To me, one of the crux of this entire thing is the terminology that lays a foundation for the rest of the evidence. As said in this video, the "code words from the FBI" basically dont exist and the codewords were basically created by a /pol/ user during the investigating, except cheese pizza....and for anyone who's not an internet noob and was on 4chan in the early dates know that the term was basically coined by them and other chan sites early on to refer to child porn (users referencing it as cp, other users asking what's cp, then people jokingly saying "cheese pizza" which caught on as a meme of sorts and inside joke)
This would explain why a lot of pizzagate "researchers" are kids in their teens or early twenties, as they werent around 4chan in the early days (when it was actually good).
once you realize cheese pizza is a meme basically created by kids on 4chan, the rest of the evidence starts to fall apart when you realize you have to assume that 50-60 year old politicians who dont understand the internet at all would be using terminology from a niche site that 90% of people on the internet dont even know about or visit.
Especially when, as clearly detailed in the video from that pizzagate researcher who said alephantis threatened his family, it's pretty clear even alephantis doesn't know anything about the internet. (had to ask what a "mod" was)
Am I just way off base here? Are my assumptions correct? I'm not trying to slam pizzagate here, just struggling internally whether there's any legitimacy to it.
view the rest of the comments →
DarkMath ago
"the code words from the FBI" basically dont exist"
That's flat out wrong. All those code words exist and are used by Pedophiles to talk in code. In addition to "cheese pizza" meaning child porn the term "Buck" has a meaning for Pedophiles:
A child they want to fuck on a camping trip.
Go watch the documentary "Chicken Hawk", it'll set you straight.
And stop listening to the MSM. You've obviously been "disinfo"ed into thinking the code words don't exist.
EDIT 1:
(sarcasm)
I want to apologize.
You know what you're right "chris". Those deplorables over at 4chan are bigots and want to keep gay people in cages.
Here I was this entire time thinking pizza was a sexual reference.
Or that a walnut looks like a prepubescent labia when clearly a walnut is a nutritious part of any diet.
Or even that walnut sauce as prepubescent cum was wrong.
I'll try harder to avoid wrong think in the future.
@_@
(sarcasm)
:-D
chris ago
Are you saying the video I linked is disinfo? He seems like he does some pretty good research and doesn't at all seem like disinfo to me, just a rational analysis of pizzagate evidence. The video is pro-pizzagate afterall.
What he says in that video is that those terms weren't something documented by the FBI, that a random /pol/ user just said that and people ran with it. It's entirely possible they were around and have been used and I'll check out that documentary, but do you have anything not in video form that would serve as proof for that?
DarkMath ago
"is disinfo"
Disinfo would imply the guy is lying. But he might just be wrong. Either way the fact "those terms weren't something documented by the FBI" doesn't mean the don't exist.
Do some more research to prove it to yourself. You might start by watching "Chicken Hawk". The word "Buck" most definitely exists and is a pedophile code word.
:-D
chris ago
Like I said, I'm going to watch that documentary, but lets be clear about one thing here: Burden of proof lands on those making the claims. If you're making the claims that it existed before pizzagate (with the exception of CP), then the burden is on you to provide evidence for that claim, and a documentary is not evidence. The evidence the documentary references should be something you have at least verified to exist and should be something you have read and could reference when people ask. How do you know the documentary itself isn't just making things up and referencing evidence that isn't real?