Calling my ideas deliberately unfalsifiable is quite a smear and also silly. It took Unleased coming along before you decided you'd challenge me on epistemological grounds.
Also lol @ "normal people" and "the courts".

I've honestly read all (or at least most) of your posts in this thread and I can't really puzzle out what your theory is.

Can you just state what it is and what you believe the evidence for it is?

You're quoting the post that lays out the evidence--which can be expanded on like I've said.
I believe that this is psy-op that involves various rationales and I have posts discussing that. I don't actually expect people to understand--even though everything is layed out clearly, because you don't have the conceptual systems capable of understanding. I think that is what I need to work on more when explaining my ideas.

This is one set of posts Unleased, and there are a couple other posts from yesterday that make up most of my arguments. There are plenty of other details that I can add in talking about the implausibility of the official story as far as additional evidence and arguments that I can make as well.

Is this really how you want threads to go Well Named? Really?

I suppose in hindsight it was obvious that when most people believe there could be an actual conspiracy to kill a high profile prisoner the actual conspiracy nuts would have to come up with their own off the deep end theory that the conspiracy is itself a conspiracy or something.

You mean with me winning arguments?

I had my theories before he was supposedly dead. We're just seeing them expanded on and verified. Post #7 itt.
And I can go back further with the "conspiracy is the conspiracy stuff", I'll just need to find it. So this isn't as ad-hoc as it might seem to somebody who has no familiarity with me.

You are getting played here guys.

Why are you posting here? You never post in this forum. You troll h and f threads where you can say condescending **** and make yourself feel superior.

Oh... Yeah...

Like I'm a deliberate conman or what?

LOL. I had made similar criticisms in the past. Unleashed just stated the problem more succinctly.

As for normal people, I'm fine if you want to replace it with "overwhelming majority of people".

I think you come up with theories that are deliberately unfalsifiable because you love the idea that vast conspiracies abound and it's the only way you can keep your pet theories alive in your own mind. I don't think it's some sort of moral failing.

The overwhelming majority of people get their news from tv and facebook. You took the LSAT though which places you quite a bit above the overwhelming majority.

For the record, I DO NOT believe that you are a troll. And I don't believe you are trying to con anyone. I think you are a true believer, albeit an insane one.

In what respect? I'm not claiming, nor do I believe, that I am correct because I went to law school. If you had fed me this line of claptrap when I was 18, I would have had the same degree of skepticism.

I believe you mentioned earlier that there were other supposedly dead people who you believed were still alive (or who you believed had outlived their alleged deaths).

Has their ever been a case in which a public figure died, it was widely reported and widely believed that the public figure was dead, you suspected in real time that there was a conspiracy and that the person was still alive, and subsequent evidence conclusively established that the person was in fact still alive?

1) Is the official Epstein suicide narrative problematic?
2) Are there any other ways in which the Epstein story causes you to question anything? (I.e., his unaccounted wealth or anything else)
3) Is qanon a psy-op/disinformation and does Epstein tie in with that?
4) Does the way that this has unfolded in the media give you any concerns?

There is enough 'there' in the answers to those questions. [Some other stuff deleted. I'm ready to give up. You might not embarrass me but I can be exhausted]

Never in real time before. And I was talking about people specifically connected to Baden. But I wouldn't want to go into those and neither would WN want me to. While it does give me a little bit of insight into Baden's role--there is enough here with Epstein that stands on its own ground, that I don't feel like I'm relying on those priors in any significant way.
(And Baden has been silent here afaik still)

Probably my first instance of "the conspiracy is the conspiracy" and it is my aim to show how that is going on with Trump/Russia stuff but I've never gotten there. Epstein easier in some respects to see it.

How would we falsify it? Like, you're not going to accept any newspaper report, medical examiner report, photograph, etc. etc. as being real.

Luck, do you hold any religious beliefs?

Luckbox:

Choose the more reliable news source:

A. Tv stations that spend money and hire journalists and producer to follow news stories and appear at press conferences, review documents, hire scientific and medical experts to explain things requiring specialized expertise. They hire lawyers and have liability for reporting false information.

B. A loon on the internet who knows nothing about the relevant issues who has a conspiracy theory based on a photograph that he won't flesh out or provide any evidence for and he has no liability for any falsehoods he spreads.

The reason why some people think there is a good chance Epstein was murdered is because they are not taking a WEIGHTED average of the evidence. And most of the evidence would point to him being murdered. Furthermore there are some who are unwittingly adding fuel to the fire by claiming that many of those who would supposedly gain by his death actually won't. But when they say that, it allows those who suspect murder to counterargue that some would in fact gain by his death while others who wouldn't gain might not realize it. Then you add in the fact that the day that Epstein entered jail there was a 5% chance that Epstein wanted Epstein to die and a 99% chance that some billionaires did. That normally means that if he is found dead it is more likely to be the billionaire that caused it.


Except the evidence needs to be weighted. If someone shows you a magic trick that he claims was done by actual magic you are still almost positive it is not true even if you try hard to figure out how he did it and fail. Because of the one fact that there are thousands of tricks that you know aren't real magic that you can't figure out and you know of no previous real magic tricks. Likewise when you are told that Jesus came back from the dead.


In the Epstein case the overarching fact is that unless they found a convict already serving a life sentence, no sane person would be willing to murder someone in a federal prison given the high chance of getting caught. Or to arrange it. Even if Epstein was only five percent to want to die then the parlay is 5% times the probability he gets the chance. If Clinton is 99% to want him dead its 99% times maybe .1% that he can figure out how to do it without significant risk. It is certainly possible that people tried to persueade Epstein to do himself via bribes threats or other arguments, And that they bribed the warden and others to help give him the chance. But its a very big underdog that someone walked into that cell, murdered him and tried to make it look like a suicide. If you disagree you need to reread your probability books.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...php?p=55149723
Start there and scroll down a bit.

When you say the evidence points to murder but then say how murder is so unlikely, you're describing a paradox. And generally with paradoxes the problem comes from false assumptions or incomplete ideas.