The Comet Ping Pong Wikipedia page states that the D.C. Police department has debunked Pizzagate: ..."debunked by the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia". My question is when did they investigate this? And what if anything was found? Could this investigation have been tainted as it was performed on one of the 50 most powerful people in their district?
If you live in the D.C. you help to fund this group and I believe your questions (should you have any) warrant answers. Also in today's climate where City Police are receiving funding from the Federal Government I believe all citizens are entitled to answers. If Snopes and The NYT want to claim this is debunked that is their business. But if a government organization wants to go on record as saying definitively that no wrong doing has been done than I think we deserve answers.
We should implore the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia to demand that the Wiki be edited or demand that they tell us why they are on the record for debunking this.
Common sense would dictate that they proceed with caution. For example they could state that they have looked into the matter but do not have any evidence of wrongdoing at this time. And encouraging people to contact them if they have any evidence that is relevant. -That is a far way from saying after looking into this we find that the allegations are false...which is what 'debunking' means.
view the rest of the comments →
AreWeSure ago
Police are not obligated to investigate unsubstantiated rumors. Particularly for a business that has been open for almost a decade with no parents or customers making any sort of charge like this.
What should get the police involved?
Many emails used the term pizza? A girl has masking tape on her arms? They make sick jokes? I think Marina Abramovic is a witch? An anonymous poster on 4chan said....?
What concrete evidence is there that should get the state involved?
SpikyAube ago
Well, usually concrete evidence is what is found during an investigation, not before. Beforehand there is suspicion and maybe a bit of circumstantial evidence or a witness statement. What there usually is, is a crime having known to have taken place. At the time the shooter went into CPP there was not one specific crime that could be pointed to. But I'm pretty sure that sine 9/11 the police have powers to investigate people in the absence of a specific crime if they have demonstrated unusual activity that may point to crimes going on, for example suspicious messages online or emails that could indicate a possible terrorist plot, or drug trafficking, or any other organised crime, such as a pedophile ring.
Since the shooter incident, though, there has been at least one person who has come forward as a victim of Alefantis, and they even have emails that prove the connection between them and definitely imply that the assault took place. That is more than enough to warrant an investigation.
Just think, if Pizzagate wasn't about elite pedophilia and was instead about terrorists or alt-right groups and political activists being accused by the Internet public as working for the Russians, with ties to Republican politicians who were actually secret Russian agents, and the citizens investigation had turned up code words in Republican emails that seemed to be to do with Russia and spying on the US, and instagram pictures from all these people linked to Rep politicians that often symbolically and sometimes outright referenced Russia in a favourable light, and there were videos of some of these people talking and joking about being Russian spies, and basically all the same things that have been discovered through Pizzagate, but replace Pedo with Russian agents - do you really think that they wouldn't be all over that in a hot second? That the press wouldn't be reporting on it non-stop, the police wouldn't be going in to CPP to have a thorough search etc?
The only reason they're not investigating is because they're covering it up. We all know they would easily get a warrant based on all the same circumstantial evidence if the alleged crimes were terrorist plots or spies etc.
AreWeSure ago
The term you are looking for is probable cause. There still is none.
Since the shooter incident, though, there has been at least one person who has come forward as a victim of Alefantis
Not true. Nobody has gone to police. Reddit ain't a police report. Why would the cops even know about those allegations?
SpikyAube ago
The guy Alefantis threatened on the phone made a police report.
AreWeSure ago
That's not the same thing as being a victim. Personally I don't think that's real. That would legit be big news.
SpikyAube ago
Wait, you think it would be big news? Have you not been paying attention and therefore not noticed the amount of things that should be 'legit big news' that don't get reported on? The guy provided evidence of the police report. Another guy provided correspondence with the police in which they're forced to admit they actually didn't do any investigation of Comet Ping Pong, despite the news media and Snopes and Wikipedia etc declaring the whole thing debunked on the basis of a police investigation (or on the basis of one of the other news sites having declared it debunked, based on the non-existent police investigation). Shouldn't that also have been 'legit big news'?
I think you should take a deep breath and then start from the beginning. Not to get into a big debate around epistemology, but think about what you know about the world you live in and how you know what you know. All the 'facts' you've accumulated over the years. How many of them do you really, truly know for sure, without any doubt? The only things you can state with complete conviction that you know to be true, are those you've experienced directly, with one of your five senses. Everything else is second hand knowledge - all of it. And what you're making the mistake of doing, a mistake pretty much all of us have made to varying degrees and for varying lengths of time, is putting absolute trust in one particular source of information as though it were one of your own senses, i.e., as though it had evolved over millions of years to maximise your chances of survival, as though it brings you truths about the world the knowledge of which will benefit you in some way. Not that that's how we consciously think of it, but that's essentially what we're doing when we take information from the media at face value, when we put more trust in the story told by this person with a particular logo and brand behind them, than we put in that person, who has come forward with no particular tie to an established news organisation. There is no logical, rational reason for doing that.
Clearly, large 'mainstream' media organisations make money from corporate sponsors and advertisements. Clearly, large 'mainstream' media organisations are very interesting to people who would like to put forth a particular narrative to influence public opinion, or who would like to ensure certain information is never revealed to the public, for their own personal interests. And of course there are people with the power and the money to make that happen. So why wouldn't it happen? Surely you must acknowledge at least the possibility that it could happen. So why, in the name of all that is sane, would you allow such organisations to wield the ultimate stamp of truth for the entire set of 'facts' you use to construct your reality of the wider world you live in?
That so many people think as you do, that something can only really be said to be true if a legitimate (i.e. mainstream) news source has reported it as such, essentially gives the media the power to decide what is and is not true, in the present, the past, in the public consciousness. To assume that such power is not abused, and is not abused regularly, and for nefarious purposes, is incredibly incredibly naive. But we have all been there, because we all tend to believe those things we've been told, whether explicitly or implicitly, since birth. And then at some point, you catch them in a lie, a deliberate lie, and the illusion falls away, and you start to become your own journalist and look into things for yourself.
Maybe you need to have that 'aha' moment for yourself, when you know something from your own five senses, and then see it utterly misrepresented on TV in order to further some agenda. Or maybe you will refuse to accept that the reality you've had constructed for you beyond your own sensory perception is a manipulative sham, it's up to you. But either way, do think about it, question it, at least allow yourself that dignity, which should come with being a conscious, imaginative, rational creature.
WorkSmarter ago
I don't know if "We" are sure but I strongly suspect you aren't. Which I why I asked you the questions below. I am highly suspicious of what you are doing here. Healthy skepticism is crucial but I do not think that's what you are offering.