Mark - I remember well this post-script clincher to the RichPlanetTV "Exit from Brexit" investigation. For me, this single piece of evidence is the most powerful of all because it blows apart the entire prosecution case. You also inspired me to scrutinise video evidence of other events myself for similar tell-tale clues, knowing that one tiny detail could reveal all. Thank you!
Many thanks for your comment, I really appreciate it. I am glad it has inspired you to scrutinise video evidence too. Yes, the tiniest of can really reveal it all.
You've made an interesting observation of circumstantial evidence that merits follow-up, but it's hardly conclusive.
For example, how do you know that the handle reinforcements aren't stitched to the bag in two layers, with a different pattern on the top and bottom layers, or that the outside stitching is merely decorative? You'd need to locate a carryall of the same make and model of the alleged killer's crime scene bag, and examine the outside and inside stitching closely.
I'm playing devil's advocate. I know that police often fabricate evidence to bolster their cases and secure convictions, sometimes of their own volition and sometimes as part of much larger conspiracy.
Hi, the stitching isn't different on the inside of those era Puma holdall bags. I clarified this during all my research, and Richard shows a photo of the inside of a Puma holdall bag from the same era which shows the exact same stitching on the inside and the outside. There is no change for decoration purposes as you suggest. They had two styles, of handle reinforcement designs, the tear drop and the inverted tear drop.
I take it from your comment that you didn't watch the full documentary film I embedded into the article? There is no doubt about a wider conspiracy involved in this case. I think you would get a lot out of watching the documentary film in full.
I shall be using your comment along with another comment in this thread to address the points raised by you both in another future article. It will put to rest any doubts you both have about the veracity of the evidence being presented.
Thank you (may I call you by your given name) Mark - Extraordinary film and reporting. Creator bless and keep you and others with such zeal of reporting, safe from harm. Such a fabulous article/film. I understand why it has been included.
I know a guy called Rob took video footage and some photos, and so did his neighbour. The armed Police at the scene tried to scare him into stopping, but he told them that he was well within his rights to video. Richard spoke to him and videoed him telling what he seen.
Let's assume that you have this correct. And congratulations for spotting this. Doesn't it beg a bigger question?
What are the chances of someone else being in the area of the “incident” having the same clothing, even to the style and colour of the holdall, at the same time?
Almost zero, if not absolutely zero.
So Mair’s stitch-up was pre-meditated and orchestrated from on high. He must have been followed for some length of time to have accomplished this.
The mistake was the holdall not being absolutely identical. They always make mistakes, whether by design, or not.
But, this was not an off-the-cuff planting of evidence, like a bag of heroin “found” in a toilet cistern.
This seems to have been a pre-planned “incident”, with full manpower resources and with someone already in the frame for it, once he was physically close enough to the “victim” for this to follow through.
One caveat:
Given the photograph of the bag doesn't show it's location at the scene with contents in situ, it could have been taken anywhere.
Why didn't they just load his own bag up at a convenient place and take the same photograph?
Jo Cox (not her real name even) is not dead, a totally faked psyop. She and her sister Kim Leadbetter (assisted dying protagonist) are agents for the state. So is Richard D Hall who was allowed to "take the fall" on Manchester arena to push through the Draconian online safety bill. The whole world is a stage and that includes the high profile "truth" arena. He also pushes the fake Maddy psyop in a psyop. We will soon see the real reason they keep pushing the Maddy story and it won't be a political paedo ring being exposed cos those things will never ever see the light of day.
You have made a serious accusation about Richard D. Hall. Someone who I know, who has been to my house, met my parents, I have been to his house, and also met with him, at various events since 2012, and have had contact with him during all this with the BBC and so on. I also conducted research towards his Jo Cox film.
Please share your evidence to support YOUR serious accusations you have made against Richard?
Either post here, or in private within the next 7 days. Otherwise YOUR comment will be considered unfounded, thus deletion of your comment.
The suspicious thing about Richards investigation was his insistence on parking on the street of the alledged victim. It was totally uncessary to his investigation and it was the act that got him into trouble. He is a smart man and this was a spectacular miscalculation which suggests to me that it was an intentional error to force the court case and the advancement of the online safety act. He also has invested many hours in the Maddy psyop which, is in my opinion a multi layered op, if there really was a high level paedo ring we would not be hearing about it like this, it smacks of a psyop in a psyop, providing a layer for the conspiracy theorists to get their teeth into. Miri AF on substack has a beautful theory that agents of the state are paid to keep this story alive so that when she is eventually found there will be further tightening of the act and vilification of all those who engaged in the Maddy drama online using the fodder produced by people like Richard and Sonia poulton. The Maddy who is found will of course be an actor like the macanns. The agenda will be "if only Maddy had been microchipped" all this pain could have been avoided. Microchipping humans is on the agenda for TPTB. Even agents of the state visit people's homes and have friends that don't know their true motives.
