Person who created Pizzagate Wikipedia page calling it "debunked fake news" also created Podesta Emails Wikipedia page in which they claim some of the emails were "altered"
Yeah someone else just actually debunked one of the alleged codes for me, or at least debunked it in regards to its use in one of the emails. The hotdog stand in Hawaii is just an inside joke dating back as far as 2000.
So that's somewhat of a relief. Why don't actual fucking journalists go through and do this stuff? Like actually debunk instead of triggering people like me who were abused as kids? Getting triggered by trolls, and then the MSM just points and laughs instead of explaining, just like people who were abused as kids were not believed. This whole thing has been an exhausting shitfest rollercoaster.
They were quoting his brother, who said it, it wasn't the Washington Post's own words. Not a fan of the Post but still, it wasn't their own words. That nobody I have seen has been mentioning that joke from back in 2000 when using the email as a piece of evidence, though, makes me more suspicious of everything else. I mean what is the story behind all of the other examples, that I might not have stumbled upon yet? I already know the MSM isn't trustworthy at all, but it seems there might be some bullshit afoot with this, as well. Which if so really pisses me off, since child predators in governments is a very real issue, we don't need people drumming up distorted half-truths that could make it harder future victims to be taken seriously.
That's not the point of my posts. The point of my posts is that the information relevant to the email about a hotdog stand has not been included by anyone I have seen showing that email as evidence for reason to be suspicious. I'm only of average intelligence, you see, and when reading about a topic that is triggering for me, like I actually have PTSD, I become even less intelligent due to the fight/flight response. Hence I did not think to do searches that would have brought up the article for me a long time ago. So I can only conclude that the people doing the investigations are either also not that bright if they did not think to look it up, or they deliberately don't include it so as to deliberately not have any context for the email when they use it as evidence. Those are the only two possibilities and neither of them are good.
I'm 100% sure it goes on, given everything. I'm just willing to admit that due to my past, I got emotionally riled up and wasn't as objective as I should have been. I'm just willing to admit to that. Is anyone else? Because my bigger fear now is that this is going to wind up being used to invalidate real victims of predators in the future.
Ugh I wish, I could so use one right now. Weeks freaking out about children being used, and now a mountain of embarrassment and anxiety over the revelation that not only are we not going to be saving any of them, but we're probably making things worse due to our shitty case.
Remember that ultimately, we're not responsible for the actions of someone else. If someone chooses (or gets paid to, depending on who you ask) take a gun down to a pizza joint because of some theories swirling online, that's not on you.
As long as we each do a piece of research, make some connections, or dig up some more "coincidences," we can't do much better than that. We do have other aspects of our lives, after all.
That's good, I'm so glad a hot dog stand exists in Hawaii. Proof that all the other emails about cheese, pasta, pizza, hotdogs, handkerchiefs, and pool parties that children get Uber'd to, to be the entertainment for the day, none of that is suspect.
It's a disservice to the victims of P-G, to dismiss the whole thing. I've personally researched this in depth, and I guarantee if real investigation was done, that this would blow up.
Like actually debunk instead of triggering people like me who were abused as kids? Getting triggered by trolls, and then the MSM just points and laughs instead of explaining, just like people who were abused as kids were not believed.
It's not the media's fault that you believed a load of old rubbish, it's not the media's role to address every single piece of crap on the internet, and it's not the job of journalists to provide you with a therapeutic reading experience.
The question you ought to be asking yourself is: "Why on earth did I believe self-evident total nonsense from a completely anonymous stranger with no credentials, and why did I make no effort to check?"
You are a victim in this, but not in the way you seem to imagine. You are a victim because you chose to listen to idiots, and unless you learn to be a bit more discriminating, you'll be a victim again.
Use this squalid episode as the basis for personal growth, because it's the only positive you're going to get from it.
I think you have a fair point about me, personally, and yes it is a learning opportunity.
But if the MSM is going to go out of their way to talk about it, then it ought to be because they investigated and are discussing the results of their efforts to debunk/confirm. They went out of their way to spend time on it, but only mock it or call it "fake" without explaining how they know it is fake. So I stand firmly by my criticism of that.
But what about everyone else who believes some ridiculous crap they read online? Why do you (pizzagaters, not you personally) get preferential treatment? And why do you (personally) get preferential treatment out of all the other pizzagaters who want to see some other item of 'evidence' addressed?
You can see where this is going. The media's job is to report on things that are actually happening. So far the only 'thing' that has happened as part of pizzagate is that gunman incident. There is literally nothing else to report, unless you want media debased to the level at which twitterstorms are the stuff of headlines.
Perhaps there will be some exhaustive pizzagate debunking documentary in the near future. There's enough interest for a potential audience-winner. But true pizzagaters will dismiss it as part of the cover-up. So it won't accomplish much.
Personally, my hope has been that pizzagate will increase public awareness / concern over child predator activity and coverups in powerful governments. That there might have been a small surge in that from the MSM, as well.
I mean I imagine you may have seen the recent thread about how even Cooper once acknowledged it:
And like I said, the media has gone out of their way to talk about pizzagate but only to call it fake in order to support the "fake news is dangerous" narrative that has suddenly surged. Did so many go out of their way to talk about the 9/11 conspiracy theory and mock it back then? Or when they do talk about some other conspiracy theories, don't they usually try to actually debunk it, like the birther people?
Thats the part where you will stop getting replies mate. He isnt after justice for children. His soul purpose is just to discredit Pizzagate. You gotta ask yourself, what normal unbiased person makes a new reddit account just to log on all day and go find posts relating to finding justice for abused kids and attacking each and every post? Like its a frigging conspiracy sub, and we have frequent, systemated attacks on peoples theories every day....well only if it relates to bringing justice to child rapists
Did so many go out of their way to talk about the 9/11 conspiracy theory and mock it back then? Or when they do talk about some other conspiracy theories, don't they usually try to actually debunk it
it took a while for 9/11 conspiracy theories to catch on. Alex Jones and his crowd was a bit more limited. Loose Change was probably the first mainstreaming/ popularizing of the concept.
i think the media doesn't want to spend time debunking when they can just discredit and talk down. that's what works- it's the same strategy used against skeptics of GMO/ Global Warming Vaccines and all those "anti-science" concepts. Just lable the people who question or criticize as crazy or stupid or dangerous.
but I agree that this community needs to be debunking their own concepts if they want to create a more coherent framework for their narrative. There is too much bs in the pizzagate story and it does a disservice to the larger problems.
The crimes were real and at the heart of government.
And today, 150 Terabytes of kiddy porn was found in Europe. High government officials implicated. But, in the US media are not picking up on the story. Suppression of legitimate stories, and creating and spreading false information, is censorship. The CIA has a lot of expertise in this area.
