you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

It's completely legit.

Would anyone be interested in listening to a radio show from a PhD professor (Jim Fetzer) who's the defendant in defamation suit from one of the "parents"?..

I recommend downloading it so you can skip the commercial in the beginning and middle of the radio broadcast.

TLDL: He is taking it to the appeals court because the first round was a kangaroo court.

The case is about a fraudulent birth certificate and social security card from one of the children.

The parent had multiple versions of the birth certificates, some certified by the state and county, but the one wasn't certified. The one that was posted publically wasn't certified.

The defendant was sued over the fake, and the plaintiff produced the "real certificate", which was also fake (but certified).

The judge ruled that there was no material difference between the state and county certified and the uncertified. Ruled that they were there same..

I'm not sure what could be more materially different than a state certified version and an uncertified cert. One is legit. One is not. In fact the posted uncertified copy is illegal, which was conveniently ignored by the judge.

Similar to the courts of the JFK and RFK courts. Cover ups...

Also, the avg age of the 20 separate "children's mothers" is 36. The national avg in 2009 when the kids were born is 27.
Doing the statistical analysis of this insane deviation from the mean, equates to a one in a hundred quadrillion chance for 20 mother's avg ages to equal 36.

That's a 1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance of having the avg age of 20 individual mothers = 36..

The odds of winning consecutive Powerball jackpots is better than this impossibility.

There haven't been 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 seconds in the history of the universe.

It shows the lengths the oligarchy will go to to suppress the truth.

Edit:. Please read the additional and incredibly relevant commentary from u/Jesus below; in response to u/IamRedbeard's comments.

It takes this chemtrail/contrail image evidence to the next level. +3

[–]Jesus[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Dude, Fetzer is a shill though. Even if he says Sandy hook was a psyop, he's a shill. He spreads truth and disinfo like Jones. Wolfgang Halvig seems legit, but even him I

I'll have to watch this though.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is he? How so?

He's getting sued legit, so...

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

He's on the right side of:

  • 9/11
  • Boston
  • Moon hoax
  • Sandyhoax

[–]Jesus[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Doesn't he promote the 9/11 nuke theory?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think so. That's not an issue for me (even thought it's improbable).

Crucially, he calls out the Zionist interest (Christian and Jewish) that orchestrated it.

I don't have to 100% agree with another's assessments to recognize good work.

He's clearly independent, and opposes the deep state.

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Statistical analysis concluded the odds of 20 such elderly mothers is 62, 482, 742, 574, 637, 216, 553 to one (that’s 62 quintillion to one), and it is 812 million times more likely that the alleged victims were born in 1996 rather than 2006 (the “official” story).

The photos used were likely from 2006 of the children and not 2012.

In statistics, we can combine odds of two separate events. This can quickly get complicated, and combines art with science. In the approximation of odds of alleged mothers’ ages combined with chemtrails occurring only once during 5840 satellite photos, perhaps an easier analogy will help:

Imagine a person driving to work and home along the same route five days a week, 50 weeks a year for 11 years (to approximate 5840 chances). On only one morning after these 11 years, government officials re-route traffic, and with no apparent reason to do so. The person is redirected into a construction zone (not away), where an alleged accident of astronomical odds kills the person. For illustration, the “official story” is a combination of mechanical failure and human error: a demolition wrecking ball is placed directly over the driver while he is stopped by officials, dropped, and crushed the person.

Is there a connection between the officials ordering the traffic re-route and the troubled official explanation of an “accident”?

One would have to ask, and answer that apparently there is. In our analogy:

  • Who ordered traffic to be re-routed when there was no apparent purpose?

  • What was the purpose of the re-route?

The sheer improbability of the one morning among ~5500 of a usual commute being exactly the one morning of an impossible “accident” requiring violations of let’s say a dozen safety protocols must be investigated by any rational person wanting the facts. Let’s look at our combination of chemtrails and alleged mothers’ ages:

  • Who ordered the non-commercial flights to spray what chemicals over Sandy Hook on the morning of December 14, 2012?

  • Who approved these multiple flights spraying those chemicals? What was the purpose of the spraying?

The sheer improbability of the one morning among ~5840 of chemical spraying obscuring satellite photos providing helpful data to explain the facts of an apparently impossible “mass shooting” requiring violations of let’s say a dozen response protocols must be investigated by any rational person wanting the facts.

These are just a few anomalies of thousands concerning Sandy Hook. Too bad they censored everything. One thing the media and government doesn't want anyone knowing about is psyops and fakery.

They want you to believe everything on the news is real, or real with bias.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)