LOL. If I replied to it straight away would we be in any different position than we are now?
If you want I'll PM you some youtube videos. Like I said I think you'll be immune to anything mind-blowing although I would feel bad if I was wrong.

You guys can give up. In the Epstein thread, I asked LB the following:

He refused to answer, more or less for the reasons that he is giving in this thread-- that is, his answers would be too mind-blowing and inflammatory for people to handle.

Imagine LB as your employee:

You asked him for reasons behind his conclusions and he won't tell you because they are too crazy. You ask him only for a 10 person list and he gives 4 names with reasons they are on the list. You criticize his ability to take direction and he says you don't understand. And in every instance - he suggests watching some YouTubevideos.

No wonder he is chasing around a toddler at his age!

She isn't quite walking yet. I'm doing this as a favor to my friends for one more month because I can work anywhere and because I'm a nice guy.
But it figures that you think someone's job determines their worth. It's for those same sorts of reasons that you got caught up believing in bs.

To some degree it does, A fortyish man-nanny is a little strange. Your fascination with child development in your recent posts revealed quite a bit about you. Most men have those experiences in their twenties, so you seem like a late bloomer.

Way to focus those intellectual skills on the irrelevant portion of the post.

You're proving my points about you. Anything different you think is worthy of being made fun of. But this isn't my career and they aren't paying for me for it. I help for a few hours in the afternoon and morning 4 days a week. And it's been interesting being around a baby. They aren't as bad as I would have thought and have plenty of redeeming qualities.
(And none of the other parts of your post were relevant--you guys aren't my boss, I'm not your employee. If I'm asked for a 10 person list, I have every right to respond with 4 names, or none, or 20 if I want)

So the term for seeing patterns in randomness is aphophenia, but it's really difficult to see how this is something that could apply to conspiracy ideas--perhaps some but I don't know what those are. Mostly, it comes down to inductive reasoning vs deductive or Bayesian reasoning.
The Portland story is a perfect example of this because it is sort of a 'one-off' example that doesn't tie-in to too many other ideas. But to recap: a story broke that a Portland area antifa guy was involved in a crazy incident involving gunshots where he was run over and killed. But due to the nature of the reporting I was able to see immediately that the story was bogus. And to this day and despite the fact that the police supposedly have the murder weapon vehicle in their possession, there have been no arrests. And the kicker is that Portland area media including supposedly independents like Andy Ngo never even asked Portland PD who the car is registered to and they pretend like it doesn't exist.
The whole story stinks galore and there isn't any randomness about it. The conspiracy idea there flows directly from straight-forward logical thinking. The various naysayers have said things like "well they are definitely investigating" or come up with alternate conspiracy explanations of how the Portland PD is fascist and covering up for the killers. But that doesn't explain how they got the Portland media to obfuscate about the story from day 1 by claiming it was a hit and run when the car was left at the scene.
The issue with those who deny that there is a conspiracy there is that they deny the possibility that such a thing could ever occur, so they are forced to seek other explanations. It is this way with all such 'conspiracy events' where preconceived notions about how the normalcy of the world get put ahead of facts and logic.
It isn't my claim that there isn't a certain amount of 'dot-connecting' that is necessary to draw a picture amongst the complete data-set of these sorts of events. There is. But you can't call the data random nor can one say 'well sometimes there are massive conspiracies between government and media but not all the time'. Ultimately though what happens is that the debunkers and naysayers ignore both the data-points altogether and the bigger picture that stems from them.

Luckbox,

Jerry Falwell Jr says the coronavirus could be a North Korean bioweapon. Time to connect the dots, start thinking inductively, and get on board the conspiracy express train, right?

You can’t force LB to latch onto a conspiracy. It has to happen organically.

Formula72 turned me onto the Amber Guyger stuff here in this thread. I can definitely take suggestions.
As far as Falwell Jr goes--all of those 700 club televangelists are a bunch of propagandists or they wouldn't be on tv and famous. But North Korean bioweapon is a new one for me. As far as corona conspiracy stuff in general--we'll see where it goes still. And it definitely looks like it's going places. (Pretty far it would seem).

You would enjoy the Coast To Coast podcast on coronavirus, lots of wild stuff there.

Any conspiracy theory is a honeypot for his INTPJQ mind. His takedown of the evangelicals was surgical. His predictive analysis of corona - mind-blowing!

JJJ,
How about you take your expert trolling skills elsewhere? I like Trolly better.

Things definitely have the potential to get weird(er) imo.

I'll check it out. Coast to Coast is mostly propaganda/disinfo about aliens and things of that nature although I imagine actually true things get slipped in every once in a while for balance.

Nah, He may need backup if he gets the Corona. I want to come in already warmed up. Should we take your Corona analysis to the bank, like you suggested we should with your Portland theory?

JJJ,
You're putting your reading comp skills on display again because I haven't given any sort or corona analysis.
Do you want to talk about the Portland stuff? What is your theory there?

This is still your idea for why the cops put out a reward after three days even though they have the car?
Like LOL @ thinking that this is something that I can be attacked on. Stick with Nicole Simpson. Because your ideas here are complete jokes and you have no explanation for any of the details of the story. The whole thing is a joke.

George Noory would probably hear you out if you called up and told them about Epstein and the Satanic hand symbols.

It looks to me like you developed your Corona theory to the same depth as your Satanic hand signal, Portland and Epstein theories.

Maybe they determined the titled owner of the vehicle was uninvolved. Maybe they determined he was the mastermind of the whole plot and have him under surveillance. Who knows.

The fact that the media or police did not tell you (didn't you call them to offer your investigation skills) does not mean there is some giant police/media psy-ops. That leap is where that great "mind" of yours fails you.

Maybe maybe JJJ. Maybe you never encountered any official story that you didn't believe. Have you considered that possibility?
Like wtf: "just because the police put out a reward after three days when the story was full of holes doesn't mean that everything isn't perfectly normal". gtfo. There isn't any reason to take you seriously.

When I start telling people their loved ones aren't dead because of the manner in which the police dragged their bodies from the active shooter scene, don't take me seriously. Until then, only take me 50% seriously.

And there is no "official" story. Information was released by the police, Antifa and by the attorney for a shooter at the scene - obviously they have competing interests, not common ones where they would present a unified narrative.

What is your explanation for why the media never asked the police about who the car was registered to and barely even reported on it?