Jump to content

Epstein was "suicided" / Kevin Spacey deathpool / Ghislaine Maxwell trial


6Pennies

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

Yeah, and some didn’t, that’s the whole point. How is it useful to look at a single MSM source and go ‘eureka’! Especially when it’s one of the most politicized sources out there, up with CNN, MSNBC, Breitbart, etc. 

 

An objective approach would be to say that there are widely differing positions from qualified experts so it’s unlikely that I’m going to be able to draw a reliable conclusion based on the info I have. 

People seek their own truths, ignoring some facts and being ignorant of others, and put the available pieces together to make the puzzle they want to see.  It's made this thread entertaining in the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

@Hua GuofangSo it's probably safe to say at this point, no further developments in this case will change anyones minds.So let's talk about how sure we are.

 

I'd say based on the other scandals Slick Willy has definitely  been involved in, his close ties to Epstein, and the evidence presented in the case against Epstein there's a better than 50% chance Bill fucked an undearage girl on Epstien's plane/Island at least once.

 

What are your thoughts on the odds 60/40, 80/20, 99.9999%? 

 

Edited by Mercer
  • Truth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my point is that I’m not sure about anything because our sources lack credibility and have agendas, we know there is a lot of misinformation being sold in public and ALL of our information is partial. 

 

At this point it is useless working in any direction at all. I’d only be willing to talk about plausibility and right now, I’d say that it’s plausible that some one strangled him, it’s plausible that the right conditions were engineered for him to off himself as and it’s plausible that multiple unintentional  failures allowed him to off himself. 

 

There is a fucking dust tornado surrounding this issue, way too early to move in any particular direction. 

 

Anyone ever  we look at bellingcat.com? Great resource on how to approach open source investigations. Some of the shit they achieve is mind blowing. About 12 months back I spoke to Jim Clapper about what they do and his response was that that kind of capability has changed intelligence ops forever and that covers and legends are very soon a thing of the past. Do yourself a favor and check them out. 

  • Like 1
  • Truth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't plausibility based on the idea of "I could see that happening?"  Being able to entertain the idea that something could happen does not equal that it did, and would also involve ignoring some of the known facts about the case, as well as facts about these types of cases.  Not trying to change anyone's stance on this, just fascinated with watching how people attempt to apply logic erroneously to this situation..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plausible is a bit elastic, of course. But it’s basically taking a situation, the known facts (dead dude in a prison cell, charged with blah blah blah, highly connected to powerful people who may be implicated in crimes, long term rumors of involvement with foreign intelligence orgs, politicized environment, etc) and considering possibilities with a higher probability of X. 

 

Thats one way way of determining plausibility, there are others and I’m not sitting here crunching numbers or anything, just chewing the fat. 

 

But it I am pretty confident that they would be the top three plausible conclusions. Which facts do you think I’m ignoring?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hua Guofang said:

Plausible is a bit elastic, of course. But it’s basically taking a situation, the known facts (dead dude in a prison cell, charged with blah blah blah, highly connected to powerful people who may be implicated in crimes, long term rumors of involvement with foreign intelligence orgs, politicized environment, etc) and considering possibilities with a higher probability of X. 

 

Thats one way way of determining plausibility, there are others and I’m not sitting here crunching numbers or anything, just chewing the fat. 

 

But it I am pretty confident that they would be the top three plausible conclusions. Which facts do you think I’m ignoring?

The last of your conclusions is the most plausible if we're going by plausibility, it sticks closest to facts.  Facts that are being ignored involve this guys risk for committing suicide (numerous factors placing him at high risk), as well as that all of the immediate circumstances surrounding his death (guards falling asleep on the watch, falsifying records, for example) have actually happened in jails/prisons before, including the feds.  If you were selling life insurance and know about suicide risk, you would never sell this guy a policy, he could have easily been voted most likely to off himself in prison if such a title existed.  Beyond this, if you look up facts about suicide, jail/prison suicide, etc., you can easily find that information from multiple sources outside of the MSM, like health, educational, or possibly activist resources.  I can expand on any of these things if I'm not making sense or didn't speak on something specifically, or you can look them up yourself.  If you even for a moment forget who this guy is and who he knows, his death and the circumstances surrounding it are unfortunately common enough.  

 

Beyond facts as I stated before, no one in here trusts the feds or the prison system.  If you saw a story that said something like 'federal prison guards caught falsifying records to cover up sleeping through inmate suicide' no one would bat an eye, maybe someone would post it here to highlight our thoughts that the government and the system suck.