And like I said, the media has gone out of their way to talk about pizzagate but only to call it fake in order to support the "fake news is dangerous" narrative that has suddenly surged. Did so many go out of their way to talk about the 9/11 conspiracy theory and mock it back then?
A fair question, and an interesting area in any case, so I'll unpack some stuff here.
What's changed between 9/11 and now is that on 9/11 the US wasn't in the early stages of a superpower confrontation, in which the opponent was making good use of information (be that media material or digital data).
There's no need to fight a propaganda war against an enemy that has just devastated a city landmark, and what's more since the enemy are basically shepherds equipped with cellphones hiding somewhere in a third world country, there's no effective way of doing it either.
The internet was just getting going properly (OK, the WWW but I don't care for the distinction these days). Al-Qaeda was a very retro terrorist body, as you might expect from such Cold War leftovers, and although they used the internet to propagate material and make announcements, they weren't great adapters to the digital age.
Bin Laden put up a video of a defiant speech, the media reported it, and we all moved on. Rinse and repeat.
Putin's Russia is in a different league, and has the historical 'chess mentality' to make good use of the internet (which is now a decade more advanced than it was on 9/11).
There is a lot of history here. But the upshot is that the end of the First Cold War was merely the prelude to the encircling of Russia, and this cranked the Second Cold War into motion - and that's where we are now.
This is about a bit more than 'Bin Laden: Wanted dead or alive'.
Whether or not the Kremlin is really percolating 'fake news' into US audiences is neither here nor there, really. The aim is that nothing from Russia will be trusted.
And the big thing that has also changed since 9/11 is the strength of the west's media. A decade of cost-cutting and cutbacks had already led commentators to observe how weakened the media's resources and fact-checking had become, even before the 2008 crash.
The western media had become vulnerable to Russian propaganda. The western intelligence agencies exploited that same vulnerability to spread the 'fake news' meme, designed to contaminate Russian sources.
And now that meme is backfiring, because it is ironically shining a spotlight on exactly how parlous western news reporting had already become.
The 'fake news' meme outbreak is still developing, and it's not clear how the situation will stabilise, but it looks at least as though 'the free press' are going to have been catastrophically injured by supping with the Devil.
So far the only 'thing' that has happened as part of pizzagate...
Oh, and that other thing that happened . The pope is freaking the hell out, unless you think he would ordinarily say that everyone who would read about this ' even if true", 'might eat feces' Do you think he's just a bit over reacting ? I think he's scared to death, freaking out because we're onto the game.
The crux of the Pizzagate argument is the alleged pedophile code in Podesta's emails. I'm speaking specifically of the code table listed here.
There is no source attached to that alleged pedophile code, which the table contends is widely used among pedophiles. However, Googling some of the phrases, like "hotdog" for boy and "ice cream" for male prostitute, returns no results except Pizzagate-related articles.
Upon further investigation, I traced the source of this code table to a single random 4chan post. That's it. Some random 4chan user invented that table out of thin air, and now people blindly assume it's true. Remove that code table and all of the suspect emails are rendered innocuous.
The part I don't get. This fucker is a multimillionaire. Why is he discussing what he's eating with his friends. They have private chefs. That are capable of making delicious dishes if all types. Why is at always fucking pasta and pizza.
It's a solid FACT that none of the words listed in the code word chart were ever used by pedophiles. Period. That's not my opinion that is a fact supported by evidence.
Sorry. The solid fact that you are trying to use as your argument is that there have been no confirmations that these words have been used in that way. You are using the same level of speculation that you are accusing others of to prove your argument. Still not a debunking.
... OUT OF THIN AIR WITHOUT ANY PROOF TO BACK IT UP.
I could just as easily say in the emails "pizza" means "magical fairy dust" and it would be just as logically valid as claiming "hotdog" means they're raping little boys.
That is correct. You could claim that. And me saying that you are wrong is not debunking proof. Until you can confirm the actual intended meaning of the words, you are simply speculating.
But if i have a suspicion that magical fairy dust has nefarious meanings, i am free to investigate. No matter how much it discomforts you.
If you will take a moment to read what my original posting was, you will see that i am asking for any actual, valid debunking. I did not ask for any proof of the opposite. I am waiting for conclusive evidence. The problem is that people like yourself are offering less evidence to disprove the argument than is being provided by your opposition.
If no one is guilty of anything, then you should have no problem with people investigating to determine if that is correct or not.
Until you can confirm the actual intended meaning of the words, you are simply speculating.
No that's not how the burden of proof works. It's not up to me to disprove the code words' meaning, its up to you to prove the valid meaning of the codewords.
So by all means feel free to post proof of the meaning of those codewords.
So i shall reiterate. I asked for debunking. You provided an opinion and called it a debunking.
I showed how you are wrong. Now, you are trying to shift the discussion into an argument over what you assumed i have stated. By the way, my original statement is about the article claiming debunking.
I havent laid the burden of proof on you. You tried to shoulder it yourself and came up seriously lacking. At this point, i am curious as to why it is so important to you that no one investigates something they consider suspicious.
Yeah, that just leaves the Podesta art, Podestas remaining friends with several pedophiles, the Alefantis Instagram, the massive coverup over a hole-in-the-wall pizza place, ridiculously spot-on police sketches, spirit cooking, sacrificing chickens to Moloch, Bill on the Lolita Express, a convicted sex trafficker appointed by Clinton getting Laura Silsby out of kidnapping charges and into Amber Alert, all the people who have turned up dead investigating the Clinton Foundation and its ties to human trafficking, the traffic camera moving just long enough for a gunman...
Yup, without pizza=kids pizzagate is just dead in the water.
Also, the numerous similar scandals such as the Franklin Coverup, the Marc Dutroux case (which is the most damning of all), Elm Guest House, Epstein's Pedo Island, Jimmy Savile, lord Jenner and Cyril Smith, etc....
If Pizzagate was the only case of these things happening, I wouldn't think much of it. But as it turns out, the world is run by satanic pedophiles.
Not a fair comparison. Just because some US presidents were crooked doesn't mean they all were (at least not as much). On the other hand, there's lots of solid evidence that systematized pedophilia and child trafficking is rampant among the elite from all over the world. That should at least make one consider Pizzagate to be true.
I myself am not fully convinced of Pizzagate, but after researching Dutroux and Sevile, it doesn't sound far-fetched at all to me.
Guy has an interesting taste in art, ergo he's a pedo.
Podestas remaining friends with several pedophiles
The connections are shaky at best.
the Alefantis Instagram
Is this the one you cherry-picked, out of thousands of images, one or two that showed kids in it? Hardly proof of anything unless you honestly think they'd post the kids they abducted online. Why hasn't anyone come forward with all the exposure this has gained and said "that's my kid!"
ridiculously spot-on police sketches
Haven't seen these yet. Looking them up now.
spirit cooking
Oh my fucking god, they attended a performance artist's well-known routine! Someone stop the presses they must be pedophiles!
sacrificing chickens to Moloch
From Google it seems to be a random reference to a person in Honorees. No proof such a sacrifice actually took place.
