COVID-19: Control-distribution or An Out Of Hand Experiment?
Comments
-
@C Mc posted:
Please read again what I stated above:
I passed on, what and the way it was sent to me. I am NOT the author or it originated with me..."
I wasn't given a source or reference. This is why I "can't" "cite the source".
When I wonder about the source of information others have posted without citation, CMc, I paste a couple of sentences of the material into a Google search box, often with illuminating results. Such was the case when I pasted a portion of the material that was sent to you about the source of the Coronavirus. According to snopes.com, the content you posted...
"...was originally published on r/NoSleep, a section of Reddit dedicated to scary fiction stories. The story on The UFO Spotlight On… did contain a link back to the original author. However, this link may have been hard for some readers to find as it was written in Chinese.
"Posts on r/NoSleep are designed to be realistic horror stories and the commentators often treat them as if they were real. In fact, that’s one of the sub’s rules:
"Users are to act as though everything is true on r/nosleep and treat it as such in posts and comments. No debunking, disbelief, or criticism (constructive or otherwise). If the formatting is off, report the post and mods will address it. Do not ask for proof or tl;dr’s.
"This may create an immersive horror environment for fans of the genre, but it can also lead to confusion for anyone unfamiliar with the subreddit. And when one of these stories escapes the confines of its original platform, readers may mistakenly believe that they are reading a genuine report about a real-world incident."
Bottom Line: The story sent to you, CMc, is fiction, a story originally published in an online community set aside for fiction, but now being repurposed as a factual depiction of the virus' creation. It's up to posters such as us to identify such items as fiction and not allow them a status they don't deserve and for which they weren't created. I think our exchange in this thread has now successfully processed and categorized the story that was sent to you.
-
Bill,
Thanks for highlighting the background to the story I posted. Fiction or not, I posted it for an opinion. Historical Friction is a form of literature. This story displayed the seven critical elements: character, dialogue, setting, theme, plot, conflict, and world building. While every story succeeds or disappoints on the basis of these elements.
Let's not lose sight of what is real and the affect on people's lives. CM
-
@C Mc posted:
Thanks for highlighting the background to the story I posted. Fiction or not, I posted it for an opinion. Historical Friction is a form of literature. This story displayed the seven critical elements: character, dialogue, setting, theme, plot, conflict, and world building. While every story succeeds or disappoints on the basis of these elements.
Let's not lose sight of what is real and the affect on people's lives.
To conclude the post in which you quoted the story, you asked this:
Truth, some truth or completely made up? Please give your reasons for your position. Debunk it or accept it.
That is, the "opinion" your post requested from us was whether we believed the story or thought it was fiction. Your post made no mention of whether the story "displayed the seven critical elements: character, dialogue, setting, theme, plot, conflict, and world building."
My post complied with your requests completely as it showed that the story you posted was fiction, and as such, adds nothing to our understanding of the origins of the Coronavirus.
-
Bill,
So be it. Thanks again for the attention to the matter. The seven critical elements was a post observation on my part. CM
-
Glad @Bill_Coley proved that this whole thread is nonsense as I suspected all along. Glad I didn't read it, it really WOULD HAVE BEEN a waste of my time!
-
@reformed posted:
Glad @Bill_Coley proved that this whole thread is nonsense as I suspected all along. Glad I didn't read it, it really WOULD HAVE BEEN a waste of my time!
Though I've made several posts to this thread, neither any of those individually nor all of them collectively "proved this whole this whole thread is nonsense." The specific piece of the thread which you quoted in your last post referred to one specific exchange I had with @C Mc regarding one specific item he posted. By the information and commentary I included in my part of that specific exchange, I intended no commentary whatsoever about "this whole thread."
And as to another of the specific exchanges in which I've engaged in this thread, I remind you that I'm STILL waiting for you to respond to the analysis and questions I offered to you in THIS POST more than two weeks ago.
-
Why does no one reference events that could go far to explain the simplest of truths?
