Pizzagate

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Try page 3 paragraph 4

There are several points about that you:ve left hanging.

Why does the article not say what the pictures are about?
How come if they were of naked teenagers do they hang them up and show them off to everyone including reporters?
Why did the reporter, the editor or anyone at the Washington Post not report these people and the artist to the authorities?
How come this is the only place in the entire internet that refers to the artists work like that?
How come the Washington Post made the article a fluff piece about this guys art collection and not about the fact he has child porn hanging in his house? Was that not news? If youre going to say they are covering it up, why then did they mention it at all?

Is it possible that the pictures, while shocking to some, arent illegal or suspicious?

Cienciano

ScumLord wrote: »

Even Alex Jones is saying people should ignore pizzagate because it's a distraction. He's also being accused of starting it.

I'm sure there's plenty of that in it too, but conspiracy theories are worth too much money these days, there's a fair amount of consistency across the stories too. There are top level CT guys that can homologate the story and then redistribute it out to social media users to spread it further.

While ALex Jones may not come up with these stories, I'm pretty sure he's one of the people that fixes the narrative and he's version is the one that most people hear. He's been making a fortune off his "news" company that focuses exclusively on these types of stories. Every time one of these conspiracy theories does the rounds he can profit from it. So it's in his best interest to "find" as many of them as he can and promote them in their most extreme format.

I listened to 3 minutes, the amount of rubbish, lies and misrepresentation there is crazy on infowars.
But he's interviewed Trump before, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he had a phonecall telling him to try and defuse the pizzagate thing after the shooting.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

There are several points about that you:ve left hanging.

Why does the article not say what the pictures are about?
How come if they were of naked teenagers do they hang them up and show them off to everyone including reporters?
Why did the reporter, the editor or anyone at the Washington Post not report these people and the artist to the authorities?
How come this is the only place in the entire internet that refers to the artists work like that?
How come the Washington Post made the article a fluff piece about this guys art collection and not about the fact he has child porn hanging in his house? Was that not news? If youre going to say they are covering it up, why then did they mention it at all?

Is it possible that the pictures, while shocking to some, arent illegal or suspicious?

No the question you should ask is why mention naked teenagers in the piece at all

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

No the question you should ask is why mention naked teenagers in the piece at all

Maybe that:s what one or all of the pictures were of. Or that:s what the writer erroneously thought that the artist was famous for.

This still leaves all of these questions and others you are not answering.
Please answer them.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Why does the article not say what the pictures are about?

I cant say would be best directed at the author of the article

How come if they were of naked teenagers do they hang them up and show them off to everyone including reporters?

I guess they wanted to shock horrify their guests and succeded

Why did the reporter, the editor or anyone at the Washington Post not report these people and the artist to the authorities?

again a question for the author and her employers

How come the Washington Post made the article a fluff piece about this guys art collection and not about the fact he has child porn hanging in his house? Was that not news? If youre going to say they are covering it up, why then did they mention it at all?

again I cant answer for the washington post

Is it possible that the pictures, while shocking to some, arent illegal or suspicious?

Shocking certainly horrifying as his wife put it as to their legality I cant comment
As for suspicious If i went in to someones bedroom and saw pictures of naked teenagers on their wall I would be highly suspicious and would not let my kids go whitin an asses roar of the place or anyone associated with it

I hope that answeres your questions

Maybe that:s what one or all of the pictures were of. Or that:s what the writer erroneously thought that the artist was famous for

I think the first part is the most likely dont you

Sorry forgot this one

How come this is the only place in the entire internet that refers to the artists work like that?

dont understand what you mean by like that ?

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

I cant say...

Great, so we can conclude that your accusation makes no sense and theres a ton of stuff you can:t explain.

enno99 wrote: »

Shocking certainly horrifying as his wife put it as to their legality I cant comment
As for suspicious If i went in to someones bedroom and saw pictures of naked teenagers on their wall I would be highly suspicious and would not let my kids go whitin an asses roar of the place or anyone associated with it

I hope that answeres your questions

No it doesn't really.

What are you suspicious of? Do you think these pictures are implying that the people who own them abuse children? Or are you "not making accusations" again?
What do these pictures imply other than they like that particular art work.