Bearing in mind you have made some serious accusations/allegations against Richard D. Hall, and I asked you for EVIDENCE to substantiate your accusations, you have fed me with a load of your theories and opinions, and not evidence.
For example you say:
The suspicious thing about Richard’s investigation was his insistence on parking on the street of the alleged victim.
My Response:
There is nothing suspicious of parking in the street to gather or validate information, or even knocking a door. May I add, if I had not have been parked in the street, perhaps myself and my partner would not have managed to get to speak with Tommy Mair’s bother, and get information which was significant. There’s nothing suspicious about it. Private investigators do it all the time.
You also say:
It was totally unnecessary to his investigation and it was the act that got him into trouble.
My Response:
As someone myself who has done boots on the ground investigating, I can say it is necessary to his investigation. The 'powers-that-be' have been baying for Richard long before this episode with the Manchester investigation. If you remember, Richard had the police visit his house the day after he sent Darren Playford a polite letter with some questions to answer. This was a completely reasonable thing to do, is not suspicious. It is what you do when you are investigating, and Richard has been conducting investigations for his films in this manner for years, long before this episode with the Hibberts. Private investigators sit outside people’s properties all the time, along with media journalists, insurance investigators etc.
You say:
It suggests to you that it was an “intentional error” to force the court case and the advancement of the online safety act.
My Response:
So this is “your” OPINION and not FACT that is was an “intentional error” by Richard? Yet you have made accusations in your comment like it is a fact about him, when clearly you have no evidence to support such an opinion. Have YOU contacted Richard to enquire about these events? The advancement of the Online Safety Act would have happened anyway, with or without what happened with Richard. You are rather naïve to believe otherwise.
You say:
He also invested many hours in the Maddy psyop which, is in my opinion a multi layered op.
My Response:
So again it is YOUR “opinion” because he thoroughly investigated the Madeline McCann alleged disappearance, this is somehow “evidence” that Richard is involved in a state psyop? Again, you made serious accusations in your comments about Richard, yet you have still offered NO real or credible evidence, only opinions to support your serious accusations against Richard?
You say:
Miri AF on Substack has a "beautiful theory" that agents of the state are paid to keep this story alive so that when she is eventually found there will be further tightening of the act and vilification of all those who engaged in the Maddy drama online using the fodder produced by people like Richard and Sonia Poulton.
My Response:
I am aware of Miri AF. She has never actually presented any credible “evidence” to support the theories or her opinions she has propagated about Richard. Like you say, she has a “beautiful theory”. Yet you choose to believe it a theory, based on no evidence whatsoever? This is incredible!
Do you consider yourself a truther? It seems you have become a repeater of theories, and someone else’s opinions? Yet you easily slander Richard's character based on Miri AF’s theories and opinions without a shred of credible evidence.
A Question for You Mary Cox:
What “real” investigating has Miri AF conducted involving any of the state PsyOps, for example, like the Jo Cox murder? Or Didcott murders, etc? Please name one where she has had her boots on the ground, knocking eyewitnesses’ doors or speaking to family members to gather information, or to expose a state PsyOp event with her “real” investigating?
My thoughts:
Miri AF seems to be spending a lot of time focusing on the likes of Richard and others, rather than exposing “real” state psychological operations, like the Cox “alleged” murder, or the Manchester fraud. It is easy for her to spout what she does, and smear Richard, without any evidence, because people as yourself will then repeat it in people’s comments sections, and make serious allegations about Richard, without a shred of evidence to back-up a word of it. It seems she has captured you, and you are doing her dirty work?
I can confidently say, Richard has not been working as a state agent, he has become a target of the state. Consider this, what is Miri’s role? Have you had your consciousness hijacked by Miri? She has managed to convince you ill of Richard, without a shred of evidence? Just that sink in!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Mary much appreciated,indeed only time will tell.
I feel Richard is a very good source of alternative information.I’d be disappointed to learn that your assessment is correct, but being skeptical is healthy in this environment of deception
Well Mary has seeded doubts in your mind based on NO evidence whatsoever? Just like Miri AF, who Mary follows, seeded doubts in Mary's consciousness without a shred of evidence to support the self-confessed "theories" that Miri AF propagates about Richard. If anyone is a state asset, Miri AF would be my candidate.
