Proof By Association examines how conspiracists like Richard D. Hall falsely link events—Manchester bombing, Boston Marathon, Pulse Nightclub, Las Vegas, and Sandy Hook—as staged to justify broader claims about government control, yet no single incident proves the others. The host critiques circular logic, where unverified connections (e.g., January 1st truck attacks) are treated as evidence, ignoring coincidences or individual motives. Debunkers must dismantle each claim separately, revealing the tactic’s reliance on baseless assumptions rather than facts. [Automatically generated summary]
I said, well, this is a real tournament with you keeping me on track here, David.
I know.
I don't even know if you're doing this podcast anymore.
Okay.
Well, don't worry.
Once we get into the podcast, that'll change.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, let's start it off.
Let's see if I remember how to do this.
Okay.
And we're back with Truth Unrestricted, the podcast that I promise is completely wrested from the holidays.
So with that, going straight into it, that's the dulcet tones of David Bloomberg.
You here with me again.
How you doing, David?
Good.
How are you?
Yeah, really, really good.
Really well rested.
I promise.
Well rested.
I don't know why I say good, considering today as we're recording this, just to time stamp this, is Congress just officially approved the election here.
And, you know, I wasn't outside the Capitol protesting.
It's really weird.
Yeah, they got it done by early afternoon.
What, wow, how what could possibly have been the difference between this time and the last time?
And meanwhile, in your country, your prime minister has said, I am so disgusted at the thought of having to deal with Donald Trump to the south of me that I am resigning the same day that his election is approved.
I am done.
I haven't looked.
We all expected that he would step down.
And people in the States on both levels were like, whoa, this is some kind of big deal.
This is not as big a deal.
It happens.
It doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen.
This is just a brief footnote in Canadian politics.
Yeah, this is, you know, his father also stepped down.
His father came to power when another prime minister stepped down.
Like, this is not, this is not this weird gotcha.
Like, if the, if the U.S. president stepped down, it would be a big deal, but this is not even really the same exact role.
It's not even a one-to-one comparison.
Yeah, but can you imagine ever Donald Trump stepping down voluntarily?
Oh, yeah.
Well, I mean, it's, you know, completely the opposite here when it comes to, you know, the ideas of holding power.
I was in a Twitter space the other night and the topic came up about some things and I mentioned something about this differences between the Canadian and U.S. politics and how the Canadian prime minister is not the equivalent position of the U.S. president.
The actual Canadian equivalent of U.S. president, the closest to, is actually the governor general appointed by the Queen to kind of be in this position in the Queen's stead.
Canada has a queen?
Well, sorry, you're right.
King, I forgot.
Most of almost all my life was a queen.
Yeah, King Charles.
Yeah, okay.
It was a queen.
All our coins still have the queen's visage.
It's, yeah.
But it's the governor general is really that position.
And that they say, oh, yeah, but they're not the commander in chief.
I'm like, yeah, but the prime minister is also not the commander-in-chief.
And then I blew their minds by saying that the only power the governor general has is veto power over the laws that the parliament puts forward.
And that our governor general has never used it in over 150 years.
Sounds like a job.
Never once used this power.
Always signed the paperwork.
Everything went forward.
And I think it blew their minds because they were Marveling at the idea, the very notion that someone could have power and never use it, I think was the thing that they were just.
I just want to know how I can get this job.
I mean, it seems like you have to pay back literally nothing.
This is this is we'll have a podcast about eventually because there's going to be a Canadian election this year.
Of course, this is why the prime minister is stepping down now.
But I mean, for people, I will talk about the governor general and how it becomes.
It's the ultimate, you've got to know people to know people kind of position.
For real.
I think I would disagree with you about that equivalency.
It's not completely one-to-one equivalent.
Right.
But I also think that at this point, people are wondering, what's the topic of this podcast?
Is it Canadian politics?
Oh, my God, David.
Once again, you're getting us back on track.
What is even happening?
I took so much time off.
I don't even know how to do this podcast anymore.
You're right.
I'll cut all that stuff out or I'll put it in as a bonus or something.
I don't know.
But yeah, so today we want to talk about not Canadian politics.
