My main message to you all would be that it is fine to believe and say this but leave it at 'something is shady' until you have the proportional amount of evidence to make the very heavy and serous claim of pedophilia. Can we all agree that we do not condone the death threats that alefantis, and I'm sure others, are getting daily? And I understand that you are not responsible for the death threats and for that guy going into the pizzeria with a gun, but that guy was online reading what everyone was writing and basing his actions off of that.
Look through this thread and ask yourself if it sounds like people are simply suspicious of alefantis and haven't made up their mind or do people seem sure of themselves? And what is this based on? Do you really believe you've made the appropriate accusation based on the appropriate evidence?
One thing I have been asking pizzagate people is this (and it's important so think about it!): Is pizzagate falsifiable? What evidence could be shown that could exonerate those being insinuated as pedophiles?
Of course it is falsifiable. All they needed to do was to explain all the evidence, and how come it was ALL just a coincidence, and how it had been wrongly interpreted. So far, Alefantis explained a couple of the instagram pictures and that's it. But when you look at ALL the connections and events and organisations and places and people that ALL happen to relate to child trafficking or paedophilia in some way, it becomes a statistical improbability that is pretty much indistinguishable from impossibility that these connections all relate to paedophilia only by chance and coincidence, and not because they are actually all connected through paedophilic activity.
Don't you recognise that if these people had come out and addressed the concerns, and given a reasonable, coherent and innocent explanation for everything, then this investigation wouldn't have gone further, that it would have died down? There can only be one reason why no such explanation has been offered, and that's because there isn't one.
You're being incredibly blind and suffering from massive cognitive dissonance. Which is understandable, because it's so horrific. I wonder if you have really looked at all the evidence that's been found, or if you've just scraped the surface with Comet ping pong and the instagram pictures. Those things are really not much compared to what else has been discovered. I suggest you go check it out, because you'll feel really awful and guilty in the end, about trying to defend these people when you hadn't really looked into it properly.
I'd like to respond to you a little more in depth but in the mean time look at this it is a video of alefantis talking to two protestors outside comet. He's explaining the picture of the girl with her hands taped to the table, then look down at the comments. Now consider this: nothing will ever be enough. There will never be an explanation good enough. The answers given will always be turned against the accused, and once you have submitted yourself to the mob you are at their mercy.
Yeah some of the pictures could have innocent explanations and he could explain them away perhaps. He explains one picture there, but can you not see how it becomes harder and harder to give a plausible explanation for more and more pictures and comments? How many people have so many dubious photos and comments on their instagram, AS WELL as having weird emails between them and some of the most powerful people in the country, AS WELL as having two restaurants on a street of places that have paedophile symbols in their logos, AS WELL as one of your restaurants having a paedophile related name, and on and on it goes with more and more things that an innocent explanation has to be found for, and really to be plausible you need a single explanation or two that explains ALL of these things. And the only explanation there is at the moment is the paedophile ring/child trafficking operation explanation. They haven't offered another one. Giving an innocent explanation for one photograph out of ALL the other things is nowhere near enough. And Alefantis and his instagram isn't even the most important stuff, that's just the stuff people happened upon at the beginning, if I understand the timeline correctly.
You are the one who is ignoring all of the other things that have been found, you're ignoring how insanely unlikely it is for all of these links to paedophilia and child trafficking to just be coincidence and actually nothing to do with child trafficking or paedophilia. Look through all the evidence, forget about the pictures if you really believe they are innocent. Enter the investigation from a different place. I think you are either incredibly naive, haven't actually read through what people have discovered beyond the instagram stuff, or you're actually part of the effort to shut this down to protect those involved. Either way, you are not making good arguments, at all.
Let me focus on Alefantis. The claim is that Alefantis is a pedophile who is apart of child sex trafficking ring. In order for this to be true the very basic facts would have to be that Alefantis has a sexual attraction to minors and has acted on that attraction. Also my main point would be what is the minimum amount of certainty you would need to accuse that person publicly of pedophilia and child abuse?
