It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

DC Pedo Ring Being Exposed - Democrats and Clinton

page: 14
152
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


Seriously, if you guys have unraveled something important, I'd like to see it too. I'm not kidding.


Really? REALLY???

Because your google is broken? Or your address bar? You seriously can't do your own due diligence and make the connection? And do I believe for one nanosecond that you would simply accept anything I offered without question? Of course not! You have a mind to think for yourself and obviously the ability to use a keyboard, and a basic command of the English language. If you wanted to know, you would find your own answers.

And you would find that there is a long-standing and well-established code using the exact terminology used in these many linked emails.

Under different circumstances, I might tell you that if you have to ask the question (or make the demands) then you wouldn't understand the answer. But in this case, I'm not so inclined to blame simple ignorance.




posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Greggers


Seriously, if you guys have unraveled something important, I'd like to see it too. I'm not kidding.


Really? REALLY???

Because your google is broken? Or your address bar? You seriously can't do your own due diligence and make the connection? And do I believe for one nanosecond that you would simply accept anything I offered without question?


I did the research. I looked at the emails. I'm asking you to show me what YOU see, because I don't see any explicit connection between hanky code and that handkerchief email.

Instead of all the histrionics, why not simply answer the question?

If it's as obvious as you suggest, it should be easy.

And no, I am not a shill, paid or otherwise. In fact, if you look back over this thread, you will see me pointing out several things that were intriguing about this theory initially.
edit on 8-11-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
a reply to: Greggers

You just made it obvious that you haven't looked at any of the questionable data. How do you elect to have an opinion?


I did look at it.

I'm asking you guys to show me what YOU see that you find so COMPELLING.

P.S.

Telling me to use Google is not an answer. I'm not asking what's available via Google. I'm asking in particular about a translation from a specific email to hanky code and what it means to YOU.
edit on 8-11-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

"I seriously don't know why you would say such things about me."

It was a response to your statement that some of us watch too much tv. So then if some of us are too imaginative then it would be fair to say that some of us are too myopic.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
a reply to: Greggers

"I seriously don't know why you would say such things about me."

It was a response to your statement that some of us watch too much tv. So then if some of us are too imaginative then it would be fair to say that some of us are too myopic.


I suppose that's fair.

But this really does read like the plot of a movie. In particular, season 1 of True Detective comes to mind, complete with the strange occult rituals and the deer antlers.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: talisman

First he was 'high in Government' now he's 'involved with Government' and the source you produce says he wasn't even involved.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
Uh, some of those people from "some time ago" are still in the picture, you really didn't do your homework


Name one.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

I didn't mention Google. My suggestion to you would be, if you want to offer a compelling argument to convince everyone that this is "nothing" that it's all normal and purely coincidental then I would write out a concise summary with bullet points to offer a logical explanation. I think that might be a lot more convincing than writing everyone off as "conspiracy wackjobs" simply because you want to protect Democrats. I recommend you research the data starting with the outline that the anonymous redditor created compiling the questionable evidence and then I would go to 4chan and do a search on the images that were found. I can't remember all of them but off the top of my head there's one with a child's arms taped down to the top of a table, one of a bare room someone called the "drunk tank", one of a naked man with a pizza between his legs, a drawing of sex on top of a pizza, a young child wearing an evening gown with a paper bag over her/his head, several "art" photography pieces of children---some naked. Paintings of children being whipped and hung by ropes in a bathroom and a sculpture of a male in strange pose that was compared to how Jeffery Dahmer displayed his victim's bodies after he murdered them. This sculpture is hanging in Tony Podesta's house. There are some strange videos and other things I'm sure I'm forgetting. But if you can convincingly explain that this is all completely "normal" I'd really like to hear it.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: audubon

You should know who I'm talking about if you did the research.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


Instead of all the histrionics, why not simply answer the question?


Histrionics? That all you got??? I'll see your "histrionics" and raise you with willful blindness.


If it's as obvious as you suggest, it should be easy.


Damn right it's easy!!!

Is there a long-standing and well-established "hanky code?" Why yes... yes, there is.

Did these Clinton et al emails speak of "handkerchiefs" with various descriptive terms in seeming accordance with the long-standing and well-established "hanky code?" Why yes... yes, they did.

There is the obvious connection. All as noted in my first response...


And no, I am not a shill, paid or otherwise.


Hmmm... guilty conscience? Because I never suggested any such thing. I simply commented that I don't believe it's ignorance on your part. I never spoke to your true motives.


In fact, if you look back over this thread, you will see me pointing out several things that were intriguing about this theory initially.


Ah yes... the concern troll... thanks for the heads up.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
a reply to: audubon

You should know who I'm talking about if you did the research.


