[Possibility] The George Webb series is an intelligence operation meant to obfuscate and catalogue those who are aiding in the "open-source" investigation.
I started to look into this on my own and the guy has missed basic points in it all. And the only place I have talked about it is here. Don't need a channel/website for clicks/money.
He is riding this cash cow and doesn't actually care if he solves it or gets anything real to report.
You don't have to accept donations if you work for an intelligence agency. He displayed an intimate Knowledge of tradecraft in his videos, and that's just what we see.
Not saying he isnt working with intelligence...in fact he stated many times that he is...but to say he is doing this for money/donations is blatantly false and doesn't help your add credibilty to you theory at all.
Just because he repeatedly states that his videos are demonetized and that he isn't asking for donations lends credence to the theory that he's on some sort of payroll.
Think about the investigative journalists with whine you're aware. Do they ask for donations to "help keep the investigation going"? Largely yes, they do.
I think the fact that he misses no opportunity to inform us that he's not seeking money lends more credit to this theory than it detracts.
You agreed with statements that were blatantly false...stick to the facts and just the facts if you want people to take your argument setiously. He is most certainly getting money/intelligence from somewhere (which doesn't prove what he uncovers as false or make his motives shady) but to say he is only in this for money is clearly wrong as you agreed he has said he isn't over and over again.
Nothing I'm saying is meant to be taken as fact. You're aggressive attacking valid questions. In my interview with Jason yesterday, we discussed the critics. There are people who say that because George is never critical of Israel, and seems to be actively rooting for Mossad, that he must be an affiliate. I don't subscribe to that notion myself; I'm just providing an example.
Attack these questions as you will, but they're valid.
I didn't believe that what I said was agressive, but if you are subscribing to false facts to prove a theory it doesnt make you argument very credible. If you watch his series, you should've known that George isn't in it for the money. You can speculate and ask questions but try to stick to the facts.
That George is doing his series for monetary gain and that this invalidates him. It seems also that you believe that his working with intelligence and getting money from some other means also invalidates him. It's ok to be skeptical but you are trying to make a point with a false premise.
I never presented those notions as fact. I presented them as theoretical explanations. If you can find an instance of me presenting these theories as absolutely factual, then I will retract my position. If not, I'm forced to believe that you are acting in a manner with is intentionally deceptive.
Can't see your whole reply to me for some reason only the first few sentences. Just because you don't state those as fact but as theoretical explanations doesn't make a bit of difference. You are trying to prop up your theory by presenting false information.
Theory does not equal declaration of fact. I'm still waiting for you to provide me with just one example that is verifiably "false information", and with each comment, you're proving more and more your inability to draw a distinction between fact and theory. I hesitate to call you an idiot, but I can't see a way around it.
Again, not sure what is going on but I cannot read the entirety of your reply in order to respond. Doesn't really matter as you clearly seem to have blinders on.
I cant provide you with anything as I can't read the entirety of your last few responses. I can see just the first sentence if that, so not sure if you blocked me or Reddit did from seeing them. All I can say is if your theory hinges on false statements/evidence, it doesn't hold much water to begin with.
He's been going at this for over 200 days. The majority hasn't been focused on the DNC at all. The majority of it has been trying to untangle a global web of corruption.
I think he knows a lot more than he's been saying and the daily videos are spoon feeding people on what he knows. It's too complex to easily summarize everything.
He makes short videos dropping names, places, etc. The people following research and find the truth and faults of what he's said and that usually leads to other connections.
I totally understand your position. Up until an hour ago, it was my position as well. Your must concede the possibility, as I have, that my theory here might hold water.
I shouldn't have said the thing about it only benefitting the DNC. The reason I said that was because of the fact that the whole series was brought about why the question "Where is Braverman?"
I think the elites understand that the average person is pretty fed up with the systematic corruption evident in our political processes today. The lion tamers may realize that they have to throw some old, chewed up pieces of meat to the ravenous lions in order to prevent the lions from attacking them. Especially old, chewed up pieces of meat that have become a liability over time, like Hillary.
Just because he repeatedly states that his videos are demonetized and that he isn't asking for donations lends credence to the theory that he's on some sort of payroll.
Think about the investigative journalists with whine you're aware. Do they ask for donations to "help keep the investigation going"? Largely yes, they do.
I think the fact that he misses no opportunity to inform us that he's not seeking money lends more credit to this theory than it detracts.
32 comments
n/a Another-Chance 2017-06-02
I think he is just a showman who wants attention.
I started to look into this on my own and the guy has missed basic points in it all. And the only place I have talked about it is here. Don't need a channel/website for clicks/money.
He is riding this cash cow and doesn't actually care if he solves it or gets anything real to report.
n/a rbsams72888 2017-06-02
Very well put.
n/a KLOPPOSITION 2017-06-02
How is George profiting? Evidence?
n/a rbsams72888 2017-06-02
He could very well be on the payroll of an intelligence agency. His videos being demonetized means nothing.
n/a KLOPPOSITION 2017-06-02
I too would enjoy the attention. He's human. That doesn't discredit him.
n/a rbsams72888 2017-06-02
That's fair. And it could also be argued that he's making himself so public as a sort of life insurance policy. Again, I'm just asking questions.
n/a KLOPPOSITION 2017-06-02
You're right to ask questions. This is a generally fucked up situation lol
n/a rbsams72888 2017-06-02
I appreciate your skepticism and open-mindedness. Big sign of intelligence and objectivity.
n/a misto1481 2017-06-02
Except he doesn't accept donations and isn't doing this for money which he has repeatedly stated if you actually watch the series.
n/a rbsams72888 2017-06-02
You don't have to accept donations if you work for an intelligence agency. He displayed an intimate Knowledge of tradecraft in his videos, and that's just what we see.
n/a misto1481 2017-06-02
Not saying he isnt working with intelligence...in fact he stated many times that he is...but to say he is doing this for money/donations is blatantly false and doesn't help your add credibilty to you theory at all.
n/a rbsams72888 2017-06-02
Can you explain how?
