A lot of the time "Conspiracy theories" is conspiracy fact.
I really hate that word.
I really hate that word.
Conspiracies Epstein Dies in Custody - Alleged Suicide, Some Speculate it was a Hit Job
- Thread starter Captain.Heroin
- Start date
define "a lot"?
alasdair
alasdair
Sure! "
a large number or amount; a great deal.
"there are a lot of actors in the cast"
| synonyms: | a large amount, a fair amount, a good/great deal, a deal, a great quantity, quantities, an abundance, a wealth, a profusion, plenty, masses; |
??
♡
Andy
how do you measure something like that?
alasdair
alasdair
That is a question I do not know the answer too ?
ok. thanks.
so you don't really know? it's just a feeling or a hunch? or a guesstimate based on a sample of theories you've seen which turned out to be fact?
i feel if a lot of the time it's fact then a lot of the time it's not...
alasdair
so you don't really know? it's just a feeling or a hunch? or a guesstimate based on a sample of theories you've seen which turned out to be fact?
i feel if a lot of the time it's fact then a lot of the time it's not...
alasdair
"
Yeah man thats the best way of puting it (the reason for what i said)
"r a guesstimate based on a sample of theories you've seen which turned out to be fact"
Yeah man thats the best way of puting it (the reason for what i said)
JGrimez
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,495
It's definitely fact, you may simply be unaware or just not interested in learning.
Have a read:
33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True
53 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks
I hate it too. When someone uses it I can somewhat gauge their level of understanding regarding the world and politics.
It's funny because powerful groups conspire constantly and they're the ones who push this meme out there to keep people asleep and disinterested in exposing plots.
There's a crime called conspiracy lol
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
The existence of real conspiracies does not prove that any conspiracy anyone asserts is true. The only person I can see saying no conspiracies ever happen, is your strawman.
My issue is that you don't simply doubt the mainstream explanation, you don't simply believe there may have been a conspiracy. You directly assert that there was a conspiracy before there's any real evidence.
And have openly admitted that you don't take into consideration contradictory evidence. Because "it doesn't matter".
My issue is that you don't simply doubt the mainstream explanation, you don't simply believe there may have been a conspiracy. You directly assert that there was a conspiracy before there's any real evidence.
And have openly admitted that you don't take into consideration contradictory evidence. Because "it doesn't matter".
JGrimez
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,495
lol you constantly rant about "conspiracy theories" without being specific.
You're misrepresenting me. If the official story doesn't make sense, has holes in it or is constantly shifting then I'm going to doubt it. There's also the fact that the MSM constantly lies and we know they collude with politicians. So their credibility is very low to begin with.
Do you think it's crazy or stupid for me to put more faith into sources that have been consistently correct for years? (even if you consider them sources of "conspiracy theory")
That's just basic common sense to me.
This is a lie and another misrepresentation of what I said.
It matters to me, all evidence matters to me.
What I said was in regards to Epstein - what the authorities say to the public doesn't matter too much because they'll still get away with what they did (whether it was murder or assisted suicide - only 2 options).
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
It is absolutely not a lie. You might be able to make the case that I'm wrong, but it's not a lie. I honestly believed what I said.
It was my interpretation in your recent posts regarding the Epstein cameras and strangulation information, that you were essentially saying that these contradictions that don't make sense with the theory that it's a giant conspiracy are completely irrelivent.
That strikes me as admitting you don't take into consideration contradictory evidence. There's also the several frequent instances where you seem to implicitly trust proclaimed experts who say things you agree with, and immediately dismiss those that don't.
So no, I was saying what I honestly believe to be the truth, not a lie.
You say it doesn't matter too much what they say to the public. Now that may be true, but it doesn't explain the underlying reason they would say such things at all. If this is a large conspiracy (as opposed to a small conspiracy or no conspiracy). Why tell let people know about the broken neck?
How can you argue that they allow such information to get out because "it won't matter they'll get away with it anyway". When you're also arguing that they're lying about stuff in order to get away with it.
It seems like you're using "it doesn't matter, they'll get away with it regardless" as an easy way to immediately dismiss anything inconsistent with your theory.
Not believing the official theory doesn't compel you to believe a specific alternative version of events. You are able to say "I don't know what happened". You're also able to say "I don't know what happened but I believe he was murdered".
And then it doesn't matter that there's inconsistencies with the idea that this is a giant conspiracy because you wouldn't be arguing that it's definitely a giant conspiracy. Only that there's enough inconsistency with the official story to not trust that it's true.
