 'who benefits' heuristic is that it often gets twisted along the lines of 'a person with your values would see this as a bad thing even if they were the one orchestrating it, so why would this organization be doing it.' What we're really talking about is 'actions appearing subjectively as rational based on x person's values', and it gets a lot trickier making the distinction as to what is or isn't a plausible motive when you have to factor in which worldview it's realistic to ascribe to a person or an organization.
one thing that is often done to avoid whistleblowers is to downplay what you're doing to your co-conspirators, even if when being observed in totality it would appear fiendish. Stuff like "this is for the greater good" or "it's not really X, it's just Y", or otherwise keeping the full implications from being known. Then it becomes a much smaller group of people who are actually in the know of the full situation, and to most people involved in the project it's just some random bureaucracy or common medical test. Compartmentalization is key.
Media bias is more about what they don't say rather than what they do say. They usually say true things or things that could reasonably be perceived as true. But they pick and choose which truths they want to say based on money.
I wish you did a video debunking Q Anon, many people unfortunately fall down that rabid hole and then WE get compared to those bozos. Maybe we can save them?
@@MentisWave I would ask you to make the distinction between the media depiction/strawman of "QAnon" and supporters of Q, given that no one in the movement either refers to themselves as "QAnon" or they disown the term entirely.
@@Pharmalade bro, RU-vid does the blurb for flat earth stuff. Are you going to say that the flat earth stuff is suddenly true now because YT says it isn't?
Some definitely are, however, I’m friends with one and after he quit his job to prove the earth is flat I realized that some of them are just as dense as a neutron star.
Chemtrails has an element of truth to it - we've been doing "geoengineering" and darkening of the atmosphere using oxides of various metals since the 1990s.
The idea that those in power wouldn't do it since they breathe the same air makes sense, but that doesn't disqualify some form of the conspiracy to exist that doesn't harm the people in power. Perhaps its a meteorological experiment that they can't let be public for legal reasons, or for scientific reasons (to keep from interfering with the experiment to tamper with results), as such the people in power would not feel any threat from it, even if that isn't true and they have been harmed by it unknowingly. We may never know the exact reality of what it is, but there has been enough about it that we shouldn't easily dismiss it as not existing, only that it requires further investigation to see if it even exists (since some of the evidence has not been refuted in any convincing manner). Don't discount things simply because they are conspiracy theories, especially when the deranged theorists will latch onto any theory to poison the well.
But the lizard conspiracy theory is funny though. It'd be REALLY funny if there were actually a bunch of lizard people who control every government ever.
I always thought they're just lizards in a poetic/metaphorical sense- cold blooded, scaley/slimy, possibly venomous or poisonous, thinking with their basal ganglia
In the Movie Cube a unknown group (probably government) constructed a Megastructure to test weapons. One of the people trapped inside designed the shell and nothing more. So it would be something like that
You can see that in the climate change thing. There was one scientist who released a paper proving man-made climate change and got suddenly a lot of attention and kept with it to gain funds... but after some while she actually came out with it... and I guess most ignored what she had to say. Also lost positions and what not for being a "climate change denier".
Actually that's how we tried to keep the nuclear programme a secret , even though many people worked on it , no one actually knew what they were doing aside from the top scientists and figures Even still , that only work on rather small scales too, at some point managing millions of people is too hard
I get your point, but I think what happened to Snowden has had enough of a dampening effect that you could easily have thousands of conspirators too afraid to speak up. Also, if the people truely believe what they are doing is moral, they can't have an attack of conscience.
15:00 Yes, the keyword in Occam's Razor is "usually," as well as the keyword in Hanlon's Razor is "adequately" - Although I do contest Hanlon's use of the word "never." That latter word is the very reason so many people, including perpetrators and their flying monkeys insist on malice being impossible and thereby insisting on innocence instead of mere assumption of it, even in face of harm done, which thus has to be excused entirely and the entire debacle dismissed (this is due to narcissistic abuse/thought running on the assumption that when no harm was *intended*, then then there is no need for apology, remorse, repair), while completely ignoring that this leads to basically claiming that all perpetrators are horrendously stupid and should therefore be just as much barred from doing anything, having any power, as if they were malicious. Furthermore it helps people ignore the fact that malice and stupidity can go hand in hand - not only in that the malicious love to claim incompetence as an excuse as noted above, but also that stupidity can fuel malicious retaliation when called out, and the malicious action being executed incompetently.
Using the example of Edward Snowden, one of the things that demonstrates the veracity of what he was revealing is how the authorities responded to him.
The co conspirator thing can be managed by a number of ways but one would be chain of command or compartmentalization. People can be true believers or innocent and never know what they're involved in. In fact this would be necessary, anything else will fail.