Just because he repeatedly states that his videos are demonetized and that he isn't asking for donations lends credence to the theory that he's on some sort of payroll.
Think about the investigative journalists with whine you're aware. Do they ask for donations to "help keep the investigation going"? Largely yes, they do.
I think the fact that he misses no opportunity to inform us that he's not seeking money lends more credit to this theory than it detracts.
n/a misto1481 2017-06-02
You agreed with statements that were blatantly false...stick to the facts and just the facts if you want people to take your argument setiously. He is most certainly getting money/intelligence from somewhere (which doesn't prove what he uncovers as false or make his motives shady) but to say he is only in this for money is clearly wrong as you agreed he has said he isn't over and over again.
n/a rbsams72888 2017-06-02
Nothing I'm saying is meant to be taken as fact. You're aggressive attacking valid questions. In my interview with Jason yesterday, we discussed the critics. There are people who say that because George is never critical of Israel, and seems to be actively rooting for Mossad, that he must be an affiliate. I don't subscribe to that notion myself; I'm just providing an example.
Attack these questions as you will, but they're valid.
n/a misto1481 2017-06-02
I didn't believe that what I said was agressive, but if you are subscribing to false facts to prove a theory it doesnt make you argument very credible. If you watch his series, you should've known that George isn't in it for the money. You can speculate and ask questions but try to stick to the facts.
n/a rbsams72888 2017-06-02
Can you supply me with any of these "false facts" to which I'm subscribing according to your opinion?
n/a misto1481 2017-06-02
That George is doing his series for monetary gain and that this invalidates him. It seems also that you believe that his working with intelligence and getting money from some other means also invalidates him. It's ok to be skeptical but you are trying to make a point with a false premise.
n/a rbsams72888 2017-06-02
I never presented those notions as fact. I presented them as theoretical explanations. If you can find an instance of me presenting these theories as absolutely factual, then I will retract my position. If not, I'm forced to believe that you are acting in a manner with is intentionally deceptive.
n/a rbsams72888 2017-06-02
That's what I thought. You can't give an example of me stating that any portion of my theory is definitive fact. You need to apologize.
n/a misto1481 2017-06-02
Can't see your whole reply to me for some reason only the first few sentences. Just because you don't state those as fact but as theoretical explanations doesn't make a bit of difference. You are trying to prop up your theory by presenting false information.
n/a rbsams72888 2017-06-02
Theory does not equal declaration of fact. I'm still waiting for you to provide me with just one example that is verifiably "false information", and with each comment, you're proving more and more your inability to draw a distinction between fact and theory. I hesitate to call you an idiot, but I can't see a way around it.
n/a misto1481 2017-06-02
Again, not sure what is going on but I cannot read the entirety of your reply in order to respond. Doesn't really matter as you clearly seem to have blinders on.
n/a misto1481 2017-06-02
I cant provide you with anything as I can't read the entirety of your last few responses. I can see just the first sentence if that, so not sure if you blocked me or Reddit did from seeing them. All I can say is if your theory hinges on false statements/evidence, it doesn't hold much water to begin with.
n/a Rocksolid1111 2017-06-02
He's been going at this for over 200 days. The majority hasn't been focused on the DNC at all. The majority of it has been trying to untangle a global web of corruption.
I think he knows a lot more than he's been saying and the daily videos are spoon feeding people on what he knows. It's too complex to easily summarize everything.
He makes short videos dropping names, places, etc. The people following research and find the truth and faults of what he's said and that usually leads to other connections.
n/a rbsams72888 2017-06-02
I totally understand your position. Up until an hour ago, it was my position as well. Your must concede the possibility, as I have, that my theory here might hold water.
n/a Rocksolid1111 2017-06-02
You could be right but I don't buy it that this is all to benefit the DNC and to put people on a list.. That makes less sense to me than the obvious..
n/a rbsams72888 2017-06-02
I shouldn't have said the thing about it only benefitting the DNC. The reason I said that was because of the fact that the whole series was brought about why the question "Where is Braverman?"
n/a Rocksolid1111 2017-06-02
*"Follow the money and find the real HRC scandal." * -Eric Braverman
Then he disappears off the face of the earth.. At least somebody is asking questions instead of forgetting about it.. Where is he, indeed..
n/a Reality_is_a_scam 2017-06-02
Could always be both things at once.
n/a rbsams72888 2017-06-02
This is possible as well.
n/a ShitHitsTheMan 2017-06-02
I think the elites understand that the average person is pretty fed up with the systematic corruption evident in our political processes today. The lion tamers may realize that they have to throw some old, chewed up pieces of meat to the ravenous lions in order to prevent the lions from attacking them. Especially old, chewed up pieces of meat that have become a liability over time, like Hillary.
n/a YoshiTakimatsui 2017-06-02
George is a 🍯
n/a rbsams72888 2017-06-02
Can you explain how?
Just because he repeatedly states that his videos are demonetized and that he isn't asking for donations lends credence to the theory that he's on some sort of payroll.
Think about the investigative journalists with whine you're aware. Do they ask for donations to "help keep the investigation going"? Largely yes, they do.
I think the fact that he misses no opportunity to inform us that he's not seeking money lends more credit to this theory than it detracts.