You keep implying that there is something illegal about these pictures when its extremely clear that there is not.
You are also assuming that these pictures are lewd or pornographic, when you have no basis for that. Naked does not imply that the pictures are lewd. "Shocking" does not imply that they are lewd or illegal. The facts you presented and hold as true imply that the pictures are innocuous, else there wouldn't be so many questions that you're unable to answer.

You are assuming that there is something suspicious here without having any of the fact simply because you are being told it:s suspicious. You have not provided a single good reason to believe it is beyond your rash conclusion about some art.

This is indicative of pretty much everything being presented here. Everything is suspicious if you present it dishonestly and leap to a preferred conclusion.

enno99 wrote: »

I think the first part is the most likely dont you

I dont know what the most likely explanation is. That artist is not "known for pictures of naked teenagers", yet the writer reported her as such. He does not actually say that is what the pictures are of when he should have if that was the case. Again you cannot explain why he would word it like that if he was looking at pictures of child porn.

Given how dishonest and twisted the evidence you are providing has been so far, I simply dont trust your interpretation of it.
The explanation you are implying is by far the least likely explanation and as you admit, you cant make sense of it.

enno99 wrote: »

dont understand what you mean by like that ?

The author refers to the artist as being "famous for pictures of naked teenagers in their parents homes".
However this description of her exists only in this article and the conspiracy sites that copy paste it.

She is famous for a great many things, but no where does anyone describe her as being famous for that. I cant even find the project or series which the writer of the article is referring to. It is a really strange point to make.

Why do you think the author makes this claim? Do you personally think it:s true? Have you done anything to verify it? (especially given that if its not true, then your accusation doesnt have anything to support it.)

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Great, so we can conclude that your accusation makes no sense and theres a ton of stuff you can:t explain.


No it doesn't really.

What are you suspicious of? Do you think these pictures are implying that the people who own them abuse children? Or are you "not making accusations" again?
What do these pictures imply other than they like that particular art work.

You keep implying that there is something illegal about these pictures when its extremely clear that there is not.
You are also assuming that these pictures are lewd or pornographic, when you have no basis for that. Naked does not imply that the pictures are lewd. "Shocking" does not imply that they are lewd or illegal. The facts you presented and hold as true imply that the pictures are innocuous, else there wouldn't be so many questions that you're unable to answer.

You are assuming that there is something suspicious here without having any of the fact simply because you are being told it:s suspicious. You have not provided a single good reason to believe it is beyond your rash conclusion about some art.

This is indicative of pretty much everything being presented here. Everything is suspicious if you present it dishonestly and leap to a preferred conclusion.

I dont know what the most likely explanation is. That artist is not "known for pictures of naked teenagers", yet the writer reported her as such. He does not actually say that is what the pictures are of when he should have if that was the case. Again you cannot explain why he would word it like that if he was looking at pictures of child porn.

Given how dishonest and twisted the evidence you are providing has been so far, I simply dont trust your interpretation of it.
The explanation you are implying is by far the least likely explanation and as you admit, you cant make sense of it.


The author refers to the artist as being "famous for pictures of naked teenagers in their parents homes".
However this description of her exists only in this article and the conspiracy sites that copy paste it.

She is famous for a great many things, but no where does anyone describe her as being famous for that. I cant even find the project or series which the writer of the article is referring to. It is a really strange point to make.

Why do you think the author makes this claim? Do you personally think it:s true? Have you done anything to verify it? (especially given that if its not true, then your accusation doesnt have anything to support it.)

lol sorry I couldent be of any help

Maybe they commissioned the pieces if you cant find them in your exhaustive search
you could try contacting the author maybe he can help

written By Jessica Dawson

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

lol sorry I couldent be of any help

Maybe they commissioned the pieces if you cant find them in your exhaustive search

And given how no conspiracy theorist can find any evidence of them either, I think its a safe bet that they dont exist and the author of the article made a mistake.
Have you any evidence that they were commissioned? Why would you suggest this, but then the author makes no mention of it?

enno99 wrote: »

you could try contacting the author maybe he can help

written By Jessica Dawson

Why would I contact her? Im not the one basing a my belief in a theory on my interpretation of what she wrote.

Are you going to contact her?

Are you still suspicious of these people even though every piece of evidence has been shown to be nothing of substance?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

And given how no conspiracy theorist can find any evidence of them either, I think its a safe bet that they dont exist and the author of the article made a mistake.
Have you any evidence that they were commissioned? Why would you suggest this, but then the author makes no mention of it?

