No. I only go where the evidence takes me. Which is why my error rate is much smaller than yours.

I arrange the evidence. You scatter the evidence. Which is why I can see patterns and you can only see uncertainty (this, in the best case, for I'm still not sure whether your commitment to the truths is genuine or whether you're a carousel operator in the bankster empire's amusement park).

Daniel Ellsberg cannot be an unwitting accomplice due to the preponderance against him as well as the mathematics of preponderance. For example, the probability that any one individual can be associated directly or indirectly with four false flags (Gulf of Tonkin, Pentagon Papers, Wikileaks, The Snowden Affair) ... and still not be a witting accomplice ... is virtually zero.

An extra free clue is the amount of mainstream press he receives. People that are a genuine threat to the establishment tend not be celebrated (or for that matter, vilified) in the mainstream press. For example, Osama bin Laden was an example of a vilified celebrity in the mainstream press, in the manner of Emmanuel Goldstein. He was a witting (or unwitting??) patsy and never a genuine threat. Similarly, Ellsberg's celebrity in the mainstream press, a press virtually owned by the bankster empire, was created because the bankster empire wants him in the News. For Ellsberg is carrying their message to the masses. He is one of their paid messengers.

The king-archer template is as old as kingdoms.


Pax

If we need a reminder of where you go and your error rate, we need only review the Uncle Zook -- busted! thread. Remember what Andy said: "It is far more impressive when others discover your good qualities without your help!"


It's not zero, nor anywhere near as low as you claim. A high-profile journalist is often associated either directly or indirectly with news events. It's their job.


There is also the very real possibility that high-profile journalists may receive mainstream press as part of their job.

Really, Zook. You need a vacation.

The Uncle Zook busted thread was adjudged long ago as having been developed by charlatans, gatekeepers, projectionists, sociopaths (Andy), tribal animals (Mags); and nonempaths (Chico). Indeed, the only nonregular poster in that thread is Pintorider ... and his independent judgment of me is reasonably accurate ... he even suggests that I'm a saint for putting up with gibberish tossed my way. Perhaps I'm not an angel, but compared to you three mischief-making clowns, I might as well get used to my halo and wings. As I stated before, I had never been called a sociopath or anything to that effect except here, and by you three. It's really a badge of honor for me to be denounced by the carousel of id juts.

In short, the Uncle Zook thread itself is busted.




It's virtually zero, and your baseless opinion doesn't really count when the mathematics of probability are factored in. That you portray Ellsberg as a high-profile journalist when he is an active participant in two of the news stories further indicts your piss poor discernment (in the best case).



Shifting the narrative again, I see. So what else is new? We are now supposed to reinterpret a point man in a major intelligence psyops as a mere journalist ... in Chico's World, anything is possible.

Reality check about Chico's purported high-profile journalist, Ellsberg, can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

Ellsberg is part of the Zionist network and occupation of the United States. If he's also a journalist, then that's way down the ladder on his hobby climb of avocations.

Question begs: why is Chico protecting all these agents of the Zionist Occupation?

Pax.

Due to your known tendencies and the inherent conflict of interest, you are the last person qualified to pass judgment on the validity of the thread.


Your initial assumptions are almost always flawed, often to the point of ridiculousness, so no matter what mathematical manipulations you apply to them, the result is usually wrong.


Wikipedia couldn't be an intelligence psyops, now could it? Nor could all the other sources you draw upon to form your knowledge base of Ellsberg?


The question is bogus if Chico is not protecting agents of Zionism. You had better get your allegations solidly confirmed before you waste time asking ridiculous questions, especially when FSD is right around the corner and banksters nearly have you believing with certainty whatever they want you to believe!

I need to comment on this again, after reading the entire Wikipedia article on Daniel Ellsberg that you linked to, Zook. I am horrified by the intellectual dishonesty that you exhibit in spinning this "twist and shout" argument of fake mathematical precision trying to prove Ellsberg is a witting accomplice of the Zionists simply because he is "associated" with what you deem to be four false-flags. Ellsberg supported the whistleblowing of Bradley Manning, even going to jail for that support, and you condemn Ellsberg for his actions while calling Manning's whistleblowing a false-flag (Manning is still rotting in prison). Ellsberg cheered the release of Manning's information via Wikileaks, and you condemn Ellsberg again and call Wikileaks a false-flag (Assange too is still imprisoned). And what is Ellsberg's crime with respect to the Gulf of Tonkin false-flag?


So yeah, everyone working under McNamara is guilty of being in on the deception. You idiot. And the Pentagon Papers exposure is an Ellsberg false-flag, too? Did you even read the Wikipedia article, and more importantly, comprehend it? You are beyond belief, Zook. So why would the Nixon administration fight Ellsberg so ruthlessly, even committing crimes in order to find a way to discredit him?


So you run around trying to discredit every whistleblower that says an unkind word against the ruling sociopaths, all while exclaiming that you are the only discerning person trying to stop the FSD of the Zionist banksters!

You disgust me, you sick son-of-a-sociopath. You are indeed a gatekeeper -- a regular Pied Piper (probably in league with the sociopaths, who must seem like brothers-in-arms to you).