I have had plenty of contact with Richard, and met Richard many times, and has been to my house, and been to his, and I can tell you straight out, he is not a state agent. I cannot believe people believe the nonsense that this Miri AF spouts. Talk about hijacking people's minds!
Mary brought no evidence to back her claims, only hearsay, but I defend her right to speak freely, it’s important to be heard. It’s for the seekers of truth to decide what they believe or reject. But voices must not be silenced, im sure you agree this is the basis of the attack on Richard
Mark my belief in Richard has not been affected please don’t let my comments confuse you.
I wish him and you well
You are a good friend to Richard I’m sure in my heart he is a man of integrity and I personally appreciate him and his work
I have supported him financially and hope he doesn’t give up bringing truth into the public consciousness
People say David Icke is a agent but he has brought much needed light on darkness that our controllers have committed in the “ great work “
Yes I do agree in free speech, but where I don't agree is defamation of a person's character, which is the act of making false statements that potentially harm a person's reputation, without some type of supportive evidence to substantiate the claims.
For example, what if I had posted on the internet a "theory" or an "opinion" that someone was a Paedo, based on my theories, without any type of evidence to support why I may have publicly shared that opinion or theory? As a minimum, I would expect some type of evidence to support their opinion or theory.
From my understanding neither Mary or Miri AF has ever contacted Richard, or attempted to contact him.
As you can see, I am a fair person, I gave Mary a right to reply, to explain what evidence she has to support her allegations she made about Richard, and clarify things. This is why I gave her a 7 day notice, as I will not leave unsubstantiated comments up in my comments section of that nature, with no response back form the person to explain, or share further evidence.
I have my own thoughts on David Icke surrounding his flip flopping on 9/11, but I can show why I have some reservations here and there with him on 9/11. But I haven't publicly made allegations about him, more critical assessment of his work so to speak. Anyway, that conversation is for another day perhaps.
Many thanks James for your kind comments, and engagement.
If you feel the need to delete my comment then go ahead however I do reccommend that you read Miri AF take on Richard. He was was the person who "woke me up" but I am now convinced that he is not what he claims to be. Let's see how the Maddy drama plays out. Interesting psyop this one.
I am aware of Miri AF. She has never actually presented any credible “evidence” to support the theories or her opinions she has propagated about Richard.
Like you say, she has a “beautiful theory”. Yet you choose to believe a theory, based on no credible evidence? Yet I bet you consider yourself as truther? It seems you have become a repeater of theories, and someone else’s opinions? Yet you easily slander Richard based on Miri AF’s theories. The man who you say "woke you up"?
It seems Miri has captured you, and you are now doing her dirty work? Richard has not been working as a state agent, he has become a target of the state. Consider this, what is Miri’s role? Have you had your consciousness hijacked by Miri? She has managed to convince you ill of Richard, without a shred of evidence? The man "who woke you up". Just that sink in!
Question for you Mary Cox:
What “real” investigating has Miri AF conducted involving any of the state PsyOps, for example, like the Jo Cox murder? Or Didcott murders, etc? Please name one where Miri has had her boots on the ground, and knocked eyewitnesses’ doors or family members doors to gather information, and done “real” investigating?
While I am at it, please tell me what boots on the ground investigations you have done to expose a state run psychological operation?
Hi Jeffrey, have you received any evidence to substantiate the comment regarding RDH from Mary Cox? It is a serious accusation that Mary Cox has made, and I also have asked for evidence to support the accusation she has made about RDH. I have given 7 days to respond with evidence. If not I will consider her comment bogus, to smear Richard.
Great forensic work. Thanks for sharing. Joe Cox was a student at my old university college and I’ve always wondered what really happened in this strange case. The perpetrators of this crime i.e. the deep-state must not be allowed to get away with such atrocities as this and try to frame an innocent person as some lone nutter.
Your student is a spy and is no doubt playing a new role somewhere else to help hasten us all the the totalitarian state that is envisaged for us by the powers that be.
Mark, you are right. I present theories not evidence. I should have worded my original comment differently. Apologies. In my opinion, these political dramas keep us distracted from the truth of our realm and divinity, and anyone in the public eye pushing us to examine stitching on a holdall is doing THEIR dirty work for them. TPTB hide our origins from us with fake space and bogus scientific theories about evolution and mechanistic biology. I believe that these extended psyops are all part of that distraction. I admire your passion and reasonableness in engaging with me in defence Richard, this exchange is a rare thing, reasonable disagreement however I understand if you delete this thread. With love and wishes of peace for you and your family.
You say "Anyone in the public eye pushing us to examine stitching on a holdall is doing THEIR dirty work for them."
