Why do the grownups always have to do your homework for you? Take a breath, collect your thoughts, and try to come up with some sort of actual thesis instead of JAQing off.

Luckbox, is Jeff still alive? 60%?

For someone who thinks conspiracy theories are the scourge of society you definitely seem to like hearing about them.
And they heard screams in his jail cell and the guards said "breathe Epstein breathe" when they found him. We know the cameras weren't working and the guards were alseep. We know lots of things. All you have to do is BELIEVE.

Is there some reason why you decided to respond to this post from several days ago that it is perfectly fine with some stupid trolly bullshit?
Who are the grownups who answered these questions for me? TMZ?

No. I don't. My goal in this thread has been to make your theories look foolish enough that (i) you become too embarrassed to keep promoting them; and (ii) casual readers don't take them seriously. (Before anyone reminds me, I obviously understand that accomplishing (i) is a million to one longshot.)

I don't want your theories to appear foolish because I want to belittle you. As I said before, it's not personal. I believe your style of thinking is harmful. That's why I won't leave you alone to have your fun.

I don't know what you are implying as it relates to your main theory.

Nothing has changed. We see the murder mystery/cover-up narrative developing further--and it looks like that will continue to grow but I expect new information to dwindle down and the timeframe between new informating hitting to increase.

I'm also curious to see how far you will be allowed to push this theory in the face of conflicting evidence.

As best I can tell, there is no boundary so long as you avoid baseless accusations that someone specific public figure -- whether it be Trump, Clinton, Prince Dershowitz, or whoever -- was involved a conspiracy related to Epstein's death (or alleged death, in your view). And you've been pretty good about not trying to pin the tail on the donkey.

What would the conflicting evidence be? Reports that he spent 12 hours with his lawyers per day? More details about broken cartilage in his neck? All of that stuff? Anytime a paper writes a story about Epstein’s last days my case gets worse and worse?

I would advise you to seek to do this in a way that doesn't have you thinking that whatever the NY Post says is gold. But how do you think you're doing so far in this project?

I am hoping, desperately, that I can get you to come up with some kind of theory of events instead of this endless stream of questions that don't seem to lead anywhere.

I have a meta-theory that ties in Epstein stuff but there won't be a theory of Epstein details because that stuff is unknowable unless you want to assume tmz has the scoop.

That was exactly what I was desperately hoping for when I woke up this Monday morning.

I can write a long post that will break down my ideas of what is happening, but it will involve narratives and not events--since "events" are lacking here and all we have are newspaper stories. I started thinking about it yesterday.

Do you honestly think that I am avid consumer of the NY Post? That paper is good for snarky sports coverage and little else.

There was a multi-page article in the NY Times this weekend about Epstein's final days. That was the source for my statement about Epstein meeting with various groups of lawyers for up to 12 hours a day.

Do you believe those meetings happened? Do you believe an autopsy occurred (as confirmed in the NYME's office and as reported in every mainstream publication in the country)?

Keep in mind that these statements almost certainly would be disputed by people in the NYME's office, the prison, the various lawyers' offices, etc., if they were indeed false.

If your answer to those questions is "no", or "I don't know," then this is hopeless. No one in this thread works in the prison or works in the NTME's office, and you wouldn't credit their confirmations even if they did.

I think that I am doing quite well in making your theories look foolish.

As for whether I am making you feel too embarrassed to continue promoting these theories, the evidence speaks for itself. But I didn't have much hope on that front.

One thing I find funny is how there is actually more conspiracy theorizing going on on unstuck than here. Nobody arguing what I'm arguing but a number of people not going along with the official story. Whereas here people are reacting to me. Put those same people like Trolly on the other forum and their posting would change and the hard lines they take would change too. Asi es.

It's interesting how the conversation improves when the room isn't full of Infowars apologists.

