First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Lala thinks Pizzagate is real...
18 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/3/16
Yea it sounds fucking retarded, worse than those sandy hook conspiracies. Seriously all this just sounds like a big confirmation bias feeding in on itself. Do you honestly believe there are people conspiring to rape children? Like that is the biggest thing on their list. These people are probably focused on invading some 3rd world country, if they wanted to have sexual relations with children they'd just lower the age of consent like Europe did. They'd even do it openly like they do with homosexuality.



Anyone who buys into this shit is a literal fucking retard just scarping the bottom of the barrel trying to find something incriminating foolishly believing they are some internet keyboard warrior changing the world. Lmao KYS

6386 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 12/3/16

LalaSatalin wrote:


Adjacent-Taurus wrote:

He's not doubting you because he is a naive (if that is what you're trying to imply) he's doubting you because your second hand information has too many discrepancies your information does not match up with reality. The common thing that most investigators should do is investigate and see for themselves. So that means drag your own ass to Washington and take a look around to see if the what you observe align with the information you have at hand to validate it.

So on the account of personal experience with psychopaths we should gobble it up and listen and believe? That sounds like what these SJW feminist would say "listen and believe." First, everyone's experiences are subjective and second, how can I take your word for it?

Also I think the word you're looking for is Sociopath and not Psychopath because if these people would like to remain Incognito acting out of the ordinary would draw attention to themselves.


Lala is referring to a community of psychopaths that share the same hobbies. Your argument that this should be investigated by foot is true, that's why people are working on spreading Pizzagate. Not everyone is capable or brave enough, as many have been killed, and some people don't have the time and money. The strongest thing for Pizzagate is numbers, to get more people to know about it and speak up against it.


Oh good. Large numbers of people, almost none of whom actually level official allegations and only bitch on the internet about it. Yeah, way to "speak up against it". And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously? I mean aside from your pointless fixation with talking about yourself in the third person?

Or, if you want the more simplified version: Report or gtfo.
Gets It.
25746 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Raleigh, North Ca...
Offline
Posted 12/3/16 , edited 12/3/16

LalaSatalin wrote:
Lala made the point that cropping is part of what makes up the picture because it's true. That specific cropping was made to look like an underaged girl's butt. Your pictures represent who you are. If you open your "Pictures" folder, you will understand that the pictures you collect define your tastes. None of this is second-hand information, it is directly on his Instagram account. Basically, you repeated your previous post and we're back in a loop because you haven't addressed Lala's point.


I repeated my previous post because your response actually didn't make any sense. What cropping do you speak of? In the image you linked to his instagram, it's merely the piece from "Made in Heaven" that was hanging up the Whitney Museum of Art. That's actually the image in its entirety - like many of Koons' photos in that exhibition. This is why I implored you to investigate further because you're talking nonsensical about an image that you clearly you've never seen others in the same exhibition to understand the context. It not only refutes your point, but disproves it entirely. There's no "cropping to make it look like an underage girl's body". If you're considering that image to deliberately look like that of an underaged girl's body, you'll think about 95% of men who look at porn are pedophiles too. Which, again, is why it seems that everything you say is just taking it to the "furthest extreme" without any real facts


LalaSatalin wrote:
All you did in this paragraph was define the mission and background of ICMEC, which is somehow supposed to refute Lala's tip about current speculation over the possibility of Jeff Koons being a blackmail victim of the pedophile network. Lala simply made a tip, not a point. There is also speculation that he's a part of it. Then again, this wasn't supposed to be a point, because Lala's not the one speculating about Jeff Koons. Somehow Lala's single sentence about the current situation of the investigation made you write a whole paragraph about the background of ICMEC, while Lala was expecting a paragraph addressing Lala's point that there's a mountain of evidence pointing to Alefantis' pedophilia.


So you're basically going in between what you consider as "Facts" and "speculation" as if it has any merit to begin with? You're speaking in circular logic and should probably stop referring to yourself in the third person. If we were to follow the same method of analysis that you've taken in this particular thread, one would conclude that you have a disassociative personality disorder because you don't trust your own "self" enough to post on a forum. But, see, that's the issue with "slippery slopes" - they're easy to state something as fact from a few breadcrumbs.

