[Pizzagaters believe that] Hillary Clinton and her top aides were running a child-trafficking ring out of a Washington pizza parlor"
The false narrative was created by the New York Times' Cecilia Kang, November 21. 2016 where she characterized the pizzagate theory as such, apparently based solely on messages supposedly posted to James' Instagram feed. "All of them" said Comet was the base of a child abuse ring "led by" Hillary Clinton and Podesta.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cx61Nv1VIAE4gBk.jpg
In his recent charade, Alex Jones posits himself as the voice of the pizzagate investigation, taking responsibility for "creating the false narrative" https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8CNE7SVAAAfnzA.jpg
In his well-covered video, Alex said 'we all ran over to Comet, looking into this innocent pizza place, instead of looking at the real perps [Weiner, Epstein, etc]'.
I am asking the crowd here whether my observations of our pizzagate investigation are correct. What I have observed is a large group of serious, intelligent, caring people of all age groups and from all backgrounds, looking into any obvious (and many not at all obvious) leads that have come from the Podesta leaked emails, and from mainstream media (such as the Silsby/Clinton/33 children evidence).
I have NOT observed any serious bias towards Alefantis in lieu of other leads, like the ones Alex Jones and now Mike Cernovich 'advise' we focus on.
People who are running with the false, MSM-derived narrative which defines pizzagate as a belief that Hillary ran a sex slave ring out of the basement of Comet Pizza, are doing so in error and in defiance of the facts.
At the time of her article, I was unable to find anything to back up Cecilia Kang's assertion that our group believed what she claimed. I had read virtually every pizzagate-related blog post, every thread on the various subs, and had my ear to the ground on other forums up to that point, and her definition of our movement was completely novel to me. NO WHERE was our group claiming this shit.
We did ask obvious questions that were related to anything that came up in those emails, though James' Instagram provided a lot of fodder for our investigation to be sure, but we did not focus on Comet as Alex suggests.
Claims that we have focused on Comet, and ignored other leads and locations, and that we were led astray, and that we believe something crazy about Comet's basement & Hillary are all Fake News.
Anyone promulgating these claims and not correcting them (perhaps tweeting @ceciliakang with requests for some kind of reliable source for her article... did she even see the Insta messages? did she make sure they were from real people? did she look on other forums as well, to gauge the opinions of pizzagaters?), is on the wrong side of this thing and doing this investigation a great disservice.
The actual origin of pizzagate is being virtually erased by allowing the NYT, and alt media icons, to create fake news and effectively smear us in the process.
We need to get back to our roots. Look at what they are trying to hide, and GO THERE. I also think we should make a lot of noise about this Fake News from the NYT/AlexJones so that it cannot continue, and so that the public is made aware simultaneously of what they are not saying, made aware of what pizzagate really is.
The media, and now alt media aren't addressing the emails, the use of code, the donations to Comet by Soros and Clinton, Alefantis calling babies "hotards", Alefantis threatening Ryan's life, Alefantis saying he doesn't like children at all, yet is taking a baby to "the farm".
On December 10th, in the spirit of 'hiding in plain site', the New York Times printed:
In the span of a few weeks, a false rumor that Hillary Clinton
and her top aides were involved in various crimes snowballed
into a wild conspiracy theory that they were running a
child-trafficking ring out of a Washington pizza parlor.
view the rest of the comments →
ZalesMcMuffin ago
The "hotard" thing is a mistaken interpretation. JA and a friend were calling each other that, not calling the baby in the picture that.
I also am not sure about Alefantis vs. Ryan. I'm skeptical about anything which I can't observe, and I can't observe the phone call(s) Ryan claims happened. The rest could be faked and he could be working with JA, for all I know. I'm not at all saying I think that's true, just that I have no way to be sure what is true there, so I'm withholding judgement and, as a result of my uncertainty, I don't push that storyline.
Aside from those criticisms, I absolutely love this posting and you are 100% on target with the gist of it. I wish I could give it a few more upvoats.
V____Z ago
Thanks! On what do you base the claim that hotard was in reference to an adult?
Also, Ryan has pretty well vetted the claims of the death threats https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAhyvLPZy_4
ZalesMcMuffin ago
If you look at the IG page, you'll see that Alefantis posted something, then later a friend of Alefantis says Alefantis is "becoming my favorite hashtag #hotard". Then in the next comment, Alefantis says simply "#hotard". So his posting of that word was prompted by his friend's usage of it first. They are taking friendly jabs at each other.
This is how anybody sympathetic to JA will interpret that page, and I believe it is what actually happened. Even if I'm wrong, it's not a good item to push, because skeptics will dismiss it.
This is an example of why we are having trouble making progress: we need good quality control, and we don't have it. So a lot of weak -- and even false -- stuff circulates longer than it should. The villains use that as a weak point to attack us over, but that doesn't mean we should stop investigating, it just means we have something we need to improve on.