You're American, aren't you? The poker mentality means that a certain type of American will always try to bluff their way through a situation. I'm calling you on it.

I think you mean Jeffrey Epstein. But he's not even peripherally involved in this pizza nonsense. And since he's not even peripherally involved, it would be wrong to drag him into it.

So, who do you mean?



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: audubon

You're going to call my bluff? Let's see how that works, you said that you "researched" the history of sex rings/human trafficking within D.C./U.S. government so tell me what scandals you uncovered and we'll go from there. No, I wasn't talking about Jeffery Epstein but since you've decided to claim that he's not even peripherally involved then why don't you explain how you know this for a fact. Did you talk to him about it?



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: cherokeetroy

I don't have to prove that he isn't involved. That's a silly proposition.

Anyway, let's get back to the subject you're avoiding. Name one of these people you're referring to.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: audubon

well when you want to make a substantial claim like the one you did, I think it stands to reason it should be backed up by some evidence, don't you? Or are you just going off of your gut instinct. I'm not avoiding anything, I'm pretty sure you were full of sh*t when you said you looked into the history yada yada yada and now you're just proving it. Typical willful ignorance is always fueled by laziness, denial and lies.


(post by Zeta Reticuli removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
a reply to: audubon

well when you want to make a substantial claim like the one you did, I think it stands to reason it should be backed up by some evidence, don't you? Or are you just going off of your gut instinct. I'm not avoiding anything, I'm pretty sure you were full of sh*t when you said you looked into the history yada yada yada and now you're just proving it. Typical willful ignorance is always fueled by laziness, denial and lies.


As I've said, I've looked into this and can't find a single historical person who is relevant to this pizza-related nonsense.

You, on the other hand, are claiming I've missed at least one person of interest.

Since it's not actually possible for me to prove that there is no-one of historical interest in this pizza gibberish, the only one of us who can actually demonstrate that they are correct is you. Please note the bolded section in your quoted remarks, above.

This is my last roll of the die, I do have other things to be getting on with than being trolled by a blowhard.

So, who do you have in mind? Put up or shut up.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
If this is a 4 chan prank than I bought it hook, line and sinker. I hope they're proud of themselves.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Greggers


Did these Clinton et al emails speak of "handkerchiefs" with various descriptive terms in seeming accordance with the long-standing and well-established "hanky code?" Why yes... yes, they did.



No, no they did not. Apparently the black handkerchief code was legitimately for S&M, but the white for pedophilia was edited in afterwards by whomever was cooking up this little scheme.

Maybe uber rich people actually use hankerchiefs?

Here is what everyone freaked out about:


The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related. Is it yorus? They can send it if you want. I know you’re busy, so feel free not to respond if it’s not yours or you don’t want it.


And yeah that sounds really fishy. The wording is extremely odd. But if you read more of the email, it turns out someone had emailed her, and she was emailing him, so it's extremely likely she's not working on full information, that it's a game of telephone.

Read what was emailed to her:



Susan & Herb I just came from checking the Field house and I have a square cloth handkerchief (white w/ black) that was left on the kitchen island. Happy to send it via the mail if you let me know where I should send it. I also meant to inquire yesterday about the pillows you purchased. I can send them as well, if you let me know where they are in the house. Safe travels to all Kate


That does not sound weird in the slightest. It sounds like someone left a handkerchief on a kitchen island, and it occurs in the context of pillows being purchased, and possibly mailing them to the owner.

As far as I'm concerned the only weird thing about this is the art tastes of Tony Podesta. It's creepy, that's for sure. Doesn't make someone an occultist pedophile though.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Greggers


Instead of all the histrionics, why not simply answer the question?


Histrionics? That all you got??? I'll see your "histrionics" and raise you with willful blindness.


If it's as obvious as you suggest, it should be easy.


Damn right it's easy!!!

Is there a long-standing and well-established "hanky code?" Why yes... yes, there is.

Did these Clinton et al emails speak of "handkerchiefs" with various descriptive terms in seeming accordance with the long-standing and well-established "hanky code?" Why yes... yes, they did.

There is the obvious connection. All as noted in my first response...


And no, I am not a shill, paid or otherwise.


Hmmm... guilty conscience? Because I never suggested any such thing. I simply commented that I don't believe it's ignorance on your part. I never spoke to your true motives.


In fact, if you look back over this thread, you will see me pointing out several things that were intriguing about this theory initially.


Ah yes... the concern troll... thanks for the heads up.


Why are you refusing to translate the email?

Again, I'm asking you do something real simple, which you either cannot or will not do.

As in, walk through the email line by line and explain what EACH LINE MEANS, while referencing specific elements from the hanky code manual.



new topics

top topics



 
152
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join