That aside, the reason why your "singular sentence" spawned a paragraph in response was due to the absurdity of your so-called "tip". The way you outlined it, you made it sound as though you were accusing Koons as being a perpetrator in the whole "pizzagate" conspiracy because of his history with the ICMEC. You're basically taking anything I say and try to find some reason why it doesn't "prove" you wrong. I'm merely stating that the things you consider as fact are not actually facts. It's all speculation.


LalaSatalin wrote:
What is the "this" you're referring to in the first sentence? Lala was addressing your point that there are lolicons in anime culture also. If the way Lala is processing the fact that there are several established pedophiles, molesters, and rapists surrounding these people wrong, you should at least explain why because that's a pretty grand statement. John Podesta himself casually attests to his concurrent relationship with another rapist which Lala didn't mention earlier. The sources Lala linked are from New York Times, CNN and New York Post, do you trust these sources? It's only normal to investigate the people of the same community, otherwise we would have never known that the entire football team was in on Steubenville High School rape case either.


"This" as in your entire argument with linking things that do not correlate with one another. This is how you (and most people who are "pizzagate believers") analyze the information you have in front of you:



<scenario A> means that <person A> is <adjective>
<secnario A> does not support <adjective> directly, but gives the suspicion of <adjective> therefore it is true.
<scenario B> has images that supports that <person A> is <adjective>, but source of <scenario B> is unknown, but because we think that <adjective> is true because of the earlier "fact" we created then <scenario B> does not require additional creditability.


This is considered a "slippery slope". If you're curious as to why I keep using this term, see here: https://www.embl.de/aboutus/science_society/discussion/discussion_2004/ref14may04.pdf (this is not a professional documentation, but a paper I've found online that explains the logical fallacy that is a "slippery slope"). Ultimately, you're falling into a trap of repeating yourself because you believe these things to be "facts" where they're just weak correlations because you believe it.


LalaSatalin wrote:
1.) Lala thinks that saying that they don't have time to address the legitimacy of the emails is a pretty weak argument. It's pretty easy to falsify a set of specific emails. In fact, John Podesta hasn't made a public appearance for almost a month now. What is he doing? To call the Wikileaks emails fake is illogical, and it's no wonder you don't believe in Pizzagate if you're still stuck at this point.


It looks like you've only skipped over my statement here.
My point is the emails have not been confirmed to be absolutely true nor have they been confirmed to be absolutely false. Speculation from the emails can only be just that, speculation. Unless someone outright said, "Hey, pick up a kid and bring him back here for lunch so I can have sex with him" - it's not even a breadcrumb that can easily be followed.


LalaSatalin wrote:
2.) It is a fact because there's backed evidence, similar to the fact that leaves are green because it looks green. Lala would like to point you back to the first paragraph of this post, and to argue against this fact is to believe that John Podesta collects grotesque images of underaged children for purposes other than pedophilia. Lala asks if you've heard of Occam's Razor, because Lala thinks it applies here, and it's necessary to accept this fact in order to proceed with the investigations before it's all too late. Children's lives are at stake, and they won't be able to wait for long.


Occam's Razor doesn't apply here, Lala. You're discrediting someone and marking them as a criminal because it's the easiest possible explanation. The correlations are simply too vague to actually apply Occam's Razor in a scientifically sound way.


" It is a fact because there's backed evidence, similar to the fact that leaves are green because it looks green."


Not quite. Where is this "backed evidence" of yours to be able to paint such a wide stroke that would allow for Occam's Razor to be sufficient in this conversation? Your "backed evidence" is merely repeated information from /r/The_Donald which is filled with confirmation bias.


LalaSatalin wrote:
3.) It's quite clear to Lala that either you haven't read the emails, or you're filtering out the important ones because you don't want to believe what's in front of you. Is it better to play dominos on pizza than on pasta? Lala would like you to answer this unsolved mystery, and this will show whether you're taking this seriously at all.