We want to talk about a concept that I call, I've come to call proof by association.
And it's a thing that people who engage in conspiracies do, especially people who engage in what's kind of called grand conspiracy beliefs, which are the idea that there's an overarching group of usually steeple-fingered rich men and rich white men in rooms who are planning all of the things that happen to people.
They planned the JFK assassination.
They planned the 9-11 and they're planning all the other events.
And this is a common belief, especially among people who deny the nature of violent events, who say that things were staged.
And there's a whole ecosystem of people who hold these beliefs.
And from there, emanate a lot of the sort of they come up with the stories that fill in the blanks so that other people can approach people to try to get them in.
I mean, that's part of this whole ecosystem is that being exposed to like the raw source right away would kind of turn you off from this.
But getting exposed to it in small bits and eventually getting involved is sort of the path, the slippery slope, if you want to call it that, that leads to people getting pulled into this.
So we're going to talk about this concept, this proof by association.
Sounds like I'm back in math class again.
There's associative property.
Isn't that what it's called?
Associative?
Associative properties of things, right?
And how things relate to each other.
Yeah, I had to do proofs.
Well, this matters.
Well, this is always said math would come up again in your life.
We said it on this podcast, David.
We did an episode about math where we said math was the most important set of skills anyone could have.
And this is another example.
So this topic, this concept, we briefly mentioned it when we did our episode about January or about July 13th.
The Butler shooting, the attempt on Donald Trump's life on January 13th in Butler, Pennsylvania, that I cleverly called the episode staged.
I thought that was the best possible name for it, mostly to trip people into thinking that it was about it being staged to get them to listen to it.
But of course, it wasn't about that.
And I'm sure a lot of people were disappointed when they found out that we didn't think it was staged.
We thought it wasn't staged and that we did this as a ruse to bring them in.
I mean, much like the name of this podcast, Truth Unrestricted.
It should be taken by conspiracists to believe that it supports one of them.
And I'm photobombing them.
We had a situation in my local skeptics group many years ago where we had someone who was going to do the going to do tarot card readings.
Now, they were a skeptic.
They were actually the vice chairman of the organization at the time, but they had learned to do it to get free drinks at bars.
And so we put out the blurb to the papers about this.
And the papers shortened it.
And it made it sound like it was a real tarot card reader.
And so we got a room full of tarot card believers into a skeptics meeting that usually only got like a dozen people.
And they all expected this to be real.
And I mean, it's a longer story, but let me just say we were in the back like, oh my gosh, these people are going to find out, ha ha ha.
And then some of them started like divulging their life stories as the tarot cards were being turned over.
Like they were reading it themselves.
Oh, that must be my sister who, you know, stabbed me in the back when it came to my mother's will and this and that.
And we're in the back going, oh my gosh, this is not going the way.
What have we done?
This was a huge mistake.
Yes.
And that was not the only time.
There was also a time when a guy was who also coincidentally was a vice chairman at the time.
He was going to talk about how butterfly migrations could be mistaken for UFOs.
And again, the newspaper cut it short and made it sound like it was a pro-UFO thing.
It sells better that way, David.
Oh, yeah, we had a room full of people again and they were listening to a guy talk about butterfly migrations.
Why don't you just want to be popular, Dave?
Just accept the popularity.
I don't understand the problem.
And the funniest part about that one was he was like, okay, we'll take a break and then we'll have questions.
And like the room emptied when we took the break.
They never came back.
Oh, that's good.
Okay.
Well, we touched on this briefly again, as I mentioned, when we did our episode about July 13th.
It wasn't about many, many events.
It was about many, many individual pieces of one event.
When we talked about it at the time, we talked about how people tend to push this, like a large number of seemingly unique things all into one pile and mention them all together really, really closely to challenge other people to show them how this particular set of things could all happen without there being some kind of conspiracy making it so.
So we mentioned at the time that there's a mathematical explanation for why this is faulty logic.
The events must be assumed to be independent until the thing that makes them not independent is proven to exist.
And if you remember in that case, that I referenced the idea of a coin being flipped five times and coming up heads all five times, and the chance of it coming up heads the next time is still only 50%.
