Jeffrey Epstein indicted on sex trafficking charges
Y'all realize that as long as no one is talking about how Trump - in order to cover his own ass - let Epstein die in jail, luckbox is happier than a pig in **** right? He doesn't believe this nonsense, he's a bog standard maga chud.
There is a lot of evidence that we didn't land on the moon but...?
I tried to find a clip of the scene from episode 3 of season 2 of mindhunter, where they are in Atlanta interviewing the black serial killer. Luck’s responses explaining his thought process for his conspiracy Theory her reminded so much of that scene.
Hey I asked you for strong evidence and you came with some weak stuff. But I'm sure as long as we keep it socratic method style and pretend to troll each other, we can uncover all the secrets of this world.
It doesn't quite apply. In the world of magic tricks we know from experience that there is always a trick. Perhaps a really tricky trick requires some out of the box thinking, but it's never a true paradox where one is forced to choose between two contradictory positions. Believing in real magic is never an option, but here there is an actual alternative hypothesis--suicide or murder is a false dichotomy.
Sklansky's claim is that basically even though it looks like murder, that it doesn't really make sense--but he forces himself right back into a position that is equally problematic.
Sklansky's claim is that basically even though it looks like murder, that it doesn't really make sense--but he forces himself right back into a position that is equally problematic.
This has been explained to you time and time again. Really, we shouldn't have to explain to a grown-ass adult why Ben Garrison cartoons are offensive, but nonetheless I've asked you to read up on the history of antisemitism and its relationship to conspiracy theories on the thin, thin chance that your raised by wolves act is real. That you continue to pull this babe-in-the-woods routine makes it pretty clear you're acting in bad faith.
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.
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.
This has been explained to you time and time again. Really, we shouldn't have to explain to a grown-ass adult why Ben Garrison cartoons are offensive, but nonetheless I've asked you to read up on the history of antisemitism and its relationship to conspiracy theories on the thin, thin chance that your raised by wolves act is real. That you continue to pull this babe-in-the-woods routine makes it pretty clear you're acting in bad faith.
It looks like we're getting to the same issues we had in the culture thread. Here comes Buckley Jr ruining culture talk due to his racism--except we have conspiracies ruined instead.
Given you looked dumb yesterday and you're going for the same ploy, I'd say it's you acting in bad faith.
I don't know that the "narrative" is problematic, but it seems like a problem that he was taken off suicide watch and given an opportunity to commit suicide. And it certainly seems like people in the prison were negligent. I have no problem with an investigation to determine whether anyone exerted influence to facilitate Epstein's ability to commit suicide.
Sure. I'd like more detail on the source of his wealth. And if there is more information on why he was not prosecuted more aggressively the first time around, I'd like to hear that as well.
I doubt it, but I will readily concede that I am not particularly knowledgeable about qanon. I don't spend nearly as much time on conspiracy stuff as you do.
Not really.
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?
Ok. I'm glad you addressed those and I had crossposted asking if you would. 3 & 4 we can talk about. It does tie in with qanon stuff and qanon is disinformation--so it's a line of argument that you are missing.
The media angle I also consider really interesting--especially the way in which leaks have taken place, the whole story about somebody posting on 4chan about it before news broke, stuff with Vicky Ward, etc.
Not that any of that would change anything of course.
The media angle I also consider really interesting--especially the way in which leaks have taken place, the whole story about somebody posting on 4chan about it before news broke, stuff with Vicky Ward, etc.
Not that any of that would change anything of course.
And as part of taking a critical look at the media--where is the media? It's been days since it was revealed that Epstein’s legal team had concerns about his suicide. I can't find any new stories on this. Baden is absent. The lawyers claimed they would have an updated response and they haven't produced one. (End of friday maybe?)
Let's just say even if you assume they are doing their work completely out of the media-- the media doesn't seem to be asking any questions but instead running with stuff about Prince Andrew and Ghislaine's alleged faked photos. Epstein story continues but without the murder mystery plot.
This doesn't surprise me but for the reality normalizers here, isn't it a bit odd that they'd make a big splash with all this broken bone stuff complete with lawyers challenging the results and then that whole front just goes completely cold? And what makes more sense--that this would happen if this were a completely organic story or if this is what we would see were it a psy-op?
(And that tmz story about the broken thyroid cartilage they claimed to have an exclusive on went nowhere but is worth mentioning).
Let's just say even if you assume they are doing their work completely out of the media-- the media doesn't seem to be asking any questions but instead running with stuff about Prince Andrew and Ghislaine's alleged faked photos. Epstein story continues but without the murder mystery plot.
