Detective Work on a Vile Attack

Posted by -

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Sometimes we make snap judgments without considering whether or not we have sufficient information, and these can be dreadful when further material is presented (consider Proverbs 18:17 for an example). Quite often, judgments are done based on emotions instead of facts.

There are times when a decision must be made instantly, such as to avoid a traffic accident. Many other times people need to stop and think things through. Sometimes we need to assemble the details and examine the facts like a detective.

A Christian pastor dared to express an unpopular opinion. It did not go well. It was claimed his church had an account at a smut site. That is refuted through some detective work.
Pexels / cottonbro
Something that detectives and real journalists have in common the the need to know who, what, where, when, why, and how. The detective attempts to determine if a case can be made regarding guilt or innocence, the journalist sees if it's fit to report (the leftists among them make up their own fake news). We can apply some sleuthing in our daily lives. This case is regarding a serious internet attack on a Christian and his church.

Regular readers know that I stylize a phrase as social(ist) media, because  Facebook, Twitter, and several others promote socialist agendas. This includes censoring Christians and Conservatives but letting leftists (and even terrorists) run rampant with spreading hate. Naturally, such platforms are overrun with leftists, atheists, and anti-Christians in general. Unfortunately, ministry efforts require that we saddle up and ride those badlands, but I for one would prefer other platforms.

On Twitter, there's a section of trending topics. (I suspect that some of those are not "trending" because of popularity, but placed there for the public to see. One reason is that there are often very few posts on the topic.) Most are silly and leftist, but when I was scheduling a post on there the other day, I saw that people were furious at a Christian pastor named Brian Sauvé.

He expressed a Christian value about how women should dress modestly, and they should not be posting sexually provocative pictures and so forth. It did not go well. Leftists went wild and attacked him for daring to express a view that is not politically correct or acceptable to a relative morality mindset. I noticed that Pastor Sauvé had a very Christian and evangelistic response, and thought no more of it.

Then I came across this, the what and the who that a detective needs to know, and Twitter is the where:

What are the facts?

Shooley posted her tweet after Brian did his own, both on February 9, 2022. That's the when an investigator seeks. Pornhub is a notorious site, and they are being sued for allowing child pornography. They are not the only smut sites on the web by a long shot, but are arguably the best known. (Using that as the basis of the allegation also helps provoke an emotional reaction in a reader.) At first glance, it appears that Refuge Church has an account with them. The contact information on their website is seen in the screenshot. That's all we know from looking at the graphic.

Can the accusation be falsified?

Yes, easily. Someone can go to the site, click on "Log In", then select the link for forgotten password. That makes the screen appear like the one in the image above (the email part is blank, of course). Type anything and take a screenshot. This extremely short video is also extremely small, so I suggest you click the full screen button before playing it:



How dumb can someone get?

I shouldn't ask that because some people consider it a hold-my-beer challenge. A detective would be looking for evidence to consider, and also reasons to reject certain possibilities. Savvy internet users know that they should maintain their privacy even if they are not engaging in nefarious practices.

For that matter, I used some privacy enhancements for my own investigation and obtaining the video screenshot. A browser's privacy setting does not keep a record of a user's activities after it is closed, but activity is not private from tracking, ISPs, and the visited sites. That requires a VPN or something similar.

Privacy devices and settings are not going to be much help in covering someone when committing crimes.

We know that pastors and other Christians are sinful humans, but would they be so careless or stupid as to leave obvious tracks? Free email addresses are plentiful, so one of those could be used to set up an account.

Do we know that Refuge Church signed up? Not hardly! I began the Pornhub signup process myself with a disposable email account and a silly user name, and it (like many respectable sites) sends a confirmation email to the address furnished by the user. This confirmation practice has been around for many years to cut down on spam and people signing others up for things they did not request. No, I didn't finish signing up.

Whodunnit?

Drawing from my own experiences and observations (plus some screenshots), it is easy to assume that it was done by atheists. They have pretended to be Christians on many occasions to make us look bad. While misotheists would attack Refuge Church and Pastor Brian Sauvé, I cannot legitimately make that accusation. No evidence.

Emily Schooley is a distinct possibility. Scrolling through her Twitter feed shows that she is a feminist firmly on the angry left politically and culturally. It is her tweet that is the subject of examination here. A good detective would realize that the evidence is entirely circumstantial, so it is not conclusive.

My efforts have been unable to provide anything conclusive as to the culprit. Twitter may be able to check their records and see when the screenshot was uploaded, from what IP address, and if it correlates to Schooley in any way. That would probably take a great deal of work, and I'll allow it's not in Twitter's corporate interests to bother.

Why do it in the first place?

Quite simply, hate rooted in sin. Pastor Sauvé made statements that people detested, and he was swarmed with vitriol. It is not unreasonable to assume that people wanted revenge because their consciences were pricked, and they are suppressing the knowledge that they need to repent.

Another probable motive related to the above is that the accusation poisons the well: If the church is seen as hypocritical, Brian's statements can seemingly be dismissed. A bit of guilt by association.

The end result

Something other biblical creationists and I urge is that people use critical thinking. Added to that is healthy skepticism instead of gullibly accepting something at face value. It is quite clear that the allegation that this church was stupid enough to have a Pornhub account using their public contact email address is risible.

Someone else reported a similar thing happening to him, so be vigilant.

While there are several things that raise suspicions about possible culprits, our detective is going to file this and move on to something else that needs attention. The rest of us can remain vigilant and keep thinking. Regular readers may recognize similar principles used we have used in examining pronouncements of Darwinists. However, they can be used in other areas — including some creation science! That's right, but I haven't presented some things because I thought they were lacking. Mayhaps I've done you a disservice, so I'll have to study on that.

I wonder if anyone noticed that my conclusion and opinion of the whole thing was stated in the title of this article. It was almost titled "Detective work on a Pornhub Allegation" or something similar, but I think the post would be blocked on social(ist) media.