But it seems like you immediately pick a version of what happened based on your existing biases and selectively evaluate evidence in order to strengthen your preconceived notion.
I don't think that makes you stupid or crazy, but I do think it makes you irrational when it comes to this particular subject.
And as for me ranting about conspiracy theories without being specific. I think you in fact misrepresent me. I have on many occasions explained at length what I'm talking about when I talk about conspiracy theories.
It was my interpretation in your recent posts regarding the Epstein cameras and strangulation information, that you were essentially saying that these contradictions that don't make sense with the theory that it's a giant conspiracy are completely irrelivent.
That strikes me as admitting you don't take into consideration contradictory evidence. There's also the several frequent instances where you seem to implicitly trust proclaimed experts who say things you agree with, and immediately dismiss those that don't.
So no, I was saying what I honestly believe to be the truth, not a lie.
You say it doesn't matter too much what they say to the public. Now that may be true, but it doesn't explain the underlying reason they would say such things at all. If this is a large conspiracy (as opposed to a small conspiracy or no conspiracy). Why tell let people know about the broken neck?
How can you argue that they allow such information to get out because "it won't matter they'll get away with it anyway". When you're also arguing that they're lying about stuff in order to get away with it.
It seems like you're using "it doesn't matter, they'll get away with it regardless" as an easy way to immediately dismiss anything inconsistent with your theory.
Not believing the official theory doesn't compel you to believe a specific alternative version of events. You are able to say "I don't know what happened". You're also able to say "I don't know what happened but I believe he was murdered".
And then it doesn't matter that there's inconsistencies with the idea that this is a giant conspiracy because you wouldn't be arguing that it's definitely a giant conspiracy. Only that there's enough inconsistency with the official story to not trust that it's true.
But it seems like you immediately pick a version of what happened based on your existing biases and selectively evaluate evidence in order to strengthen your preconceived notion.
I don't think that makes you stupid or crazy, but I do think it makes you irrational when it comes to this particular subject.
And as for me ranting about conspiracy theories without being specific. I think you in fact misrepresent me. I have on many occasions explained at length what I'm talking about when I talk about conspiracy theories.
JGrimez
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,495
It was a lie that I don't take into account contradictory evidence.
The fact is he should not have been allowed to die - whether by murder or by suicide (all the safeguards in place to prevent suicide failed).
This makes the entire incident suspicious - he was either murdered or allowed to commit suicide.
All the details released is just either exposing the conspiracy to murder him - or damage control to cover it up.
Both scenarios imply a conspiracy.
You also didn't directly answer my question:
The fact is he should not have been allowed to die - whether by murder or by suicide (all the safeguards in place to prevent suicide failed).
This makes the entire incident suspicious - he was either murdered or allowed to commit suicide.
All the details released is just either exposing the conspiracy to murder him - or damage control to cover it up.
Both scenarios imply a conspiracy.
You also didn't directly answer my question:
me said:
I never said it definitely happened this way or is a fact. I can't know because I wasn't there. So whenever I make a claim, just interpret that as "this is my opinion". It'll save wasting time bringing up unnecessary stuff like this.JessFR said:
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Again, it's not a lie if I believe it to be true. It might be wrong, but a lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive. And ive done nothing of the sort.
Now yes, it IS suspicious what happened to epstein. I haven't seen anyone argue that it's not. And you're right that it shouldn't have been allowed to happen. But that isn't evidence of murder anymore than it is evidence of incompetence.
You say that you haven't claimed that this happened in a particular way, but I disagree. I have argued in the past that I could believe that this might have been a small conspiracy enacted by a few conspirators. And as I recall you specifically said that that could not be the case.
I can try and track down the specific post where you said this if you like.
That is why I've been repeatedly arguing about why we've been provided certain bad facts. Because they are inconsistent with the theory of a huge competent conspiracy.
They are not inconsistent with the possibility of a small conspiracy that simply wasn't able to prevent those facts getting out.
As I recall just today you suggested that the FBI is pretty much in on it. That's a specific claim about this conspiracy beyond simply disbelieving or distrusting the official story.
And as for not answering your question. Quite frankly I don't think your evaluating things rationally, so while it's sensible to place more trust in sources that have proven reliable. I question if your perception of their reliability is accurate.
I am not lying, it's my honest belief that you don't apply logical reasoning to the facts in search for the truth, wherever that may lead. From everything I've seen, you generally decide what you believe first and then selectively evaluate the evidence to reenforce it.
I don't think you do it deliberately, I don't think you're attempting to deceive people. And I don't think you're crazy or stupid.