Bill on the Lolita Express
Well that solves it, he must have fucked kids on that flight!
a convicted sex trafficker appointed by Clinton getting Laura Silsby out of kidnapping charges and into Amber Alert
The Secretary of State helps return United States citizens arrested on foreign soil? Say it aint so! And from what I'm reading about that case they were trying to rescue kids after the Haiti earthquake but didn't have the proper paperwork for it. Zero evidence of child sexual abuse.
all the people who have turned up dead investigating the Clinton Foundation and its ties to human trafficking
Out of the tens of thousands of people who believe this crap maybe 10 or so turned up dead, most with a history of mental illness and were found to have killed themselves.
the traffic camera moving just long enough for a gunman...
The ONLY source for this is a random Voat post two days before the shooting. That voat post offers no evidence, its literally just a guy saying "hey the camera moved!"
maybe try doing some investigations on the "deep web" through tor and check out CP related websites and you will find these code words that you obviously wont find in the open.
Pedophiles had to talk somewhere before the deep web, and there were several major pedo "support" forums line throughout the 2000s.
No, I did not browse any. I used to browse 4chan extensively in 2007ish when the site used to get spammed to shit by bots advertising a site called "AnonTalk," which was widely know to be a pedophile chat site. Surely if those phrases were legit they would have showed up on that site's archive.
Much OPSEC.............. talk in the open when everyone with a brain knows everything we have typed/searched on the internet since early 2000's has been recorded and watched.
Surely if those phrases were legit they would have showed up on that site's archive.
Good opinion, don't take it as fact and dig deeper.
I'm sorry. There's a llama named Terrance in Georgia ( the country, not the state) that told me not to talk to you. Therefore you have to help Terrance learn algebra before I can give you any response. My proof that Terrance exists is that the first letter of this sentence is M and that is the same letter that Mexico" starts with.
I have asked. He told me that your level of intelligence is well below the necessary level to carry on a discussion about the subject matter.
Here the best part about the simplistic point that you are trying to make. You actually agree with my point. Your example cannot be debunked. The implication that you are making is that your example is analogous to pizzagate in that you cannot debunk the story because it is ridiculous.
Therefore, you agree with my original point that the claim of debunking is "fake news".
You can keep trying. But next time you may want to do a little more reading to understand the conversation before assuming the position someone holds. It may make you look less like an idiot.
Anti Terrance shill. We'll be over at Voat talking about the llama code. What about all the elites and their involvement with llama farms? You haven't provided one single piece of evidence to refute my claim.
I would have to have a vested interest in refuting your claim. Until then, i will allow you to investigate your claim and build evidence to support it.
It does seem that you have a vested interest in ensuring that no investigation is performed on what others consider suspicious. Care to share why you are so adamantly supporting the suppression of information?
"i will allow you to investigate your claim and build evidence to support it. "
This is my entire point. Do you not see the irony? There needs to be EVIDENCE for claims. Extreme claims require extreme evidence.
"Care to share why you are so adamantly supporting the suppression of information? "
I am adamant about information, but not disinformation. Flimsy and circumstantial evidence led to someone with a gun invading a private business and shooting. This wild goose chase is hurting people based on super casual correlation.
Wow. The dearth of your analytical skills is astounding.
You are making the claim that what the people are discussing is disinformation. You have now made a claim. You are obligated to provide evidence for that claim.
I really like your last bit there. The think about the children statement. Does that one ever work?
The gunman? You just made the claim that he acted because of flimsy and circumstantial evidence. We are going to need evidence of your claim to his reasoning.
And no, media sources dont count as legit sources. They have already been proven unreliable.
So, again, please answer the question why you are arguing so hard against performing an investigation. Especially since, if you are correct, the investigation would exonerate everyone involved.
You speak like someone who wants to be thought of as smart but your reasoning is circular. You've seen my assertions. I believe that evidence is needed to draw conclusions.
Let there be an investigation, I'm not arguing against that.
And lol for arguing "think of the children" isn't a valid statement. This whole witch hunt is based on saving children from a pedophile ring.
Circular? Would that be because i keep turning what you say around to show you how you are making claims with the same amount of evidence that you are accusing others of? Or would it be because i keep returning to the question you refuse to answer?
Or do you just not understand circular logic? Because i havent used any of my arguments to define my own arguments yet. Nor have i made any statement that anything is true or false beyond the original claim that this has been debunked.
Ill give you that my phrasing is a bit off on that one. I didnt see the irony in that at first. However, i was referring to your appeal to fear. Its not a valid arguing point. Unless you are making the statement that any investigation shoukd be left alone due to any adverse reactions from the public.
I think for the public good there should be an investigation. But the irony is there's so much disinformation out there that if any news media would report that the FBI says there was no evidence of any of the claims no one would believe them anyway. This isn't a case built in facts, it's a case built in the gaps of evidence.
I won't get into the circular logic because it's detracting from the important point, but if you look into your statements it is there.
You also have a nasty habit of trying to discredit anyone who disagrees with you by calling them names or attempting to discredit them (ad hominem), or their reasoning abilities.
Well they could have been. No chain of custody and many have no DKIM signature. That means they are text files a hacker gave you and said they came from a guy's inbox. They could in fact be altered and yes that's what anyone who actually was caught would claim too. I guess that means it's all opinion as only NSA/FBI could verify that the emails were altered by having a version of the original saved in collected data.
Still good to point this out. There's now a claim that the emails contents were altered. If you could actually prove that, which as I said MIGHT be possible, then you would have your smoking gun that someone was seeking to manipulate the election with false information.
All it would take is for Podesta to come out and say they were altered, he could even prove it by releasing a few of the "real" emails. Its been a while since we've heard from Johnny-boy, though.
This claim could only be validated by NSA/FBI - so if that were the case, he would in fact, probably wait until the investigation was complete to state anything. Claiming it before-hand with nothing except your word against theirs to back it up, doesn't really seem like it would help from his position.
Some parts of them are verified. On the ones I have examined you could alter the time stamps on the emails to whatever you wanted (on the outside headers), but you could not alter the inside part (body) of the email. Here's the thing though, you could compromise the account, send the emails yourself and then change the date. Many of the emails being pointed to in the Podesta emails are not DKIM verified which means there is no control over the content at all. I tend to trust the google.com DKIM more than the one from the earlier Clinton emails. I believe there was a domain (clintonemail or something like that I forget which one it was) that had DKIM that was working in some of the earlier releases. We do not know the extent to which the earliest email server was compromised. If admin access was gained, then they could have just signed the emails themselves. I'd say I believe that the emails that are signed by google's DKIM were sent using a properly authorized client. If I were the NSA I'd just go see if they have a record of a single one of these and if I can find one alteration that's pretty good evidence of tampering.
