great work. Richard Hall is a noble and courageous researcher. Good to see people picking up the ball and moving things forward. This incident has all the hallmarks of the Judaic supremacist false flag theatrics and Richard was right on top of this from day one.
Really useful guide to searching through what is out there for yet more evidence of deception around this event.
Through everyone digging a bit & putting what they find out there, a more accurate model can be built of exactly what did or didn't happen that night, and more of the people who were either engineers of the event, people who were directly or indirectly involved, and people who have helped in covering up the truth (either knowingly or unknowingly) can be identified.
This was a big conspiracy, and many people are involved.
Just ONE whistleblower, or person who it was claimed is dead but isn't, being found could completely and permanently overturn the story.
Yes! Everyone really can do something to reveal a piece of the picture, there are so many clues buried in that mountain of public inquiry material, and remember that it was all paid for with public money. There are still so many unexplored aspects to choose from, and the more people who join in, the harder they will have to work to maintain their assertion that it is"outlandish and preposterous" to voice doubts about the official narrative.
I only came across your Substack yesterday, as somebody in the comments on another substack (which I think may have been Sally, who started this thread) mentioned it in a comment when discussing Manchester & RDH.
I have since watched all the videos in your recent articles dealing with Manchester, which I regard as excellent. Your presentations are very matter of fact; and avoid speculation & baseless opinion.
You have identified how difficult it has been made to readily find information presented at the Inquiry, which is extremely odd as it should not be difficult to have all the information on a single website, collated in a manner (with appropriate search tools) to enable specific information to be readily filtered and easily accessed.
In your video in your "Part One" article above, you highlight the YouTube Channel that was created to show all the Inquiry hearings. At around the 18 minute mark, you return to talking about the YT channel and show how videos on particular days of the enquiry can be found. You may already know (at least in part) what I explain below. If that is the case then you will be able to ignore some of what I set out.
In your video, you show some of the videos available when the "Videos" tab is selected. There are however other tabs ("Live" and "Playlists") which I provide comments in relation to both.
Under the "Videos" tab, there is a total of 120 videos, which cover (at least in part) the hearings on 93 separate days (1st on 8 September 2020 & last on 5 June 2021). However under the "Live" tab there are an additional 268 videos, which cover (at least in part) the hearings/ presentations on 166 days (1st on 7 April 2020 & last on 7 June 2023). Between the Videos and Live tab there are a total of 388 videos that cover a total of 201 days of hearing footage.
If anybody is searching through just the "Videos" tab then they will only be able to see approx. 30% of all the videos that are actually available to watch. When I realised this, I started compiling a database to capture the date of the hearing, whether am or pm; and the length of each video. I have since started an analysis to identify if there are any duplicate videos and if there are any missing videos.
From the analysis I have done so far (which is very much a work in progress), it would appear that there are very few (if any) duplicate videos. I would need to gain information from the archive source (which you have shown how to access) to try to establish if there is any missing videos and (if any) the extent to which video footage is missing.
However, it would appear to be the case that at least one video is missing. Under the "Playlist" list tab, it identifies there is one playlist created ("Commemorative Hearings") which contains 17 videos. When that playlist is selected it is again identified that there are 17 videos in the playlist but only 16 are actually listed and (at the bottom of the list) it states "1 unavailable video is hidden".
Since all the other videos in the playlist are from hearing at an early stage in the Inquiry, it would be reasonable to assume that the 17th (unavailable & hidden) video in the playlist would also be one of the videos from the Inquiry YT channel. If so, then if it is hidden and unavailable in the playlist then it will also be hidden and unavailable under the Videos & Live Tabs (whichever one it was under).
Whilst it appears that some of the Inquiry documents have deliberately difficult to find/ access, in relation to the YT videos (apart from the one that seems to have been hidden/ made unavailable) this does not seem so deliberate. If the Inquiry hearings were being livestraemed then they would always remain under the "Live" tab and it is only videos that were not livestreamed (but upladed faterwrds) that are listed under the "Videos" tab.
I don't know if all hearings were livestreamed or not. If they were then (in theory) they should all be under the "live" tab. It is possible that all hearings were streamed live and (afterwards) it was decided to redact part of what is said, which could be done by editing the video then uploading the edited version later.
This post was just to make you aware of what I had discovered regarding the YT channel just in case you were not aware of these things. I will continue with my analysis and if you want to know anything else then let me know as I'm happy to share with you what I know.
Cheers,
Bill.
[Edit was to correct the aggregate total of videos on YT. It originally stated 268 but the correct total is 388]
Bill - Thanks, that's really helpful information. I'm very interested in the database you set up - it sounds like something that would be very useful to the investigation. Would it be possible for you to write a post on this for your own Substack? With a bit of tweaking, your comment here would make a great article. Also, I think the database would be of interest to other investigators. Is there a way of making it available? If not, a few screen-shots would be helpful.
Thanks again, and also for taking the time to watch my videos. More on the way!
As I said, it is currently a work in progress. I'm trying to get into the best format for sharing and (more importantly) check its content is correct. I've already found an error (there are 122, not 120 videos under the Videos tab).
After double-checking durations (which got corrupted when I initially copied the information) it appears there is a total of just under 1,047 hours of footage across all the videos. Some of these videos relate to presentation of reports and recommendations so the total for actual hearings will be less. I'm in the process of categorising the videos.
Once I'm happy with the format (and that the content is correct), I'll get back in touch with you about how best to share it.
You said... "We now all know it was constructed event with contradiction of reality, & driven by agenda of scriptwriters & their performers, so what can we gain from such hard work you do here?"
Because someone out there has gone to an awful lot of trouble over this particular show, and I want to bring the deception to light, piece by piece.
great work. Richard Hall is a noble and courageous researcher. Good to see people picking up the ball and moving things forward. This incident has all the hallmarks of the Judaic supremacist false flag theatrics and Richard was right on top of this from day one.
