You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Dauphin ago

There is an entire child entertainment/athlete/model/dancer angle... from "modeling" agencies to talent scouts like "dance moms" and pageants. There are young athletes and Olympians (often are abused by coaches etc.) ANYTHING that separates a child from their parents and puts them in the control of non-relative adults is suspect. Then you delve into children's entertainment such as song, music, shows, cartoons.. think Teletubbies,Barney, Sesame Street. The whole Olsen twins videos etc.

PizzaGateTwiceRetard ago

Why don't we just go ahead and list anyone who has ever had anything to do with kids?

SpikyAube ago

None of your comments are helpful and they all highlight the fact you haven't really looked into any of the research. Critiques are largely welcome here becuase it helps us tighten up thinking, recognise flawed reasoning etc. But you're not offering any kind of helpful criticism, just silly one liners that only prove your ignorance about the whole thing. It would be much more helpful if you could go and read through the sticky on the front page and maybe have a good look through the Pizzagate wiki, learn what it's all about and why this work is important, and then come back and use your critical eye to actually help us make the investigation better, instead of just being all grumpy and sarcastic and wasteful of your own time! @AreWeSure is pretty good at doing this, and it is very helpful in fact to have devil's advocates who actually test assumptions and warn against confirmation bias or point out inconsistencies. So if you can make yourself useful in that way, it would be much appreciated, if you're nice and pleasant about it! Thanks :-)

PizzaGateTwiceRetard ago

None of your comments are helpful and they all highlight the fact you haven't really looked into any of the research.

Except for the part where I've literally read all of the research. I've read the sticky, all of the posts on the sticky, followed all of the links, read the website (which is essentially a rehash of the sticky), looked through a number of the Wiki entries, and seen numerous videos, most of which have been taken down for reckless doxxing.

Your "research" doesn't need to be corrected. It needs to be thrown out. Every single item falls into one of three categories:

  1. Highly speculative and creative misinterpretation of e-mails based on a made-up "code" which is not corroborated by any pre-existing documentation.
  2. Connections between people and entities that are totally unsurprising given their personal and professional relationships, associations, and friendships.
  3. Character assassination based on guilt-by-association, bigotry, ignorance, and literal interpretations of humor and/or art, all also highly speculative in nature.

For example: Tony Podesta is suspsected of pedophilia because he collects art. This is substantiated by three primary exhibits: the Arc of Hysteria statue, "multiple color pictures" by Katy Grannan, and a painting by Biljana Djurdjevic.

The Arc of Hysteria

The statue is claimed to be inspired by the pose that Jeffery Dahmer put one of his victims in before photographing it. Not only are the poses not actually identical (Dahmer's victim has arms and legs fully bent at the elbows and knees while the statue's arms and legs hang down fully extended), but Dahmer's victim (Ernest Miller) wasn't beheaded until after the photos were taken. The image probably looks like it has no head because it's bent under the corpse at the neck. (And what are the chances that the artist of The Arc of Hysteria would have had access to that photograph in pre-Internet 1993?)

What's more is that Dahmer wasn't a pedophile. Even if the statue were inspired by Dahmer (and there isn't any documentation that supports the claim that it was), it would have nothing to do with pedophilia. Guilt by association, plain and simple. It's good-old-fashioned ad-hominem that isn't even true.

Katy Grannan

Tony Podesta's house apparently contain unidentified images by a photographer "known for documentary-style pictures of naked teenagers". Yet the question remains: are the photographs in Podesta's house "documentary-style pictures of naked teenagers"?

If not, again, we have guilt by association. He has work by an artist, that artist also makes controversial work (which he apparently doesn't own), therefore he's assumed to be as guilty as he would be if he owned the controversial work itself.

Biljana Djurdjevic

Yet another case of guilt by association! The paintings that Podesta owns are not the paintings used to implicate him. The paintings in Podesta's house show kids lying on the ground in a circle, fully clothed. But because Djurdjevic also happens to paint really twisted images of kids apparently suffering abuse (none of which have been shown to be owned by Podesta) this is considered evidence that he might be a pedophile.

I could literally go through the whole archive of Pizzagate evidence and expose the flaws of your entire stupid theory, but I'm not even sure I want to put in the time and effort for something that might not actually pay off. In the meantime, you'll have to excuse my snark. This place is full of gullible idiots who want nothing more than an excuse to shoot off a few rounds in a random pizza parlor.