This doesn't surprise me but for the reality normalizers here, isn't it a bit odd that they'd make a big splash with all this broken bone stuff complete with lawyers challenging the results and then that whole front just goes completely cold? And what makes more sense--that this would happen if this were a completely organic story or if this is what we would see were it a psy-op?
(And that tmz story about the broken thyroid cartilage they claimed to have an exclusive on went nowhere but is worth mentioning).
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.
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.
Jeffrey Epstein's High Society Contacts
I want to draw attention to this article from last month that contains this interesting tidbit about Steve Bannon visiting Epstein.
I think there is an angle here I want to explore about how Trump's Epstein connections play into this--namely how it makes this thing a bipartisan story--but I also think the Bannon connection is interesting. But I'll have to look more at that.
I want to draw attention to this article from last month that contains this interesting tidbit about Steve Bannon visiting Epstein.
In August 2018, the New York Post reported that Bannon had been seen entering Epstein’s townhouse. Neither Bannon nor Epstein has commented on the substance of their meeting, but when Ivanka Trump condemned Roy Moore’s campaign in Alabama, saying, “There’s a special place in hell for people who prey on children,” Bannon, who backed Moore, responded, “What about the allegations about her dad and that 13-year-old?” It was a clear reference to the woman who had accused Donald Trump and Epstein of raping her when she was 13.
I don't know or care. The reason for my earlier post was to expound on a mathematical/logic concept, ie an overarching piece of evidence that swamps all the evidence on the other side. Sometimes that concept entails ex presidents. Sometimes that concept entails two point conversions. Its all the same to me.
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.
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.
Assuming non-zero possibility for intelligence related then I'd happily put the rest as zero possibility as it's a rounding error at most.
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.
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.
The problem is basically your priors. Your theories about Epstein do not seem that insane if I'm willing to grant the assumptions that "psy-ops" are happening all the time and that there is a cabal of shadowy figures doing this stuff for nebulous reasons. I am willing to grant that ~all of the evidence for Epstein existing and being dead require at least some reliance on their being some non-fake government / media somewhere.
There is nothing specifically wrong with believing unfalsifiable things; there are probably many things that are true and yet would be extremely difficult to disprove if they were false. However, discussion of them becomes kind of pointless.
Can you expand on why you think this is happening and what the point is? And who, specifically, you think is behind it? I don't need names but like a general size and makeup of the world-controlling group would be nice.
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.
Assume you have an AIDS test that is 99% accurate (i.e. if you have AIDS it says yes 99% / no 1% and if you don't have AIDS it says no 99% / yes 1%) but you know that only 0.1% of the population has AIDS.
If you pick a random person and give them the AIDS test and it comes back saying they have AIDS, what is the probability they have AIDS?
Spoiler:
P(AIDS) = (0.1% * 99%) / [(0.1% * 99%) + (99.9% * 1%)] = 9%
This has been explained to you time and time again. Really, we shouldn't have to explain to a grown-ass adult why Ben Garrison cartoons are offensive, but nonetheless I've asked you to read up on the history of antisemitism and its relationship to conspiracy theories on the thin, thin chance that your raised by wolves act is real. That you continue to pull this babe-in-the-woods routine makes it pretty clear you're acting in bad faith.
Okay, so to be clear, your theory is basically "there is no Epstein"?
The problem is basically your priors. Your theories about Epstein do not seem that insane if I'm willing to grant the assumptions that "psy-ops" are happening all the time and that there is a cabal of shadowy figures doing this stuff for nebulous reasons. I am willing to grant that ~all of the evidence for Epstein existing and being dead require at least some reliance on their being some non-fake government / media somewhere.
The problem is basically your priors. Your theories about Epstein do not seem that insane if I'm willing to grant the assumptions that "psy-ops" are happening all the time and that there is a cabal of shadowy figures doing this stuff for nebulous reasons. I am willing to grant that ~all of the evidence for Epstein existing and being dead require at least some reliance on their being some non-fake government / media somewhere.
It's only after that time that Epstein seems to drop from public view--resurfacing in 2002 as an international man of mystery. Having Epstein's history fully nailed down though, I don't think is required or possible.
Re "priors": I wouldn't say psy-ops are happening all the time, regularly for sure--but I don't think those are necessary to think that something is amiss with the Epstein story. It can be looked at independently although I do think it is important to note how strongly connected it is with the basically known psy-op called qanon. But there is an actual connection there not merely the commonality of me thinking they are both psy-ops.
There is nothing specifically wrong with believing unfalsifiable things; there are probably many things that are true and yet would be extremely difficult to disprove if they were false. However, discussion of them becomes kind of pointless.
