Is Organised Child Trafficking in America for Real?

TaurenDruid

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Says the guy that said it was too long and too difficult a format to read. Right. Bye.

Where did I say that?

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

And then you said for a fact that the CIA was involved and had people killed for it.
You have no evidence for that conspiracy theory.
Why did you claim this?

I made several other points in that post. Go back and address them please. I have addressed all of your points clearly and directly.

Get your facts straight please.
I said explicitly that the CIA were involved in child trafficking.
You have now tried to add in Snopes and murder.
Are we clear?
Now go read the source documents.
I am not going to be badgered.

TaurenDruid

No, it was you who said people had been murdered. State senators, IIRC.

I still want to know how the CIA decide that Politician A gets to abuse trafficked children, while Politician B gets shot and it's made to look like a suicide by having a suicide note that only one person is allowed to read.

Is there an application process they go through?

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I said explicitly that the CIA were involved in child trafficking.

And this view is presumably based on information..

Yet whenever you are asked about this information you immediately fob everyone off.

You are literally claiming

- There's a conspiracy!
- I don't have time to explain, read this report! everything is in there!

If everything is in there then why can't you paraphrase it or explain it in the slightest or even answer the most basic questions?

Anyone with two braincells to rub together knows something is very wrong with that..

Spencerfreeman

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Where did I say that?

It's what I took from an earlier post where you mentioned the length and style of the document.
I also may have confused you with someone else's post.
If I did, sorry I'm not going back.

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And this view is presumably based on information..

Yet whenever you are asked about this information you immediately fob everyone off.

You are literally claiming

- There's a conspiracy!
- I don't have time to explain, read this report! everything is in there!

If everything is in there then why can't you paraphrase it or explain it in the slightest or even answer the most basic questions?

Anyone with two braincells to rub together knows something is very wrong with that..

I'm too busy dealing with this ****fest to actually finish the entire document.
As i said on this merry go 'round, many times, I will have page numbers at some point.
If actually baffles me why people won't read it.

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Get your facts straight please.
I said explicitly that the CIA were involved in child trafficking.
You have now tried to add in Snopes and murder.
Are we clear?
Now go read the source documents.
I am not going to be badgered.

Post one:

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

It appears so. This is very disturbing. A Senator in Arizona is enquiringly into child trafficking.
He says he has been threatened by another politician to back off.

https://medicalkidnap.com/2019/10/16/arizona-senator-threatened-by-fellow-lawmaker-for-stating-that-foster-kids-are-being-sold-into-sexual-slavery/

Three Senators have been murdered that were inquiring into this issue.

Senator Nancy Schaeffer
Senator Linda Collins-Smith
Senator Jonathon Nichols

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111585383&postcount=23

I see no reason why I need to read the document as it's very clear that it doesn't support your claims.
You have just lied about your own posts, so no reason to believe you about other things. You've also been dodging and ignoring questions you can't honestly answer. You've shown yourself to be completely untrustworthy.

You yourself reject any "secondary sources" regardless of where they get their information. If we apply your standard fairly, that means you are rejected as a source also.

And if the source has the information you claimed it did, it would be trivial for you to show that and rub it in our faces. It would take you seconds.
Yet despite how wound up you seem to be getting you're not doing that.
There's only one explanation for that...

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

Post one:

I see no reason why I need to read the document as it's very clear that it doesn't support your claims.
You have just lied about your own posts, so no reason to believe you about other things. You've also been dodging and ignoring questions you can't honestly answer. You've shown yourself to be completely untrustworthy.

You yourself reject any "secondary sources" regardless of where they get their information. If we apply your standard fairly, that means you are rejected as a source also.

And if the source has the information you claimed it did, it would be trivial for you to show that and rub it in our faces. It would take you seconds.
Yet despite how wound up you seem to be getting you're not doing that.
There's only one explanation for that...

Now I understand why people won't put up with the **** around here.
Stop conflating what I said. You are little more than a nuisance.

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I'm too busy dealing with this ****fest to actually finish the entire document.

Could have saved yourself a lot of backpedaling and hassle by just stating that it was your opinion

But nope, you had to say it's a fact, like the battle of Midway, Boyle's law, the 1994 World Cup..

Still waiting for a single detail about it..

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Could have saved yourself a lot of backpedaling and hassle by just stating that it was your opinion

But nope, you had to say it's a fact, like the battle of Midway, Boyle's law, the 1994 World Cup..

Still waiting for a single detail about it..

