Presented by Brent Lee and Neil Sanders, this deep dive is supposed to reveal how RDH went from reasonable individual to conspiracy nutter. It's meant to act as a warning but fails to hit the mark....
I still have a hard time getting my head around how RDH fell into this abyss and went to the extremes he did. It was like something took him over.
I see it as a part of a strange dynamic in the Truther world that somehow the illusion prevails that no Jihadist attack has ever happened anywhere on earth and they are all 'false flags'. Every last one of them. It's incomprehesible and extremely dangerous. I could take this down a more spiritual woo woo path and throw in Djinn possession overcoming people such as RDH, but out of respects to Manchester, Bataclan, Sligo and other victims of ISLAMIC MASS MURDER of 'Infidels' I'll keep my mouth shut.
Hey Thomas, I really think he's been set up to draw in his audience one step at a time, to appear to be all logical and thorough, doing his 'investigative journalism' in his little brown suit. His whole operation stinks to high heaven. I'm just surprised by how many people ended up repeating the no bomb, no victims line. It's stunning! I can't get over it. My eyes are out on stalks trying to figure it out. One of these days, I'll finally get over it and move on but for now, I'm just going take it all in. What a stunning magic show! Dark magick at its most effective. He got everyone to turn on the victims and blame them for their injuries. It's sick and twisted. Did I tell you I'm stunned by it all? STUNNED!
This had crossed my mind, but he was on Alt Media for probably longer than anyone mainly started out doing aliens and UFO stuff. It was only much later the more 'hard' conspiracy stuff showed up. Interestingly, it was Neil Sanders who brought a lot of this stuff into Rich Planet. NS did some excellent work on the Charles Manson stuff. I met Neil and he is a clever and likeable man. So I have no issue there. I never met RDH but I know loads who have and tell me is a generally good guy. This only compounds the mystery of it all and that is before the repercussion of the court case he has to deal with. He's paid a dreadful price even if what he did calling the victims liars was obscene and just nuts. I'm stunned too. But also the entire thing leaves me depressed.
Neil Sanders is an excellent broadcaster, in fairness, and very likeable, even if there's plenty I disagree with him about, which is perfectly normal. He puts across solid arguments and easily dismantles RHD's flimsy theories on the Manchester Arena bombing with flair and wit. Those three hours on The Downfall of Richard D Hall took a lot of effort and research to produce. The fact remains, RDH was reckless in his approach and brought that court case on himself. Martin Hibbert was right to defend himself and his family against harassment and online abuse - he didn't deserve that after being blown up and zero evidence has been produced to prove he's a crisis actor. Clearly, there are still lots of questions surrounding the bombing. We can all see that but people have been horribly misled by RDH's phoney investigative journalism. Why didn't they spot the anomalies along the way? It's a mystery alright.
I've been thinking about how opportunistic hate nonsense by a sufferer can be dealt with by a swift kick up the arse at its earliest meander into the brain. I nearly achieved the manoeuvre when I tried testing it on myself, but I reckon it can definitely be done. Not being hugely flexible these days, I admit it was tricky getting into the position required.
Still - it might be worth a suggestion to those showing signs they're facing the problem of hate outbursts. We don't want to go backwords and add No Muslims, No Jews to No Blacks, No dogs, No Irish. Or do we?
Hmm No Zionists eh ? - well that's a different matter altogether.
STOP PRESS. 23/11/24 Britain ditches Israeli drones. Ooh them ole zionists will be feeling the pinch soon enough, if they haven't already.
'The minister did not mention Israel or Elbit. Watchkeeper was a joint project of Elbit and the French firm Thales.'
Maybe in France somebody would ask Thales if they are packing their bags too.
Joining of dots might make one wonder if Xi had a word in Sir Back Stabber's ear, he jumped on his skates last week and headed over to Beijing when summoned. Oooh no usual diplomatic arrangements for Backstabber when he arrived ? Hmmm.
But at least he's benefiting quickly, after the swift kick up the arse treatment. No?