2016 New "MOON" flying around Earth, from outer space.
2018 China declares "moon shot" planned for the "other side" of the Moon.
Has it never occurred to Men that China was in reality, exploring this "Other moon" for just such a thing as this virus? Could they not have been exploring a rock from space, for exactly this event?
We know two relevant things; i.,e., China explored a "MOON" in 2018, that had been discovered in 2016, with no other activity in the interim. AND it reported an intent to explore on the side of the moon unseen by Men on Earth. Can anyone come up with a better explanation for the timeline, and the resulting pandemic?
Just wondering.
-
Welcome to the forums, @Lamech.
@Lamech posted:
2016 New "MOON" flying around Earth, from outer space.
The "moon" observed "flying around earth" in 2016 was likely what astronomers call a "temporarily captured object" (TCO), VERY small objects that for a brief time are captured by the earth-moon orbital system. For example, one caught astronomers' attention earlier this year (search "2020 CD3"). TCO's are a common occurrence and have no special significance.
2018 China declares "moon shot" planned for the "other side" of the Moon.
Has it never occurred to Men that China was in reality, exploring this "Other moon" for just such a thing as this virus? Could they not have been exploring a rock from space, for exactly this event?
China landed a lunar lander called "Chang'e 4" on the so-called "dark side" of the moon - OUR moon; the moon we've all seen at night all our lives - on January 2, 2019. Chang'e 4 has been sending back important data about the moon's surface, and is still in operation today.
The "other moon" was likely the size of a compact car or even smaller, and stayed in the earth-moon orbital system for a short period of time back in 2016. Hence, it is not possible that the Chang'e 4 mission had anything to do with that "other moon."
We know two relevant things; i.,e., China explored a "MOON" in 2018, that had been discovered in 2016, with no other activity in the interim. AND it reported an intent to explore on the side of the moon unseen by Men on Earth. Can anyone come up with a better explanation for the timeline, and the resulting pandemic?
- China's lunar mission landed in 2019, not 2018.
- The "moon" discovered in 2016 was a TCO that left the earth-moon orbital system in 2016, long before the Chinese lunar mission.
- There is in fact a side of our moon we never see from earth, the so called "dark side of the moon." We never see that side of the moon because the moon completes one complete rotation in the same amount of time as it takes to complete one complete orbit around the earth (see THIS VIDEO for a great explanation).
- Hence, the Chinese mission to the "dark side of the moon" in January 2019 had nothing to do with either the TCO observed in 2016 or the global pandemic announced in early 2020.
-
You assume China did not take a small craft within a large craft, to throw off any observers.
-
@Lamech posted:
You assume China did not take a small craft within a large craft, to throw off any observers.
What I assume is that the information I reviewed and to which I linked in order to respond to your previous post is very likely true given that it is not controverted by any reputable source. What I also assume is that if you had a factual basis upon which to suggest China used a "small craft within a large craft to throw off any observers," you would have provided it.
And I will repeat one of the important facts to which I called attention in my previous post: The TCO (temporarily captured object) discovered in 2016 left the earth-moon orbital system LONG before the Chinese lunar mission that launched in late 2018 and landed on the moon in January 2019, and hence was not available for exploration by ANY Chinese craft, large or small.
-
Brethren,
When will we stop the kabuki dance and admit, here in CD, the the Coronavirus is a man-made virus out-of-Control in the land? Are we so "bullheaded" that we can't admit to the speed of the spread, deaths, and the destruction of the world's economies? CM
-
@C Mc posted:
When will we stop the kabuki dance and admit, here in CD, the the Coronavirus is a man-made virus out-of-Control in the land? Are we so "bullheaded" that we can't admit to the speed of the spread, deaths, and the destruction of the world's economies?
I will "admit... the Coronavirus is a man-made virus out-of-Control in the land" when there is a factual basis for such an admission; at the moment, there is no such factual basis... none. At least twice in these forums you have posted information which, at least to my reading, seemed intended to add support for your "man-made" hypothesis. One of those posts was a fictional narrative that was originally posted in a forum specifically for fictional narratives. The other of those posts relied on a video presentation about a published report whose content in no way supported the contentions of the presentation. Such posts are NOT the stuff of a factual basis for an admission that COVID-19 is man-made.