That the CIA trafficked children is a fact?
Stop blaming me for your laziness in not reading for yourself.
I am confident that having done so that you will come to the same conclusion.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

Post one:

I see no reason why I need to read the document as it's very clear that it doesn't support your claims.
You have just lied about your own posts, so no reason to believe you about other things. You've also been dodging and ignoring questions you can't honestly answer. You've shown yourself to be completely untrustworthy.

You yourself reject any "secondary sources" regardless of where they get their information. If we apply your standard fairly, that means you are rejected as a source also.

And if the source has the information you claimed it did, it would be trivial for you to show that and rub it in our faces. It would take you seconds.
Yet despite how wound up you seem to be getting you're not doing that.
There's only one explanation for that...

How does an internet user sitting behind a computer know more than professionals, detectives, investigators, forensics, pathologists with all the evidence at a three separate scenes?

This is the part that stumps me.

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

That the CIA trafficked children is a fact?
Stop blaming me for your laziness in not reading for yourself.

It's not a fact. It's something you are claiming. A claim you are refusing to support. The onus is on you to support it. This is pretty standard stuff on any public debate forum.

You seem to be creating your own facts, then getting frustrated that people aren't taking your "word on it" that all the answers are in some several hundred page FBI report. Why should anyone bother reading it when you can't even outline or give any details on this so called conspiracy?

Also the report contains redacted parts, I seriously hope you aren't "filling in" these parts with your imagination, then expecting people to somehow mind-read you..

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not a fact. It's something you are claiming. A claim you are refusing to support. The onus is on you to support it. This is pretty standard stuff on any public debate forum.

You seem to be creating your own facts, then getting frustrated that people aren't taking your "word on it" that all the answers are in some several hundred page FBI report. Why should anyone bother reading it when you can't even outline or give any details on this so called conspiracy?

Also the report contains redacted parts, I seriously hope you aren't "filling in" these parts with your imagination, then expecting people to somehow mind-read you..

More merry go 'round that has been already addressed.
I have already shown examples of which redactions I'm filling in and where I'm getting them from. You must have missed them in your desire to condemn.

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

More merry go 'round that has been already addressed.

The only merry go 'round here is the dodging and deflecting.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I've already addressed that point.

Because it is better in a thread of it's own.

If you bring it up again in this thread you will be ignored.

Don’t backseat mod please.

A snopes article was shared which was a verbatim AP report. It confirms a conspiracy of child trafficking involving Arizona officials.

You said it was untrustworthy because you claim Covfefe means something in Arabic, despite Snopes arguing the contrary quite thoroughly.

Now that you realize you’ve dug into a hole you want to pretend your absurd deflection requires its own thread. It does not. /mod.

Also all the petty insults: if you give you will take. Become an honest broker in the discussion and you will get honest brokerage in return.

If you aren’t positing a conspiracy theory (as you said) and you’re only asking if child trafficking happens in the US: the answer is yes, hence I’m not sure what more you want from the conversation.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Don’t backseat mod please.

A snopes article was shared which was a verbatim AP report. It confirms a conspiracy of child trafficking involving Arizona officials.

You said it was untrustworthy because you claim Covfefe means something in Arabic, despite Snopes arguing the contrary quite thoroughly.

Now that you realize you’ve dug into a hole you want to pretend your absurd deflection requires its own thread. It does not. /mod.

Also all the petty insults: if you give you will take. Become an honest broker in the discussion and you will get honest brokerage in return.

If you aren’t positing a conspiracy theory (as you said) and you’re only asking if child trafficking happens in the US: the answer is yes, hence I’m not sure what more you want from the conversation.

You dumped a Snopes link with no indication of what it contained.
I said I didn't rate Snopes and wouldn't open it.
You then referred to what was inside saying they cited the AP, again providing no context for what that said.
You have only since provided some context.

My Covfefe post was to only to show and prove, why I don't rate Snopes. They still have not updated their piece and the evidence has been available since September.

It wasn't an intentional effort at back seat modding.
I had already given my opinion both to you and another poster in full.
I was tired of readdressing it and as I had offered to provide additional documents i didn't want to post them in a thread about a completely different issue. It most certainly was not an effort at deflection.


It is of 0 importance what it actually means in ANY language.

The FACTS are that google employees changed it's meaning in google translate AFTER Trump had used google translator which at the time he had posted translated "Covfefe" as "I will stand up".

I have already provided primary documentary evidence.

I'm sure you will let me know if I have missed something.

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

My Covfefe post was to only to show and prove, why I don't rate Snopes. They still have not updated their piece and the evidence has been available since September.

The Snopes article is entirely correct. It posits that Covfefe doesn't mean anything in any language, and supports that directly.

Therefore you were wrong to highlight that article as incorrect.

