Posted on 12/06/2016 4:26:29 PM PST by grundle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVSA2Jjelo
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Maybe there really is something, but if this is the creepy e-mail? Wow, I just can't fathom.
You sound like homosexuals saying anybody who’s homophobic is really homosexual.
“Do idiots who put out “clickbait to get ad revenue” have IP addresses that expose them to litigation?”
Every website has an IP address.
“Uhuh - and yet this one appears to still be in business.”
Yes, there are plenty of these websites out there in business.
“Just how many “hoaxes” have they perpetrated?”
I’m not going to go through their entire archives to answer that, but here’s another hoax story they posted, for an example:
Now, the DIA documents quoted in that article are real, but they did NOT come from wikileaks, they were not “leaked” at all, as TruePundit tried to allege. They were publicly released by Judicial Watch:
As I said, a month ago, all the “investigators” on reddit were well aware that this website has no credibility and is apparently making stuff up, as you can see by all the commenters who were noting the false info in the article at the time:
Here’s another fake TruePundit story they put out around that time:
Anonymous TruePundit’s anonymous FBI source was saying Comey was ordering all available agents for sweeping search warrants or arrest on Hillary and her henchmen on Nov 4th. Of course this didn’t happen, because this story is false.
Why do they care if conservatives are wasting their time?
>>Wonder what the other goals are.
The usual disinfo goals.
Distract people from the truth by hiding it in plain site in a big pile of manure.
The paintings that were in that bathroom depicted sex acts between men and children.
They advertised themselves as a family site? One look, and normal parents would walk out.
I meant the Global Goals.
>>Now, the DIA documents quoted in that article are real, but they did NOT come from wikileaks,
LOL. That’s your idea of “hoax”?
“Judicial Watch files show Clinton hacks occurred as WikiLeaks released info disclosing China hacking”
http://dayontheday.com/2016/11/01/judicial-watch-files-show-clinton-hacks-occurred-as-wikileaks-released-info-disclosing-china-hacking/
Who’s on first?
It’s no more a “hoax” than the Journalistic Suuuuper Geniuses at 9”NEWS” little exercise in “ooops” dis-information...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3502056/posts?page=32#32
>>Every website has an IP address.
That’s right Genius - one that’s traceable for the purposes of litigation.
Is there any litigation pending against these alleged “hoax”sters?
Meanwhile, the character of at least one visitor to the Obama White Hut is in plain sight:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3502155/posts?page=25#25
“buh buh but, social issues don’t get votes”/FAIL!
“LOL. That’s your idea of “hoax”?”
They took information from Judicial Watch, without attribution, attributed it to a fake source, and even put up a poorly photoshopped fake version of the document they were supposedly being leaked by the fake source. Yes, that is a hoax.
Not this husband, of 28 years! As for Pizzagate, where there is smoke there is fire.
I’m with you on this.
“Shadow of doubt” is an ignorant use of an irrelevant term when referencing a court legal evidence threshhold.
If I recall, beyond a “reasonable doubt” for criminal cases and the “preponderance of the evidence” (51%) for civil cases.
We are not in court. We are giving our opinions based on the information presented to us with as much fact finding and verification as we can reasonably do.
Most adults have had to learn to derive an opinion and make a decision with less information than we would want. Some call it wisdom and leaderhp. Others call it discernment or experience. However, some people cannot come to a reasonably accurate analysis and conlusion until they watch the documentary years later.
You have written a very plausible and accurate analysis of the information you have found.
I followed several of your links and that reinforced my opinion on the bigger picture on this matter.
Thank you. And keep up with your logical analysis method.
>>Yes, that is a hoax.
Oh baloney.
It’s sloppy/inaccurate/dishonest attribution, but the substance of the “reporting” (DOCUMENT CONTENT) was accurate - and, in the context of the pending election - effective!
For all we know, somebody from wiki leaks (or pretending to be from wiki leaks) did re”leak” the documents 5 months after Judicial watch got them by court order.
And the SUBSTANCE of the “leak”: 100% TRUE, was it not?
Not really much darker that 9NEW’s little white “oops”/lie... right?
There is some evidence that the McMartin case allegations were true. For instance the tunnels the children described have been found. I used to live not far from there.
There is proof the shrink who made up False Memory Syndrome was a child abuser.
“Accused parents, many of whom were affluent and respected members of the community, sought out defense lawyers and psychological experts for help in defending against abuse-related claims. A new concept, “False Memory Syndrome,” was advanced by parents and professionals as an alternative explanation for delayed memories of sexual abuse (see, P. Freyd, March 1993, p. 4) and in March 1992 the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) was founded.
*page 12*
“The foundation’s leaders, Pamela and Peter Freyd, were motivated because their adult daughter privately accused Peter of sexually abusing her as a child. They were put in touch with other parents claiming to be falsely accused by Dr. Harold Lief (Calof, 1993a), who was later revealed to be Pamela’s personal psychiatrist (J. Freyd, 1993). Families were also referred by Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield, a husband and wife team who are prominent advocates for people accused of molesting children. A frequent defense expert witness, Underwager’s philosophy concerning the prosecution of child sexual abuse has been summed up by the statement that it is “more desirable that a thousand children in abuse situations are not discovered than for one innocent person to be convicted wrongly” (Kraft, 1985, p. 1).
“For instance the tunnels the children described have been found.”
No they haven’t, there is nothing there.
The claims of abuse were false, elicited by an uncredentialed “therapist” who was feeding the children the information that she wanted them to testify about, and disregarding the children’s repeated and insistent claims that nothing happened. She documented all the interviews on video, and when those videos got played in court, the whole case fell apart.
Only people who really, really want to believe in these wild theories give the outlandish claims in that case any credence. If you have an ounce of skepticism, you can’t possibly take it seriously.
Hey Newbie.....thanks so much for your insight and wisdom.
Are you James, David, John or Tony?? You MUST be one of them since you are so adamant.
WHAT pedophilia ring was exposed???
Soooooo...you KNOW that there are pedophilia rings in DC, do you?? And you KNOW of an EX-Pedophila US DIPLOMAT that wasinvolved in the Tehran crisis....well then....DO TELL HOW YOU KNOW THESE THINGS and WHY HAVEN:T YOU INFORMED THE POLICE TO STOP IT!!
You ARE either Tony, John, David or James!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.