Richard D Hall

[Mazthehobo]

Just reading the impartial BBC report on chemtrails and how they might be warming up the earth.

 

“Conspiracy theories have grown up around contrails, with some people alleging they are in fact “chemtrails” that contain chemical or biological substances.

The aim of these chemtrails is either vaccinating the population, spreading pandemics or controlling the minds of the masses, the conspiracy theories go on to claim. 

All of these ideas are completely untrue.”

 

ALL OF THESE IDEAS ARE COMPLETELY UNTRUE.

 

No need for an investigation. No need for a second opinion. There you have it folks.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7wp777780o
 

However, in a 2019 bbc article about conspiracy theorists… it says this..

 

“Weather modification - or at least attempting it - has a long history. The Leningrad Institute of Rainmaking was established in the Soviet Union in 1932. Chinese authorities used cloud seeding to ensure the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympics wasn't washed out. 

Geo-engineering - deliberate intervention in the Earth's natural systems to counteract climate change - is a newer field of research. While scientists have talked about it, there's been very little being physically done - most of the research in the field relies on computer modelling.

Professor David Keith of Harvard University, is among the most prominent scientists calling for further research. He told the New York Times he knows of only two instances where one of the most controversial proposals has been tested in the field. It's called solar geo-engineering and involves atmospheric aerosol injection of tiny reflective particles to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth and thus cool the planet. 

Similarly, successful weather modification efforts have been localised - and certainly not on the grand scale some conspiracy theorists claim.”

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-42195511.amp

 

Now… geo engineering is happening and has a long history… but by putting in things like ‘mind control’ and ‘spreading pandemics’ they can ridicule it and scoff that it doesn’t happen.

 

If it wasn’t for Eastenders I would cancel my bbc license right now.

[Occulus5]

On 11/12/2024 at 12:53 AM, factJack said:

 

I'm sure Richard stated in one of his videos (the off grid one possibly)his house cost £45k.

I wish I could find a house for £45k lol. My house cost that in 1991 lol. I would love to have my house off grid the way Richard has done to his house, but I don't have the skills to do anything like that nor do I know anyone who does or would be willing to help. I hope he doesn't have sell up after all that hard work he's done to that house. 

Edited November 13, 2024 by Occulus5

[SimonTV]

On 11/8/2024 at 10:18 PM, Mitochondrial Eve said:

It has been ruled that Richard D Hall should pay damages amounting to £45,000 to the Hibberts. He will possibly be bankrupted by the legal costs of around £260,000.

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/manchester-arena-survivors-bombing-awarded-harassment-case-richard-hall/

 

There further remains the prospect that a new "Eve's law" will be implemented to combat discussion of mainstream narratives such as the Manchester event.

 

Weighing up this situation, I cannot agree that Hall's conduct amounted to harassment. He hardly singled out the Hibberts amid the myriad of questions he raised about the alleged bombing - and in no way did he conduct himself with malicious intent towards them. He was open to viewing any evidence they could present to confirm that their injuries were indeed caused by Salman Abedi in May 2017 upon which he may have revised his opinion - but this was denied. I believe that Hall was genuine in his attempts to uncover real crime in the form of a monumental scheme and cover up by the authorities.

 

I am not sure about the specifics of the new "Eve's law" (which will undoubtedly be passed) and what its scope will be, but the benefits of free discussion, in my view, outweigh the drawbacks. When what is allowed in discourse can be dictated, we move into dangerous territory of discouraging any deviation from what is considered the acceptable narrative. I would prefer open questioning at the possible expense of people's feelings over legalised shielding from scrutiny whilst curtailing legitimate queries about potentially suspect matters.

 

There are some out there who feel that Hall has fallen into a trap, made the situation worse for independent journalism and should have refrained from his investigation. I disagree in that I feel that any researcher could have been selected. The very point of such scrutiny is to bring things out into the open - by acquiescing to self censorship, is that not just doing the bidding of the overlords for them?

 

Wow what a joke. I bet it was the same approach they took with the Sandy hook law suit as there appears to be the same agenda with both. They dismissed all the other arguments that were raised about the event as irrelevant and simply focused on the so called fake victim rather than some of the greater arguments that prove the case. 

 

Interesting how they also refused to present any further evidence proving that it was true. Same approach in the US. 

