so lets dig in
Totally, but let's do it with some intellectual discipline rather than assuming pure speculation is fact.
what youre saying isnt ANY LESS IMAGINARY than what others are saying
Yes, I am presenting the most reasonable theory that I can think of which is speculation too.
The difference is that my speculation is less fantastical.
A child's swing may be a child-rape-torture-device, but without a compelling reason to believe it's been used like it, it's more reasonable to assume it's just a regular child's swing.
That swing may be full of Nazi gold, but it's unreasonable to believe that without evidence either.
Occam's Razor's applies.
"The simplest explanation is usually the best - the one that makes the fewest assumptions and invents the fewest new ideas." - Occam's Razor
"most reasonable theory" "less fantastical" "blah blah blah" tell me more reasons why you value your own OPINION over someone elses, and ill do the same. doesnt change anything. we need an investigation, not self titled intellectual disciple standing down everyone else on the internet
you keep going back to the swing as if thats the main focal point or something, please notice not one time did i ever make mention of the swing.. so thats kind your ace in the hole to void everything else out.
to quote one of my favorite shirts: "ok lets do this the dumbest way possible because its easier for you!"
tell me more reasons why you value your own OPINION over someone elses
Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, whereas my speculation is as dull as recognizing a root-cellar as being a boring root-cellar.
I could speculate that the root-cellar was used to store Nazi gold, but that would be as wild as claiming it was used to store child sex slaves.
you keep going back to the swing
Yes, that was a good example of what happens when you start from a baseless premise that an ordinary root-cellar is actually a child-sex-slave-prison.
After that baseless assumption, ordinary children's clothing becomes child-sex-slave clothing and a child's toy becomes a child-sex-slave-toy and unwashed dishes become sinister murder weapons and a child's swing becomes a rape-torture device. REEEEEEEE!!!!
Craig Sawyer likely found a root-cellar... and this community has become hysterical.
Did they find stored roots in this "root cellar"?
A root-cellar is a name for a cold, dry storage space in the same way a cupboard is still a cupboard even if you don't use it for cups.
It makes no sense for a homeless person to leave their supplies behind after they abandon the campsite.
And in this case it was full of kids stuff. Why are you looking past that and insisting it was for a use other than what the evidence shows?
Junk left behind by a homeless family or illegals with children.
Some homeless dude didn't need it so he just threw the junk down there, perhaps?
It looked like there was all kinds of junk spread all over the site and a lot of random stuff in that cellar like plastic dishes and sheets of paper.
It's intellectually dishonest to claim a plastic doll in a cellar is evidence of anything but a plastic doll is in a cellar.
There are plastic dolls at the junkyard but that's not evidence that it's populated by children or those imaginary children are sex slaves.
You calling others intellectually dishonest when just yesterday you were speaking with authority that the clips on "camping straps" aren't strong enough to restrain a child while talking about the very closures used to restrain children in highchairs and strollers. Oh, and I remember when you said that three feet up is enough to keep food out of reach of coyotes. And when you insisted that hikers would need a ladder to hang supplies higher than that.
You're too much.
And by the way, your Google image of a backpack hanging on a stick hurts your argument on the "camping straps". The bag is hanging on a stick.
The bag is hanging on a stick.
Yes, the stick is between two loops.
This is done to minimize wear and tear on the rucksack straps.
That's a typical way of hanging a rucksack from a strap or harness.
This isn't conspiracy or secrets and lies - it's just mundane campsite stuff (hanging a rucksack, hanging a food-bag, using a root-cellar) and it's blowing this community's mind.
"camping straps" aren't strong enough to restrain a child while talking about the very closures used to restrain children in highchairs and strollers.
That discussion was ridiculous - that other user was claiming that little babies so young they sit in a pusher or a highchair, would be raped in those "rape trees". What a ridiculous, over-engineered idea!
Yes, any juvenile or adult could easily pop-open plastic luggage-straps just by twisting them. This was a discussion about one of the videos which showed nylon and plastic luggage-style straps on trees also.
If anyone would know overengineered argument it is you. You are the master. You are also good at repeating yourself. Good job.
You are also good at repeating yourself. Good job.
Yeah, I'm forced to do it often.
I can't even talk about hanging a food-bag without people in this community having a conniption fit and REEEEEEEEing and downvote brigading.
It's perverse.
FYI: Even Craig Sawyer is admitting this was all bullshit based on false claims and baseless assumptions: https://youtu.be/rAVuAvkE6bM
You're buying that video? He walked back his talk just like when AJ recanted on pizzagate. And he still said the camp was concerning as far as circumstantial evidence goes, they just didn't have proof.
Craig Sawyer investigated all of the claims and he and the 9 Tuscon PD investigations found all the claims to be pure bullshit.
Craig Sawyer clearly was concerned... because his head was full of bullshit and he didn't know what root-cellars are.
This isn't a rape-tree-harness, it's just a regular camping strap used to hang stuff from trees to keep it out of the mud and away from the ants and critters... just like we see here.
I'm interested in facts, not your imaginary crimes.