One or the other.
Assuming it's not a two-headed coin.
Yeah.
Right.
Well, that's just it.
And you might examine the coin and then find that it's a two-headed coin, and then you can modify how you view how to look at the data.
But if you examine it, it's a two-headed coin, tails and heads, then the chances of it being heads the next time is just 50%.
So in that case, people would be using the idea that there's a conspiracy to assassinate the president to loop all these things together to prove that there's a conspiracy to assassinate the president.
And this is, of course, assuming the outcome before you reach the outcome, and that's circular logic.
And that's what we said at the time.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Right.
So this is.
Go ahead.
I'm sorry.
I'll take a second tangent here.
Yeah.
How long do you think it will be before we get the parallel universe movies and stories about what would have happened if Trump hadn't turned his head?
I got to think it's at least four years.
I don't think they'll do it while he's president.
I don't think we're ever going to get those.
I think we're going to be too distracted with all the other monstrous things that are happening.
I think we'll get there eventually.
I think at some point you will say this one little hair trigger moment, if it had zigged instead of zagged, what could possibly have been different?
Maybe.
Yeah.
Maybe.
And I think that's, to loop it back to this, I think that's where a lot of these conspiracies come from.
People don't like to believe that the course of history can be changed by something so small as a man turning or not turning his head at a particular moment.
Yeah.
Why couldn't the JFK turned his head at that exact moment?
Right.
Well, that's the difference between having someone who has a good vantage point without a bunch of cops chasing him at the moment.
Also, he would have had to need a reason to turn his head at that moment.
And Trump had a reason to turn his head at that moment to look at the monitor.
And JFK did not.
He was looking outward at the crowd.
And that's just the way the cookie gets stomped on and completely obliterated.
Sorry.
Yeah.
But I mean, it does, you know, that's at the heart of so many conspiracy beliefs.
It's easier for some people to believe there is a group controlling the outcome than it is to believe that random shit just happens.
Yeah.
And we can't control our lives to the extent that they think we can.
Well, yeah, that's a fear of the unknown and the ultimate unknown is what's going to happen next, right?
Right.
And the more crazy things that happen next, the more likely people are to fear the next thing that's going to happen.
And that's where we got to brace ourselves.
But getting back into this.
So if we take this situation out of a single incident to where we have multiple incidents and, you know, I don't know how often you anymore talk to people who are in this space, in this sort of believing conspiracies, the people we might call conspiracists who are just little conspirators.
Yeah.
I am in the mode where I just can't deal with those people anymore.
You're in the David Gorski camp, I think, in that respect.
I don't have time for that.
I'll talk about how they're wrong, but I'm not going to engage with them.
Well, I mean, I don't know.
Engaging with them, although you will disagree, is generally futile.
You know, trying to talk to them when they have this worldview and are busy attacking me on social media or whatever.
The track record there is very slim.
Now, are there people who come out of it?
Yes.
You've had some on the show.
I now follow some, you know, and engage with some of those same people.
They're a rare lot.
Yes, they are a rare lot indeed.
And I think they have to come to it in many ways on their own.
And I think that's what my recollection of their stories is whether it was the ones on this show or other podcasts I've heard, they realized it themselves.
It wasn't that someone brought up this great point in a Twitter debate.
Yeah, usually not.
Yeah.
And it reminds me of something I experienced myself, which is not in the conspiracy world, but that you have to change your own mind, which is that, you know, I was for many years overweight and getting heavier.
And, you know, my parents tried talking to me about it.
My own brother, I mean, this was when we were adults, tried offering me a bet, like, I'll pay you X number of dollars to, you know, lose weight.
I turned it down.
And then shortly after that, I made the decision I was going to lose weight.
And I did.
Now, I had all those other encouragements, including literal cash.
But it takes something in your own head to say, I am going to make this change.
I see that there is a problem here.
And I think it's the same thing with these conspiracy believers.
They have to realize it themselves.
You can pound on them all you want.
And sometimes it's very satisfying to pound on them and show that, you know, they're cranks, they're idiots, they're whatever you want to call them.