It's extraordinary you don't acknowledge this.

The FACTS are that google employees changed it's meaning in google translate AFTER Trump had used google translator which at the time he had posted translated "Covfefe" as "I will stand up".

Translation software makes mistakes. It could have been a mistake or it could have been an inside joke. The translator was later CORRECTED because the word doesn't mean anything in any language - as per the Snopes article

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The Snopes article is entirely correct. It posits that Covfefe doesn't mean anything in any language, and supports that directly.

Therefore you were wrong to highlight that article as incorrect.

It's extraordinary you don't acknowledge this.




Translation software makes mistakes. It could have been a mistake or it could have been an inside joke. The translator was later CORRECTED because the word doesn't mean anything in any language - as per the Snopes article

So you're trying to say that google translate DID translate/mistranslate "Covfefe" as "I will stand up" and they corrected it to mean something else, but did it as a joke?

What have I said differently except that I contend that it was done on purpose?

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

So you're trying to say that google translate DID translate "Covfefe" as "I will stand up" and they corrected it to mean something else, but did it as a joke?

What have I said differently except that I contend that it was done on purpose?

A third of this thread is you banging on about how you don't trust Snopes as a source - and it turns out you were completely wrong about the Snopes article, it was in fact correct.

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A third of this thread is you banging on about how you don't trust Snopes as a source - and it turns out you were completely wrong about the Snopes article, it was in fact correct.

It is not now in fact correct as I have shown.

How about addressing Google's malicious intent as proven by the primary documentary evidence?

Dohnjoe

You haven't shown.

This is the claim that the Snopes article tackles:

"Is ‘Covfefe’ a Word in Arabic? Yiddish? ‘Antediluvian’?"

AKA

""Covfefe" means something, anything."

The answer is: "No it isn't a word in Arabic or any other language." Therefore the article is correct.

If you don't agree, please highlight the part of the article which you believe is incorrect. It's very simple, just copy and paste it in here, in a reply.

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You haven't shown.

This is the claim that the Snopes article tackles:



AKA



The answer is: "No it isn't a word in Arabic or any other language." Therefore the article is correct.

If you don't agree, please highlight the part of the article which you believe is incorrect. It's very simple, just copy and paste it in here, in a reply.

They have had access to the same evidence that I have since September. They have not corrected the article so it is now incorrect.

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

They have had access to the same evidence that I have since September. They have not corrected the article so it is now incorrect.

?

I'm not sure you understand what we are discussing. Here's a simplified example.

Claim : The world is flat

Examination : Evidence from NASA, space travel, satellites, etc, etc, etc shows the world is round

Conclusion : The claim that the world is flat is false

Do you understand that?

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

?

I'm not sure you understand what we are discussing. Here's a simplified example.

Claim : The world is flat

Examination : Evidence from NASA, space travel, satellites, etc, etc, etc shows the world is round

Conclusion : The claim that the world is flat is false

Do you understand that?

You are ignore that the real issue. Let me make it plain.

Google translate, in error, used to translate "Covfefe" as "I will Stand up".

Google employees changed it after Trump's now infamous tweet in an attempt to impugne.

The actual meaning of the word does not matter one whit.

Do you understand that?

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

You are ignore that the real issue.

This is the issue

Claim : 'Covfefe' means something

Evidence : It doesn't mean anything in any language

Claim : Is false

You clearly cannot grasp that.

• Claim
• Evidence for/against
• Conclusion

It's next to impossible to debate with someone who doesn't understand these basic concepts

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is the issue

Claim : 'Covfefe' means something

Evidence : It doesn't mean anything in any language

Claim : Is false

You clearly cannot grasp that.

• Claim
• Evidence for/against
• Conclusion

It's next to impossible to debate with someone who doesn't understand these basic concepts

You may have failed to read it. Here is a copy of an actual document from Google.
The contained link is between google employees.

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

You may have failed to read it.

Does 'Covfefe' mean something in another language, yes or no?

No waffle or deflection, just answer. Wow.

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Does 'Covfefe' mean something in another language, yes or no?

No waffle or deflection, just answer. Wow.

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

As I have already said that doesn't matter.

The line below shows that google translate, at the time of the Trump tweet said;

We currently translate the query "cov fe'fe" from Arabic to English into "I will stand up".

OK?

Spencerfreeman

Now that this has been proven conclusively, can we return to the topic of the thread please.

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A third of this thread is you banging on about how you don't trust Snopes as a source - and it turns out you were completely wrong about the Snopes article, it was in fact correct.

Are you man enough to admit that it wasn't me that continually returned to it?

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