countercurrentnews said:
He recently told reporters he received a phone call from an unknown person around 7 p.m., on the evening of the shooting, who told him that he must say that Sayd Farook was the shooter.
Except Chirs Nwadike
doesn't say that the caller "told him that he must say" anything.
The writer, "M. David," apparently just made that up because Nwadike's real words weren't juicy enough; "told him that he must say" is what makes the article sexy; without it, the writer has nothing special. So he
sexed it up. You see what I'm saying here?
Nor does Nwadike say that Farook
didn't do it, but rather, when told it was Farook—probably by an acquaintence from work (countercurrent implies that a mysterious,
unknown person called...wooo!)—he expressed surprise and perhaps some genuine doubt that Farook would do such a thing. (Perfectly reasonable surprise, not questioning that.)
That website is at least "a bit dubious" because that's the kind of 'evidence inflation' and sloppy re-characterizations of what people say, what a photograph shows, etc.—that is totally counterproductive and adds to the damned
noise we're
supposed to be sniffing out when
other people do it.
Despite the maddening noise from the conspiratainment & slipshod research sectors—as if the MSM's noise is not bad enough—I'm now 99% convinced of a false flag setup by deep state Gladio types (not to exclude private contractors and/or foreign intel e.g. mossad). My objection here is not to that thesis, but to the sloppy repetition of bullshit just because it reinforces what a poster already thinks. I'm
pleading for more rigor and better discernment.
I did take a close look & listen to the video, several times, and he
never says he was 'told what he must say.'
Isn't repeating those kinds of
completely made-up or imagined clues—which is what "told him that he must say" is—
exactly the kind of misinfo* that we're supposed to be alert to? Do we not condemn the
gullible media and national audience for swallowing
completely made-up or imagined clues?
If we're going to
judiciously study these events, I'd like to see some higher analytical standards. Without them, "history's actors" have every right to pat themselves on the back and laugh their asses off at us.
*
(in this case, I assume that "M. David" is not a deep state asset, just an idiot) edited for formatting
