Thank you very much for editing your post to include the new research that the embellishment of the facts in this case may be deliberate disinfo to frame pizzagate investigators retweeting it as agents of disinfo themselves and further drive the PG is "debunked" narrative.
I am also flairing this "Accuracy in Question" to help raise awareness, and make sure anyone coming here to read about pizzagate knows we are serious about research.
People should not trust http://usapoliticsnow.com -- it is clearly unreliable and possibly deliberate disinfo.
On 4 April, this report continues, the SVR further reported that one of the most knowledgeable construction attorneys in Atlanta, named Trinh Huynh, was assassinated after she had filed legal papers with the US Federal Court requesting documentation relating to the I-85 bridge explosion for United Parcel Service (UPS), the world's largest package delivery company headquartered in Atlanta, in a force majeure action—that is a common clause in contracts that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, or an event described by the legal term “act of God” occurs.
In congruence with Pizzagate theory, however, they reported that a deep state operative matching her killer was also arrested, with child porn:
Even more critical to note, this report says, is that an SVR computer facial recognition analysis of Raylon Browning in comparison with that of the known assassin of Trinh Huynh, whose image was captured on numerous video surveillance cameras, showed no match being found—but did turn up an exact match when compared against a photo of a known American “Deep State” operative named Nicolai Mork who had just been arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada, after his return there from Atlanta.
...Should Matthew Komatsu, however, write this book about Nicolai Mork, this report says, it will now have to include his arrest after returning from Atlanta to Las Vegas and his being indicted on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction charges after police found explosives “strong enough to penetrate a military tank” at his home—and whose other charges include his having 17 hard drives on a desk top computer which contained “child pornography”, “snuff films”, and images of him having sex with “seemingly unconscious women”.
SVR analysts in this report explain that all American “Deep State” operatives, like Nicolai Mork, who are targeted for elimination have multiple and lurid sex crimes charges and allegations thrown against them in order to destroy their credibility should anyone listen to the truths they may offer in their defense—and that, also, includes “enemies of the state” the Americans fear such as Wikileaks leader Julian Assange.
If we keep sharing our findings, ultimately they will be exposed. I think we need a megathread vetting the sites that are purveyors of disinfo that we can add to over time, with archived links to the evidence. If the community made such a thing, it would greatly help mods discern Rule 2 violating posts and remove them, citing the link, of course. It would also discourage ignorant noobs who think they need Contribution points like on Reddit from posting shite in the first place.
You and @anonOpenPress should start that thread. Be sure to spell out this is important to the investigation of elite pedophile rings due to their demonstrated ability to wage information warfare by discrediting their accusers. :-) Let me know if you need supporting links for that.
"megathread vetting the sites" that would have some serious cons, like for example: Even the worst clickbait sites repeat also valuable stuff sometimes, and even more trusted are vulnerable for spreading disinfo (by mistake / by being paid etc).
So, I'm not into putting up a thread listing "bad sources" - what I could help with regarding rule 2 might be a guideline for "How to validate accuracy of information" or "How to check a source". Reputation plays a very minor role in this.
I hear what you are saying, and it is a valid point. Let me clarify: I'm not suggesting we blacklist or whitelist sites -- just that we create a central place where people can do what you did with the Trinh Huynh posts. If we don't pool the data, we won't be able to see the patterns of misinfo or disinfo. That is all I am suggesting.
I really like your How-to ideas. That would also be very helpful for people.
Oh I got you wrong then, sorry. Now that sounds like an idea worth a thought. There are several patterns but some are more common. The most efficient pattern is to include a single fake claim in the news having all other parts accurate. In general, talking about misinfo, news can be catogorized to:
Accurate, sourced
Partially accurate, partially sourced (the best pattern for misleading)
Unknown, unsourced (includes those on which one can't really tell if the info is valid or not)
Likely or obvioulsy misleading, unsourced (not important, as not reliable anyway)
Misleading, fakesourced (the 2nd best pattern for misleading)
Disinfo and false flags are more difficult to recognize, as these both could be in "accurate, sourced" category. Typically there must be another reliable source proving some othert point of view. Most of the important news regarding our investigations should be considered with these in mind, which makes your idea even more worth it.
@Catchthem@Vindicator One suggestion for pooling such data comes to my mind... Could we somehow get our "individual fact checkers" to use a common tag in these kind of posts, which would able pooling via search. The tag should be unique, like for example [pg-fact-check] so that any other posts couldn't mix the pool.
This might require some visible side-bar guidance, and even a sticky guide post for a while (until ppl are familiar with the tag). Additionally, each such post could include "when writing similar posts, please use this tag" or something like that.