You are lucky. I have to find the cryptic messages in movies and newspapers. It's a lot of work and my friends refuse to come to my house any more because they say it's creepy.
This video is great. I like the rules you came up with for sure. But, I also think trying to create a list of rules and stuff to look for can actually be counter productive. I used to teach highschool English and tried to teach these skills. I found that pretty much any rule you give can be misused in ways that discredit good sources and lend credit to bad sources, at least for people who aren't already good at critical thinking. I think it's more useful to see this as a skill that must be practiced. The more you work at reasoning out if you can or can't trust something the better you get at recognizing it. You can't simply follow a checklist mindlessly and avoid bad sources. Lists like these are helpful for sure. I just think you should also add the caveat that it is never fool proof and it will always require the person to think critically on their own. Without that it's just a list to pick and choose from to find reasons to convince themselves they are right regardless of the truth.
Oh just you wait. I think you'll change your mind by the end of the year. There's a lot of things that have come true that correlate to q drops that you can't just say is coincidence. Like how many votes it took to appoint the current speaker of the house
Another way to vet conspiracy theories is to apply Hanlan's Razor which says to never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. People are just as prone to incompetency as they are to conniving.
If you were a Government or Origanized Religion (the OG Gov) doing bad things you would create the defense of conspiracy theory and push Hanlan's Razor on the public to live in permanent plausible deniability. Funny how we all heard these things since we were young. We actually think we got the one good Government in history when they knowingly lie to us all the time if you just stop and think about it every major bad thing in history. The mafia just disappeared as gangsta rap took over. Weird. What a quiwinkidink. It's not like war is slowing escalating right now. Maybe well get the first woman's draft for some true DEI training. For men's war death inequity. The future is proving the past, like we see weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, now after 20 years war. Media (Gov) lied, millions died.
Hanlon's razor is one of the stupidest heuristics I've ever heard of. Why would stupidity be the most likely explanation? Especially among people who do complex jobs and don't get fired? Why would stupidity and malice be incompatible? What did it mean for an explanation to be "adequate"? There can be several adequate explanations for something without any of them being true
The key word there is "adequate". How do you know what's an adequate explanation? Furthermore, how can you tell the difference between a stupid person who is there by pure chance, and a useful idiot? My heuristic is that the position of "ruler of America" must be extremely hotly contested, therefore you should assume that whoever managed to get into that position must be very smart. In the same way that whoever manages to score gold medal in the Olympics must be a very good athlete. Maybe not the best, but at least very good. It is true that a lot of lower level bureaucrats and middle managers are stupid, and they make decisions from a place of genuine stupidity, but they're only able to continue being stupid in those positions because their stupidity is a benefit to their overlords. The government is structured to deflect responsibility and make it difficult for commoners to raise complaints against the upper management. The thick layer of idiots in between the rulers and the ruled creates plausible deniability and protects them from scrutiny.
My problem with Occam's Razor is, if you use it on say.... JFK Assassination, then it would be that CIA didn't assasinate him and it was only Lee Harvey Oswald who did all of it by himself.
JFK was acidentally deleted by the secret service agent in the car directly in front of the limousine. Oswald wounded govenor Connoley in the arm, and that's about it. it was the half drunk, hung over secret service recruit fresh out of the academy that tripped over his own feet and acidentally fired his service rifle that ultimatly ended JFK
20:30 ive thought this for years, if someone is like "i will release these documents that will prove everything you want to hear right, but i'll do it in 3 weeks" then that's just the easiest way to see them as liars
I remember being on a cruise ship about 10 years ago and for entertainment I would watch other ships sail away and disappear over the horizon, confirming the same method you described in video for debunking flat earth. Also, isn't space is fake and flat earth supposed to be the same conspiracy theory?
that's not curvature. that's called an optical illusion, or limitation of human stereoscopic vision. the range of vision for most people is around 3 miles on a clear day. if you actually start to see curvature at only 3 miles, and you do the curvature calculations of a 40 feet curve declination per every 3 miles, that would mean the planet earth is smaller than pluto. this simply isn't reality. you cannot observe a sailboat going over curvature with nothing but optical nerves in the human eye interpreting visual data. even IF, the sailboat was on a trailer on a truck driving on a perfectly flat highway in Kansas on a clear sunny day, with no precipitation, you still woulden't observe curvature over that short a distace. let alone over water, with waves splashing up and down, and sea spray churning up creating an artifical horizon.
@@nunyabaznus7851what about when you drive towards a mountain and watch it get taller and taller until you can see the foothills? Logically the peak is further away than the foothills, so why do I see the peak first?