And some of them deserve it.
Elon Musk, who has become a massive, massive conspiracy freak, you know, due to whatever reasons he has gone down the rabbit hole, he deserves it.
And you know what?
Nothing any of us say is going to change his mind.
Yeah.
And so I just have lost the will to spend my time banging my head against a wall for no good reason.
I will talk about them, like you said.
That's what we're going to do here.
But talking to them generally has little or no, usually no effect.
Well, true, but I would add in that in order to have even the people that came out of this come out of this, there still had to be some external pressure of some kind.
There still had to be some other version of reality for them to turn to.
It was very rare.
If it's very rare now for someone to, you know, shake their head and leave the flat earth community, you'd better believe it was extremely rare for someone to do it in the Middle Ages in Europe, where everyone just generally believed the earth was flat and there was no societal pressure from any corner of any kind to, and there's no plus of any kind to say that, you know, I think it's not.
I think it's, I think this thing is that wasn't a conspiracy theory.
That was just what they believed.
The conspiracy theory is we all know it's a spheroid, but we're going to go back to thinking it's flat because the government is hiding this from us.
In the case of flat earth, that's sort of how Christianity did it, though.
The Bible said it was flat.
The Greeks said it was a spheroid, and the Bible was more important.
So the Bible version papered over, and then that's how they came to believe that for so long in Europe.
But again, we're off track, David.
Again, I got to.
At least we're talking about conspiracies.
Oh, God, you got to throw that at me.
Okay.
All right.
All right.
But so when I'm talking to people who are in that space, in this conspiracist space, I often encounter this thing where whenever they get sort of squeezed about the one thing you're talking to them about, about the JFK assassination or whatever, they gish gallop over to others and say, yeah, but I know that it's still fake because of all the other things that are also fake, which makes it really,
really difficult to deal with that.
It's like you have to debunk every event that they think is fake all at once, which makes it kind of like lifting up your entire house with you in it at the same time, which is, of course, impossible.
So today is going to be just one proof, mathematical proof, logical proof for why that isn't, why that's a logical fallacy, why you shouldn't allow that, and a way that you can reference, maybe you can reference this to show, to keep someone in line, to get them back on track.
And like I say, this happens a lot.
Like Richard D. Hall is a man who just recently got sued in the UK.
He wrote a book that made a lot of claims about the Manchester bombing that happened at an Ariana Grande concert.
He claimed it was a completely staged event and that everyone who claimed that they were injured in it wasn't really injured in it and all kinds of things like that, complete denial of it.
And he wrote the book and he published it and he attempted to sell the book to make money.
In the beginning of that book, he mentioned that he knew the Manchester bombing was fake because of the way that the Boston Marathon bombing was fake.
And this is exactly where you get to, once you try to prove that one thing isn't fake, they say, yeah, yeah, but it's still fake because of all the other things that are fake.
So this is what we're going to go through.
I'm would love, this is kind of the my white whale.
I would love to dismantle the gish gallop, David.
And everyone says, yeah, good luck with that.
Pat me on the back.
Way to go, champ.
Love that.
Love that Canadian enthusiasm.
Yeah, okay.
Go Terry Fox this thing up.
Yeah, all right.
Yeah.
Man with one leg, you're going to run across the country.
Yeah, okay, whatever.
Get after it.
We'll, we'll wait here and we'll see if it happens.
What that's what I'd like to do is dismantle the gish gallop.
This method of moving on to other events is a gish gallop thing.
And this doesn't dismantle the gish gallop, but it does chip away at it, chip away at the stone, if you will, to take away this one flavor of this thing that people do to skip away from having to face the opposing evidence for the thing they believe in this one instance.
Okay, so are you saying, just to clarify for myself and for listeners, are you saying it's that this Richard Hall and others say, well, because They, capital T, they, were able to stage the Boston Marathon.
We also know that they are able to stage this Manchester bombing.
Or is it like with the Boston Marathon?
Because so one of the whole aspects of, you know, them saying that the Boston Marathon bombing was fake was a claim for the use of the same crisis actors in that incident as in others.
And as it happens, I know one of the women who was in a photo from the Boston Marathon bombing.