Wikipedia is behind multiple soros funded phony revolutions, which as one of the posts in the front page suggests: "Hijacks children caring facilities into child smuggling rings".
You do realize that anyone and everyone can edit Wikipedia to make it say anything, right? Wikipedia isn't evidence. College students, of all people, would know that as we would receive a failing grade for citing Wiki.
My point is take it with a grain of salt. It's a decent starting point for knowledge, but understand that any clown with a computer can come in and make any edits they'd like.
For those about to engage in an episode to schizophrenia and accountability denial, politicians are dirty and they lie and are flat-out rich, for the most part they are boring old people that like to play golf and suck their own dicks. Stop flattering our government for being so exciting because it's not it's fucking boring. People have been molesting children since we were amoeba. Why does it take Donald Trump becoming your president to make this paranoid Journey two child sex
Yeah someone else just actually debunked one of the alleged codes for me, or at least debunked it in regards to its use in one of the emails. The hotdog stand in Hawaii is just an inside joke dating back as far as 2000.
So that's somewhat of a relief. Why don't actual fucking journalists go through and do this stuff? Like actually debunk instead of triggering people like me who were abused as kids? Getting triggered by trolls, and then the MSM just points and laughs instead of explaining, just like people who were abused as kids were not believed. This whole thing has been an exhausting shitfest rollercoaster.
Like actually debunk instead of triggering people like me who were abused as kids? Getting triggered by trolls, and then the MSM just points and laughs instead of explaining, just like people who were abused as kids were not believed.
It's not the media's fault that you believed a load of old rubbish, it's not the media's role to address every single piece of crap on the internet, and it's not the job of journalists to provide you with a therapeutic reading experience.
The question you ought to be asking yourself is: "Why on earth did I believe self-evident total nonsense from a completely anonymous stranger with no credentials, and why did I make no effort to check?"
You are a victim in this, but not in the way you seem to imagine. You are a victim because you chose to listen to idiots, and unless you learn to be a bit more discriminating, you'll be a victim again.
Use this squalid episode as the basis for personal growth, because it's the only positive you're going to get from it.
That's good, I'm so glad a hot dog stand exists in Hawaii. Proof that all the other emails about cheese, pasta, pizza, hotdogs, handkerchiefs, and pool parties that children get Uber'd to, to be the entertainment for the day, none of that is suspect.
It's a disservice to the victims of P-G, to dismiss the whole thing. I've personally researched this in depth, and I guarantee if real investigation was done, that this would blow up.
My point is take it with a grain of salt. It's a decent starting point for knowledge, but understand that any clown with a computer can come in and make any edits they'd like.
You speak like someone who wants to be thought of as smart but your reasoning is circular. You've seen my assertions. I believe that evidence is needed to draw conclusions.
Let there be an investigation, I'm not arguing against that.
And lol for arguing "think of the children" isn't a valid statement. This whole witch hunt is based on saving children from a pedophile ring.
98 comments
104 NaughtyHealer 2016-12-09
There is no code, you're crazy!
Oh well, if it is code, it's not what you think it means! It's probably just uh, drugs! A drug-related map on a napkin, yeah!
Well the emails are all fake Russian propaganda anyway!
Well uh, okay most of them are not fake, but I bet some were altered!
28 GayForChopin 2016-12-09
Lol this sounds like Hillary trying to talk her way out of a lie
12 Horus_Krishna_4 2016-12-09
maybe they're not codes and they're just noodles thrown onto a wall to see if they stick!
15 NaughtyHealer 2016-12-09
Yeah someone else just actually debunked one of the alleged codes for me, or at least debunked it in regards to its use in one of the emails. The hotdog stand in Hawaii is just an inside joke dating back as far as 2000.
Courtesy of user goddaged:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/07/03/for-the-presidents-4th-chief-of-staff-a-measure-of-success/4f7a333b-0e12-4815-a749-fa7ff35c82f1/?utm_term=.5fb81e493ca8
Last paragraph.
So that's somewhat of a relief. Why don't actual fucking journalists go through and do this stuff? Like actually debunk instead of triggering people like me who were abused as kids? Getting triggered by trolls, and then the MSM just points and laughs instead of explaining, just like people who were abused as kids were not believed. This whole thing has been an exhausting shitfest rollercoaster.
7 Horus_Krishna_4 2016-12-09
nice, that's washingtonpost using pedo code tho unfortunately
11 NaughtyHealer 2016-12-09
They were quoting his brother, who said it, it wasn't the Washington Post's own words. Not a fan of the Post but still, it wasn't their own words. That nobody I have seen has been mentioning that joke from back in 2000 when using the email as a piece of evidence, though, makes me more suspicious of everything else. I mean what is the story behind all of the other examples, that I might not have stumbled upon yet? I already know the MSM isn't trustworthy at all, but it seems there might be some bullshit afoot with this, as well. Which if so really pisses me off, since child predators in governments is a very real issue, we don't need people drumming up distorted half-truths that could make it harder future victims to be taken seriously.
3 Horus_Krishna_4 2016-12-09
his bros a pedo too sorry
16 NaughtyHealer 2016-12-09
That's not the point of my posts. The point of my posts is that the information relevant to the email about a hotdog stand has not been included by anyone I have seen showing that email as evidence for reason to be suspicious. I'm only of average intelligence, you see, and when reading about a topic that is triggering for me, like I actually have PTSD, I become even less intelligent due to the fight/flight response. Hence I did not think to do searches that would have brought up the article for me a long time ago. So I can only conclude that the people doing the investigations are either also not that bright if they did not think to look it up, or they deliberately don't include it so as to deliberately not have any context for the email when they use it as evidence. Those are the only two possibilities and neither of them are good.
3 spurty_loads 2016-12-09
what if its going on and we aren't investigating? http://theworthyadversary.com/3106-rotherdam
5 NaughtyHealer 2016-12-09
I'm 100% sure it goes on, given everything. I'm just willing to admit that due to my past, I got emotionally riled up and wasn't as objective as I should have been. I'm just willing to admit to that. Is anyone else? Because my bigger fear now is that this is going to wind up being used to invalidate real victims of predators in the future.
-3 spurty_loads 2016-12-09
then smoke a joint or something
5 NaughtyHealer 2016-12-09
Ugh I wish, I could so use one right now. Weeks freaking out about children being used, and now a mountain of embarrassment and anxiety over the revelation that not only are we not going to be saving any of them, but we're probably making things worse due to our shitty case.
