I'm new to Voat but I've been following this Pizzagate thing for a while and when I heard that Reddit deleted Pizzagate I was very angry that they had decided to stifle this inquiry. So I decided to join you guys. I'm a natural skeptic, but this means I'm skeptical not only of the MSM's claims but anyone else's as well. In times like this when finding the truth is so difficult, I demand the same burden of proof from everyone, MSM and alt-media alike. Primary sources.

In my opinion the thing that makes Pizzagate different from other "conspiracy theories" is primary sources. You have so many of them. A primary source is what a historian uses to prove that something happened. It's one thing to know that Thomas Jefferson lived and died because it's written in a history book; it's another thing to have his letters in a binder. A primary source is really to me and other skeptics what makes the difference between fact and rumor and lies. Look up the difference between a primary and secondary source to really understand it. Wikileaks emails and documents are a primary source. Andrew Breitbart's tweet is a primary source. Anything posted to facebook by Monica Petersen is a primary source. Most of the news articles which you guys would refer to as "historical" in the terminology of this page are primary sources.

If the users on this thread really want to rise above from the other conspiracy theories on the internet you have to USE WHAT YOU HAVE: the primary sources. Elevate them above anything you got from RT or infowars or somebody's hypothesis.

So: what primary sources do we have? What conclusions might a person logically draw looking ONLY at the primary sources?