Spingola and Friends, #78 — 8 Comments

  1. Deanna, it was your approach to Halbig in the “interview” that people took issue with. Hostile from the start and he was interrupted throughout. NOT your normal style. Very out of your character and puzzling. The subject would have been much better served by asking him questions and allowing him to answer and allowing the public to evaluate.

    • I did not find Deanna’s approach to W. Halbig hostile, and the interruptions were because Halbig either did not answer the question posed or he falsely quoted Deanna, and she tried to correct him. I also find it funny that when a man asks the tough questions and calls someone out on their lies, he is considered a good interviewer, but when a woman does it she’s a B!^@#.

  2. It was painful to listen to. I really didn’t think he was going to stay. He should have quit the interview. Like I said, it was completely out of Deanna’s normal style.

    • Unfortunately, I was unequipped to handle the Delphi technique. The first person to show frustration or impatience looks terrible. I have often apologized or otherwise indicated that I was not at my best. I am the first to admit it. I was intent on not letting him monopolize the conversation as he had done on all of the other programs that he had been on.

  3. This was an attack on the guys character and had little to do with Sandy Hook. In fact, I listened to the whole thing and cannot recall any information about the event.

    • Marvin, Did you listen to the program of 7/20? If people, such as Halbig, “create” references for a business and those references died long before Halbig established his business, how can people trust his integrity? He fabricated his occupational background and admitted that Honan Mortuary took care of 11 bodies and thereafter made claims that no one died. Currently, unless people can answer his 16 questions he says that no one died at Sandy Hook. If people are going to send him money to find out the truth, then those people should verify his credibility. The official reports, which he claims to have read, supplies all of the answers to the questions that he asks. Character assassination is when someone says something about someone else that is not true. As I said in the program – people discredit themselves. I did not have to attack his character. He discredited himself with his numerous contradictions.

  4. It is very interesting that I invited Halbig to participate in a pre-recorded interview with me on a Friday afternoon, February 28, 2014. There would not be a live audience. He did not answer the phone when I called him for that interview. I called several times. I then called him on the following Monday and we scheduled the interview, a live one, for the next day. During that interview on Tuesday, when I brought up the nine books, the foundation of the official report, he had no idea what I was talking about. Then we went to a break, came back and he knew all about the books. I think that someone was coaching him via Skype and that is why he needed the interview to be live so that whoever was feeding him information could help him.

  5. From listening to this review of the Spingola-Halbig interview it seems that emotional neuro-linguistic manipulation was at work. Evil IS NOT interested in evidential truth. It needs the inducement and consent, by feelings rather than data, of some sort of, DEMOCRATIC “FEEL-GOOD.” This emotional consensus is the herd’s delusion of their power; but it is actually their impotence. Once you have, through social conformity & cosmetic courtesy, created the group peer pressure for people to fit in with; the only thing the unthinking group can do, to self-assess its own goodness, is engage in the pretentious fawning of false concern.

    Experts don’t spend all of their time telling everyone what experts they are. They are too busy KNOWING, AND STAYING WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS OF THEIR OWN KNOWLEDGE.
    But cared-for front puppets, intoxicated to the point of genuine self-delusion, become the blind that leads the blind. All parties enjoy the mutual, & false, justification of their, oh, so very public, humanity.
    Those of us who WANT to be affected by real data and believe, a priori, that TRUTH has a universal unity, do not speak, or stop speaking, according to career interests.

    But, we have been told not to cast pearls before swine. Eventually, if we deny the evidence of a person’s bad will (as the Catholics would say), and keep hoping that forensic & documentary evidence will affect them, we are proving that the evidence of their attitude is evidence we are choosing to ignore. We become as futile as “the swine.”
    Attitude dictates the ability to see things.

%d bloggers like this: