General Epstein "commits suicide"

[Deleted member 1]

I suspect you were more fun when you were drinking?

That's fucked up

 

[jason73]

i am all for a good conspiracy but it is quite common for chomos to commit suicide. i would like to see the story that come out over the nxt few weeks before i form an opinion one way or the other but for right now im going to bask in the glory of the clinton memes

 

[Masato Toys]

Again, it is hubris to believe you can prove everything in your own right. You and I (or at least I) don't have the knowledge to understand every single subject in the world, nor the time if you have the intelligence I am missing for such a mission. Bill sounds nice...he also sounds like an unrealistic cliche.

I can't even read the raw data proving climate change. I tried. I've got a few science degrees. I still can't go through it with any level of critical eye. I have to trust the executive summary from the experts.

I can't be sure I have a working knowledge of bullet dynamics or astrophysics. How can I prove the moon landing on my own? Or JFK second shooter? It's actually impossible. But I can use critical thinking, which I am pretty good at, to listen to experts that have a consensus.

Even if you can understand how we got to the moon. The possibility and probability that it happened still isn't good enough for Bill. He suggest you need to fly to the moon yourself to find evidence of the landing. Must prove it personally. And then 7 billion other people should do the same?
Even if I film the remnants of the rover on the surface, Bill suggest the other 7 billion shouldn't take my word for it.

This seems an exhausting and unrealistic view of the world and how to examine events.

This would be a sensible post, except for how many times we've caught 'authorities' under the guise of manufactured 'experts' outright lying about shit.

That's the crux of it for me, once you've seen evidence that the authorities (upon whose words our reality is built upon) have totally lied to you about major shit, covered up horrific crimes etc etc etc... when at what point does it become simply foolish to continue believing them about anything anymore? And then the dreaded question naturally arises; What ELSE have we been lied to about?

Of course this has potential to blow the doors to paranoia wide open, if you suddenly suspect that everything is a lie then reality indeed loses all stability whatsoever. But the basic question still stands and I think should totally be taken seriously.

IMO, Splinty's very rational and otherwise intelligent view of how to judge reality and what/who to believe etc seems to fall on a simple assumption that for the most part, authoritarian sources are basically trustworthy and are looking out for our best interests. It assumes that truth totally outweighs lies and that if 'experts' have consensus on things they are probably all good people with no agenda that just want to bring you the truth because they care etc

I just don't think any of that is so anymore. Really, why should I take their word for anything anymore? I think Cooper was right; don't believe shit until you can really prove it to yourself convincingly. If this means discovering that I can't prove shit, and will 'know' very very little, well I will take that reality of unknowing over believing a bunch of shit from known liars. I don't mind being uncertain about almost everything at all.


GREAT thread, this is a huge story.

I am away and not having much time for forums or conspiracy digging but I just caught up with this thread gladdest to see folks keeping an eye on it. @Outlaw Shit is dropping some schooling in here folks, nice posts listen up.

 

[Sheepdog]

No one is being overly reactionary.
Taking a story, using investigation to validate that story is normal. It's what journalists do...You know, the MSM journalists that CT rails against.
CT doesn't theorize and expose. It tilts into the wind at predefined end points instead of working out from the known facts. It's starting investigation from finish instead of start. That's my point. The entirety of the methodology of the community is flawed and the outcomes prove it I think. I can find no google search showing me some CT wins. I looked.
Referencing previous bad behavior only backs the CT community if the CT community theorized it and then was proven right. But that doesn't happen.

The fact that official narratives have been countered in a methodical process of investigation and uncovering suggests only that things are pretty straight forward. Humans are flawed. Investigations take time and are done piecemeal. And news reporters aren't all out to pull the wool over your eyes. They have the best track records of exposing corruption. And in the end, the biggest outcomes are typically WHY an action happened not the WHAT. We lie about why we are somewhere doing something. We don't get away with faking an entire moon landing, etc. The CT community invents the WHAT and then never proves it.

