Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (1419551)	9/21/2023 5:04:36 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571935

BC, why does he block out what he is trying to "prove" with his banner? or blur out? YouTube restrictions. The uncensored version is on his Substack. Nothing in his video disputes what the NYT reporters laid out, BTW. The disinformation trolls point to a reflection on the roof of a car as "proof" that the missile came from the direction of Ukraine. Ryan McBeth proved that the reflection on that car's roof occurred one frame AFTER the explosion, so the reflection wasn't that of a missile. From the NYTimes article: Evidence Suggests Ukrainian Missile Caused Market Tragedy - The New York Times (nytimes.com) As the sound of the approaching missile is heard, at least four pedestrians appear to simultaneously turn their heads toward the incoming sound. They face the camera — in the direction of Ukrainian-held territory. Moments before it strikes, the missile’s reflection is visible as it passes over two parked cars, showing it traveling from the northwest. This is the "evidence" that Ryan McBeth already refuted. The other evidence that the NYTimes provided doesn't conclusively prove that the strike was the result of a missile fired from Ukraine. All they prove is that the explosion was the result of an S-300 missile (which both Ukraine and RuZZia uses), and that Ukraine happened to fire S-300 missiles from a launch site nearby and in close proximity to the point of impact. Like I said, this is complete Bullshishka. It's the product of RuZZian disinformation, meant more to confuse the information space than to create a false but plausible alternative narrative. And for you to take the NYTimes at their word is, quite frankly, rich on your part, given how much YOU think the NYTimes is part of the cOnSpIrAcY oF gLoBaLiStS. I don't expect you to address that double standard on your part. All that matters to you is your confirmation bias, even if it's the NYTimes that confirms it. Tenchusatsu