Is Organised Child Trafficking in America for Real?

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

No, I don't think that the word "Covfefe" means anything in Arabic

Finally. Your conclusion and Snopes conclusion is identical.

Next time you call out something for being a source you "don't trust", probably best not to choose one that you agree with

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Finally. Your conclusion and Snopes conclusion is identical.

Next time you call out something for being a source you "don't trust", probably best not to choose one that you agree with

I've moved on. I now don't trust google either.

I'd already answered that exact questions a few times.

Overheal

Okay so.

The link is literally just an AP report - just hosted on Snopes website (lots of sites repost AP verbatim because that’s how AP do) if you wanna get to discussing that

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Now I understand why people won't put up with the **** around here.

I don't either when all you need to do is provide quotes you can easily and quickly provide or answer simple yes or no questions.

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Stop conflating what I said. You are little more than a nuisance.

What did I conflate? Youre first post in this thread was you suggesting that some state senators were killed by a conspiracy because they were looking into child trafficking. Was this some other, separate one from the CIA conspiracy?

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Okay so.

The link is literally just an AP report - just hosted on Snopes website (lots of sites repost AP verbatim because that’s how AP do) if you wanna get to discussing that

Does it prove that there isn't organised child sex trafficking in America?
Because I suggest that there is.
Can you find it anywhere other than Snopes?

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

I don't either when all you need to do is provide quotes you can easily and quickly provide or answer simple yes or no questions.


What did I conflate? Youre first post in this thread was you suggesting that some state senators were killed by a conspiracy because they were looking into child trafficking. Was this some other, separate one from the CIA conspiracy?

I've moved on. I'll have something for you in in pictures soon.
It seems you are not prepared to read anything.

Donnielighto

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I've moved on. I'll have something for you in in pictures soon.
It seems you are not prepared to read anything.

Have you provided and links to anything valid, I've skipped through a good bit of thread as the first few pages were full of allegations and promises of evidence "soon" but all that happened was one or two text dumps not even linked to a source.

It makes you hard to take seriously when you obsfucate around something you are putting forward.

Spencerfreeman

Donnielighto wrote: »

Have you provided and links to anything valid, I've skipped through a good bit of thread as the first few pages were full of allegations and promises of evidence "soon" but all that happened was one or two text dumps not even linked to a source.

It makes you hard to take seriously when you obsfucate around something you are putting forward.

I've had people asking for answers that I had already given them, repeatably, just pages before.
I am now looking at The Finders.
Make what you will of the information provided, I have linked to an FBI dump.
I will let it speak for itself.
I may do some further digging on William Fain.
Other than that the early (to me) stuff can stand for what it is.
If you would like to add to any of it I would be grateful.
I am also ok with you not taking me seriously.

Dohnjoe

"Aliens were involved, that's a fact, it's in the redacted report, no I don't have to support that, read it yourself"

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"Aliens were involved, that's a fact, it's in the redacted report, no I don't have to support that, read it yourself"

No more replies for you until you answer the question I put to you at the top of the page.

banie01

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

No proof from you then, just insults.
I won't be seeing any more of your posts. Bye.

“Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harboring hostile thoughts.”

Reading the continued post from Spence and feeling glad he put me on ignore

He has been asked continually for 2 weeks now to lay out his theory, but spouts nonsense and argues nonsense rather than expanding any actual theory or position.

There's really no point in engaging until Spence lays out a position and presents some evidence to support it.

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I've moved on. I'll have something for you in in pictures soon.
It seems you are not prepared to read anything.

You're dodging the points then.
I'm not holding my breath. I bet you're going to throw a strop and leave the thread in a huff before you post any pictures.
Or we point out something obvious that you missed or wanted to ignore.

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

I don't either when all you need to do is provide quotes you can easily and quickly provide or answer simple yes or no questions.


What did I conflate? Youre first post in this thread was you suggesting that some state senators were killed by a conspiracy because they were looking into child trafficking. Was this some other, separate one from the CIA conspiracy?

Yes it's separate.
You were conflating, my claim of provable fact was in relation to the CIA child trafficking claim.
You can look back through the mess you have helped to create to find where I stated that. I won't be.

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Yes it's separate.
You were conflating, my claim of provable fact was in relation to the CIA child trafficking claim.
You can look back through the mess you have helped to create to find where I stated that. I won't be.

Ok. So your claim that these three senators were murder is false then?

Either way, your two conspiracies seem equally silly and lacking in support.

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

You're dodging the points then.
I'm not holding my breath. I bet you're going to throw a strop and leave the thread in a huff before you post any pictures.
Or we point out something obvious that you missed or wanted to ignore.

I'm dodging nothing.
You're just very wearing.
Do be sure and get back to me, won't you?

This FBI documents should be used in conjunction with the film.
It was not available to the maker at the time.

https://vault.fbi.gov/the-finders/the-finders-part-01-of-01/view?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. So your claim that these three senators is false then?

Either way, your two conspiracies seem equally silly and lacking in support.