But I do think you're not being rational about this, just as I suspect you think of me.
Now yes, it IS suspicious what happened to epstein. I haven't seen anyone argue that it's not. And you're right that it shouldn't have been allowed to happen. But that isn't evidence of murder anymore than it is evidence of incompetence.
You say that you haven't claimed that this happened in a particular way, but I disagree. I have argued in the past that I could believe that this might have been a small conspiracy enacted by a few conspirators. And as I recall you specifically said that that could not be the case.
I can try and track down the specific post where you said this if you like.
That is why I've been repeatedly arguing about why we've been provided certain bad facts. Because they are inconsistent with the theory of a huge competent conspiracy.
They are not inconsistent with the possibility of a small conspiracy that simply wasn't able to prevent those facts getting out.
As I recall just today you suggested that the FBI is pretty much in on it. That's a specific claim about this conspiracy beyond simply disbelieving or distrusting the official story.
And as for not answering your question. Quite frankly I don't think your evaluating things rationally, so while it's sensible to place more trust in sources that have proven reliable. I question if your perception of their reliability is accurate.
I am not lying, it's my honest belief that you don't apply logical reasoning to the facts in search for the truth, wherever that may lead. From everything I've seen, you generally decide what you believe first and then selectively evaluate the evidence to reenforce it.
I don't think you do it deliberately, I don't think you're attempting to deceive people. And I don't think you're crazy or stupid.
But I do think you're not being rational about this, just as I suspect you think of me.
JGrimez
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,495
You said that I openly admitted that I don't take into consideration contradictory evidence. Because "it doesn't matter". That's not true that's not what I said. If you didn't lie then you said a false statement and misrepresented me. I'd call that a form of deception.
Incompetence isn't a viable option for me. If you wish to be a coincidence theorist, which I see as a form of sticking your head in the sand, go for it.
For me the options are he was murdered or he was given the opportunity by people in authority to commit suicide.
It's actually incredibly obvious, but that's the power of appeal to authority and trust in the PTB.
lol why are you open to a "small" conspiracy but not a "large" conspiracy? What's the difference anyway, how many people? Because if you can influence the guys at the top it's not difficult. You got the head of the FBI, the head of the prison and the media heads who push the suicide angle and attack anyone who hints at a deeper conspiracy. We know for a fact that the CIA implanted their agents into mainstream media (and that was over 50 years ago). That's a large conspiracy theory that you cannot even deny. But I can guess how this fact would make you feel it would give you the "conspiracy theory" jitters (was called Project Mockingbird)
Epstein was already involved in a seemingly large conspiracy that involved hundreds of underage girls and many powerful people, even Presidents and Princes. It's important to remember this and view everything in context. He had the potential to take some very big people down. This would've been a desperation move, with Epstein being in max security and potentially willing to sing (some reports say he was on the verge of doing so, remember he could've walked if he did). They knew how it would've looked taking him out but did it anyway. And look, you're still under the impression that it may have been a legitimate suicide. They count on people like you believing that story.
As I've stated, I've got evidence of the FBI quite recently committing blatant acts of obstruction of justice. They're not credible in the slightest. I would be very very surprised if they conducted a legitimate investigation into Epstein's death. I however wouldn't be surprised if the FBI provided cover (powerful people have a lot of influence, see: Hillary Clinton and Comey).
LOL says the person who believes that all of those coincidences could happen to such a high-profile target that so many powerful people had an incentive to kill.
Please, spare me...
q.e.d.
i'm still waiting to find out about this 'unbelievable explanation' i offered. i can't wait!
but i've asked 3 times and nothing. it's almost as if the conclusion is obvious...
alasdair
i'm still waiting to find out about this 'unbelievable explanation' i offered. i can't wait!
but i've asked 3 times and nothing. it's almost as if the conclusion is obvious...
alasdair
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Incompetent guards is not a coincidence unless incompetent guards are a rare occurrence. And I very much doubt that it is.
Why am I more inclined to believe in a small conspiracy? Because it's much more plausible of course. A small conspiracy doesn't require as many actions to pull off that could be fucked up. It doesn't require as many people to maintain and competently execute the conspiracy.
Which kinda gets back to the same underlying difference in philosophy. You see people are inclined towards conspiring. I see them as inclined towards fucking up in the most hilariously inept ways possible. Which in itself makes successful conspiracies hard.
Why am I more inclined to believe in a small conspiracy? Because it's much more plausible of course. A small conspiracy doesn't require as many actions to pull off that could be fucked up. It doesn't require as many people to maintain and competently execute the conspiracy.