She was there crying, you know, holding her head and has therefore, unfortunately, had her image splashed all over the world in claims that she is a crisis actor.
And then they put other somewhat similar looking women from other incidents, other tragedies, next to her and say, oh, look, it's the same woman.
And, you know, this definitely affected her emotionally.
I think she even wrote an article about it, a newspaper article about it.
And so that's my question.
Is it linking that way where they say, aha, these are linked because they're using the same crisis actors?
Or is it a more general link?
It's usually a more general claim.
I think some grifters in this space and conspiracists in this space, they do try to make some specific claims about specific people they claim are crisis actors for multiple events.
This is meant to be a counter-explanation for the idea that Christ, you know, that people question whether a crisis actor could exist at all.
Because once you're in a major crisis, what good are you as an actor to anyone?
You can't appear in a Hollywood movie.
You can't be in a TV show.
People are going to notice.
Like, this doesn't usually make sense.
And well, what even more doesn't make any sense?
Usually the so-called crisis actors that they have in these pictures, they have like the same color hair.
You know, like, oh, look, there's a redhead.
Oh, look, there's another redhead.
They must be the same crisis actor.
It's like, yeah, because they're so bad they went to put a wig on or dyed their hair.
Yeah.
You know, yeah.
And this, this is so you have at first you have the debunkers argument that this doesn't make any sense that crisis that crisis actors exist at all because people who are actors want to continue acting after they act in the thing they're doing right now.
So acting in this, they would know, first of all, they'd be in on the conspiracy and they would then want to act in another thing.
And so this is why the counter to that narrative is that they come up with, yeah, well, they're using the same crisis actors and all these.
And of course, as you point out, the photographic evidence they use for this is scanty at best.
It might be one or two people that they point out and those people don't even look that much alike.
Once you closely examine them, it's shaky.
But that's not really what I hear most of all.
What I hear most of all is just, they get this sort of idea that that's that, that this is how the world works, that because of the existence of a mysterious they, uh that's doing these things and they'll have they'll even list some, some uh very strained uh motives for this.
Sometimes the motive is something like one I heard recently was that uh, that they're the mysterious, they is trying to use this to control the population by getting them used to the idea of being afraid on television, all of this stuff.
And I think to myself, wouldn't it be cheaper just to set the bombs then?
Like, why bother with all these crisis actors?
Why not just have two CIA agents set the bombs and have a real bombing?
Like, if you really don't care about people, if you're really that, you know, David Icke, lizard people brained and into thinking that there's a they, that it wants to manipulate people so badly that you and you don't really care that much about who dies or whatever in the effort, why?
Why fake it at all?
Why not just set the damn bombs?
The bombs are cheap, like everyone every terrorist knows.
Bombs are inexpensive.
The only thing that's difficult about them is how to not blow yourself up while you make them.
Uh, it's incredibly easy to make bombs.
It's difficult to make them in a way that doesn't hurt yourself uh, and gets to the location without them going off somewhere in between.
Right, and some well see, that's why this is the safe ground yeah okay, but uh, then you get in the situation where you have thousands of supposed crisis actors and all these things.
I mean we're not going to go through all those details.
Just yeah, I mean it, it's.
It's a very good point.
Why bother right, if you're this mysterious entity who controls everything, why bother to pretend to murder people when you can just murder people yeah which, like you said, it's a lot less work.
And if you control everything anyway, then you're not going to get caught?
Yeah, it would be easier to control everything that way.
Yeah, I mean you can't control necessarily exactly who gets hurt or killed yeah um, but but I mean those are npcs anyway right, it doesn't matter what happens to them.
So, but I mean that's, you know, this sounds silly, I think.
Break up legs, make an omelet, right?
Yeah sure I, I don't know that.
I've heard it put that way before, like why yeah, just why?
Why would you be a lot less expensive?
Yeah yeah, if i'm going to engage with any conspiracists in the future, i'm going to have to remember that one when they say they fake this bombing.
Why why why, why not?
Just why would they?
Why wouldn't just set the bomb?