Not remembering the details of this case and noting your mention of ISLAMIC MASS MURDER of 'Infidels' and your intention to keep your mouth shut I thought: Hmmm, maybe I should inform myself, we have the internet now so its nae bother. So into the breach I went, the brave lad that I am.
Thusly I found Patrick Cockburn's article of Thursday 25 May 2017 which, inter alia, led me to some understanding of intolerant Wahhabism and his view that:
'The real causes of “radicalisation” have long been known, but the government, the BBC and others seldom if ever refer to it because they do not want to offend the Saudis or be accused of anti-Islamic bias. It is much easier to say, piously but quite inaccurately, that Isis and al-Qaeda and their murderous foot soldiers “have nothing to do with Islam”. This has been the track record of US and UK governments since 9/11. They will look in any direction except Saudi Arabia when seeking the causes of terrorism. '
'This approach of not blaming Muslims in general but targeting “radicalisation” or simply “evil” may appear sensible and moderate, but in practice it makes the motivation of the killers in Manchester or the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015 appear vaguer and less identifiable than it really is.'
Notwithstanding the validity of Patrick Cockburn's viewpoint and others' less careful comments on these murders I WILL OPEN MY MOUTH and say I do not blame Muslims in general and see wisdom in avoiding generalisations, even if they appear in CAPITAL LETTERS.
Thomas Sheridan hi. I made the comment (see below):
'Notwithstanding the validity of Patrick Cockburn's viewpoint and others' less careful comments on these murders I WILL OPEN MY MOUTH and say I do not blame Muslims in general and see wisdom in avoiding generalisations, even if they appear in CAPITAL LETTERS.'
partly because I see it as a way to avoid falling into the divide and conquer trap. Given the chance, them ole zionists and their likes will be all over us like a cheap suit. They've had plenty of practice at the manoeuvre. One has only to look at Palestine and what they've achieved there, bodies piling up in their thousands year after year. No wonder so many later generation, Jewish journalists, The Grayzone et al, have joined Norman Finkelstein in telling truth about it all.
You write 'It's incomprehesible and extremely dangerous.' I agree it is extremely dangerous to get close to falling into a trap we've had fair warning about. Mind the gap - that's what I comprehend.
In my opinion, the evidence is strong that this event did not occur as claimed and that a TATP bomb did not explode that night (though there clearly was an explosive sound and flash visible from the arena). I believe deliberate disinfo has been put out to make people think the attack was a hoax (and like I said, the official account does not stack up with the evidence presented, which may be part of the deliberate disinformation). The false evidence and claims, and people involved in making those claims (i.e. Mr. Hall), are then discredited, and the whole notion that the attack did not occur as claimed is thus discredited, and the impression created in the public mind that anyone questioning official accounts of similar events is not to be trusted. This helps reinforce the official narratives of any "false flag" attacks in future.
BTW you do yourself no favours with these snide, churlish personal attacks about people being "brainwashed" or "mad", nor do you help yourself by digging in on your position and not giving any ground to the other side. It's unhelpful in persuading people to your point-of-view. Neil Sanders has been extremely aggressive and abusive to people on Twitter who've questioned or disagreed with him, which also makes it hard to give serious consideration to his claims.
Hi Simon, I'm not promoting Neil Sanders - wouldn't be surprised if he's still working alongside Richard D Hall. They've the same goal: to discredit conspiracy theorists. I find it fascinating that RDH has managed to convince so many people with his dodgy investigative journalism that there was no bomb and no victims at the Manchester Arena, May 22, 2017. No wonder he was smiling after the court case. Incredible wizardry in fairness. A master class in the power of suggestion.
It's been incredibly disappointing to witness his followers participate in the deception so eagerly. Why didn't they shout STOP when RDH was accusing the parents of the Saffie Roussos of using a hoax bomb to conceal her death without evidence? That's dumb and sorry, it shows a level of brainwashing that should be called its name. Plus I'm being nice. If it's not brainwashing, what's the excuse for tormenting bomb victims with no credible evidence? I've other words I could use but they wouldn't win me any friends either.