Why would I contact her? Im not the one basing a my belief in a theory on my interpretation of what she wrote.

Are you going to contact her?

Are you still suspicious of these people even though every piece of evidence has been shown to be nothing of substance?

Hahahah you seem to be an expert on the artist show me her other work That would horrify the guests and then i will rethink it

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Hahahah you seem to be an expert on the artist show me her other work That would horrify the guests and then i will rethink it

Google her. Your belief depends on this art existing, not mine.

How do you know that the person was actually referring to the pictures in the bedroom when she said that? How do you know she was referring to this particular artist:s work?

And again, what:s the point you are actually making? Are you accusing these people of owning child porn? Abusing Children?
You finding them odd and having differing taste is art is not a good basis for suspecting the above.

Whats the point in me answering your questions when your ignoring most of my points...?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Google her. Your belief depends on this art existing, not mine.

How do you know that the person was actually referring to the pictures in the bedroom when she said that? How do you know she was referring to this particular artist:s work?

And again, what:s the point you are actually making? Are you accusing these people of owning child porn? Abusing Children?
You finding them odd and having differing taste is art is not a good basis for suspecting the above.

Whats the point in me answering your questions when your ignoring most of my points...?

Yeah thought so you cant show even one that would horrify people

Naked teenagers it is then

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Yeah thought so you cant show even one that would horrify people

Naked teenagers it is then

Ok, lets pretend I didnt make a ton of points explaining this.

So in your world they definitely have pictures of naked teenagers on their guest bedroom.
So what are you accusing them of? Owning child porn?
Or is it possible that "pictures of naked teenagers" could be a blunt description of art that is in no way lewd, pornographic or illegal. Yes or no?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, lets pretend I didnt make a ton of points explaining this.

So in your world they definitely have pictures of naked teenagers on their guest bedroom.
So what are you accusing them of? Owning child porn?
Or is it possible that "pictures of naked teenagers" could be a blunt description of art that is in no way lewd, pornographic or illegal. Yes or no?

look if you cant show something that provokes such a response as

"They were horrified," Heather recalls, a grin spreading across her face.

you sad you searched her work surley you would have found something

If there were no pictures of naked teenagers why did they not sue the paper or a least demand a retraction
high profile people of wealth in DC dont think they would sit by and let a paper print lies

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

look if you cant show something that provokes such a response as

"They were horrified," Heather recalls, a grin spreading across her face.

you sad you searched her work surley you would have found something

How do you know that she is referring to the pictures in the guest bed room?

Can you find ANYWHERE else where the artist is described like she is in that article? If she is famous for these pictures, then you should be able to find some reference to them somewhere. So please provide such a reference.

enno99 wrote: »

If there were no pictures of naked teenagers why did they not sue the paper or a least demand a retraction
high profile people of wealth in DC dont think they would sit by and let a paper print lies

Again, it:s your interpretation that
1. That these pictures exist
and 2. that they are actually suspicious if they do.

It does not actually say these pictures exist, that:s your tenuous interpretation based on your inference of vague statments, one of which is false. Not everyone will reach the same conclusion you do. Most people didnt until this conspiracy theory sprang up. So there is no reason why they would sue the paper.

If these pictures exist and if are not lewd or pornographic or illegal, then the paper does not actually say anything that is libellous or could be considered libelous since it doesnt actually say that theres anything suspicious or illegal about any of the art. So there is no reason why they would sue the paper.

Again I remind you of the list of questions I asked and you cannot answer.

enno99

Correction to This Article
A Sept. 23 Style article incorrectly said that Tony and Heather Podesta own a home in the Lake Barcroft neighborhood of Falls Church. Lake Barcroft has a Falls Church mailing address and the couple consider their home to be in Falls Church, but the neighborhood is in Fairfax County.

look they are even touchy about thier address

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

How do you know that she is referring to the pictures in the guest bed room?

Can you find ANYWHERE else where the artist is described like she is in that article? If she is famous for these pictures, then you should be able to find some reference to them somewhere. So please provide such a reference.


Again, it:s your interpretation that
1. That these pictures exist
and 2. that they are actually suspicious if they do.

It does not actually say these pictures exist, that:s your tenuous interpretation based on your inference of vague statments, one of which is false. Not everyone will reach the same conclusion you do. Most people didnt until this conspiracy theory sprang up. So there is no reason why they would sue the paper.