Can you expand on why you think this is happening and what the point is? And who, specifically, you think is behind it? I don't need names but like a general size and makeup of the world-controlling group would be nice.
I think there is some amount of truth to there, but that that idea is basically wrong. I don't think the idea is to attempt to maintain or support the current system but to tear it down--which is much more radical idea obviously, but it ties into a lot of the fakery that surrounds Trump, particularly Russia stuff and qanon.
As far as the general size of the ruling class ~ 10,000 seems reasonable but it's just a guess. I don't think speculating about how all the ins and outs of how the system works will help us much here though.
This isn't a paradox, it's just Bayesian probability.
I don't see how this benefits the elite over the prior situation where as far as I know people didn't think that. Why did they need a scapegoat for this? If it was actually happening, why would they intentionally make it public? I don't get it man.
And still, I want to know... why? By all accounts the current system is pretty great for people at the top. Tearing it all down seems like a really stupid thing for a billionaire to want to do. Why do you think they would want to do this? What is the point?
Just in general, it seems bizarre for the people at the top of any system to want to burn it down. It is the opposite of what you would expect their motivations to be.
How do you get into the club. I know someone personally with a net worth (my extremely rough estimate) of about ~$100mm. If he flips a coin for his wealth and wins does he get to enter the club?
Do Powerball winners get into the club?
I agree that things change when the initial probability estimate is itself uncertain. However the general ideas still apply.
Do Powerball winners get into the club?
I'll try to see about getting to your post later.
There was a $1.4bn powerball jackpot. Even if you took the $900mm cash option and paid 50% in taxes the winner of that thing is in the top 10,000 richest people in the world.
Is he part of the ruling class? Can he become part of it if he leverages his newfound wealth correctly?
How about the person I know with $100mm? Is he (a) ruling class? (b) not ruling class with no opportunity to join? (c) not ruling class but could join?
A big thing that makes this implausible to me is the necessity of a hard cutoff between in the club and not in the club in order to make these theories work.
Can anyone really imagine Donald Trump, Sergey Brin, the Koch brothers, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, Eduardo Savarin, Rupert Murdock, Warren Buffett, and Vladimir Putin working collaboratively in a conspiracy?
I guess Luckbox is going to say that most of the apparent conflicts among members of this group are manufactured by the conspiracy. How is anyone supposed to respond to that?
I thought about leaving that out because I thought you might interpret it that way, but it isn't a troll.
There was a $1.4bn powerball jackpot. Even if you took the $900mm cash option and paid 50% in taxes the winner of that thing is in the top 10,000 richest people in the world.
Is he part of the ruling class? Can he become part of it if he leverages his newfound wealth correctly?
How about the person I know with $100mm? Is he (a) ruling class? (b) not ruling class with no opportunity to join? (c) not ruling class but could join?
A big thing that makes this implausible to me is the necessity of a hard cutoff between in the club and not in the club in order to make these theories work.
There was a $1.4bn powerball jackpot. Even if you took the $900mm cash option and paid 50% in taxes the winner of that thing is in the top 10,000 richest people in the world.
Is he part of the ruling class? Can he become part of it if he leverages his newfound wealth correctly?
How about the person I know with $100mm? Is he (a) ruling class? (b) not ruling class with no opportunity to join? (c) not ruling class but could join?
A big thing that makes this implausible to me is the necessity of a hard cutoff between in the club and not in the club in order to make these theories work.
There are lots of very rich people out there and I don't have any reason to believe that any unspecified rich individual is "a part of the club".
But if you're one of those rich individuals attending meetings like Davos, or *gasp* the bilderberg group--then you become more suspect. I'm not sure why the bolded is such a concern for you.
I don't think hard cut-offs exist for the elite. Things are compartmentalized imo. I don't know this as fact but it's what I think. Someone can serve the ruling class without necessarily understanding all of what is happening or what the other hands are doing. And we're really getting off into the weeds but I suppose some of it is necessary if I'm going to make arguments like Epstein being the harbinger of an elite driven paradigm shift in society.
Can anyone really imagine Donald Trump, Sergey Brin, the Koch brothers, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, Eduardo Savarin, Rupert Murdock, Warren Buffett, and Vladimir Putin working collaboratively in a conspiracy?
I guess Luckbox is going to say that most of the apparent conflicts among members of this group are manufactured by the conspiracy. How is anyone supposed to respond to that?
I guess Luckbox is going to say that most of the apparent conflicts among members of this group are manufactured by the conspiracy. How is anyone supposed to respond to that?
Remember how we had that discussion about non-falsifiability?
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE