Reminder that there were no 'known pedophile code words' in the podesta emails. Also in the decades worth of emails John Podesta only ever wrote the word pizza once. If you believe the pizzagate theories then you have poor critical thinking skills and are a part of a witch-hunt.
The burden of proof is on you to back up a claim. What claim are you making about the handkerchief email?
My comment was simply pointing out that the claim made often around here when pizzagate first started was made with zero evidence. Can we agree that there are no 'known pedophile code words' in the emails or is that a claim you would like to make? If you do make that claim please back up that claim with evidence. *Also the key word is 'known'. It was widely believed here that the code words were known to the FBI. I have never seen evidence of this.
im not in a court of Law. the onus is not on me to do shit, pal
the handkerchief email is nonsensical in the literal. That means it is code for something. Prima Facie evidence of Code
what is it code for?
thats something that needs to be proven in a court of Law
But as a concerned citizen i can point out the vast number of associations between pizza and the sexual fetishisation of children as so publicly broadcast on Alefantis's instagram, a restaurant Podesta frequents as a regular Democrat fundraising venue
i can point out the vast web of personal associations of Podesta and the Clintons to known and convicted paedophiles like Epstein and Hastert
i can ponder the offer of children for 'entertainment' waiting in an associates pool
i can demonstrate evidence that Podesta's taste in artwork includes cannibalism and his brothers house is RIFE with child sexualised and bondage imagery
i can show you the Madeleine Mccann identikit persons of interest with a striking similarity
So if Podesta wants this all to go away, why doesnt HE come out and tell us what a pizza related map is ?
the fact that he hasnt ........
I have the freedom of speech to say i suspect on the availability of evidence a strong likelihood that Podesta is a paedophile. There is no burden you can place on me that takes that freedom away, and the rest is up to Law enforcement - if it is not corrupted by the paedophile network - to investigate, and if appropriate, prosecute
im not in a court of Law. the onus is not on me to do shit, pal
Burden of proof isn't just a legal term but is a logical concept. If I were to make the claim that you were a pedophile the burden is on me to provide evidence that shows that and not on you to somehow negate it. I hope it's obvious why that is the case.
the handkerchief email is nonsensical in the literal. That means it is code for something.
This is poor reasoning. You say that because you do not understand then that makes it code? A code is communication whose meaning is meant to be hidden to everyone but the intended receiver. If I were to go through your comments and mark things that I didn't understand the meaning of would those examples be prima facie evidence of code? No.
Let me show you why. One explanation for the 'pizza related map' is that she is simply referring to a handkerchief like this one. Was she referring to a handkerchief with a pizza and map design on it? Maybe. It's difficult to say because the email is contextless. Is it appropriate to say that because you don't understand the meaning of this contextless email that it must be code? Obviously not. My explanation that she is referring to a design on the handkerchief is orders of magnitude more probable because it is more common place than coded language.
And think about this, the 'pizza related map' code never appears again in the decades worth of emails. If it were code known to them and used by them why don't they ever use it again? Maybe that was a slip up and they don't usually communicate the code through emails. But if that is true it doesn't help your case to have to assume that these code words are unusual in the only evidence you have.
You then go on to talk about how there is so much evidence for pizzagate. But this is a classic mark of conspiracy theories. Whenever I push against a pizzagate claim people always scurry away from the claim and talk about the 'mountain of evidence'. This is poor reasoning again. You are getting distracted by the amount of superficial evidence to see that each individual part is shit. The evidence is so superficial and and so tenuously connected to some other piece of 'evidence' that it barely holds together as coherent. An inch deep and a mile wide applies here.
And you give me all this evidence after I asked "What claim are you making about the handkerchief email?". To which your reply was simply that it was obvious that it was code. This is what I'm talking about when I say pizzagaters have poor critical thinking, and I don't mean that to be an insult but to try and shake you free of it.
Thats like saying, I walk into a police station and say I saw a guy come out of an alley, i went in the alley, a girl there was raped and unconscious. & the policeman says 'well did you ACTUALLY SEE the guy raping her' No. look im not 100% sure it was him, but it was SOMEONE and He was in the vicinity
Cop: "Sorry mate not enough evidence, we're not going to investigate"
i went in the alley, a girl there was raped and unconscious.
that would all be evidence of a crime. But who is the 'he' in that comment? If you were to accuse a specific person then you would need evidence that that person did it. What ties that person to the crime?
If your point is that there is clearly a crime pizzagaters haven't shown anything like that either. You all make specific accusations of the most heinous crimes on individual people who are then harassed. That is *totally inappropriate. WAKE UP. STOP THIS.
And now we are even further from my initial question "What claim are you making about the handkerchief email?".
as a citizen investigator, we cant PROVE a crime, because PROOF is a function of a court of Law
We dont need to prove anything other than that there is enough evidence to WARRANT FORMAL PROCEDINGS
thats it
and the standard of evidence for that is met in abundance
so the claim im making about the handkerchief email is that it MAY be related to human trafficking / paedophilia, and as there are numerous other swirling issues that similarly MAY be paedophilia related, it is a MATTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY for authorities to investigate whether there is fire behind all this smoke
Handkerchiefs are alluded to being used as trophies in sexual abuse. This is explicitly demonstrated in the child abuse depicting artwork of a lady with split personality whose work was showcased at Comet Ping Pong
lovely topic for art at a 'Family Friendly Restaurant' wouldnt you think?
if your threshold for suspicion is THAT low, you are either art of the cover-up or haplessly insouciant
view the rest of the comments →
JUNOAK ago
Reminder that there were no 'known pedophile code words' in the podesta emails. Also in the decades worth of emails John Podesta only ever wrote the word pizza once. If you believe the pizzagate theories then you have poor critical thinking skills and are a part of a witch-hunt.
