Came across this and was surprised when I saw it had never been posted on our board. I am not 100% confident in Shimatsu's reporting, but I know many PG researchers have followed him. He did a multipart series on PG the first year -- this is his final article.
https://rense.com/general96/pizza10.htm
In these last hours of a momentous political transition in the United States, the time’s come to wrap up the Pizzagate series with Part 10. In the nine parts of this series so far, the major questions and findings from the reddit and VOAT discussion groups were vetted for errors, the facts verified and the findings amplified with additional research from press reports, government documents, domain registry information, business data and Wikileaks releases into comprehensive reports disclosing the larger context of the online allegations. This editorial process proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Pizzagate is not “fake news” as irresponsibly claimed by a partisan and benighted mainstream media.
Here, in Part 10, we examine the remaining Pizzagate topics that have until recently been curtailed by a lack of information and/or censorship of key facts. The issues include the alleged suicide of human-trafficking researcher Monica Petersen in Haiti; serious flaws in the anti-child-trafficking networks; the Haiti link of the Alefantis family missed by the online sleuths; background regarding the Serbian artists Marina Alefantis and Biljana Djurdjevic who were patronized by Tony Podesta and James Alefantis; and various items of trivia related to this affair. The list of topics required a detour into the Mexican research of psychoanalyst Michael Maccoby and social theorist Eric Fromm. This essay concludes with a section on the lessons for journalism from Pizzagate denial. That’s a lot of text, so read at your leisure, a section at a time.
That said, to all the those involved in the online investigation and discussions at reddit and VOAT, who dug up all the facts and leads essential for this series, I raise a toast: “Well done, friends and colleagues, thank you and please resume kicking butt.”
view the rest of the comments →
garlicbulb ago
Please be consistent with "possible disinformation " flairs. You used one on https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2820112 and said "Not my job [to educate yourself on various subjects] And this isn't v/conspiracy. Posts here have to give linked proof of their claims." You post something yet apply no flair and yet no linked proof of claims. Bias
Vindicator ago
What are you talking about?
garlicbulb ago
You should know exactly what i am talking about. I will explain again for you. In another thread you flaired "possible disinfo" [ https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2820112] and said when you were asked to read more so that it did not strain your incredulity, "Not my job. And this isn't v/conspiracy. Posts here have to give linked proof of their claims." In this thread that you started, you even admit you were "not 100% confident in Shimatsu's reporting" and yet you offer no linked proof of claims in the article posted. You are therefore selective as to your applying rules, unless you flair your own thread with "possible disinfo" or you are biased.
Vindicator ago
Well, this article is a roundup enumerating the highlights of a 9-part series Shimatsu did over 2016, mostly based on research here in v/pizzagate. While he doesn't hyperlink to the sources of all the info he presents, he does cite them.
I am certainly willing to flair Shimatsu as possible disinfo if he is in fact pushing any. That's precisely why I raised the question when I linked the article. No one has made a case for that so far. That's why we discuss submission content as a community. Flairs can be added or changed at any time -- and we frequently do so as new material is added to a post through crowdsourced investigation.
garlicbulb ago
So this post breaks the rules on links but you bend them to suit as he cites them. The other article cites a book too but you flaired that as possible disinfo. One article you give the presumption of innocence the other you presume possibly guilty. I would not flair either or if you feel you have to flair both. However a fairer flair would be somethign liek "more researched needed" and explain into x and x and miss out perjorative "possible disinfo" flairs