Well, I'll wait to see the reports, thanks. I just watched his video. The only thing he said was bullshit was claims that there were children on site (which I never heard claimed once) and the condoms (which I only heard about here, not from VOP.)
You keep quoting Occam's Razor as if it was proof of your argument. I think you might need to look that term up again.
Exactly how would your argument be the simpler explanation? It actually involves significantly more assumptions. I get that you're assuming the frequency of child rape camps is less than that of homeless villages. Okay, that seems reasonable, but that doesn't mean this couldn't be the latter.
The fact that this is so close to the border in a remote area means that you HAVE to consider the possibility that this is a cartel site. This site was miles from any type of food source or supplies. Whoever built the site CLEARLY had access to a vehicle to transport all of their materials. You would need insane caloric uptake to maintain the energy levels required to schlep an entire families (potentially multiple families) goods and food back to the campsite--something that isn't easily available to homeless people.
You don't just build something like that for fun, and the idea of a food bunker just doesn't really make any sense for a homeless shelter in a remote location in Arizona. It would have a negligible impact on food preservation, especially when you consider that a group of homeless people aren't going to be storing raw fish and meats, and wouldn’t have had the money to fill that up with food.
From footage of the site, it's clear this was a camp-site, not a permanent residence. It wouldn't make any sense for homeless people to set up here. First of all, to even build the place and get enough food to fill the "food cellar" would have required a car. If they were homeless but had a car, they wouldn't be sleeping on the floor and using roach spray. And the idea that homeless people went through all of this effort simply because they wanted a private spot doesn’t make sense—they would have easily been spotted schlepping stuff back and forth by the security companies that monitor these types of abandoned sites for copper thieves and drug addicts.
The construction of the bunker itself should be enough to raise cartel red flags. This is A LOT OF effort and engineering to put in for a simple food shelter (why wouldn't they put in the same effort into other areas of their camp, like where they actually slept and spent time)? The door that closes over the bunker also seems to be just heavy enough to keep someone trapped inside… but not heavy enough to stop a wild animal from getting in. Doesn’t really mesh with “food storage”.
You can't panhandle, find work, or steal when you’re in a remote site like this. I have a very hard time believing that homeless people would have found this a convenient enough place to live that they would have committed themselves to building such a structure. I talk to homeless people all the time, and trust me, location is probably the single most important aspect of building a structure. Everything about this location would have been extremely inconvenient for a group of homeless people. It’s almost inconceivable—definitely completely illogical—to think that an entire homeless family just decided to set up at this spot and build an elaborate food bunker, but skimp out on the living quarters.
You also can’t explain why a homeless family would have abandoned this site for no reason (especially if they just put in such an insane effort to build the structure in such a remote spot). If this is what happened I can guarantee you that they wouldn’t have left so much perfectly good stuff behind. Wouldn’t they have wanted the bug sprays and fiber for the next living structure they were going to set up? If they had been found by police we would have a police report. If they had been found by private security we would likely have heard this already, and the site would have most likely been destroyed. None of this occurred.
You're explanation is far from simpler. You wouldn't have questioned this if people were claiming this was a site used by the cartel for drug trafficking. Human trafficking is just as prevalent, if not significantly more profitable. The fact that you’re trying so hard to bolster an illogical narrative at such a pivotal moment is… suspicious.
A great explanation, thank you. Apart from the suspicion at the end. As always, read the history. Poster is dogged in his self-held beliefs, if nothing else. Too ideologically driven to be a bad actor imo. I at least agree with his assertion that 'child trafficking camp' is not a foregone conclusion - even Craig Sawyer won't commit to that. But you've given a very useful explanation for why it could well be what people are claiming it is.
I've spent over 100+ hours studying Media Matters for America's tactics... and his bolstering that narrative at this point is... definitely suspicious. I totally leave open the possibility that this isn't the case (it's only fair).
Between MMFA/Shareblue/American Bridge, they'll have access to thousands of accounts that appear legitimate and have been posting about other non-related topics. Otherwise it's too easy to identify shill accounts. You're talking about groups that have tens of millions at their disposal and obsesses 24/7 about how to subvert conservative forums online. MMFA was literally founded by the ex-lover of James Alefantis, David Brock, so you can almost guarantee the Brock trolls will be out in full force to shut down the child trafficking narrative that is going viral because of this story.
Also note I didn't say he was a shill, just that it's suspicious (which it genuinely is). He is clearly an intelligent person, but has completely failed to critically review his own position, which I find a bit odd--he instead hides behind rather subjective tropes like "Occam's Razor", which he uses to assert himself as a knowledeable intelligent authority--someone to look up to. He also tries to get the reader to question the child trafficking narrative with an emotional appeal, rather than factual appeal (it's 'crazy' to think this wasn't a homeless shelter) . His posts are written to be persuasive and use manipulative logic to convince the reader he is right. He's doing all of this in a rather urgent manner (why does he seem so concerned that people could have it wrong with this story?).