So am I correct you are implying that I am doing "dirty work" for TPTB, because I am presenting evidence of fraud in the Tommy Mair case? I put a lot of time and my own money into investigating this case, as I believed there was an innocent man unjustly imprisoned for a crime he didn't do. Which is why efforts were made to speak to his family. I'd do the same if it happened to you.
Just to be clear, I am not arguing over stitching by the way, I have responded to comments that disagree with the evidence to which I have presented. Nothing more!
I won't delete your comment by the way, as you responded and explained where you was at with it all. I'd only delete it if you didn't engage, and dump it in the comments, but that wasn't the case.
I am most definitely not suggesting that your work is done in anything other than good faith. I do however believe that TPTB are capable of providing layers and layers of evidence so that genuine folk can investigate what are ultimately psyops. I also think it is human to be less able to assess something when we are deep in it and invested. I don't believe Jo Cox is dead. She seems like a spy - went to a top uni famed for spy recruitment. Changed her name just before he entering politics. Her speeches in HOC came across as theatrical and highly scripted. Sister now leading the charge on assisted dying. Husband was leading the charge with hope not hate group that seeks to limit our freedoms. Looking at it from afar it all smacks of a family deeply embedded in MI5 and in my opinion Jo is not dead. She is off playing another role for MI5.
Hi Mary, I would totally agree with you, yes the TPTB do create “golden eggs” as Jim Garrison would say, for us to find, and get dragged in. Yes perhaps the bag issues were deliberately put there for us to find. I too believe Jo Cox is possibly still alive. I have a photo that looks remarkably like her leaving Birstall. Yes, her background is very suspicious, and indicates she was working for the services. Warm regards, Mark.
As a retired forensic engineer, I've enjoyed all your "9/11 planes" articles. But this very different article so stirred my professional curiosity that I decided to test your "different bag" theory and have a few critical observations to make from faraway Australia as a result.
In summary, I’m totally unconvinced.
Nothing in your photographs says “Puma”, and neither Grok3 nor CoPilot AI can confirm that it was a “Puma” bag. My AI-assisted search found no reference to a Puma bag connected with the Cox murder case, and I was unable to locate a picture of any Puma product whose handle anchor has “two rivets” positioned “one above the other” as all your photographs depict.
So, my first question is, “What evidence tells you it was a 'Puma' bag?”
Second, I don’t consider your enlargements (Fig. B) as evidence of a “stitching pattern”.
If I were your lawyer, I'd say, “Go find me a Puma bag with that exact rivet and stitching pattern”, because no stitching of the “handle anchor pad” is visible in those (blurred) enlargements and no stitching pattern can be inferred from the “vague blur” which you seem to believe defines the shape of a riveted anchor pad. I fear you may be seeing a “rabbit” in a “fluffy cloud”. The terms “speculative interpretation”, “selective emphasis”, and “evidentiary ambiguity” spring to mind.
Finally, the visible stitching pattern in the “official” Fig. A (rounded at the bottom and tapering inwards towards the top) makes more practical engineering sense than your “adjustment". The actual stitching logically spreads the load over a wider area at the bottom of the anchor and tapers towards what seems to be a narrower (?) handle above it. That visible pattern can't be compared to the “invisible stitching” that you imagine you can “see” in Fig. B.
Being as you appear unfamiliar with "all" the available related evidence in this case, rather than explain it all here in a comment to you, I will refute your claims in a follow-up article, specifically addressing your points. As much of what you have said in your comment is flawed.
I will say this though, it isn't wise for you to base parts of YOUR critical analysis on Grok3 nor CoPilot. Your own indepth research, and own observations of further available photographic evidence would have easily confirmed that your assertions are incorrect. I am surprised you would even quote Grok3 or CoPilot? Both are myopic of specific sources of information.
I will post a follow-up article and may include a video, and then perhaps you can thank me for enlightening you regarding ALL the observable evidence, and why I can be 100% sure of my observations and findings.
Great work Mark. Mair was framed for sure. Never made any sense except for Brexit and Panama papers links.
Hi, Many thanks!
Yes, completely agree!
Mark - I remember well this post-script clincher to the RichPlanetTV "Exit from Brexit" investigation. For me, this single piece of evidence is the most powerful of all because it blows apart the entire prosecution case. You also inspired me to scrutinise video evidence of other events myself for similar tell-tale clues, knowing that one tiny detail could reveal all. Thank you!
Hi there,
Many thanks for your comment, I really appreciate it. I am glad it has inspired you to scrutinise video evidence too. Yes, the tiniest of can really reveal it all.
Regards,
Mark.
