This is only tangentially PG related, but some of y'all have great info at your fingertips, and George knows how to do a proper investigation. If we help him with this, our cause advances.
He specifies what he's looking for here.
And here.
If you have anything useful, share it with him.
Twitter: @GeorgWebb
view the rest of the comments →
V____Z ago
I don't see how helping him advances our cause. He believes the perps behind pizzagate should go unpunished. How do you know you can trust him and that he isn't a honeypot? How do you know for sure he isn't doing a limited hangout op for his friends in Intel?
There are many questions and some are here, from fellow Voaters (comments) https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1852330
rwb2 ago
"He believes the perps behind pizzagate should go unpunished."
Of course you have a citation. Kindly provide it.
remedy4reality ago
he's on the record repeatedly saying that
If you're going to be an apologist for him, you should be fully aware of his comments.
rwb2 ago
On the record means exactly that. But the record can in certain cases constitute tens, hundreds, or even thousands of hours of audio, video, or text to be read, and to expect someone to begin scouring "the record" to corroborate a very serious claim is an outrage. I have news. I am going to take @seekingpeace and @V____Z to task in the very near future for the sins of omission, but perhaps they can head off the onslaught by citing with precision where Webb says any such thing like Clinton and Podesta should go unpunished, because I've just finished watching day 49, 50, and 51, and I didn't see one thing that even hinted at such an idea. I am not remotely an apologist, and I have no allegiance to one George Webb. I am however completely committed to the truth, whatever that may be, and the truth is, anyone with an anonymous username can say anything on the web and expect it to be believed, and this is called delusion.
remedy4reality ago
To demand that every statement be linked so you have proof is an equal outrage. You are like: 'fuck that, I'm not looking it up' in one breath, and then expect VZ to offhandedly have a link ready and available, or go 'scouring' Webb minutia for proof? The very same thing you refuse to do? Personally, Webb LOST ME when he inferred that, and I remember it well. The nail in Webb's credibility coffin came when he turned towards that Awan Bros. and dropped the CF and Hillary exactly when the investigation was heating up.
rwb2 ago
One definition of delusion is the act of obvious contradiction. In your case, it's actually Twilite Zone level. I said I spent 45 minutes watching Webb day 49, 50, and 51 under the pretense that the call for exoneration was where said statement would be found according to seekingpeace:
and you want fantasize that I refused to do something. You have zero credibility with statements like that, and don't think the casual reader is not going to see the disconnect between your statement and my very reasonable attempt to corroborate the claims. In fact, every such post made by you or your fellows without even one precise citation only strengthens my belief that you are the ones manipulating the truth about George Webb for some unknown purpose.
seekingpeace ago
Now you're just being a dick. If you'd followed his series from early on you'd clearly know what people are stating here. Of course I can't remember exactly which video - he's got 100s of 2min-3min of him knocking on a door, or cut off mid sentence.
If you're really interested you would spend the time watching his early stuff instead of getting righteous and claiming ordinary people are manipulating the truth. You clearly don't watch his series.
Now bugger off and stop harassing posters who have a different opinion than you.
rwb2 ago
This may come as a surprise, but the world is remarkably complex. In the next nanosecond, the world will produce more information than can be digested by any one human in ten lifetimes. Therefore, we must be selective about what information to ingest, lest we become overloaded. And even the information we choose to take in almost always comes through else's lens first. Case in point, one George Webb. Now I've watched perhaps twelve episodes in total, and what I have seen is nothing short of remarkable, worthy of much consideration, but I can only allot so much brain time to his particular angle or worldview, and thus I depend on others to analyze, distill, and utilize what he's saying. In other words, I don't need to watch all his videos in order to challenge you or anyone else making claims about him. If you had made a note of which videos had the offending statements by Webb, you wouldn't need to remember which one of the hundreds, and again, we've already discovered that seekingpeace is completely unreliable after saying it was around the day 50 mark.
There are two competing viewpoints here. One side argues he is reporting on important matters that no one else is, which is my impression in watching some of his videos, and the other claims he's a fraud, disinformation, controlled opposition, etc. But the question remains, if George Webb has said outrageous things like you and others claim, why can't anyone cite even one example? And why can't people realize that citations are the bedrock of all good research? Making claims without citations is the very definition of manipulating the truth.
In so far as your assertion that I am harassing posters, I think you have forgotten where you are. It's called Voat, and there is no censorship here, which means your request has about as much weight as the aether in which you are immersed.