I think that it should be obvious enough that you can not prove that someone is not a pedophile, since that's something that exists only in someone's mind. You could technically make a case for anyone being a pedophile. Someone could investigate you and note all the things that may signify that you might be a pedophile. They could see that you seem to love Disney movies and frequently go to Disneyland, a place mainly for children. Maybe they would notice that you are particular close to one of your younger cousins. Maybe you have liked a few photos on facebook with young family members in swimsuits. The case could be made for anyone, but for nearly every single person it would not be true and wouldn't be convincing either. But there is nothing that you could show that would prove definitively, with no doubt, that you do not have a sexual attraction to minors. So when is it appropriate to say that someone is a pedophile and a child abuser?
and on and on it goes with more and more things that an innocent explanation has to be found for, and really to be plausible you need a single explanation or two that explains ALL of these things
I agree generally with the method you say you're using, which is that enough coincidences can make something that is not the simplest explanation for one occurrence very likely given many coincidences. Like if someone were to walk out with something in their pocket when they left the store and when they were caught they said it was a mistake, that would be very believable. But if they continuously did it multiple times a month it would become very difficult to believe that each time there was a simple explanation that was not theft. You could not come up with an explanation for each indivudual occurrence and have it be believable. The most likely explanation would be theft, the individual explanations for each time would be very unlikely, and in the middle probability-wise would be something that ties all the events together like maybe dementia which would be unlikely but not unthinkable.
But I would say that these things you mentioned are not coincidences relating to pedophilia. [Although you and almost every pizzagater I've ever talked to has said that the instagram stuff is not the main evidence, the only evidence I've ever heard them bring up is that (also you list it first in the coincidences against him) so I'm going to talk about that.] Here is the evidence related to the question:
Does Alefantis have a sexual attraction to minors?:
Instagram profile picture is of antinous
"#Hotard"
"#Chickenlovers"
Photo of a child taped to a table
Restuarant he owns has pedophile slang in its name
Photo of baby chewing on money
Some pictures of children generally on his instagram
Mural of decapitated children? ← I’ve never seen proof ,and I’m skeptical, that this painting was ever actually in Comet but I’ll give you that one
The rest of the evidence isn’t directly related to Alefantis but I think still counts for something, possibly testament to his character:
Some of the people who have commented on his intagram photos have posted sexual references to pizza and generally sexually subversive pictures
A singer at comet ping pong made a joke involving pedophilia
Three doors down from Comet is a pizzeria with a known pedophillia symbol in its logo shape ( I won’t include the other logo because that is ridiculous)
I was generous with the first list since the last three are only tangentially related to sexual attraction to minors. And the other evidence I’ve seen mentioned is not related to the question “is alefantis a pedophile? “. Also I forgot the second part of the question “Has he acted on that attraction?”. Here’s the evidence for that:
NOTHING. NO accusations from victims, NO witness accusations, NO accusations from a second hand witness, NO accusations or evidence whatsoever. Absolutely nothing.
And that’s actually important to note because although it’s repulsive to any normal person it is not a crime to be sexually attracted to minors. When that woman overheard Jared Fogle talking about how he was sexually attracted to children he wasn’t immediately arrested, there was a very long investigation.
Now looking at the evidence for “is alefantis a pedophile” you’ll see that these are not instances of the same thing like the shoplifting example. Only if these things are all connected could they all be explained by one thing: pedophilia. But if he is a normal person then these things are not connected like my example of investigating you and making a case, those things aren’t connected unless you are a pedophile.
IF he had multiple pictures of children taped to a table he could not say every time it was his goddaughter and sister playing, that would be odd there would need to be more explanation. IF he consistently posted children in sexually provocative photos and made sexually provocative comments about children, that would need an explanation. But does he? I don’t know how old his instragram profile is but from the posts I’ve seen it is at least 4 years old and has nearly 800 posts ! There are maybe 5 or 6 pictures that have been cited as questionable. If in one of those posts he explicitly stated he was a pedophile that would be enough. Or had a picture that was definitively cp that would be enough. But that’s not what is there you just have to be honest with yourself and look at them individually and ask what is the likelihood that this was meant in a sexual way? And then look at them altogether as posts across many years and ask does it add up to proof.