Looks to be another fraud, just like 9/11.
You've made an interesting observation of circumstantial evidence that merits follow-up, but it's hardly conclusive.
For example, how do you know that the handle reinforcements aren't stitched to the bag in two layers, with a different pattern on the top and bottom layers, or that the outside stitching is merely decorative? You'd need to locate a carryall of the same make and model of the alleged killer's crime scene bag, and examine the outside and inside stitching closely.
I'm playing devil's advocate. I know that police often fabricate evidence to bolster their cases and secure convictions, sometimes of their own volition and sometimes as part of much larger conspiracy.
Hi, the stitching isn't different on the inside of those era Puma holdall bags. I clarified this during all my research, and Richard shows a photo of the inside of a Puma holdall bag from the same era which shows the exact same stitching on the inside and the outside. There is no change for decoration purposes as you suggest. They had two styles, of handle reinforcement designs, the tear drop and the inverted tear drop.
I take it from your comment that you didn't watch the full documentary film I embedded into the article? There is no doubt about a wider conspiracy involved in this case. I think you would get a lot out of watching the documentary film in full.
I shall be using your comment along with another comment in this thread to address the points raised by you both in another future article. It will put to rest any doubts you both have about the veracity of the evidence being presented.
Many thanks!
I was not able to complete the 3+hr docu-vid, as a result of an incoming storm. However, will attempt to in the near future.
Same players, with similar playlists, agendas, crime scenes, and horse-shite!
Thank goodness there are a handful of research-reporters who continue to be worth their salt, with integrity and a penchant for truth.
Blessings ~
Thank you (may I call you by your given name) Mark - Extraordinary film and reporting. Creator bless and keep you and others with such zeal of reporting, safe from harm. Such a fabulous article/film. I understand why it has been included.
Blessings ~
Eagle-eyed observation, I'm impressed!
Many thanks!
Welcome!
Great eye. Also, what person was casually taking photographs of this arrest?
I know a guy called Rob took video footage and some photos, and so did his neighbour. The armed Police at the scene tried to scare him into stopping, but he told them that he was well within his rights to video. Richard spoke to him and videoed him telling what he seen.
Let's assume that you have this correct. And congratulations for spotting this. Doesn't it beg a bigger question?
What are the chances of someone else being in the area of the “incident” having the same clothing, even to the style and colour of the holdall, at the same time?
Almost zero, if not absolutely zero.
So Mair’s stitch-up was pre-meditated and orchestrated from on high. He must have been followed for some length of time to have accomplished this.
The mistake was the holdall not being absolutely identical. They always make mistakes, whether by design, or not.
But, this was not an off-the-cuff planting of evidence, like a bag of heroin “found” in a toilet cistern.
This seems to have been a pre-planned “incident”, with full manpower resources and with someone already in the frame for it, once he was physically close enough to the “victim” for this to follow through.
One caveat:
Given the photograph of the bag doesn't show it's location at the scene with contents in situ, it could have been taken anywhere.
Why didn't they just load his own bag up at a convenient place and take the same photograph?
Jo Cox (not her real name even) is not dead, a totally faked psyop. She and her sister Kim Leadbetter (assisted dying protagonist) are agents for the state. So is Richard D Hall who was allowed to "take the fall" on Manchester arena to push through the Draconian online safety bill. The whole world is a stage and that includes the high profile "truth" arena. He also pushes the fake Maddy psyop in a psyop. We will soon see the real reason they keep pushing the Maddy story and it won't be a political paedo ring being exposed cos those things will never ever see the light of day.
Hi Mary,
You have made a serious accusation about Richard D. Hall. Someone who I know, who has been to my house, met my parents, I have been to his house, and also met with him, at various events since 2012, and have had contact with him during all this with the BBC and so on. I also conducted research towards his Jo Cox film.
Please share your evidence to support YOUR serious accusations you have made against Richard?
Either post here, or in private within the next 7 days. Otherwise YOUR comment will be considered unfounded, thus deletion of your comment.
Many thanks.
The suspicious thing about Richards investigation was his insistence on parking on the street of the alledged victim. It was totally uncessary to his investigation and it was the act that got him into trouble. He is a smart man and this was a spectacular miscalculation which suggests to me that it was an intentional error to force the court case and the advancement of the online safety act. He also has invested many hours in the Maddy psyop which, is in my opinion a multi layered op, if there really was a high level paedo ring we would not be hearing about it like this, it smacks of a psyop in a psyop, providing a layer for the conspiracy theorists to get their teeth into. Miri AF on substack has a beautful theory that agents of the state are paid to keep this story alive so that when she is eventually found there will be further tightening of the act and vilification of all those who engaged in the Maddy drama online using the fodder produced by people like Richard and Sonia poulton. The Maddy who is found will of course be an actor like the macanns. The agenda will be "if only Maddy had been microchipped" all this pain could have been avoided. Microchipping humans is on the agenda for TPTB. Even agents of the state visit people's homes and have friends that don't know their true motives.