One thing I will say against the theory of "eventually any sizeable conspiracy will leak" is that there are two things that can work against it. 1. Sophisticated corporations and intelligence agencies use "siloing" to prevent exactly this. You can drastically minimize the amount of people party to sensitive information if most people involved only see a small sliver of the overall operation. And conversely: 2. Most large scale conspiracies claim to have defectors among them, sometimes these people truly were involved in something shady, but they were siloed and don't really have that much damning evidence. But frustratingly it's hard to tell that from just your average kook or charlatan. You see a lot of people who claim to have worked for military intelligence and have seen extraterrestrial beings, but aside from a few notable examples, most seem to be talking out of their ass. 8:54 I'll tell you if I wanted to make a quick buck as a CIA agent and wanted to get out, I'd probably consider looking for a semi-plausible conspiracy, claim I saw evidence for it, and use that to ride a wave of conspiracy hucksters for years.
People try to speak out regularly. Everyone doesn’t have to be in on it. Most people are clueless or afraid to speak up and be ridiculed. The truth is the hardest to speak and share
In regards to the co conspirator point, vetting the employees more thoroughly and keeping close surveillance on them on top of compartmentalization can vastly decrease the likelihood of a leak due to a high number of people.
Problem is sometimes some crazy conspiracy theories larp as people against crazy conspiracy you know they may make a chart of crazy conspiracy theories but only of ones they don’t like and as for others they like they’ll put it at somewhat believable or just ignore it together these people are known as selective skeptics
Only one point: your vid is so dense with information very well thought out, reasoned, great production values you should consider going into a few points at a time
Or how many things that are conspiracy theories have been proven true in literal months from the media saying it's a conspiracy. Other than flat earth. That's a spicy FBI psyop
3:10 Snowden was not just a moral choice; predating the choice to leak came a very long and elaborate plan on securely doing so while ensuring the safety of his very life as much as possible. Hong Kong is no more, not the way it was, so that node would not even be available anymore at all for example. Assume Snowden would have been able to find a route as safe as he did - how much higher would the stakes need to be leak it anyway knowing he'd end up a ditch very quickly and everything covered up with absolute certainty? The moral injury is not the only deciding factor; if it was only that more leaks would happen. Illegal orders are giving a lot in German Ministries for example, including the Social Ministries; yet they are executed for non-compliance leads to problems, first off losing your job. Most people just follow along, knowing that it's wrong, only a handful speak out anyway. Many who want, do not know how to safely do so, so they don't.
Ok, one problem I have with this video: wtf is Qanon? You’re basically the only person who’s not a leftist who I’ve heard use that term, I follow a lot of, and I can’t use big enough quotation marks for this, “far right” channels (EFAP, Lotus Eaters), none of them talk about it, as far as I can see it’s literally just a buzzword leftists throw out to discredit their opponents with no basis. The few attempts at “definitions,” if you can call them that, from leftists seem to connect back to people who believe in general corruption within the media and government, which isn’t outlandish in the slightest, and people who question the 2020 election, which considering the democrats rigged their own primaries twice against Bernie and the sheer fishiness of the jump that happened Nov 4th at 4am, that one’s not even too much of a stretch either.
Q was a guy who posted on 4chan back in the 2016 election claiming to have "Q level clearance" in the US government. He said that Trump was going to blow the lid off of a bunch of conspiracies. Most of what he said was a bunch of Nostradamus style prophecies like "Seven crows will take flight" or whatever, and then people would read into it and say that he predicted this or that event. His catchphrase was "Trust the plan." In other words "Don't do anything yourself because Trump is totally going to fix everything." Most of the people who liked Q were either genuine schizophrenics or old boomercons who saw 4chan as a mystical source of esoteric hacker information. I think people pretty much stopped talking about him after the 2020 election.
The most I can say on the matter is that Q anon was an anonymous poster on that hacker admin website 4chan that dropped cryptic posts about upcoming events that people theorize was an insider leaking out information. My thought is that it's not at all an insider and simply someone smart enough to see far out enough to make really educated guesses or that the clues were so cryptic that people retroactively confirm them through over fitting. (If I'm using that word right) This is a topic that goes back at least 6 years and it's been ages since I read up on the topic.
@@IamBlackToast The part that got America into the war and almost all the parts involving Americans. Anything to do with “I love war” Churchill, and the entirety of the Nuremberg trials (this part is so good because even US government officials called it a sham)
Watched the whole vid, agree with most of it, but the co conspirators point is kinda weak. 1) it ignores incentive schemes to keep people in line and 2) it ignores misdirection campaigns that are launched to keep people off the trail of leaked info
Idk man, the vast majority of the medical comminity kept their mouths shut about how dangerous the vaccinations were despite the fact they literally watched their patients waste away.