Let me offer what I think the most mundane/likely explanations are for the evidence:
Antinous: Alefantis is gay, antinous is known as a “gay icon” according to the wiki page cited
Hotard: The guy says hotard when he is already talking about alefantis and not the baby so he is probably talking about alefantis, then alefantis says it probably back at him. If they are referring to the baby then they are probably just assholes who don’t know where to draw the line. There are actually many plausible possibilities for this one that I've talked about before.
Chickenlovers: The child might be eating chicken/likes chicken like most kids do. Also chicken lover is an extremely easy phrase to put together without talking about pedophillia just google it and you’ll see. Also instagram chicken lover and look at how many results there are with kids.
Photo of child taped: His explanation is what most people assumed which is that it was a playful/jokey situation. The girl is smiling and it is not shot in a sexual way.
Restaurant has pedophile slang: It is a themed restaurant and the slang term is also a very common name that would fit the theme.
Pictures of children generally: He is a middle aged man with friends who have children and he owns a restaurant which kids go to.
Baby chewing on money: ? I was never sure why this one was important. Its just a baby and money.
I never got to my last question which is “ what is the minimum amount of certainty you would need to accuse that person publicly of pedophilia and child abuse?” but you know how serious the accusation is and you have a certain responsibility when speaking publicly to not throw around the accusation because there are consequences as we’ve seen with the death threats and the gunman.
Prove it to me: Can you show that alefantis is attracted to minors? Then can you show that he has acted on it? Then can you show he is a part of a ring? Dont be fooled by the amount of evidence! That is a CLASSIC hallmark of conspiracy theories. You need to be able to answer for specific claims.
I found your comment! Sorry I missed it before. It's a very good comment so I'm glad you told me about it.
I do see your point, and there is no conclusive evidence/hard proof that Alefantis is attracted to minors or has engaged in any sexual activity with children. It annoys me that everyone talks about this evidence a well, I think it's because it was the first stuff that was really found and so it's been memed and infographiced and everyone knows it inside out by now.
I think your mistake though happens right at the beginning. You decide to focus on Alefantis and whether he is an active pedophile or not. But that's not the question. The question is: Is there a pedophile and/or child trafficking ring operating within and among the political elite in Washington DC/ the US?
So yes you can focus on Alefantis and go through everything and explain how it's innocent and how he's not a pedophile. But then there's everything else, all the people that are connected to him, to the Podestas, the emails between them, the continuing friendships with several known and convicted pedophiles, the connection with Haiti and the woman arrested for kidnapping 33 kids, who Hillary helped get released, the mine there that Hillary's brother owns, and that researcher Monica Peterson had said she thought was involved in human trafficking, shortly before she mysteriously died. There's the Clinton Foundation UK being registered to an address in London that convicted pedophile MP and accused pedophile Lord (did not go to trial due to him claiming dementia, but there were victims and witnesses) also have companies registered at. There's the fact that the Democrats have been in power in Hawaii for decades, and a building there owned by a trust that has Dem appointed trustees had drawn suspicion due to wifi signals coming from underground, plus off grid power lines apparently feeding an underground space, and where a business owned by a man is registered, that man being suspected of selling child porn through hard drives on eBay, who also happened to be linked with one of Hillary's staff and Comet pingpong. The discovery of the wifi signals and the suspicion of the man selling child porn happened months ago, and was not at all related to the Podesta emails, pizzagate, or any of that. It was later when looking into emails that the name of the man who owned the business in Hawaii popped up, and that building was discovered separately. Thens someone found the post on reddit from someone else who had posted way back about their concerns about how dodgy this place seemed. It's stuff like that which is not a case of people gathering up facts that suit their narrative. Completely independently, and apart in time, people came to similar conclusions through completely different routes.