Yesterday, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence issued a statement that said, "The Intelligence Community also concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified." THAT'S an assessment for which I believe there IS a factual basis.
-
Bill, you said:
Yesterday, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence issued a statement that said, "The Intelligence Community also concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified." THAT'S an assessment for which I believe there IS a factual basis.
My Friend, Bill,
You are a very intelligent, well-read, and skilled master-debater. Do you really believe what you quoted above, in light of America's dark past with experimentation on people and lying for decades about it? Her past gives me no comfort. CM
-
@C Mc posted:
You are a very intelligent, well-read, and skilled master-debater. Do you really believe what you quoted above, in light of America's dark past with experimentation on people and lying for decades about it? Her past gives me no comfort.
What you think I am, and what does or does not give you comfort have no bearing on whether there is a factual basis for your claim that the COVID-19 virus is "man-made" germ warfare. To-date you have provided one openly and intentionally fictional story and a link to a video whose grave misrepresentations of the report it purports as proof you have yet to address (a week ago you said you were reading the report). You're free to claim anything you want to claim, CM, but not without being held accountable when you make claims for which you provide NO factual support.
-
Bill,
Here is "factual support":
I will take your apologies in the next post. CM
-
@C Mc posted:
Here is "factual support." ... I will take your apologies in the next post.
Somehow it seems unfair to me that you make wild claims (such as the one about jet engine “chemtrails” spreading the virus, or your use of a completely fictional story to explain the virus’ origins) and it’s left to me - not to you, the source of the claims - to track down the facts, which almost always debunk your claims. I guess I should just stop and let you wail away, but facts still matter to me.
Your latest claim is that the Coronavirus is man-made. As proof, you offer a NY Post article, which as you know, relies on a leaked 15 page dossier for most of its content, and offers only one sentence (not counting the headline) that even mentions the virus’ origins. That one sentence refers to what an intelligence official told Fox News, so I found a Fox News article from Sunday that reviews the dossier as well as what Fox News has learned about the origins of the virus. The article reports:
- “...a senior official told Fox that reports of the document aligns with U.S. intelligence that China knew the spread between humans earlier than it said, that it knew it was a novel coronavirus earlier than it said and that it was spread wider than they reported to the international community in the first weeks of the outbreak.” NONE OF THAT says the virus was man-made.
- The U.S. is “still leaning away” from the hypothesis that the virus originated in a wet market. That doesn’t say the virus was man-made.
- In a critical paragraph, “Fox News first reported last month that there is increasing confidence from U.S. officials that the virus likely escaped from the lab in Wuhan, where the naturally-occurring strain was being studied not as a bioweapon but as part of a Chinese effort to show that its efforts to identify and combat viruses are equal to or greater than those of the U.S. This would be at odds with claims the outbreak originated at a nearby wet market. The U.S. is investigating the matter.” A “naturally-occurring strain” doesn’t sound man-made to me. An organism that was NOT studied as a bioweapon doesn’t seem like a weapon of what you’ve called “germ warfare.”
- There is support, the Fox article says, for “two potential origins” of the virus. More evidence, it says, supports a lab-origin for the “naturally-occurring strain” than a wet market origin, but both potential origins “are attributable to mistakes.” And so your “germ warfare” claim takes another hit.
There’s more, but I really shouldn’t have to clean up details like these. The bottom line is that the article you cite has one sentence - which is NOT part of the dossier that is its subject - that has ANYTHING to do with the virus’ origins. Additional reporting by the news organization quoted in the article deeply discounts your “germ warfare” claim, and says the virus is a “naturally-occurring strain.” Finally, the U.S. intelligence community is officially on record as saying the virus was NOT man-made.
So, no apology. I disagree with your claim that the article you cite provides a “factual basis” for your claim that the virus was “man-made.”
