I'm posting this

0:52 - "this will not be a debunking of the entire theory" .. video title: PizzaGate Debunked ... we'll, aren't we off to a great start :)

1:15 - 'handkerchief code' - no white color on the wikipedia page ... no, there isn't today, but there was on 8 November 2016 and it is referencing "Virginity" - white is also referenced in several previous versions and missing in others - in 2014 it is listed as symbolizing "Masturbation"

~1:30 - thinks "The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related." sounds perfectly normal, except it doesn't when you consider the wider context of these emails and factor in "pizza" and all the other evidence - and what kind of map would be "pizza-related"? and what kind of pizza related map would be on a handkerchief? and why did she use the words "I think it has a map that seems pizza-related" instead of 'I think it has a map on it that seems pizza-related'? and why "seems pizza-related"? was it hard to tell? and why cc the email to [email protected] if she knew it was John's handkerchief? there is nothing at all about this exchange that makes sense to me, especially given the broader picture

you can't isolate a single piece of evidence when there are probably hundreds of supporting pieces and proclaim there's nothing unusual about it

~1:40 - says they talked allot, along with their colleagues, about going out for meals, "and in particular, going out for pizza", but concludes that the pizza references are perfectly benign - you can only ignore the multiple pizza references if you do not factor in the code words and disregard all of the other pieces of evidence - isolating the pizza references might be fine if we didn't already know that pedophilia is rampant in various large institutions, including government, long before PizzaGate, and we didn't see the 'fuck' reference on the bathroom wall at Comet, and we didn't see the creepy video of a party there, and... and,,, and,,, and,,,

2:20 - back to the handkerchief code - "there is no white here on the bottom" (referencing the wikipedia page) and "clearly white was added on the bottom - it's been fabricated" - it was added, yes, but not completely fabricated as pointed out previously in the page edit history

4:37 - "there's no proof anywhere of sources to support that white equals virginity or pedophilia" - well, if he's going to rely on wikipedia as a source, which he did, then the 'proof' he seeks is in the edit history that he didn't review throughly

7:45 - the arched-back sculpture - in essence he admits that the sculpture represents sick shit (discourse of madness, emotional disturbance, hysteria, mental illness, etc.) and makes the analogy that the sculpture is not so similar to how Jeffrey Dahmer posed his victim (arms are not folded in the sculpture, etc.), except on the very same page he is using for reference, he offers no explanation for the illustration by Charles Bell which shows the arms folded, finally concluding it has "nothing to do remotely with Jeffrey Dahmer or murder or pedophilia - nothing of the sort"

9:21 - i quit - don't know about anyone else, but i've seen and heard enough at this point that i had no interest in viewing the rest of the video - the good news is, i'd say in another lifetime or 2 he may develop the necessary analytical skills to earn his junior G-man badge