Which kinda gets back to the same underlying difference in philosophy. You see people are inclined towards conspiring. I see them as inclined towards fucking up in the most hilariously inept ways possible. Which in itself makes successful conspiracies hard.
JGrimez
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,495
That's only one coincidence. That + there being no security footage.....c'mon.....a perfect storm for Epstein to have a window to kill himself? We're also talking about one of the most important prisoners in the world. Those guards knew if they fucked up then they'd be in BIG trouble so I'd expect them to be extra vigilant. And did we hear anything about them being punished? Shouldn't they be held criminally liable for negligence? The official story is that they falsified the prison records to say that they did in fact check on him while they were "asleep". Pretty sure that'd be illegal.
According to one of the theories that you consider plausible - do you think that Epstein was aware that the camera wasn't working and that the guards were not going to check on him? Or was it another coincidence that he chose to attempt suicide at that exact perfect moment?
You didn't answer my question though. How many people is a small conspiracy and how many is a large one? Remember that the Manhattan Project involved 100,000 people and was able to be kept secret from Congress. So that proves you wrong right there - that large conspiracies do exist, have happened in the past and that they can remain under wraps. So if Epstein was murdered, how many people needed to be involved? It's obvious that there may have been some foul play - but is that what all the mainstream media outlets are saying? Nope. If we had a free and fair press, wouldn't the media be treating this more objectively? ie. leaving open the possibility of foul play? There's no other way to describe their behavior as covering it up. Unless you can offer me a different explanation.
What do you think reality is a real-life version of The Three Stooges or The Naked Gun? lol.... Epstein had intelligence agency connections. While they often do mess up (and expose conspiracies - which you still deny/ignore), they generally tend to be comprised of capable individuals that can execute plans which include black-ops.
Look at the Iran Contra scandal. Before that was exposed as fact, if I had told you the details, you would have said "I don't believe this could be possible. It's too large of a conspiracy, people would have fucked up, someone would've blabbed, I don't have faith in multiple countries and organizations all being involved in this affair with a few people at the top directing all the events."
Yet it happened and is an undeniable fact..
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Yes, I think real life is like the three stooges. And everything I see in human management of virtually anything continues to back up that perception.
And the contra scandle reinforces my point. They were unable to keep it secret and it all unraveled. Because people are incompetent morons and the idea that they could pull off something like 9/11 like this and in such an elaborate over the top way as conspiracy theorists suggest is simply not believable. And that's not even getting into the practical problems of covertly wiring a building for demolition. Or the logical problems of why you'd bother. If you can do that in the first place, why not make THAT the terrorist attack?
A much smaller conspiracy like epstein being killed IS believable, the idea that it was a huge conspiracy where everyone with power is in on it is not. And I suspect that if he was indeed murdered, I suspect some dumbass will fuck it up and the conspiracy will eventually unravel.
Last edited:
JGrimez
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,495
and what about all the things that you don't see?
I find it weird that you assume that every single covert conspiratorial plot will definitely be exposed. I can't follow this logic at all. It is very presumptuous. I find that you're the type of person that would balk when someone hints at a legitimate conspiracy theory until the evidence is undeniable. Then you revert to this stance of - human incompetence reveals every single plot. What's also strange to me is because of how little you know of so many operations that I've had to inform you of.
This is very bizarre for me also because you think that a plot would be exposed like for eg. if whistleblowers came forward, yet you'll go on to ignore the whistleblowers that come forward, who are poking big holes in the official story.
9/11 Whistleblowers: Kevin Ryan
9/11 Whistleblowers: Cate Jenkins
9/11 Whistleblowerrs: Barry Jennings
Because it's not plausible for them to have allowed islamic terrorists to sneak in and wire the buildings. The impact was much greater with the planes hitting the towers. The engineers of WTC said that they were designed to withstand a hit from a plane. But for maximum effect you'd want the towers to fall. There were multiple reports by first responders and law enforcement of powerful explosions felt in the lobby emanating from the basement.
The fact that this is so hard to believe is precisely how they can get away with something so huge
There you go, small conspiracies only are believable. I'm gonna call you a 'small conspiracy' theorist. Conspiracy theorist junior.
You overestimate how many people would need to be involved to carry out a plot like this. You only need a relatively small number of people, what you find difficult to believe is that the necessary participants would have to be at such high levels in government. That's really the only thing you can say "I don't believe that the elites would risk getting caught by conducting some extreme covert plots". Because it is possible and it's called compartmentalization.
Let's see. If not then you're going to have to maybe admit that they can get away with conspiracies.