Hi Mary,
Bearing in mind you have made some serious accusations/allegations against Richard D. Hall, and I asked you for EVIDENCE to substantiate your accusations, you have fed me with a load of your theories and opinions, and not evidence.
For example you say:
The suspicious thing about Richard’s investigation was his insistence on parking on the street of the alleged victim.
My Response:
There is nothing suspicious of parking in the street to gather or validate information, or even knocking a door. May I add, if I had not have been parked in the street, perhaps myself and my partner would not have managed to get to speak with Tommy Mair’s bother, and get information which was significant. There’s nothing suspicious about it. Private investigators do it all the time.
You also say:
It was totally unnecessary to his investigation and it was the act that got him into trouble.
My Response:
As someone myself who has done boots on the ground investigating, I can say it is necessary to his investigation. The 'powers-that-be' have been baying for Richard long before this episode with the Manchester investigation. If you remember, Richard had the police visit his house the day after he sent Darren Playford a polite letter with some questions to answer. This was a completely reasonable thing to do, is not suspicious. It is what you do when you are investigating, and Richard has been conducting investigations for his films in this manner for years, long before this episode with the Hibberts. Private investigators sit outside people’s properties all the time, along with media journalists, insurance investigators etc.
You say:
It suggests to you that it was an “intentional error” to force the court case and the advancement of the online safety act.
My Response:
So this is “your” OPINION and not FACT that is was an “intentional error” by Richard? Yet you have made accusations in your comment like it is a fact about him, when clearly you have no evidence to support such an opinion. Have YOU contacted Richard to enquire about these events? The advancement of the Online Safety Act would have happened anyway, with or without what happened with Richard. You are rather naïve to believe otherwise.
You say:
He also invested many hours in the Maddy psyop which, is in my opinion a multi layered op.
My Response:
So again it is YOUR “opinion” because he thoroughly investigated the Madeline McCann alleged disappearance, this is somehow “evidence” that Richard is involved in a state psyop? Again, you made serious accusations in your comments about Richard, yet you have still offered NO real or credible evidence, only opinions to support your serious accusations against Richard?
You say:
Miri AF on Substack has a "beautiful theory" that agents of the state are paid to keep this story alive so that when she is eventually found there will be further tightening of the act and vilification of all those who engaged in the Maddy drama online using the fodder produced by people like Richard and Sonia Poulton.
My Response:
I am aware of Miri AF. She has never actually presented any credible “evidence” to support the theories or her opinions she has propagated about Richard. Like you say, she has a “beautiful theory”. Yet you choose to believe it a theory, based on no evidence whatsoever? This is incredible!
Do you consider yourself a truther? It seems you have become a repeater of theories, and someone else’s opinions? Yet you easily slander Richard's character based on Miri AF’s theories and opinions without a shred of credible evidence.
A Question for You Mary Cox:
What “real” investigating has Miri AF conducted involving any of the state PsyOps, for example, like the Jo Cox murder? Or Didcott murders, etc? Please name one where she has had her boots on the ground, knocking eyewitnesses’ doors or speaking to family members to gather information, or to expose a state PsyOp event with her “real” investigating?
My thoughts:
Miri AF seems to be spending a lot of time focusing on the likes of Richard and others, rather than exposing “real” state psychological operations, like the Cox “alleged” murder, or the Manchester fraud. It is easy for her to spout what she does, and smear Richard, without any evidence, because people as yourself will then repeat it in people’s comments sections, and make serious allegations about Richard, without a shred of evidence to back-up a word of it. It seems she has captured you, and you are doing her dirty work?
I can confidently say, Richard has not been working as a state agent, he has become a target of the state. Consider this, what is Miri’s role? Have you had your consciousness hijacked by Miri? She has managed to convince you ill of Richard, without a shred of evidence? Just that sink in!
Regards,
Mark Conlon
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Mary much appreciated,indeed only time will tell.
I feel Richard is a very good source of alternative information.I’d be disappointed to learn that your assessment is correct, but being skeptical is healthy in this environment of deception
Hi Jeffery,
Well Mary has seeded doubts in your mind based on NO evidence whatsoever? Just like Miri AF, who Mary follows, seeded doubts in Mary's consciousness without a shred of evidence to support the self-confessed "theories" that Miri AF propagates about Richard. If anyone is a state asset, Miri AF would be my candidate.
