Is Organised Child Trafficking in America for Real?

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Yes, as a fact the CIA were involved.

Great. This is fascinating. So to start asking the obvious questions

1. From when to when did this take place?
2. How did it work?
3. Why did they do it?

Made up or imagined answers will obviously be ignored, only factual answers supported by direct evidence.

If of course you want to backtrack and claim this isn't a fact, and is actually a personal hunch or an opinion you have, then we don't require credible supporting evidence for every detail

Spencerfreeman

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so why do you claim they were murdered? what is the basis for that claim?

Synchronicity and paucity of proof provided that they were not.
I have provided evidence to show the that "The Finders" the CIA run group, had the same focus on future technology as had Epstein.

ohnonotgmail

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Synchronicity and paucity of proof provided that they were not.
I have provided evidence to show the that "The Finders" the CIA run group, had the same focus on future technology as had Epstein.

No, no, i am specifically asking you about your claim that 3 people were murdered. You have provided nothing to backup your assertion.

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Great. This is fascinating. So to start asking the obvious questions

1. From when to when did this take place?
2. How did it work?
3. Why did they do it?

Made up or imagined answers will obviously be ignored, only factual answers supported by direct evidence.

If of course you want to backtrack and claim this isn't a fact, and is actually a personal hunch or an opinion you have, then we don't require credible supporting evidence for every detail

Forgive me for repeating myself Dohnjoe, it's ALL in the FBI report available in this thread.

Spencerfreeman

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No, no, i am specifically asking you about your claim that 3 people were murdered. You have provided nothing to backup your assertion.

Synchronicity and paucity of proof provided that they were not.

ohnonotgmail

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Synchronicity and paucity of proof provided that they were not.

Even for CT that is really weak. really poor effort on your behalf.

banie01

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Your conclusion on the CIA involvement only shows that you haven't read the FBI report.
I'm going to allow the sane minded reading this to come to their own conclusions as to the similar circumstances and veracity of the Police reports.
I don't think it's in any way vague.

As I said in an earlier comment, poster is hoping for inception rather than laying out their theory.

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Forgive me for repeating myself Dohnjoe, it's ALL in the FBI report available in this thread.

If you are claiming it's in the report, then why aren't you providing answers to those questions pointing to the relevant pieces of the report as evidence?

e.g.
The CIA was involved in child trafficking from e.g. 1968 to 1989 as per X in the report

Spencerfreeman

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Even for CT that is really weak. really poor effort on your behalf.

I accept that's your conclusion.

banie01

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Synchronicity and paucity of proof provided that they were not.

So coincidence and absence of evidence?
Is...
Your evidence?

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Please read the document provided before jumping to any conclusions on that front.

In my experience conspiracy theorists who dodge and avoid questions and declare "just read this link" or "just watch this video" are not being all that honest about the content they are pointing to.

Why not just copy paste and quote the relevant bits to answer the questions directly and concisely?
Why give the run around?

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If you are claiming it's in the report, then why aren't you providing answers to those questions pointing to the relevant pieces of the report as evidence?

e.g.
The CIA was involved in child trafficking from e.g. 1968 to 1989 as per X in the report

Because I'm letting the report to speak for itself. I'm not going to spoon feed.

ohnonotgmail

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I accept that's your conclusion.

You dont really have a choice. you have no evidence to offer.

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

In my experience conspiracy theorists who dodge and avoid questions and declare "just read this link" or "just watch this video" are not being all that honest about the content they are pointing to.

Why not just copy paste and quote the relevant bits to answer the questions directly and concisely?
Why give the run around?

Because of the amount of work involved in reproducing what is already there and obvious to those that read it. It's a long and difficult read. I haven't even got to the end myself yet.

Spencerfreeman

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You dont really have a choice. you have no evidence to offer.

None so blind as those that can't see.

ohnonotgmail

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

None so blind as those that can't see.

you have not provided anything to see.

TaurenDruid

I don't think law enforcement works the way you think it works.

Police/FBI/whoever generally don't set out to prove a victime wasn't murdered, they generally try to find enough evidence to bring charges against an alleged perpetrator.