Also, the pedophile symbols and the restaurant names. So Comet and Ping Pong are apparently sexually suggestive, but Buck's Fishing and Camping are apparently even more related to pedophilia, given that 'Buck' is a name for pedophiles, specifically older men who like young boys, and that camping is a known activity that pedophiles will do with kids as an excuse to prey on them. These facts were discovered in a documentary from the 90s about pedophiles.
The logos - Besta pizza had the triangle spiral logo, and the restaurant across the street had the heart within a heart logo (on their menu underneath a picture of Hillary Clinton with the restaurant owners). The ping pong logo thing was clearly not at all like the one on the FBI list, but those two others look like the pedo symbols for sure.
I can't prove to you that Alefantis is attracted to minors, in fact, even if he's not at all attracted to minors, it makes no difference, because that isn't the question. If you ask me whether there's a pedophile ring operation among the political elite in DC then I would tell you to read through most of the stuff here, to read about the prevalence of this kind of operation among the political elites in countries the world over, and I would say that I know it's not definitive cast iron hard forensic DNA on the murder weapon caught in the act evidence, but it definitely screams out for someone with the experience, knowledge and resources to go get that cast iron evidence, because the statistical probability of it being there to be found is sky high.
Ok, great back and forth. As I have said my main point has been that we should be careful about the accusations we make seeing as how this is done completely in the open. After having read you talk a bit I think/hope I am preaching to the choir.
I felt focusing in on one claim was important because with these things the scope becomes so large that you may become caught up in the amount of evidence and forget that you are making many, many smaller claims and how much evidence do those things actually have? If you do not know whether the larger overarching claim is true should you be making more specific claims about a person based on it? Especially considering the accusation being made. Again, maybe I'm talking to someone who already believes this.
If the presstitutes -- and Alefantis -- were trying to get the truth out, they would deal with the evidence directly, instead of using straw men.
An argument has not been defeated until it has been refuted in its strongest form. And that is plainly what Big Media is very, VERY energetically NOT doing. So you need to ask yourself why that would be. Megyn's tears are obviously fake, or she would address the strongest form of our "argument".
Every time they avoid the meat and focus on the parsley and the wilted lettuce AGAIN, it wakes more people up. It's annoying to watch the fakery, but the red-pilling is, on net, a gain.
view the rest of the comments →
JUNOAK ago
My main message to you all would be that it is fine to believe and say this but leave it at 'something is shady' until you have the proportional amount of evidence to make the very heavy and serous claim of pedophilia. Can we all agree that we do not condone the death threats that alefantis, and I'm sure others, are getting daily? And I understand that you are not responsible for the death threats and for that guy going into the pizzeria with a gun, but that guy was online reading what everyone was writing and basing his actions off of that.
Look through this thread and ask yourself if it sounds like people are simply suspicious of alefantis and haven't made up their mind or do people seem sure of themselves? And what is this based on? Do you really believe you've made the appropriate accusation based on the appropriate evidence?
One thing I have been asking pizzagate people is this (and it's important so think about it!): Is pizzagate falsifiable? What evidence could be shown that could exonerate those being insinuated as pedophiles?
SpikyAube ago
Of course it is falsifiable. All they needed to do was to explain all the evidence, and how come it was ALL just a coincidence, and how it had been wrongly interpreted. So far, Alefantis explained a couple of the instagram pictures and that's it. But when you look at ALL the connections and events and organisations and places and people that ALL happen to relate to child trafficking or paedophilia in some way, it becomes a statistical improbability that is pretty much indistinguishable from impossibility that these connections all relate to paedophilia only by chance and coincidence, and not because they are actually all connected through paedophilic activity.
Don't you recognise that if these people had come out and addressed the concerns, and given a reasonable, coherent and innocent explanation for everything, then this investigation wouldn't have gone further, that it would have died down? There can only be one reason why no such explanation has been offered, and that's because there isn't one.