Again with Martin Hibbert, RDH followers had no issue persecuting the man on ZERO evidence, just hot air and speculation, mortifying internet nonsense. Disgusting behaviour. They need to be held to account as much as RDH. Delingpole showed his true colours by pushing this on his viewers without doing the proper checks and balances that you'd expect of a journalist of his rank and experience. Not good enough. I probably don't do myself any favours concentrating on this story but I will be vindicated because the journalistic method won't lead you astray - you can weed out the lies and misdirection quite easily. It's why standards are vital. I'll remain open to new information but from what I've studied so far, nothing of note has been produced to support the claim the victims are crisis actors. If they're not acting, what gave them their injuries?
If those people did die and were injured - and I agree, it'd be hard to fake so many people's deaths and injuries - then there needs to be a more credible explanation of what caused them. Have the authorities either incorrectly stated the type of bomb used (perhaps deliberately, to sow seeds of doubt), or is the footage of the aftermath of the explosion not authentic in some way? I don't know the answers, but I get the impression that deliberate disinformation has been put out there to plant seeds of doubt about the official explanation and draw in "conspiracy theorists", lead them up the garden path, then discredit the claims and the person making them and make everyone look stupid and bad by association. It's a classic tactic.
I think Iain Davis https://iaindavis.substack.com/ makes a strong case that whatever exploded that night was not a TATP (triacetone triperoxide) bomb (which is what the authorities claimed). Like you said, it would have caused more damage than is apparent in the videos of the aftermath. But has visual evidence proving otherwise been withheld? Or, as I suspect, deliberately anomalous information been put out in order to draw in "conspiracy theorists" and then lead them astray? I don't recall footage of the immediate aftermath of other terrorist events being put out like this, which makes me think the authorities want people to see this footage for some reason, e.g. that it doesn't reflect the aftermath of a TATP explosion, and get conspiracy theorists to start questioning it and lead them astray.
The psyops run deeper than I ever imagined. All these creepy operatives assigned to the more high -profile dissidents to poison their perspective reveals a level of planning and ruthlessness that is sinister and breathtaking. Thanks for your work on exposing RDH, Aisling. My psyop antenna is even more finely-tuned now.
Thank you Sun in Capricorn, it's been an unfolding for me but there are some things you simply can't ignore...like James Delingpole pretending he hadn't heard about the Saffie Roussos theory. So strange. I think there's a lot more to these false flag investigations than meets the eye. I've seen way too much misdirection. There's a concerted effort to get us to disbelieve victims which is really dark. Mocking victims is also a giveaway that maybe those pretending to be on the good side, actually aren't and are leading people astray and encouraging them to behave badly, while convincing them they're on the inside track. It's fascinating!
Could have picked a better title Aisling! After all the 'conspiracy theorists' were right all along with the covid scam, had more people listened to them rather than the 'sane' HSE and RTE, it is absolutely possible that many would still be alive today. The vast majority of 'conspiracy theorists' (a CIA term, not one I would use regularly) are actually conspiracy realists who follow the facts and look at evidence that points to something nefarious going on, like the Deagel forecasts for example. Main steam journalists could learn a lot from those who see patterns in information.
There's a war on conspiracy theorists because we engage our brains. This has been planned for a long time. Gemma O'Doherty was assigned to John Waters to pollute his message. She's done a great job and more the fool him for letting her. People need to pull back and realise this thing is massive. There are units embedded on this side to mislead and undermine critical thinkers. We need to up our game in general to detect the red flags and respond accordingly. It's a moral test after all. This RDH exercise has exposed how weak this side really is and how prone it is to manipulation. Not good.