 

But because he knew people and held influence it's fun for people to speculate.  Doesn't everyone somewhat want that "Puerto Rico moment" where everything you suspected about the politicians is shown in the light to be true?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t think anyone here is concluding anything. We’re all speculating and making assumptions with some likely more probable than others. I’d bet we aren’t far from the truth, but likely we won’t ever find out. Best case scenario a narrative goes out that puts people’s speculations to rest or more probable, some other event dominates the MSM news cycle and people lose interest or forget about this event until it loops back to something similar. 

 

Interesting part to me, especially here on 12oz, is how many people seem to gravitate more towards supporting the MSM version of events than the probability of it being mostly another round of bullshit in an endless string of bullshit. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, One Man Banned said:

The last of your conclusions is the most plausible if we're going by plausibility, it sticks closest to facts.

I agree that it's the most plausible but not the only plausible outcome. It's not as if there hasn't been conspiracy to murder before and I'm surprised that nobody here is paying any attention to the long-known rumours of his involvement with foreign intelligence orgs. I'm not sure how I'm ignoring any facts here at all as I only mentioned plausibility, not likelihood. It's still plausible that there was a conspiracy to murder in this situation. My gut tells me it's unlikely but I don't think there are enough facts ont he table to rule it out or even make it implausible.

 

I also get annoyed at @misteravenciting MSM here as if there is a single narrative being promoted by the media, which it most definitely is not. I think the idea that there is some monolithic MSM in the first place is crap. The are many different players in the media with differing agendas from simply making money, to promoting an ideology to simple politics.

Edited by Hua Guofang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

I also get annoyed at @misteravenciting MSM here as if there is a single narrative being promoted by the media, which it most definitely is not. I think the idea that there is some monolithic MSM in the first place is crap. The are many different players in the media with differing agendas from simply making money, to promoting an ideology to simple politics.

https://www.webfx.com/data/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media/

 

the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media-infographic3.thumb.png.e10ed3881a517ed23bd77020c8383c89.png

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we need a new thread for all this, but here's more...

 

These 15 Billionaires Own America's News Media Companies

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2016/06/01/these-15-billionaires-own-americas-news-media-companies/#3655c828660a

 

And yeah, I get that there's independent news, but as we've seen here in this thread... Unless it comes from the standard MSM, its not generally thought of as official, credible, unbiased or trust worthy That's despite the fact that they have proven to be anything but.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

https://www.morriscreative.com/6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america/

 

6 CORPORATIONS CONTROL 90% OF THE MEDIA IN AMERICA

With so many channels to surf through and so much great programming, why can’t we find anything to watch? 90% of what we watch, listen to and read is owned by 6 companies. That’s a large percentage to just be divided by a factor of six. 30 years ago 90% of media was held by 50 different companies, which is what most people would assume it would be now, but thanks to mergers and buyouts, it’s down to 6 major companies (until someone else buys another). The reason we never find anything new on TV is that 70% of what is on cable is owned by the ‘Big 6.’ That’s 1 out of every 5 hours of television. Comcast now owns 51% of NBC, while GE owns 49% (even though the infographic states that GE owns Comcast), further controlling the market with a top cable provider and a top cable channel.

 

Here is another infographic depicting how much of the market the Bilderberg Group has an impact on by letting these major corporations network with each other. If you aren’t sure what the Bilderberg Group is, it’s an annual, unofficial, invitation-only gathering, where powerful companies meet and discuss the current happenings.

 

info.thumb.jpg.2d940be5c41db23c4a133666e3b2d999.jpg

Who Owns the Media_2018 Data.xlsx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@misteravensome of the people posting in this thread have drawn conclusions or stated that because A happened that means B did.  Others have allowed themselves to be swayed by whichever reports fit their beliefs.  Again, for myself, watching the process of this thread has been better than the subject itself, especially since it crosses over into other topics we've tried to cover in New Oontzland.  

 

 

If people want to entertain conspiracies please allow me to throw out a simpler one- that the Epstein conspiracy was created, or allowed to flourish, to steer people away from the truth- to have people chase loose ends that they'll never be able to tie together themselves.  The truth is that the government could not keep a wealthy/influential individual, not yet convicted of any crime, safe within federal detention.  Not only could they not keep him safe, they were negligent in their duties and  they lied about it to cover it up.  Consider for a moment what that means for 1000s of incarcerated people in federal custody- prison, ICE, Guantanamo, etc. if people allow that truth to sink in.  Think of what that means for their detention, their legal cases, the government's argument to keep them incarcerated awaiting trial, etc., etc.  It would be a convenient distraction to have everyone looking at Bill and Hillary for answers wouldn't it?