3 JangoEnchained 2016-12-09
Remember that ultimately, we're not responsible for the actions of someone else. If someone chooses (or gets paid to, depending on who you ask) take a gun down to a pizza joint because of some theories swirling online, that's not on you.
As long as we each do a piece of research, make some connections, or dig up some more "coincidences," we can't do much better than that. We do have other aspects of our lives, after all.
1 Beneficial1 2016-12-09
I don't perceive that but I can empathize.
4 millipedecult 2016-12-09
That's good, I'm so glad a hot dog stand exists in Hawaii. Proof that all the other emails about cheese, pasta, pizza, hotdogs, handkerchiefs, and pool parties that children get Uber'd to, to be the entertainment for the day, none of that is suspect.
It's a disservice to the victims of P-G, to dismiss the whole thing. I've personally researched this in depth, and I guarantee if real investigation was done, that this would blow up.
1 live52 2016-12-09
Washington Post is no longer a reliable source.
-1 Tinie_Snipah 2016-12-09
Because real journalists have better things to do than debunk conspiracies
-12 falsescorpion 2016-12-09
It's not the media's fault that you believed a load of old rubbish, it's not the media's role to address every single piece of crap on the internet, and it's not the job of journalists to provide you with a therapeutic reading experience.
The question you ought to be asking yourself is: "Why on earth did I believe self-evident total nonsense from a completely anonymous stranger with no credentials, and why did I make no effort to check?"
You are a victim in this, but not in the way you seem to imagine. You are a victim because you chose to listen to idiots, and unless you learn to be a bit more discriminating, you'll be a victim again.
Use this squalid episode as the basis for personal growth, because it's the only positive you're going to get from it.
10 NaughtyHealer 2016-12-09
I think you have a fair point about me, personally, and yes it is a learning opportunity.
But if the MSM is going to go out of their way to talk about it, then it ought to be because they investigated and are discussing the results of their efforts to debunk/confirm. They went out of their way to spend time on it, but only mock it or call it "fake" without explaining how they know it is fake. So I stand firmly by my criticism of that.
-5 falsescorpion 2016-12-09
But what about everyone else who believes some ridiculous crap they read online? Why do you (pizzagaters, not you personally) get preferential treatment? And why do you (personally) get preferential treatment out of all the other pizzagaters who want to see some other item of 'evidence' addressed?
You can see where this is going. The media's job is to report on things that are actually happening. So far the only 'thing' that has happened as part of pizzagate is that gunman incident. There is literally nothing else to report, unless you want media debased to the level at which twitterstorms are the stuff of headlines.
Perhaps there will be some exhaustive pizzagate debunking documentary in the near future. There's enough interest for a potential audience-winner. But true pizzagaters will dismiss it as part of the cover-up. So it won't accomplish much.
11 NaughtyHealer 2016-12-09
Personally, my hope has been that pizzagate will increase public awareness / concern over child predator activity and coverups in powerful governments. That there might have been a small surge in that from the MSM, as well.
I mean I imagine you may have seen the recent thread about how even Cooper once acknowledged it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpFFpfsK4jk&feature=youtu.be
And like I said, the media has gone out of their way to talk about pizzagate but only to call it fake in order to support the "fake news is dangerous" narrative that has suddenly surged. Did so many go out of their way to talk about the 9/11 conspiracy theory and mock it back then? Or when they do talk about some other conspiracy theories, don't they usually try to actually debunk it, like the birther people?
4 zachij 2016-12-09
Thats the part where you will stop getting replies mate. He isnt after justice for children. His soul purpose is just to discredit Pizzagate. You gotta ask yourself, what normal unbiased person makes a new reddit account just to log on all day and go find posts relating to finding justice for abused kids and attacking each and every post? Like its a frigging conspiracy sub, and we have frequent, systemated attacks on peoples theories every day....well only if it relates to bringing justice to child rapists
3 know_comment 2016-12-09
it took a while for 9/11 conspiracy theories to catch on. Alex Jones and his crowd was a bit more limited. Loose Change was probably the first mainstreaming/ popularizing of the concept.
i think the media doesn't want to spend time debunking when they can just discredit and talk down. that's what works- it's the same strategy used against skeptics of GMO/ Global Warming Vaccines and all those "anti-science" concepts. Just lable the people who question or criticize as crazy or stupid or dangerous.
but I agree that this community needs to be debunking their own concepts if they want to create a more coherent framework for their narrative. There is too much bs in the pizzagate story and it does a disservice to the larger problems.
1 live52 2016-12-09
The crimes were real and at the heart of government.
And today, 150 Terabytes of kiddy porn was found in Europe. High government officials implicated. But, in the US media are not picking up on the story. Suppression of legitimate stories, and creating and spreading false information, is censorship. The CIA has a lot of expertise in this area.
0 falsescorpion 2016-12-09
A fair question, and an interesting area in any case, so I'll unpack some stuff here.
What's changed between 9/11 and now is that on 9/11 the US wasn't in the early stages of a superpower confrontation, in which the opponent was making good use of information (be that media material or digital data).
There's no need to fight a propaganda war against an enemy that has just devastated a city landmark, and what's more since the enemy are basically shepherds equipped with cellphones hiding somewhere in a third world country, there's no effective way of doing it either.
The internet was just getting going properly (OK, the WWW but I don't care for the distinction these days). Al-Qaeda was a very retro terrorist body, as you might expect from such Cold War leftovers, and although they used the internet to propagate material and make announcements, they weren't great adapters to the digital age.
Bin Laden put up a video of a defiant speech, the media reported it, and we all moved on. Rinse and repeat.
Putin's Russia is in a different league, and has the historical 'chess mentality' to make good use of the internet (which is now a decade more advanced than it was on 9/11).
There is a lot of history here. But the upshot is that the end of the First Cold War was merely the prelude to the encircling of Russia, and this cranked the Second Cold War into motion - and that's where we are now.
This is about a bit more than 'Bin Laden: Wanted dead or alive'.
Whether or not the Kremlin is really percolating 'fake news' into US audiences is neither here nor there, really. The aim is that nothing from Russia will be trusted.
And the big thing that has also changed since 9/11 is the strength of the west's media. A decade of cost-cutting and cutbacks had already led commentators to observe how weakened the media's resources and fact-checking had become, even before the 2008 crash.
The western media had become vulnerable to Russian propaganda. The western intelligence agencies exploited that same vulnerability to spread the 'fake news' meme, designed to contaminate Russian sources.
And now that meme is backfiring, because it is ironically shining a spotlight on exactly how parlous western news reporting had already become.
The 'fake news' meme outbreak is still developing, and it's not clear how the situation will stabilise, but it looks at least as though 'the free press' are going to have been catastrophically injured by supping with the Devil.