You're being incredibly blind and suffering from massive cognitive dissonance. Which is understandable, because it's so horrific. I wonder if you have really looked at all the evidence that's been found, or if you've just scraped the surface with Comet ping pong and the instagram pictures. Those things are really not much compared to what else has been discovered. I suggest you go check it out, because you'll feel really awful and guilty in the end, about trying to defend these people when you hadn't really looked into it properly.
JUNOAK ago
I'd like to respond to you a little more in depth but in the mean time look at this it is a video of alefantis talking to two protestors outside comet. He's explaining the picture of the girl with her hands taped to the table, then look down at the comments. Now consider this: nothing will ever be enough. There will never be an explanation good enough. The answers given will always be turned against the accused, and once you have submitted yourself to the mob you are at their mercy.
Do you believe the response given in the video?
SpikyAube ago
Yeah some of the pictures could have innocent explanations and he could explain them away perhaps. He explains one picture there, but can you not see how it becomes harder and harder to give a plausible explanation for more and more pictures and comments? How many people have so many dubious photos and comments on their instagram, AS WELL as having weird emails between them and some of the most powerful people in the country, AS WELL as having two restaurants on a street of places that have paedophile symbols in their logos, AS WELL as one of your restaurants having a paedophile related name, and on and on it goes with more and more things that an innocent explanation has to be found for, and really to be plausible you need a single explanation or two that explains ALL of these things. And the only explanation there is at the moment is the paedophile ring/child trafficking operation explanation. They haven't offered another one. Giving an innocent explanation for one photograph out of ALL the other things is nowhere near enough. And Alefantis and his instagram isn't even the most important stuff, that's just the stuff people happened upon at the beginning, if I understand the timeline correctly.
You are the one who is ignoring all of the other things that have been found, you're ignoring how insanely unlikely it is for all of these links to paedophilia and child trafficking to just be coincidence and actually nothing to do with child trafficking or paedophilia. Look through all the evidence, forget about the pictures if you really believe they are innocent. Enter the investigation from a different place. I think you are either incredibly naive, haven't actually read through what people have discovered beyond the instagram stuff, or you're actually part of the effort to shut this down to protect those involved. Either way, you are not making good arguments, at all.
JUNOAK ago
Let me focus on Alefantis. The claim is that Alefantis is a pedophile who is apart of child sex trafficking ring. In order for this to be true the very basic facts would have to be that Alefantis has a sexual attraction to minors and has acted on that attraction. Also my main point would be what is the minimum amount of certainty you would need to accuse that person publicly of pedophilia and child abuse?
I think that it should be obvious enough that you can not prove that someone is not a pedophile, since that's something that exists only in someone's mind. You could technically make a case for anyone being a pedophile. Someone could investigate you and note all the things that may signify that you might be a pedophile. They could see that you seem to love Disney movies and frequently go to Disneyland, a place mainly for children. Maybe they would notice that you are particular close to one of your younger cousins. Maybe you have liked a few photos on facebook with young family members in swimsuits. The case could be made for anyone, but for nearly every single person it would not be true and wouldn't be convincing either. But there is nothing that you could show that would prove definitively, with no doubt, that you do not have a sexual attraction to minors. So when is it appropriate to say that someone is a pedophile and a child abuser?
I agree generally with the method you say you're using, which is that enough coincidences can make something that is not the simplest explanation for one occurrence very likely given many coincidences. Like if someone were to walk out with something in their pocket when they left the store and when they were caught they said it was a mistake, that would be very believable. But if they continuously did it multiple times a month it would become very difficult to believe that each time there was a simple explanation that was not theft. You could not come up with an explanation for each indivudual occurrence and have it be believable. The most likely explanation would be theft, the individual explanations for each time would be very unlikely, and in the middle probability-wise would be something that ties all the events together like maybe dementia which would be unlikely but not unthinkable.
