14 Dec 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI read an article, two articles infact looking at allegations in the past in which the media was involved to such an extent that innocent people were charged and one wrongfully convicted.
I read an article, two articles infact looking at allegations in the past in which the media was involved to such an extent that innocent people were charged and one wrongfully convicted. One was a nursery school teacher from New Jersey I believe, Margaret Kelly Michaels who spent five years in jail wrongfully convicted on the basis of the most flim ...[text shortened]... ely unconvincing. Accusations made on the basis of the Podesta emails are the flimsiest of all.
The distinction between the situations about which you read and this particular situation is the sources involved.
The McMartin case (as with the other cited) hinged upon a general hysteria borne on the whisperings of people-pleasing children which necessarily became a roar for vengeance.
I say “necessarily” because of the human dynamics involved.
Children were led to fill in the blanks for narratives directly controlled by adults; in order to maintain their status as ‘good’ and ‘pleasing’ to these same adults, the children intuited what the adults were looking for and politely and obediently told them everything they wanted to hear.
From the general came the very specifics, all the while assisted along by adults in the handmaiden role.
In neither of those cases was there any question about the accused prior to the whispers of children.
Contrast those situations with what we are viewing in this one.
While there have been many whispers of untoward activities involving underage victims, any and all of them have been swept under the rug and otherwise eschewed by the MSM, dating back to the days of Bush, Sr..
Nothing--- or very little--- stuck, at least not in any significant/earth shattering way.
The bigger contrast here is that the furor which has become bigger and more intense with each day began as a result of the uncovered communications of those involved.
Those hacked emails led some to look further into the general activities of those involved which yielded even more troubling items--- all from the actions of the alleged, not from the accusations of the victims.
I have not really looked at any evidence in the Washington paedophile scandal as such and that which I have chanced upon I have found to be entirely unconvincing. Accusations made on the basis of the Podesta emails are the flimsiest of all.
The evidence thus far is entirely circumstantial.
We have coded emails which make no logical sense in any context other than by use of a key.
The only key which allows the information within the emails to make consistent sense is one which uses the coded words to cloak any communication of issues related to those engaged in pedophilia.
We have Google+ websites, blogs, messages, comments, pictures and videos which, by themselves, none (thus far) depict explicit content.
Degenerate content, yes.
But no one is filming the abuse specifically.
However, each of them is disturbing within their own context--- let alone when considered within the context of association with a “family friendly” pizza shop in Washington, D.C..
None of the auxiliary content could be construed in any way, shape or form, appropriate for an ‘R’ designation were they part of a movie; this is the kind of stuff that warrants an ‘NC-17,’ if it’s allowed to air at all.
Not even Rob Zombie kind of stuff, but rather, closer to snuff-type films.
And yet all of this is associated with a pizza shop in Washington, D.C., which has been a hub for political figures and touts itself as a “family friendly” venue.
Rest assured: this case is nothing like the witch hunts of the 80’s.
These are satanic, ritualistic pedophiles.
To answer the question why it is so important posed by HandyAndy…
Why is it not THE most important issue to resolve, in light of both the accusation as well as the people involved?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is very well written however I don't find the evidence of the so called 'coded messages', in Podesta emails to be compelling, nor do I think that in context they are logically incongruous. To attempt to make something out of someone talking about walnut sauce is desperate.
[b]I read an article, two articles infact looking at allegations in the past in which the media was involved to such an extent that innocent people were charged and one wrongfully convicted.
The distinction between the situations about which you read and this particular situation is the sources involved.
The McMartin case (as with the other cited) ...[text shortened]... most important issue to resolve, in light of both the accusation as well as the people involved?[/b]
hotdog” = boy
“pizza” = girl
“cheese” = little girl
“pasta” = little boy
“ice cream” = male prostitute
“walnut” = person of colour
“map” = semen
“sauce” = orgy
These we are asked to believe are code words for something rather more sinister. I see no evidence of that. Even if we allow that they are coded messages, there is NO evidence that they refer to child trafficking, child abuse, Satanism or anything else. Its this kind of unsubstantiated, uncorroborated sensationalistic claims that will drive any sentient being interested in empirical evidence away to some other more reasonable source.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt's important if it's true. Just like a colony of space travelers living on the dark side of the Moon.
