Here is a news item involved in what most would consider a conspiracy theory and Neon Nettle would consider a conspiracy they expose, first news from after the death, then the "conspiracy theory" version of Neon Nettle, then two sites debunking this "conspiracy theory" as fake news:
CBS News : FBI agent, estranged wife found dead in apparent murder-suicide
By Peter Martinez, Updated on: March 9, 2018 / 2:20 PM / CBS News
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-agent-david-raynor-wife-dead-apparent-murder-suicide-crownsville-maryland/
Neon Nettle : FBI Agent, Who Exposed Hillary Clinton Cover-up, Found Dead
Jay Greenberg | 18.VI.2018
https://neonnettle.com/features/1398-fbi-agent-who-exposed-hillary-clinton-cover-up-found-dead
Truth or Fiction : Was FBI Special Agent David Raynor Murdered Before Clinton Testimony?
22.VI.2018
https://www.truthorfiction.com/fbi-special-agent-david-raynor-murdered-clinton-testimony/
Snopes : Was an FBI Agent Who Exposed Hillary Clinton’s Corruption Found Dead?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/raynor-died-expose-clinton/
Here I will cite the last site's debunking:
There is nothing in the investigation that turned up evidence indicating it’s anything other than a domestic-related suicide. When our officers confronted [Raynor], he committed suicide in front of our officers. He was given verbal commands to drop the weapon, and when [officers] were approaching him, that’s when he put the gun to his head.
Two possibilities only, if Snopes contacted a police officer (which they gave no link for):
- 1) He committed suicide
- 2) Police were involved.
Odd, fact, the quote (with no link) contradicts the news in first link(from just after the killing), from which I cite:
The Anne Arundel County Police department said officers arrived at the scene after 8 a.m. in response to a 911 call about a domestic assault. The caller said a woman was being threatened by her recently estranged husband, police say.
Upon arrival, police found David Raynor, 52, with multiple stab wounds and an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. Donna Fisher, 54, was found with apparent stab wounds. Both were pronounced dead at the scene.
So, maintaining it was a suicide also implies, either CBS News or Snopes gave a fake version of police report, or, there was a mix-up in the police report.
I have some difficulty in believing, on the one hand police men find one dead and one is ordered to drop weapon but kills himself instead, while on the other hand someone in office gets it as if both were found dead before police arrived.
Snopes goes on:
Neon Nettle’s sole documentation for their claim that Raynor died “just one day before he was due to testify before a US Federal Grand Jury” was a link to an eight-month-old news article about the shooting death of a Baltimore homicide detective, an article that made no mention of David Raynor, the FBI, Hillary Clinton, or “Fast and Furious.” (The slain detective was scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury, but that case was about Baltimore police accused of shaking down citizens and conspiring with drug dealers, not about the ATF and gunwalking in Arizona.)
At the word article, there is a link:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-suiter-funeral-20171128-story.html
However, as I click it, I come here:
https://www.tribpub.com/gdpr/baltimoresun.com/
AND it says:
Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.
Conspiracies and claims about them are a bit hard to investigate, when it comes to diverse news like killings.
That is why I limit myself to items which are easy to investigate, like whether a scientist has (in what he has left for others to judge, in his openly published words) reasoned correctly.
Unlike facts and eyewitness knowledge of them, like who killed David Raynor, himself or someone else, the laws of logic apply equally to the amateur and the scientist, the one who has seen the results with own eyes and the one who only hears of them.
This is the difference betweeen the type of reporting known by adversaries as conspiracy theory and the type of reporting known by its adherent as science criticism.
I am not against all things called conspiracy theories, but I concentrate on what I actually can do, like science criticism. Or expose the horrifically bad history knowledge of someone exposing the history of astronomy.
Meanwhile, this is an umpteenth time at which I find that this or that or sundry US paper having a digital issue cannot show its content in EU. I wonder why. The Baltimore Sun at least claims that it is looking for solutions.
Meanwhile, some French are legitimately conspiring to fudge out the difference between on the one hand science criticism and on the other hand conspiracy theorising. And since I actually am involved in science criticism, they feel ok about stamping me as a conspiracy theorist.
Will anyone of them wake up and show they were just inattentive to a fairly obvious distinction between concepts? Or will anyone among the rest come across the idea they misrepresented me? Because if not, that would legitimately imply some kind of conspiracy against me as a writer. One item who could pull such a thing off would be psychiatrists claiming concern for me as a person (more specifically as a mentally challenged one). And some of them would have more motives than bona fide clues, given that I attack psychiatry (their profession), and defend Catholicism (which is the bug bear of the Calvinism, Judaism, Islam, Satanism or Atheism of some of them), or am a science critic (which they feel as an attack on their authority, and yes, psychiatry is one item where I consider scientists as frauds).
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Peter's Chair in Rome
18.I.2019
PS, nearly forgot some of them are Freemasons as well ... I not only defend the Catholicism they attack, but attack the Freemasonry they defend. And yes, some kinds of cultural conspiracies, like attacks on Catholicism or on Science Criticism, that is not beyond what they could conspire about. Nor, at least not necessarily, attempting to expose someone time after time to Masonic "apprenticeship" even if clearly NOT wanted by that man. They can claim it is easy to leave masonry, but they "forget" to mention, as freemason apprentices are supposed to have a year of silence, the one not wanting such an apprenticeship can be declared as not having said what he said in the name of "respecting" his year of silence and apprenticeship, even if they aren't his./HGL
No comments:
Post a Comment