4 KnightBeforeTomorrow 2016-12-09
Oh, and that other thing that happened . The pope is freaking the hell out, unless you think he would ordinarily say that everyone who would read about this ' even if true", 'might eat feces' Do you think he's just a bit over reacting ? I think he's scared to death, freaking out because we're onto the game.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/07/pope-compares-fake-news-consumption-to-eating-faeces-coprophilia
1 live52 2016-12-09
You bet some of them were altered? Well, the CIA has 30k of the originals.
19 climberoftalltrees 2016-12-09
Can anyone provide an example of pizzagate being debunked? Something besides "that is just too ridiculous".
I havent seen any "solid" evidence yet, but i have seen enough coincidences to warrant further investigation.
The amount of screaming that this is fake is also very suspicious to me.
5 FriendlessComputer 2016-12-09
I can debunk it pretty easily.
The crux of the Pizzagate argument is the alleged pedophile code in Podesta's emails. I'm speaking specifically of the code table listed here.
There is no source attached to that alleged pedophile code, which the table contends is widely used among pedophiles. However, Googling some of the phrases, like "hotdog" for boy and "ice cream" for male prostitute, returns no results except Pizzagate-related articles.
Upon further investigation, I traced the source of this code table to a single random 4chan post. That's it. Some random 4chan user invented that table out of thin air, and now people blindly assume it's true. Remove that code table and all of the suspect emails are rendered innocuous.
9 climberoftalltrees 2016-12-09
Thats not a debunking. You just basically said it is your opinion that it is not true.
2 jefffffffff 2016-12-09
The part I don't get. This fucker is a multimillionaire. Why is he discussing what he's eating with his friends. They have private chefs. That are capable of making delicious dishes if all types. Why is at always fucking pasta and pizza.
4 Bman0921 2016-12-09
In one email they were talking about eating the pasta they got for Xmas. On march 1.
3 morbidexpression 2016-12-09
Uh, because they are Italian?
2 FriendlessComputer 2016-12-09
It's a solid FACT that none of the words listed in the code word chart were ever used by pedophiles. Period. That's not my opinion that is a fact supported by evidence.
2 climberoftalltrees 2016-12-09
Sorry. The solid fact that you are trying to use as your argument is that there have been no confirmations that these words have been used in that way. You are using the same level of speculation that you are accusing others of to prove your argument. Still not a debunking.
1 FriendlessComputer 2016-12-09
Ok what about the solid fact that the "pedo code" was ripped directly from a single 4chan user post, invented out of thin air?
2 climberoftalltrees 2016-12-09
Again, that is not a debunking fact. You have simply stated that the discussion began as a result of a person stating something.
1 FriendlessComputer 2016-12-09
... OUT OF THIN AIR WITHOUT ANY PROOF TO BACK IT UP.
I could just as easily say in the emails "pizza" means "magical fairy dust" and it would be just as logically valid as claiming "hotdog" means they're raping little boys.
3 climberoftalltrees 2016-12-09
That is correct. You could claim that. And me saying that you are wrong is not debunking proof. Until you can confirm the actual intended meaning of the words, you are simply speculating.
But if i have a suspicion that magical fairy dust has nefarious meanings, i am free to investigate. No matter how much it discomforts you.
If you will take a moment to read what my original posting was, you will see that i am asking for any actual, valid debunking. I did not ask for any proof of the opposite. I am waiting for conclusive evidence. The problem is that people like yourself are offering less evidence to disprove the argument than is being provided by your opposition.
If no one is guilty of anything, then you should have no problem with people investigating to determine if that is correct or not.
1 FriendlessComputer 2016-12-09
No that's not how the burden of proof works. It's not up to me to disprove the code words' meaning, its up to you to prove the valid meaning of the codewords.
So by all means feel free to post proof of the meaning of those codewords.
1 climberoftalltrees 2016-12-09
So i shall reiterate. I asked for debunking. You provided an opinion and called it a debunking.
I showed how you are wrong. Now, you are trying to shift the discussion into an argument over what you assumed i have stated. By the way, my original statement is about the article claiming debunking.
I havent laid the burden of proof on you. You tried to shoulder it yourself and came up seriously lacking. At this point, i am curious as to why it is so important to you that no one investigates something they consider suspicious.
7 ericN 2016-12-09
They are not innocuous. They are strange and suspicious. At minimum, they are talking about drugs, but that seems unlikely based on their word usage.
These people are all generally successful and productive. They are too busy to be writing stupid emails for shits and giggles.
They fucked up, plain and simple.
3 GaslightCoffee 2016-12-09
Yeah, that just leaves the Podesta art, Podestas remaining friends with several pedophiles, the Alefantis Instagram, the massive coverup over a hole-in-the-wall pizza place, ridiculously spot-on police sketches, spirit cooking, sacrificing chickens to Moloch, Bill on the Lolita Express, a convicted sex trafficker appointed by Clinton getting Laura Silsby out of kidnapping charges and into Amber Alert, all the people who have turned up dead investigating the Clinton Foundation and its ties to human trafficking, the traffic camera moving just long enough for a gunman...
Yup, without pizza=kids pizzagate is just dead in the water.
5 TajSamKojiJesam 2016-12-09
Also, the numerous similar scandals such as the Franklin Coverup, the Marc Dutroux case (which is the most damning of all), Elm Guest House, Epstein's Pedo Island, Jimmy Savile, lord Jenner and Cyril Smith, etc....
If Pizzagate was the only case of these things happening, I wouldn't think much of it. But as it turns out, the world is run by satanic pedophiles.
1 FriendlessComputer 2016-12-09
Irrelevant. That's like saying Obama is guilty of treason because of Nixon and Johnson.
1 TajSamKojiJesam 2016-12-09
Not a fair comparison. Just because some US presidents were crooked doesn't mean they all were (at least not as much). On the other hand, there's lots of solid evidence that systematized pedophilia and child trafficking is rampant among the elite from all over the world. That should at least make one consider Pizzagate to be true.
I myself am not fully convinced of Pizzagate, but after researching Dutroux and Sevile, it doesn't sound far-fetched at all to me.
2 FriendlessComputer 2016-12-09
Guy has an interesting taste in art, ergo he's a pedo.
The connections are shaky at best.
Is this the one you cherry-picked, out of thousands of images, one or two that showed kids in it? Hardly proof of anything unless you honestly think they'd post the kids they abducted online. Why hasn't anyone come forward with all the exposure this has gained and said "that's my kid!"
Haven't seen these yet. Looking them up now.
Oh my fucking god, they attended a performance artist's well-known routine! Someone stop the presses they must be pedophiles!
From Google it seems to be a random reference to a person in Honorees. No proof such a sacrifice actually took place.
Well that solves it, he must have fucked kids on that flight!
The Secretary of State helps return United States citizens arrested on foreign soil? Say it aint so! And from what I'm reading about that case they were trying to rescue kids after the Haiti earthquake but didn't have the proper paperwork for it. Zero evidence of child sexual abuse.