[b]To answer the question why it is so important posed by HandyAndy…
Why is it not THE most important issue to resolve, in light of both the accusation as well as the people involved?[b]
15 Dec 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThese are not 'stand alone' emails.
This is very well written however I don't find the evidence of the so called 'coded messages', in Podesta emails to be compelling, nor do I think that in context they are logically incongruous. To attempt to make something out of someone talking about walnut sauce is desperate.
hotdog” = boy
“pizza” = girl
“cheese” = little girl
“pasta” = litt ...[text shortened]... e any sentient being interested in empirical evidence away to some other more reasonable source.
It is imperative to view the totality of the whole--- even when the isolated parts are askew.
When is the last time you heard anyone ask whether they could play dominoes better on cheese than on pasta?
Does that sound like a normal question or situation?
Of course not.
It is nonsensical until the intended words replace the coded words.
But the emails aren't really the case.
The case is the sum of the whole rather than the individual parts.
Look at the entire picture and ask yourself: who conducts themselves thusly?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIts just not very compelling. Even if we allow that the Podesta emails contain nonsensical text and even if we substitute words from a list we want to use to prove our theory it still isn't evidence of anything and even if we take it in its entirety and juxtapose all the constituent parts together so as to form a whole it still isn't very compelling.
These are not 'stand alone' emails.
It is imperative to view the totality of the whole--- even when the isolated parts are askew.
When is the last time you heard anyone ask whether they could play dominoes better on cheese than on pasta?
Does that sound like a normal question or situation?
Of course not.
It is nonsensical until the intended w ...[text shortened]... ndividual parts.
Look at the entire picture and ask yourself: who conducts themselves thusly?
15 Dec 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieEven if we allow that the Podesta emails contain nonsensical text...
Its just not very compelling. Even if we allow that the Podesta emails contain nonsensical text and even if we substitute words from a list we want to use to prove our theory it still isn't evidence of anything and even if we take it in its entirety and juxtapose all the constituent parts together so as to form a whole it still isn't very compelling.
Allow?
No one is required to do any favors or stretch credulity here.
Either the sentences found in the various emails make sense, or they don't.
Either people talk (write) to each other along those lines, or they don't.
...and even if we substitute words from a list we want to use to prove our theory...
You're missing the point.
This isn't an attempt to shoehorn the words and actions of a group of people into a preconceived frame of reference.
You're making the suggestion that their words were used to make a coded language--- which is clearly not the case.
Their words were uncovered (read: hacked), read by many people and no one could make any sense out of them: people simply don't speak to each other in that manner.
This isn't a case of someone making a code up; the code has been known and commonly used... well, commonly used among pedophiles at least.
The words which seemed awkward and otherwise out of place were compared with the commonly used words of that sub-culture's vernacular, which, in turn, allowed the readers to make sense of the sentences.
Bottom line: no one is forced to make a convoluted system in order to understand what the people involved are saying.
...and juxtapose all the constituent parts together so as to form a whole it still isn't very compelling.
Then you clearly do not have in view the various parts.
Watch the video I posted, or research the topic.
The OTHER aspects of this group of people's various involvements--- all by themselves--- is enough to inform anyone with common sense that something very disturbing is going on.
15 Dec 16
Originally posted by HandyAndyMy... exposure... to it is limited to what I have found out after the fact.
A code you know... so well.
You see, the difference between this scandal and your silliness is that your childish behavior is borne on your inability to explain away the extremely real possibility that Podesta's emails are the tip of an iceberg which lies in the dark waters, threatening to shred the unsuspecting seafarers' unprotected hull.
So you do the only thing your puerile mind can think of: project onto or otherwise malign the messenger.
Like I could give two s***s about your faggoty responses.
Your pusillanimous 'effort' of casting aspersions on me are not even worth an insulting rejoinder: your lack of vigor and curiosity is enough of a slap to your girlish face, and it wouldn't be prudent to do any more damage to such a fragile psyche.
15 Dec 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat would you like on your pizza?
My... exposure... to it is limited to what I have found out after the fact.
You see, the difference between this scandal and your silliness is that your childish behavior is borne on your inability to explain away the extremely real possibility that Podesta's emails are the tip of an iceberg which lies in the dark waters, threatening to shred the unsusp ...[text shortened]... to your girlish face, and it wouldn't be prudent to do any more damage to such a fragile psyche.