You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] Infopractical 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Thank you for this information and taking the time to reply.

Okay, then, if the NCMEC is an advertising group for missing children, then here is a composite thought to the big picture: it seems that maybe nonprofits around the world have been providing the Clinton Foundation with data. For instance, there was a Wikileaks email from 2009 describing the specific conditions regarding child trafficking in Haiti, which might as well be intelligence if your doing something like what George Webb suggests and creating brothels for miners or even just shipping kids without ID cards out to other countries.

So, could the NCMEC be a vehicle for data for pedophile networks? And could this be the real reason VA might have been coaxed into encouraging its officers to start following through with the reporting?

It makes a sick kind of sense. If there are pedophile "child hunters" (Buck's Hunting...) who scope out train stations and other kinds of places where children might find refuge and travel having not formed a good plan for where to go next, does this give them...photo ID of the kids?

I know one adult who ran away from home and was scooped up by a predator in California when she was 14. What she has told me about her ordeal sounds a lot like pizzagate experiences, including his acting like a handler with brainwashing by trauma. She told me that her handler scooped her up at a train or bus station.

@cantsleepawink

0
1

[–] cantsleepawink [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Yes, in terms of the NCMEC, I have come to this conclusion as well and written about that elsewhere on this board. Briefly, Innocents at Risk is a Washington based non profit, Izette Folger who works there, is a great friend of James Alefantis and her comments can be seen on his inappropriate Instagram postings. This organisation trains airline crew NOT to interfere or intervene with passengers they suspect of trafficking children. Instead they are directed to a trafficking hotline, which then passes it on to Polaris which works with the Clinton Foundation. Can you believe this ?

0
0

[–] Infopractical ago 

@cantsleepawink , can you link me to where you wrote this on voat? I am keeping my own information set and this adds to a specific thread of my research. Hopefully it will either help me see the bigger picture more clearly or be a conduit to a further lead.

0
0

[–] GhostshipResearch ago  (edited ago)

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) is not an advertising group for missing children, they are an advertising group for law enforcement agencies to submit ads of missing children.

They are not a public database of missing children. Law enforcement agencies do not, and cannot, report missing children information to them.

The NCMEC website is no different from their milk carton advertisements. So are pedphiles buying up all the cartons of milk too?

The NCMEC helps find missing kids, and helps catch child pornographers and sex traffickers. Before you attempt to state anything different, you damn well better post from proof.

0
0

[–] Infopractical ago  (edited ago)

"The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) is not an advertising group for missing children, they are an advertising group for law enforcement agencies to submit ads of missing children."

This is what is known as a "prior", which is an assumption underlying a belief system. Unless you run this agency, you don't know its intentions just like you don't know any other human's intentions.

I'm not stating that I know their intentions. I'm stating a hypothesis for the purpose of testing that hypothesis with other information to determine its consistency. This is an ordinary and reasonable thought experiment.

"you damn well better post from proof."

Um, no. Experiments aren't about proof. Experiments are about establishing consistency between hypotheses and observations.

That said, I know a lot more about this than I'm being up front about for a variety of reasons that I don't care to share with you. If I shared it straight out, it wouldn't be as valuable and convincing than if I walked people through thought experiments and allowed discussion of judgment of the details.