  • Like 1
  • Truth 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@misteravenby pointing out that there are 6 media overlords you've confirmed my point that the media is not monolithic. 6 aint a big number, but it's still more than one and I'd bet my magical third testicle that they don't ever agree much unanimously and they have differing agendas, other than making money.

 

Plus, here's a list of MSM outlets not listed in that post:

 

Washington Post

New York Times

The Economist

LA Times

BBC

Al Jazeera

 

All 6 of the above MSM outlets are owned by different orgs and people. So added to your 6, that's 12 different MSM players. Not even close to being monolithic.

 

Regards the Bilderburg thing, I'm not sure what you're saying - because they get invited to a particular conference then they're all the same? I don't see how that logic works, especially given that this isn't the only meeting they'd go to together. And BTW, I know people that have been to the Bilderburg gigs, because they are influential in publishi8ng, writing and govt. Every one of them says the same thing, it's a waste of time and is a bunch of bankers saying the same shit they say everywhere else. People go their for personal prestige, so they can say that they are Bilderburg regulars. It's like something for their CV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Hua GuofangI disagree entirely. There's actually a lot written on the subject... Mainly the changes to media in general, as well as its impact on society when media moved from local media covering local news to a consolidation of media focusing on national and global news. 

 

Not having evidence that there is one powerful entity that pulls the strings, we can simply look at the logistics of what it would take to influence and / or control a small handful of people versus doing the same for dozens or worse, hundreds of outlets. We've seen precedent plenty of times of both private and government attempting to manipulation at scale and have seen how they can arrange and control many moving parts that go far beyond 5 or 6 billionaires. Not saying they all even have to agree or we'd simply watch the news become Nationalized entirely. Keeps it more credible if they seemingly do their own thing and then coordinate to push out messages when you need them to.

 

Again, I have a professional background that lends itself to precisely these types of scenario. Getting key media to communicate predetermined messages, knowing that those not onboard will likely even syndicate it for fear of looking left out of the loop. But consider how incestuous the relationship must be between these 5 or 6 billionaires and a handful of other people that have the power, money and influence to give a compelling reason to get 5 or 6 people to get on board with something.

 

Bilderburg was mentioned by that article in regards to the fact that a hand picked roster of the most powerful people in the world stemming from government to media to private enterprise get together once a year at a secret location to meet in secret about the worlds affairs and their role / influence in them. Considering its absolutely off limits to anyone else and is locked down so tight that we barely know anything beyond the fact that these powerful people seem to sort out the time and effort to attend, is exceedingly suspect. When you begin to look at those people and what they do and have done, its hard to write it off like its a cocktail mixer for rich people and not something far more nefarious. 

 

Also, most can't argue against the idea that the USA has become an oligarchy. The news reel above sort of point to that. When media we know to be extremely biased towards conservatism have the same exact talking points as media known to be extremely biased towards liberalism, its clear that there is at least some level of coordination happening behind the scenes. How hard is it to make the next logical step towards assuming that maybe they get talking points on content that has massive amounts of power and money at stake and not just when there's some bullshit about the Easter Bunny or whatever it was.

 

Again, its all speculation but in terms of probability... Far better odds than Vegas.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to work for an organisation that moved as far away from Washington as it could so it wasn't ever accused of being part of the Beltway, so it could be seen as an independent actor. It didn't matter, people assumed that we were beltway simply because we were part of the political sector. We were most definitely an independent voice, largely because we didn't make money by selling any product other than our analysis - the more like other orgs we were, the less value we had. Didn't matter, people saw us through their biases rather than through our work.

 

 

Honestly, I can't buy into what you're saying as it is all speculation and guess work. I mean, just the fact that you have conservative and liberal media straight away shows that it's not monolithic. You have groups that compete for market, for ideology for influence, etc. And what you state as talking points are generally what they think will sell best. In that fashion, yes, the media is quite monotone in the way it covers things - sensationalism, scandal, outrage, etc. - but monotone doesn't equal monolithic, they're not all saying the same thing. It used to be my job to do open source collection and analysis. My job would have been a shit tonne easier if they were monolithic!