If these pictures exist and if are not lewd or pornographic or illegal, then the paper does not actually say anything that is libellous or could be considered libelous since it doesnt actually say that theres anything suspicious or illegal about any of the art. So there is no reason why they would sue the paper.

Again I remind you of the list of questions I asked and you cannot answer.

look you can ask all the questions you like

in one post you say they dont exist then you say maybe they do but are not illegal or suspicious so they are of no importance
which is it

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

look you can ask all the questions you like

in one post you say they dont exist then you say maybe they do but are not illegal or suspicious so they are of no importance
which is it

It could be either. Both explanations make the most sense given the actual evidence.
Its possible that the pictures dont exist because;
1. the article never says that they exist and the phrasing is a very strange way to put it if they did exist.
2. It claims that the artist is famous for it, yet no one can actually find any evidence of her doing a project like that never mind being famous for it.

Does the article state that these pictures exist? Yes or no?
Can you point to anywhere else that makes reference to this artist being famous for those type of pictures (or actually describe these pictures)? Yes or no?

It:s possible that these pictures exist if we ignore the above (which you are), however if they do exist it does not follow that these pictures are suspicious. You agree with this since you are being coy about the "legality" of them. You understand that nude pictures dont necessarily mean lewd pornographic or illegal.

So is it possible that the pictures (if they exist) are not lewd, pornographic or illegal or otherwise suspicious? Yes or no?

What doesnt make sense is the explanation you are implying, which Im unclear on because you refuse to answer that question among others.

Edit: It:s also possible that the pictures exist and are of 18 and 19 year olds, which are teenagers, but can legally be as lewd and pornographic as they like. But we dont know for sure cause no one can point to these pictures this artist is supposedly famous for...

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

It could be either. Both explanations make the most sense given the actual evidence.
Its possible that the pictures dont exist because;
1. the article never says that they exist and the phrasing is a very strange way to put it if they did exist.
2. It claims that the artist is famous for it, yet no one can actually find any evidence of her doing a project like that never mind being famous for it.

Does the article state that these pictures exist? Yes or no?
Can you point to anywhere else that makes reference to this artist being famous for those type of pictures (or actually describe these pictures)? Yes or no?

It:s possible that these pictures exist if we ignore the above (which you are), however if they do exist it does not follow that these pictures are suspicious. You agree with this since you are being coy about the "legality" of them. You understand that nude pictures dont necessarily mean lewd pornographic or illegal.

So is it possible that the pictures (if they exist) are not lewd, pornographic or illegal or otherwise suspicious? Yes or no?

What doesnt make sense is the explanation you are implying, which Im unclear on because you refuse to answer that question among others.

Yeah right read the article she was quoted in the context of them being of naked teenagers
they saw fit to have their address clarified and nothing else

King Mob

I made several points in that post. If you are planning to just ignore things you cant address, then please at least high light what parts you are trying to address.

enno99 wrote: »

Yeah right read the article she was quoted in the context of them being of naked teenagers

I did. It does not offer such context at all.
And again, the article does not say that the pictures are of that, just that the artist was famous for those types of pictures, which is false.

enno99 wrote: »

they saw fit to have their address clarified and nothing else

And again, I have addressed this in a previous post.

There is nothing in the article that is libellous or would make them think that it is libellous.

Again I:m going to ask you: What point are you trying to make?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

I made several points in that post. If you are planning to just ignore things you cant address, then please at least high light what parts you are trying to address.


I did. It does not offer such context at all.
And again, the article does not say that the pictures are of that, just that the artist was famous for those types of pictures, which is false.


And again, I have addressed this in a previous post.

There is nothing in the article that is libellous or would make them think that it is libellous.

Again I:m going to ask you: What point are you trying to make?

look im arguing that the pictures exist it cant be clearer
I can address all your points but it will go on and on
I gave you way to to change my opinion show me the work that would cause the reaction
You said you searched all the artists work to find the naked teen pictures and yet you cant produce one Why?

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

look im arguing that the pictures exist it cant be clearer
I can address all your points but it will go on and on
I gave you way to to change my opinion show me the work that would cause the reaction
You said you searched all the artists work to find the naked teen pictures and yet you cant produce one Why?

