Hello everyone, I want to keep this short and real, and I'd like to know if you agree with me on my view of this tsunami. You are more than welcome to push me in the directions the community see fit.

Among the thousands of people acting on the unveil of possibly the biggest conspiracy [theory] ever, there are those who are the most skeptical. I believe them to be a VERY important part of the movement, as they are the ones who do not bring their emotions to the table. Everyone is important, those who seek information tirelessly, those who defend what they believe, those who make connections, those just plain tired of the establishment... but the glue that ties everyone together are those who make everyone think harder. And very often, those people are marginalized by the movement.

For my next thought, let us not forget that 9/11 conspiracy is dozens of times more solid than this, mainly because it has been around for a long time, and it is something that has faded out of the sight of the masses while still clouded, in darkness. My main goal here is to try to push pizzagate to a level even beyond 9/11, and so that it never risks fading away as "yet another Reddit lunatic conspiracy".

How do I believe we can achieve that? By criticizing ourselves, and thinking deeper. By having a core in this movement that distances itself from the warfare of discredit, which is mostly fueled by:

1) Attention/view/like/share seekers. 2) People in shock.

Both types of individuals are not necessarily vile, and there should not be hate towards them. But let me warn that spreading misinformation (or information that has not been thought deeply) jeopardizes a movement that seeks to end the age of lies. That seeks the truth. Spreading things with the intention of getting some YT views, or at a first shocking look, fuel things like the MSM, and gives criminals the upper hand.

At last, let me propose an exercise that may help us think deeply. Help me build this model, please:

• One of the most shocking [circumstantial] evidences found is the fact that John and Tony Podesta are [almost identical to] the E-fit images released by the Scotland Yard in 2013 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann ].

Now, let's challenge it:

• There are two people, but only one of them was seen by the witness carrying Madeleine. Who was it, the thin or the fat one? Why are there two E-fit images? Studying the report from Scotland Yard in 2013, I still find it hard to know who, where, when, was seen. Can someone help me out on this one, with as much information as you can bring in?

• Why would one of the Podestas, being them both in such powerful positions in 2007, be spotted by witnesses carrying Madeleine Mccain himself? What is the logic behind that, when they could pay, con, or find someone to do it for them?

This last question aims to give birth to a list of possibilities. This list of possibilities may help the investigation move further in the direction of proof, that is the goal. Once we snap out of the aftershock, how do we picture the actual crime? How can we build this picture into a reasonable set of arguments?

Does anyone agree with this line of thinking? With this type of rational view? Do you think we would all benefit from deep thinking?