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Because of the amount of work involved in reproducing what is already there and obvious to those that read it. It's a long and difficult read. I haven't even got to the end myself yet.

This is claimed a lot by people who believe a great many silly things.
And it doesn't require that much work to copy and paste, so your excuse isn't convincing. So my conclusion (and the conclusion of most people who aren't predisposed to believe wild conspiracies) will remain unchanged.

In fact, I bet that your continued dodging will convince more people that there isn't much behind your theory.

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

This is claimed a lot by people who believe a great many silly things.
And it doesn't require that much work to copy and paste, so your excuse isn't convincing. So my conclusion (and the conclusion of most people who aren't predisposed to believe wild conspiracies) will remain unchanged.

In fact, I bet that your continued dodging will convince more people that there isn't much behind your theory.

It's clear that you haven't tried to read the report if you think a copy and paste would work.

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Because I'm letting the report to speak for itself. I'm not going to spoon feed.

You can't answer the questions and you can't back up your claims with direct evidence

Imploring people read a report you can't provide basic answers from is absurd

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

It's clear that you haven't tried to read the report if you think a copy and paste would work.

As I said, your constant dodging and deflection indicates to me that you don't have much to back up your position and that reading the report would be 1.) a waste of time and 2.) most likely counter your claims very quickly on examination.
This has been my experience with other people using your tactic. You haven't done much to change my mind on that.

I'm only chiming in because you claimed that sane people would side with you.
That's clearly not the case...

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You can't answer the questions and you can't back up your claims with direct evidence

Imploring people read a report you can't provide basic answers from is absurd

I'm claiming the answers are in the report. I'll spoon feed you page numbers at some point.

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I'm claiming the answers are in the report. I'll spoon feed you page numbers at some point.

So rather than just give them, you've spent the last three pages repeating that you aren't going to give them and that you don't need to give them?
K...

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

So rather than just give them, you've spent the last three pages repeating that you aren't going to give them and that you don't need to give them?
K...

Did you miss where I said I haven't even finished reading it yet?

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I'm claiming the answers are in the report. I'll spoon feed you page numbers at some point.

It's not "spoon feeding", it's called supporting your claim. And you won't just be dumping page numbers either, you will be highlighting the specific parts that support specific claims.

This is really basic, elementary stuff

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Did you miss where I said I haven't even finished reading it yet?

Why do you need to finish it to provide the page numbers or to copy paste the relevant quotes?

Why would you make your claims as absolute fact when you haven't finished the report and can't use it to support your claims?
That seems like a contradiction.

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not "spoon feeding", it's called supporting your claim. And you won't just be dumping page numbers either, you will be highlighting the specific parts that support specific claims.

This is really basic, elementary stuff

No I won't be reproducing any pages. I'll give you the page numbers and what I'm claiming, you can read those pages and dispute it.
Elementary.

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

Why do you need to finish it to provide the page numbers or to copy paste the relevant quotes?

Why would you make your claims as absolute fact when you haven't finished the report and can't use it to support your claims?
That seems like a contradiction.

I'm trying to figure out what's behind the redactions by comparing contemporary newspaper reports, some of which I've posted here, and who they're referring to at the moment.
I will get to it.

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I'm trying to figure out what's behind the redactions by comparing contemporary newspaper reports, some of which I've posted here, and who they're referring to at the moment.
I will get to it.

Again, giving your dodging, I don't believe you and I don't think this will be forthcoming.

Also, if you are doing actual research, why post it here?
Why not go to a real news organisation?

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

No I won't be reproducing any pages. I'll give you the page numbers and what I'm claiming, you can read those pages and dispute it.
Elementary.

You refused to click on a Snopes link just a couple pages ago because you don’t like Snopes, and begged to have parts of the 1 page article spoon fed to you. Yet you expect others to sift through a large PDF and ‘incept’ whatever your conspiracy theory is by accepting (without citation) information you pretend fills in the blanks of redactions in this document. By your own admission you haven’t even finished “reading” this document yourself but expect others to do so, without telling them what they’re looking for, or why it is relevant to a conspiracy that you refuse to summarize.