Yeah, so it's one of many things that don't make sense when you look at the individual details of these, but to someone who's uh, really believes this stuff, they get the idea that this is how the world works and that all of the other things prove each event.
So as, as you're trying to talk to them about one thing, they talk about all how all the others mean this thing is right.
And then if you went to any of the others, suddenly the one you just did would also magically be proving that as well.
All those others, including that one, would do this.
So this is what we're going to do today.
We're going to do a simple exercise where we go through this.
It's going to be, we're going to reduce this to just five actual events that happen that are events that conspiracists do regularly claim are or were faked or staged.
But it's only five.
It's not that, you know, many, many others.
I'm not even sure how long the list would be, but if you really got there, in some minds, all of them would be fake, which would be hundreds or maybe thousands.
But there's just going to be five because once you get the logic for this many, it scales up nicely and you can easily prove how this works.
So the five incidents we're going to list today and use for this example are the Manchester bombing, the Boston Marathon bombing, the Pulse Nightclub shooting, the Las Vegas Hotel shooting, and Sandy Hook.
Now, these were real events.
And I want to make it clear from the start exactly where we stand.
These were real events.
Real people were murdered and injured in these events.
At no point do we in any way believe or intend to communicate to anyone else that these are not real events.
But I say that with strict words at the start because sometimes in attempting to talk about someone else's view of these events, you can talk about them as though they were fake because another person believes they're fake and talking about that person's belief.
So I want to make it clear from the start that these were all real events.
Okay, so starting with the Manchester bombing, because we already used it as an example, Richard D. Hall used it.
He said that the Manchester bombing was real because of the Boston Marathon.
So let's say we're talking to someone and they say, yeah, I know this is.
It's fake because of the Boston Marathon.
Right.
So you're right.
Sorry, the Manchester bombing, he says, is fake because of the way the Boston Marathon bombing was fake.
And let's say we're talking to someone and they say, yeah, but I know that the Manchester bombing was fake because of the way that all of these other things, and you ask them what those things are, and they say, oh, the Boston Marathon, Pulse Nightclub, Las Vegas, Sandy Hook.
They're all fake.
And they say, okay, let's put the Manchester bombing aside right now and let's look at the Boston Marathon.
And they say, okay, the Boston Marathon.
All right.
Well, you know, you go through the details.
They say, yeah, but I know the Boston Marathon's fake because of all the other things that are fake.
And they say, what were those other things?
And they say, Pulse Nightclub, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, and the Manchester bombing.
And then you stop and you say, look, look, if the Manchester bombing proves that the Boston Marathon bombing was fake, then the Boston Marathon bombing can't prove the Manchester bombing is fake.
They can't prove each other's fake.
Otherwise, you're just standing on top of air.
There's nothing supporting you.
That's circular logic.
So, sorry, but you have to leave the Manchester bombing out as an incident that proves the Boston Marathon is fake.
Right.
So then we say, okay, let's leave the Boston Marathon aside now and we'll move on to the Pulse Nightclub.
We'll take a look at the Pulse Nightclub.
And we get around to the point where they say, yeah, but all the other things that are fake prove that the Pulse Nightclub was fake.
Say, oh, well, what are those things?
And again, they start to list them all.
And they begin, they try to list again the Manchester bombing and the Boston Marathon.
I say, no, First of all, direct connection, you can't include the Boston Marathon because you said the Pulse Marathon, the Pulse Nightclub proved that the Boston Marathon was.
So that's direct circular logic.
And you also can't include the Manchester bombing because it was supposed to be support for the Boston Marathon, which was supposed to be support for this down the line.
You can't continually circularly, this can't become a hand-holding circle of circular logic here.
So, okay.
We have, you say, two things that prove that the Pulse Nightclub shooting was fake.
So let's look at the Las Vegas shooting.
And again, you go through the same logic until they say all the other things.
Which of those other things again?
And they try to list them and say, no, no, no, you're out.
You're out of options there.
Like Manchester, Boston Marathon, and the Pulse Nightclub were all used previously to support other things that are in the line in the chain of command here and the chain of evidence.
So they can't be used to support this one because this was supposed to support them.
So in the end, you're left with just one.
