Tony_Tarantula on 17/8/2019 at 18:10
They're no officially claiming it's a suicide.
The laywers are disputing that claim: (
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/medical-examiner-epstein-suicide-lawyers-vow-investigation.html)
New York Times showed off exactly why "journalism" is so infuriating when they claimed that people were claiming he was murdered "Without Evidence".
Why add "Without Evidence"? They're deliberately and dishonestly conflating "Evidence" with "indisputable proof".
Here's what is "evidence"
* The guard on duty wasn't an actual guard
* The cameras just conveniently malfunctioned at the time of his death
* His roomate was transferred out immediately before he died
* The checks on him were not done at the time he died
* He had broken bones consistent with strangulation
Among others. That's all "evidence" pointing in a certain direction. It's not "proof" but for New York times to claim there's "no evidence" is a flat out lie.
Starker on 17/8/2019 at 20:21
Let's look at the "evidence", shall we:
* The guard on duty wasn't an actual guard -- an incredibly common practice in prisons who lack guards, especially with the current administration's hiring freeze.
* The cameras just conveniently malfunctioned at the time of his death -- for now, this is just an unsubstantiated rumour a conspiracy theorist started.
* His roomate was transferred out immediately before he died -- not immediately prior and it's not necessarily evidence of homicide, especially without knowing the reasons for the transfer. In fact, being alone in his cell would make it far easier for Epstein to commit suicide.
* The checks on him were not done at the time he died -- this could just as well be evidence for suicide. The guards were overworked and them falling asleep and not checking up on Epstein could have been precisely why he chose this time for suicide.
* He had broken bones consistent with strangulation -- he had broken bones that are more often associated with strangulation, but do occasionally happen with suicide, particularly with older people. And an examination would take into account more things than that, like whether there were signs of resistance, and so on.
This is what makes conspiracy theorists so unreliable. They see an unknown object in the sky and claim it's evidence for aliens existing, instead of taking into account far more likely explanations. Instead of looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions from that, they try to prove something they already believe, no matter how poorly supported it is. Instead of waiting for details to get a more complete picture, they immediately jump into building a narrative based on even the shoddiest of "evidence".
Gray on 17/8/2019 at 20:27
And then Buzz Aldrin punches you in the face for mocking his greatest achievement.
Renzatic on 17/8/2019 at 20:28
Which is then used as proof that he's in on the moon landing conspiracy, because if he actually did it, he'd be so much more chill, right? Only people with something to hide act like that.
Like Starker said, it's easy to contort any evidence to fit whatever conclusion you desire.
Gray on 17/8/2019 at 20:29
Two people can't keep a secret for five minutes. Can 300,000 for 50 years? Unlikely.
Renzatic on 17/8/2019 at 20:42
Exactly. Let's take the one true conspiracy we've seen committed against the American people in our lifetimes: PRISM. How long was it in operation before someone blew the whole thing wide open? 5-6 years?
...and the legislation that allowed it to happen? Was it handled by power brokers wheeling and dealing in smoke filled back rooms, away from the prying eyes of the American public? Nope. We could all watch the Patriot Act and the Protect America Act pass through congress live on C-SPAN. Not even 24 hours later, multiple journalists from multiple papers were writing exposes about the carte blanche powers it granted the NSA. A few years later, Snowden shows up, and hands over documented evidence that the NSA was doing what everyone already said the NSA was gonna do.
t850terminator on 17/8/2019 at 22:41
Knowing how absurdly mundane and disappointing reality often is, I'm still not ruling out accidental suicide by trying to achieve auto-erotic asphyxiation or something like that.
Tony_Tarantula on 19/8/2019 at 14:19
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Exactly. Let's take the one true conspiracy we've seen committed against the American people in our lifetimes: PRISM. How long was it in operation before someone blew the whole thing wide open? 5-6 years?
...and the legislation that allowed it to happen? Was it handled by power brokers wheeling and dealing in smoke filled back rooms, away from the prying eyes of the American public? Nope. We could all watch the Patriot Act and the Protect America Act pass through congress live on C-SPAN. Not even 24 hours later, multiple journalists from multiple papers were writing exposes about the carte blanche powers it granted the NSA. A few years later, Snowden shows up, and hands over documented evidence that the NSA was doing what everyone already said the NSA was gonna do.
Good example.
Here's some other food for thought to add on to that. It's not like it actually lasted 5-6 years.
There were several times that whistleblowers warned PRISM was happening. The collective consensus dismissed what they were saying as kooky conspiracy theories.
Not only does it turn out that professionals are remarkably skilled at keeping a secret (example, organized crime keeps secrets for decades all the time) but sometimes they don't even need to keep the secret when you have control over "influencers" who can successfully gaslight people into believing that you're a kook if you figure it out.
One thing I will add from personal experience is that it often doesn't even require a real "secret". The example in mind I have is that the Afghan war was a complete clusterfuck with zero progress yet this very obvious fact was effectively treated as a secret because nobody involved would benefit from speaking the truth about it. Military officers advance their careers by rebranding failure as success, journalists maintain their access by writing fluff pieces that make their contacts look good (which means they can't call a spade a spade), elected officials can't admit a policy failure if they want to get re-elected, and so on. I saw a Colonel stand on stage and claim that his unit had seen a 93% reduction in violence so they had been extremely successful.....except that the unit had arrived in the middle of the summer fighting season and left in the spring before fighting had seriously resumed so his claim was a flat out "lie that cites truth". When everyone shares a common incentive to distort the truth then things when even the slightest bit of subjectivity become very difficult to discern truthfully.
Gray on 19/8/2019 at 15:24
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
the Afghan war was a complete clusterfuck with zero progress yet this very obvious fact was effectively treated as a secret
Was it a secret? Not to us. In some countries, journalists actually do their job, especially if they're public service and not working for profit.
WingedKagouti on 19/8/2019 at 17:04
Quote Posted by Gray
Was it a secret? Not to us. In some countries, journalists actually do their job, especially if they're public service and not working for profit.
From what I've seen, the US press does tend to tone down any negativity about military campaigns, depending on how close ties the individual corporations have with the current government and/or military contractors. The US press tends to try to project an image of "All Victory, No Losses" when it comes to the US military.
Unless the public is making a noticable fuzz already.
Also, there's little profit in "The war in {insert country} continues, there's been {x} losses, no progress since last year"-types of headlines, so that kind of stuff tends to be relegated to a small one-paragraph blurbs hidden away next to a large ad. Regardless of where you live.