http://www.recoveringstatist.com/category/intelligence/ ... here is a much better article! It shows up the NYT article.

I do agree, that the comments refute the claim. I can see now that they are part of the article, put there to make that point. i figured they were added by people disappointed with the article. I remain disappointed in it,all the same. A real article would not quote the NYT, without expressly saying it does not agree with them. I certainly would not agree with what they are doing, or want to be seen, in any way, as giving any creedence to what they are doing. Do you not think zerohedge could could have done a better job?

at the very end, there is one line "reading between the lines we are not ready to give up on pizzagate" the rest was just quotes from NYT that gave them way too much credibility. If that was not intending to defend Alefantis, they need to write it again. I can understand being objective, i think it makes very powerful points, but they are giving way too much weight to the claims of Alefantis, and virtually none, to the legitimate concerns, of so many people. Here is a really good article, that does refute the NYT: http://www.recoveringstatist.com/category/intelligence/

I read the whole thing. I was hoping to see it refute the claims, but it just parrots them. I will double check...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking-the-men-behind-zero-hedge-wall-street-s-renegade-blog about the authors, who use a pseudonym in the article above, but are revealed here : Following an acrimonious departure this month, in which two-thirds of the trio traded allegations of hypocrisy and mental instability, Lokey, 32, decided to unmask himself and his fellow Durdens.

Lokey said the other two men are Daniel Ivandjiiski, 37, the Bulgarian-born former analyst long reputed to be behind the site, and Tim Backshall, 45, a well-known credit derivatives strategist.