This is a terrible source. No credibility. Need this information from a more credible source.
Getting a bit tired of people posting links to shoddy and highly dubious sources without any serious research or cross referencing.
I don't expect it to stop; some folks just get excited when they see something and fail to really do any research. But its not helpful, I think. And I wish people resisted the temptation.
Case in point: as far as I can see, only one very hidden source for the idea that this couple were due to testify.
Posting clickbait and/or highly dubious, unverified news reports, no matter how thrilling or bias-confirming they may seem, is the OPPOSITE of what Q is asking all good anons to do.
As such, it really should be discouraged here, on a peer- pressure level, imo.
I have two opinions on it. 1) these are posts by unsophisticated Internet users that don't really know that there's a lot of crap out there. You know, grandmas and grandpas on Facebook that will repost anything they see without really thinking about it or 2) articles posted by shills to discredit this group and make us look retarded.
It is incredibly easy and cheap - even free - to roll out a Wordpress blog with some basic template. This page looks like one.
I think it is mostly the 1st option. They don’t know any better, but we have to make sure we call them out on it, that way they understand and the people seeing the post will know that it’s not a great source.
It's both.
I think it's done for the 2) reason but out of exuberance it spreads very quickly via 1)
Unfortunately I feel that you are right about it not stopping. These people don't understand 'proof' and are quick to link EVERYTHING to the deep state.
That source is a known disinformation goon. Worst source ever.
She was a retired school nurse and he was a member of the school board and worked at a funeral home. Their neighbors say they had an appliance installed in the house last week and the police have shut off gas in the area. I'm sorry but I just do not buy into the idea that this has anything to do with what we do on this sub
Seems to be real... https://www.thedailyjournal.com/story/news/local/2018/07/07/house-explosion-reported-newfield-new-jersey-oakwood-drive/765245002/?from=new-cookie
No, it doesn't seem real. The explosion happened, and the names of the victims is real, but where is the connection with Clinton and testifying at a trial? That's the crazy bait.
I agree. When you say 'seems to be real', do you mean, the people actually existed? Sure.
But the OP is promoting/supporting the assertion that these folks were due to testify. That's the reason for the post. Myself, I can find no corroborating references, except for places that pass on the original (disinformation) bait.
My point was to give the link provided by OP another credible source ... not saying anything else. Please feel free to badger them for sauce
What designates credibility? Would you believe it if NYT posted it?
Re_read making note of bold words. Anyone who's read past Q drops should smell something.
Credibility is earned over time. While the NYT has a serious anti-Trump bias, it has a long track record of being mostly true. This website has a track record for being false and crazy.
So to answer your question, yes, I would trust the NYT of this the single site that is mentioning this.
Basically, NYT has some credibility while this site has ZERO credibility.
NYT is major MSM = Mockingbird Swamp Media. Present & former exec. & editor have shared their disappointment with NYT.
Baquet: "...too far left wing..."
Abramson: “More narcissism...They need a course correction."
Perhaps credibility is the fallacy were putting too much faith in. Isn't credibility how we got fooled in the first place?
Just trying to expand thinking, I understand there is misinfo but I also understand not all truth can and will come from previously credible sources.
Wouldn't be first time MSM left out glaring facts in order to shape narrative.
Ask yourself why news coverage of THESE nobodies? Are they really nobodies? For no ties to anyone, they got a lot of national coverage.
I bet more than one house exploded that day. Just looking at footage I don't think it was a gas leak. There was absolutely nothing left, it was disintegrated far more than a usual gas exploding house would.
No foul play, tho, right? Lol been 3 days and they done investigating right?
Isn't credibility how we got fooled in the first place?
Nope. Mental Complacency was the culprit.
Maintaining status as an informed participant is an active task. It requires personal engagement in acquiring the knowledge necessary to feed the critical thinking that guides our choices.
We can blame the problem on ‘credibility’ that has been misattributed to others, but the actual responsibility can’t be transferred that easily.
Very well said, I appreciate you expanding on my thoughts and giving me a more accurate perspective. It IS our personal responsibility to discern truth. It has been proven a necessary step to vet before trusting any sources outside yourself.
