Hi guys, I joined two minutes ago, been following the case for a couple of weeks. I was just reading trough some pizza mail when i found the famous mail : Title Here.
So i followed the chain and noticed this mail: Title Here
Shouldn't we consider the simpler explanation here?That they were simply ordering pizza for the guys in the office?
Notice i'm not a shill, but i think it's important to sort the shady mails from the maybe innocent mails? I agree that the term pizza in Podesta emails sound like code.
[email protected] looks like a email that everyone at Stratfor Austin office get right? Are all of them Pedos? or is this simply an actual pizza event?
If someone have more information on why this mail has stuck as an example of mysterious emails , can you clearify?
view the rest of the comments →
Blacksmith21 ago
SHILL/CTR ALERT.
catladies ago
Listen... I'm following you guys on most of the points of this investigation, but it's important do distinguish the mails that can be explained. Calling me shill just because i point out a weakness in ONE of the multiple theories is not helpful. Also what you are doing (denying alternate theories is what an ideology does and that i hope you can agree that we don't want.) Shill my ass.
Blacksmith21 ago
Look, I'm all about the analysis of competing hypotheses. I was trained to look for alternative viewpoints and outcomes. The use of pizza, pasta, etc. mazes ZERO sense in any context they are discussing - fundraising, direct mail, drugs, etc. None of them fit. Human trafficking fits. When you hit a tipping point, one starts to look for data/intelligence which disproves your theory, not confirms it. I've seen none so far. Every new piece has an algorithmic effect. Occam's Razor.
catladies ago
Using Occam's razor you should then be able to see that in THIS specific mail it's more likely that they are talking about actual food. There are possibly 100+ people connected to the Stratford Austin email, do you think all of these people are in on the secret, the secretary? the low level analysts? why add all these people to your illegal activity, that seems unnecessary in the light of the catastrophic effects that a possible leak of the emails would conjure. I respect your choice but i hope you'll see that to me this looks like a false positive.
Blacksmith21 ago
@stratforaustin is an "allhands" email for the whole office, right? Then why this email asking to specifically add this person to the list?
(https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/35/3511406_please-add-bonnie-neel-stratfor-com-to-stratforaustin.html))
Every org I've ever worked at automatically adds you to the company-wide distro.
And you have to remember, at the time of the writing, no one considered that they would be compromised. Afterall, the Queen Pedo herself was about to be coronated. Pedo for all with impunity.
This may or may not be a lead. I have no idea. But at this point, with all that we've seen so far, to summarily dismiss it as a nothing because it makes sense in your head, does not mean that we will stop following the lead to ground.
catladies ago
Yes, checked it out, she was a new employee at the time and needed some access to things and also be added to all the mailing lists. [Neel mail] (https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/24/240274_-it-qwy-852075-new-writer-bonnie-neel-.html)) Ofc keep digging, that's what we have to do. But it pains me to see this mail being referenced to definite pedo activity when it's not a definite lead in my mind, people like me looking up this mail will often come to the same conclusion and then deny all of it.
Blacksmith21 ago
For the record, I never said it was "definite pedo activity". I only said that at a certain point, when confronted with overwhelming data, you start to look to disprove, rather than prove.
Let me try it another way - if you were Comey, based solely on what you've seen here, would you pursue an investigation?
catladies ago
Yes i would, but not based on this email. A lot of susp going around with the art, bands, connections to Comet, codes etc. That said it's important to look at each case and deduct if it's actually useful or not, to get a broader perspective on the whole claim. Lets agree to disagree on this particular email!
catladies ago
Yes i would but not based on this email. I'm only looking at this specific mail. I think it's valuable to look at all the pieces to try and get a broader perspective for the claim of pedo-ring in government. Remember i think this is plausible (Belgium case, UK case and now my country, Norway case.) Lets agree to disagree on this particular email.