You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

2
-1

[–] chris [S] 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Are you saying the video I linked is disinfo? He seems like he does some pretty good research and doesn't at all seem like disinfo to me, just a rational analysis of pizzagate evidence. The video is pro-pizzagate afterall.

What he says in that video is that those terms weren't something documented by the FBI, that a random /pol/ user just said that and people ran with it. It's entirely possible they were around and have been used and I'll check out that documentary, but do you have anything not in video form that would serve as proof for that?

2
0

[–] Are_we__sure 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

The issue is the pzzagate evidence is incredibly weak. It's mostly speculation that is used as a basis for other speculation. It's simply not an honest investigation and it never was. It started from the POV of people who felt Clinton was horrible and must be destroyed. It was started by dedicated enemies of Clinton and Podesta who went hunting for ammuition to be used against them. And they didn't care if they had to distort what was in the emails or lie about them. There's simply no honest reading of the emails that gets you pedophilia-Satanism-cannibalism-trafficking, etc. So you have to change the meaning of the emails and come up with some code to make them seem sinister.

In this way provocative performance art by an internationally acclaimed artist became Satanism. In this way a pretty boring set of emails becomes the fodder for other people's paranoid fantasies.

If you really want to look into this, put all the Pizzagate stuff out of your head and read all the emails, one after another and see if they seem spooky to you. Then you'll see how much effort went into manufacturing this scandal.

1
0

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

Most of them can't even keep their own nonsense straight. I bet this would be an interesting exercise: ask pizzagaters if they know (1) who made the dumb joke about "sacrificing a chicken to Moloch" in one of the leaked Clinton emails, and (2) what that person's political orientation/party affiliation is. I bet for the vast majority of them they won't know the answer to part 1 (or they'll get it wrong) and they'll probably guess wrong on part 2.

(Answers: it was written by Lew Amselem, a now-retired foreign service officer, and if you read his blog The DiploMad you will see he constantly trashes liberals, Democrats, and Hillary Clinton in particular with arch sarcasm while calling for the State Department to be "drastically slashed and reformed".)

edit: Also, the context of the message was a description of some faint glimmers of hope for resolving the political crisis that was happening in Honduras at the time; to underscore his hopes that things might work out, he makes a joking reference to various traditional good-luck charms and rituals (crossed fingers, rabbit's foot, offering to the gods).

2
-1

[–] DarkMath 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

"is disinfo"

Disinfo would imply the guy is lying. But he might just be wrong. Either way the fact "those terms weren't something documented by the FBI" doesn't mean the don't exist.

Do some more research to prove it to yourself. You might start by watching "Chicken Hawk". The word "Buck" most definitely exists and is a pedophile code word.

:-D

1
0

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

Like I said, I'm going to watch that documentary, but lets be clear about one thing here: Burden of proof lands on those making the claims. If you're making the claims that it existed before pizzagate (with the exception of CP), then the burden is on you to provide evidence for that claim, and a documentary is not evidence. The evidence the documentary references should be something you have at least verified to exist and should be something you have read and could reference when people ask. How do you know the documentary itself isn't just making things up and referencing evidence that isn't real?