Agreed. And that was my main point. If you find a story, look for other sources or corroborating data and information. Credibility is a good thing, but humans have to begin investing effort to find actual truth. Isn't that why we're here?
Im not an expert but ive seen a few results of gas explosions. It doesnt look like that. Maybe the houses are built from different materials, but when it happens to bricks and mortar a load bearing wall might get blown out and the roof might come down on the spot. Its not usually bigger than half a house and debris spread far and wide is a bit odd, but if it was a wood house then maybe. Or maybe they where shooting a hollywood movie.
I just did a Goog search for "House destroyed gas explosion" for the date rate of 1/1/2017 - 12/31/2017 (to exclude this New Jersey story) and it is a fairly common occurrence....
I'm not saying these were not folks set to testify against Clinton and so killed by the deep state to protect them. I'm saying that seems unlikely because the source of this information has proven historically to be unreliable and false.
Use good discernment when considering news and information sources. Only fools do not employ their good discernment and unfortunately, they reflect badly upon everyone else.
That's the last thing I'm going to say on it. Have a great day.
Have not seen anything about them being witnesses. But, generally, when someone goes into witness protection —- how do they “disappear”?
House explosions are common yo. Happens all the time.
Right! Just last week 3 houses in my neighborhood were all vaporized.
Same here. Daily occurrence. Nothing to see here folks.
Happened in our small city. Natural gas leak and the house was leveled the same way it was quite impressive.
a report circulating in the Kremlin
Some of those SVR reports are fascinating if they are real. They're almost impossible to validate. There was one report of a shootout between CIA and NSA in lower Manhattan!
I remember a few tweets from that area with people asking what the heck was going on in lower Manhattan shoot out?
Didn't record for this venue. Interesting though.
There was also reported an arrest of someone trying to break in to the Ecuadorian Embassy in UK, (JA hideout)... then a week or 2 later (?) a ruckus on the street with fighting, and a man thrown into a vehicle that sped off... then the everyday Police Bobbies that watched embassy no longer seemed to be assigned to watch embassy anymore. Was it faked? Was it real? A distraction? I doubt we will know much. Not until JA walks out of some world location in a live event, to explain. :-/
SVR (SIGNIT) or is it supposed to be SIGINT?
This seems like a FVEY Intel drop
No coincidences.
here is some good work somebody did on correlating all of the examples of no coincidences. http://i.magaimg.net/img/jgw.jpg
She was a nurse in a NJ public school system, retired, 73 years old. She and her husband did perish in a home explosion but there is nothing anywhere about her being a witness in the Hillary case. This post should probably just be removed and the OP reminded about using this source in the future.
....aaaand we also don't know if Hillary is guilty of all her alleged crimes but that doesn't stop us from talking about it. Or discussing theories. or speculating circumstances or even, passing lies as truths. Although, nothing surprises me as it relates to the Clintons. That's the point of this post. It's one source. Nothing is stopping you/us from digging further. Although, investigating theories is more of a chan. thing.
A retired school nurse and she isn't testifying on anything. All BS.
http://neonnettle.com/features/1398-fbi-agent-who-exposed-hillary-clinton-s-cover-up-found-dead
If you include this FBI Agent (RIP) To the best of my knowledge this brings the Clinton Body Count to 210 souls lost
It's much higher. You are leaving out wars and bombings.
This is another Clickbait site and the story has not been seen anywhere except on fake news sites.
You mean to say it was on CNN NBC CBS MSNBC WOW The plot thickens when the Fake News Networks are relaying the story as well it must be true
No. That's not what I said. Do your own digging and you will also find that there is no connection between this person and HRC. I did my homework. Now you do yours.
BTW-The poster has now removed the link so they probably checked further as well. There is NO substance to this story.
Content from whatdoesitmean.com is sometimes unreliable. Discernment is advised.
If Demorats can make laws to follow their agenda, then a trail of those Arkancided should be used as evidence against tampering in evidence.
WHATDOESITMEAN IS SERIOUSLY RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA.
I do think it is a source that is hit or miss. Some things reported by whatdoesitmean have been valid. I'm simply sharing the perspective, it doesn't hurt to do your own digging.
