Epstein Documents, Fully Searchable
collie.ai
collie.ai
I spent a good amount of time reading through this release earlier this week and there is practically nothing that wasn't already publicly known years ago.
I think the American people deserve answers on why the FBI covered for Epstein and secretly came up with a non-prosecution agreement for his sex crimes in Florida (which were the tip of the iceberg). Or how two prison guards fell asleep at the same time allowing Epstein to supposedly commit suicide. What evidence do we have that Jeffrey Epstein is _actually dead?_ Oh I guess it doesn't matter because now we have swiss cheese court records for one of his flunkies who did get prosecuted. Justice in this country is a myth.
A skeptic, when faced with incomplete evidence, concludes they don't know. Maybe they would like to know more, who knows.
A conspiracy theorist, when faced with incomplete evidence starts speculating about what could really be going on, and takes the absent evidence as a sort of soft proof they are right. Why else would evidence be missing, after all, if lizard bigfoot wasn't secretly running the shadow government.
So for example, strictly speaking, very few of us have solid proof Epstein even existed, let alone died. We haven't seen him in person, haven't been to a lot of the places, only seen pictures and documents and 3rd hand accounts. This is reason to have some level of doubt about this, but does not elevate any other hypothesis to credibility, they're also just as doubtful if not more so. That's the difference between skepticism and conspiracy theory: staying at "I don't know".
There are a great deal of things we have no cause to say we know for certain. That's just how it is.
For example, IMO it’s more likely that Epstein was murdered than he committed suicide. My basis comes from a doctor’s analysis of the bruises of Epstein’s neck that show the force applied was more than what could be applied from hanging himself as described in the report. Also, it seems highly unlikely that the guards would be asleep the same day the cameras went out, and they removed his room mate from his cell (which the court ordered him to have a room mate at all times). There’s too many unlikely variables that occurred.
Many will label me a conspiracy theorist, but I’m just stating what I think is the most likely outcome. I’m not saying I definitively know
that's not scepticism
Starting from a position of not knowing, I have not seen empirical proof of Epstein's existence. I have not met him, I haven't met anyone who has met him, I've only seen things written about him, and regarding things written when I read about things written about the sort of things I know well myself, they're often wrong or incomplete. I don't judge the evidence for his having existed as incontrovertible. I'd say it's probably likely he existed, but I can't prove it. And as a skeptic, I would say of the things I can not prove, that I never left my starting point: I don't know.
The point is that there's a sliding scale of certainty. I've seen my mother with my own eyes, but not the Eiffel tower, only been told about it and been shown pictures.
I have far more reason to believe the former exists than the latter. I could of course probably go to Paris and check if for some reason I wanted to be certain, bringing them up to parity, but until I have, they're not, and I have at least some reason to be doubtful about its existence. I could check is not the same as I have checked.
Unfortunately at worst it is a tool of control, as it makes discussing any original points nigh impossible. Once conversation has been sufficiently inundated with terminology and theory, where were we again?
Given just how verbose you have been, I must say I don’t know which it would be, but either seems quite possible.
Perhaps you could say I am skeptical of your intent. Based upon your own words, I struggle to see how you could possibly prove, without a doubt, that you had positive intent.
This slippery slope feels like a water slide.
I'll argue this is a misapplication of skepticism. Where it needs to most urgently be applied is toward the things we think are definitely true. It will eat away at your assumptions and reveal they're actually mostly things that seem true.
> Perhaps you could say I am skeptical of your intent. Based upon your own words, I struggle to see how you could possibly prove, without a doubt, that you had positive intent.
Given the minds of others are unknowable, you will never know. I will also never know your intent with regard to any action. But I also don't think intent matters.
The true nature of things doesn't require faith or believers. The sun is still shining even when a cloud obscures it.
That is this prompt:
> Why is anyone who challenges incomplete information labeled as a conspiracy theorist?
> The circumstances of Epstein's death are highly suspect and make no sense at all.
I don't think the actual circumstances matter. The same standard should apply.
Do you want less information?
Only if you put a lot more trust in your sense than in your social cognitive abilities. You're only making this point from inside this argument's steam cloud, and if you were to distrust your social context as much as you claim here, you'd be as incapacitated in your daily life as you would if you were blind.
Did he or did he not have girls inside the high school getting paid to solicit and bring other high school girls to his house to give him massages?
Like what was Ghislaine Maxwell's defense? He was innocent and so was she? None of it happened? Some of it happened?
Having said the above though I care little about Epstein or the circumstances regarding his death. (Marvin Minsky, who I used to have an admiration for I have come to loathe from his association with Epstein.)
There were already prominent and rampant conspiracy theories long before his 2019 arrest and death.
I look at this kind of thing and think "maybe?" but like there are open-air conspiracies 1000X worse that play out in the media or every detail gets leaked at every step. It just seems unlikely that there really are much more salacious details to uncover.
https://womeninthebible.net/women-bible-old-new-testaments/r... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho#Biblical_acc...
The label conspiracy theory was coined as far back as 1863 but was popularised by the CIA and no doubt other security services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Origin_and_U...
Honey Traps do seem to be the preserve of educated people, older people and security services personnel.