 

Edited by Hua Guofang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason I felt this was a good thread to post this article:

 

 

Why the deepfakes threat is shallow

https://www.axios.com/why-the-deepfakes-threat-is-shallow-16caf6a0-af83-4dbc-9008-6a2d4a2f08ae.html

Despite the sharp alarms being sounded over deepfakes — uncannily realistic AI-generated videos showing real people doing and saying fictional things —security experts believe that the videos ultimately don't offer propagandists much advantage compared to the simpler forms of disinformation they are likely to use.

Why it matters: It’s easy to see how a viral video that appears to show, say, the U.S. president declaring war would cause panic — until, of course, the video was debunked. But deepfakes are not an efficient form of a long-term disinformation campaign.

Deepfakes are detectable. Deepfakes are only undetectable to humans, not computers. In fact, a leading online reputation security firm, ZeroFOX, announced last week it would begin offering a proactive deepfake detection service.

  • “It’s not like you’ll never be able to trust audio and video again,” said Matt Price, principal research engineer at ZeroFOX.
  • There are a number of ways to detect AI-generated video, ranging from digital artifacts in the audio and video, misaligned shadows and lighting, and human anomalies that can be detected by machine, like eye movement, blink rate and even heart rate.
  • Price noted that current detection techniques likely won't be nimble enough for a network the size of YouTube to screen every video, meaning users would likely see — and spread — a fake before it was debunked.

But, but, but: If we have learned anything from the manipulated Nancy Pelosi video and years of work from conservative provocateur James O’Keefe, it's this: A lot of people will go on believing manipulative content rather than demonstrable truth if the manipulation brings them comfort. It doesn’t take high-tech lying to do that.

The intrigue: As Camille François, chief innovation officer at Graphika, a firm used by the Senate Intelligence Committee to analyze Russian disinformation on social media, told Codebook, “When I consider the problem, I don’t worry about deepfakes first.”

  • She added, “There are really sophisticated disinformation campaigns run by threat actors with a lot of money, and they don’t do fake stuff — it’s not efficient. They steal content that’s divisive or repurpose other content.”
  • Or as Darren L. Linvill, a Clemson University researcher on Russian social media disinformation, put it, deepfakes will be “less of a problem than funny memes.”
  • “A lot of research shows fake news is not the problem many people think it is," he said. "[The Internet Research Agency, a Russian social media manipulation outfit], for instance, barely employed what you could truly call ‘fake news’ after early 2015."

When disinformation groups do use fake media in their campaigns, it usually takes the form of fake images presented in a misleading context — so-called "shallow fakes." François uses the example of denying the reality of a chemical weapons attack by tweeting a photo of the same area that predates the attack.

  • "Shallow fakes" are cheaper, faster, require no technical expertise and can’t be disproven by signals analysis.

The bottom line: Deepfakes take advantage of human vulnerabilities that can be exploited much more efficiently by other means.

  • That means the disinformation problem won't be solved through technology or policy alone.
  • “Nations that have successfully built resilience to these problems have included digital literacy elements to better protect their populations,” said Peter Singer, co-author of "LikeWar," a book on social media disinformation.
  • Props 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats one opinion.

 

I'd argue that deep fakes are a massive threat. We live in a world where people are driven to chose sides and ready to protest talking points derived from memes. I see it regularly in the gun control debate. Most of this thread revolves around us making assumptions and how many times have one of us said, we're not going to bother posting a source and to go look it up. Honestly the level of discussion, thought and evidence seen in this thread (and others like it on 12oz) are even far above average to anything I see on most online platforms and worlds beyond what I see on social media.

 

We live an era where mob mentality is the norm and where people are already whipped up into a frenzy. 

 

How long until the tech evolves to the point that deep fakes are undetectable altogether by humans and soon after, good enough to pass all but the most sophisticated computer analysis? Plus how much of this floods daily life before theres a glut that analysis can't even keep up with, so all but the most critical hot button deep fakes are just ignored by analysis. 

 

Treasury department can barely figure out the validity of some of these super notes, which is why they change the currency design of the $100 bill (and remove the old design from circulation) so often. Doubt it'll be long before they're crammed for computing resource to verify the validity of the flood of deep fakes that get proliferated. People are quick to trust the talking points lifted from a meme that goes around, so I see it even more probably that they'll trust video footage that floats around the same circles. Plus at what level of this situation does the real / authentic talking heads get buried under a sea of fakes, which in turn ends up causing people to simply not trust what anyone has to say ever? Or what happens when the next logical assumption in this process is the necessity of state run media because it comes from a *trusted* source.