I've read the emails and all of the proclaimed "evidence" that is laid out in this thread and on /r/The_Donald. "Is it better to play dominos on pizza than on pasta" - ah, yes, the notorious quotation from Podesta's email to Herbert and Marion Sandler of the Sandler Foundation.
Word salad would not befit any type of conspiracy, would it? Considering these are monitored emails in more than one way, why would he insert such prominent word salad if he was trying to remain "incognito"? While there may be some BDSM-related terminology here, the speculation that there's code words for pederasty here is pretty weak; outside of user-generated pages that have mysteriously been upvoted since the election period (like Urban Dictionary's definition of "cheese"). I want to answer your question with a question:

If Podesta was meant to be part of an undercover sex ring or child trafficking ring, why would several reporters know about it as well as his entire family? -- (source: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/35581)

All of the word salad phrases used are used with people that aren't really "high up" on the totem pole, nor are they really important whatsoever in the mainstream media. Some of the Podesta e-mails (I've read about 700 e-mails on my own, not including the ones linked throughout the conspiracy theory posts on Reddit and INFO WARS) have these same so-called "code words" and phrases in them to people who are merely supporters of Clinton - or "managers/supervisors" of DNC SuperPACs (almost as low as you can go on the political totem pole). They know what he's talking about, there's talk of dinners and conversations, and some of them have stepped forward explaining that it was merely about organized dinners.

Wait, maybe I should use Occam's Razor here - "He's sixty-seven years old. Word salad is a symptom of Dementia and Alzheimer's, which are the easiest correlations because he's been treated for onset dementia before." (see? Occam's Razor cannot be applied conveniently like that without sounding asinine).


LalaSatalin wrote:
So assuming that a person who collects grotesque images of under-aged children is a pedophile, that somebody who uses established pedophile code-words in manners that make no contextual sense is using code-words, and that the Wikileaks emails are legitimate because they've been legitimized by the actual people in question is "overthinking" to you. Lala thinks the brain can do wonders, because to Lala that's the most simplest conclusion possible.


Yes, because there's little evidence of the "grotesque images of underaged children" in his house, nor using established pedophile codewords without context. Wikileaks emails have been classified as fully legimate because they're not able to be legitimized due to it coming from an unknown source (Wikileaks didn't hack Podesta's e-mail, therefore the source themselves could be sketchy). And this is what I mean by "overthinking". You're using fuzzy logic processes to formulate a theory. Said fuzzy logic is due to confirmation bias from emails that were illegally leaked from an unknown source who could have political reasons for not only hacking them but leaking them as well while being placed under scrutiny by people who use Google as their sole source of knowledge ......... yes, that's "overthinking". That's basically people wanting to see these things as facts because it's the "most simplest conclusion possible" (your words, not mine).

I'll repeat myself: the things you're spewing as "facts" are still merely bits of speculation. Just like if I held a leaf in my hand without showing you a picture of it, it may or may not be green. You can speculate that it's green because I say it "looks green" but it could be brown or red; since I'd be color blind while describing it to you. (in reference to the whole "similar to the fact that leaves are green because it looks green" analogy).

--------------------------------

Regarding the rest of your response - tunnels under the ground of NW Connecticut Ave? Yeah, you should really go to Washington DC and walk along Connecticut Ave. See how connected the newer buildings are to the DC Metro. Keep in mind that Comet's building was constructed in 2004. Blueprints were registered and not forged; but nobody's brought that up either (the fact that you can walk into local courthouse and get a copy of the blueprints). Because of how cities are, even the secret passages in some of the earliest built houses are listed in the blueprints (because in the past, it was required but these records weren't public until much later). Your examples are non sequitur - unrelated to the topic and just trying to add substance to a baseless argument that "it can happen, so this probably is happening" (which would contribute to your liberal reference of Occam's Razor in your response).

