5 ms·

From my observation and IMHO, pedophiles do make use of networks of people to find additional kids to abuse; sometimes it is via a social network with lax super

From my observation and IMHO, pedophiles do make use of networks of people to find additional kids to abuse; sometimes it is via a social network with lax supervision (trust by regular people of a predator), and sometimes, an actual group of pedophiles participating. Of course 2 or more people participating in certain acts, or even assisting a pedophile means "conspiracy". In PizzaGate, I am keeping an open mind, and not scoffing; mainly due to some rather weird Instagram pictures and comments that used to be publicly available, that were linked to Comet Ping Pong and/or the owner. They were quite... unusual.

tptacek 10y ago
Hasn't this Instagram stuff been debunked by the NYT? Whatever you might think of their political leanings, the NYT isn't covering up a pedophilia conspiracy in the service of the campaign manager of a candidate who just lost the election. Why would I trust people who actively cheerlead Putinist fakenews over the NYT's own fact checkers?
- patrickg_zill 10y ago
  You should look for the archived Instagram pages of his and make up your own mind. Neither NYT article that I found, directly address what the innocuous meanings of hash tags like #killroom (with pic of enclosed windowless room) and #chickenlover (pic while holding a young boy) are. Like I said, I found this unusual.
  - pcwalton 10y ago
    > You should look for the archived Instagram pages of his and make up your own mind. No, because the Instagram pictures are faked. Snopes debunked this. http://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/ http://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/
    - trumpSupporter 10y ago
      Is this faked? http://archive.is/9FN8n http://archive.is/9FN8n Snopes has not "debunked" anything. Once, the couple who run the Snopes blog were good at investigating urban legends and such. In recent years they have gotten more political and more obvious in their selective coverage to fit an agenda. Note, I am 100% against harassing the guy and his business, but you cannot deny his instagram had the pictures on it. Does that justify a barrage of internet hate and accusations of criminality? No. But lying about Instagram pictures being faked when they weren't is also not helpful. More 'fake' instagram posts tied to comet ping pong that make the conspiracy nuts raise their eyebrows: http://archive.is/jXWrG http://archive.is/jXWrG http://archive.is/8xQIo http://archive.is/8xQIo http://archive.is/mKH6M http://archive.is/mKH6M http://archive.is/dJoiL http://archive.is/dJoiL http://archive.is/S742A http://archive.is/S742A [NSFW] http://archive.is/S6jzu http://archive.is/S6jzu http://archive.is/8Bq8e http://archive.is/8Bq8e
      - pcwalton 10y ago
        Surprisingly, I'm quite comfortable with my decision to trust the New York Times' investigative reporting team (which is what Snopes links to regarding this Instagram matter) over "archive.is" links created by Reddit and 4chan.
        Nadya 10y ago
        This is an edited screenshot of your post [0] with my personal user style applied. This is an archive.is link of your post [1]. Feel free to edit or delete this post. The edited screenshot should not and cannot be trusted to be valid. The archive link, on the other hand, can be trusted to have been a 3rd party 'screenshot' of your post at the time the archive was taken. Unless you are suggesting archive.is is a malicious actor or has any known cases of editing or changing archives made using its service. To my knowledge, there is no evidence or reason to believe either accusation. The archive.is links are not "created" by 4chan or Reddit users. The links are created by request of the service. It shouldn't matter who requests the service as long as the service is reliable. If the NYT investigative report team claims the archive.is links are doctored - I'd lose my faith in the NYT's ability to investigate as they have clearly failed in their duty. [0] http://i.imgur.com/ip7pxSX.png http://i.imgur.com/ip7pxSX.png [1] http://archive.is/7pz3G http://archive.is/7pz3G
    - patrickg_zill 10y ago
      There's no evidence that archive.is or other archive sites have been hacked, or that they modified what they present as archived pages. The snopes page doesn't even use simple photoshop methods to show how the images were modified.

tptacek 10y ago

Hasn't this Instagram stuff been debunked by the NYT? Whatever you might think of their political leanings, the NYT isn't covering up a pedophilia conspiracy in the service of the campaign manager of a candidate who just lost the election. Why would I trust people who actively cheerlead Putinist fakenews over the NYT's own fact checkers?

patrickg_zill 10y ago
You should look for the archived Instagram pages of his and make up your own mind. Neither NYT article that I found, directly address what the innocuous meanings of hash tags like #killroom (with pic of enclosed windowless room) and #chickenlover (pic while holding a young boy) are. Like I said, I found this unusual.
- pcwalton 10y ago
  > You should look for the archived Instagram pages of his and make up your own mind. No, because the Instagram pictures are faked. Snopes debunked this. http://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/ http://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/
  - trumpSupporter 10y ago
    Is this faked? http://archive.is/9FN8n http://archive.is/9FN8n Snopes has not "debunked" anything. Once, the couple who run the Snopes blog were good at investigating urban legends and such. In recent years they have gotten more political and more obvious in their selective coverage to fit an agenda. Note, I am 100% against harassing the guy and his business, but you cannot deny his instagram had the pictures on it. Does that justify a barrage of internet hate and accusations of criminality? No. But lying about Instagram pictures being faked when they weren't is also not helpful. More 'fake' instagram posts tied to comet ping pong that make the conspiracy nuts raise their eyebrows: http://archive.is/jXWrG http://archive.is/jXWrG http://archive.is/8xQIo http://archive.is/8xQIo http://archive.is/mKH6M http://archive.is/mKH6M http://archive.is/dJoiL http://archive.is/dJoiL http://archive.is/S742A http://archive.is/S742A [NSFW] http://archive.is/S6jzu http://archive.is/S6jzu http://archive.is/8Bq8e http://archive.is/8Bq8e
    - pcwalton 10y ago
      Surprisingly, I'm quite comfortable with my decision to trust the New York Times' investigative reporting team (which is what Snopes links to regarding this Instagram matter) over "archive.is" links created by Reddit and 4chan.
      - Nadya 10y ago
        This is an edited screenshot of your post [0] with my personal user style applied. This is an archive.is link of your post [1]. Feel free to edit or delete this post. The edited screenshot should not and cannot be trusted to be valid. The archive link, on the other hand, can be trusted to have been a 3rd party 'screenshot' of your post at the time the archive was taken. Unless you are suggesting archive.is is a malicious actor or has any known cases of editing or changing archives made using its service. To my knowledge, there is no evidence or reason to believe either accusation. The archive.is links are not "created" by 4chan or Reddit users. The links are created by request of the service. It shouldn't matter who requests the service as long as the service is reliable. If the NYT investigative report team claims the archive.is links are doctored - I'd lose my faith in the NYT's ability to investigate as they have clearly failed in their duty. [0] http://i.imgur.com/ip7pxSX.png http://i.imgur.com/ip7pxSX.png [1] http://archive.is/7pz3G http://archive.is/7pz3G
  - patrickg_zill 10y ago
    There's no evidence that archive.is or other archive sites have been hacked, or that they modified what they present as archived pages. The snopes page doesn't even use simple photoshop methods to show how the images were modified.