Out of the tens of thousands of people who believe this crap maybe 10 or so turned up dead, most with a history of mental illness and were found to have killed themselves.
The ONLY source for this is a random Voat post two days before the shooting. That voat post offers no evidence, its literally just a guy saying "hey the camera moved!"
1 tymaan 2016-12-09
maybe try doing some investigations on the "deep web" through tor and check out CP related websites and you will find these code words that you obviously wont find in the open.
2 FriendlessComputer 2016-12-09
Pedophiles had to talk somewhere before the deep web, and there were several major pedo "support" forums line throughout the 2000s.
No, I did not browse any. I used to browse 4chan extensively in 2007ish when the site used to get spammed to shit by bots advertising a site called "AnonTalk," which was widely know to be a pedophile chat site. Surely if those phrases were legit they would have showed up on that site's archive.
1 tymaan 2016-12-09
Much OPSEC.............. talk in the open when everyone with a brain knows everything we have typed/searched on the internet since early 2000's has been recorded and watched.
Good opinion, don't take it as fact and dig deeper.
4 Emazingmomo 2016-12-09
You can't falsify a negative; the burden of proof is on the accuser.
2 climberoftalltrees 2016-12-09
So then you agree that nothing has been debunked as is claimed?
4 Emazingmomo 2016-12-09
I'm sorry. There's a llama named Terrance in Georgia ( the country, not the state) that told me not to talk to you. Therefore you have to help Terrance learn algebra before I can give you any response. My proof that Terrance exists is that the first letter of this sentence is M and that is the same letter that Mexico" starts with.
Debunk this and we can talk.
2 climberoftalltrees 2016-12-09
Do you even understand what debunking means? Or are you just trying to throw something semi-witty at the wall to see what sticks?
2 Emazingmomo 2016-12-09
Ask Terrance, please.
1 climberoftalltrees 2016-12-09
I have asked. He told me that your level of intelligence is well below the necessary level to carry on a discussion about the subject matter.
Here the best part about the simplistic point that you are trying to make. You actually agree with my point. Your example cannot be debunked. The implication that you are making is that your example is analogous to pizzagate in that you cannot debunk the story because it is ridiculous.
Therefore, you agree with my original point that the claim of debunking is "fake news".
You can keep trying. But next time you may want to do a little more reading to understand the conversation before assuming the position someone holds. It may make you look less like an idiot.
0 Emazingmomo 2016-12-09
Anti Terrance shill. We'll be over at Voat talking about the llama code. What about all the elites and their involvement with llama farms? You haven't provided one single piece of evidence to refute my claim.
3 climberoftalltrees 2016-12-09
I would have to have a vested interest in refuting your claim. Until then, i will allow you to investigate your claim and build evidence to support it.
It does seem that you have a vested interest in ensuring that no investigation is performed on what others consider suspicious. Care to share why you are so adamantly supporting the suppression of information?
3 Emazingmomo 2016-12-09
"i will allow you to investigate your claim and build evidence to support it. "
This is my entire point. Do you not see the irony? There needs to be EVIDENCE for claims. Extreme claims require extreme evidence.
"Care to share why you are so adamantly supporting the suppression of information? "
I am adamant about information, but not disinformation. Flimsy and circumstantial evidence led to someone with a gun invading a private business and shooting. This wild goose chase is hurting people based on super casual correlation.
1 climberoftalltrees 2016-12-09
Wow. The dearth of your analytical skills is astounding.
You are making the claim that what the people are discussing is disinformation. You have now made a claim. You are obligated to provide evidence for that claim.
I really like your last bit there. The think about the children statement. Does that one ever work?
The gunman? You just made the claim that he acted because of flimsy and circumstantial evidence. We are going to need evidence of your claim to his reasoning.
And no, media sources dont count as legit sources. They have already been proven unreliable.
So, again, please answer the question why you are arguing so hard against performing an investigation. Especially since, if you are correct, the investigation would exonerate everyone involved.
1 Emazingmomo 2016-12-09
You speak like someone who wants to be thought of as smart but your reasoning is circular. You've seen my assertions. I believe that evidence is needed to draw conclusions.
Let there be an investigation, I'm not arguing against that.
And lol for arguing "think of the children" isn't a valid statement. This whole witch hunt is based on saving children from a pedophile ring.
2 climberoftalltrees 2016-12-09
Circular? Would that be because i keep turning what you say around to show you how you are making claims with the same amount of evidence that you are accusing others of? Or would it be because i keep returning to the question you refuse to answer?
Or do you just not understand circular logic? Because i havent used any of my arguments to define my own arguments yet. Nor have i made any statement that anything is true or false beyond the original claim that this has been debunked.
Ill give you that my phrasing is a bit off on that one. I didnt see the irony in that at first. However, i was referring to your appeal to fear. Its not a valid arguing point. Unless you are making the statement that any investigation shoukd be left alone due to any adverse reactions from the public.
2 Emazingmomo 2016-12-09
I think for the public good there should be an investigation. But the irony is there's so much disinformation out there that if any news media would report that the FBI says there was no evidence of any of the claims no one would believe them anyway. This isn't a case built in facts, it's a case built in the gaps of evidence.
I won't get into the circular logic because it's detracting from the important point, but if you look into your statements it is there.
You also have a nasty habit of trying to discredit anyone who disagrees with you by calling them names or attempting to discredit them (ad hominem), or their reasoning abilities.
1 Josneezy 2016-12-09
So nothing can be debunked?
1 Emazingmomo 2016-12-09
No, just without evidence anyone can make irrefutable and baseless claims.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
2 rockets_meowth 2016-12-09
This is what OP leaves out of all this. He said he thinks it's false but that doesn't mean it's still not a story. Full circle dumb
1 pataganja 2016-12-09
The article flat out calls it "debunked".
7 4esop 2016-12-09
Well they could have been. No chain of custody and many have no DKIM signature. That means they are text files a hacker gave you and said they came from a guy's inbox. They could in fact be altered and yes that's what anyone who actually was caught would claim too. I guess that means it's all opinion as only NSA/FBI could verify that the emails were altered by having a version of the original saved in collected data.
Still good to point this out. There's now a claim that the emails contents were altered. If you could actually prove that, which as I said MIGHT be possible, then you would have your smoking gun that someone was seeking to manipulate the election with false information.
24 Elmo_Tully 2016-12-09
All it would take is for Podesta to come out and say they were altered, he could even prove it by releasing a few of the "real" emails. Its been a while since we've heard from Johnny-boy, though.
24 Sister_Lauren 2016-12-09
That is not going to happen because they weren't altered.
11 andronicii 2016-12-09
I dunno, if you squint they can look really altered.