He is connected with four false flags (two directly). All of a sudden, Wikipedia, whom you disrespected in another thread recently, is now the great recorder of details?? Keep it up, carousel spinner. I only referenced Wikipedia's article to show Ellsberg's involvement with the Gulf of Tonkin false flag event. Let Wikipedia spin the details however it wants to ... I'm only interested in the fact of Ellsberg's connection to it. As he was pretty intimate with McNamara's office, the reasonable assumption is that Ellsberg is involved with the deception to get America into Vietnam. The extraordinary assumption is that he was a clueless errand boy who merely happened to be working in high office. Indeed, his later false flag with the Pentagon Papers as the point man ... lends great credibility to our initial assumption that Ellsberg was party to the Gulf of Tonkin deception and not merely an errand boy. Again, you isolate the Gulf of Tonkin incident from the preponderance - isolating evidence being one of your favorite pastimes - and grandstand with it ... and that, my friend, is inescapable intellectual mendacity.

Further preponderance as evidenced by his support for Wikileaks and the Snowden affair ... makes it a slam dunk with 100% virtual probability that Ellsberg is guilty as charged.



The Johnson administration, not the Nixon administration, was intimately involved with the covert Zionist operations of the 1960s (including the USS LIberty incident). Nixon didn't trust Jews (good Jews or bad Jews). He could barely stand Henry Kissinger who was elevated to high office as part of the Zionist occupation of the American government (in that era). Nixon naturally wanted to pursue Ellsberg to prove - as per his racially-biased mind - that Jews could not be trusted. But what is more important about the Fielding break-in, the crime you are alluding to, is that it was staged to give Ellsberg a get-out-jail-free pass from the serious charges he was facing. Someone bigger than Nixon, e.g. his handler, likely put the leash on Nixon and told him to mind the White House, and to leave intelligence operations to those specifically trained for it.

Which is why the suspects (Liddy et al) took photographs of themselves in front of Fielding's office. What kind of thieves put on easily recognizable disguises, and take photos of themselves in the act of committing a crime, photos that will eventually be delivered to Ellsberg's trial resulting in all charges being dismissed? Ans: thieves that had alphabet soup for lunch, of course!

Fielding is another stooge. Read the details of the staged crime and figure it out for yourself. The timeline of Ellsberg's calls to his psychiatrist Fielding ... is also important to understand that Ellsberg was in on the staged crime. Of courrse, being a carousel spinner, I expect you to take the least possible interpretation of the facts ... and promote it to the default probability.



Not every whistleblower. I support Kirsten Meghan in the chemtrails thread. She has the facts on her side.
And I never exclaimed I was the only person trying to stop the FSD of the Zionist bankers ... I declared with unapologetic precision, that I'm the only one remaining in this burp of a forum that is genuinely fighting FSD and Zionist aspirations. The declaration has merit. You know it. I know it. The good readers all know it.



Your false flag insinuation is worthy of a false flag truthseeker. You stooge for phony whistleblowers ... and you throw in an occasional genuine whistleblower like Kirsten Meghan to confuse the readers as per your 50/50 mixer.

But you can't confuse someone who has discernment.

Nice try with the hysterics. You've all but outed yourself as a witting agent who runs ideological subversion for the bankster empire and errands of support for Zionist stooges. Are you one yourself? A nonZionist would have no problem seeing the clarity of the Zionist occupation.

But I'll give you one last chance: do you believe that America is under Zionist occupation ... Yes or No?


Pax

Where is your evidence for that?


To hear you tell it, everyone is a stooge if it helps your story-telling. I did some more reading, but I'm not seeing what you are claiming. And what if the crime was staged to look like a staged crime? The bottom line is that you don't really know what happened, nor do I. We only know what we read, and that cannot be trusted. You're such a dufus, Zook, and trying so desperately to be a sage.




The king of obfuscation is you, Zook.


Oh, so you'll give me one last chance, eh? My judgment in the eyes of the great and powerful Oz lies in my belief! You really are a sociopath, Zook, and you can't even prevent yourself from demonstrating it over and over again with crystal clarity, at least for those who know what to look for in a sociopath, which you insist is not an important thing to learn at all (for obvious reasons).

Unbelievable.

Qui bono by staging the crime? Plus the existing preponderance. Slam dunk.

Another anomaly is the timeline of Ellsberg's phone calls to Fielding. Ellsberg had stopped seeing his psychiatrist for about a year before the break-in ... then shortly just before the trial, he makes phone calls to Fielding. This was obviously meant to draw Fielding into the psyops and set the stage for the break-in, after which Ellsberg could argue that the government was infringing on his right to privacy or something akin to gross misconduct ... which is exactly what got him off. Liddy et al did everything to make sure that the crime was discovered, i.e. they weren't genuinely interested in the contents of Fielding's office.



Those with piss poor discernment are not expected to see it right away ...now that' it's been explained to you, what's your next excuse, Chico?



Yup. Figured you would take that tact. He must have been a big hero with you when you were growing up. Time to put Puff the Magic Dragon back in his cave, Chico. The real world does not need any more imagined heroes.



Nice try at projecting your behavior. No one's buying it except maybe the tribal animal.



Any genuine truthseeker is welcome to join in the judgment of Chico. I just happen to be the only one left that is still posting. So put two and two together and quit stalling.

Yes or no ... is there an occupation of America by Zionists?

Pax

Hear, Hear...

Before we can solve the problem ... we better understand what it is.

Same question applies to you, Mags ...is there a Zionist occupation of America ... yes or no?


Pax