Because you assuming that:s what they are referring to!

The artist could have other shocking work. I didn:t search through all of her work nor did I claim so.
They could be referring to something else entirely. The article isnt clear at all.

We:ll take it one at a time:
The claim is that the artist is famous for pictures of naked teenagers.
But nowhere does anyone refer to her as this and nowhere are these pictures to be found.
You say you can address all my points, so address this one.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Because you assuming that:s what they are referring to!

The artist could have other shocking work. I didn:t search through all of her work nor did I claim so.
They could be referring to something else entirely

We:ll take it one at a time:
The claim is that the artist is famous for pictures of naked teenagers.
But nowhere does anyone refer to her as this and nowhere are these pictures to be found.
You say you can address all my points, so address this one.

Get back to me when you find it,
it cant be that hard can it
oh by the way i have tried several times I cant find anything that would cut it
Maybe you will do better

Goodnight

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Get back to me when you find it,
it cant be that hard can it
oh by the way i have tried several times I cant find anything that would cut it
Maybe you will do better

Goodnight

Super, then you should have found the work she:s most famous for then, right?
Please post a reference to that. Can:t be hard, right?

Leroy42

So this story broke, what 3 weeks ago at least, and despite such a huge amount of evidence nobody has actually been able to prove anything.

These people have now had at least 3 weeks of sneer and innuendo with nothing to back it up but a selection of random items all thrown together and deemed to be one great conspiracy.

From the e-mails, which were written in code that was so easily broken, so FB posts that aren't written in code at all, but seem a bit creepy.

Then of course we have art. Not hidden away, as would normally be the case if you are trying to something (like using code) but out there for people to see and even left in place when journalists visit.

Of course the fact the journalist didn't draw the same conclusion means the journalist is in on it as well.

I have no problem with people seeing signs and looking to get them investigated, if only people had done that in Saville, RCC, football in UK etc. But there is a big difference between having doubts and theories and posting them all over the internet without any evidence.

In many of the pieces f evidence posted on this thread more than one view can be taken. I am open to any view, but people seem to believe that their opinion is fact and should be posted as such.

Dohnjoe

Made up conspiracy already has two casualties

One of the Trump transition team has already been fired for mentioning it in a tweet
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38231532

after there's already been some whackjob arrested after firing shots at the restaurant

ScumLord

enno99 wrote: »

Try page 3 paragraph 4

Your right, I don't know what happened there, I searched the document a few times.

enno99 wrote: »

No the question you should ask is why mention naked teenagers in the piece at all

It's a good question. It's an odd way to describe someones art, especially considering when you look up this artist the pictures clearly aren't matching up with this description. But that's journalists for you, they'd rather say something interesting and be wrong than say something boring.

enno99 wrote: »

Yeah right read the article she was quoted in the context of them being of naked teenagers

The article does not say the pictures are of naked teenagers, it implies it but that means nothing in the context of a newspaper article, journalists make a living from implying things they know aren't true.

enno99 wrote: »

look im arguing that the pictures exist it cant be clearer
I can address all your points but it will go on and on
I gave you way to to change my opinion show me the work that would cause the reaction
You said you searched all the artists work to find the naked teen pictures and yet you cant produce one Why?

Um, because they don't exist would be the obvious answer. It's not possible to prove a negative. The onus on the believer to prove their implausible beliefs.

enno99

ScumLord wrote: »

Your right, I don't know what happened there, I searched the document a few times.

It's a good question. It's an odd way to describe someones art, especially considering when you look up this artist the pictures clearly aren't matching up with this description. But that's journalists for you, they'd rather say something interesting and be wrong than say something boring.

The article does not say the pictures are of naked teenagers, it implies it but that means nothing in the context of a newspaper article, journalists make a living from implying things they know aren't true.

Um, because they don't exist would be the obvious answer. It's not possible to prove a negative. The onus on the believer to prove their implausible beliefs.

Thank you

And no call for a retraction or clarification or apology
I mean they had issues with their address being wrong and it was rectified
do they sound like the kind of people that would let a journalist write something untrue

You probably misunderstood I wasnt asking for the naked teenager stuff
just something that would warrant such a response from their guests

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Thank you

And no call for a retraction or clarification or apology
I mean they had issues with their address being wrong and it was rectified
do they sound like the kind of people that would let a journalist write something untrue

You probably misunderstood I wasnt asking for the naked teenager stuff
just something that would warrant such a response from their guests

Enno99 stop avoiding this:

Please support the claim the claim that the artist is famous for pictures of naked teenagers.