I have had plenty of contact with Richard, and met Richard many times, and has been to my house, and been to his, and I can tell you straight out, he is not a state agent. I cannot believe people believe the nonsense that this Miri AF spouts. Talk about hijacking people's minds!
Hello Mark
Mary brought no evidence to back her claims, only hearsay, but I defend her right to speak freely, it’s important to be heard. It’s for the seekers of truth to decide what they believe or reject. But voices must not be silenced, im sure you agree this is the basis of the attack on Richard
Mark my belief in Richard has not been affected please don’t let my comments confuse you.
I wish him and you well
You are a good friend to Richard I’m sure in my heart he is a man of integrity and I personally appreciate him and his work
I have supported him financially and hope he doesn’t give up bringing truth into the public consciousness
People say David Icke is a agent but he has brought much needed light on darkness that our controllers have committed in the “ great work “
Take Care i appreciate you and your work 👍
Hi James,
Thanks for your comment, it is truly appreciated!
Yes I do agree in free speech, but where I don't agree is defamation of a person's character, which is the act of making false statements that potentially harm a person's reputation, without some type of supportive evidence to substantiate the claims.
For example, what if I had posted on the internet a "theory" or an "opinion" that someone was a Paedo, based on my theories, without any type of evidence to support why I may have publicly shared that opinion or theory? As a minimum, I would expect some type of evidence to support their opinion or theory.
From my understanding neither Mary or Miri AF has ever contacted Richard, or attempted to contact him.
As you can see, I am a fair person, I gave Mary a right to reply, to explain what evidence she has to support her allegations she made about Richard, and clarify things. This is why I gave her a 7 day notice, as I will not leave unsubstantiated comments up in my comments section of that nature, with no response back form the person to explain, or share further evidence.
I have my own thoughts on David Icke surrounding his flip flopping on 9/11, but I can show why I have some reservations here and there with him on 9/11. But I haven't publicly made allegations about him, more critical assessment of his work so to speak. Anyway, that conversation is for another day perhaps.
Many thanks James for your kind comments, and engagement.
Warm regards,
Mark.
If you feel the need to delete my comment then go ahead however I do reccommend that you read Miri AF take on Richard. He was was the person who "woke me up" but I am now convinced that he is not what he claims to be. Let's see how the Maddy drama plays out. Interesting psyop this one.
I am aware of Miri AF. She has never actually presented any credible “evidence” to support the theories or her opinions she has propagated about Richard.
Like you say, she has a “beautiful theory”. Yet you choose to believe a theory, based on no credible evidence? Yet I bet you consider yourself as truther? It seems you have become a repeater of theories, and someone else’s opinions? Yet you easily slander Richard based on Miri AF’s theories. The man who you say "woke you up"?
It seems Miri has captured you, and you are now doing her dirty work? Richard has not been working as a state agent, he has become a target of the state. Consider this, what is Miri’s role? Have you had your consciousness hijacked by Miri? She has managed to convince you ill of Richard, without a shred of evidence? The man "who woke you up". Just that sink in!
Question for you Mary Cox:
What “real” investigating has Miri AF conducted involving any of the state PsyOps, for example, like the Jo Cox murder? Or Didcott murders, etc? Please name one where Miri has had her boots on the ground, and knocked eyewitnesses’ doors or family members doors to gather information, and done “real” investigating?
While I am at it, please tell me what boots on the ground investigations you have done to expose a state run psychological operation?
Regards
Mark Conlon.
Hello Mary what evidence do you have that Richard is a agent for the state
Genuinely interested in your views on the matter
Hi Jeffrey, have you received any evidence to substantiate the comment regarding RDH from Mary Cox? It is a serious accusation that Mary Cox has made, and I also have asked for evidence to support the accusation she has made about RDH. I have given 7 days to respond with evidence. If not I will consider her comment bogus, to smear Richard.
Great forensic work. Thanks for sharing. Joe Cox was a student at my old university college and I’ve always wondered what really happened in this strange case. The perpetrators of this crime i.e. the deep-state must not be allowed to get away with such atrocities as this and try to frame an innocent person as some lone nutter.
Your student is a spy and is no doubt playing a new role somewhere else to help hasten us all the the totalitarian state that is envisaged for us by the powers that be.