Well, Iain based his book on the findings of Richard D Hall, without a hint of irony. The poor man thinks Richard D Hall is the real deal! Don't you find that peculiar Dr McCloskey, after everything I've presented to you? Why are you continuing to turn your back on the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing and disbelieve their testimonies in favour of misleading 'evidence' which I've clearly disproven? Not very Christian if you don't me saying. Don't harden your heart. It doesn't suit you. Do you think it's ok to accuse the parents of Saffie Roussos of involvement in her death, without a shred of evidence? It wasn't too long ago you were complaining about being interned unfairly? Yet you seem to think it's fine if this side behaves like brutes. Well I'm telling you, again, it's not. You of all people should know better.
Like Iain, I don’t know what happened, but there is no evidence that a 30 kg shrapnel bomb exploded in the City Room at Manchester Arena. I really recommend reading Iain’s book, and we can maybe have a conversation about it. With respect, what you’ve presented is the state narrative. It may be true, maybe is even likely to be true, but there is no evidence of a bomb having killed people on the night in question.
No evidence of a bomb just 22 dead people who are still dead. Right oh. Let's pretend they're weren't killed in an explosion and let's ignore the survivors testimonies. Great call. Good one. High five. Send them Iain Davis' book for Christmas and tell them they've got it all wrong. Davis knows better. He's studied counterintelligence nonsense and concluded there was no bomb and no injuries. Bravo one and all. Take a bow!
The strange part about all of this is that there are plenty of things all of these people say that we all agree on. Listening to what other people say doesn't mean people have "fallen" for anything. Many of us take nuggets of truth and move right along. These weird "gotchas" where it's your speculation vs. other people's speculation feels like an intentional time-wasting exercise. You still talk about things for which you have *zero* evidence. What is your goal?
What's my goal? To expose those who are deliberately misleading people under the guise of being 'on our side'. It should be clear by now that RDH's brand of phoney investigative journalism doesn't cut the mustard. The question people need to ask themselves is why they believed such nonsense and why didn't they intervene at appropriate moments, like when RDH was accusing the parents of Saffie Roussos of covering up their daughter's death, with no evidence? Why didn't viewers complain? You're well able to complain to me for nothing apart from pointing out these anomalies so you're not shy. WTF is wrong with people? It disgusts me to be honest. I'm also curious as to why people thought it was ok to pick on Martin Hibbert and his daughter in wheelchairs when there was ZERO evidence to support the theory they were crisis actors. That's just sick. I suppose I'm trying to find redemption in people. They can't be that bad. Surely it's just brainwashing.
Everybody is brainwashed but you Aisling eh? As I've said before: , If there was no bomb there would be no victims. You seem entrenched in the supposition that there were victims so there must have been a bomb!! You can't even see your limited thinking for what it is . Your attempted demolition of far more able investigative (!!!) journalists than yourself is very revealing
I agree Hall is mostly rubbish with you, but I do not follow your logic at all on the 'event'. For example there is no valid proof Eve Hibbert is even a genuine entity. Here is a link to considerations & images that indicate why so (below).
As you are such experience of journalist researcher can you tell us what is real middle name of Richard D Hall.
For example is it actually DAMIAN, similar to evil child in the Omen films?
I still have a hard time getting my head around how RDH fell into this abyss and went to the extremes he did. It was like something took him over.
I see it as a part of a strange dynamic in the Truther world that somehow the illusion prevails that no Jihadist attack has ever happened anywhere on earth and they are all 'false flags'. Every last one of them. It's incomprehesible and extremely dangerous. I could take this down a more spiritual woo woo path and throw in Djinn possession overcoming people such as RDH, but out of respects to Manchester, Bataclan, Sligo and other victims of ISLAMIC MASS MURDER of 'Infidels' I'll keep my mouth shut.
Hey Thomas, I really think he's been set up to draw in his audience one step at a time, to appear to be all logical and thorough, doing his 'investigative journalism' in his little brown suit. His whole operation stinks to high heaven. I'm just surprised by how many people ended up repeating the no bomb, no victims line. It's stunning! I can't get over it. My eyes are out on stalks trying to figure it out. One of these days, I'll finally get over it and move on but for now, I'm just going take it all in. What a stunning magic show! Dark magick at its most effective. He got everyone to turn on the victims and blame them for their injuries. It's sick and twisted. Did I tell you I'm stunned by it all? STUNNED!
