Contradictions To The Theory

[YouCanCallMeAl]

I think there's something to the idea - but endless speculation is tiresome. Athletes who are exceptional in their level of training and cheating (with drugs) aren't great examples to choose.

What I said was 'pure nonsense' was the selection of screen evidence one looked at or ignored. Elsewhere someone was arguing that mia khalifa's legs were male, but excluded other imagery of the porn actress that were explicit showing that she was not.

The Mia 'analysis' is an interesting case - we don't normally have access to explicit pictures. In the case we do, the opinion was that Mia was male, yet, all the reams of explicit evidence was fine to ignore. No one suggests a reason why the explicit evidence should be ignored. Does it not make it plain that whatever analysis is being done on normal photos, is flawed? Ie "pure nonsense".

[rachel]

"Endless speculation is tiresome." - we all have freedom to read or not to read any parts of this site. But I can understand why you are tired by it. But being tired by it doesn't stop the agenda from marching on, and you know from MUPPET SHOW where I'm at with it.

Anything to do with actors or entertainment, then it is in some way a trick. So I look for tells based on real-world evidence I've looked at. I put them up for other people to scrutinise and dismiss as they so wish. I concede, and always have, I might be wrong about a fair percentage of stuff I put up, but it is never based on fresh air, and I know I'm on the nose about certain people, so it naturally leads me to speculate about others once I understand the idea of the rules of the game being played.

With regards to the athletes, we know they are currently all out for pushing for men in women's sports, which suggest there is some truth in what is being discussed. And not only that, we have real-world evidence that pre-dates the notion that nobody has a clue what a woman is. Read up about Caster Semenya, I didn't make that one up, and now she's got a wife and children, fancy that. It's funny how hermaphrodites are always compelled to compete in women's sports. It's just one of those curious coincidences that has no explanation it would seem. But more seriously, what the agenda actually points to is an attempt to create a cover for historic events that show the sports governing bodies to be utterly corrupt. Instead they are shoehorning in an alternative narrative to retro-fit it if they ever have to concede the likes of Flo-Jo (for example). Has any woman broken her world records yet? Instead they can cry about her being a troubled proud transgender woman of colour who was trapped in the wrong body, yet fought through all the prejudices to win Gold, (round of applause and get your hankies out, not a dry eye in the house), because that's how they always play this bollocks.

The people I am most sure about are certain UK politicians, I'm absolutely correct about Sajid Javid, he even shares the same stutter with Konstantin Kisin. Let's see what he's up to these days. Oh, he's been turned back into a paper fiction, a ventriloquist's dummy crying about how we should be privatising the NHS for those services we actually need, like if you break your leg, you know rather than the ones they create a demand for so they can kill us. Do you think if they stopped screening for and treating cancer instead, it might magically go away?

"...the test says you've got prostrate cancer; I know you don't have any symptoms, but if we don't treat it now, you'll die..."

Taxpayers, you've got to keep on funding the cancer and vaccine psyops and don't forget the puberty-blockers and mastectomies. And you know why I say cancer is a psyop? Because there is an actual law passed in the UK that prosecutes anyone who promotes products that cure cancer, and people go to jail over it. Why would that be? Let's borrow some of Konstantin Kisin's vast logic in working this out. If we make the statement, 'Cancer does not exist, so it can never be cured.' - That's an answer with 100% certainty. Is there any other answer that will also produce a 100% certainty statement? I can't think of one, maybe the reader can. But since the law passed, the people passing it were pretty damn certain nothing currently or in the future will ever come along that will cure cancer. That logic appears to be based on a 100% certainty of something they knew to be true but which we were not party to. We can therefore conclude with a reasonable degree of confidence the above statement is the correct missing piece of the puzzle that produced the law.

NHS has made us sicker, claims ex-Health Secretary Sajid Javid as he demands overhaul of 'frozen in time' service
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/arti ... n-NHS.html

Former Health Secretary Sajid Javid has called for an overhaul of NHS, describing the service as 'frozen in time'.

Ahead of its 75th anniversary on Wednesday, Mr Javid said that the current structure of the NHS has left Brits sicker than those in many other Western countries, with the UK having lower life expectancy and cancer survival.

The MP for Bromsgrove said both major political parties privately believe the NHS is 'unsustainable' in its current form and will be unable to cope with surging demand, despite record levels of funding.

He called for a royal commission to conduct a 'dispassionate and honest assessment' of the health service to 'make sure the NHS is here in another 75 years'.

Mr Javid did not detail what reforms he would back but has previously supported the idea of fees for visiting minor injury units and GPs...

Let's correct that, because I cannot find video or audio evidence Sajid Javid said anything. MSM asserts that a fictional character has said something which they are then paid to promote. They don't even need the inconvenience of booking the actor, they can just get ChatGPT to make up some random statements periodically so it seems like he has a pulse...Oh look, from yesterday, 'The Times' this time.

Thanks, Sajid Javid. I now realise it’s an insult to pay MPs only £90,000 a year
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hila ... -pbxpglhfm

Thank heavens for Sajid Javid, who’s come up with an idea of such brilliance that never again will people suspect that politicians live in a parallel universe. The former health secretary has said that MPs should have their £86,584 salaries doubled, as “you get what you pay for”, and across the land care workers earning sod all said yes, that is definitely true, thank heavens someone has been brave enough to say it.

“You are,” Javid added, his finger firmly on the pulse of popular opinion, “expecting people to do these jobs for something other than income” and how right he is. I stand corrected in my belief that 90 grand is more than enough for doing pretty much anything. I now understand that it...

It will be interesting to see if we ever see Sajid Javid speaking on camera again. If we do, it will probably be a deep-fake as I think Konstantin Kisin has burned him...Onwards on upwards, hey Konstantin?