 

Again, we're sitting here speculating, but how can anyone not see that we're heading down that path. Fake news, contested elections, social media, social currency, mass surveillance... Its literally become a bad spy drama on steroids. Certainly far beyond anything that George Orwell could have predicted and that's just the stuff that's already accepted as fact.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, misteraven said:

Thats one opinion.

 

I'd argue that deep fakes are a massive threat. We live in a world where people are driven to chose sides and ready to protest talking points derived from memes. I see it regularly in the gun control debate. Most of this thread revolves around us making assumptions and how many times have one of us said, we're not going to bother posting a source and to go look it up. Honestly the level of discussion, thought and evidence seen in this thread (and others like it on 12oz) are even far above average to anything I see on most online platforms and worlds beyond what I see on social media.

 

We live an era where mob mentality is the norm and where people are already whipped up into a frenzy. 

 

How long until the tech evolves to the point that deep fakes are undetectable altogether by humans and soon after, good enough to pass all but the most sophisticated computer analysis? Plus how much of this floods daily life before theres a glut that analysis can't even keep up with, so all but the most critical hot button deep fakes are just ignored by analysis. 

 

Treasury department can barely figure out the validity of some of these super notes, which is why they change the currency design of the $100 bill (and remove the old design from circulation) so often. Doubt it'll be long before they're crammed for computing resource to verify the validity of the flood of deep fakes that get proliferated. People are quick to trust the talking points lifted from a meme that goes around, so I see it even more probably that they'll trust video footage that floats around the same circles. Plus at what level of this situation does the real / authentic talking heads get buried under a sea of fakes, which in turn ends up causing people to simply not trust what anyone has to say ever? Or what happens when the next logical assumption in this process is the necessity of state run media because it comes from a *trusted* source.

 

Again, we're sitting here speculating, but how can anyone not see that we're heading down that path. Fake news, contested elections, social media, social currency, mass surveillance... Its literally become a bad spy drama on steroids. Certainly far beyond anything that George Orwell could have predicted and that's just the stuff that's already accepted as fact.

I agree with a lot of this but with some nuance.

 

I agree that the trajectory indicates that it's going to get harder and harder to detect. But it will be the usual cat and mouse game, like that which you referred to regarding the US Treasury and counterfeit notes. Whilst some efforts are going into creating fakes other efforts will be going into detecting them.

 

I agree with one thing the article argues, which you've basically argued yourself, right now, it's easy enough to get the result you're looking for by creating a stupid meme that confirms people's prejudices (my god, just look at the political memes thread on this forum for example. That thread is more propaganda than it is humour). So why bother spending the money to create detectable deep fakes when you can get the desired result from a jpg based meme that takes 5 mins to create?

 

However, there will come a time, probably sooner than many think, that the deep fakes will become ubiquitous (outside of porn). But I think the most common threat will not be a political one but more every day. I think internet based scams are really going to kick up with deep fakes. People will grab a small bunch of data from FaceBook/YouTube/Instagram/Etc to create fake footage of some one, that will then call a family member on facetime/skype/whatever and pull a kidnap scam or even just s simple:

 

"Mum, my travel pouch with my passport and credit cards has been stolen, it's cool, I've shut my accounts down. My friend here in Italy says I can use her account to get some cash wired to me. Can you please send me $1000 to hold me over until I can get a new passport at the consulate and reopen my accounts?"

 

Think about how convincing that kind of thing will be and how easy it will be for criminal groups to pull off, automating them so they can do hundreds, if not thousands of them each day. That's the kind of thing that will be most likely to impact our lives regards deep fakes. In terms of the big power games between countries/religions/ideologies/power, etc., I can see that occurring but I'm not sure about the trajectory.

 

I don't have any real knowledge or experience in this space but I work alongside and on projects with people who do. A list of interesting people to read up on in regards to where tech is going:

 

Elsa Kania

Katherine Mansted

Herb Lin

Danielle Cave

Samantha Hoffman

Hannah Smith

Lesley Seebeck

Genevieve Bell

 

Wow, only just noticed how woman-heavy my extended network is in this field. Anyway, check out some of their work in this area - Elsa is a world leader in terms of battle field tech, machine learning, etc (she's only 22 and just translated China's AI white paper into English. As some one who learned Chinese, I can't overstate how hard and impressive that is). Samantha Hoffman has done some super-interesting work on what China has done with the social currency system and mass data collection and surveillance platforms. Herb Lin has some interesting stuff on deep fakes and Genevieve is an anthropologist who is one of the world leaders in how machines/AI is interacting with humans and societies.

 

Serious reading, hit some of if you've got the time.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...