But I would say that these things you mentioned are not coincidences relating to pedophilia. [Although you and almost every pizzagater I've ever talked to has said that the instagram stuff is not the main evidence, the only evidence I've ever heard them bring up is that (also you list it first in the coincidences against him) so I'm going to talk about that.] Here is the evidence related to the question:
Does Alefantis have a sexual attraction to minors?:
The rest of the evidence isn’t directly related to Alefantis but I think still counts for something, possibly testament to his character:
I was generous with the first list since the last three are only tangentially related to sexual attraction to minors. And the other evidence I’ve seen mentioned is not related to the question “is alefantis a pedophile? “. Also I forgot the second part of the question “Has he acted on that attraction?”. Here’s the evidence for that:
NOTHING. NO accusations from victims, NO witness accusations, NO accusations from a second hand witness, NO accusations or evidence whatsoever. Absolutely nothing.
And that’s actually important to note because although it’s repulsive to any normal person it is not a crime to be sexually attracted to minors. When that woman overheard Jared Fogle talking about how he was sexually attracted to children he wasn’t immediately arrested, there was a very long investigation.
Now looking at the evidence for “is alefantis a pedophile” you’ll see that these are not instances of the same thing like the shoplifting example. Only if these things are all connected could they all be explained by one thing: pedophilia. But if he is a normal person then these things are not connected like my example of investigating you and making a case, those things aren’t connected unless you are a pedophile.
IF he had multiple pictures of children taped to a table he could not say every time it was his goddaughter and sister playing, that would be odd there would need to be more explanation. IF he consistently posted children in sexually provocative photos and made sexually provocative comments about children, that would need an explanation. But does he? I don’t know how old his instragram profile is but from the posts I’ve seen it is at least 4 years old and has nearly 800 posts ! There are maybe 5 or 6 pictures that have been cited as questionable. If in one of those posts he explicitly stated he was a pedophile that would be enough. Or had a picture that was definitively cp that would be enough. But that’s not what is there you just have to be honest with yourself and look at them individually and ask what is the likelihood that this was meant in a sexual way? And then look at them altogether as posts across many years and ask does it add up to proof.
Let me offer what I think the most mundane/likely explanations are for the evidence:
Antinous: Alefantis is gay, antinous is known as a “gay icon” according to the wiki page cited
Hotard: The guy says hotard when he is already talking about alefantis and not the baby so he is probably talking about alefantis, then alefantis says it probably back at him. If they are referring to the baby then they are probably just assholes who don’t know where to draw the line. There are actually many plausible possibilities for this one that I've talked about before.
Chickenlovers: The child might be eating chicken/likes chicken like most kids do. Also chicken lover is an extremely easy phrase to put together without talking about pedophillia just google it and you’ll see. Also instagram chicken lover and look at how many results there are with kids.
Photo of child taped: His explanation is what most people assumed which is that it was a playful/jokey situation. The girl is smiling and it is not shot in a sexual way.
Restaurant has pedophile slang: It is a themed restaurant and the slang term is also a very common name that would fit the theme.
Pictures of children generally: He is a middle aged man with friends who have children and he owns a restaurant which kids go to.
Baby chewing on money: ? I was never sure why this one was important. Its just a baby and money.
I never got to my last question which is “ what is the minimum amount of certainty you would need to accuse that person publicly of pedophilia and child abuse?” but you know how serious the accusation is and you have a certain responsibility when speaking publicly to not throw around the accusation because there are consequences as we’ve seen with the death threats and the gunman.
Prove it to me: Can you show that alefantis is attracted to minors? Then can you show that he has acted on it? Then can you show he is a part of a ring? Dont be fooled by the amount of evidence! That is a CLASSIC hallmark of conspiracy theories. You need to be able to answer for specific claims.
SpikyAube ago
I found your comment! Sorry I missed it before. It's a very good comment so I'm glad you told me about it.
I do see your point, and there is no conclusive evidence/hard proof that Alefantis is attracted to minors or has engaged in any sexual activity with children. It annoys me that everyone talks about this evidence a well, I think it's because it was the first stuff that was really found and so it's been memed and infographiced and everyone knows it inside out by now.
I think your mistake though happens right at the beginning. You decide to focus on Alefantis and whether he is an active pedophile or not. But that's not the question. The question is: Is there a pedophile and/or child trafficking ring operating within and among the political elite in Washington DC/ the US?
