What legitimacy can be given to the 'Pizzagate' theory? | Hacker News Reader

What legitimacy can be given to the 'Pizzagate' theory?

7 pointsjdironman8 comments

I am curious. I am concerned. I am American. I want proof of evidence, or proof of false evidence. I feel something this profound affects a lot of people. I don't want to be a catalyst in 'conspiracy propaganda' but I need to know if any truly un-biased and credible experts have weighed in?

Wikipedia has it listed as 'Debunked' and a google search returns this as a headline article:

"The malicious spread of fake news online had very real consequences on Sunday, when a 28-year-old North Carolina man—inspired by an outrageous conspiracy theory known as "Pizzagate"—walked into a popular Washington, D.C. pizzeria and fired several shots from an AR-15."

from the esquire.com

Every link on the first page of search results is demanding that it is 'fake', 'debunked', etc. But how is it debunked? Why is it debunked? Why is there a die-hard following on reddit.com and voat.co pushing for it to be acknowledged? Is that the 'hive-mind' at work?

I am just looking for answers and thoughts. Thank you.

To be fair there's no proof of a crime thus far: just a large pile of circumstantial evidence (creepy instagram pics and comments, many awkwardly worded emails about pizza and hot dogs and kids in pools being entertainment, and many other things like that) that people are choosing to interpret in a specific way. Everybody is obviously innocent before being proven guilty, but many people who look at so many of the weird aspects of this believe that there's something going on here: at the very least they could be speaking in code about something.

Interesting to me that the media wants to jump up and down and is so hysterical and adamant about saying "it's debunked!" when it doesn't look like there's any interest by the police to even look into this. Supposedly, somebody filed a FOIA request to get info on the DC police's investigation into these allegations and despite previously saying that their investigation hasn't yielded any proof of a crime, it turns out that they never even investigated it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omlQHWrgmd4

But the media swears up and down that it's already been debunked. I don't get that.

That was the tipping point for me. How readily, without reason / evidence / proof, that it was debunked by the media. I am not a person who jumps to conclusions. I draw conclusions based on facts. But when they can say that it is 'debunked' without facts, while actual material exists that points to, at the very least, shady material surrounding it...then I have not choice but to question things. I come to the HN community because anything note worthy is highly scrutinized here. I appreciate that about HN and it is the only reason I even bring the topic to the table here.

I suggest you do your own research. Download John Podesta's emails from WikiLeaks and look through them, and search for the words "pizza", "pasta", and "cheese". The legitimacy I see is that the words "pizza", "pasta", and "cheese" in those emails were absolutely being used as codewords.

What those codewords actually meant to their authors could still be up for debate (depending on your level of skepticism), but they make absolutely no sense as non-codewords in the excerpt, "Do you think I'll do better playing dominos on cheese than on pasta."

The word "pizza" in those emails was being used as a codeword for something. That was enough legitimacy for me.

[Edit: Just re-read your question, and you seem to be searching for an "un-biased" and "credible expert" to weigh in. In this case/investigation, I don't believe such an appeal to authority will work (because the authorities, such as we have in this country, are complicit). You have to become your own expert.]

Example from: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32795 "Hi John, The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related. Is it yorus?"

The Podestas' taste in 'art' is horrible in every way. A mild example: http://i.imgur.com/PMVvrRy.jpg

Thanks for having the courage to ask about it in a honest way. Sounds like you realize Wikipedia is never a source; It's a perception management platform. Checkout the revision history for the Gulf of Tonkin for example... Their 9/11/01 omissions will themselves will be the subject of future psychology (and PSYOP) books.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/Prete...

Eventually, you lean to stop listening to the so called "experts" and start doing your own research. Get the facts straight from 1st hand sources like John Podesta's own leaked e-mails, instead of listening to 2nd hand sources like CNN.

That has been my only source of info. My searches on it. I don't trust myself enough to know what I have read though. It could be typos, it could be code words unrelated, or it could be more.

Although saying "that kids will be there for entertainment", listing their ages, and saying that they might get in the pool is a mighty odd thing to say. Although some people do enjoy just watching kids play as it is simple things that take stress off like that. I don't know their context or relations. I guess I need to research more.

Here, some more info, this time, by CBS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5AxV1SrTkE

Reply on news.ycombinator.com