"Pizzagate" Explodes

Now it's gone.

Yes I noticed it was gone, so posted again (I have also saved the article)

Wayfair? Photo with firm's 'operations head' convinces Internet
Several users took to Twitter to share a photo of Maxwell with an unidentified man who they are calling 'Bill Hutcherson' and claiming is the head of operations at Wayfair





Yes I noticed it had gone so I re posted again (cannot be deleted now)
 
Cholas I find that laughable! I am consumed with doing research. I only post a tiny bit of what I find, because honestly the rest is just too much to stomach.
Think about this - can one honestly believe that Epstein would allow 'outsiders' to even set foot on his plane. The risk would be too great, he simply could not afford to expose his evil operation to anyone who was not part of it. The whole operation would be in jeopardy. God Forbid! They ensconce themselves in the lower levels, sit on metal buckets and devour infants and children.
Picture available if interested.

To be able to get on that plane you would have to be 'In The Club'

We are all horrified and angry with these very evil people that abuse, murder and torture innocent children. I've been looking into this for years, and I just wanted to say that I'm familiar with the fervor of wanting to get to the bottom of things, to expose it all, and to nail those evil bastards. It's so frustrating! And at 'the height' of my research into this, I did notice that the topic was consuming me, I was thinking about it all the time, and had difficulties concentrating on other things. So, I had to take a pause from researching it, and keep some distance. But I'm not 'done' with the topic, and right now I'm almost finished reading Fiona Barnett's book 'Eyes Wide Shut' (I'll post about it later).

I'm not saying, of course, that the topic is not important, but I recognize in your recent posts this emotionally driven fervor that can – at least in the long run – consume you and have detrimental effects. Plus, as you see in your response above – you're at this point 'snapping' at members' posts that are trying to offer another perspective.
 
Cholas I find that laughable! I am consumed with doing research. I only post a tiny bit of what I find, because honestly the rest is just too much to stomach.
Think about this - can one honestly believe that Epstein would allow 'outsiders' to even set foot on his plane. The risk would be too great, he simply could not afford to expose his evil operation to anyone who was not part of it. The whole operation would be in jeopardy. God Forbid!
They ensconce themselves in the lower levels, sit on metal buckets and devour infants and children.
Picture available if interested. To be able to get on that plane you would have to be 'In The Club'
I'm not saying, of course, that the topic is not important, but I recognize in your recent posts this emotionally driven fervor that can – at least in the long run – consume you and have detrimental effects. Plus, as you see in your response above – you're at this point 'snapping' at members' posts that are trying to offer another perspective.

I think aragorn has given some very useful feedback based on his own experiences, and I would also echo what he has recommended because I sense the "emotionally driven fervor" in your post as well.

This topic is a rabbit hole which unearths extremely disturbing information that no doubt takes a significant toll on the psyche. For that reason, it is important to keep a check on ones tendency to become overly absorbed in researching it, and try our best to counterbalance that with more positive and nourishing activities for the soul.

That is not to say that we should live in a "positivity-bubble", but rather try to be mindful of the underlying negative consequences that excessive research of this kind can have on our mental health. It naturally evokes horrible emotions to witness this pure evil at work, and that can eventually have a detrimental impact on even the most strong-minded of people. Experiencing this emotional response is most certainly a healthy one, but it is wise to choose the influences which we expose ourselves to on a daily basis.

Yes, we must acknowledge that it does exist and by all means, continue to learn about all aspects of reality in the most objective sense possible. But with that said, acknowledging it is somewhat different to becoming overly-identified and "consumed" by it.

After all, there is little that we can practically do to change these events. We may invest a lot of energy digging into the topic, only to feel depressed and dis-empowered, with little energy to invest in other activities. I speak from my own experience here, at least.

On the other hand, there are lots of other things which we can change in ourselves and in our local environments. There are ways to invest our energy which benefit others but which also nourish the soul, providing strength to continue on without becoming "burned out".

Cholas I find that laughable! I am consumed with doing research. I only post a tiny bit of what I find, because honestly the rest is just too much to stomach.
Think about this - can one honestly believe that Epstein would allow 'outsiders' to even set foot on his plane. The risk would be too great, he simply could not afford to expose his evil operation to anyone who was not part of it. The whole operation would be in jeopardy. God Forbid!
RE Cholas' comment, I think it was fairly reasonable to assume that not every guest would necessarily be involved with child-trafficking operations. We are probably in agreement that the relationships should be investigated and that many on the list are likely attending for some kind of sexual service or related business activities.

However, it would overkill to think that every encounter or attendance was for those reasons IMO. Epstein was like an octopus with many tentacles reaching into the highest echelons of the elite but also with a social network spanning across many celebrities and other popular figures in society. I would imagine he was involved in a variety of operations which were not solely related to sex trafficking and pedophillia, but also perhaps some standard/normal types of business and investment. It seems that he was trying to get "dirt" on as many people as possible, but that is not to say that every attendee was necessarily corruptible, right?

It could be my naivete showing here, but I think it is important to caution against having our pattern-recognition system go into overdrive and perceive conspiracy/nefarious activity in every possible situation - when a much more mundane reason could also explain some of the events.
 