 

I wouldn't expect a fair verdict or sentence from this sort of case because the government is basically involved in the crime that it is trying to cover up so there is a conflict of interest. 

[Anti Facts Sir]

Guess the law must have changed (or the goal posts) cos I thought there was a thing known as "absence of proof".

 

RDH offered to amend his interpretation of the event if proof was given or shown that things actually happened.

 

But none was provided.

 

That itself would have nullified the case, once upon a time, surely. But as Simon points out, this was a political trial with certain agendas and desired outcomes.

[Nemuri Kyoshiro]

20 hours ago, Anti Facts Sir said:

But as Simon points out, this was a political trial with certain agendas and desired outcomes.

I'd go further AF. I'd say it was a pre-determined outcome. Hall is effectively bankrupt. Damages/costs are horrendous (the costs especially so). Donations may cover some but everything he has worked for over the years may be taken from him.

[Occulus5]

2 hours ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

I'd go further AF. I'd say it was a pre-determined outcome. Hall is effectively bankrupt. Damages/costs are horrendous (the costs especially so). Donations may cover some but everything he has worked for over the years may be taken from him.

Yes it's not looking good for him. But did he not think for a moment that there was a possibility that this would happen?.

[Nemuri Kyoshiro]

1 hour ago, Occulus5 said:

Yes it's not looking good for him. But did he not think for a moment that there was a possibility that this would happen?.

Richard is a smart bloke. I'm sure he knew the risks. I don't think he expected the BBC to declare war on him and engineer events that led up to his trial.

[Occulus5]

1 hour ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

1 hour ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

Richard is a smart bloke. I'm sure he knew the risks. I don't think he expected the BBC to declare war on him and engineer events that led up to his trial.

 

1 hour ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

Richard is a smart bloke. I'm sure he knew the risks. I don't think he expected the BBC to declare war on him and engineer events that led up to his trial.

That's what I was thinking, he isn't stupid. But as you say he didn't expect the BBC to declare war on him. I don't think this has been given that mucn attention in the media. To be honest, I don't think if Richard had been allowed to give his evidence and it showed there was no evidence that a bomb went off that it would make any difference.

[factJack]

What will happen to hall after the dust has settled?

Will he continue to make his films and his chat show? My friend said perhaps he will do another tour to make some money but it might be difficult for him to hire venues as he's now the famous convicted "disaster troll"

Muad Dib done one film, got their knuckles rapped then vanished into obsuracy.

[Occulus5]

10 hours ago, factJack said:

What will happen to hall after the dust has settled?

Will he continue to make his films and his chat show? My friend said perhaps he will do another tour to make some money but it might be difficult for him to hire venues as he's now the famous convicted "disaster troll"

Muad Dib done one film, got their knuckles rapped then vanished into obsuracy.

I don't think the recent news hitpiece on him has made him well known, not to the extent where everyone knows who he is. I don't think the media have made that much of a deal about it as far as reporting, yes there was the odd news story about it but it wasn't a major news story. Most people will have forgotten they heard or read about it. Not sure about the speaking venues. I don't think it's made him famous as such.

[Occulus5]

Came across this video of someone who claims he knows Richard (why is he hiding his face behind that stupid fake beard and those 3D glasses?, just makes a mockery of the whole thing, Bitchute is just full of strange people and content, it's no wonder these alternative video sites aren't watched by most people they are a joke imo). He claims that the reason Richard was taken to court was because he sold his book on Manchester and made money from it. Anyone think this is true?.

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/JL0VDerjeQLy

Edited November 19, 2024 by Occulus5

[Grumpy Owl]

45 minutes ago, Occulus5 said:

He claims that the reason Richard was taken to court was because he sold his book on Manchester and made money from it. Anyone think this is true?

 

It is true that Richard wrote a book and produced a documentary film about his investigation into the Manchester attack and he made some money from selling them.

 

However he was taken to court because the Hibberts felt that he had harassed them, by turning up unannounced and filming at their home, and then by making what they felt were unsubstantiated false claims about them. I think it was the BBC and their Marianna Spring who jumped on the 'disaster troll' aspect by lambasting RDH for 'profiting'.

 

The court case against RDH was never about the Manchester attack itself though, however he did reference it as part of his defence.

 

I would be very cautious of people who are trying to spin the outcome of this case into something it isn't.