This had crossed my mind, but he was on Alt Media for probably longer than anyone mainly started out doing aliens and UFO stuff. It was only much later the more 'hard' conspiracy stuff showed up. Interestingly, it was Neil Sanders who brought a lot of this stuff into Rich Planet. NS did some excellent work on the Charles Manson stuff. I met Neil and he is a clever and likeable man. So I have no issue there. I never met RDH but I know loads who have and tell me is a generally good guy. This only compounds the mystery of it all and that is before the repercussion of the court case he has to deal with. He's paid a dreadful price even if what he did calling the victims liars was obscene and just nuts. I'm stunned too. But also the entire thing leaves me depressed.
Neil Sanders is an excellent broadcaster, in fairness, and very likeable, even if there's plenty I disagree with him about, which is perfectly normal. He puts across solid arguments and easily dismantles RHD's flimsy theories on the Manchester Arena bombing with flair and wit. Those three hours on The Downfall of Richard D Hall took a lot of effort and research to produce. The fact remains, RDH was reckless in his approach and brought that court case on himself. Martin Hibbert was right to defend himself and his family against harassment and online abuse - he didn't deserve that after being blown up and zero evidence has been produced to prove he's a crisis actor. Clearly, there are still lots of questions surrounding the bombing. We can all see that but people have been horribly misled by RDH's phoney investigative journalism. Why didn't they spot the anomalies along the way? It's a mystery alright.
Which questions would you say still remain about the Manchester event?
Hi Aisling
I've been thinking about how opportunistic hate nonsense by a sufferer can be dealt with by a swift kick up the arse at its earliest meander into the brain. I nearly achieved the manoeuvre when I tried testing it on myself, but I reckon it can definitely be done. Not being hugely flexible these days, I admit it was tricky getting into the position required.
Still - it might be worth a suggestion to those showing signs they're facing the problem of hate outbursts. We don't want to go backwords and add No Muslims, No Jews to No Blacks, No dogs, No Irish. Or do we?
Hmm No Zionists eh ? - well that's a different matter altogether.
STOP PRESS. 23/11/24 Britain ditches Israeli drones. Ooh them ole zionists will be feeling the pinch soon enough, if they haven't already.
'The minister did not mention Israel or Elbit. Watchkeeper was a joint project of Elbit and the French firm Thales.'
Maybe in France somebody would ask Thales if they are packing their bags too.
Joining of dots might make one wonder if Xi had a word in Sir Back Stabber's ear, he jumped on his skates last week and headed over to Beijing when summoned. Oooh no usual diplomatic arrangements for Backstabber when he arrived ? Hmmm.
But at least he's benefiting quickly, after the swift kick up the arse treatment. No?
C'mon he's always been a good boy and did what he was told; lets not be too hard on him. https://thegrayzone.com/2024/07/06/keir-starmer-scrutiny-protected-savile/
https://asawinstanley.substack.com/p/britain-ditches-israeli-drones?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=315272&post_id=152036142&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1fyta&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Thomas Sheridan hi.
Not remembering the details of this case and noting your mention of ISLAMIC MASS MURDER of 'Infidels' and your intention to keep your mouth shut I thought: Hmmm, maybe I should inform myself, we have the internet now so its nae bother. So into the breach I went, the brave lad that I am.