MolochHunter ago
so go on and explain it to me like im a 2 year old what a handkerchief that seems like it might be a pizza related map is
a credible explanation
please
JUNOAK ago
The burden of proof is on you to back up a claim. What claim are you making about the handkerchief email?
My comment was simply pointing out that the claim made often around here when pizzagate first started was made with zero evidence. Can we agree that there are no 'known pedophile code words' in the emails or is that a claim you would like to make? If you do make that claim please back up that claim with evidence. *Also the key word is 'known'. It was widely believed here that the code words were known to the FBI. I have never seen evidence of this.
MolochHunter ago
im not in a court of Law. the onus is not on me to do shit, pal
the handkerchief email is nonsensical in the literal. That means it is code for something. Prima Facie evidence of Code
what is it code for?
thats something that needs to be proven in a court of Law
But as a concerned citizen i can point out the vast number of associations between pizza and the sexual fetishisation of children as so publicly broadcast on Alefantis's instagram, a restaurant Podesta frequents as a regular Democrat fundraising venue i can point out the vast web of personal associations of Podesta and the Clintons to known and convicted paedophiles like Epstein and Hastert i can ponder the offer of children for 'entertainment' waiting in an associates pool i can demonstrate evidence that Podesta's taste in artwork includes cannibalism and his brothers house is RIFE with child sexualised and bondage imagery i can show you the Madeleine Mccann identikit persons of interest with a striking similarity
So if Podesta wants this all to go away, why doesnt HE come out and tell us what a pizza related map is ?
the fact that he hasnt ........
I have the freedom of speech to say i suspect on the availability of evidence a strong likelihood that Podesta is a paedophile. There is no burden you can place on me that takes that freedom away, and the rest is up to Law enforcement - if it is not corrupted by the paedophile network - to investigate, and if appropriate, prosecute
so fuck you
JUNOAK ago
Burden of proof isn't just a legal term but is a logical concept. If I were to make the claim that you were a pedophile the burden is on me to provide evidence that shows that and not on you to somehow negate it. I hope it's obvious why that is the case.
This is poor reasoning. You say that because you do not understand then that makes it code? A code is communication whose meaning is meant to be hidden to everyone but the intended receiver. If I were to go through your comments and mark things that I didn't understand the meaning of would those examples be prima facie evidence of code? No.
Let me show you why. One explanation for the 'pizza related map' is that she is simply referring to a handkerchief like this one. Was she referring to a handkerchief with a pizza and map design on it? Maybe. It's difficult to say because the email is contextless. Is it appropriate to say that because you don't understand the meaning of this contextless email that it must be code? Obviously not. My explanation that she is referring to a design on the handkerchief is orders of magnitude more probable because it is more common place than coded language.
And think about this, the 'pizza related map' code never appears again in the decades worth of emails. If it were code known to them and used by them why don't they ever use it again? Maybe that was a slip up and they don't usually communicate the code through emails. But if that is true it doesn't help your case to have to assume that these code words are unusual in the only evidence you have.
You then go on to talk about how there is so much evidence for pizzagate. But this is a classic mark of conspiracy theories. Whenever I push against a pizzagate claim people always scurry away from the claim and talk about the 'mountain of evidence'. This is poor reasoning again. You are getting distracted by the amount of superficial evidence to see that each individual part is shit. The evidence is so superficial and and so tenuously connected to some other piece of 'evidence' that it barely holds together as coherent. An inch deep and a mile wide applies here.
And you give me all this evidence after I asked "What claim are you making about the handkerchief email?". To which your reply was simply that it was obvious that it was code. This is what I'm talking about when I say pizzagaters have poor critical thinking, and I don't mean that to be an insult but to try and shake you free of it.
MolochHunter ago
Your first point is hapless
Thats like saying, I walk into a police station and say I saw a guy come out of an alley, i went in the alley, a girl there was raped and unconscious. & the policeman says 'well did you ACTUALLY SEE the guy raping her' No. look im not 100% sure it was him, but it was SOMEONE and He was in the vicinity
Cop: "Sorry mate not enough evidence, we're not going to investigate"
Thats how pathetic you sound. For real
JUNOAK ago
I don't understand your comment.
that would all be evidence of a crime. But who is the 'he' in that comment? If you were to accuse a specific person then you would need evidence that that person did it. What ties that person to the crime?
If your point is that there is clearly a crime pizzagaters haven't shown anything like that either. You all make specific accusations of the most heinous crimes on individual people who are then harassed. That is *totally inappropriate. WAKE UP. STOP THIS.
And now we are even further from my initial question "What claim are you making about the handkerchief email?".
MolochHunter ago
you really dont get it, do you?
as a citizen investigator, we cant PROVE a crime, because PROOF is a function of a court of Law
We dont need to prove anything other than that there is enough evidence to WARRANT FORMAL PROCEDINGS
thats it
and the standard of evidence for that is met in abundance
so the claim im making about the handkerchief email is that it MAY be related to human trafficking / paedophilia, and as there are numerous other swirling issues that similarly MAY be paedophilia related, it is a MATTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY for authorities to investigate whether there is fire behind all this smoke
Handkerchiefs are alluded to being used as trophies in sexual abuse. This is explicitly demonstrated in the child abuse depicting artwork of a lady with split personality whose work was showcased at Comet Ping Pong
lovely topic for art at a 'Family Friendly Restaurant' wouldnt you think?
if your threshold for suspicion is THAT low, you are either art of the cover-up or haplessly insouciant