As I've said I've moved on.
Thanks.

TaurenDruid

I don't trust YouTube as a source.

Spencerfreeman

TaurenDruid wrote: »

I don't trust YouTube as a source.

I've proven that Snopes are bad fact checkers.
I've proven Google lie.

In terms of the latest link, you will also need to read the FBI documents, sorry.

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I'm dodging nothing.
You're just very wearing.
Do be sure and get back to me, won't you?

I wouldn't be wearing if you just answered questions directly and honestly the first time and provide the evidence you say you had when you were asked.

You've been constantly dodging questions and refusing to back up your not two entirely separate conspiracy theories. It's kind of your own fault.

An example of your dodging is below:

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

As I've said I've moved on.
Thanks.

You don't respond to my question here.
Is your original claim true or do you believe that it is false now?

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I've proven that Snopes are bad fact checkers.
I've proven Google lie.

In terms of the latest link, you will also need to read the FBI documents, sorry.

You've shown what you believe in one mistake by snopes, then refused to engage when people have shown your claim there was wrong.

The FBI lie and have made mistakes, so we can dismiss their report.

You just posted a youtube video which: 1) comes from google as they own youtube and 2) there are endless youtube videos we can show are wrong and lies. So we can reject that video also.

It's a bit selective to apply your standards to some but not others.

Dohnjoe

Here comes the videos

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Does it prove that there isn't organised child sex trafficking in America?
Because I suggest that there is.
Can you find it anywhere other than Snopes?

It proves the opposite, as I said in the originating post.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I've proven that Snopes are bad fact checkers.
I've proven Google lie.

In terms of the latest link, you will also need to read the FBI documents, sorry.

Is youtube a reliable fact checker

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

I wouldn't be wearing if you just answered questions directly and honestly the first time and provide the evidence you say you had when you were asked.

You've been constantly dodging questions and refusing to back up your not two entirely separate conspiracy theories. It's kind of your own fault.

An example of your dodging is below:

You don't respond to my question here.
Is your original claim true or do you believe that it is false now?


You've shown what you believe in one mistake by snopes, then refused to engage when people have shown your claim there was wrong.

The FBI lie and have made mistakes, so we can dismiss their report.

You just posted a youtube video which: 1) comes from google as they own youtube and 2) there are endless youtube videos we can show are wrong and lies. So we can reject that video also.

It's a bit selective to apply your standards to some but not others.

Dismiss away. You are claiming I'm wrong about Snopes?
Really.
I've given you a direct example, they are off my list of opinions to be trusted. As are Google as I have also proven.
I'm happy to let others decide.
If you don't watch it you'll never know and therefore will have nothing cogent to add.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Is youtube a reliable fact checker

No, they certainly are not. If you want an example, ask again.
You might not like the result.
The film and FBI documents are to be used in conjunction.

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

they are off my list of opinions to be trusted.

You picked one article, decided it was wrong. Turns out you actually support the conclusion. That the article is in fact correct. And you still decide you "dont trust the source". For no reason.

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You picked one article, decided it was wrong. Turns out you actually support the conclusion. That the article is in fact correct. And you still decide you "dont trust the source". For no reason.

Won't you ever get tired of being wrong?

TaurenDruid

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I've proven that Snopes are bad fact checkers.
I've proven Google lie.

In terms of the latest link, you will also need to read the FBI documents, sorry.

But you've said yourself you haven't read the document yet.

Also - Google (whom you claim lie, you "proved" nothing) own and operate YouTube?

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Won't you ever get tired of being wrong?

You do realise that every single news agency and source of information (and online translator) makes mistakes. It doesn't mean you can dismiss them entirely as a source for one mistake or one perceived mistake. That makes no sense.

Their overall accountability and credible has to be taken into account. It's a spectrum.

We've encountered people who literally dismiss the study of science, the study of history, academia, the world's media - just to validate some ridiculous personal conspiracy

You are showing signs of heading in that direction with this bizarre conspiracy of yours..

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Dismiss away. You are claiming I'm wrong about Snopes?
Really.
I've given you a direct example, they are off my list of opinions to be trusted. As are Google as I have also proven.
I'm happy to let others decide.
If you don't watch it you'll never know and therefore will have nothing cogent to add.

Youtube is owned by google. You just posted a youtube video. How is this not massively hypocritical on your part?

And no, you have not given any good reason why anyone would watch a long youtube video. In my experience with conspiracy theorists like yourself such videos never contain what you say they do, and they never provide their own evidence.
Posting videos is not a substitute for having an opinion.

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

Youtube is owned by google. You just posted a youtube video. How is this not massively hypocritical on your part?

And no, you have not given any good reason why anyone would watch a long youtube video. In my experience with conspiracy theorists like yourself such videos never contain what you say they do, and they never provide their own evidence.
Posting videos is not a substitute for having an opinion.

I've given my opinion on the finders.

I won't read the FBI report. Wah!
I won't watch the film. Wah!

I'm not helping with your pollution any longer.