Thusly I found Patrick Cockburn's article of Thursday 25 May 2017 which, inter alia, led me to some understanding of intolerant Wahhabism and his view that:
'The real causes of “radicalisation” have long been known, but the government, the BBC and others seldom if ever refer to it because they do not want to offend the Saudis or be accused of anti-Islamic bias. It is much easier to say, piously but quite inaccurately, that Isis and al-Qaeda and their murderous foot soldiers “have nothing to do with Islam”. This has been the track record of US and UK governments since 9/11. They will look in any direction except Saudi Arabia when seeking the causes of terrorism. '
'This approach of not blaming Muslims in general but targeting “radicalisation” or simply “evil” may appear sensible and moderate, but in practice it makes the motivation of the killers in Manchester or the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015 appear vaguer and less identifiable than it really is.'
Notwithstanding the validity of Patrick Cockburn's viewpoint and others' less careful comments on these murders I WILL OPEN MY MOUTH and say I do not blame Muslims in general and see wisdom in avoiding generalisations, even if they appear in CAPITAL LETTERS.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/manchester-attack-salman-abedi-salafijihadism-wahhabism-isis-alqaeda-islam-muslim-suicide-bombing-a7754301.html
Thomas Sheridan hi. I made the comment (see below):
'Notwithstanding the validity of Patrick Cockburn's viewpoint and others' less careful comments on these murders I WILL OPEN MY MOUTH and say I do not blame Muslims in general and see wisdom in avoiding generalisations, even if they appear in CAPITAL LETTERS.'
partly because I see it as a way to avoid falling into the divide and conquer trap. Given the chance, them ole zionists and their likes will be all over us like a cheap suit. They've had plenty of practice at the manoeuvre. One has only to look at Palestine and what they've achieved there, bodies piling up in their thousands year after year. No wonder so many later generation, Jewish journalists, The Grayzone et al, have joined Norman Finkelstein in telling truth about it all.
You write 'It's incomprehesible and extremely dangerous.' I agree it is extremely dangerous to get close to falling into a trap we've had fair warning about. Mind the gap - that's what I comprehend.
In my opinion, the evidence is strong that this event did not occur as claimed and that a TATP bomb did not explode that night (though there clearly was an explosive sound and flash visible from the arena). I believe deliberate disinfo has been put out to make people think the attack was a hoax (and like I said, the official account does not stack up with the evidence presented, which may be part of the deliberate disinformation). The false evidence and claims, and people involved in making those claims (i.e. Mr. Hall), are then discredited, and the whole notion that the attack did not occur as claimed is thus discredited, and the impression created in the public mind that anyone questioning official accounts of similar events is not to be trusted. This helps reinforce the official narratives of any "false flag" attacks in future.
BTW you do yourself no favours with these snide, churlish personal attacks about people being "brainwashed" or "mad", nor do you help yourself by digging in on your position and not giving any ground to the other side. It's unhelpful in persuading people to your point-of-view. Neil Sanders has been extremely aggressive and abusive to people on Twitter who've questioned or disagreed with him, which also makes it hard to give serious consideration to his claims.
Hi Simon, I'm not promoting Neil Sanders - wouldn't be surprised if he's still working alongside Richard D Hall. They've the same goal: to discredit conspiracy theorists. I find it fascinating that RDH has managed to convince so many people with his dodgy investigative journalism that there was no bomb and no victims at the Manchester Arena, May 22, 2017. No wonder he was smiling after the court case. Incredible wizardry in fairness. A master class in the power of suggestion.
It's been incredibly disappointing to witness his followers participate in the deception so eagerly. Why didn't they shout STOP when RDH was accusing the parents of the Saffie Roussos of using a hoax bomb to conceal her death without evidence? That's dumb and sorry, it shows a level of brainwashing that should be called its name. Plus I'm being nice. If it's not brainwashing, what's the excuse for tormenting bomb victims with no credible evidence? I've other words I could use but they wouldn't win me any friends either.
Again with Martin Hibbert, RDH followers had no issue persecuting the man on ZERO evidence, just hot air and speculation, mortifying internet nonsense. Disgusting behaviour. They need to be held to account as much as RDH. Delingpole showed his true colours by pushing this on his viewers without doing the proper checks and balances that you'd expect of a journalist of his rank and experience. Not good enough. I probably don't do myself any favours concentrating on this story but I will be vindicated because the journalistic method won't lead you astray - you can weed out the lies and misdirection quite easily. It's why standards are vital. I'll remain open to new information but from what I've studied so far, nothing of note has been produced to support the claim the victims are crisis actors. If they're not acting, what gave them their injuries?