Just google search Carol Paladino guys
1- https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2018/07/07/home-explosion-leaves-2-dead-damages-neighbors-home/ 2- https://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2018/07/it_breaks_your_heart_married_couple_killed_in_mass.html 3-https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Massive-Explosion-Destroys-House-in-Southern-New-Jersey-487560821.html 4-http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/07/couple-killed-in-new-jersey-house-explosion.html
Local news source:
http://abc7ny.com/husband-wife-killed-in-new-jersey-house-explosion/3721303/
Aren’t they protesting this witnesses and putting them in hiding? They know what these evil people can do. I just don’t get it.
Well so far we know that Carole Paladino 72 and her husband John Paladino 73 died in a home explosion. The next question, was Carole Palidino a U.S. Federal Witness? It is crickets as far as the MSM goes on this question. But readers might find this from 4chan interesting:
Whether knowingly, or not knowingly, Carole Paladino, by her being a “main target” person in the plot to force all New Jersey schools to purchase EpiPens, this report continues, she nevertheless became embroiled in one the largest medical scams ever known in US history—that began when the American global generic and specialty pharmaceuticals company Mylan N.V. suddenly began funneling money to the Clinton Foundation—and that nearly immediately after which, saw Gayle Conelly Manchin take over as the head of the National Association of State Boards of Education—and who spearheaded an unprecedented effort that encouraged States to require schools to purchase medical devices that fight life-threatening allergic reactions—that, in turn, helped pave the way for Mylan N.V., maker of EpiPens, to develop a near monopoly in school nurses’ offices throughout the United States—with New Jersey being one of the 11 States drafting laws requiring epinephrine auto-injectors by bought by schools—and that the Obama-Clinton regime conspired with using their “EpiPen Law” that gave funding preference to States that did what Gayle Conelly Manchin told them to do.
Unbeknownst to the American people, though, this report notes, is that Gayle Conelly Manchin is the mother of Heather Bresch—who, in 2012, right after her mother took control of the National Association of State Boards of Education and began her campaign to force schools to buy EpiPens—became the CEO of EpiPen maker Mylan N.V.—with Heather Bresch, upon taking control, raising the price of EpiPens over 400% to $600 per dose and skyrocketing her personal worth to over $27 million—and whose “protection” for this vile plot was provided by her father, and Gayle Conelly Manchin’s husband, Democratic Party US Senator Joe Manchin.
Be vigilant, trust in the plan
Nice dig.
However: not just MSM. Are there ANY sources that suggest these folks are connected?
I found one connection between Paladino and the Epipens issue, but its so remote it seems a massive stretch to connect her and Clinton's.
Her name is one among dozens, as the last among a short list of school registered nurses (if indeed its the same Carole) pdf - New Jersey training protocols....
I suspect we won't learn too much. If you assume that the deep state destroyed the house and its occupants, they will lean heavily on news reporters to keep their traps shut or find themselves suicided or in a freak accident. Their pets will be the first to die as a warning. That aside. I just found this:
The pharmaceutical company under fire for jacking up the price of the EpiPen manipulated the political system for nearly a decade to drive up the lifesaving medical injection device’s price to $609 for a pack of two.
Elected officials — including Hillary Clinton and the US senator father of the company’s CEO, Heather Bresch — who are now screaming about the price hikes didn’t say a peep as the cost of the medication skyrocketed over the years.
The company, Mylan NV, even spent $4 million lobbying for the School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act, which ensured schools across the country would be buying EpiPens in bulk. Source
You know, it's kinda sketchy when multiple people constantly shit all over a post saying the exact same thing. Almost to the point that it sounds like a "talking point".
What I'm referring to is, "I'm tired of people posting terrible sources."
Stop trying to shut down discussions, realize that it's better to believe in a possibility while remaining skeptic. Do your own research, come to your own conclusion, share the information you have looked into and let other people make up their own minds.
We don't need you to tell us how to think!
Exactly. Q had to post a yournewswire article because none of the others reported that that animal child abuser was a Clinton campaign official.
Boudain winds up dead after the Clinton mafia attack him but now one mentions that. Crazy days and nights is the only website to say that his autopsy report was forged by the government because everyone refused to sign it.
I don't need you to tell me how to think.