Mark, you are right. I present theories not evidence. I should have worded my original comment differently. Apologies. In my opinion, these political dramas keep us distracted from the truth of our realm and divinity, and anyone in the public eye pushing us to examine stitching on a holdall is doing THEIR dirty work for them. TPTB hide our origins from us with fake space and bogus scientific theories about evolution and mechanistic biology. I believe that these extended psyops are all part of that distraction. I admire your passion and reasonableness in engaging with me in defence Richard, this exchange is a rare thing, reasonable disagreement however I understand if you delete this thread. With love and wishes of peace for you and your family.
Mary,
You say "Anyone in the public eye pushing us to examine stitching on a holdall is doing THEIR dirty work for them."
So am I correct you are implying that I am doing "dirty work" for TPTB, because I am presenting evidence of fraud in the Tommy Mair case? I put a lot of time and my own money into investigating this case, as I believed there was an innocent man unjustly imprisoned for a crime he didn't do. Which is why efforts were made to speak to his family. I'd do the same if it happened to you.
Just to be clear, I am not arguing over stitching by the way, I have responded to comments that disagree with the evidence to which I have presented. Nothing more!
I won't delete your comment by the way, as you responded and explained where you was at with it all. I'd only delete it if you didn't engage, and dump it in the comments, but that wasn't the case.
Many thanks for your comments, I wish you well.
Regards,
Mark
I am most definitely not suggesting that your work is done in anything other than good faith. I do however believe that TPTB are capable of providing layers and layers of evidence so that genuine folk can investigate what are ultimately psyops. I also think it is human to be less able to assess something when we are deep in it and invested. I don't believe Jo Cox is dead. She seems like a spy - went to a top uni famed for spy recruitment. Changed her name just before he entering politics. Her speeches in HOC came across as theatrical and highly scripted. Sister now leading the charge on assisted dying. Husband was leading the charge with hope not hate group that seeks to limit our freedoms. Looking at it from afar it all smacks of a family deeply embedded in MI5 and in my opinion Jo is not dead. She is off playing another role for MI5.
Hi Mary, I would totally agree with you, yes the TPTB do create “golden eggs” as Jim Garrison would say, for us to find, and get dragged in. Yes perhaps the bag issues were deliberately put there for us to find. I too believe Jo Cox is possibly still alive. I have a photo that looks remarkably like her leaving Birstall. Yes, her background is very suspicious, and indicates she was working for the services. Warm regards, Mark.
As a retired forensic engineer, I've enjoyed all your "9/11 planes" articles. But this very different article so stirred my professional curiosity that I decided to test your "different bag" theory and have a few critical observations to make from faraway Australia as a result.
In summary, I’m totally unconvinced.
Nothing in your photographs says “Puma”, and neither Grok3 nor CoPilot AI can confirm that it was a “Puma” bag. My AI-assisted search found no reference to a Puma bag connected with the Cox murder case, and I was unable to locate a picture of any Puma product whose handle anchor has “two rivets” positioned “one above the other” as all your photographs depict.
So, my first question is, “What evidence tells you it was a 'Puma' bag?”
Second, I don’t consider your enlargements (Fig. B) as evidence of a “stitching pattern”.
If I were your lawyer, I'd say, “Go find me a Puma bag with that exact rivet and stitching pattern”, because no stitching of the “handle anchor pad” is visible in those (blurred) enlargements and no stitching pattern can be inferred from the “vague blur” which you seem to believe defines the shape of a riveted anchor pad. I fear you may be seeing a “rabbit” in a “fluffy cloud”. The terms “speculative interpretation”, “selective emphasis”, and “evidentiary ambiguity” spring to mind.
Finally, the visible stitching pattern in the “official” Fig. A (rounded at the bottom and tapering inwards towards the top) makes more practical engineering sense than your “adjustment". The actual stitching logically spreads the load over a wider area at the bottom of the anchor and tapers towards what seems to be a narrower (?) handle above it. That visible pattern can't be compared to the “invisible stitching” that you imagine you can “see” in Fig. B.
I hope that helps.
Thanks for the chuckle Pat.
Hello Pat,
Thanks for your comment.
Being as you appear unfamiliar with "all" the available related evidence in this case, rather than explain it all here in a comment to you, I will refute your claims in a follow-up article, specifically addressing your points. As much of what you have said in your comment is flawed.
I will say this though, it isn't wise for you to base parts of YOUR critical analysis on Grok3 nor CoPilot. Your own indepth research, and own observations of further available photographic evidence would have easily confirmed that your assertions are incorrect. I am surprised you would even quote Grok3 or CoPilot? Both are myopic of specific sources of information.
I will post a follow-up article and may include a video, and then perhaps you can thank me for enlightening you regarding ALL the observable evidence, and why I can be 100% sure of my observations and findings.
I will be in touch soon!
Regards,
Mark Conlon