• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pizzagate

I've already told you it was paganoid imagery of no specific meaning. I've studied art and anthropology. It's antlers, and antlers refer in a vague, clip-art sorta way to pagan rituals of sprinng.

But so what? Art is not incriminating.

It looked to me like a vaguely Gundestrup reference. The whole scene had a sort of curvy form like what might happen if a really bad artist was trying to do something in that style.


What we can be certain of is that it's bad art, and that no one ought to give a hoot, whether it's pagan or not pagan.
 
You'd have to be particularly retarded to browse this kind of stuff in the hope you'd find a needle in a haystack. But if that is your thing then knock yourself out, good luck avoiding all the honeytraps.

What I can provide is a link to a guys flickr profile that someone recently found...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/76789827@N03/favorites
...I'm sure this'll disappear soon.

Yes it will disappear soon. It's known as doxxing and harassment.
 
When did I say that? Check again. What I said is that twisting the truth and abandoning objectivity is wrong either if you are a believer or a skeptic of the CT.

And there´s nothing wrong with paganism in principle, but there´s no point in denying that the painter of the murals of the pizza place most probably painted something paga/occult related.

Sure, pagan symbology, not that there's anything wrong with that.
Were you a writer on "Seinfeld"?

BTW, I still see tree branches rather than antlers in that mural but that's just me.
 
I remember reading in school about the Salem which trials and wondering how so many people could go collectively insane in such a damaging and vindictive way. Now I don't have to wonder anymore. It's only a matter of time before one of these vindictive witch hunts based ends in a vigilante not just terrorizing men, women, and children, but actually killing someone.
 
OK, correction: That guy´s Comet pics are post pizzagate. So he´s not connected to the story.


Ah OK, so what do you think is going on that he's just some random pedo who has latched onto the pizzagate thing as well?
 
Ah OK, so what do you think is going on that he's just some random pedo who has latched onto the pizzagate thing as well?

So if you have a flickr account, and you have a picture of children playing and a pedo favorites it, that makes you a pedo?

ETA: What an incredibly crappy time to be alive. Faceless hordes ripping people's lives apart and when it's over, they'll just move to the next fake outrage.
 
Last edited:
So if you have a flickr account, and you have a picture of children playing and a pedo favorites it, that makes you a pedo?


I'm not claiming anything, but for sure that guy needs reporting to the police.
 
Other than being a very prolific and quite poor photographer, what crimes is he being accused of? And other than eating pizza, what is his comet pizza connection?
 
Disgusting.
Saying a painting looks more like a tree than antlers is 'denialism',
Reading comprehension please. I said it can look that way.

but claiming that a painting of what might be antlers indicates that politicians are raping kids in the walk-in fridge is somehow 'exploring possibilities'?
Strawman. That´s not the claim. Supposedly the accumulation of "coincidences" points to the possibility (certainty for some full on conspiranoics) that there is a paedophile ring operating in that place and connected to the Podestas etc.

And spreading the CT, like you have been doing, which has lead not only to death threats, but to a person actually shooting up the pizzeria is not damaging, while saying that a painting isn't proof of anything is?
Get your priorities straight.

Reading comprehension fail again. Downright denial and refusal to even achnowledge the "evidence" (however meagre) in question is damaging. The unesceptical accusations and calls to arms on reddit of course are dangerous. Reviewing the evidence objectively shouldn´t be.
 

Back
Top Bottom