Epstein: Distinguishing Facts from Anonymous Leaks and Rumors

originally posted by: lakenheath24
And most importantly...not to testify.


a reply to: Boadicea

I'm not following... you're gonna have to spell it out for me!

a reply to: queenofswords

That's why Trump has been trying to teach us to be discerning when it comes to our daily intake of news fodder. FAKE NEWS is real. He has known it and seen it long before he became president.

I have always felt that Trump's words and tweets -- especially the most obscure and random seeming -- are carefully chosen for a specific purpose. He knows and understands how facts and truth have been obfuscated and confused, and he plays the game well.

Trump also personally knows -- and has known for decades -- many of the biggest players. He has alluded to the games he has had to play in business because of these folks.

Yes, Trump is re-writing the rules of the game here even as he plays the game!

a reply to: queenofswords

Oh please..
trumps view of the news is if its flattering to him it's real and if it criticizes him it's fake.
If it supports him it's real.
If its negative its fake.
Oh and most importantly
If it has to do with Russian collusion it's not only fake... it's a hoax too.

a reply to: Boadicea

If these people are IC guys...its no stretch at all that things like open records could be falsified or changed. This is literally the type of work the IC would need to be good at to cover their spies.

a reply to: schuyler

I agree with what you said up until this point where you make a totally unsubstantiated claim that Epstein was "switched out" without any proof whatsoever.

Excuse me? I clearly and unequivocally qualified that statement by preceding it with "my best guess." I made no statement of fact except that this is my best guess. Nor is the OP about what happened to Epstein, but about the leaks and rumors which are being stated as fact. And then omit the rest of that entire paragraph --

...that whatever happened to Epstein that the official story would be questioned and dissected with a fine tooth comb. So they had to concoct and plant a convincing story for those most likely to doubt and question and dissect the story, hence a pre-emptive "suicide" attempt, followed by a successful "suicide," seemingly leaked by an anonymous posting on a conspiracy website an hour before it was made public, which naturally is further "confirmed" by the subsequent news reports.

-- leaving my words without proper context.

And again here:

Then you make a preemptive strike against anyone who disagrees with you suggesting that anyone who does disagree must "prove you wrong."

And what was a declaring they should "prove me wrong" about: Not whether or not Epstein was switched out or whether or not Epstein is in Witness Protection. Nope. Here is what you omitted:

I have no doubt that there are shills on ATS whose sole purpose is to introduce and perpetuate disinfo... but I also have no doubt that there others who are simply too lazy or ignorant to do their own due diligence. And these are the folks being played bigtime with their own consent and cooperation. And there's no good excuse for that. None. Especially on ATS.

If this makes me the bad guy and the spoilsport, so be it. I'll take it. It's that important.

I was directly addressing those stating leaks and rumors as fact.

Context is everything.

a reply to: Boadicea

I have noticed how much of our legacy print media, especially NYT and WaPo, pepper so-called factual articles with negative adjectives and clarifiers when writing about anything that could be positive for Trump. You have to be tuned in to notice it. It is done in a kind of sneaky clandestine way.

As far as TV media goes, it has become mostly just opinion peppered with a few current events highlighted in whatever "light" they want you to view the event in. It's getting very hard to watch any of it anymore.

The sad thing is that the Trump-hating socialist left are just in your face with it now. They aren't even trying to hide their bias and hatred anymore.

a reply to: Boadicea

My point is I don't think us as people without real resources and means and most importantly access or knowlege of their tradecraft won't have Any way of figuring out what is and isn't faked/planted/manipulated...i guess thats my point. Its literally what spies and IC guys train their who lives doing...being taught by folks who have been doing it their whole lives...and those methods and tradecrafts are some of the most closely guarded secrets out there.

a reply to: RickyD

Give me a break.

lamestream media is a juvenile concept.

Media is heavily invested in getting to the truth and getting it right.

a reply to: Serdgiam

I wish anyone trying to sort fact from fiction in these cases the absolute best of luck!

At this point, our best hope is to sort fact from leaks and rumors. We have no way of knowing which (if any) leaks and rumors are fact or fiction.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Riiight...sure they are...thats what pays the bills...mmmhmmm.

No I think corporate money/advertisers mixed with operation mockingbird type infiltration is what runs major media outlets. The truth is of no real concern as long as agendas are furthered and money is made.

a reply to: KKLOCO

score one

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Uh oh... I've got nothing there!

a reply to: KKLOCO

Has there been a final autopsy report yet?

a reply to: KKLOCO

Additionally, reporting about the woman going after millions from his estate, means nothing to this case

Maybe not but it goes to showing that the MSM is not ignoring the story. Which was kind of the point of my entire post.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Uh oh... I've got nothing there!

Check again, read the long one first

a reply to: RickyD

Bad people will do bad things, yes... but when there is a record available to multitudes of people, it is much more difficult to obscure that record.

We cannot prepare for and prevent any and every ill-intentioned act and/or eventuality, but we can minimize the means and opportunity to do so.

a reply to: Boadicea

I can get behind that. I just think its foolish to try to count cards when you can't even be sure there was even 52 in the deck and that there was only 1 ace of spades if you get what I'm saying.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: KKLOCO

Has there been a final autopsy report yet?

It may come today.

And it will be perfectly written with all the rigging necessary to establish an "Official" story to be automatically believed by most people 😎🥥 bet there's even some "inconclusive" statements too 😎🥥

a reply to: queenofswords

I have noticed how much of our legacy print media, especially NYT and WaPo, pepper so-called factual articles with negative adjectives and clarifiers when writing about anything that could be positive for Trump. You have to be tuned in to notice it. It is done in a kind of sneaky clandestine way.

And not just with or about Trump. Any time I see a descriptor or adjective in something I'm reading, it's a red flag that the article has a spin. Like Joe Friday said, "Just the facts, ma'am." That is a reporter's job.

In the same vein, don't tell me that Trump said Hillary is ugly and her mother dresses her funny. That's just opinion and means nothing.

Likewise, too often an accusation by someone is reported as the "fact," but leaves the impression that the accusation is the fact. It's a journalists job to track down that accusation and the known facts behind it -- or lack thereof.

All of this is a form of disinfo.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Boadicea

I can get behind that. I just think its foolish to try to count cards when you can't even be sure there was even 52 in the deck and that there was only 1 ace of spades if you get what I'm saying.

I do. Nothing is foolproof. And we need to keep that in mind as well.

So thank you for saying it!