Scratching the 'ping' surface: My investigation into #Pizzagate (Part 1)

Hi everyone. I've been off Steemit for a while but I'm back now so I'll just get right into it.

Like many others I've been tumbling down the #Pizzagate rabbit hole or should I say 'panda cum hole', never thought I would but there it is. I've made some connections which I'd like to share.

Unless you've been living under a rock or get your news exclusively from Saturday Night Live and are out of the alt-media loop here's a quick primer.

According to Wikipedia,

"Pizzagate is a debunked[1] conspiracy theory which emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle, alleging that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contain coded messages referring to human trafficking, and connecting a number of pizzerias in Washington D.C and members of the Democratic Party to a child-sex ring. The theory has been discredited by a wide array of sources across the political spectrum, described as a "fictitious conspiracy theory" by the District of Columbia Police Department[2][3] and determined to be fake by multiple organizations including Snopes.com,[4] The New York Times,[5] and Fox News.[6]"

Origins

Reports of this conspiracy theory emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle. The theory was started by Internet users reading John Podesta's emails released by Wikileaks in early November 2016.[7] Users speculated that some words in Podesta's emails, such as “pizza” and “cheese” were code words for human trafficking.[8] The theory also proposed that the ring was a meeting ground for satanic ritual abuse.[9] The theory was then posted on the message board, Godlike Productions, and the following day, Sean Adl-Tabatabai (a former associate of professional conspiracy theorist David Icke), repeated the story on YourNewsWire, citing a 4chan post from earlier that year.[10] Adl-Tabatabai's story was then spread by and elaborated on by other fake news websites, including SubjectPolitics, which falsely claimed the New York Police Department had raided Hillary Clinton's property.[11] The website Conservative Daily Post ran a headline falsely stating that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had "confirmed" this story.[12]"

On December 4th the hysterics over the controversial hashtag reached fever pitch when a 28 year old North Carolina man named Edgar Welch walked into a Washington D.C. restaurant, Comet Pizza and Ping Pong with a loaded "military-style assault rifle" with the sated purpose of saving the children he claimed to believe were being held there and allegedly opened fire.

I say allegedly because a witness to the event Sharif Salim who appeared on CNN as well as Infowars tweeted that he was of the last of the people out of the restaurant and did not see or hear a shot fired.

https://twitter.com/abbydphillip/status/805591755806638080

The unabashedly Democrat-biased corporate and state run media have since used the altercation as a catalyst for an all out assault on free speech but their attempts to chill opposing opinions have so far proven to be a failure, only generating more interest in the subject to a wider audience and strengthening the push back from those of us who care about our rights to speak freely and question authority no matter how treacherous.

And so and at the risk of being labeled "fake news" a hateful bigot, conspiratard, thought criminal, etc, by the embittered losers on the left, I'd like to hop into the fray and entertain some theories of my own.

Let's start with the mysterious case of the Breitbart tweet. It has come to light that the deceased firebrand conservative pundit, mild mannered family man and creator of Breitbart.com Andrew Breitbart in a tweet dated Febuary 4th 2011 wrote,

"How prog-guru John Podesta isn't household name as world class underage sex slave op cover-upperer defending unspeakable dregs escapes me."

https://twitter.com/AndrewBreitbart/status/33636278100561920

Internet gumshoes have been lighting quick to jump on the tweet as evidence Breitbart had some inside knowledge about the 'cheesepiracy' (too soon?) a full 5 years before the Wikileaks emails became public, however these musings are easily shrugged off by Democrat hacks as well as some even keeled writers as misread as Hot Air writer Larry O'Connor does in his article 'About that Andrew Breitbart tweet about Podesta and underage sex slaves'

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/05/about-that-andrew-breitbart-tweet-about-podesta-and-underage-sex-slaves/

To give credit where credit is do, O'Connor rightfully points out that the timing of the tweet coincides with the James O'Keefe exposé of ACORN as child prostitution enablers and the Podesta run Think Progress's ensuing cover-upping of the bombshell story.

For those who don't remember, O'Keefe made headlines in 2009 when he and a female colleague equipped with hidden cameras infiltrated the offices of ACORN, a government funded group whose outwardly stated mission was community organization and advocacy for affordable housing as well as voter registration and other seemingly innocuous and benevolent aims.