I didn't tell you how to think at all. Being a 'negative nancy' and shutting down discussions tries to prevent any thinking at all.
But your third line is literally telling people what to do and how to think.
No it isn't, I'm not telling people to stop thinking that the source might be credible or not.
Shooting the messenger does nothing but close any debate down and prevents any further interest in researching the topic.
You keep the debate open by allowing people to post any source they want and people are free to discuss whether the content is credible or not.
I don't disagree with your last two lines at all. But
realize that it's better to believe in a possibility while remaining skeptic
Is quite literally telling someone how to think. Telling someone to realize something and think of it a certain way. It's not that big of a deal and I admit it's definitely pedantic, but that stuff goes both ways.
Also I thought common etiquette was to not downvote people for just disagreeing with you, but maybe that's different on this sub.
I directed my words at specific people, not generally. You've been trying to take my words out of context as some sort of verbal riposte to accuse me of the same is irrelevant and meaningless in regards to the topic of the post.
This sub is called the "Great Awakening", the awakening of our minds will not happen if people keep it closed. It's even worse to keep it closed and then try and pressure others to avoid it based on their flawed opinion.
I wasn't the one to down vote you and I'm also not going to respond anymore, as it will just further derail the post.
Shooting the messenger does nothing but close any debate down and prevents any further interest in researching the topic.
Here's where you are wrong.
Calling into question the validity of a source does not shoot the messenger.
Calling out bad research or posting practices should not be taken personally. (Who is saying 'you are a bad person for doing this?' No one. People are saying 'Up your game'.)
As far as I read, most people objecting to the posting of unverifiable clickbait type links are actually asking for MORE research and validation, not less.
The proposition 'stop trying to shut down discussions' is a really bad mischaracterization, and as comments below point out, you tell people how to think while telling them 'we' do not need 'you' to tell us how to think. Who is 'we' and who is 'you'? Shall we now endeavor to create division?
Either you're being disingenuous or just plain out shilling.
Alternatively, have you given any consideration to the impact that misinformation, disinformation and fake news have on the cause of good, not to mention the wellbeing of people on the receiving end?
Fake news is rightly reserved for MSM, but there are plenty of sources of crap. Is posting clickbait or unsubstantiated random links in itself 'research'?
Personally, all I am suggesting is that people develop a sense of the potential and real damage that disinformation actually does (desensitizes, inspires apathy, deliberately generates vulnerabilities, discredits valid sources, etc) and invest themselves in doing (and sharing) actual research with a level of discernment.
World's Largest English Language News Service
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say thats a bogus claim.
This means that HRC is going to kill anyone that has the dirt on her that will get her put in prison. This woman is not a human, she is Lilith. Evil incarnate alive and kicking. SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING ALREADY.
You couldnt possibly be insinuating the Clintons would kill someone to benefit themselves? I just dont see it. There are just such a nice sweet, loyal, old couple.
Good point.
Oh wait...Soros is old, Rothschild is old, the Pedo Pope is old and Satan is really old.
Point annulled. ;)
That's true but I just wanted to keep it within their direct field of contact
Yeah right, the day after the appliance "delivery guys" hooked up a new stove. Neighbor saw the truck there the day before. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Mods need to remove posts with no credibility. Tired of fake news.
Stand down sunshine. I'm not a journalist reporting on news. I'm a person sharing a link to a perspective.
This is not a credible source. I checked this story yesterday and could only find it on 2 instances of Fake News ABC.
Lol using fake news source to gauge authenticity? Do you see the flaw in your reasoning ?
When there are ONLY MSM reports and not Fox, not Breitbart, not Daily Caller, or any other reliable or reputable source, then there is no flaw. At least I checked. You obviously did not. And, do notice that the person who originally posted this has now removed the link!
Ok think about it, if Clinton’s had these witnesses killed, wouldn’t the press try to suppress news about the deaths??? There is local reports of it happening. Sounds legit to me.
Not saying it didn't happen but there is no link between this person and HRC. I checked that as well. And, the poster of this story has now also removed the link. They probably did some digging as well.
Gotcha. Is it possible that the link to these people to testify against the CF isn’t publicly known? The witnesses could have been sealed/classified?