V____Z ago
You had me until the last paragraph. I haven't seen example of "a lot" of false info. I also wonder why you are the first person Ive seen correct the accepted interpretation of that IG hashtag. Would yo u insider making a standalone post about this? No one wants to be working under false assumptions, and I think we need to hash this out and get on the same page. I have heard from Alex Jones and now from you that we have a lot of falsities in our investigation. What other examples are you thinking of?
ZalesMcMuffin ago
The #hotard thing has been discussed a few times before. I might have been the first one to go into detail; I can dig up that post if a search feature is kind today. :-)
Other examples of bad info: whether or not "James Alefantis" is his real name; whether or not it sounds like the French for "I love children"; that the pic of drag queen "MsSummerCamp" on the CPP floor is actually Alefantis; that the digging up of the dirt floor in a couple of photos was digging trenches; whether or not Alefantis took the photo of Obama playing ping pong in the White House.
I'm not including the idea that the photo was of Obama playing ping pong at CPP, because (thankfully) that obviously retarded idea never really caught on, but at least one person apparently thought it was so at some point (and in a move which should surprise nobody, the media used THAT in one of their shitty hit pieces on us).
The items I listed which are ambiguous are examples where we have people believing both ways; whichever answer is correct, a portion of the PG community must, logically, be wrong.
There are more examples, but I think that should suffice to make the point. Despite many efforts to "correct the record" (argh... damn Brock fagging up that perfectly useful phrase), some errors persist among at least some of us. Also, when assertions are made that PG researchers think X, it's a challenge to disprove that without some central resource to look it up. The lack of central authority is both a strength and a weakness for us, leading to articles like this one you wrote, drawing on your own knowledge (which I attest is correct from my own similar knowledge) to gainsay false allegations. I'd love for it to be seen by everyone, but we don't have newspapers and media megaliths at our disposal to make that happen, so the message trickles out instead of getting blasted out.
V____Z ago
No, these few examples don't suffice. No one has been pushing the James' name angle for some time, it has no bearing on the present investigation. And only a few people, mainly on Twitter, pushed the idea that the bloody tranny was James. No one here pushed that, and there were efforts to correct folks on Twitter. I don't think it has gained much faction, and I don't see it as an important piece of evidence that anyone refers to.
The digging was mistakenly seen as tunnels for a few months, but we were corrected and that issue died. Again, this has no bearing on our present investigation.
The media can pick any comment any of us make, or send someone in to make a comment for them to smear us with. However this doesn't mean that it can be said we, as a group, have been running with a lot of false info. Ther are a few examples, none of them at all important, and this constitutes an extremely small percentage of the overall information we've considered. This is why the claim sounds erroneous. You've got 3 examples where we screwed up, but ther are 150 examples of wher we were right on, things that have yet to be explained away.
ZalesMcMuffin ago
Another hard-to-kill error was the belief that Kim Noble's art depicting a child being raped and its soul(?) floating upward was once put up inside CPP. Most knew that the art had only been juxtaposed with a concert poster, but not everyone realized that detail.
Then there was the PG tweet from the fake Giuliani Twitter account. I've personally chewed people out over that one a handful of different times, over a span of at least 2-3 months.
And people are still bringing up the fake CPP menu with the "barely survived pizzas" here, as recently as this past week. They still think it was real.
Maybe my point wasn't clear, though. I'm not saying there are lots of instances of wrong info becoming prevalent among us. I'm saying there are some instances of wrong info persisting for a while among us -- usually among a minority. That doesn't mean we're bad or generally wrong. It means we don't have an effective "error zapper" which we can use to quickly expunge bad info. Instead we have to shoot peas at the errors until they fade away.
I don't know if there's any easy way to change this. If there isn't, then we might have to just live -- and, ultimately, win -- with it.
V____Z ago
Thanks for this. The sticky should be a good error zapper - at least a good attempt - but i'm not sure people read it, plus it would only apply to those who visit this site.
I think my reaction was to the fact that Alex Jones made the errors we were supposedly embracing sound like a big deal, like something that had effectively killed our ability to properly investigate pedogate.And I guess my concern is whether this has been blown out of proportion to discredit us and everything we have discovered. It would be very interesting to see the actual percentage of the mistakes we've made, versus the times we've been right on, and made substantial discoveries.
ZalesMcMuffin ago
We've been right more than enough times. The errors are to be expected, and over time they generally get pushed aside by correct info.
Criticism which replaces errors with facts is helpful, but the catcalling cynics have nothing of value to contribute here.
V____Z ago
Agree. IT makes me wonder why people aren't taking Alex Jones to task for making a big deal out of these few mistakes, he literally disses our whole movement based on them, and doesn't put their rate of occurrence into perspective.
ZalesMcMuffin ago
He's getting ripped apart by tons of his fans; I think people are seeing this for what it is.