Yes fabulous breakdown.. I think you are right; "Even the worst clickbait sites repeat also valuable stuff sometimes, and even more trusted are vulnerable for spreading disinfo (by mistake / by being paid etc)."
Fabulous breakdown, anonOpenPress. You're now in my "saved" links. :-)
One of the things I've noticed with a number of these fake news purveyors is they like to use Wikileaks as a source, without linking to the Wikileak email in question.
I gave a second thought to address the idea (the first was right below. Your suggestion was actually the launching idea for /v/pizzagatejournalism - to help on fact checking. Will sure help regarding the patterns, if just some people start to post there. Might take a while, but you're not in a hurry I guess. @vindicator
view the rest of the comments →
Vindicator ago
@Catchthem;
Thank you very much for editing your post to include the new research that the embellishment of the facts in this case may be deliberate disinfo to frame pizzagate investigators retweeting it as agents of disinfo themselves and further drive the PG is "debunked" narrative.
I am also flairing this "Accuracy in Question" to help raise awareness, and make sure anyone coming here to read about pizzagate knows we are serious about research.
People should not trust http://usapoliticsnow.com -- it is clearly unreliable and possibly deliberate disinfo.
However, the Anonymous We Stand YouTube channel and the https://WhatDoesItMean.com news site they link to do not contain the fake news pedophile ring claims. Instead, they claim she was assassinated because she filed a FOIA request about the I-85 bridge explosion on behalf of UPS:
In congruence with Pizzagate theory, however, they reported that a deep state operative matching her killer was also arrested, with child porn:
Catchthem ago
Yes, Thank you very much for putting this so very well together vindicator!
Vindicator ago
If we keep sharing our findings, ultimately they will be exposed. I think we need a megathread vetting the sites that are purveyors of disinfo that we can add to over time, with archived links to the evidence. If the community made such a thing, it would greatly help mods discern Rule 2 violating posts and remove them, citing the link, of course. It would also discourage ignorant noobs who think they need Contribution points like on Reddit from posting shite in the first place.
You and @anonOpenPress should start that thread. Be sure to spell out this is important to the investigation of elite pedophile rings due to their demonstrated ability to wage information warfare by discrediting their accusers. :-) Let me know if you need supporting links for that.
anonOpenPress ago
"megathread vetting the sites" that would have some serious cons, like for example: Even the worst clickbait sites repeat also valuable stuff sometimes, and even more trusted are vulnerable for spreading disinfo (by mistake / by being paid etc).
So, I'm not into putting up a thread listing "bad sources" - what I could help with regarding rule 2 might be a guideline for "How to validate accuracy of information" or "How to check a source". Reputation plays a very minor role in this.
Vindicator ago
I hear what you are saying, and it is a valid point. Let me clarify: I'm not suggesting we blacklist or whitelist sites -- just that we create a central place where people can do what you did with the Trinh Huynh posts. If we don't pool the data, we won't be able to see the patterns of misinfo or disinfo. That is all I am suggesting.
I really like your How-to ideas. That would also be very helpful for people.
anonOpenPress ago
Oh I got you wrong then, sorry. Now that sounds like an idea worth a thought. There are several patterns but some are more common. The most efficient pattern is to include a single fake claim in the news having all other parts accurate. In general, talking about misinfo, news can be catogorized to:
Disinfo and false flags are more difficult to recognize, as these both could be in "accurate, sourced" category. Typically there must be another reliable source proving some othert point of view. Most of the important news regarding our investigations should be considered with these in mind, which makes your idea even more worth it.
anonOpenPress ago
@Catchthem @Vindicator One suggestion for pooling such data comes to my mind... Could we somehow get our "individual fact checkers" to use a common tag in these kind of posts, which would able pooling via search. The tag should be unique, like for example [pg-fact-check] so that any other posts couldn't mix the pool.
This might require some visible side-bar guidance, and even a sticky guide post for a while (until ppl are familiar with the tag). Additionally, each such post could include "when writing similar posts, please use this tag" or something like that.
Catchthem ago
Yes fabulous breakdown.. I think you are right; "Even the worst clickbait sites repeat also valuable stuff sometimes, and even more trusted are vulnerable for spreading disinfo (by mistake / by being paid etc)."
Vindicator ago
Fabulous breakdown, anonOpenPress. You're now in my "saved" links. :-)
One of the things I've noticed with a number of these fake news purveyors is they like to use Wikileaks as a source, without linking to the Wikileak email in question.
anonOpenPress ago
I gave a second thought to address the idea (the first was right below. Your suggestion was actually the launching idea for /v/pizzagatejournalism - to help on fact checking. Will sure help regarding the patterns, if just some people start to post there. Might take a while, but you're not in a hurry I guess. @vindicator