Sandy Hook in this case.
But you'll note, David, that it doesn't matter which order I do them in.
The ones I listed in the order I did them were not in chronological order.
They weren't in anything like that.
It doesn't matter which order you do this in.
And because it doesn't matter which order you do this in, you're always going to end up with just one incident that has to stand on its own merits.
And because it will work in every direction, each one of these has to be examined then on only its own merits and not having other ones justify them.
So you used a word in there, presumably quoting conspiracists.
You said, well, these other things prove this one.
And this is, you know, I kind of asked you about this earlier.
When they say this proves it, what are they saying?
What are they actually trying to say?
Because that's part of the mystery.
I mean, part of the grift of this is this non-specificity with which they deal with that, in which they'll just sort of insinuate and not exactly define.
And they'll say, they might not say prove, but they'll say, I know it's true because of those other things.
But that's the definition of proof.
You know what I mean?
Like that's proving this.
So I was using proof because it's a thing.
But that's the wording that they'll usually use.
I know it's true because those things were true.
Okay, because so if, and this is a big, you know, huge Sears tower-sized if, if it is true that there were a massive conspiracy that pulled off one of these, then, and this could be proven, then yes, it could be used as evidence that such a thing is possible.
Not saying that everything that happens was due to this, but you could say, well, this group bombed over here, so we have to at least consider the possibility that this group bombed over there.
Yes.
But like you said, first someone has to prove that case in one instance.
Yeah.
You know, it's like saying the aliens did it.
You know, well, the aliens, you know, abducted this guy.
Well, why do you think the aliens did?
Well, because we know that all the other abductions had happened.
Right.
Right.
And so first you have to find, like you said, the number one, the prime case that can be proven.
Yeah.
And we know that terrorists exist.
We know that people go off their rockers and decide to attack civilians.
There were two of them in the U.S. on January 1st.
Yeah.
You know, we know these things happen.
We do not, however, have proof of some massive all-knowing government conspiracy.
We do have proof that there are oligarchs out there who are willing to either bend the knee or pull the puppet strings on certain people, but that's not the same thing.
And if anything, it's, you know, what would the motives of these groups be?
Some say, oh, Sandy Hook was done in order to push for gun control.
Yeah.
Yeah, that worked well, didn't it?
Yeah.
I mean, if there were this all powerful group that could.
But David, in those cases, the people who say that also will say it was because of our efforts in identifying their effort to do that, that prevented them from doing it.
So that justifies our effort to point this out that it's fake.
Yeah.
Yes, of course.
Right.
Self-justificating, self-justifying.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, I mean, like you said, you know, it comes back down to, okay, where's that prime example where there actually is the evidence, is the proof.
Because otherwise, yeah, you're just, like you said, you're just in a big circle pointing at each other.
Yeah.
You know?
Yeah, but it becomes a sort of a thing where the thing you're looking at now becomes like the sun and all the other things become the planets around them.
And then that magically switches to each new thing you're looking at becomes the new sun and all the other things revolve around them.
There has to be one sun around which all the planets go around at the end of the day because that's just how logic works.
But this is a way, this is a logical argument for showing how each individual incident, if you're going to engage with someone about this and talk to them about this,
this is an argument that helps to confine them to just one event and helped maybe to remind people that they can't use other events to justify belief in this event unless there's some very specific way to connect them.
And it has to be very specific.
Like you look at the coin and there's two heads on both sides of the coin.
But what you're doing is you're using that all these events occurred and were fake to prove that there is a they, there is an Illuminati, there is a deep state or whatever you believe to prove that they exist.
But their existence is the thing that would connect these things.
So you're using the fact they exist, the assumption that they exist to attempt to prove the fact that they exist, which is how circular logic fails you when you use it.
Note, of course, that we restricted this to only five events.
And even still, the process was fairly long and convoluted to try to show the proof of this.
And the list of actual events is much, much longer, which is why it was.
You can pick anything.
You can literally pick anything.
Anytime there.
You know the, the.
If you go to Wikipedia and you search for, you know mass casualty events or, or terrorist events or whatever, you will get a huge list.
