NYT's latest attempt to stop Pizzagate: Dissecting the #PizzaGate Conspiracy Theories - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/10/business/media/100000004814276.mobile.html?_r

This post should be read as a companion piece to the NYT article, linked above. I assume you are already somewhat familiar with pizzagate. (If not, become so.)

I noticed right away that something -- or rather, someone -- was missing: fake artist Marina Abramovic and her loathsome "spirit cooking". Hmmm. Is she MIA because she's unimportant, or just the opposite?

Then I noticed that, in the title, they say "the #Pizzagate conspiracy theories" but then one paragraph later it's "the Pizzagate conspiracy theory". Where'd the other one(s) go?

Speaking of that paragraph, count up the dismissal words: "false", "wild", "false", "fake news" (gotta work that meme!), and of course "conspiracy theory" (created by the CIA, those great folks who brought you Operation Mockingbird...and MK Ultra). The rest of the article is similarly teeming with these desperate pleas to the reader to cede all critical thinking to the NYT.

In describing the fake shooter incident, they say "The shooting did not put the theory to rest." LOL. How fucking retarded are NYT readers? Enough to think that (assuming they believe the fake incident was real) everyone researching Pizzagate would say "Oh, that guy said he didn't find anything in CPP; I guess there's nothing to any of this"? Maybe they thought lying attorney Shill-me would be convincing if he told Alex Jones there's absolutely nothing going on there after his thorough 1-hour investgation of CPP consisting of eating lunch with his family and playing ping pong, and not even entering the back room at all. What a lame pack of Bagdad Bobs.

For the rest of the article, they itemize some pizzagate stuff, starting with the handkerchief/map email. They say almost nothing about the emails.

This handkerchief exchange needs more consideration than it's gotten yet; allow me to provide it here:

The NYT authors don't include the realtor's email to Susan Sandler, which describes the handkerchief as black and white but does not mention a map. This raises a major question: why does Susan Sandler "think" it "has a map" when the realtor didn't mention one? The realtor didn't mention any writing on it, which would have been an intuitive thing to mention had the realtor been trying to give a helpful description, as it appears they were. So what sort of "map" could this be, given that (a) the realtor apparently didn't recognize it as a map, (b) the realtor didn't mention any writing at all, and (c) Sandler wasn't even sure it was a map -- but (d) Sandler said that whatever it was which she "[thought]" was a map "seem[ed] pizza-related"? Now add in Podesta's unqualified reply: "It's mine." Wait... how does he know it's his, from that fucked-up description?

LOGICAL QUESTIONS FOR JOHN PODESTA OR SUSAN SANDLER: What the fuck was this handkerchief? What did it actually look like? What was this "map"? In what way was this "map" "pizza-related"? FOR SANDLER: Why were you unsure that this was a map, and why were you unsure whether or not it was "pizza-related"?

(There's an additional point we might visit about the importance of the handkerchief; Podesta said "not worth worrying about" and I am not posing any questions on that since the one thing we seem to all be accepting about this is that it was, under all the hoopla, just a damn handkerchief. All 3 people seem less than excited about its actual value to Podesta, so I think we can safely assume that it's not some precious item in and of itself.)

Next the NYT authors mention "cheese pizza" and claim that 4chan was the source of its being used as a synonym for "child pornography". However, as has been noted online, this has been a slang definition since at least 2005, at least if we can trust urbandictionary.com. I'll defer to others for further sourcing/exploration of this.

Next up, walnut sauce. I've never heard of anyone eating walnut sauce before this, but then, I eat TV dinners. :-/ I'll defer to culinary types for any comment on this point. Maybe walnut sauce is just walnut sauce. shrug

Now enter Comet Ping Pong, "at the center of it" -- a characterization heralded by every Mockingbird media shill who has ever commented on pizzagate, but not pushed by researchers. Some of the clues have led to CPP; some have led other places (like Tony Podesta's disturbing home, and the Clinton Foundation, and Haiti, and the White House). The NYT authors show an image wherein someone compares the CPP sign to an image of Baphomet. Yeah, OK... that comparison was made... once... by somebody. Worth focusing on in the NYT? Evidently these authors think so. I would have made a different selection for that column space, but then, I'm not trying to throw people off the trail with logical fallacies like non-stop ad hominem slurs and spotlighting trivial crap.

Next up, some goofball once titled a photo "Obama at Comet Ping-Pong" (CPP doesn't have red carpets and fancy hallways stretching for miles, ding-a-ling). NYT authors seize upon this dumb mistake as an opportunity to again imply that we are sloppy. Well, some of us are. Unfortunately for the gatekeepers, some of us are not. You'd never know that from their shilly article, though.

The authors then show some pedo-icons and brand logos. They include a couple of good comparisons along with a couple of unconvincing ones, including one really lame one which I don't recall having seen anyone make before. This section is marginally interesting, but too briefly explored to give the reader a full understanding of the extent of our discovery of these icons. Their description downplays the similarities. The coincidences here are actually eyebrow-raising, if ultimately inconclusive. The neighboring businesses and their ties to the Clintons, et al are not mentioned, so the reader cannot put all these pieces together from just the NYT article.

Next up, the "killroom". NYT appears to have done a bit of actual investigation here and their description seems truthy to me. I'll leave it to others to pick out anything wrong here. I'll just note that the hashtags "#killroom" and "#murder" as well as the comment "just rinse it off when you're done" and "oh yeah this looks fun" are all accurately reproduced in the NYT article, but not mentioned or addressed. Instead, NYT authors simply focus on the fact that ideas about basements under CPP have been explored during the investigation so far and again try to make us all look crazy/stupid because of that. What a waste of everyone's fucking time. Crazy/stupid researchers didn't make those creepy comments on Instagram. Alefantis, et al did. No thoughts about that, NYT?

Christopher Lynch and his black, white, and pink "J' <3 L'Enfant" shirt, with his 2 topless male ahem friends, is next. (Hey, I'm not judging.) An early investigative mistake (Lynch being Alefantis, which of course he isn't) is spotlighted. Not mentioned is the identity of one of the 2 topless men. Gee, NYT... you didn't think it worth mentioning that he had been arrested for attempting to purchase a little boy to rape? And nothing to say about the cryptic comments next to that IG photo linking that man to Alefantis? Yeah, nothing interesting there. Let's just pretend everyone is as stupid as our readership is and laugh at them instead.

The article finishes up with a look at the Flying Podesta Bros. and their amazing Portugal kidnapping adventure, which may or may not have taken place in 2007. They focus on weak points in that theory and omit some other curious coincidences familiar to those who have escaped the info-reservation and now roam freely, never to return. The final sentence is spent on sneering at some irrelevant nonsense in an extremely cliche'd "guilt by association" fallacy.

So, there you have it. Another (mostly) pathetic attempt at debunking pizzagate, courtesy of a newspaper unfit for human consumption and clearly desperate to hide SOMETHING. What the authors hope nobody thinks about is this:

An argument has not been defeated until it has been refuted in its strongest form.

This article fails miserably at doing that. Among its flaws is that it implicitly assumes that all those who purport to be sincere pizzagate researchers really are, an assumption which only a brick-stupid moron (or a shill) would ever make.

Pizzagate remains real, and the evil ones remain scared. Stay frosty, all.