So yes you can focus on Alefantis and go through everything and explain how it's innocent and how he's not a pedophile. But then there's everything else, all the people that are connected to him, to the Podestas, the emails between them, the continuing friendships with several known and convicted pedophiles, the connection with Haiti and the woman arrested for kidnapping 33 kids, who Hillary helped get released, the mine there that Hillary's brother owns, and that researcher Monica Peterson had said she thought was involved in human trafficking, shortly before she mysteriously died. There's the Clinton Foundation UK being registered to an address in London that convicted pedophile MP and accused pedophile Lord (did not go to trial due to him claiming dementia, but there were victims and witnesses) also have companies registered at. There's the fact that the Democrats have been in power in Hawaii for decades, and a building there owned by a trust that has Dem appointed trustees had drawn suspicion due to wifi signals coming from underground, plus off grid power lines apparently feeding an underground space, and where a business owned by a man is registered, that man being suspected of selling child porn through hard drives on eBay, who also happened to be linked with one of Hillary's staff and Comet pingpong. The discovery of the wifi signals and the suspicion of the man selling child porn happened months ago, and was not at all related to the Podesta emails, pizzagate, or any of that. It was later when looking into emails that the name of the man who owned the business in Hawaii popped up, and that building was discovered separately. Thens someone found the post on reddit from someone else who had posted way back about their concerns about how dodgy this place seemed. It's stuff like that which is not a case of people gathering up facts that suit their narrative. Completely independently, and apart in time, people came to similar conclusions through completely different routes.
Also, the pedophile symbols and the restaurant names. So Comet and Ping Pong are apparently sexually suggestive, but Buck's Fishing and Camping are apparently even more related to pedophilia, given that 'Buck' is a name for pedophiles, specifically older men who like young boys, and that camping is a known activity that pedophiles will do with kids as an excuse to prey on them. These facts were discovered in a documentary from the 90s about pedophiles.
The logos - Besta pizza had the triangle spiral logo, and the restaurant across the street had the heart within a heart logo (on their menu underneath a picture of Hillary Clinton with the restaurant owners). The ping pong logo thing was clearly not at all like the one on the FBI list, but those two others look like the pedo symbols for sure.
I can't prove to you that Alefantis is attracted to minors, in fact, even if he's not at all attracted to minors, it makes no difference, because that isn't the question. If you ask me whether there's a pedophile ring operation among the political elite in DC then I would tell you to read through most of the stuff here, to read about the prevalence of this kind of operation among the political elites in countries the world over, and I would say that I know it's not definitive cast iron hard forensic DNA on the murder weapon caught in the act evidence, but it definitely screams out for someone with the experience, knowledge and resources to go get that cast iron evidence, because the statistical probability of it being there to be found is sky high.
JUNOAK ago
Ok, great back and forth. As I have said my main point has been that we should be careful about the accusations we make seeing as how this is done completely in the open. After having read you talk a bit I think/hope I am preaching to the choir.
I felt focusing in on one claim was important because with these things the scope becomes so large that you may become caught up in the amount of evidence and forget that you are making many, many smaller claims and how much evidence do those things actually have? If you do not know whether the larger overarching claim is true should you be making more specific claims about a person based on it? Especially considering the accusation being made. Again, maybe I'm talking to someone who already believes this.
SpikyAube ago
p.s - that STILL isn't all the evidence, there's tons more. There's so much it's impossible to remember it all or condense it!
ZalesMcMuffin ago
If the presstitutes -- and Alefantis -- were trying to get the truth out, they would deal with the evidence directly, instead of using straw men.
An argument has not been defeated until it has been refuted in its strongest form. And that is plainly what Big Media is very, VERY energetically NOT doing. So you need to ask yourself why that would be. Megyn's tears are obviously fake, or she would address the strongest form of our "argument".
Every time they avoid the meat and focus on the parsley and the wilted lettuce AGAIN, it wakes more people up. It's annoying to watch the fakery, but the red-pilling is, on net, a gain.