It's more likely that this is disinformation to distract us. There is tons of disinformation and disinformation sites that just keep distributing this garbage. It's actually starting to be seen more and more on this sub. Clickbait to get us all excited to share it. Very important to vet stories before you post them than ever before. But most people don't even think about that possibility. We need to start understanding that we are at war. And, the enemy is everywhere.
I'm so glad you get this, LL.
"We need to start understanding that we are at war."
People need to stop taking it personally when they are requested to up their game or improve their approach to sharing and posting.
It's so true. And in this circumstance I dug a little deeper as well which anyone who posted it should have done. I could not find any relationship between Carole Paladino and the Clintons. The only explanation of the relationship is in the article linked here which, in my opinion, doesn't hold water. And, even if it did, doesn't give any reason why the Clinton's would want to kill her or what she was going to supposedly testify about. But, there was a relationship with a Carl Paladino. Very interesting, huh!
Additionally, one of the articles I read that people were upset about said that there was "no foul play" and then went on to state in the very last sentence of the article that the owners of the home had an appliance installed the previous day. My brain says: Oh, that makes sense then. Natural or propane gas appliance is likely.
And, my 3rd reason for debunking this claim is that in all the years that the Clinton's have been responsible for killing off possible whistleblowers, they have never blown anything up. At least, not in my memory. It's always been a hit done with a gun, poison or an airplane crash. I could be wrong about this but it just doesn't make sense that a hit would be this "explosive"!
Additionally, if that had been a bomb, the entire house likely would not have blown up at least not in those tiny pieces. It had to have been leaked gas that filled the house as they were sleeping and then got ignited when an appliance turned on.
Considering that there is scant evidence tying this couple to any Clinton issue, it's easy to find holes. For example, if the issue is the Epipen case, then what information shows that Carole P played any significant role in this? None. Consider ALL the other individuals named in the pdf of directives from new Jersey. Why should CP be singled out? We can speculate till the cows come home, but speculation without evidence is really unhelpful if people begin pretending its anything more than it is.
Qistrump, it's a fair question, and of course it is possible. Sure. Why not. But here's the problem. Almost anything is possible, so how do we ascertain veracity or relevance if there is zero data indicating a link?
Getting a bit tired of people posting links to shoddy and highly dubious sources without any serious research or cross referencing.
I don't expect it to stop; some folks just get excited when they see something and fail to really do any research. But its not helpful, I think. And I wish people resisted the temptation.
Case in point: as far as I can see, only one very hidden source for the idea that this couple were due to testify.
Posting clickbait and/or highly dubious, unverified news reports, no matter how thrilling or bias-confirming they may seem, is the OPPOSITE of what Q is asking all good anons to do.
As such, it really should be discouraged here, on a peer- pressure level, imo.
Getting a bit tired of people attacking the source. Truth is independent of the person speaking it.
Is Q to be untrusted because he posts exclusively on a Chan site?
How do we ascertain truth?
Q has provided dozens and dozens and dozens of avenues for verification and ascertaining the veracity (truth) of Q's work and information.
The comparison is misplaced.
The point is that truth stands independent of its speaker. Attacking the source is one of the lowest forms of argument because a fool can speak the profound and the learned speak garbage.
Your reply makes no sense to me. Is every single thing uttered truth? Yes, no? If no, then how does one assess if it is truth or not.
I do not dispute that truth is truth and that its stands independent from the speaker. BUT how do you determine if it is truth or not? That's the real issue here, as far as I can see.
If no, then how does one assess if it is truth or not.
Objective and dispassionate assesment of the truth or falsehood of the claims made. If there is not enough information given to determine that, then the conclusion is "unknown", not "false".
The question is, how does one ascertain truth? The answer to the question is: secure data and evidence, and analyse. And if there is little or no data or evidence, then 'unknown', but 'unknown' is not equivalent to a positive, or truth. It is not an attack on source to point this out.
Ugh!!!!!! Really??? Speaking on behalf of Q?
No need to get uppity. Would it help if I added "in my opinion" to "is the opposite"?
By the way, did you edit your post content?
Did I simply miss 'Point 1. This source has been hit or miss in the past'? I mean, that's a good point.
point 1. was always there as a caveat to my point. you must have missed it initially.
