Hacker News Reader

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. There are questions that need to be answered

I think there's a nuance between healthy skepticism and conspiracy theory.

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.

The issue is people will label conspiracy theorists to anyone who doesn’t reach the same probability distribution.

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

> very few of us have solid proof Epstein even existed

that's not scepticism

It absolutely is. Arguably closer to Capital S Skepticism (e.g. pyrrhonism), but it's still a case of lower case s skepticism.

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.

Yep this was making sense until they started to get all philosophical. I mean can you prove anyone exists or anything?

Well, I mean, no?

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.

Getting deeply philosophical on the nature of reality when dealing with a situation of uncertainty is at best an accidental diversion.

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.

Well the entire point is that there is a great deal of things we will never know for certain. We can ignore this fact, and only apply the tool of skepticism toward the things that don't align with our preexisting assumptions and world view, as seems very popular. If we do that, we'll consequently find a reason to doubt everything except what we think is true, which is very convenient but also just an engine for fooling yourself.

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.

Thank you for confirming. You aren’t interested in the main topic, but you do appear to be interested in avoiding it.

I'm interested in the topic of what distinguishes a conspiracy theorist from a skeptic, which is what the comment I replied to brought up.

That is this prompt:

> Why is anyone who challenges incomplete information labeled as a conspiracy theorist?

You forgot your context.

> The circumstances of Epstein's death are highly suspect and make no sense at all.

The issue is how to deal with incomplete information.

I don't think the actual circumstances matter. The same standard should apply.

You say the issue is incomplete information and you say the circumstances do not matter.

Do you want less information?

Information about a particular instance of a problem is not very informative with regards to the problem as a class of problems.

> I have far more reason to believe the former exists than the latter.

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.

His death aside, what is there to dispute? Did he or did he not have an island where he would enslave/have sex with 14 year old girls or not?

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?

I'm confused by this comment - are you implying the answers to these questions are all so obvious that they are not worth pursuing evidence of?

I assumed they were obvious.

I think the only unclear pieces are the complete list of blackmail targets and complete list of all those that ever flew to the island.

No, I think his death is the issue. As with other magnets for conspiracy theories (John Fitzgerald Kennedy) the issues surrounding his death are enough.

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.)

> No, I think his death is the issue.

There were already prominent and rampant conspiracy theories long before his 2019 arrest and death.

I feel like conspiracy rheory is a reductive term considering epstien was found guilty twice over in court.

There is incomplete evidence on so, so many things. The worst allegations against Epstein and his supposed coterie of the entire world's elite is just something so incredibly delicious to the conspiracy-minded, that it's almost become a given that it's all true and the information is being suppressed. The rabbit hole is so deep and so broad it's just everything.

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.

I think the instructions can be found in the bible. The depravity of the Canaanites an area which included Jericho, were opportunities for exploitation.

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".

The circumstances of Epstein's death are highly suspect and make no sense at all.

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.

More importantly, most of the people screaming about pedophilia are arguably pedophiles escaping justice! Like, it's clear their supporters aren't blind, they just don't care.

This always comes up any time someone uses the term "conspiracy theory," as if we don't all understand what is meant by the term. It's just disingenuous to pretend like we don't all know what sorts of conspiracy theories henriquez is referring to. Even if you genuinely believe in some of them, you still know what the comment is referring to.

Because it's not a useful term. It's a piece of political jargon used to dismiss an idea as crackpot.

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.

We are embracing the term, because when everyone is a conspiracy theorist, it won't work to discredit people anymore by calling them that.

If you ever find that teapot orbiting out beyond Saturn, let everyone know.

I mean, the conspiracy theorists insisted Ghislaine Maxwell was going to be "suicided", there would never be a trial, all this information would be conveniently memory-holed and the media would never cover anything related to Epstein because their globalist controllers would never allow it.

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.

A broken clock would be right more often than the government and mainstream media have been on cases like this.

Except of course all the evidence which shows that isn't the case. Really, you should stop amplifying this nonsense.

> The "release" is heavily redacted and is likely a tarpit for conspiracy theorists.

> 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.

You have defeated me

https://www.newsweek.com/who-mega-173088

> 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.

> supposedly commit suicide

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.

Regarding the guards and the cameras, I don't want to accept those as unlikely until I know whether guards in that prison sleep on the job often, and whether the cameras were under regular disrepair and nobody cared enough to fix them. Both of those seem quite plausible to me.

Most prisons seem to have constant problems regarding verifiable evidence for all the bruises and incidents that seem to happen.

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.

Hmm. That wouldn't really apply to this case unless you think the guards killed Epstein, right?

It wasn't the FBI, it was the USA for Floria, Alex Acosta. It's been thoroughly reported on and investigated by the DOJ. The prosecutor's discretion is so broad in whom they choose to charge or not that there isn't much that can be done. No quid pro quo was ever uncovered. It was considered a very generous deal for what was a very serious case, but if the prosecutor says he doesn't have confidence in getting a conviction, then they can kinda do whatever they want.

Alex Acosta, who became the US Secretary of Labor from 2017-2019 and more or less evaporated when Epstein went to prison. I’d love to know how that appointment came to be.

Just because they can do whatever they want doesn't mean the public needs to be kept in the dark about what influenced their decisions. The public deserves to know more about why Acosta thought Epstein was an intelligence asset that deserved such a deal.

> “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.

All of that is a lie - he and Ken Starr worked with Epstein (one of many sex crimes Starr would try to bury) and his lawyers for months to figure that deal out. They were coordinating with someone at the DOJ or in the Bush White House.

https://www.justice.gov/opr/page/file/1336471/download

The answer that Americans don't like is that having a Yale Law school legal team makes a difference despite "justice is blind". Well we know that it certainly isn't colour blind.

He's dead. Poison under the thumbnail. His assassin confessed to an associate of mine. The assassin now resides in a hole in the desert. Interesting guy. No, you don't have to believe me. True though.

Still a more credible story than anything the media has stated regarding efficacy of gene therapeutics deployed systematically to a majority of the population while pushing as hard as possible to avoid leaving anyone left as a potential control sample.