"You mean the person who has repeatedly posted false info? Photos where they claim to have secret information that were just taken from other websites, that peo

"You mean the person who has repeatedly posted false info? Photos where they claim to have secret information that were just taken from other websites, that people were arrested who haven't been... so on." This does not meaningfully distinguish Q from any other media outlet. You may note, reading between the lines of this conversation to date, that I don't exactly give a lot of blind credibility to anybody claiming to have information for me. "What exactly is that?" That powerful people are involved with more sex crimes then we thought before. You kinda didn't get what you expected out of this conversation, did you? You expected to be dealing with some sort of raving lunatic who could be easily mocked for boldly overreaching. Unfortunately, you're kinda the one overreaching here. "Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory that is not true and anyone who believes it or even entertains it is crazy, therefore any evidence that could potentially point to it being true must be false and/or unimportant, therefore these bits of information can't be important and must not mean anything, lest anybody give any credence to a false conspiracy theory", which I think is what you're trying to feed me here, is not a logically-defensible position; it is as riddled with fallacies as "Pizzagate is probably true so the slightest bit of evidence that seems to support it should be immediately believed and is also probably true and also proves Pizzagate, which will also prove the next bit of evidence true." In fact, it's almost the same bundle of fallacies in both cases.