Witness accounts amount to nothing when you're trying to get a case to be investigated. You need evidence, the real kind. Not a photoshop of a few articles clipped together with someone using MS Paint to show "correlation".
4673 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / Decemberunderground
Offline
Posted 12/3/16
Your posts are so hard to get through I have to hold back the urge to vomit when every sentences starts with Lala *insert word here*
38002 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 12/3/16

Kerst wrote:

Your posts are so hard to get through I have to hold back the urge to vomit when every sentences starts with Lala *insert word here*


It just seems that Lala likes to remain in character. Some Japanese dialects are done in the third person. So, Lala speaks of him/her-self in the third person. That's how it is.
4673 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / Decemberunderground
Offline
Posted 12/3/16

DeadlyOats wrote:


Kerst wrote:

Your posts are so hard to get through I have to hold back the urge to vomit when every sentences starts with Lala *insert word here*


It just seems that Lala likes to remain in character. Some Japanese dialects are done in the third person. So, Lala speaks of him/her-self in the third person. That's how it is.


She's doing it to be cute. Its irritating.
Posted 12/4/16 , edited 12/7/16

ninjitsuko wrote:

I repeated my previous post because your response actually didn't make any sense. What cropping do you speak of? In the image you linked to his instagram, it's merely the piece from "Made in Heaven" that was hanging up the Whitney Museum of Art. That's actually the image in its entirety - like many of Koons' photos in that exhibition. This is why I implored you to investigate further because you're talking nonsensical about an image that you clearly you've never seen others in the same exhibition to understand the context. It not only refutes your point, but disproves it entirely. There's no "cropping to make it look like an underage girl's body". If you're considering that image to deliberately look like that of an underaged girl's body, you'll think about 95% of men who look at porn are pedophiles too. Which, again, is why it seems that everything you say is just taking it to the "furthest extreme" without any real facts


Lala thinks you're being silly. Lala is clearly referring to the dimensions of the photo, and that its angle and exposure makes it appear like an under-aged girl's butt. Why do you pretend not to understand Lala's point when Lala says "cropped", even after Lala showed a video example of what Lala is talking about? Must Lala spoon-feed you? Clearly Lala was indicating that the rest of the body isn't showing. Regardless of whether it's a legal photo or not (you haven't shown evidence that this specific photo is a legal butt), the image appeals to pedophiles, and Alefantis' choosing to upload that specific photo is a hint to his sexual preference. Are you denying that it looks like a little girl's butt? If so, Lala thinks you're lying to yourself, but it's true that it's a subjective matter. So Lala asks your theory on why Alefantis' profile picture is that of a famous pedophile deity, and how it's the "furthest extreme" to assume he's a pedophile based on this and other evidences.

So according to you, using the FBI classified pedophile logos as a reference, and discovering that the owner of the pizza shop with the same logos has a profile picture of a pedophile god, to further find out that he uploads tons of inappropriate photos of little children with tags such as #hotard, #chickenlovers, and even photos of putting a price on a baby is nothing that would raise suspicions in the mind of an FBI investigator. So Lala asks, what is the point of the logo document if it's completely useless? Lala wonders how you even get on with life, do you require physical evidence before making speculation on anything? How could an investigation start without previous suspicions?

Does it not mean anything that the very suspect happened to be accused for rape and murder back in 2008 by a neighborhood commissioner? Lala admits, clarification would be helpful, but at this point Lala wouldn't be surprised if he was blackmailed. The fact that one of the band members specifically reference pedophilia at one of the parties at the shop means nothing? Lala has never seen a community so open about their preferences for little boys before. So the drawings of Podesta's favorite artist must be completely normal as well. Then it must also be a "furthest extreme" to assume someone likes anime, if they collect pictures of anime as well.


So you're basically going in between what you consider as "Facts" and "speculation" as if it has any merit to begin with? You're speaking in circular logic and should probably stop referring to yourself in the third person. If we were to follow the same method of analysis that you've taken in this particular thread, one would conclude that you have a disassociative personality disorder because you don't trust your own "self" enough to post on a forum. But, see, that's the issue with "slippery slopes" - they're easy to state something as fact from a few breadcrumbs.


Lala sees through your empty claims. Where is the "circular logic" in Lala's statement about the current situation of the Pizzagate investigations? Logic isn't even required, it's the same thing as providing a report to a senior officer about the progress of case investigations. It's not something that needs to involve logic. It's just saying things how they are.