The cover of, "Are you saying there's never been conspiracies??!?!" is deflection. All I want is the CT methodology and community to show me their wins. I can show other methodology having outcomes of truth without fantasy.



No one has done anything of the sort. I'm the only one in the thread working through public data to see if the story fits. BOP investigations are ongoing. There are cameras in the cell 24 hours (See my links) that will have to be released to close the story or at least congressionally reviewed.
A normal reaction is what is occurring. An investigation into the custody of the prisoner and how this could happen that involves government and MSM of all people. That would have to find something strikingly out of the ordinary to move from incompetence to malfeasance.

I simple am asking the CT community to show me their methodology is a validated one. Because references to cold war programs to push positive american messages against the soviets around the world don't really convince me we faked the moon landings or WTC was done by thermite.

I didn't lump you in with the crowd that automatically takes the official narrative as gospel, but they absolutely do exist and it is common for people to dismiss legitimate skeptics of official narratives as conspiracy theorists. There is this thing called propaganda, and it works. And when propaganda or official lies are challenged, then those who challenge them are dismissed as conspiracy theorists in an attempt to discredit them. This is not groundbreaking insight I'm delivering here.

Understand what I'm saying here: there is this 'CT community'' that you speak of - I just call them 'retards'. We're not in dispute on that. But 'conspiracy theory' has become a term of control and it gets abused. I was just using your post to make a point about the need to delineate between a 'CT community' member and a skeptic when dealing with limited information in cases like these.

Someone who says "Epstein was definitely killed by Mossad in league with the Clintons" - retard. Someone who says "hmm, this is pretty suspicious, I'd like to see some evidence before I categorically accept that this was a suicide but I am willing to accept that it was" - perfectly rational person. I'm sure you agree.

 

[Never_Rolled]

That's fucked up

I put a smiley face I was joking.

 

[Sheepdog]

I decided to look this example up. Maybe some of the druggies were spending years telling the world and no one would listen?? Government and media suppressing the story in cahoots as I am lead to believe is a more common than not occurrence...



How as MK Ultra exposed?

Government looked into itself...
Project MKUltra was first brought to public attention in 1975 by the Church Committee of the United States Congress and Gerald Ford's United States President's Commission on CIA activities within the United States
In 1977, a Freedom of Information Act request uncovered a cache of 20,000 documents relating to project MKUltra which led to Senate hearings later that year

Why?
Because investigative journalist from the MSM...
In December 1974, The New York Times alleged that the CIA had conducted illegal domestic activities, including experiments on U.S. citizens, during the 1960s.[67] That report prompted investigations by the U.S. Congress, in the form of the Church Committee, and by a commission known as the Rockefeller Commission that looked into the illegal domestic activities of the CIA, the FBI, and intelligence-related agencies of the military


I'm just saying. When Epstein kills himself, and the FBI, NYT, and Congress go to look into it, that's pretty par for the course and has a track record of being a validated set of eyes and process.

I picked MK Ultra because of how outlandish it was, not that I could prove contemporaneous conspiracy theories existed. That's why I followed up with this sentence - "it doesn't mean at one point they weren't or couldn't have been labeled 'conspiracy theories." The first person talking about MK Ultra could've easily been dismissed as a crank because it sounds so ridiculous, whether or not they actually were

I can't prove that it was a known and dismissed conspiracy theory before the New York Times got hold of it (because I can't be fucked searching archives of 1970s conspiracy websites,if I even knew where to look), but then again you can't prove that it wasn't - just like you can't prove that Epstein wasn't a shape-shifting Gorgamac intent on stealing all of the world's cheddar cheese, can you? Got you there.

 

[1031]

This would be a sensible post, except for how many times we've caught 'authorities' under the guise of manufactured 'experts' outright lying about shit.

That's the crux of it for me, once you've seen evidence that the authorities (upon whose words our reality is built upon) have totally lied to you about major shit, covered up horrific crimes etc etc etc... when at what point does it become simply foolish to continue believing them about anything anymore? And then the dreaded question naturally arises; What ELSE have we been lied to about?

