Comments by "childofthe60s100" (@childofthe60s100) on "Dr. John Campbell"
channel.
-
73
-
48
-
16
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
A great man - Chris Hoy - fit as it is possible to be and healthy and active.
How long before it is revealed that he took the "advice at the time" and took the mRNA contaminated vaccines, like the rest of us.
Two friends, of ours, otherwise fit and healthy, "fully vaccinated", have contracted cancer - one has died the other has had extensive surgery and has his fingers crossed, now.
Both have/had stories to tell about other patients, with cancer - that "like the rest of us", were the guinea pigs for Pfizer, Moderna et al.
Are there REALLY so many M.P.s with shares in pharmaceuticals and other politicians receiving hush money, that the UK will not (cannot be allowed to ) investigate this world wide issue, on the behalf of the British people????
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
John
This is an interesting and fascinating subject.
Thank you for a well researched and well presented account of this artefact – something that has interested me for some time.
This is an item of interest that religious leaders have, wrongly, claimed for themselves and for their religions. It is an item that should be available for all to see and in the interests of humanity and honesty, should be freely available to be very carefully examined, as new technologies develop.
With the exception of the unexplained origin of the image itself, you have made great attempts to (successfully!) explain the background history, testing methods and analyses. The carbon dating anomaly, that you raised, is most interesting and worthy of further reading!
The flaw, however, is in linking these findings and explanations, to the bible – a collection of legends, folk tales and myths, initially passed on by the oral tradition, later written down by “scribes” - some of whom were monks and religious leaders – and therefore had an agenda.
A massively unreliable, collection of many disparate documents, especially when you consider that some of the “cornerstones” of the NT bible – The Gospels, are known to have been written long after the events described.
Some documents, were allegedly written “at the time”, by scribes who did not witness the events themselves but were recording the reported speech of people who claimed to know what happened, not necessarily reliable witnesses.
Documents, in some cases, written hundreds of years after the event (based on hearsay) and NOT, in every case, by the people who's name they carry.
There were more “Gospels” written but they “did not make it to the final version” after the bible was meddled with, in The Middle Ages – altered and edited by religious translators and editors. Who knows what was lost?
Add to that, translations from the “original” tongue, Aramaic- to Greek and then the subsequent retranslations, to many other languages, there is every reason to be wary of regarding what is presented as being, even approaching, a true historical record.
Yet for some reason many people, indoctrinated from birth, take it all literally and disregard the many inconsistencies?
Later translations, edits, versions and author's opinions has made the final assembly of volumes, at best, unreliable. It is an interesting collection of tales (some enhanced by Chinese Whispers) but in no sense, to use the modern meaning of the word, is it the “gospel” truth.
And when considering that the stories, as stated, were written long after the events described, it can be seen that there is ample opportunity for religious zealots, to “fit their own facts and agendas to the evidence” and produce “written evidence” that this was their crucified deity.,,,,,and the opportunity to enhance the story with the reference to an empty tomb etc.
It was, almost undoubtedly, as the evidence and your explanation shows, an unexplained image of a crucified man - maybe even a man called Jesus but since the bible is inherently unreliable and (like the texts of other monotheistic religions, certainly man-made), there is no scientific reason to associate the evidence of the demise of this brutally tortured and sadistically killed, man with any religious superstition, or the dubious texts of any non evidence based faith system. (Faith being a by definition, non evidence based belief).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The truth is that NOBODY who objected, did so on the basis of evidence.
The motivation was obstinacy - rejecting advice for the sake of it.
The "conformers" did so, based on what was believed to be, best evidence at the time.
People now gloating and saying they were right all along had NO extra, privileged, information at the time - they were just being bloody minded and ignoring the risk that THEY might have posed to the rest of the population.
Being wise, after the event is easy.
Being wise BEFORE the event - with no valid reason and no evidence is stupidity.
Sadly the issue has been revealed to be unbelievably corrupt and dishonest - but the "anti-vaxxers" AND the "vaxxers" did not and could not have known that, at the time.
Your shame SHOULD be for the "anti-vaxxers", who were prepared to take an arrogant, selfish stance that could have impacted on so many other people.
Morally indefensible!
Since the excess figures do not distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated people - you can only GUESS that your position was correct - but you have no evidence, from any data that what you are assuming is correct.
Too many people, obviously, made assumptions that cannot be validated.
2
-
2
-
2
-
You patronising fool!!!!
"I knew you'd eventually see the truth"???
What utter arrogance!
YOU had no data on which to blame your antisocial behaviour - the evidence (subsequently revealed as flawed!) was very clear, at the time - that the vaccine would protect against infection and arrest the spread of the virus.
Vaccination was recommended and people responded well, for the benefit of themselves and that of others.
That advice was uniform, from many ethical sources.
Dr Campbell analysed and presented the evidence.
You thought you knew better, without the benefit of, what you call, "science and data"!
The fact that you disagreed was due to your ignorance of the available information , NOT because of it.
How dare you speak to him in that way? You are a nobody, in terms of what you have done for the public!
John Campbell has worked hard to present all available evidence, clearly and in a way that has helped people and continues to help people, to understand the dangerous situation, that we were all in.
The fact that the evidence supplied has NOW turned out to be deliberately misleading, in no way validates your selfish approach to public responsibility.
Campbell approached the data in a truly scientific manner, a scientific manner., that eluded you.
You, with your self-certainty have made a shameful, conceited and arrogant comment - quite without value!
2
-
2