O'Keefe and his colleague posing as a pimp and hooker were able to capture on tape ACORN staff giving reprehensible advice such as if; “the police ask [about the money], you don’t know where it’s coming from.”

O'Keefe took the video's to Andrew Breitbart who posted them to his website making waves nationally.

The exposé led to ACORN's public funding being cut and the organization shutting down.

John Podesta, once Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff and Obama's councilor at the time also sat on ACORN's advisory council, as well he was President of the Center for American Progress and oversaw the publication Think Progress which in retaliation began a smear campaign against O'Keefe and Breitbart declaring the fiasco 'debunked'; a mere product of malicious deceptive editing. A contention still held stubbornly by the left.

And so the case can be made that Andrew Breitbart's cryptic tweet was referring to this cover-up and is in no way related to the current fiasco Podesta finds himself ensnared in.

That being said I still to do think there is circumstantial evidence which leads me to believe Breitbart was privy to some information of darker doings of John Podesta and the tweet as well as some other public statements he had made were his attempts to get the word out. And I think it may have been those attempts that got him killed.

Take Breitbart's appearance on Fox News comedy talk show Red Eye, where some very odd banter is had between him and the panel of celebrity conservative talkers.

It was actually a pretty funny show and I think the reason being was that everyone on it were all getting liquored up. You can definitely tell by around 10 minutes in that they are all pretty buzzed. Which is great because as Breitbart says early on, he hadn't slept or eaten and you can definitely tell because he seems to let slide some information that he maybe should have not.

If you watch the entire episode you will notice that some of the punch lines in the segments either just completely miss the mark or, there is major context being withheld from the audience which may hide some frighting implications. Some Youtubers watching in retrospect have noted Breitbart's reactions to the commentary gives some telling clues given some of the revelations provided by Wikileaks.

The episode which aired June of 2011 features Andrew Breitbart glowing with his signature righteous indignation and hopped up on an adrenaline high brought on by the media whirlwind of his publications latest exposure of the rot festering behind the Democratic parties shinny facade.

That is, Breitbart.com's second major national exclusive, the aptly named Weinergate scandal.

The first clue present day amateur researchers in the video's comment section keenly point out is the inexplicably coincidental quip by the show's alliteration prone host Greg Gutfeld. The head scratcher comes at about the 8 minute mark. The exchange goes as such.

Gutfield: "Hey Andrew is this like gotta be the strangest two days of your life?"

To which Breitbart responds, "Don't go away Weinergate... Yes it has been... I haven't eaten all day. All I have is adrenaline coursing through my veins it's the most surreal experience. You have no perspective when something like this happens at this epic level. I haven't looked at the internet to see the comment section... I haven't retweeted any vile hate against me in 48 hours. I'm jonesing for some hate."

Gutfield: "Well the interesting thing... It's hard to play ah ah, ping-pong when you don't have any opposition. Because normally the people that tweet you hate are not tweeting because they've been humiliated. I don't see any..."

At the moment Gutfield mentions ping-pong Breitbart's expression becomes perplexed and his eyes squint quite suspiciously. Breitbart then cuts Gutfield off and asks "Why did you change the subject to to sport of ping-pong?" and Gutfield laughing says I don't know to which Breitbart says with a questioning look "Yah, you're weird like that."

Now. Obviously this is proof of nothing. It's especially not proof that Andrew Breitbart had knowledge of a secret society of super wealthy pedophilic Satanists in the top echelon of the Washington elite who use campy innocuous code words to cloak their nightmarish deeds, nor is it proof that Breitbart had in confidence relayed some of his findings to Gutfield or others on the panel off camera and Gutfield was making a knowing though underhanded reference to this information pretending coyly to in actuality be making a sports analogy of some obscure kind as some on Youtube contend.

However. If you watch carefully the body language of both Breitbart and Gutfield to me speaks very loudly. When Gutfiled speaks the words "ping-pong" I'm quite sure it triggers a look of deep paranoia in Breitbart.

Or maybe I'm the paranoid one. But as the old saying goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't a secret society of super wealthy pedophilic Satanists in the top echelon of the Washington elite.

