2 & 2 TV video allegedly to be released on 12th October

Markus 2 wrote:

Marky wrote:witchcraft huh. don't think i've heard that one before. how very harry potterish.

WITCH REVEALS STRONG WITCHCRAFT TIE TO FREEMASONRY, Plenty of imformation on the subject out there.

i'm sure there is, however you know my view on the subject of coverup so i'd doubt there's much in the way of double, double, toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble where this case is concerned.

double, double, toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble where this case is concerned.


Freemasonry is not like Harry Potter is it. more subtle,I would think.

Markus 2 wrote:double, double, toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble where this case is concerned.


 Freemasonry is not like Harry Potter is it. more subtle,I would think.

oh, i thought we were talking witchcraft.

Tigger wrote:

Markus 2 wrote:
I still see no logical reason for the expose now. And even if TB felt the expose necessary, the publication of the names is not necessary, imo.

JMO but think it is important; their background is very interesting when so many times Freemasonry and witchcraft been mentioned in this case.
We have to remember that these same philosophy  groups do not necessary get on all of the time; they are one against the other as in all walks of society. But how this all this pieces together is just mind boggling.  Are they against TM, for them, or just mischief makers not simple at all .

In that case, the background of the  person exposing these people should be under scrutiny too - as well as motivation.  I assure you that is quite as interesting as the 'revelations' .

So, if McCabe operated his new incredulous 'forensic analysis' agency using his own address, pseudonyms known to be his, the names of personnel he works with in other businesses, and those details all readly and easily lead to every other venture he's involved with, who did the public exposing? It seems to me everything he did was a matter of public record, and then he deceitfully played games with the public over a hugely sensitive subject. But his name(s), his address(es), his business(es) and his associations and flamboyant representation of himself were all a matter of very public record, no secrets...

How is this different to people speaking up about Stephen Birch and going public with his attempts to gain traction in order to pull one over on the public in favour of his agenda? Are we also not allowed to discuss him?

This all just seems a bit of an oddly hysterical reaction, given that forums like this have no problems speculating about all sorts of characters named in the case based solely on the information available pertaining to them, posted on their various internet pages...

How can you be guilty of 'outing' or endangering someone who was acting in their own name publicly?

All TB actually added to any of this was the details of 2&2's attempt to fraudulently solicit his public acknowledgement and approval, his attempt to engaage them in meaningful and credible discourse, and their evasion of reasonable questions about authenticity. Who gave him the power and opport unity to do that? They did. He's perfectly entitled to share his experience as much as if any user here, posting in their own name, attempted to get in touch with you privately with a view to getting your approval to act out a secret plan which would discredit and bring into disrepute the truth campaign.

What astounds me is this... 2&2 want to be taken seriously with a claim that they're at least 6 years late to the party with. How can they be credible, if they know so little about the truth movement that they identify TB as a ssignificant figure whose endorsement would carry weight, but they know so little about his position that they would be taken by surprise that not only would the subject of the alleged and nonsensical photoshopping of the LP not get any traction with him, but that as a legal mind he wouldn't ask questions of authenticity that they couldn't answer? Everyone who ever read or encountered TB online knows where he stands. If you're serious you'd have researched the person whose endorsement you're seeking beforehand.

McCabe was either too stupid, too maverick, too self-assured or too impulsive.

Or... He knew TB well, and the securing of an endorsement was not the goal, and the discrediting of TB was the goal.

You can say the same for PB and PM. They're hardly silent unknowns in the truth movement. It isn't hard to know where they stand and know that the 2&2 big 'reveal' is utterly at odds with them. Why pick them? Except that they too have allowed their identities to be known publicly. And I can see how anyone would look at all those inconsistencies and smell an attempt to derail or discredit the truth campaign. .

In that case, the background of the person exposing these people should be under scrutiny too - as well as motivation. I assure you that is quite as interesting as the 'revelations' .

I know what you mean.

I started this here but it turned into a blog as well  It is critical of Tony but would be obliged if it could stay, I want him to see it!






Cristobell, I have deleted the rest, the link is there for people to read the same thing  you wrote here on your blog....... Plus your blog will get more hits.  Here is the link... 




http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/there-can-be-only-one-hopefully-not-tony.html





Cristobell Author ‏@RosalindaHu · 1h1 hour ago
#MCCANNS THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE - hopefully not Tony
http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk

Sadly Cristobell, all too accurate assessment:

"In his mind 'there can be only one' and it has to be him."