Really useful guide to searching through what is out there for yet more evidence of deception around this event.
Through everyone digging a bit & putting what they find out there, a more accurate model can be built of exactly what did or didn't happen that night, and more of the people who were either engineers of the event, people who were directly or indirectly involved, and people who have helped in covering up the truth (either knowingly or unknowingly) can be identified.
This was a big conspiracy, and many people are involved.
Just ONE whistleblower, or person who it was claimed is dead but isn't, being found could completely and permanently overturn the story.
Yes! Everyone really can do something to reveal a piece of the picture, there are so many clues buried in that mountain of public inquiry material, and remember that it was all paid for with public money. There are still so many unexplored aspects to choose from, and the more people who join in, the harder they will have to work to maintain their assertion that it is"outlandish and preposterous" to voice doubts about the official narrative.
I only came across your Substack yesterday, as somebody in the comments on another substack (which I think may have been Sally, who started this thread) mentioned it in a comment when discussing Manchester & RDH.
I have since watched all the videos in your recent articles dealing with Manchester, which I regard as excellent. Your presentations are very matter of fact; and avoid speculation & baseless opinion.
You have identified how difficult it has been made to readily find information presented at the Inquiry, which is extremely odd as it should not be difficult to have all the information on a single website, collated in a manner (with appropriate search tools) to enable specific information to be readily filtered and easily accessed.
In your video in your "Part One" article above, you highlight the YouTube Channel that was created to show all the Inquiry hearings. At around the 18 minute mark, you return to talking about the YT channel and show how videos on particular days of the enquiry can be found. You may already know (at least in part) what I explain below. If that is the case then you will be able to ignore some of what I set out.
In your video, you show some of the videos available when the "Videos" tab is selected. There are however other tabs ("Live" and "Playlists") which I provide comments in relation to both.
Under the "Videos" tab, there is a total of 120 videos, which cover (at least in part) the hearings on 93 separate days (1st on 8 September 2020 & last on 5 June 2021). However under the "Live" tab there are an additional 268 videos, which cover (at least in part) the hearings/ presentations on 166 days (1st on 7 April 2020 & last on 7 June 2023). Between the Videos and Live tab there are a total of 388 videos that cover a total of 201 days of hearing footage.
If anybody is searching through just the "Videos" tab then they will only be able to see approx. 30% of all the videos that are actually available to watch. When I realised this, I started compiling a database to capture the date of the hearing, whether am or pm; and the length of each video. I have since started an analysis to identify if there are any duplicate videos and if there are any missing videos.
From the analysis I have done so far (which is very much a work in progress), it would appear that there are very few (if any) duplicate videos. I would need to gain information from the archive source (which you have shown how to access) to try to establish if there is any missing videos and (if any) the extent to which video footage is missing.
However, it would appear to be the case that at least one video is missing. Under the "Playlist" list tab, it identifies there is one playlist created ("Commemorative Hearings") which contains 17 videos. When that playlist is selected it is again identified that there are 17 videos in the playlist but only 16 are actually listed and (at the bottom of the list) it states "1 unavailable video is hidden".
Since all the other videos in the playlist are from hearing at an early stage in the Inquiry, it would be reasonable to assume that the 17th (unavailable & hidden) video in the playlist would also be one of the videos from the Inquiry YT channel. If so, then if it is hidden and unavailable in the playlist then it will also be hidden and unavailable under the Videos & Live Tabs (whichever one it was under).
Whilst it appears that some of the Inquiry documents have deliberately difficult to find/ access, in relation to the YT videos (apart from the one that seems to have been hidden/ made unavailable) this does not seem so deliberate. If the Inquiry hearings were being livestraemed then they would always remain under the "Live" tab and it is only videos that were not livestreamed (but upladed faterwrds) that are listed under the "Videos" tab.
I don't know if all hearings were livestreamed or not. If they were then (in theory) they should all be under the "live" tab. It is possible that all hearings were streamed live and (afterwards) it was decided to redact part of what is said, which could be done by editing the video then uploading the edited version later.
This post was just to make you aware of what I had discovered regarding the YT channel just in case you were not aware of these things. I will continue with my analysis and if you want to know anything else then let me know as I'm happy to share with you what I know.
Cheers,
Bill.
[Edit was to correct the aggregate total of videos on YT. It originally stated 268 but the correct total is 388]
Bill - Thanks, that's really helpful information. I'm very interested in the database you set up - it sounds like something that would be very useful to the investigation. Would it be possible for you to write a post on this for your own Substack? With a bit of tweaking, your comment here would make a great article. Also, I think the database would be of interest to other investigators. Is there a way of making it available? If not, a few screen-shots would be helpful.
Thanks again, and also for taking the time to watch my videos. More on the way!
Pighooey,
Thanks for the positive reply and suggestions.
As I said, it is currently a work in progress. I'm trying to get into the best format for sharing and (more importantly) check its content is correct. I've already found an error (there are 122, not 120 videos under the Videos tab).
After double-checking durations (which got corrupted when I initially copied the information) it appears there is a total of just under 1,047 hours of footage across all the videos. Some of these videos relate to presentation of reports and recommendations so the total for actual hearings will be less. I'm in the process of categorising the videos.
Once I'm happy with the format (and that the content is correct), I'll get back in touch with you about how best to share it.
Cheers,
Bill
Many thanks. Excellent work.
You said... "We now all know it was constructed event with contradiction of reality, & driven by agenda of scriptwriters & their performers, so what can we gain from such hard work you do here?"
Because someone out there has gone to an awful lot of trouble over this particular show, and I want to bring the deception to light, piece by piece.