But the weird vibes don't stop there.

It's important to remember that Breitbart at the time was close with Steve Bannon who would of course take over Breitbart.com after Andrew's death. Bannon was one of the pioneers of mining the deep web for scoops and evidently has technical experts in his circle who have the know how to navigate the sprawling sub-surface of the Internets vast and most shadowy archives known as the dark web. The networking place of the world's psycho-sexual.

Breitbart did say he was withholding more dirt on Weiner as insurance.

I know many out there are such hardened skeptics you're practically Fibrodysplasics, but if just one six hundred and sixty sixth of you can believe that liberal Washington is infested with death obsessed child murderers who have perfected the art of feigning virtuosity while in the presence of cameras like a nightmare fusion of Lion Heart meets The Thing, then I urge you to read on.

Jump to the 22:33 minute mark of the Red Eye video and keep your ear's wide open and listen real close because if it is what it may be then it's something to behold.

The Host Gutfield is asking one of the panelists Bill Shulz who I am unfamiliar with, I don't watch a lot of Fox, he seems to be a comedian and a picker. He may also be gay judging by the color of shirt. Gutfield asks Shulz whether he thinks Weiner will resign as a Senator to which Shusz says with a look of almost sheer terror, "I didn't think he was going to resign, I've changed my mind after multiple drinks with Andrew Breitbart."

The remark elicits a sort of unhinged cackle from Gutfield as if he's in on the joke. What we can take from this is that both Gutfield and Shulz have been talking to Breitbart off camera, perhaps during a commercial break, and he has told them something the rest of us don't know.

By the look on Shulz face, it doesn't seem pretty. Shulz continues, "I feel like we're just scratching the (pink?) surface right now and that this is..."

Here's the kicker. It's at this moment Breitbart cut's in from off camera and says, wait for it, "Hey don't give anything away."

Boom. Mind blown. Keep reading and I'll explain.

Shulz cuts back in, making a face of frustration as if to say, 'dude I'm making a hella-clever pun' and says "I was talking about... I was making a falice comment." then Shulz dives in sarcastically commenting "You were talking about skin color."

This is what I was talking about earlier about jokes being made that just don't add up. Sure maybe it's just over my head and I really am a conspiratard but just go back and listen.

Listen carefully, sure it may have been a dick joke that didn't quite land. But I think that this Shulz guy may be more clever than he looks. I think he may be making what in the comedy biz they call a double entendre.

Ask yourself, why? Why would Breitbart say, right after Shulz mentions he had had drinks with Breitbart and had told him something that had changed his mind about the the Weiner scandal, why would Andrew Breitbart say, "Don't give anything away."

Now listen again and tell me in the comments below that I'm crazy. Did Shulz say, "I feel like we're just scratching the PING surface." ???

Up vote for yes, down for no.

It's questions like these that have been keeping me up at night since first seeing the grinning face of James Achelies Alifantis and I know the same is true for many others.

Shulz goes on to state that "No, I think that this is the beginning."

He was right.

Then at 24 minutes he seems to go full Breitbart and just lets it all out like you can tell he's just itching to. One of the guest's is rightfully in my opinion praising him for being the rebel truth teller that he truly was saying, "What you've done is subversive, I mean far more subversive than any of the stuff.." Then Breitbart cuts him off as he's prone to do and say's "You want to hear subversive?"

But the producers at Fox evidently weren't having it and cuts to Gutfield, obviously editing out some epic anti-establishment rant that we may never get to hear. Gutfield gives out the Red Eye contact info smiling darkly ending with "Never done that before." By "that" we can assume he means censor a guest.

Again, like I said earlier this proves nothing.

Or does it?

The establishment media of the moment are continuously pushing the narrative that if there's no smoking gun there is nothing at all.

Breitbart was just another voice in the breeze, never the less a well spoken one and a courageous one. It's my belief however that the establishment of the moment is not the establishment of the future and it will be fragments of proofs collected by other voices like his that will make the change, some voices less articulate and many less influential

All brave.

Please help me by upvoting, sharing, following and if you'd like support me by getting out of the big banks and into sound money with a Goldmoney savings account by following the link below.

Goldmoney.com/r/gqsEDh