Disclaimer: I will provide the link to debunking in question, But I'm not going to mention any easily searchable terms. You'll know what I mean, But we need to stop making these things easy to find via google alert...

• A.) So the guilty aren't able to act accordingly.

• B.) so that If they are actually innocent, they are not unjustly demonized.

I Beg all of you, to do this in every post in the future... Maybe we'll have to think of our own codes, for talking about people of interest, without giving them a google alert... Because honestly, it seems like We're our own worst enemy. But anyways, here's the debunking in question.

Debunking

The identifying words that I Change, will be In Italics, and in parentheses... I really don't think anyone will have trouble understanding what I Mean, but if you do. PM me.

=========================================================================================================

(I LAND D), the "underground complex" in (50th state) and claims of chilld traficking An independent investigator on (deadit) trespassed and vandalized property which may have belonged to David Stone. The user was attempting to figure out why around 30 individual WiFi signals were being broadcasted from under a concrete pad.[4] The user claimed that their boss was running (C#he#esyb@#y*) and they were concerned about their boss's connections to (kid traffic). While the user's actions were illegal and were condemned as such, yet another independent investigation revealed the property's address was registered to ID and (Daveidoff Rocks).[5] Images taken by the (Deadit) user at the property seem to corroborate this, as a photo from the ID website distinctly shows the same area as can be seen by the image comparison below:

Interview with (Dan Pebbles)on this story (DP) himself talked to (twohappyathletes.com) about the allegations that were made by the (deadit) user, who he identified in the photographs as (pissed) consultant (Marty Mcfly) who worked there for several months. (Dp) goes on to imply (McFLY) began involving himself with various hard drugs, became paranoid, and mysteriously disappeared.

(Dave Minerals)does admit to using the aliases (DM) and (Beef jumpwomen)and owning the (Beef jumpwomen)social media profiles and ID, but adamantly denies any involvement in *Ch#e#e$y#b@y. He continued to deny any knowledge of (sarah God) as well, and this email has since been found to be referring to Admiral David Stone. (Dan "Pebbles") does admit he uses (pet rock) in social media accounts and dating profiles as a "joke".

========================================================================================================

Can someone please Tell me why this is debunked.... Based on the wiki, It's debunked because (Dan rocks) Did an interview (An interview that I listened to in full, Multiple times. I actually wrote a long...Way too long...I need to work on that) analysis of the interview how it makes Dave S. even more suspicious, because of all of his inconsistencies/contradicting, and straight up nonsensical statements.

The interviewer actually did a pretty good job, but there were several instances in which He could have completely squashed the suspicion, or reinforced it, but kinda let him slide.

So anyway, I'm pretty certain that (Dan) Is most certainly relevant, based on a number of aspect including the interview, that is the entire basis for proclaiming this aspect has been "Debunked"

My question is; Was there actually some other information that debunked, that Is not included in the Wiki? I mean, the wiki has been turning out pretty well... Even including a few things that I never knew existed... I do realize it references that The Emails in question are referring to (general Dan Rocks) ... But it provides no source. I do know there were emails mentioning the death of Dan Rocks and his death, but if I remember correctly, most of the emails were redacted?**

Regardless... We've seen many instances in this research, where dead people, still seem to be living, based on activities related to that name, after they already died.

So why are they claiming that (Dan Rocks) Is innoncent, because Dan Rocks Said he was innocent?

It was literally a matter of;

"he said, and provided tangible proof of what lead him to say"(*marty),

vs

"He said,"(Dan).

Even though the suspicion of dan rocks did not solely revolve around marty's (deadit) post... It was simply the introduction of (Dan) We've found MUCH MORE incriminating evidence Since then....

But apparently that Doesn't matter? Because the second (DaN, person of interest) said that Marty was a druggy. Again, Provided no proof of anything, to anyone, he simply said it... and said it in an extremely, smug, confusing, often times nonsensical way. So now Dan has been debunked?

Like, we do understand that He didn't address any of the most suspicious aspects, right? Or I guess I should say, He didn't answer them. A lot of them were addressed, but that's where my annoyance with the interviewer game in, because he didn't make him answer.

So did WIki make a mistake by not providing the actual debunking proof? I took a pretty decent break over christmas, So maybe I missed something that clears all of this up?

Because what is currently provided, isn't proof of anything being debunked, and it's eerily reminiscent of the ACTUAL wiki and it's way of "Debunking". Which again, Is what is throwing me off here.... Because it has great info else where... Which again, is why I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, that its me who is missing something here.