I discussed the alleged "difference in age" Liar. And gave citations with photo evidence.
Nor the physical attributes which remained the same - i.e. teeth.
I demonstrated, with links to photos, evidence as the the "look" both before and after the alleged death.
Peruse those photos, and make up your own mind. But do read the evidence first; otherwise you prove your ignorance by your opinion on something you don't, apparently, know anything about
Fallacy #2
Character assassination [delustional?] -
No . ! absolute sign:"that's all you've got" i.e. name - calling..
Fallacy #3
I have no idea what you are referring to bandying the word "scientific"
Fallacy #4
People make fun of the idea, that makes it wrong.
U struck out.
Try to read the article first, but I guess since you can't disprove it, it's better to ignore the evidence, right?
Your playbooks are stale.
https://illegalnewsblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/stratfor3.jpg?w=840
"On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered “global intelligence” company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal’s Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor’s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods."
view the rest of the comments →
samhara ago
No no.
You are the Sophist. Fallacy #1
I discussed the alleged "difference in age" Liar. And gave citations with photo evidence.
Nor the physical attributes which remained the same - i.e. teeth. I demonstrated, with links to photos, evidence as the the "look" both before and after the alleged death.
Peruse those photos, and make up your own mind. But do read the evidence first; otherwise you prove your ignorance by your opinion on something you don't, apparently, know anything about
Fallacy #2
Character assassination [delustional?] -
No . ! absolute sign:"that's all you've got" i.e. name - calling..
Fallacy #3
I have no idea what you are referring to bandying the word "scientific"
Fallacy #4
People make fun of the idea, that makes it wrong.
U struck out. Try to read the article first, but I guess since you can't disprove it, it's better to ignore the evidence, right?
Your playbooks are stale.
https://illegalnewsblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/stratfor3.jpg?w=840 "On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered “global intelligence” company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal’s Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor’s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods."