You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Millennial_Falcon ago

Rule 3: You need to logically connect all this somehow, ideally with a concise summary at the top. Otherwise, it comes off as one of our resident troll's patented "baffle with bullshit" posts. Right @Vindicator?

Vindicator ago

This post didn't come off that way to me...maybe because I know all the pieces are legit, rather than some hokey crap about King David and Knights Templar, etc. It is difficult, with complex webs of relationships like this, to write a post that ties things up neatly in a bow. Generally that's what editors would do with a writer's piece to prepare it for publication. But we're dealing with raw research, here. It's difficult, especially for those who are writers by trade.

Millennial_Falcon ago

It is difficult, with complex webs of relationships like this, to write a post that ties things up neatly in a bow.

Nobody's asking for that. I'm just asking for something explaining why the pieces are perceived to be connected (the required description of link content and how links relate to the post as a whole).

think- ago

Thanks for this.

swordfish69 ago

@Millenial_Falcon I get your rationale but some of this information is extremely precious. I don't want this overlooked while the board gets crapflooded with QAnon posts.

letsdothis1 ago

it comes off as one of our resident troll's patented "baffle with bullshit" posts.

I thought the post was extremely logical.

Marina Abramovic - check, podesta email - check, names mentioned in email are associated with an industry that we know to be corrupt - check

Care to explain further or give an example?

ESOTERICshade ago

Its about six against one on this subject and nobody in this thread agrees with you. These people are good researchers.

@kevdude already agreed too in the last thread you deleted on this topic

@swordfish69 @vindicator @think- @letsdothis1

Millennial_Falcon ago

It is you who needs to explain further.

dragonkiller ago

I think Falcon is getting paid by somebody. I can't prove it but with research this good getting deleted something is up.

ESOTERICshade ago

It is you who needs to explain further.

OP explained it fine. Well enough to interest researchers, known and reliable researchers in this forum, to participate. These participants are not shills. These are some of the brightest minds in the pizzagate research community. Prove to me that they are not. The burden of proof IS ON YOU.

letsdothis1 ago

I'll try - in another post.

Vindicator ago

letsdothis1, your persistance is commendable. Here's what helps me: ask yourself "What is my premise?" See if you can formulate the sum total of the whole post as a single sentence that you are trying to prove or disprove. Then, stick that right at the front -- and line up the rest of the info nuggets you've got to support that premise. Protip: This is the very last thing you do. Often, there's no way to articulate this when you first start writing the thread. You just have a bunch of juicy stuff and a hunch. But making the effort to distill all that material into a premise that can be proven or disproven is a great service to us all and really helps focus everyone's research efforts.

Don't give up. I really think you are onto something.

letsdothis1 ago

Thanks very much for the input vindicator. Sometimes I'm trying to do too much at once. I'll work on summaries in other posts.

Vindicator ago

Capturing your angle in a "premise" or "hypothesis" is not easy, but it is a great discipline and I have found it makes me a better writer and thinker. Also, it generates much more animated discussion, as people have a clear target to aim at, pro or con. ;-)

letsdothis1 ago

Btw vindicator, I've been meaning to ask you what kind of writing do you do? You mentioned something about academia, so I presume it's non-fiction? What's your field?

Vindicator ago

I started out as a newspaper reporter but couldn't take the bullshit. I then did freelance business writing and editing for ten years or so, including some ghostwriting, until I quit to write a novel. The manuscript won a regional writing competition award and was going strong, but I got in a really bad car accident and ended up with neck injuries and migraines that forced me to stop writing for years. Still recovering from that. I've never done academic writing -- for me, it's all about the story. I do have one nonfiction book that has been translated into multiple languages, but it's more how-to than academic. Has a lot of footnotes and support material, though. :-)

letsdothis1 ago

I get it. I have to do that for academic papers - seems I've got to do it here too :-)

Millennial_Falcon ago

k. Again, you need to explicitly state what the logical connections are between you items of evidence, because it really isn't clear just from reading the post.

ESOTERICshade ago

k. Again, you need to explicitly state what the logical connections are between you items of evidence, because it really isn't clear just from reading the post.

Yes it is. Your comprehension of all the material is not a rule in this forum. You are exceeding your mandate. We are sick of your censorship. this poster that made this post is one of the best posters in the forum and intellectually is far above you. You can see from the very PRODUCTIVE comments that researchers were connecting the dots. Since when did your agreement and understanding of all the material beocme a rule? I am throwing doen the gauntlet and I will continue to fight for our right to research up until the minute I am banned.

@kevdude he is doing it again.

@vindicator @think- @letsdothis1

swordfish69 is one of the best researchers in the whole pizzagate world and has contributed a lot to this line of research as well. That fact that you can't understand and recognize good research means you need to step down Falcon.