Last edited:
To be able to get on that plane you would have to be 'In The Club'

I don't think this is correct. There's obviously people mixed on the flight logs who are NOT pedophiles. It's not black and white. For example Donald Trump flew Epstein's plane in 1997 and there's no evidence to connect him to Epstein's circle (on the contrary Trump even kicked him out from Mar-a-Lago), yet the media likes to throw those few pictures of them together and make him guilty by association. We should be careful with this also, and not let our emotions and biases to lead us into false conclusions.

Epstein's main job was to get in contact with powerful people and get them compromised. I have no doubt that people like Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Kevin Spacey, Woody Allen, and Alan Dershowitz (who already have long track record) are complicit with Epstein, but at this point everyone who ever met him (without any illegal activity) are tarnished in some way (having to make public statements or keep it hidden) and already this gives leverage to the real powers behind this whole operation. It would make sense to get many influential and famous people associated with Epstein, since now everyone are suspected and it gives cover to the real predators, making it harder for public to identify them.

It's easy to let pattern recognition run amok, and with pedophilia we're talking one of the most horrible crimes imaginable, so there's also responsibility for not making too fast and final conclusions how we perceive someone -public figure or not- based on inconclusive evidence.
 
How do you know, and does it really matter?

We don't know either way, that´s the point being made. By now, we can safely assume that many, probably most of people on that list were indeed guilty - especially those who flew several times because they were obviously aware of what they were getting into, and those who already had a background of sexual misconduct. But consider that some of the others might have been lured in there with whatever excuse (e.g. business), in the hope that after a few drinks they would agree to have sex with a young-looking woman who turned out to be a minor, so that they would be video-recorded and blackmailed. And perhaps some had enough moral spine to say no, so we can't assume that ALL were guilty.

Why is it important? Because we don't want to put the blame on innocent people, and because if we do, the whole case ends up losing credibility, IMO.
 
How do you know, and does it really matter?

Well, it matters for someone who's aim is to see the truth, no? That above question essentially translates into: "does reality really matter?"

If our goal here is to tune our "reading instruments" so to be able to get a more objective perception of reality, then it is important to be on guard against black and white assumptions and lazy-thinking. It is quite easy to lump everyone who associated with Epstein into the "pedophile" category, and takes very little effort. The truth is rarely that simple, and there are always nuances.

Like Windmill Knight said, its not a good idea to assume people have committed horrific crime simply by association. That is what the MSM in the USA have been trying to do against Trump simply through association with Epstein... yet we know that there were many other details involved in that story which were conveniently left out.
 

That photo is creepy. Virginia goes by her married name and lives (lived?) in a square shaped state in the middle of the US. It's not really a secret. She has a husband and family and seems to do well for herself. She seems to have the grounding and center to take them on. She's not a gold digger or "psycho" -- she has a stable life now. She will be big trouble for them. That article says Australia! So she's moving around for a reason, or they are misleading on purpose.
 
I believe I understand where you are coming from, Ocean: that gut feeling, internal compass sort of "knowing." Having said that, I think the best research into shadowy areas like this requires putting those feelings aside -- not discounting them, mind you -- but putting them aside as you commence the diligent work of proving your gut instincts to be factually correct. And if you do have a good internal compass at work, that can only help you in this effort. Short of that, we're talking about conjecture and speculation. There's nothing wrong with that, either. It's just a question of how far you want to take your investigations. If we were to see an actual trial of Gislaine Maxwell, for example, the prosecution would need to be working with very precise, incontrovertible evidence and convincing testimony, and no doubt a cross-referencing of both in order to present a compelling case.

I just finished reading Tom O'Neill's fairly recent book on Manson. It's actually a very instructive book to read if you're interested in this kind of research since it's written as a first person, largely chronological narrative about just how he went about doing this investigative work: which witnesses he spoke to, and when, what evidence he considered and even uncovered, what improvised theories he was working with through each leg of his investigation, etc. -- along with all the dead ends he ran into, and all the doubts he was having -- the substance of which took him twenty years of his working life to accomplish (!) And even at the end of those twenty years, he still couldn't say with any certainty exactly how the murders went down (there were "finishers" involved, for example), and what exactly motivated them, given there were any number of theories that seemed to fit the bill. However, O'Neill did disprove beyond a reasonable doubt Vincent Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter" scenario, which knowingly ignored a treasure trove of vital evidence and testimony. And in disproving "Helter Skelter," O'Neill shed light on a great deal else, including the probable role of MKULTRA, by way of deep background on the case.

Anyway, it's probably something I should write about elsewhere on this forum, but it came to mind as an example of what this kind of work entails. It certainly does test one's own sanity, that's for sure!

Hi Heather, I am very much appreciative of you taking the time to help me in this dark, depraved subject. I am consumed with the research and everything I discover just reinforces my utter conviction that it is all real. I am not able to post everything I find as it is just too monumental. There is so much out there I just don't know where to begin.
You have given some very important advice. I just get too overwhelmed at times.

Thanks for the introduction about Tom O'Neill's book. it sounds absolutely fascinating.
 
Back
Top Bottom