That aside, the reason why your "singular sentence" spawned a paragraph in response was due to the absurdity of your so-called "tip". The way you outlined it, you made it sound as though you were accusing Koons as being a perpetrator in the whole "pizzagate" conspiracy because of his history with the ICMEC. You're basically taking anything I say and try to find some reason why it doesn't "prove" you wrong. I'm merely stating that the things you consider as fact are not actually facts. It's all speculation.


Lala would like you to address Lala's main points, instead of writing paragraphs on trivial statements that aren't part of the reasoning for Lala's claims. Lala won't be tricked, especially considering you've managed to not even quote half of Lala's previous post here.


This is considered a "slippery slope". If you're curious as to why I keep using this term, see here: https://www.embl.de/aboutus/science_society/discussion/discussion_2004/ref14may04.pdf (this is not a professional documentation, but a paper I've found online that explains the logical fallacy that is a "slippery slope"). Ultimately, you're falling into a trap of repeating yourself because you believe these things to be "facts" where they're just weak correlations because you believe it.


You ignored Lala's point, again: It's only normal to investigate the people of the same community, otherwise we would have never known that the entire football team was in on Steubenville High School rape case either. There are numerous pedophiles charged for child molestation surroundings these people, and John Podesta himself casually attests to a continuing relationship with another rapist. This warrants investigation. Lala does not appreciate how you misinterpret Lala's point. When there's a clear pattern of molesters in the same community, investigation is required. It would only be a slippery slope if Lala drew a conclusion from this pattern, which is a straw-man argument because Lala never did that. Lala asks you to take this seriously.


It looks like you've only skipped over my statement here.
My point is the emails have not been confirmed to be absolutely true nor have they been confirmed to be absolutely false. Speculation from the emails can only be just that, speculation. Unless someone outright said, "Hey, pick up a kid and bring him back here for lunch so I can have sex with him" - it's not even a breadcrumb that can easily be followed.


Lala asks you to stop sitting on the fence for something as serious as child-trafficking. If the Wikileaks emails are fake, then Pizzagate crumbles, but if they are true, there is no time to waste. This isn't a game. You are foolish if you require specific words to consider the possibility of this scandal, how many times must Lala remind you of this convenient system called code-wording? If you want to see a literal email, Lala recalls a disgusting one about little children being entertainment for Podesta in the hot tub with the ages neatly specified (7, 9, and 11). Of course, Lala knows that this is normal to you as well.


Occam's Razor doesn't apply here, Lala. You're discrediting someone and marking them as a criminal because it's the easiest possible explanation. The correlations are simply too vague to actually apply Occam's Razor in a scientifically sound way.

Not quite. Where is this "backed evidence" of yours to be able to paint such a wide stroke that would allow for Occam's Razor to be sufficient in this conversation? Your "backed evidence" is merely repeated information from /r/The_Donald which is filled with confirmation bias.


Occam's Razor is a pragmatic approach to life. When police officers see a suspicious looking man in a hoodie with needle marks on his arm, they don't ask themselves philosophical questions about whether the hoodie actually exists or if the needles are just an illusion created by the world. If Lala can spot an anime fan based on the anime pictures they upload on their social network account, then Lala can also spot a pedophile if he collects pedophile pictures.


I've read the emails and all of the proclaimed "evidence" that is laid out in this thread and on /r/The_Donald. "Is it better to play dominos on pizza than on pasta" - ah, yes, the notorious quotation from Podesta's email to Herbert and Marion Sandler of the Sandler Foundation.
Word salad would not befit any type of conspiracy, would it? Considering these are monitored emails in more than one way, why would he insert such prominent word salad if he was trying to remain "incognito"? While there may be some BDSM-related terminology here, the speculation that there's code words for pederasty here is pretty weak; outside of user-generated pages that have mysteriously been upvoted since the election period (like Urban Dictionary's definition of "cheese"). I want to answer your question with a question:

If Podesta was meant to be part of an undercover sex ring or child trafficking ring, why would several reporters know about it as well as his entire family? -- (source: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/35581)

All of the word salad phrases used are used with people that aren't really "high up" on the totem pole, nor are they really important whatsoever in the mainstream media. Some of the Podesta e-mails (I've read about 700 e-mails on my own, not including the ones linked throughout the conspiracy theory posts on Reddit and INFO WARS) have these same so-called "code words" and phrases in them to people who are merely supporters of Clinton - or "managers/supervisors" of DNC SuperPACs (almost as low as you can go on the political totem pole). They know what he's talking about, there's talk of dinners and conversations, and some of them have stepped forward explaining that it was merely about organized dinners.