Either post examples of this, post a link to something, anything that actually makes reference to this or otherwise explain why the author made this claim when it is not immediately obvious.
Or otherwise admit that you cannot.

ScumLord

enno99 wrote: »

Thank you

And no call for a retraction or clarification or apology
I mean they had issues with their address being wrong and it was rectified
do they sound like the kind of people that would let a journalist write something untrue

You probably misunderstood I wasnt asking for the naked teenager stuff
just something that would warrant such a response from their guests

Some of the pictures I saw where of scantily clad women, many of them were odd. We don't know what the journalist would consider shocking, and we don't know what her motivations are. The article also says the owners of the house like to shock people, so maybe they weren't to pushed that she said something over the top but at the same time didn't want people to think they weren't living in the nicer part of town.

Maybe there was a picture of a teenager and that teenager appeared naked but showed no more than you'd see in a bikini.

Maybe they had historic art there, if you don't like naked teenagers and children you should never visit cities like rome or Florence. There isn't actually anything wrong with nudity, it doesn't have to be sexualised. But people always tend to jump to the conclusion that nakedness means sex. Given how uptight modern society has come about it I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of artists are challenging those assumptions.

Overheal

enno99 wrote: »

Ahh you havent even looked at all the evidence put forward
and yet you jump to the defence of people that may be involved in this stuff

Very classy

enno99 wrote: »

No but I can use an internet search engine
You should try it sometime it will help you not to make silly statements
And this time it was even easier saves wear and tear on your keypad all you had to do was click the link

[...]

Here I will give to you again

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43480-2004Sep22_2.html

And thanked by King Mob you must be doing something right

enno99 wrote: »

Yeah thought so you cant show even one that would horrify people

Naked teenagers it is then

Drop the snarky attitude before posting in this thread again.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Enno99 stop avoiding this:

Please support the claim the claim that the artist is famous for pictures of naked teenagers.

Either post examples of this, post a link to something, anything that actually makes reference to this or otherwise explain why the author made this claim when it is not immediately obvious.
Or otherwise admit that you cannot.

What are you babbeling on about

demanding answers to these rambling killer points you think your making
is childish
calling a journalist dishonest before you even bothered to find out who they were



like I said show one picture that would horrify the guests

Overheal

enno99 is taking the day off. Hopefully he returns in a more constructive frame of mind.

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

What are you babbeling on about

demanding answers to these rambling killer points you think your making
is childish
calling a journalist dishonest before you even bothered to find out who they were

I'm focusing on this point for two reasons, first you have ignored 90% of what I've said and second, your entire theory hinges on this one point.

You are claiming that there was pictures of naked teenagers, but the only time they are mentioned is in this one claim. You are inferring from that.
However, if that statement turns out to not be true, what do you then have to show there were such pictures there? Nothing.

You've already stated that you could address all of my points and that you have looked into the artist enough to state with confidence that she has no other shocking art. So surely at some point you must have come across something else that states she was famous for those types of pictures. Instead you dance around the point.

Googling her does not turn up any such reference. It's not on her wikipedia page at all nor is it mentioned in any profiles of her that I have found. The actual pictures themselves are no where to be found.
(You had previously tried to claim that she had done them as a private commission for Podesta, yet still claim that made her famous.)

I'm not accusing the author of being dishonest, her motivations don't really matter. The fact remains that she made this claim but it doesn't seem to be true. You can try and rationalise it if you want.

So again, the request is simple and should be easy if it's true and you've done the research you've said you've done.
Please provide any reference that shows this artist is famous for pictures of naked teenagers in their parents homes.

enno99 wrote: »

like I said show one picture that would horrify the guests

I have addressed this several times over several posts. If you want the answer you can go back and address them.
Or you could accept Scumlord's answer that it's the odd pictures of scantily clad adult women.