Of course this has potential to blow the doors to paranoia wide open, if you suddenly suspect that everything is a lie then reality indeed loses all stability whatsoever. But the basic question still stands and I think should totally be taken seriously.

IMO, Splinty's very rational and otherwise intelligent view of how to judge reality and what/who to believe etc seems to fall on a simple assumption that for the most part, authoritarian sources are basically trustworthy and are looking out for our best interests. It assumes that truth totally outweighs lies and that if 'experts' have consensus on things they are probably all good people with no agenda that just want to bring you the truth because they care etc

I just don't think any of that is so anymore. Really, why should I take their word for anything anymore? I think Cooper was right; don't believe shit until you can really prove it to yourself convincingly. If this means discovering that I can't prove shit, and will 'know' very very little, well I will take that reality of unknowing over believing a bunch of shit from known liars. I don't mind being uncertain about almost everything at all.


GREAT thread, this is a huge story.

I am away and not having much time for forums or conspiracy digging but I just caught up with this thread gladdest to see folks keeping an eye on it. @Outlaw Shit is dropping some schooling in here folks, nice posts listen up.

You've said it perfectly; and why should anyone take their word for anything , anymore?
From what I've observed, the main reasons people allow themselves to be lied to by authorities (politicians, media, religious heads) are: simple gullibility; a need to believe in something; the more complex one is that a lot of people can't psychologically accept they are powerless to do anything about the pervasive corruption and lies they are fed.

 

[gangsterkathryn]

hahahaha
I'm done. I'm fully bought in. I'm going to start making these videos!

Please post. I’ll subscribe. Just give you more yacht money.

 

[jason73]

This would be a sensible post, except for how many times we've caught 'authorities' under the guise of manufactured 'experts' outright lying about shit.

That's the crux of it for me, once you've seen evidence that the authorities (upon whose words our reality is built upon) have totally lied to you about major shit, covered up horrific crimes etc etc etc... when at what point does it become simply foolish to continue believing them about anything anymore? And then the dreaded question naturally arises; What ELSE have we been lied to about?

Of course this has potential to blow the doors to paranoia wide open, if you suddenly suspect that everything is a lie then reality indeed loses all stability whatsoever. But the basic question still stands and I think should totally be taken seriously.

IMO, Splinty's very rational and otherwise intelligent view of how to judge reality and what/who to believe etc seems to fall on a simple assumption that for the most part, authoritarian sources are basically trustworthy and are looking out for our best interests. It assumes that truth totally outweighs lies and that if 'experts' have consensus on things they are probably all good people with no agenda that just want to bring you the truth because they care etc

I just don't think any of that is so anymore. Really, why should I take their word for anything anymore? I think Cooper was right; don't believe shit until you can really prove it to yourself convincingly. If this means discovering that I can't prove shit, and will 'know' very very little, well I will take that reality of unknowing over believing a bunch of shit from known liars. I don't mind being uncertain about almost everything at all.


GREAT thread, this is a huge story.

I am away and not having much time for forums or conspiracy digging but I just caught up with this thread gladdest to see folks keeping an eye on it. @Outlaw Shit is dropping some schooling in here folks, nice posts listen up.

@Splinty was compromised on his trip to florida. @conor mcgregor nut hugger got to him and turned him into a biden supporter and establishment shill

 

[jason73]

True story

 

[Deleted member 1]

Alright let's see how skeptical we are here.
Within your reality at the 90% confidence...


Is the earth possibly flat?
Did we fake the moon landing?
Was Kennedy killed by a second gunman?
Was Epstein assassinated?
Did Ewing get chosen by a frozen envelope?

 

[jason73]

Im going to start a rumor that jack rubys grandson was the guard on the suicide watch

 

[Disciplined Galt]

Alright let's see how skeptical we are here.
Within your reality at the 90% confidence...


