I must follow up the links you've provided. Have you come across the Pedogate documentaries by Mouthy Buddha? He does deep dives into Comet Pizza etc. The more you look, the more you realise how bad this all is. If only it really was just a baseless 'conspiracy theory' we'd all be very much happier, especially the children.
Many years ago I tried to dig around the subject but it got extremely complex consuming many months, and there was a lot of insinuations but not a lot of explicit concrete evidence I could use besides what people already knew (EG the people who had been on the Lolita express).
I prefer to avoid coverage that is heavy in insinuation or implication because often times that's where the biggest errors occur and it invites speculation, which isn't practical from a truth-telling perspective. Whilst I suspect there is 'something' deeper, it is extensive and exhaustive and would require tools beyond my capabilities (read: mass surveillance) to properly untangle.
Unlike in other domains, accusing someone of pedophilia is a very serious charge and invites reprisals from the public - often violence. It is very easy to cherry pick information and point the finger at the wrong person.
In this case, it is very clear NYT are trying to cover up for pedophilia because they literally published the article themselves. But in-cases of shell companies, proxies, fronts, go-betweens, hired goons and repurposed victims, it is very difficult to uncover the shadier aspects.
I must follow up the links you've provided. Have you come across the Pedogate documentaries by Mouthy Buddha? He does deep dives into Comet Pizza etc. The more you look, the more you realise how bad this all is. If only it really was just a baseless 'conspiracy theory' we'd all be very much happier, especially the children.
Thank you for your tireless research.
Many years ago I tried to dig around the subject but it got extremely complex consuming many months, and there was a lot of insinuations but not a lot of explicit concrete evidence I could use besides what people already knew (EG the people who had been on the Lolita express).
I prefer to avoid coverage that is heavy in insinuation or implication because often times that's where the biggest errors occur and it invites speculation, which isn't practical from a truth-telling perspective. Whilst I suspect there is 'something' deeper, it is extensive and exhaustive and would require tools beyond my capabilities (read: mass surveillance) to properly untangle.
Unlike in other domains, accusing someone of pedophilia is a very serious charge and invites reprisals from the public - often violence. It is very easy to cherry pick information and point the finger at the wrong person.
In this case, it is very clear NYT are trying to cover up for pedophilia because they literally published the article themselves. But in-cases of shell companies, proxies, fronts, go-betweens, hired goons and repurposed victims, it is very difficult to uncover the shadier aspects.
The Times has become a public relations outfit for all the sleaziest "connected" fraudsters and predators.