andyh wrote:
Good job!

Ok, now find me a picture of Alex Jones as a child. Otherwise he's Bill Hicks who he superficially looks a bit like, especially considering he's older.





Oh and can you prove that's Noam Chomsky? How do you know it isn't just some random kid they want you to believe is Noam Chomsky to put you off the scent of him really being...Roy 'Chubby' Brown or whoever?

dogsmilk wrote:

In fact...

Nose, glasses, top lip - it's uncanny





C'mon Andy - this is Christmas hitting the sherry stuff - you can't go down this 'they look a bit like them so they are them route - that's getting into the outer extremes of where reason collapses.

dubmeup wrote:
That is correct.

As a kid would be difficult (too many with same name), that said as a young man deffo.



He doesn't look anything like bill hicks until he gets a bit plumper as the years go by

Still waiting for any pics of david de rothschild even so much as pre 2006 ish tbh...

i-baster wrote: And I can verify that the post in question hasn't been edited. So hopefully we can move on from there.

One thing I can't verify though is that piece of audio phem posted up. I can't get to the bottom of what's changed on my lappy that renders it unable to grab audio

dogsmilk wrote:
Those 2 are nothing alike at all, ofc you know that though

andyh wrote:
I'm obviously having a laugh Andy.

Here's a question for you - which do you think is the rational way to find out if somebody exists?

1/Check whether they were registered as being born, attended whatever school, knew whatever people - ascertain whether the standard marks somebody makes on the world are present - starting with registration of birth and moving forward.
2/Decide they look like someone else and if you can't google up a picture of them as a child decide they are that person after you saw it on one of the internet's crazier websites.

.?????

andyh wrote:
That's not a child. It looks like a smartened up Bill Hicks.

I rest my case. Bill Hicks faked his death so he could become a fat fuck and rake in cash spouting bullshit over the airwaves. It's a more elegant method of selling out.

See if you can find them as a kid. Simple as.

I would certainly say that is more rational than looking at a piece of paper.
You are ofc welcome to think otherwise

I can find pics of all sorts of people, even bloody thatcher as a kid (ewwww lol) but be damned if I can see David.

I can however find pics of nat rothschild and evelyn.

dogsmilk wrote:
Ummm a dumbed down bill hicks perhaps rofl!

wake_up_bomb wrote:
There is nothing wrong with questioning things but if you don't think anything on TV is legit then you just need to turn the thing off. I also think you should keep in mind,when you question things like this, that you could be wrong and the people in question could be genuine. You should always approach information like it could be wrong. There is always another possible option. I find it odd that I am being painted as an "enemy of truth" or something.

As I said of course you should question the source. People often yell loudly that we should question mainstream news media then they post an article from "filthyjewsdiditall.com" and say nothing. I think it is good to be skeptical but a level head and balanced perspective is great. I always remember many years ago I was debating with people on 911 and their questions helped a lot. I mean the people who questioned the conspiracy I was putting forward by the way.

andyh wrote:
Andy man - this is scarily like If I can't google it it doesn't exist - you're sounding like those people who think if it isn't on the internet it isn't real.

How do you know the photos aren't faked? Like if I say this -



is Cheryl Cole as a child (and it was a specifically uploaded scan and not a random image search) who's to say it isn't? How do you know anybody exists? After all, we all look kinda like somebody else. Who's to say we aren't that person????????

The matrix conspiracy has you now.

He's clearly some kind of Nicholas Parsons and Jim Bowen hybrid clone




dogsmilk wrote:

dogsmilk wrote:
I'll end this here and now.
Do you say that the MSM never ever make up news stories for whatever reason at any time and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nutter?

i-baster wrote: The only reason I ask is that you seem to be condemning people who are doing precisely this. I'm not painting you as an enemy of anything. I definitely agree with you regarding sources.

I would be interested to speak to people who question the 'conspiracy' angle regarding 9/11, but are genuinely sceptical. Absolutely every single one that I've encountered without exception placed 'conspiracy theories' regarding 9/11 under absolutely huge scrutiny, refusing to accept that anyone questioning the official narrative had ever made even one legitimate point, no matter how desperate and specious their responses to them became, and almost without exception resorting to personal insults very quickly indeed. But did no such thing with regards to any official information, in fact they did everything they could to buttress their psychological reliance on it being absolutely correct, and even reached the point where they would question any form of scepticism about the official theory and investigation, even refusing to accept that it was inappropriate for the Bush administration to appoint Kissinger to the head of the 9/11 Commission, which even the New York Times criticised them for doing. I found them without exception to be the polar opposite of sceptical.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Obviously the NYT are a bunch of conspiracy theorists....

andyh wrote:
What does that have to do with what you're saying?
The media certainly is guilty of making up stories (and that includes the 'alternative' media which as a whole is no better, in some cases far worse) - but even Fox has never lowered itself to comparing picture of people and saying they're the same person because they look kinda alike - that I know of at least -You're making up a story - right here, right now. Or rather, you're repeating something off a website that makes the mainstream media look like a bastion of truth and righteousness.
Seriously dude - think it through - this is not rational stuff.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
I was not trying to say people should not question this. I do think people are getting carried away with this particular thing and should bare in mind that the issue is sensitive. To me it is more about approach. I can say "CIA killed JFK" or I can say " looking at evidence it would appear that a high level conspiracy killed JFK" that is just an example of course but the difference is my point. Not sure if i am making myself clear.

I think we went a bit off topic when this became an Alex Jones Noam Chomsky Photo thread.