Autonomous Cowherd

I was glancing over the past weeks at this story. My initial response was doubt. I do believe there are pedophile rings in high places. It is a horrific thought, but one that is likely to be true. I subscribe to Tjeerd Andringa's theory whereby the ''kakistocracy'' is manipulated as a result of their base predilections.
In this case, however, from the beginning it seemed to me to be possibly either 1) a deliberate 'breadcrumb' trail, dove-tailing happily with the 'fake news' outcry from MSM, which will result ultimately in broad censorship of alternative news sources (something I think would be destructive), or/and 2) the result of deluded pattern-seeking among some hysterical internet users.
Sure, the people implicated here are - at the very least - weird and more than a little repulsive. It is likely that they have sexual inclinations - and cultural tastes - that stray outside the bounds of generally acceptable. I spent time in my youth in wealthy political circles, and deviancy in such circles comes as no surprise. But I think this whole Pizzagate is a cul de sac. It is in some ways convenient. A distraction. Evil breeds comfortably elsewhere.

Ipso

The feeble minded have found another part of the paedo network.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/nyregion/robertas-restaurant-brooklyn-threatened-fake-news-pizzagate-conspiracy.html?referer=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2F

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

I'm focusing on this point for two reasons, first you have ignored 90% of what I've said and second, your entire theory hinges on this one point.

You are claiming that there was pictures of naked teenagers, but the only time they are mentioned is in this one claim. You are inferring from that.
However, if that statement turns out to not be true, what do you then have to show there were such pictures there? Nothing.

You've already stated that you could address all of my points and that you have looked into the artist enough to state with confidence that she has no other shocking art. So surely at some point you must have come across something else that states she was famous for those types of pictures. Instead you dance around the point.

Googling her does not turn up any such reference. It's not on her wikipedia page at all nor is it mentioned in any profiles of her that I have found. The actual pictures themselves are no where to be found.
(You had previously tried to claim that she had done them as a private commission for Podesta, yet still claim that made her famous.)

I'm not accusing the author of being dishonest, her motivations don't really matter. The fact remains that she made this claim but it doesn't seem to be true. You can try and rationalise it if you want.

So again, the request is simple and should be easy if it's true and you've done the research you've said you've done.
Please provide any reference that shows this artist is famous for pictures of naked teenagers in their parents homes.


I have addressed this several times over several posts. If you want the answer you can go back and address them.
Or you could accept Scumlord's answer that it's the odd pictures of scantily clad adult women.

Grannan’s process and the consequent images are informed by her own childhood in the American northeast. Each photograph is imbued with secrecy, desire, and hidden intentions.

Here, the artist undoes the traditional framework for female nudity, presenting a young girl in her own living room, equipped with a nose ring and boyish haircut.

https://paddle8.com/work/katy-grannan/85809-untitled-from-poughkeepsie-journal-series

The result is a cache of images of children, adolescents, teens, young adults, and trusting strangers… Who perform for the camera in ways that are at once scripted and quite candid.”

https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/eascfa/feminist_art_base/katy-grannan

Edit: **these links are NSFW and by clicking them you are leaving boards.ie** -mod

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Grannan’s process and the consequent images are informed by her own childhood in the American northeast. Each photograph is imbued with secrecy, desire, and hidden intentions.

Here, the artist undoes the traditional framework for female nudity, presenting a young girl in her own living room, equipped with a nose ring and boyish haircut.

https://paddle8.com/work/katy-grannan/85809-untitled-from-poughkeepsie-journal-series

The result is a cache of images of children, adolescents, teens, young adults, and trusting strangers… Who perform for the camera in ways that are at once scripted and quite candid.”

https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/eascfa/feminist_art_base/katy-grannan

Ok, Great. I concede that these photographs exist and are likely the ones referenced in the article.

Now that you can actually see the photos, can you explain what is objectionable, suspicious or illegal about them?

Could you then explain how owning these pictures indicates that Podesta is involved in a satanic child abuse circle? (Or whatever point you are trying to make.)

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, Great. I concede that these photographs exist and are likely the ones referenced in the article.

Now that you can actually see the photos, can you explain what is objectionable, suspicious or illegal about them?

Could you then explain how owning these pictures indicates that Podesta is involved in a satanic child abuse circle? (Or whatever point you are trying to make.)

I doubt you will find the actual pictures on the internet

"They were horrified," Heather recalls, a grin spreading across her face.

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

I doubt you will find the actual pictures on the internet

Why not exactly? Please stop being vague.
Is that picture you posted not one of them?

Again could you please explain what you believe is objectionable, suspicious or illegal about these pictures?

deco nate

Nothing about those 4/5 photos are illegal?!

