Jim Caviezel goes “there”.. even mentions adrenochrome…

(post is archived)

[–] • 0 pt

1y

even mentions adrenochrome

God why, for fuck's sake with this adrenochrome shit. A good way to destroy your credibility but accomplish literally nothing else.

link

[–] • 0 pt

1y

I dug into this a bit more, because I was wondering the same thing.. I found another recent interview that Caviezel and Tim Ballard (the man who the movie is actually about) did with Jordan Peterson. Peterson asks the adrenochrome question and Ballard defends the assertion. As a guy who has spent the last 15 years rescuing these children, I will take his word for it. He made specific reference to Africa being one of the biggest offenders.

So would you have him lie about it to defend his “credibility”?

Or tell the truth, as outrageous as it sounds?

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

1y

Because all the adrenochrome shit comes from a fucking movie (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas) dude, that's why it's not credible. Furthermore, it's not some mysterious secret chemical that can only be harvested by beheading kids or whatever dumb shit people always claim about it, it's literally just oxidized adrenaline.

So people claiming it's some secret inside thing from these pedo rings are perpetuating a meme that originated from a movie, for which dozens of ridiculous claims are made (like that you can only get adrenochrome from sacrificing children or whatever nonsense).

I guarantee that this adrenochrome shit is perpetuated by feds as a "kookifier", i.e., bad information to poison the well.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

1y

(edited 1y)

Riiight because it couldn’t both be in a bullshit movie and also true in real life?

The truth appears to be that some of those children are used/harvested for that purpose..at least according to a guy who actually spent the last 20 years of his life rescuing them.

But naaa that’s ok, you know better than him apparently, right?

Understand, I get what you’re saying..you’re saying that because it’s so unimaginable and outrageous, they shouldn’t even “go there” because it hurts credibility.

But shit dude, all that really means is that evil people then get a free pass to do unimaginable, outrageous things..because people who know the truth firsthand are too afraid to call them on it..or as you imply, make a tactical decision not to call them on it..

See the problem here?

I think it’s one thing for some guy who has no credibility to begin with, to cook up a crazy conspiracy theory. That’s a bad look, sure.

That’s not the case here, though. He’s an actual expert on the subject with a long track record of success in combating it.

The same shit happens with UFOs. If I see a UFO and talk about it (which I have), some people say it’s bullshit (which some have). But if a fucking Navy pilot sees the same shit, suddenly we have to take it seriously. It’s unfair, but it’s the way it is. From my perspective, I actually appreciate the pilot saying something since as an “expert” in the subject matter of aviation, he lends credibility to my testimony, even if only in a downstream fashion. Now, did the objective truth change because of it? No, I saw what I saw regardless, and so did he. But what does change is the general willingness of the public to accept it in the aggregate and then a consensus emerges to get to the bottom of it…at least that’s the goal, in my mind..

The same people who used to be laughed at for saying they saw these things are now taken seriously. It took a long time and a lot of flak to get to this point. But we’re there, and everyone who spoke up - from the pilot to the layman - had a hand in it.

Well, same concept applies in this case, too.

The guy does what he does and has seen what he’s seen. He should talk about it, whatever the truth is, in my opinion.

↓ expand content

Riiight because it couldn’t both be in a bullshit movie and also true in real life? The truth appears to be that some of those children are used/harvested for that purpose..at least according to a guy who actually spent the last 20 years of his life rescuing them. But naaa that’s ok, you know better than him apparently, right? Understand, I get what you’re saying..you’re saying that because it’s so unimaginable and outrageous, they shouldn’t even “go there” because it hurts credibility. But shit dude, all that really means is that evil people then get a free pass to do unimaginable, outrageous things..because people who know the truth firsthand are too afraid to call them on it..or as you imply, make a tactical decision not to call them on it.. See the problem here? I think it’s one thing for some guy who has no credibility to begin with, to cook up a crazy conspiracy theory. That’s a bad look, sure. That’s not the case here, though. He’s an actual expert on the subject with a long track record of success in combating it. The same shit happens with UFOs. If I see a UFO and talk about it (which I have), some people say it’s bullshit (which some have). But if a fucking Navy pilot sees the same shit, suddenly we have to take it seriously. It’s unfair, but it’s the way it is. From my perspective, I actually appreciate the pilot saying something since as an “expert” in the subject matter of aviation, he lends credibility to my testimony, even if only in a downstream fashion. Now, did the objective truth change because of it? No, I saw what I saw regardless, and so did he. But what does change is the general willingness of the public to accept it in the aggregate and then a consensus emerges to get to the bottom of it…at least that’s the goal, in my mind.. The same people who used to be laughed at for saying they saw these things are now taken seriously. It took a long time and a lot of flak to get to this point. But we’re there, and everyone who spoke up - from the pilot to the layman - had a hand in it. Well, same concept applies in this case, too. The guy does what he does and has seen what he’s seen. He should talk about it, whatever the truth is, in my opinion.

parent
link

Load more (1 reply)