The other day, one of our team members came across this interesting bit of internet lore concerning “Pizzagate”. It reads, “You can say…”Aliens exist”, “Chemtrails are real”, “9/11 was an inside job”, “Elvis is alive”, “Obama is a shape-shifting lizard person”. But if you discover HARD EVIDENCE of a child trafficking ring operated by the government and the elite…
- Obama says it’s fake news
- Hillary condemns it
- The Pope calls your research a sin
- Mainstream media calls it “fake news”
- Google hides it
- Facebook deletes it
- Twitter erases it
- Wikipedia removes it
- Reddit bans it
- Journalists are killed for investigating it…and so on.
Leaving aside the gibberish about alien lizard people, the part that interests us most is right there in bright red all-caps: “HARD EVIDENCE“.
This is a term the Hoaxtead mob has hauled out from time to time as well. We thought that today, as we wait for news about Rupert Quaintance’s court appearance, it might be a good idea to have a look at what “hard evidence” really means, and how that relates in the context of both Hoaxtead and “Pizzagate”.
No physical evidence
Hoaxtead: When we say there is absolutely no hard evidence that, for example, a “Satanic death cult” is systematically raping children, killing babies, drinking their blood, and snacking on them for lunch, we mean that no one has ever discovered even the slightest trace of blood or semen at the alleged scene(s) of the crime.
No one has found fingerprints, bits of skin, or hairs…despite the fact that babies by the hundred were meant to have been slaughtered, skinned, scalped, cooked, and turned into slippers.
If that had actually happened, it would be reasonable to expect that at least some traces would be left behind. (And for those who naïvely claim that the alleged perpetrators “cleaned up after themselves”, we’ll simply note that it’s not as easy as one might think to remove all traces of a murder, let alone mass murders followed by wholesale desecration of bodies. Even in cases where criminals have washed murder scenes down with bleach, police have been able to find evidence they missed.
Pizzagate: No blood, semen, fingerprints, hair, skin, saliva…in fact, no crime scene has been identified.
Hoaxtead: As most of our readers will know, much as been made by the Hoaxtead mob of Dr Hodes’ physical examinations of the children, and the various conclusions she drew from them. Ultimately, the most that can be said about Dr Hodes’ examinations is that they were inconclusive. Given the alleged scope of the crimes against the children, it would be reasonable to expect that any medical evidence would be glaringly obvious—but in fact, Dr Hodes had to perform two examinations and use a discredited method to elicit the results she expected to find.
Pizzagate: Since no victims have ever been identified, no medical evidence has been found.
No corroborating witnesses/victims
Hoaxtead: Despite the original Hoaxtead allegations that many other children had been involved in the crimes describe, no other victims have ever been found. Some of the named children were interviewed during the police investigation, but none suggested that anything untoward was happening.
Pizzagate: No victims have been identified. No witnesses have come forward. No named individuals have been named as potential victims.
No written material
Hoaxtead: Another form of “hard evidence” would be written documents. Some criminals write in dairies, journals, letters or emails, outlining their plans or confessing their guilt. Variants on this could include receipts or way bills (from the courier companies that allegedly transported the babies, for example), or other forensic documentation that might outline the scope of the allegations. Nothing of this sort has ever been found in relation to Hoaxtead.
Pizzagate: Fans of Pizzagate claim that there is ample written material about it, in the form of a series of hacked emails. However, none of these emails ever mentions anything even remotely related to child sexual abuse…unless one invents a “secret code” in which one substitutes certain sexually loaded words for other, completely neutral terms. While entertaining, this is not hard evidence, and certainly doesn’t offer anything that could be used in a court of law.
Hoaxtead: While many people think of the recordings that Abe and Ella made of RD’s children as “evidence”, they would not stand up in a court of law, for the simple reason that the children could have been (in fact were) coached. However, the children did allege that the crimes they described were video-recorded by one or more of the participants. If something of this sort were to turn up, it would constitute the much-longed-for “hard evidence”. However, nothing ever has.
Pizzagate: No recordings of any criminal activity have been discovered.
All in all, we wonder: exactly what “hard evidence” are the Hoaxtead/Pizzagate pushers talking about? Because frankly, we’re just not seeing it.