What's going on here??

King Mob

deco nate wrote: »

Nothing about those 4/5 photos are illegal?!

What's going on here??

I'm not sure what you mean by this:
Do you believe that those photos are in fact child porn then, and therefore the artist and Podesta are guilty of producing and owning child porn as well as the site hosting them?

deco nate

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by this:
Do you believe that those photos are in fact child porn then, and therefore the artist and Podesta are guilty of producing and owning child porn as well as the site hosting them?

Can you read? I said I can't see anything illegal about those photos! You just trying to have a go?

What's your problem?
Edit: I stated there's nothing illegal about them

King Mob

deco nate wrote: »

Can you read? I said I can't see anything illegal about those photos! You just trying to have a go?

No, Sorry. I mis-read you.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Why not exactly? Please stop being vague.
Is that picture you posted not one of them?

Again could you please explain what you believe is objectionable, suspicious or illegal about these pictures?

why are you asking me what photographs are hanging in bedroom in someones house that caused guests to be horrified
how would I know
you asked me to give you something to substantiate the claim made by the journalist
I done what you asked
I made no other claims other that I found it disturbing that people liked this type of art and serial killer stuff
you are the one who brought it to a whole other level claiming they didnt exist and the journalist was lying

They are certainly not the ones in the links so there must be others do you agree

deco nate

enno99 wrote: »

why are you asking me what photographs are hanging in bedroom in someones house that caused guests to be horrified
how would I know
you asked me to give you something to substantiate the claim made by the journalist
I done what you asked
I made no other claims other that I found it disturbing that people liked this type of art and serial killer stuff
you are the one who brought it to a whole other level claiming they didnt exist and the journalist was lying

They are certainly not the ones in the links so there must be others do you agree

No, until they are exposed. even the source you claim backed down. Most likely the same photos you linked, yanks have an more uptight view than us.

Take a rest

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

why are you asking me what photographs are hanging in bedroom in someones house that caused guests to be horrified
how would I know
you asked me to give you something to substantiate the claim made by the journalist
I done what you asked

So then you have not found pictures of hers that show naked teenagers?
Neither article refers to teenagers being naked, so I assumed that that picture was your evidence. Now you are saying it's not.
Then how is the claim made by the journalist substantiated?

Why are you now saying that you don't know what pictures were hanging in the bedroom when you've been insisting that the only possible answer is child porn?

enno99 wrote: »

I made no other claims other that I found it disturbing that people liked this type of art and serial killer stuff

Again "Liking serial killer stuff" = "Watched a popular TV show". And is a different person.
Why do you find their taste in art disturbing and then what relevance does this have to anything? What point are you trying to make?

enno99 wrote: »

They are certainly not the ones in the links so there must be others do you agree

No I don't agree.
I think that having naked pictures like the one you posted would be "horrifying" to some people.
The link you posted refers to her as "a young girl", yet has no issue posting the image. So either she is 18-19 (thus a teenager) or that she is underage, but the image is not considered pornographic. (Something you must agree with since you had no issue posting it.)

I think that picture fits the description in the article well enough. There is nothing to suggest that their are other pictures that are pornographic.

enno99

If you say so

deco nate

enno99 wrote: »

If you say so

At last....

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

If you say so

Well if you actually want to defend your points, you're welcome to.

Otherwise I think it's just been shown that there's nothing to this conspiracy when you actually examine it critically.
None of the evidence holds up to scrutiny and it all relies on lies, half truths, dishonest presentation and just a vague ill-defined suspicion that you have because people told you to be suspicious.

But still, this crap gets spread around...

deco nate

King Mob wrote: »

Well if you actually want to defend your points, you're welcome to.

Otherwise I think it's just been shown that there's nothing to this conspiracy when you actually examine it critically.
None of the evidence holds up to scrutiny and it all relies on lies, half truths, dishonest presentation and just a vague ill-defined suspicion that you have because people told you to be suspicious.

But still, this crap gets spread around...

I Only came across this thread tonight, as you know. However I read about this story when it broke. And believe me when I say that the journalist jumped the gun big time, then backed down. Not because of pressure. But because of their small minded middle American views.. Again Nothing in those photos are illegal on either side of the Atlantic. Maybe frowned upon in the US. By middle Americans. But that is all, case closed...