-
Bill said:
At least twice in these forums you have posted information which, at least to my reading, seemed intended to add support for your "man-made" hypothesis. One of those posts was a fictional narrative that was originally posted in a forum specifically for fictional narratives. The other of those posts relied on a video presentation about a published report whose content in no way supported the contentions of the presentation.
Bill, what you called "fictional narrative" I find after reading the entire script as "plausible". There you have it. However, I find your recent conversion to accept and believe the U. S. versions and reports on matters around COVID-19, to be appalling; especially, from the Trump Administration. Can any truth comes out of the Trump Administration?
As for “chemtrails”, I don't believe your so-called non-governmental scientists report. CM
-
@C Mc posted:
Bill, what you called "fictional narrative" I find after reading the entire script as "plausible". There you have it. However, I find your recent conversion to accept and believe the U. S. versions and reports on matters around COVID-19, to be appalling; especially, from the Trump Administration. Can any truth comes out of the Trump Administration?
As for “chemtrails”, I don't believe your so-called non-governmental scientists report.
So...
- You find fiction "plausible"
- You don't believe government officials, including, I assume, public health officials
- And you don't believe non-government scientists
You don't believe people in the government or outside the government, but you do believe fiction, or at least find it "plausible." We live in different worlds, CM.
It's perhaps a good thing that you don't believe people in- or outside the government, because Monday was a BAD day for your man-made hypothesis - a VERY bad day.
- Dr Anthony Fauci, the one public health expert who has regularly contradicted President Trump's uninformed and misleading views, says that in his professional opinion as one who has seen the evidence, there is no evidence to support the view that the virus was created in a lab or that it was brought into a lab and then escaped. From the article...
“If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what's out there now, [the scientific evidence] is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated … Everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that [this virus] evolved in nature and then jumped species,” Fauci says. Based on the scientific evidence, he also doesn’t entertain an alternate theory—that someone found the coronavirus in the wild, brought it to a lab, and then it accidentally escaped.
- And in a report that directly contradicts the NY Post story to which you linked and which you called a "factual basis" for you claims, CNN reported Monday night that the so-called "Five Eyes" - intelligence communities in five allied nations - believe that it is "highly unlikely" that the virus accidentally spread from a lab, but rather it launched from a wet market. Here's a sampling from the CNN reporting:
Here's a sampling from the CNN reporting:
Intelligence shared among Five Eyes nations indicates it is "highly unlikely" that the coronavirus outbreak was spread as a result of an accident in a laboratory but rather originated in a Chinese market, according to two Western officials who cited an intelligence assessment that appears to contradict claims by President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
"We think it's highly unlikely it was an accident," a Western diplomatic official with knowledge of the intelligence said. "It is highly likely it was naturally occurring and that the human infection was from natural human and animal interaction." The countries in the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing coalition are coalescing around this assessment, the official said, and a second official, from a Five Eyes country, concurred with it. The US has yet to make a formal assessment public.
This reporting directly contradicts the Fox News story I found when researching the NY Post story. One of the outlets has the story wrong. My money's on Fox.
-
Bill said:
So...
You find fiction "plausible"
You don't believe government officials, including, I assume, public health officials
And you don't believe -government scientists
Bill, this is a blatant overreach of my positions on matters of discussion. Please refrain from such in moving forward. CM
-
What's your purpose for doing such? CM
-
@C Mc posted:
Bill, this is a blatant overreach of my positions on matters of discussion. Please refrain from such in moving forward.... What's your purpose for doing such?
I should have made overt the clause "In this instance," which I thought was implied by the structure of my post, CM. In this instance, you find fiction "plausible," you don't believe government officials - including, I presume, public health officials - and you don't believe non-government scientists. My observation was about your response(s) in this particular case, NOT about every case or circumstance.
The fundamental problem with your point of view in this instance is that it's not grounded in facts. You have NO factual basis to support your view. You have hunches and notions - what you call premonitions. In that regard - where you base your views on premonitions rather than established facts - I contend it IS true that you and I live in different worlds.
-
If you found the Easter Bunny as "plausible" does that mean it is factual proof? Oh brother...
