Folks, I've had to repeat this a disturbing amount of times, so let's review how investigations work.
You have an idea that some sort of activity is happening, perpetrated by a person or persons. In order to demonstrate this to others, you search for and document evidence to support your idea. You then present this documented evidence to others in order to convince them that your idea is correct.
That's how the process of convincing people of something you believe works.
It is NOT where you throw out an idea with no evidence whatsoever, and then tell people to go find the evidence on their own.
That's called bullshit. There's plenty in the world already. Don't dump yours here.
I'm sorry to have to sound like an asshole here, but I'm fed up with the amount of assholes on this site that seem to think that their bullshit is contributing to Pizzagate. It isn't. When you make wild claims with nothing more than "I remember someone saying this, go look it up", you are not helping anyone. You are just making noise. Stop it. Either cite the evidence for what you are saying, or shut the fuck up and stop cluttering a serious investigation with your speculation.
I'm not talking to most people here, but the people I'm talking about either know who they are and need to knock off their bullshit, or they're too stupid to have brought anything to this site to begin with.
view the rest of the comments →
HillBoulder ago
I've sourced the Harvard journal of human rights in the Laura Silsby case and somehow it's still called fake news. When dealing with the lunatics no source is ever good enough
madmanpg ago
You are definitely not the sort of person I'm addressing here. If you were citing some obscure website's article that contained zero citations, or some person's YouTube video that consisted of nothing more than some person claiming something but providing no evidence to back it up, it wouldn't even be fake news; it would be merely bullshit. If you're citing sources to back up what you say, you're doing EXACTLY what we need to do. Keep up the good work.
HillBoulder ago
Sometimes I will post my "bullshit" claim first because it seems to get more attention when it's just a claim. Then I start dropping sources once people's eyes are on it. Sourcing immediately seems to get limited response so I make the wild accusation wait for them to circle and then hit them with information. Not sure if it actually works but it seems to get people to at least notice
madmanpg ago
Well that's a fair approach. You're basically doing the Breitbart/Project Veritas style of "drip drip" reporting. Again, nothing wrong with that as long as you're providing evidence of what you're saying at some point.
Those I'm addressing respond with "Google it" or "Go find it, I'm not doing your homework". From what you've said so far, it's clear you're not one of them.
HillBoulder ago
That must be why leftits think I read Breitbart 24/7 I didn't know that was their M.O. The"Google it" approach will never work even if people did go ahead and Google it the first ten stories that come up will be the ones discrediting or some hack job/disinfo garbage. Fuck this world is such a pain in the dick
madmanpg ago
Let me specify: I was referring to the man, Andrew Breitbart, who did the "drip drip" style of reporting. This would often involve dropping one piece of info that would cause certain people to react with a predictable lie; the next piece of info would prove that said people were lying. This could go on for weeks with really disingenuous people.
It has nothing to do with the shithole that now bears Breitbart's great name. I feel confident he'd have nothing to do with the site were he still alive.
HillBoulder ago
I see. It always seemed to me that it's best to corner people into a position and then hit them. He was a true hero from what I'm learning sad the real ones always wind up dead. I don't read Breitbart much at all good thing.. Fuckers hijacked it after they killed him by the sound of it
madmanpg ago
I doubt the people behind the website had anything to do with his death. I just think extremists have been living off his reputation for a while in order to keep traffic going to one of the most horribly designed websites in existence.
I'm still thinking Obama and Co. are the ones with his blood on their hands. It is possible his death was natural since Bill Whittle said he had a history of heart trouble...but...something within me says "they knew that and took advantage of it". It's been public record for decades that the CIA fakes heart attacks to kill people: http://www.military.com/video/guns/pistols/cias-secret-heart-attack-gun/2555371072001
HillBoulder ago
I recall hearing someone asking Breitbart how he thought they would kill him apparently his response was "heart attack". The ice man killer used a heart attack weapon not sure if it was a gun I think it was a needle at the time. I'm sure they've definitely evolved that technology