If those people did die and were injured - and I agree, it'd be hard to fake so many people's deaths and injuries - then there needs to be a more credible explanation of what caused them. Have the authorities either incorrectly stated the type of bomb used (perhaps deliberately, to sow seeds of doubt), or is the footage of the aftermath of the explosion not authentic in some way? I don't know the answers, but I get the impression that deliberate disinformation has been put out there to plant seeds of doubt about the official explanation and draw in "conspiracy theorists", lead them up the garden path, then discredit the claims and the person making them and make everyone look stupid and bad by association. It's a classic tactic.
I agree. What kind of bomb does that much damage to people without causing damage to the building itself?
I think Iain Davis https://iaindavis.substack.com/ makes a strong case that whatever exploded that night was not a TATP (triacetone triperoxide) bomb (which is what the authorities claimed). Like you said, it would have caused more damage than is apparent in the videos of the aftermath. But has visual evidence proving otherwise been withheld? Or, as I suspect, deliberately anomalous information been put out in order to draw in "conspiracy theorists" and then lead them astray? I don't recall footage of the immediate aftermath of other terrorist events being put out like this, which makes me think the authorities want people to see this footage for some reason, e.g. that it doesn't reflect the aftermath of a TATP explosion, and get conspiracy theorists to start questioning it and lead them astray.
Have you read this and the rest of David's series on the RDH case? https://open.substack.com/pub/dhughes/p/the-law-vs-the-truth-getting-to-the-385
The psyops run deeper than I ever imagined. All these creepy operatives assigned to the more high -profile dissidents to poison their perspective reveals a level of planning and ruthlessness that is sinister and breathtaking. Thanks for your work on exposing RDH, Aisling. My psyop antenna is even more finely-tuned now.
Thank you Sun in Capricorn, it's been an unfolding for me but there are some things you simply can't ignore...like James Delingpole pretending he hadn't heard about the Saffie Roussos theory. So strange. I think there's a lot more to these false flag investigations than meets the eye. I've seen way too much misdirection. There's a concerted effort to get us to disbelieve victims which is really dark. Mocking victims is also a giveaway that maybe those pretending to be on the good side, actually aren't and are leading people astray and encouraging them to behave badly, while convincing them they're on the inside track. It's fascinating!
Could have picked a better title Aisling! After all the 'conspiracy theorists' were right all along with the covid scam, had more people listened to them rather than the 'sane' HSE and RTE, it is absolutely possible that many would still be alive today. The vast majority of 'conspiracy theorists' (a CIA term, not one I would use regularly) are actually conspiracy realists who follow the facts and look at evidence that points to something nefarious going on, like the Deagel forecasts for example. Main steam journalists could learn a lot from those who see patterns in information.
There's a war on conspiracy theorists because we engage our brains. This has been planned for a long time. Gemma O'Doherty was assigned to John Waters to pollute his message. She's done a great job and more the fool him for letting her. People need to pull back and realise this thing is massive. There are units embedded on this side to mislead and undermine critical thinkers. We need to up our game in general to detect the red flags and respond accordingly. It's a moral test after all. This RDH exercise has exposed how weak this side really is and how prone it is to manipulation. Not good.
That is the sad reality; waters very muddied, hard to trust anyone until prevailing conditions suggest otherwise.
Have you read Iain Davis' book? It's very good.