2 4esop 2016-12-09
This claim could only be validated by NSA/FBI - so if that were the case, he would in fact, probably wait until the investigation was complete to state anything. Claiming it before-hand with nothing except your word against theirs to back it up, doesn't really seem like it would help from his position.
4 Horus_Krishna_4 2016-12-09
let's ask assange if they have a dkim signature. wait . . . .
2 ParanoidFactoid 2016-12-09
Would you agree that those messages with valid dkim signatures are verified correct?
2 4esop 2016-12-09
Some parts of them are verified. On the ones I have examined you could alter the time stamps on the emails to whatever you wanted (on the outside headers), but you could not alter the inside part (body) of the email. Here's the thing though, you could compromise the account, send the emails yourself and then change the date. Many of the emails being pointed to in the Podesta emails are not DKIM verified which means there is no control over the content at all. I tend to trust the google.com DKIM more than the one from the earlier Clinton emails. I believe there was a domain (clintonemail or something like that I forget which one it was) that had DKIM that was working in some of the earlier releases. We do not know the extent to which the earliest email server was compromised. If admin access was gained, then they could have just signed the emails themselves. I'd say I believe that the emails that are signed by google's DKIM were sent using a properly authorized client. If I were the NSA I'd just go see if they have a record of a single one of these and if I can find one alteration that's pretty good evidence of tampering.
7 Horus_Krishna_4 2016-12-09
nice, always go to discussion page on Wikipedia articles for the true story
4 inbetweentime 2016-12-09
Wikipedia? Fake news. Better shut it down.
3 Mrexreturns 2016-12-09
Wikipedia is behind multiple soros funded phony revolutions, which as one of the posts in the front page suggests: "Hijacks children caring facilities into child smuggling rings".
3 want_to_trump 2016-12-09
This is the /r/conspiracy I love. Keep connecting those dots!
2 MadRabbit116 2016-12-09
Check david seaman (journalist)'s wiki page too
2 mahatma_arium_nine 2016-12-09
Wikipedia has had zero credibility since the 11th of September 2001.
0 bwburke94 2016-12-09
Wikipedia was credible for almost eight months?
1 JoJoRumbles 2016-12-09
You do realize that anyone and everyone can edit Wikipedia to make it say anything, right? Wikipedia isn't evidence. College students, of all people, would know that as we would receive a failing grade for citing Wiki.
4 485075 2016-12-09
People still read it and use it, what's your point?
3 andronicii 2016-12-09
Wikipedia is CIA controlled, everyone knows this.
1 JoJoRumbles 2016-12-09
My point is take it with a grain of salt. It's a decent starting point for knowledge, but understand that any clown with a computer can come in and make any edits they'd like.
1 pataganja 2016-12-09
You can also look at who made what edits
1 bitcoin_noob 2016-12-09
Doesnt matter, your average joe trusts and relies on it.
1 InTheseDays 2016-12-09
The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
The scum are circling the wagons in an effort to avoid circling the sewer drains.
n/a fbmbob 2016-12-09
For those about to engage in an episode to schizophrenia and accountability denial, politicians are dirty and they lie and are flat-out rich, for the most part they are boring old people that like to play golf and suck their own dicks. Stop flattering our government for being so exciting because it's not it's fucking boring. People have been molesting children since we were amoeba. Why does it take Donald Trump becoming your president to make this paranoid Journey two child sex
0 unclezipper 2016-12-09
Why are so many of the original commits suppressed?
-1 [deleted] 2016-12-09
Idiots
-2 ProgrammingPants 2016-12-09
How did you know I made both of those Wikipedia posts?
-2 andronicii 2016-12-09
I think the fever broke and "Pizzagate" is finally falling away...
-20 1laguy 2016-12-09
pizzgate is fake you dolts
16 pataganja 2016-12-09
Right.. account that hasnt been used in 2 years up until yesterday
4 unclezipper 2016-12-09
boiiii
I've been lurking for the past few weeks. Signed in to upvote this, I choked laughing.
15 NaughtyHealer 2016-12-09
Yeah someone else just actually debunked one of the alleged codes for me, or at least debunked it in regards to its use in one of the emails. The hotdog stand in Hawaii is just an inside joke dating back as far as 2000.
Courtesy of user goddaged:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/07/03/for-the-presidents-4th-chief-of-staff-a-measure-of-success/4f7a333b-0e12-4815-a749-fa7ff35c82f1/?utm_term=.5fb81e493ca8
Last paragraph.
So that's somewhat of a relief. Why don't actual fucking journalists go through and do this stuff? Like actually debunk instead of triggering people like me who were abused as kids? Getting triggered by trolls, and then the MSM just points and laughs instead of explaining, just like people who were abused as kids were not believed. This whole thing has been an exhausting shitfest rollercoaster.
7 Horus_Krishna_4 2016-12-09
nice, that's washingtonpost using pedo code tho unfortunately
-12 falsescorpion 2016-12-09
It's not the media's fault that you believed a load of old rubbish, it's not the media's role to address every single piece of crap on the internet, and it's not the job of journalists to provide you with a therapeutic reading experience.
The question you ought to be asking yourself is: "Why on earth did I believe self-evident total nonsense from a completely anonymous stranger with no credentials, and why did I make no effort to check?"
You are a victim in this, but not in the way you seem to imagine. You are a victim because you chose to listen to idiots, and unless you learn to be a bit more discriminating, you'll be a victim again.
Use this squalid episode as the basis for personal growth, because it's the only positive you're going to get from it.
3 andronicii 2016-12-09
Wikipedia is CIA controlled, everyone knows this.
4 millipedecult 2016-12-09
That's good, I'm so glad a hot dog stand exists in Hawaii. Proof that all the other emails about cheese, pasta, pizza, hotdogs, handkerchiefs, and pool parties that children get Uber'd to, to be the entertainment for the day, none of that is suspect.
It's a disservice to the victims of P-G, to dismiss the whole thing. I've personally researched this in depth, and I guarantee if real investigation was done, that this would blow up.
1 JoJoRumbles 2016-12-09
My point is take it with a grain of salt. It's a decent starting point for knowledge, but understand that any clown with a computer can come in and make any edits they'd like.
-1 Tinie_Snipah 2016-12-09
Because real journalists have better things to do than debunk conspiracies
1 FriendlessComputer 2016-12-09
Irrelevant. That's like saying Obama is guilty of treason because of Nixon and Johnson.
1 Emazingmomo 2016-12-09
You speak like someone who wants to be thought of as smart but your reasoning is circular. You've seen my assertions. I believe that evidence is needed to draw conclusions.
Let there be an investigation, I'm not arguing against that.
And lol for arguing "think of the children" isn't a valid statement. This whole witch hunt is based on saving children from a pedophile ring.
1 live52 2016-12-09
Washington Post is no longer a reliable source.