Is the earth possibly flat?
Did we fake the moon landing?
Was Kennedy killed by a second gunman?
Was Epstein assassinated?
Did Ewing get chosen by a frozen envelope?

No
No
Yes
Yes
No

 

[Deleted member 1]

Alright let's see how skeptical we are here.
Within your reality at the 90% confidence...


Is the earth possibly flat?
Did we fake the moon landing?
Was Kennedy killed by a second gunman?
Was Epstein assassinated?
Did Ewing get chosen by a frozen envelope?

No
No
No
No
No

 

[Never_Rolled]

All no’s for me. Shocking I know.

 

[gangsterkathryn]

No
No
No
No
No

These positions do not benefit your YouTube career.

 

[kneeblock]

 

[Deleted member 1]

These positions do not benefit your YouTube career.

Is the earth possibly flat?
Did we fake the moon landing?
Was Kennedy killed by a second gunman?
Was Epstein assassinated?
Did Ewing get chosen by a frozen envelope?

No, it's a cube. Flat earthers can't see the other sides. Their math works because of cuboid shape. But they are getting close!
No we have had alien tech since Ben Franklin came up with his lightning cover up story.
No body double. Kennedy lived in Cuba until his 80's where he passed away quietly.
Same. Trump had to get him out and that's why Trump is pinning it on the Clinton's. Trump didn't know her age.
No, the Ewing envelope was a bent corner. You can see that. A cold envelope wouldn't be cold long enough. They just experimented with it.

 

[gangsterkathryn]

No, it's a cube. Flat earthers can't see the other sides. Their math works because of cuboid shape. But they are getting close!
No we have had alien tech since Ben Franklin came up with his lightning cover up story.
No body double. Kennedy lived in Cuba until his 80's where he passed away quietly.
Same. Trump had to get him out and that's why Trump is pinning it on the Clinton's. Trump didn't know her age.
No, the Ewing envelope was a bent corner. You can see that. A cold envelope wouldn't be cold long enough. They just experimented with it.

I’m waiting for the first video.

 

[kneeblock]

This would be a sensible post, except for how many times we've caught 'authorities' under the guise of manufactured 'experts' outright lying about shit.

That's the crux of it for me, once you've seen evidence that the authorities (upon whose words our reality is built upon) have totally lied to you about major shit, covered up horrific crimes etc etc etc... when at what point does it become simply foolish to continue believing them about anything anymore? And then the dreaded question naturally arises; What ELSE have we been lied to about?

Of course this has potential to blow the doors to paranoia wide open, if you suddenly suspect that everything is a lie then reality indeed loses all stability whatsoever. But the basic question still stands and I think should totally be taken seriously.

IMO, Splinty's very rational and otherwise intelligent view of how to judge reality and what/who to believe etc seems to fall on a simple assumption that for the most part, authoritarian sources are basically trustworthy and are looking out for our best interests. It assumes that truth totally outweighs lies and that if 'experts' have consensus on things they are probably all good people with no agenda that just want to bring you the truth because they care etc

I just don't think any of that is so anymore. Really, why should I take their word for anything anymore? I think Cooper was right; don't believe shit until you can really prove it to yourself convincingly. If this means discovering that I can't prove shit, and will 'know' very very little, well I will take that reality of unknowing over believing a bunch of shit from known liars. I don't mind being uncertain about almost everything at all.


GREAT thread, this is a huge story.

I am away and not having much time for forums or conspiracy digging but I just caught up with this thread gladdest to see folks keeping an eye on it. @Outlaw Shit is dropping some schooling in here folks, nice posts listen up.

I think you bring up some decent points about the difficulty of believing "experts" and "authority," as we've seen distortions, outright lies, and in some cases, just getting things completely wrong from a lot of people who should have known or done better. That said, there's a difference between active doubt vs. informed skepticism. By active doubt, I mean the attitude that I will not believe anything unless it is personally proven to me based on whatever my own arbitrary standards are and then and only then will I be satisfied that I know the Truth. Informed skepticism instead is greeting any claim with a basic critical toolkit that includes knowledge of logical reasoning, rhetorical moves, psychological manipulations, political economy, and historical precedent. In other words, does this make sense, how is it being said, what feeling does it evoke, how does this sustain or disrupt power structures, and does this sound familiar? This schema is pretty reliable, but requires some training to master. Realistically, we use some version of it to get through everything we experience.

