Pizzagate Subverse Network
/v/AskPizzagate – Pizzagate-related questions
/v/pizzagatewhatever – anything Pizzagate-related
/v/PizzagateMemes – Pizzagate memes
/v/pizzagatemods – meta concerns and Pizzagate moderation discussion
For Newcomers
Submission Rules
See also "subverse best practices"
Policy on linking dangerous research
1: Relevance: Posts must be directly relevant to investigation of Pizzagate: the sexual/physical abuse and/or murder of children by elites, child trafficking organized by elites, and/or cover-up of these activities and/or the protection/assistance provided to the people who engage in said activities. See definition of Pizzagate and examples of relevant posts.
2: Empiricism: EACH factual claim that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link. If you ask a question: Explain what led to your question and provide sources. If you present opinion/argument, connect your dots and provide sources for them. Avoid baseless speculation. ALL posts must include at least one link.
3: Clarity: All titles must adequately describe post content and must establish direct relevance to pizzagate. EACH link in your post must include a description of content and how the link relates to the post (except when markup is used to embed links in the specific text they support).
4: Meta submissions and general discussion submissions without sources will be removed. Please submit indirectly relevant posts to /v/pizzagatewhatever and unsourced questions to /v/AskPizzagate. Sourced activism / publicity posts and memes are allowed. Posts about the subverse itself go to /v/pizzagatemods.
5: You must label NSFW posts (“Not safe for work”; for example gore, nudity etc.) as such when submitting.
6: No Link Posts -- Only editable submissions made with the "Discuss" button are allowed. "Link" submissions have been banned by the community for the reasons described here. Link posts will be immediately removed.
Adspam, illegal content, and personal info about Voat subscribers will be removed, and the offender will be banned.
Moderator Rules and Removal Explanations
Submission Removal Log
WARNING! Due to the nature of this investigation, clicking some links could result in opening incriminating material. Always practice common sense before clicking links, and make sure you're browsing safely.
Use archive.is to archive sources.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] garlicbulb 2 points -1 points 1 point (+1|-2) ago (edited 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 [S, M] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) 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 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) 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
[–] think- [M] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
@Vindicator is right - it's not his job to read tons of stuff about remote viewing - that's the story that Ms. Arrigo is pushing - on the internet, he has already read about it, and we treat it like we treat stories about alien sightings or reptilians.
Please note that the flair in question says 'Possible Disinfo', not 'Debunked' (another flair we also have).
And no, I also don't believe in her remote viewing claims. I never came across a report about remote viewing that I thought to be credible. (In contrast to precognition f.i.).
And frankly - she claims to have saved 200 people after the spring uprising in Prague, but she can't even spell the name of the country right? Yes?
I don't even doubt that she was likely MKUltra'ed, and her family worked for the CIA, and she also was a possible CIA asset. But I doubt parts of her story.
And re this current post here: If there are things that you think are not correct, please feel free to point them out in detail. We will then discuss it, and neither Vindicator or me would be aversed to an 'Accuracy in Question', 'Possible Disinfo' or 'Debunked' flair, if it should turn out that the post contains Disinfo.
[–] garlicbulb ago
yes its easy to buy the cia disinfo on remote viewing rather than read books whoich may be the only source of info on some subjects https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/35326.The_Best_Books_on_Remote_Viewing
I prefer to spend my time doing actual research and publishing than trying to persuade people who have not bothered to read or suffer cognitive dissonance on issues. Even trying to point out an obvious differential in how two posts are treated meets various excuses rather than admitting a non consistent approach.