There actually were a TON of them that were against it and were vocal. But they all got fired, their public condemnations buried, or their claims """refuted""". Some may have also decided not to speak up against it for "the Greater good" or because they may have been scapegoated if they spoke out. There is a lot of internal politics that could make it hard to speak out about it, and a lot of reasons to not let the public know. Think about the idea that the V was a complete failure and even lead to more people getting sick or dying, yet the medical community was pushing for it so therefore they would have responsibility for the ill effects. Because of this, it could have ended up in the biggest legal problem ever, as they could be blamed for any and all deaths related to the situation, even if only coincidentally. And if this WAS true, and someone tried to whistle blow, they would have the entirety of the medical community attacking them for their own safety, or scapegoating them, which would lead to the whistleblower being held responsible for the crimes, rather than the actual perpetrators. So basically, even those that wanted to help may not really be able expose the truth, and this may be something we will never have a clear understanding of unless the entirety of the medical community were to collapse and leave no opposition to uncovering the truth.
The answer is probably that the vaccine isn’t poisonous. Nearly everybody I know took the vaccine didn’t experience any sudden health decline, and the people who didn’t are no healthier than the ones that did take it. Even if it did cause more negative side effects than originally presented, the problems aren’t so obviously conscience-worrying as patients “wasting away”.
This reveals another metric, the risk of exposure. If it is an obviously heinous scheme such as murder all it takes is one whistleblower to ruin the whole plot, but something more subtle like a vaccine being rushed through while being more dangerous than expected you can run the "It didn't happen but if it did it was justified" playbook.
James Corbett is my favourite conspiracy theorist. He's not trying to sell you pills or anything, and he mostly stays clear of the more outlandish theories.
@MentisWave. great video I really enjoyed it. I did have a questions for you. what are your personal thoughts on the actual "Q" posts not the bitchute posters but the real posts from the people/person who started the whole thing. do you think its real? what do you think about the proofs? I would love to hear your thoughts. thanks!
The whole thing was a psyop from the beginning. It was made up to distract the public while the establishment stole 2020. It’s sad to see people still being duped by it.
Agorist here, I've heard a lot of fellow libertarians often claim that mass shooters are often led to do what they do because they are influenced by the FBI or any other government organization, but I'm not 100% convinced by this theory although it sounds like something the FBI would do. Is this actually based on any real-life incident? Because I have never heard any real world examples supporting these claims.
Only problem with that would be why. In Australia they had a mentally slower guy bang off headshots in a coffee shop in under a minute and that led to everyone surrendering their guns. That’s ripe for a conspiracy and with motive. Considering America hadn’t had much in terms of change after these shootings beyond fear the only thing you’d be able to have as a motive would be to divert attention
I don't believe in chemtrails whatsoever, but why would you immediately assume those supposedly deploying the supposed chemicals don't have some method of insulating themselves from the harmful effects? Based on what evidence? Just because it sounds about right??
@@DevDog98 and what if they have some other way to counteract the effects of the said chemical that's been sprayed? like vaccinating themselves or an antidote or something. i don't believe in this either, but it could be theoretically possible to use a substance on the general population while the chosen ones are provided the cure.
@@DevDog98 Perhaps the air is poisonous and they injected themselves with a detoxation beforehand? I still don't buy it, but it would be possible theoretically.
@@justusP9101 He took part in a psychological study while he's in college he's registration and participation in which are in he's official record. After he's arrest it was discovered that it was founded by a shell company of which there was a lot of evidence that it was a back room found for The American Intelligence apparatus. And the psychiatrist that ran the study tried to destroy he's notes before he was subpoenaed during Ted's trial. A lot of this was used as evidence during he's trial and is a matter of public record.
@@justusP9101 during he's trial it was discovered that he took part in psychological study while he was in college of which he's registration and participation in it are on he's official school record. After he's arrest it was discovered that the study was funded by a few shell companies that are believed to have been back door research funds of the American Intelligence apparatus. A lot of this was used as evidence in he's trial and are a matter of public record.
What if my guardian angel is not an angel, but a demon? What if it won’t stop raining, and we drown in our homes? What if I stuck my head in the sand, and finally stopped to worry?
I've heard that a lot. However, plenty of the ruling elite also (supposedly) also got the jab. I think the more plausible explanation for the whole coof thing was one big financial grift that went horribly wrong
@@elliotnemeth It's also extremely plausible that it was just a virus that adapted to spreadiong in humans, as has happened millions of times throughout history.
@@elliotnemeth I mostly agree. For the most part I believe it was meant to make profit in the medical sector, the medical profiteers lost control, and then governments managed to use it in their favor to tighten their grip on the population making them more fearful and dependent than ever.
