darkknight, I can have Putt do a sitewide ban on people who are doxing and making credible threats on PG investigators, if I have evidence. Is there evidence Are We Sure did so to Jem? If so, please hook me up with that.
Exhibit A. Makes a cryptic reference to a murder. More specifically one refered to in the "Wet Works" wikileaks email. As someone who's family background is miltary service, I can confirm that "wet works" is in fact code word for "extrajudicial killing" aka assassination. Also note the phrase referencing the wikileaks email about "making examples out of leakers even if they're innocent".
Exhibit B: A reference to one of the Jeffery Daumer murders. Note that the body is in the Arch of Hysteria pose. The elites have stuff like this as art work as shown in findings very early on in the investigation. Those pieces are likely in the executive summary thread.
Exhibit C: The other part of the post in Exhibit B proving it was Are_We__Sure that posted the Daumer poc.
There seems to be a common MO of making cryptic references to murders relevant to the users in question. Thus I suspect AreWeSure is the culprit in both sets of death threats.
Thank you for the screenshots, darkknight. I spent most of this evening reviewing Are We Sure's Comment history to find the originals. There isn't enough here for me to be able to get Voat to take any action. It really isn't clear that he was threatening Jem (he claimed it was a comment on his arguement, not directed at him personally.) Also, there is no evidence he has any way to carry out anything in real life. Voat's free-speech commitment allows rude and offensive communication. This looks more like a misunderstanding than a credible threat, to me. Do link me to anything that may prove otherwise if it comes up.
view the rest of the comments →
darkknight111 ago
Sounds eerily similar to the MO Are_We_Sure used on Jem. Maybe he's the culprit in your threats too.
Maybe he's deserving of an "expose" of his hidden truths if you know what I mean.
Vindicator ago
darkknight, I can have Putt do a sitewide ban on people who are doxing and making credible threats on PG investigators, if I have evidence. Is there evidence Are We Sure did so to Jem? If so, please hook me up with that.
darkknight111 ago
I can, as soon as I find out how to save a screenshot to an iphone.
In the mean time, I can start downloading the relevant images that were used in the threats and post them here.
http://i.magaimg.net/img/1on5.png
Exhibit A. Makes a cryptic reference to a murder. More specifically one refered to in the "Wet Works" wikileaks email. As someone who's family background is miltary service, I can confirm that "wet works" is in fact code word for "extrajudicial killing" aka assassination. Also note the phrase referencing the wikileaks email about "making examples out of leakers even if they're innocent".
http://i.magaimg.net/img/1on8.png
Exhibit B: A reference to one of the Jeffery Daumer murders. Note that the body is in the Arch of Hysteria pose. The elites have stuff like this as art work as shown in findings very early on in the investigation. Those pieces are likely in the executive summary thread.
http://i.magaimg.net/img/1ond.png
Exhibit C: The other part of the post in Exhibit B proving it was Are_We__Sure that posted the Daumer poc.
There seems to be a common MO of making cryptic references to murders relevant to the users in question. Thus I suspect AreWeSure is the culprit in both sets of death threats.
Vindicator ago
Thank you for the screenshots, darkknight. I spent most of this evening reviewing Are We Sure's Comment history to find the originals. There isn't enough here for me to be able to get Voat to take any action. It really isn't clear that he was threatening Jem (he claimed it was a comment on his arguement, not directed at him personally.) Also, there is no evidence he has any way to carry out anything in real life. Voat's free-speech commitment allows rude and offensive communication. This looks more like a misunderstanding than a credible threat, to me. Do link me to anything that may prove otherwise if it comes up.