Excellent example of confirmation bias hacks. Note how you avoid the actual subject, and instead make it personal, and (without evidence) are sure of what I "believe". I explained why and how that works in the link I provided. Note again your reflexive use of that term.
Is it normal for a man to tag an infant picture he posted #hotard? What are #chickenlovers?
It's a very time-consuming task to point-by-point respond to every claim made by a person who dishes out near-limitless wild, extremely shocking accusations which are only ever taken seriously in essentially "underground" places, like this ghost of a comment sub-thread. There are often a gish gallop of dozens or more. It's the same process, be it a Holocaust denier, flat Earther, Sandy Hook false flag believer, 9/11 inside job accuser, or Comet Ping Pong child rape accuser. And yes, I do think it's fair and accurate to lump all of these together in terms of the faulty reasoning used to come to their conclusions and, and many of the biases and worldviews involved.
I've written many pages disputing a large number Pizzagate claims, including the ones you've brought up, on other websites in the past. It's extremely exhausting, and even more exhausting because it's so futile. No "knower of knowledge they don't want you to know" ever thinks or accepts they might actually be wrong about any of their extraordinary claims.
If someone could compensate me for my time, I'd definitely be willing to spend many days disputing every single criminal plot you wish to present. I think it's very likely there are at least a dozen. Again, if you believe in one of them, you likely believe in many others - that's confirmation bias. No, I shouldn't have said "guaranteed to believe", but I think it's highly probable.
Is it normal for a man to tag an infant picture he posted #hotard? What are #chickenlovers?