Why the Oxford Union speech cut through | Konstantin Kisin

...the fact that no one has ever told these people in the UK who glue themselves to roads and throw soup on paintings and whatever, that this country is responsible produces one percent of global emissions and is responsible for another one percent, so two percent. You know, the idea of killing pensioners every winter with fuel poverty, doesn't seem as appealing, if you recognise that it has absolutely no impact on global warming whatsoever. So I think it's the combination of
all of those three and you know hopefully uh if I say so myself someone trying to use logic, we don't have a lot of that going on lately...

Our hero is here to save us. Yep, killing pensioners with morphine and midazolam is much more effective than fuel poverty, isn't it Konstantin? If he's so concerned, why doesn't he have a word with his parliamentary chums and tell Jeremy Hardy to stop funding Extinction Rebellion?

Do you know, if you are a member of the public, how you get inside of the Houses of Parliament? Plain and simple, you don't. I think it is one day a year it is kind of open. You have to contact your MP, and if he can be bothered and thinks you are of sufficient standing, then he will open an invitation to you so you can attend. And when that day arrives, you meet him outside in whatever the stated location is, and he takes you into Westminster. So does that mean the above Extinction Rebellion people were guests of the establishment? Of course, it is the only way it could have worked, but that would spoil the narrative, wouldn't it.

Am I being a bit hard on old Konstantin?

Sajid Javid announces Covid vaccines to be compulsory for frontline NHS workers


UK Covid-19: Sajid Javid supports mandatory vaccines for NHS and care staff


Note: If these people thought they would actually have to live with the shit they say, they wouldn't say it, would they. We wouldn't have politicians not knowing what a woman is, or declaring other people must take experimental jabs or lose their job.

[YouCanCallMeAl]

Speculate away, I don't mind.

I'm pointing out how the methodology that allows someone to say a person is a man on the basis of a couple of photos but then ignores the thousands(?) of explicit photos that say otherwise, shows that the methodology is unhinged. If people persist in using such a flawed method, whatever it is they are doing, I can say that they are not trying to uncover truth.

I personally am not convinced by the idea of politicians being played by actors as a commonplace occurrence. Perhaps it can happen occasionally. But sometimes people do look/act like other people - I've seen this many times in my personal life. At least you are doing some research of photos etc to support your case, as opposed to ignoring presented information, as in Mia's case.

Re cancer etc - this is an interesting idea. It probably deserves it's own post.

PS caster semenya (semen, ya) is an admitted hermaphrodite. It's not the same thing as the idea that most females are disguised males. And it's not clear that she is the father of her child either - lesbian couples can have children via a third party, etc.

[rachel]

Al, the realologist there, who'd have thunk.

[YouCanCallMeAl]

Do you realise that one should gather evidence first, and let that drive the theory? Cherry picking evidence weakens your case.

I'm saying, if you're going to going to argue that 'evidence' from photos is acceptable, at least be consistent. With Mia, we have equal or greater evidence that Mia is female but that 'evidence' doesn't get a mention! Why? (viewtopic.php?p=9713)

The fact that all that non-supportive 'evidence' is so easily ignored shows that its proponents love the story - logic and critical thinking be damned. Why can't these characters in photos and videos be lizards wearing human suits? Or robots? Or aliens? Or cgi? Its nothing to do with evidence - its simply because that story doesn't capture the imagination. Uncovering the truth has nothing to do with it.

Anyway, if you think that me pointing out obviously flawed reasoning makes me a realologist, so be it - its no skin off my nose.

[rachel]

It's no skin off my nose either. I'm not making a case, a handbag or a chest of draws. I'm playing a game.

It's hard to explain, but the further I progress, the more interesting it gets. I'm merely leaving a set of scribbles for the next person who wants to play. And I do think someone will come along at some point and all this is for them.

[PotatoFieldsForever]

I will believe she is a woman the day I see a baby coming out of her wound. So yes it will remain speculations but you can't change the q angle and it's not a detail for me, the person in that Oxford video has men legs for me and her face doesn't help the case. There are clearly trans presented as woman in the porn industry, it is part of the deception, is Mia Khalifa one of them? I can't be sure, I've should have picked a more obvious one.

But saying things like there is proof that she is a woman because there is a sextape or something of that vein, what kind of BS is this? it's 2023, people post their new vagina on Reddit, it's not even a conspiracy.

[rachel]

I like this one @napoleon, it seems to fit.

[Ian]

Do you realise that one should gather evidence first, and let that drive the theory? Cherry picking evidence weakens your case.

I'm saying, if you're going to going to argue that 'evidence' from photos is acceptable, at least be consistent. With Mia, we have equal or greater evidence that Mia is female but that 'evidence' doesn't get a mention! Why? (viewtopic.php?p=9713)

The fact that all that non-supportive 'evidence' is so easily ignored shows that its proponents love the story - logic and critical thinking be damned. Why can't these characters in photos and videos be lizards wearing human suits? Or robots? Or aliens? Or cgi? Its nothing to do with evidence - its simply because that story doesn't capture the imagination. Uncovering the truth has nothing to do with it.

Anyway, if you think that me pointing out obviously flawed reasoning makes me a realologist, so be it - its no skin off my nose.

It might be helpful if you managed to find one of her nude pics but carefully photoshop it first so it is an non-sordid non-sexual anatomical picture so we could all analyze the bone structures and possible surgical procedures. Either way, looking at the evidence we have now and finding reasonable justification for further enquiry, is just another reason to avoid all porn and protect the children from all porn.

[YouCanCallMeAl]

I'm not the one making the claim.