FBIanon also stated:
A: No. The people under the magnifying glass do have an affinity for children.
I remember reading the original posts on 4chan, and a lot as come true, though it would have been easy to guess, a lot hasn't though and I'm still very sceptical of this source.
It makes perfect sense to be skeptical that an anonymous person on 4chan claiming to be a member of the FBI, is actually a member of the FBI. But I think it's also important to not miss the forest for the trees.
The vast majority of what you investigators are digging up, is stuff that nearly anyone could have dug up if they had the interest and enough free time to do so. Whoever "FBIanon" might actually be, at the very least they were someone who had already done a lot of their own homework and were hoping to get a lot of people interested in looking into everything for themselves. Which means they likely had good intentions, and were also likely very strategic when it comes to understanding human nature. If they had simply dumped a bunch of information for people to look at, chances are that it would have been dismissed. But by getting people excited about digging into things for themselves, 1. they successful got a lot of people interested enough to do so, and 2. the conclusions that people draw for themselves lead to more powerful convictions, while I think most of you have seen what happens when you simply try to tell someone what to believe - it doesn't go very well.
So at the very least this was a very strategic person, who had done their homework, and likely had good intentions.
view the rest of the comments →
Betty_Swollocks ago
FBIanon also stated: A: No. The people under the magnifying glass do have an affinity for children.
I remember reading the original posts on 4chan, and a lot as come true, though it would have been easy to guess, a lot hasn't though and I'm still very sceptical of this source.
SheSaidDestroy ago
It makes perfect sense to be skeptical that an anonymous person on 4chan claiming to be a member of the FBI, is actually a member of the FBI. But I think it's also important to not miss the forest for the trees.
The vast majority of what you investigators are digging up, is stuff that nearly anyone could have dug up if they had the interest and enough free time to do so. Whoever "FBIanon" might actually be, at the very least they were someone who had already done a lot of their own homework and were hoping to get a lot of people interested in looking into everything for themselves. Which means they likely had good intentions, and were also likely very strategic when it comes to understanding human nature. If they had simply dumped a bunch of information for people to look at, chances are that it would have been dismissed. But by getting people excited about digging into things for themselves, 1. they successful got a lot of people interested enough to do so, and 2. the conclusions that people draw for themselves lead to more powerful convictions, while I think most of you have seen what happens when you simply try to tell someone what to believe - it doesn't go very well.
So at the very least this was a very strategic person, who had done their homework, and likely had good intentions.
hedy ago
Agreed. And remember, he/she stated that some statements made were not true (plausible deniability) and also a cover if he/she didn't know the answer.