The Washingtonian wrote an article about the shooting hours before it occurred. (pizzagate)

submitted ago by oiseaulibre

Edit6:This has been found to be likely a Google bug

Here is the source code:

https://i.sli.mg/bDa9Wl.png

Time: 16:10

Edit4 has google threads about the bug.

OP:

Here is an album with the proof:

https://sli.mg/a/CteeyU

Here are the individual pictures:

https://i.sli.mg/7oQoRo.png

https://i.sli.mg/cUljV5.png

https://i.sli.mg/gUvLyv.png

Here's an archive of the article:

https://archive.fo/y70nr

Here's the article itself:

https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/12/04/man-with-rifle-arrested-at-comet-ping-pong/

Edit: I just archived the Google search that displays the article's time since the article itself doesn't say when it was written besides the date. Also, it now says 10 hours ago. I don't know how Google rounds these hours, but the time is way before the "shooting" happened.

https://archive.fo/vvhxb

Edit2: I tweeted this the both the authors and the Washingtonian. So far the Washingtonian has blocked me.

https://i.sli.mg/vf2KIE.png

(Edit3 was found to be incorrect)

Edit3: Here is proof in the source code, courtesy of this comment by @SsupGuys :

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1461923/7066841

Edit4: @Omnipotent1 commented that this is a known google bug and @SsupGuys found out that the last edit was incorrect.

Here is @Omnipotent1 's comment:

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1461923/7067643

Here is a thread about the issue:

https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/webmasters/PCKsjpbqiEo

Here is google talking about the issue:

https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/70871?hl=en

Edit5: I should add that @Omnipotent1 's comment does not prove this wrong, but we should look at this with skepticism. Also, as of this comment @Omnipotent1 's account is 22 minutes old.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

jurneythrusnd ago

I just got blocked by the writer of the article on twitter asking him about this. Putting out a video soon exposing them!

Freemasonsrus ago

Google's system is run by a bot, I believe. Meaning it archives things as a new edit has occurred or new article is posted. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong) So a cached page for instance doesn't necessarily display the correct time it was originally posted if there has been an update. For instance, it could be posted at 9am, edited at 10am, and therefore the bots records would be the 10am grab.

Here's a theory someone with more knowledge maybe able to dispute or enlighten on. If an article was posted to a site in a password protected area for distribution later, (I write article, save to site to post at a later time), would the article then have a posted time stamp of the original upload into the password protected area or is time stamp associated with time it went "public". My thinking is that they wouldn't be ballsy enough to post it hours ahead of time, but they would prepare it and have it ready to be posted publicly. So the only catch would be the bot catching the original version as the time stamp. Any thoughts?

AreWeSure ago

yeah, I think you would have to have some knowledge of the web content management system for that site.

And I have heard of this type of thing happening before.

Google search let's you run searches for specific dates, so you can do something like search for person before they hit the news.....otherwise your search results are all recent events. I have noticed that this doesn't also work and you end up with a lot of hits outside the specific dates you entered.

Freemasonsrus ago

Scratch the time of article for a min... I think it's much more interesting that the people who pointed out the discrepancy were blocked on Twitter. If this was an honest article, (meaning it was written after the incident), why not address those concerns? I would actually be motivated as a newspaper or reporter to get to the bottom of that to make sure my integrity wasn't threatened. It proves two things 1) they don't care if there are people who trust them and 2) they're more interested in blocking dissenting opinions than engaging them and proving their side of things.