4 ms·

Huh, wow, those are some pretty massive holes in the "official" narrative. I'm not sure I'd call him a conspiracy theorist for this, isn't it normal that the p

Huh, wow, those are some pretty massive holes in the "official" narrative. I'm not sure I'd call him a conspiracy theorist for this, isn't it normal that the public aren't told the true progression of events for "Spy" stuff?

Traster 7y ago
No, there are 'pretty massive holes' in what he misrepresents the official narrative to be. For example he states: >As the MSM never questions the official narrative, there has never been an official answer as to how the gel got from the doorknob to the roof. In 1 second of Googling: >Speaking to BBC Radio Wiltshire, Alistair Cunningham, the chair of the recovery coordination group, said: "the whole house had to be searched, including the roof space. >We want to be sure no contamination was taken from the door into the roof space. >It's a timber structure and when it comes to wood it's more difficult to clean. It's easier to remove." And that's just a random paragraph I pulled out of the middle of dozens of claims he makes. You need to actually read what he says and then relate what he claims people are lying to you about and what people are actually saying.
- notahacker 7y ago
  It also helps as context to why Murray is viewed as a conspiracy theorist to read the multiple conflicting alternative narratives that Murray has pushed at different times (that the implicated Russians were telling the truth about going to England for the weekend to see Salisbury cathedral and it's racist to assume otherwise, that they were probably lying because they were a gay couple involved in the dodgy supplements trade, that they were probably meeting the Skripals but were probably Ukrainian, that there's no reason whatsoever to connect Russia with the assassination of Russian defectors using a Russian intelligence modus operandi and it's probably Israel instead)

4 ms·

Huh, wow, those are some pretty massive holes in the "official" narrative. I'm not sure I'd call him a conspiracy theorist for this, isn't it normal that the p

by Dayshine 7y ago

Traster 7y ago
No, there are 'pretty massive holes' in what he misrepresents the official narrative to be. For example he states: >As the MSM never questions the official narrative, there has never been an official answer as to how the gel got from the doorknob to the roof. In 1 second of Googling: >Speaking to BBC Radio Wiltshire, Alistair Cunningham, the chair of the recovery coordination group, said: "the whole house had to be searched, including the roof space. >We want to be sure no contamination was taken from the door into the roof space. >It's a timber structure and when it comes to wood it's more difficult to clean. It's easier to remove." And that's just a random paragraph I pulled out of the middle of dozens of claims he makes. You need to actually read what he says and then relate what he claims people are lying to you about and what people are actually saying.
- notahacker 7y ago
  It also helps as context to why Murray is viewed as a conspiracy theorist to read the multiple conflicting alternative narratives that Murray has pushed at different times (that the implicated Russians were telling the truth about going to England for the weekend to see Salisbury cathedral and it's racist to assume otherwise, that they were probably lying because they were a gay couple involved in the dodgy supplements trade, that they were probably meeting the Skripals but were probably Ukrainian, that there's no reason whatsoever to connect Russia with the assassination of Russian defectors using a Russian intelligence modus operandi and it's probably Israel instead)