Wait, maybe I should use Occam's Razor here - "He's sixty-seven years old. Word salad is a symptom of Dementia and Alzheimer's, which are the easiest correlations because he's been treated for onset dementia before." (see? Occam's Razor cannot be applied conveniently like that without sounding asinine).


Where do you hide a tree? In a forest. Not all of them have to be code-words, Lala spots your fallacy. Now Lala will ask again: Is it better to play dominos on pizza or pasta? Secondly, where does Lala find a handkerchief with a pizza-related map?


Yes, because there's little evidence of the "grotesque images of underaged children" in his house, nor using established pedophile codewords without context. Wikileaks emails have been classified as fully legimate because they're not able to be legitimized due to it coming from an unknown source (Wikileaks didn't hack Podesta's e-mail, therefore the source themselves could be sketchy). And this is what I mean by "overthinking". You're using fuzzy logic processes to formulate a theory. Said fuzzy logic is due to confirmation bias from emails that were illegally leaked from an unknown source who could have political reasons for not only hacking them but leaking them as well while being placed under scrutiny by people who use Google as their sole source of knowledge ......... yes, that's "overthinking". That's basically people wanting to see these things as facts because it's the "most simplest conclusion possible" (your words, not mine).


So Podesta's own claim about displaying "awkward pictures" in his house is a lie? Have you even seen the images from Lala's first post? Finally, what alternative explanation do you offer for Washington Post removing an article about Podesta's nude children collection? Lala asks for an explanation. Or is this overthinking also?


I'll repeat myself: the things you're spewing as "facts" are still merely bits of speculation. Just like if I held a leaf in my hand without showing you a picture of it, it may or may not be green. You can speculate that it's green because I say it "looks green" but it could be brown or red; since I'd be color blind while describing it to you. (in reference to the whole "similar to the fact that leaves are green because it looks green" analogy).


Sorry, Lala likes to live in reality. Lala doesn't question whether a knife-wielding freak in front of Lala is truly holding a knife, or whether it's actually a spoon, that's just impractical.
6386 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 12/4/16


Seriously lady, you're a fucking joke. It's absolutely pathetic that you want to push accusations of pedophilia onto people without even going to authorities. It would be hilarious if what you were doing didn't have the possibility of ruining the careers of innocent people.

Report or gtfo.
Gets It.
25746 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Raleigh, North Ca...
Offline
Posted 12/4/16

LalaSatalin wrote:


Sorry, I cannot take you seriously when all you do is attempt to pretend that your statements are factual.
You're pretty much a clone of "RaisedInACult" who kept repeating himself without any evidence outside of logical fallcies. This is why I didn't want to get into this discussion with you or anyone else on this forum. You cannot prove a negative. This is a philosophical logic - one that you're repeating into the ground.

My overall point is this:

You should stop spewing speculation as fact when you have no evidence to support said facts.

That, my friend, is a fact. Circumstantial evidence is just that. All of your comments have been based on confirmation bias without any actual analysis, thus - you're just repeating what you've heard elsewhere without investigating it. I, on the other hand, have investigated all of these so-called claims and am still skeptical because nobody has enough evidence in the physical domain to prove it. The basement has been proven not to exist outside of a pantry (which is too small for the so-called "party basement" rooms for child trafficking). There are no underground passageways on Connecticut Avenue that link to the location where Comet has been built.

You believe it because you want to believe it. Please, for the love of all things sensical, stop referring to yourself in the third person because it undermines your argument even further. While DeadlyOats may try to state that it's a linguistic thing, I argue that you disassociate yourself from your statements - which implies that you're trolling.

