Achilles is a name he likes to use occasionally - it's a family name - father's side and all. People like JA act as though they are above the law. A bit of name reengineering here and there I expect would be just something he does. Besides, what's the law got to do with things when you've been getting away with murder for so long and Obama and the Clintons have got your back?
yes but we need to apply standards of evidence. We have a potential collateral damage situation. If James Achilles is unrelated to Alefantis and we as a community destroy his reputation and business it will be OUR MOVEMENT that suffers in loss of credibility
So i repeat, we need to make that connection in evidence before we make the ASSERTION. We are entitled to conjecture- conjecture is what drives enquiry - but we must be circumspect about our assertions, which the title of this thread categorically fails to do
no, see YOU have no credibility, because you used an ad-hominem attack on me , rather than addressing the merits of the evidence.
See how that works? Its called investigating and debating.
Haven't logged in in a while but even I know that the Alefantis family has used the Achillies name before. It has come up in other threads and links with them using the name.
I understand your point but let's not insist that we be shy in our assertions either. These seem pretty compelling to me. Let's face it JA is NOT a law abider....Fraud on paper would mean nothing to him - to have the Archilles name on a paper may though - it's a family name. Trudeau is mentored by Soros. Soros is tied to JA/Comet. Those committing, aiding and abetting are working all media with 'fake news' headlines that absolutely damn and slam solid evidence. Let's not cower on the basis of needing solid hard core evidence. Investigations start and progress with reasonable assertions and compelling history/behaviour. Just saying :-)
Well if you have to. But do try and apply standards of evidence, and leave the window of tenuous evidence well alone. Arewesure - always seek to be sure and true :-))
im eating my hat now - there is a connection drilling deeper into the evidence. look at the comparative agents name and address in the archived link https://archive.is/79qW3
lets not be shy in conjecture, but assertions? Always. Only a judge in a court of law has that honour
I ain't saying don't post this or don't look into it, I'm just seeking to improve the professionalism with which we handle this POTENTIAL connection. The mods have an 'accuracy in question' tag for a reason, I think they should deploy it here - especially if the outcome is to make investigators drive harder for evidence that reasonably demonstrates it isnt an innocent bystander with a coincidentally similar name
the usual outcome i'd think, as the mountain of posts grows, and folks like me want to see the good evidence folks like you can discern, is that when i see that tag i think 'suspicion or doubt' and am apt to pass on it to something more meaty. maybe come up with a new tag like 'promising' (?). What you say is on the money, the tighter the better. this whole thing is an incredible enterprise; it's got to be a tough job. thx
view the rest of the comments →
MolochHunter ago
This should be flagged accuracy in question until we have a more credible proof that James Achilles is actually Alefantis
PizzaGate711 ago
Achilles is a name he likes to use occasionally - it's a family name - father's side and all. People like JA act as though they are above the law. A bit of name reengineering here and there I expect would be just something he does. Besides, what's the law got to do with things when you've been getting away with murder for so long and Obama and the Clintons have got your back?
MolochHunter ago
yes but we need to apply standards of evidence. We have a potential collateral damage situation. If James Achilles is unrelated to Alefantis and we as a community destroy his reputation and business it will be OUR MOVEMENT that suffers in loss of credibility
So i repeat, we need to make that connection in evidence before we make the ASSERTION. We are entitled to conjecture- conjecture is what drives enquiry - but we must be circumspect about our assertions, which the title of this thread categorically fails to do
Birdzeyeview ago
newsflash, you already have NO CREDIBILITY
MolochHunter ago
no, see YOU have no credibility, because you used an ad-hominem attack on me , rather than addressing the merits of the evidence. See how that works? Its called investigating and debating.
Birdzeyeview ago
all you muppets here cannot 'investigate' your way out of a soggy wet paper bag!
as you were...
Solver2 ago
Haven't logged in in a while but even I know that the Alefantis family has used the Achillies name before. It has come up in other threads and links with them using the name.
PizzaGate711 ago
I understand your point but let's not insist that we be shy in our assertions either. These seem pretty compelling to me. Let's face it JA is NOT a law abider....Fraud on paper would mean nothing to him - to have the Archilles name on a paper may though - it's a family name. Trudeau is mentored by Soros. Soros is tied to JA/Comet. Those committing, aiding and abetting are working all media with 'fake news' headlines that absolutely damn and slam solid evidence. Let's not cower on the basis of needing solid hard core evidence. Investigations start and progress with reasonable assertions and compelling history/behaviour. Just saying :-)
AreWeSure ago
So let's throw standards of evidence out the window and pretend whatever tenuous connections we can make are the truth?
How did you link in Trudeau?
PizzaGate711 ago
Well if you have to. But do try and apply standards of evidence, and leave the window of tenuous evidence well alone. Arewesure - always seek to be sure and true :-))
MolochHunter ago
im eating my hat now - there is a connection drilling deeper into the evidence. look at the comparative agents name and address in the archived link https://archive.is/79qW3
PizzaGate711 ago
Good on you. Imperative and brilliant :-))
MolochHunter ago
lets not be shy in conjecture, but assertions? Always. Only a judge in a court of law has that honour
I ain't saying don't post this or don't look into it, I'm just seeking to improve the professionalism with which we handle this POTENTIAL connection. The mods have an 'accuracy in question' tag for a reason, I think they should deploy it here - especially if the outcome is to make investigators drive harder for evidence that reasonably demonstrates it isnt an innocent bystander with a coincidentally similar name
doubletake ago
the usual outcome i'd think, as the mountain of posts grows, and folks like me want to see the good evidence folks like you can discern, is that when i see that tag i think 'suspicion or doubt' and am apt to pass on it to something more meaty. maybe come up with a new tag like 'promising' (?). What you say is on the money, the tighter the better. this whole thing is an incredible enterprise; it's got to be a tough job. thx