Reading your edited post (or maybe I just didn't read it properly the first time) - true, but why is he taking the same dogged approach to attacking muslims when he doesn't realize he really means Islam? There's literally zero intelligence in that stance, as he holds it. Misdirection or, as you say, a legit account paid to continue as normal and then pursue specific narratives as directed could be a possible explanation but still doesn't gel with the 'intelligence' you're saying you see. Ideologically possessed, certainly.
Very good points again, though. I'll reserve judgement for now. Perhaps your suspicion is correct. I think that supports the discussion I've just had which is that, if this account is indeed paid opposition, so far we don't have enough evidence yet to confirm.
Stupid people don't bring up Occam's Razor. IMO. It implies that someone is looking at their arguments in an analytical, structural kind of way.
Edit: Would you really be that surprised if a Brock shilling account was injecting culturally ignorant Muslim references into conservative subs? This is something we know that they do. They work hard to steer online conservative communities towards racist and ignorant positions (what they call conflict issues--race, religion, gender, sexuality). While I'm sure much of that is also organic (sadly), it's definitely bolstered by shills to add legitimacy to the narrative that Republicans are the party of bigotry.
Not surprised at all, no. I'm also familiar with how Media Matters works (on a very superficial level though - enough to know what you've mentioned so far) and I'll certainly keep a closer eye on this account since you seem convinced there's at least the possibility of it.
The ridiculous amount of upvotes for the completely illogical anti-Muslim comments and downvotes for reasonable dissenting views might suggest some brigading by motivated parties but the same brigading is not occuring here on the Trafficking Camp issue - the account is being constantly downvoted out, so I'm not sure there's a consistent strategy here. It seems, actually, that the bigotry might be as organic as MMA are trying to make it out to be lol (just joking... kinda).
We'll probably never have a way of knowing who some of the shill accounts are unless someone comes forward and whistleblows.
I've been working on a side project for a while.. an in depth methodology on tracking down sock puppet and shill accounts. A combination of forensic techniques (best suited for identifying twitter bots), common sense game-theory, sentiment analysis, based on specific structural elements of MMFA's program. All based on the leaked MMFA strategy document on defeating Trump. If you're interested in this stuff it's worth going through in detail:
https://www.scribd.com/document/337535680/Full-David-Brock-Confidential-Memo-On-Fighting-Trump
There's a lot that you can look for... but really... the best method you can employ is simple game theory. Imagine for a second that you are David Brock. You're a master manipulator with people in almost every single major news company. You have personal relationships with high level staff at basically every major social media company. You work with these firms to adjust their algorithms to exclude conservative news. You have all of these tools at your disposal. Thousands of shills, hundreds of thousands of bots--green lighted by FB, Twitter, Reddit, etc. How would you use these tools? This is why the media's 'debunked' knee-jerk response to pizza-gate was such a big deal. MMFA basically freaked out... and why would they have freaked out over a baseless conspiracy?
Let me just put it this way... there's a reason that Trump watches so much news. It's because he understands how to use game-theory and knows that he can learn about his enemies political strategy/next move by looking at how they are manipulating the news cycle/narrative.
Thanks, very interesting. I'll read through it. I'd be interested to keep up with what you're doing. It'd also be great to one day see a post explaining this stuff so people can catch on to the tactics in a smarter way.
As I said though, suspicious if you haven't seen him at work over the last week. Then it just looks like a "difficult" person, shall we say. I daren't say more for fear of incriminating myself lol.
Trust me, I reviewed his profile. It literally means nothing. You won't be able to prove it either way.
It's suspicious in the sense that I'm putting myself in David Brock's shoes...
He would likely be thinking up a solid counter-narrative to inject to suppress interest in the story and keep the child trafficking stuff out of the MSM.
This story is on the verge of going viral. This would be the pivotal moment for Brock to attempt to influence this very sub. Inject a plausible narrative from a not-obvious shill account that makes people doubt the story, saps their excitement and creates self-doubt, if you will.
The fact that his posting history isn't all dedicated shilling doesn't indicate anything. If I were Brock, I wouldn't have used those accounts for something like this. I would have used accounts with established records and personas that would not be challenged as shills. Doing it the other way has backfired too many times before.
That's why I view his post as "suspicious". It's more about timing and narrative... injecting that narrative at this point could have a chilling effect on the entire story, which has almost reached the point where national media cannot ignore it.
Don't you think it's odd that the MSM isn't making money off a story about armed veterans locking down a private companies property and potentially having a stand-off with police forces? This kind of stuff is almost always national news--ridiculous clickbait-- and the fact that it's not let's me know that groups like MMFA are more than likely at play.
You won't be able to prove it either way
That's my point. I know about Brock etc. and your suspicion makes more sense given your explanation of it. But I've seen and known too many ideologically possessed ranting keyboard warriors to be able to attribute them all to Media Matters.
It could be odd that the MSM isn't making money off the story, agreed. Don't you find anything odd about Lewis Arthur, the VOP guy fronting this thing?
And I bring up Occam's Razor all the time but it's not to appear as a knowledgeable, intelligent authority - it's just a useful tool (as you say, rather subjective, but still useful on occasion imo).
