You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Possible ago

I going to try and think critically here so don't take my head off about it.

First, the interviewee takes what seem to be known facts (events that have happened) and tells a story with them (in short, he suggests that Mossad owns washington). Second, the interviewee makes vague (my opinion) statements about what will happen in the future (more arrests, higher level people).

There's not really any hard statements like "X person did Y thing, and if you go to Z you will find the video which proves it."

For a second, suppose it's all true. Let's say the guy thinks everything he's saying is right. What do we really learn here?

If it turns out to be a hoax, I think most people will decide that spending time on this is a waste... but even if it's not a hoax, I'm not seeing the value in these responses. If someone came to me with something important to share, and this is what they told me, I'd say "Now tell me something useful."

SturdyGal ago

You are good to be skeptical. It confirmed a lot for me but offered nothing new. Maybe that is just because they can only say what is in public domain already. I saw it as a pep talk, trying to assert the reality of pizzagate over the gaslighting.