Well, Iain based his book on the findings of Richard D Hall, without a hint of irony. The poor man thinks Richard D Hall is the real deal! Don't you find that peculiar Dr McCloskey, after everything I've presented to you? Why are you continuing to turn your back on the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing and disbelieve their testimonies in favour of misleading 'evidence' which I've clearly disproven? Not very Christian if you don't me saying. Don't harden your heart. It doesn't suit you. Do you think it's ok to accuse the parents of Saffie Roussos of involvement in her death, without a shred of evidence? It wasn't too long ago you were complaining about being interned unfairly? Yet you seem to think it's fine if this side behaves like brutes. Well I'm telling you, again, it's not. You of all people should know better.
Like Iain, I don’t know what happened, but there is no evidence that a 30 kg shrapnel bomb exploded in the City Room at Manchester Arena. I really recommend reading Iain’s book, and we can maybe have a conversation about it. With respect, what you’ve presented is the state narrative. It may be true, maybe is even likely to be true, but there is no evidence of a bomb having killed people on the night in question.
No evidence of a bomb just 22 dead people who are still dead. Right oh. Let's pretend they're weren't killed in an explosion and let's ignore the survivors testimonies. Great call. Good one. High five. Send them Iain Davis' book for Christmas and tell them they've got it all wrong. Davis knows better. He's studied counterintelligence nonsense and concluded there was no bomb and no injuries. Bravo one and all. Take a bow!
We Know Ash lol
Iain Davis " that poor man"??? Honestly Aisling look at yourself .
Iain Davis is one of the best investigative journalists around today. He doesn't need your fake platitudes
If he was any good he'd be able to account for the dead and injured.
The strange part about all of this is that there are plenty of things all of these people say that we all agree on. Listening to what other people say doesn't mean people have "fallen" for anything. Many of us take nuggets of truth and move right along. These weird "gotchas" where it's your speculation vs. other people's speculation feels like an intentional time-wasting exercise. You still talk about things for which you have *zero* evidence. What is your goal?
What's my goal? To expose those who are deliberately misleading people under the guise of being 'on our side'. It should be clear by now that RDH's brand of phoney investigative journalism doesn't cut the mustard. The question people need to ask themselves is why they believed such nonsense and why didn't they intervene at appropriate moments, like when RDH was accusing the parents of Saffie Roussos of covering up their daughter's death, with no evidence? Why didn't viewers complain? You're well able to complain to me for nothing apart from pointing out these anomalies so you're not shy. WTF is wrong with people? It disgusts me to be honest. I'm also curious as to why people thought it was ok to pick on Martin Hibbert and his daughter in wheelchairs when there was ZERO evidence to support the theory they were crisis actors. That's just sick. I suppose I'm trying to find redemption in people. They can't be that bad. Surely it's just brainwashing.
Neil Sanders? Really?
Did you even read the article? Big problem with all you brainwashed RDH fans - you're set like concrete!
Everybody is brainwashed but you Aisling eh? As I've said before: , If there was no bomb there would be no victims. You seem entrenched in the supposition that there were victims so there must have been a bomb!! You can't even see your limited thinking for what it is . Your attempted demolition of far more able investigative (!!!) journalists than yourself is very revealing
You're just brainwashed.
Why do you care so much
Neil used to be good mates with RDH and appeared on his show a lot. The whole thing is terribly sad in lots of ways.
Neil does nothing but slag off RDH these days whereas RDH holds his tongue. I know which one is the better man.
Wouldn't be surprised if they're from the same counterintelligence team. They've got the same goal after all - to make conspiracy theorists look nuts.
I thought that was your speciality Aisling ?🙄😁
Just joking!
I agree Hall is mostly rubbish with you, but I do not follow your logic at all on the 'event'. For example there is no valid proof Eve Hibbert is even a genuine entity. Here is a link to considerations & images that indicate why so (below).
As you are such experience of journalist researcher can you tell us what is real middle name of Richard D Hall.
For example is it actually DAMIAN, similar to evil child in the Omen films?
https://dubsurgeon.substack.com/p/questions-regarding-martin-and-eve
I have not seen him slag RDH off in a nasty way. Then again, I don't pay much attention to that scene these days.
No bomb or the footage that is online which is claimed to be from the actual bomb site is faked, take your pick.