The post is taking the lead with the reporting. I'll look into the NYT story though.
Michael Baden is a career operator/Fox news contributor who has been involved in several very questionable autopsies/murder cases including those of people I believe have not died. He was also previously the NYC medical examiner.* Barbara Sampson I don't know much about--but if Baden can have her job and be a crook, then she can be one too.
And what of the autopsy? Why do you think they leaked to the WaPO about broken bones before they released their one sentence finding?
No clue why you think that.
*And in fact he got the job as NYC ME AFTER his involvement with the Forensic panel of the house committee investigating Kennedy. So he got the job more or less as a known dirty individual. And having their hands on the medical examiners of major cities seems like it would be something in the interests of the ruling class.

Boredsocial who I don't always or normally agree with makes a good post on unstuck.
What we have here though in this thread are the reality explainers attempting to explain a bunch of news reports that don't actually stack up in any sort of way.
The meta-thesis is that they actually want the conspiracies and that that is really what this psy-op is all about. I've argued that for a long time and it forms large parts of my thesis surrounding Trump, Qanon, Russiagate stuff. I'll try to break it down and I have in parts before.
But when I talk about why they are leaking about broken bones--that is what I think is happening. They are fueling the fire. And it isn't all tabloid reporting. The stuff about the broken bones was leaked to the Washington Post. Although tabloids are making up an extraordinary amount of the coverage imo and you're swallowing it up wholesale.

Qanon is the conspiracy that won't die: here is what they believe and why they are wrong
This thread started with an op from a liberal saying "looks like qanon got its first scalp".
Is there anybody who wants to argue that this qanon stuff isn't something that is being pushed deliberately from within the circles of power?
Now this salon article isn't great but people need to question why it has gotten so big.
But I will tell you that it's a psy-op and they are pushing conspiracies deliberately and Epstein is a part of that.

I would believe the WAPO paid off a typist in the coroners office for an advanced copy of the autopsy report before I would believe in Qanon. But I also believe this answer is much too simple for a conspiracist to accept as a probable explanation.

It's pretty abhorrent that you are accusing someone of being dirty because you don't like the person who previously had her job. And as I'm sure you are aware, the NYME's office is not a one-person operation. Is everyone in the office in the tank?

But let's get back to first principles. Do you believe an autopsy occurred at all?

Because I don't like Baden?
I said he was dirty. Let's keep it straight and make honest arguments.
They have one dirty person in that role it goes to follow that others will also be dirty. Assume that chief NYC ME is something along the lines of CIA station chief in Riyad. I don't think everyone in the CIA is dirty nor would I have reason to think everyone in the ME office is dirty. But the top positions seem to often be that way.
What evidence do we have that an autopsy has been performed other than some leaked findings and a one sentence summary?
Pretty abhorrent....lol. Because I'm questioning the credibility of someone involved in a highly incredulous story. Someone with the same job as a guy who helped support official Kennedy findings took, and that same guy is also involved here as an observer.

FWIW, I would happily wager any non-absurd amount of money that the NYT has published more words on Epstein's death than the NY Post. And if wouldn't surprise me if it had published five times as many words.

Correct. Abhorrent.

Can we agree that there is no evidence that would satisfy you that an autopsy occurred? I mean, the NYME's office isn't going to send you Epstein's internal organs in the mail. And they aren't going to let you be in the room while the autopsy is being conducted.

And no statement from the NYME confirming that an autopsy was conducted, whether it was one sentence or a Russian novel, would satisfy you.

So I guess we are at an impasse. In other words, why are you bothering to read the NYT article? Nothing in that article could possibly persuade you that Jeffrey Epstein died in prison and was taken to the NYME's office for an autopsy.

Also, it's worth remembering that Baden is an 85 year old guy who was the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York 40 ****ing years ago. The people who hired him for that position are long gone from government.

Are they breaking more stories and uncovering information or writing op-eds about when to believe conspiracy theories and when not to? It seems like it's been more of the latter whereas the post is doing the "investigative" stuff.

We aren't at an impasse. My question to you was: "what evidence is there", and you're basically admitting there isn't any.
That isn't an impasse. It's you relying on faith that what you're being told is the truth. Or let's just say it's your impasse and not mine.