[Occulus5]

On 11/19/2024 at 8:37 PM, Grumpy Owl said:

 

It is true that Richard wrote a book and produced a documentary film about his investigation into the Manchester attack and he made some money from selling them.

 

However he was taken to court because the Hibberts felt that he had harassed them, by turning up unannounced and filming at their home, and then by making what they felt were unsubstantiated false claims about them. I think it was the BBC and their Marianna Spring who jumped on the 'disaster troll' aspect by lambasting RDH for 'profiting'.

 

The court case against RDH was never about the Manchester attack itself though, however he did reference it as part of his defence.

 

I would be very cautious of people who are trying to spin the outcome of this case into something it isn't.

It doesn't matter if Richard was allowed to show his evidence because the public will never believe that the arena attack (and others) were staged where members of the public were either paid or threatend to take part in it, that there was no explosion, that noone died, that certain NHS, medical/ambulance personnel, security and police were involved it. They just will not believe it because it is so hard for them to accept that they could do such a thing, especially when children were allegedly killed. Even if you showed them the reasons why they carry out these staged events they still wouldn't believe you. IMO I doubt anything wil change even if it was shown to be staged, are the news laws that have come about as a result of these hoaxes going to stop? I doubt it. I mention the area attack to my friend and he just thinks I'm a mental case, when I try and explain about it he just says to me "don't start". He looked really pissed off that I think it was a hoax. I said to him that this bloke called Richard D Hall tried to show his evience and they wouldn't allow it, but he just looked at me as to say "so what?". He has never done any research, and even if I sent him Richard's video he probably wouldn't watch it.

Edited November 25, 2024 by Occulus5

[lobster]

2 hours ago, Occulus5 said:

It doesn't matter if Richard was allowed to show his evidence because the public will never believe that the arena attack (and others) were staged where members of the public were either paid or threatend to take part in it, that there was no explosion, that noone died, that certain NHS, medical/ambulance personnel, security and police were involved it. They just will not believe it because it is so hard for them to accept that they could do such a thing, especially when children were allegedly killed. Even if you showed them the reasons why they carry out these staged events they still wouldn't believe you. IMO I doubt anything wil change even if it was shown to be staged, are the news laws that have come about as a result of these hoaxes going to stop? I doubt it. I mention the area attack to my friend and he just thinks I'm a mental case, when I try and explain about it he just says to me "don't start". He looked really pissed off that I think it was a hoax. I said to him that this bloke called Richard D Hall tried to show his evience and they wouldn't allow it, but he just looked at me as to say "so what?". He has never done any research, and even if I sent him Richard's video he probably wouldn't watch it.

Why do you believe it was fake ? I mean exactly which piece of " evidence" convinced you that this is true beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

I can tell you as a fact. Because I was in the train station at the time, that the concert was real, that the crowds were real, that the panic was real and that there was a fucking big bang, I don't know for a fact that people were killed, but I do know that a lot of people were injured in the panic. So which bit was faked and how

Edited November 25, 2024 by lobster

[Occulus5]

1 hour ago, lobster said:

Why do you believe it was fake ? I mean exactly which piece of " evidence" convinced you that this is true beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

I can tell you as a fact. Because I was in the train station at the time, that the concert was real, that the crowds were real, that the panic was real and that there was a fucking big bang, I don't know for a fact that people were killed, but I do know that a lot of people were injured in the panic. So which bit was faked and how

Why? because it was as per Richard's research which I believe he is right in his view that it was staged.

[lobster]

8 minutes ago, Occulus5 said:

Why? because it was as per Richard's research which I believe he is right in his view that it was staged.

I was hoping for what convinced you rather what convinced Richard, you were upset your friend didn't want to discuss it, I do !

 

Which bit did you read/ hear and thought to yourself " fuck me he is right"

Did you consider the possibility that he is mad ?

Edited November 25, 2024 by lobster

[Occulus5]

1 hour ago, lobster said:

I was hoping for what convinced you rather what convinced Richard, you were upset your friend didn't want to discuss it, I do !

 

Which bit did you read/ hear and thought to yourself " fuck me he is right"

Did you consider the possibility that he is mad ?

There's no specific things I heard, pretty much everything he mentioned I agree with, the Nick Bickerstaff video, Ruth Murrel walking casually across the room with a "fake" bloody stain, the victims families showing no real emotion, lack of CCTV footage of the explosion, no evidence that the glass roof and doors had been shattered, and so on. And no I don't think Richard is mad.