"Conspiracy Theory" tends to be more related to males, where as the female equivalent is "gossiping" and "rumour mongering".
The legal equivalent is "heresay".
I entirely agree. On the other hand, a lot of people insisted Epstein had been done in by the Clintons, (without specifying how of course), ignoring both the fact of Barr as AG being ultimately responsible for his safety and Epstein and Trump had a long-standing social relationship. So a lot of people who were 'just asking questions' seemed to be highly selective about which questions they were willing to entertain.
One can generalize from this case to the wider moral panic underway at present about pedophilia. A great deal of it is in bad faith and aimed at injuring political opponents rather than making anyone safer or figuring out the truth.
It's meaning isn't specific and will change depending on who's using it and in what context.
I'll weekend my understanding, if I hear a definition of conspiracy theory that doesn't contain an ad hominem assessment.
Literally everything happening right now goes against the conspiracy theorists' theories. Hell, they were trying to decode secret messages in Democratic Party emails about nonexistent sex dungeons in pizzerias when this broke, Epstein wasn't even on their radar. Now they're insisting they were right about everything all along.
They're discredited because their thumbtacks and string bullshit always harms legitimate inquiry and discourse more than it ever helps[0..2]. They're only ever right in the same way a broken clock is.
[0]https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-qanon-impedes-legitimate-...
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/technology/qanon-save-the...
[2]https://www.antitraffickingreview.org/index.php/atrjournal/a...
edit: posted sources.
> I spent a good amount of time reading through this release earlier this week
> Or how two prison guards fell asleep at the same time allowing Epstein to supposedly commit suicide. What evidence do we have that Jeffrey Epstein is _actually dead?_ Oh I guess it doesn't matter because now we have swiss cheese court records for one of his flunkies who did get prosecuted. Justice in this country is a myth.
I guess you were right on that first line.
> IS THERE AN ISRAELI SPY ATthe heart of the U.S. government? In January the National Security Agency decrypted a phone call between the Israeli Embassy in Washington and Tel Aviv talking of ""Mega,'' in a context suggesting Mega is a highly placed spy.
https://larouchepub.com/other/2001/2833mega_spy.html
> For a brief period of time in early 1997, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Security Agency engaged in a frantic mole hunt for an Israeli spy, believed to be operating inside the highest levels of the Clinton Administration national security establishment. By the time the mole hunt was made public--in a May 7, 1997 Washington Post leak--the hunt had been abruptly ended, and for all intents and purposes, the story disappeared from the news within a matter of days.
FWIW, people who have reviewed the evidence claim that it wasn't a suicide. Only the coroner appears to claim that it was suicide.
It's improbable that guard 1, guard 2, were sleeping, and the cameras were not working, and Epstein somehow hanged himself with his feet up higher than his torso in order to produce scars akin to those of a strangle from a shorter person, and he somehow had the strength to make the wrapped fabric thin enough to match the width of the scars.
It might have something to do with Correctional officers being notorious for dehumanizing the people they are supposed to be watching, raping them, and other horrific things.
> “Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta.
Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/epstein-giuffre-v-maxwell-un...
so i want ahead and indexed it all for searchability: https://github.com/esteininger/epstein-docs
Example query:
https://www.businessinsider.com/epstein-giuffre-v-maxwell-un...
If you don't like being called out for BS, show your work.
Good point, though, I do agree it's awfully conspicuous.
It suggests that Epstein singlehandedly had limited sexual encounters with teenage girls, and basically no one else was involved. The producers omit even the role of Ghislane Maxwell, who was later convicted for her role. Les Wexner is dismissed as merely the victim of a homophobic conspiracy theory. It's surreal and I wouldn't trust it for a second to be an accurate portrayal of what Epstein was actually involved in.
(FWIW it was based on the book of the same name by novelist James Patterson who lived in Palm Beach near Epstein)
If I click the associated PDF document, I can see there is legible text, so I think it might be an issue with the ingestion of the document itself.
It all turned out to be true.
> It all turned out to be true.
For a miniscule subset of the elite, sure
In a controlled (private island) and recorded environment (spy cams), one can easily fathom both willing and unwilling (drugged) famous people being put in compromising situations with minors, then waking up to a life where they are easily coerced into doing anything commanded.
It reminds me of a semi-recent movie where the head of a media company is kidnapped and made (drugged) to commit sexual acts with a pig on film to suppress potential future negative press coverage of a client.
This isn't a new or outlandish concept. Even Dave Chappelle described his Hollywood contract renewal negotiation pre-alleged "breakdown" as analogous to a "fake dead hooker disposal" blackmail scam in one of his standup routines.
Certain people are just powerful and protected enough that the only way to get them away from their security detail is to isolate them in a plausably "safe" environment, like a private island.
This is a bug in your site triggered by an incorrect <input> attribute (I don't recall the exact one, maybe "type" - but it affects which keyboard is shown by mobile browsers).
EDIT: Screenshot - https://i.ibb.co/dMm7Jpp/C48-EFAFB-C8-B2-4147-AC48-3-AC07584...
wanted to whip this up quick and dirty without too much overhead.
Disclaimer: i'm the owner of both collie.ai and mixpeek.com
Awww... :(