It's staggering yeah, even if you're just looking in the United States, it's a staggering list and uh.
So to actually go through this process of doing this step by step with a person would be onerous.
Anyone who's had to do that, I hats off to you.
But this is a proof that should scale up to any number of events that you still eventually come down to, each event standing on its own legs, its own evidence, and even the evidence of each thing has to be proven to be related to the thing you're talking about before you can use them in that way that that to show these two things happening is significant, happening together, because that's how real investigations work, like what, what you were talking about,
about how how um, how a person is is uh um, using a related thing like, let's say, there there is a terrorist group, or uh, what's happened in the past is is, groups of bank robbers have robbed multiple banks and they've used the fact that there was a bank robbed up the road and they say okay well this, we think this is the same group, because they just robbed these other two banks up the road and they're we think they're heading this direction.
Um, in some cases, that's led to them um, having shortcuts for how to look.
They okay, the last guys used uh, used a.
Uh, you know, maybe they used a, a specific way to get into the safe, so we're gonna look for that specific way this time to see if it's still there.
To a tell us if this is a similar thing.
And b to not waste all the time to look for all the things, to to see how they got away with all the money.
Uh, that's a real thing that real detective work does is to try to do that.
But if you look and don't find it, then you have to start to consider if it isn't the same, if they're, if your assumption was false and that's a real thing that detectives have to struggle with too when they do that kind of work, when they have to lump together multiple events in this way uh, because it's possible that you have copycats, that you have other people who are inspired by the thing you did to do their own thing.
This is a thing humans do.
It's dark and terrible uh, but violence begets violence.
It's, you know coincidence, not just inventions.
Yeah, the two january one attacks, you know, were both done with trucks rented on the same app, and so immediately, you know, and one was a uh, you know, former uh Armed Forces, one was current Armed Forces yeah, and so immediately people were like it's related, it's a coordinated attack.
Yeah, and as of now, as we're recording this, the FBI is saying no, we can find no overlap.
Yeah, this guy did it because he converted to Isis.
This guy was a Trumper who had PTSD and somehow in his brain decided that inflicting violence would ease the violence that he's experiencing in his mind.
Yeah, in front of Trump Tower, you know, using a cyber truck.
But, you know, it's, you know, it's coincidence.
Coincidences happen.
Again, this is something we talked about and we do talk about.
And, you know, the fact that it happened on January 1, probably not a coincidence.
It was a day when if they both happen on like January 22nd or something, that's not a significant day for anyone.
But January 1st is when you have a lot of people gathering in different places to do things.
So yeah, it gets a lot of attention.
Yeah.
And so, you know, just because things initially seem similar does not make them at all related.
Right.
So I think we're going to end on that note.
Where can people find you, David?
The easiest way to find me is on linktree slash David Bloomberg.
There's a dot before the EE and Linktree in the URL.
I spend most of my time directly on or on Blue Sky, where you can directly find me as at David Bloomberg.
I spend a little bit of time on Threads, where I'm at David Bloomberg TV.
I spend very little time now on Twitter.
I was part of the mass migration after the election.
Actually, I had been on Blue Sky for a while, but everybody finally came over and joined me.
And I encourage other people to leave Twitter.
I do not find it to at all be a good place to have any sorts of conversation.
And so I encourage everyone to go to Blue Sky.
You can also find me doing non-political, just reality TV things at YouTube, TikTok for now, and Instagram is at David Bloomberg TV.
Great.
You can find, I didn't put it at the top of the episode.
You can send any comments, complaints, concerns, questions about this podcast, anything you hear on this podcast to truthunrestricted at gmail.com.
I'm also available on Twitter, Spencer G. Watson.
And I'm available on Blue Sky at just Spencer Watson there because I got in early enough.
The other Spencer Watson's got to go pound sand.
And I also encourage everyone to go to Blue Sky from Twitter, but for a different reason.
My reason is that I want, I desire to have all the innocent bystanders clear the battlefield so that we can take more direct shots and understand more about the exact shape of the crazy creature left behind skewing our reality.
But yeah, please migrate to Blue Sky if you're a good and noble person who just wants to have a good time on social media.