Edited November 25, 2024 by Occulus5

[lobster]

58 minutes ago, Occulus5 said:

There's no specific things I heard, pretty much everything he mentioned I agree with, the Nick Bickerstaff video, Ruth Murrel walking casually across the room with a "fake" bloody stain, the victims families showing no real emotion, lack of CCTV footage of the explosion, no evidence that the glass roof and doors had been shattered, and so on. And no I don't think Richard is mad.

So just a few circumstances taken completely out of context and spun into a narrative, is there any actual evidence you can point to ?

 

He has been stalking victims families, you have to wonder if he is all there !

 

Edited November 25, 2024 by lobster

[SimonTV]

11 hours ago, lobster said:

Why do you believe it was fake ? I mean exactly which piece of " evidence" convinced you that this is true beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

I can tell you as a fact. Because I was in the train station at the time, that the concert was real, that the crowds were real, that the panic was real and that there was a fucking big bang, I don't know for a fact that people were killed, but I do know that a lot of people were injured in the panic. So which bit was faked and how

 

lol the "i was there" argument is fucking ridiculous. Yea I was on moon when apollo landed as well thus it realy happened. 

 

If you know how they fake these events around the world then manchester is nothing special compared to others and no one has ever claimed the concert did not happen, I don't even think Richard claimed that, it has been some time since I watched his views on this topic. This is a misrepresentation of the argument as well. Another similar tactic that is used. 

 

End of the day, we don't care if you or the police or the public want to believe that mickey mouse was there, it means nothing, the evidence or lack of evidence speaks for itself. 

Edited November 26, 2024 by SimonTV

[SimonTV]

8 hours ago, lobster said:

So just a few circumstances taken completely out of context and spun into a narrative, is there any actual evidence you can point to ?

 

He has been stalking victims families, you have to wonder if he is all there !

 

 

Well, if he is correct, then they are not victims, they are liars and actors. Plus knocking on their doors asking them a few questions is hardly considered "harrasment" if they were realy victims of the event and telling the truth, then why wouldn't they be completely kind and open to him and share all the details. The fact that they created a court case about it, in my opinion, shows that they have something to hide.

 

What they did with the boston bombing was they took actual previous amputees and hired them as crisis actors and then afterwards they went on a media tour with their fake injury where they raised lots and lots of money oh yea raising money from donations is a HUGE part of these false flag incidents. Sandy hook raised many 10s of millions of dollars and I bet Manchester victims had their donation funds as well, although not looked in to it. 

 

I had not even looked in to it but £2.3 million... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/25/manchester-bombing-appeals-victims-families-justgiving

 

wow here is another £21 million Manchester Arena bomb attack fund raises £21.6m

Edited November 26, 2024 by SimonTV

[lobster]

4 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

 

lol the "i was there" argument is fucking ridiculous. Yea I was on moon when apollo landed as well thus it realy happened. 

 

If you know how they fake these events around the world then manchester is nothing special compared to others and no one has ever claimed the concert did not happen, I don't even think Richard claimed that, it has been some time since I watched his views on this topic. This is a misrepresentation of the argument as well. Another similar tactic that is used. 

 

End of the day, we don't care if you or the police or the public want to believe that mickey mouse was there, it means nothing, the evidence or lack of evidence speaks for itself. 

Well I was there, it's a busy train station, hundreds were there, there were thousands with in the radius of hearing the explosion.

 

NB I'm guessing you don't know that the arena is built on to victoria railway station

I was responding to someone who seemingly wanted to discuss it, you appear to have posted with the sole intention of saying you don't want to talk about it ! Which seems a bit pointless !

[SimonTV]

1 minute ago, lobster said:

Well I was there, it's a busy train station, hundreds were there, there were thousands with in the radius of hearing the explosion.

 

NB I'm guessing you don't know that the arena is built on to victoria railway station

I was responding to someone who seemingly wanted to discuss it, you appear to have posted with the sole intention of saying you don't want to talk about it ! Which seems a bit pointless !

 

Prove you were there

[lobster]

4 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

 

Prove you were there

Prove it was a hoax

[SimonTV]

2 minutes ago, lobster said:

Prove it was a hoax

 

clown

[lobster]

1 minute ago, SimonTV said:

 

clown