I'm done on this thread, carry on arguing with someone who's going to continue to waste their time with someone who doesn't accept reality.

Posted 12/4/16

ninjitsuko wrote:

Sorry, I cannot take you seriously when all you do is attempt to pretend that your statements are factual.
You're pretty much a clone of "RaisedInACult" who kept repeating himself without any evidence outside of logical fallcies. This is why I didn't want to get into this discussion with you or anyone else on this forum. You cannot prove a negative. This is a philosophical logic - one that you're repeating into the ground.

My overall point is this:

You should stop spewing speculation as fact when you have no evidence to support said facts.

That, my friend, is a fact. Circumstantial evidence is just that. All of your comments have been based on confirmation bias without any actual analysis, thus - you're just repeating what you've heard elsewhere without investigating it. I, on the other hand, have investigated all of these so-called claims and am still skeptical because nobody has enough evidence in the physical domain to prove it. The basement has been proven not to exist outside of a pantry (which is too small for the so-called "party basement" rooms for child trafficking). There are no underground passageways on Connecticut Avenue that link to the location where Comet has been built.

You believe it because you want to believe it. Please, for the love of all things sensical, stop referring to yourself in the third person because it undermines your argument even further. While DeadlyOats may try to state that it's a linguistic thing, I argue that you disassociate yourself from your statements - which implies that you're trolling.

I'm done on this thread, carry on arguing with someone who's going to continue to waste their time with someone who doesn't accept reality.



Lala wonders whether it's actually Lala who's not facing reality, when you made a witness statement here as a former customer, that Comet does not have two stories, which contradicts the property report that says it has two stories, which logically leads to the possibility of a basement. The hypothesis of a basement in Comet Ping Pong is further supported by the owner's own statement himself from 2015, which he contradicted last week. So we've got two testimonies: yours and the suspect's. Lala asks, what more evidence do you want?

Secondly, Lala emphasised here that the basement allegations aren't limited to Comet Ping Pong. James Alefantis owns other shops, and it's been confirmed here that Buck's Fishing and Camping, his other shop, has a basement: "Last year, Alefantis estimates, he bought 12 tons of Toigo tomatoes, which Stello turned into sauce and canned before trucking the jars to the basement at Buck's Fishing & Camping, Alefantis' other restaurant nearby." This is also supported by its property report, citing two levels.

Finally, Lala emphasises again that the basement allegations aren't limited to Comet Ping Pong. There is increasing evidence that the entire street is owned by the same group of people, based on the fact that multiple properties were sold off for $0 on the same date.
Posted 12/4/16
Lala doesn't want to believe this. Lala prays every day that this is all a lie. But how can Lala be convinced, when none of the media outlets show proof that this is false? When the suspect contradicts himself? When people don't explain their ideas with proper reasoning? Lala sees new evidence pointing to the existence of a child-trafficking ring every single day, and it doesn't seem to slow down. This is something that cannot be ignored. The police sketches perfectly match the Podesta brothers, and none of the media outlets have addressed that fact. Somehow, media has the power to debunk a statement without evidence.
41937 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / an utter mess
Offline
Posted 12/4/16 , edited 12/4/16
Lala. Sweetheart. you need your head checked.
6386 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 12/4/16


"This cannot be ignored"

Says the one ignoring the horrible crimes she claims to be true and not putting in any actual effort to stop them.

Practice the bullshit you preach. Report or gtfo
Posted 12/4/16 , edited 12/4/16
This is the last time Lala will speak to the NPC. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 times you've just parroted the same line "report or gtfo". This may be a shock to someone who's so enclosed in their own worldview, but Lala has received personal messages from others saying "thank you" for this thread. Lala is flabbergasted that people can so vehemently defend a group of potential child-traffickers, without even being able to support their views other than "common sense" and "because I say so". Lala thinks NPCs are people who do not play a role in this world and the battle of good vs. evil, completely ignorant on the evils of this world. Stay comfortable, and enjoy the ride because we aren't stopping until they get exposed.

~NPCs will be ignored
Posted 12/4/16
I thought your name said LalaStalin at first
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.