Our own life experiences and material circumstances also help shape how we engage with the world. So once we evaluate a message we receive, we also have to question our own commitments to things being one way or the other. Historically, information was more limited and so the need for institutions to undergo a few or most of these processes on our behalf was high, but today some things are much more readily available. As such, as long as we know the protocols, we can safely make up our minds based on the evidence and still sometimes be wrong, but it could be due to distortions in the information we've received or due to our own failed process. Skepticism means being most skeptical of your own conclusions.

Active doubt is more like watching the UFC and being like, "no, that's fake BS" until you can personally challenge Jon Jones to a fight. Informed skepticism is going to train in BJJ, boxing, kickboxing, wrestling, etc and then watching a fight with a new set of eyes. So Joe Rogan's breakdown helps, but you can probably mostly follow what's going on.

 

[Sex Chicken]

 

[jason73]

 

[RaginCajun]

Alright let's see how skeptical we are here.
Within your reality at the 90% confidence...


Is the earth possibly flat?
Did we fake the moon landing?
Was Kennedy killed by a second gunman?
Was Epstein assassinated?
Did Ewing get chosen by a frozen envelope?

These things may or may not have happened in a countless amount of ways depending on which universe we are currently in as evidenced by the Mandela effect.

 

[Masato Toys]

I think you bring up some decent points about the difficulty of believing "experts" and "authority," as we've seen distortions, outright lies, and in some cases, just getting things completely wrong from a lot of people who should have known or done better. That said, there's a difference between active doubt vs. informed skepticism. By active doubt, I mean the attitude that I will not believe anything unless it is personally proven to me based on whatever my own arbitrary standards are and then and only then will I be satisfied that I know the Truth. Informed skepticism instead is greeting any claim with a basic critical toolkit that includes knowledge of logical reasoning, rhetorical moves, psychological manipulations, political economy, and historical precedent. In other words, does this make sense, how is it being said, what feeling does it evoke, how does this sustain or disrupt power structures, and does this sound familiar? This schema is pretty reliable, but requires some training to master. Realistically, we use some version of it to get through everything we experience.

Our own life experiences and material circumstances also help shape how we engage with the world. So once we evaluate a message we receive, we also have to question our own commitments to things being one way or the other. Historically, information was more limited and so the need for institutions to undergo a few or most of these processes on our behalf was high, but today some things are much more readily available. As such, as long as we know the protocols, we can safely make up our minds based on the evidence and still sometimes be wrong, but it could be due to distortions in the information we've received or due to our own failed process. Skepticism means being most skeptical of your own conclusions.

Active doubt is more like watching the UFC and being like, "no, that's fake BS" until you can personally challenge Jon Jones to a fight. Informed skepticism is going to train in BJJ, boxing, kickboxing, wrestling, etc and then watching a fight with a new set of eyes. So Joe Rogan's breakdown helps, but you can probably mostly follow what's going on.

Great post

Agreed, it is up to us where on this scale we choose to exist.

However ‘informed skepticism’ is still a relative term, depending from whom one is being ‘informed’.

Folks may watch CNN, or read the Washington Post everyday and this consider themselves ‘informed’, but at the same time thus never even heard of WTC7 for example. Information comes from many vastly different places and experiences, and none are complete. Be informed about one thing is usually to be ignorant of another

I personally am counting on a scenario where the disinfo gets so thick that it will become completely impossible to trust or believe anything anymore, and out of evolutionary survival we develop a new sense where we are clearly able to distinguish truth from lies as we would differentiate the smell of a rose from the smell of shit.

 

[RaginCajun]