Epstein, Kiddies, And Trump. Oh, My

[Toni]

Why don’t you believe the victims are credible?

Is it because they are female? I’ve read that some of the victims are, in fact, male.

But I suppose any kid dumb enough to allow themselves to be raided can hardly have enough sense to be a good witness.

At least, for certain people

Why do you assume they are? Abusers are very good at picking those that won't be believed.

You are kind of refuting your own point here. Are they the kinds of people abusers abuse and thus credibly "abused" or aren't they?

Is this Schrodinger's abuse victim here?

At some point you have to acknowledge that most people don't have a parade of accusers against them, even public figures.

When they're otherwise insistinguishable from everyone else except for that train of accusers, there are very few explanations as to "why them in particular," which don't conclude with "because they are abusers".

The thing is there are a lot of allegations that are nothing and usually don't reach the press in the first place. Got in the local paper quite some time ago--allegations against a local entertainer. The police said it was extortion, happens all the time. They look into things but keep it quiet. Remember the Duke case? That's the typical allegation. And even when the events are real it often turns out the actual perpetrator simply looked similar to the well known person--humans are terrible eyewitnesses, an initial impression of looks like someone they recognize can easily become a memory of it being that person. (I'm not saying they are lying. There have been cases where it has been figured out how the false memories came about, yet the people still have the memory despite knowing it's impossible. False positives of threat are far less harmful than false negatives, the human mind is optimized towards false positives.)

You know what happens ALL THE TIME?

Police failing to actually investigate. My daughter was being stalked by a stranger at her relatively new apartment. It escalated to the point that this creep, who obviously was watching her, trailing her, leaving notes on her doorstep critiquing what she wore-/left some lingerie on her doorstep. I saw the notes. Hand written. I saw the lingerie. At my urging, she called the police. Who…yawned. Did not do a damn thing. Which is exactly what happened when she found a girl bruised and battered with torn panties in a bar bathroom. The bar owner who was there that night told her not to call the police. She did anyway, got the girl to the hospital. The police did NOTHING. In a small town. Just a couple of things.

Here we know the calls were made to police, to the FBI. Contemporaneously with events. There are multiple interviews with the same person, many interviews with many accusers, and other witnesses.

I understand that many are skeptical. I understand why many men, such as yourself, prefer to believe that it is just a nothing sandwich. Does not matter that children were raped. It was all so long ago. Some of them hit some money. Just like Michael Jackson’s victims, but you believe them, right? What Trump did to Ivanna wasn’t rape because marital rape was not a criminal offense at that time in that state. Marital rape has only been illegal in all 50 states since 1993 and wasn’t a criminal offense in any state until 1978. It’s still not prosecuted as ‘real’ rape all of the time. If she didn’t want it, she shouldn’t have married him, right? What’s a little slap and tickle ( heavy on the slap, and with closed fists) between an old married couple?

You worship white male privilege and the wealthy.

 

[Elixir]

images in the files are not proof, they are only a starting point.

That’s the optimistic view. In my view, there won’t be any actual “starting” until next January, if/when Dem majorities, or at least a Dem House, is actually seated.
If it comes to pass, it will be despite the best criminal efforts of the fascists in the current administration and SCOTUS.

 

[bilby]

You could have faked video even before. It just would have been a lot harder.

Mate, people saw video of a giant lizard stomping on Tokyo back in 1954, when only governments owned computers, and no computer could manipulate pictures. It didn't require government level funding, nor was it footage of a real event (at least, it seems unlikely to me that it was a real event). All you need is some skilled model makers, and a bloke in a rubber dinosaur suit.

I have seen the Ruhr Dams destroyed by bouncing bombs (a real event, but not one that was filmed at the time). I have seen flying saucers attack the world's greatest landmarks (although why an alien race would target the Pyramids is as much a mystery as why their computers are susceptible to MS Windows malware). I have seen space battles in galaxies far, far away, with planet destroying moons space stations being destroyed by small fighters armed with proton torpedos. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Basically anything can be faked on video, and with a degree of realism that depends mostly on the viewers' prejudices, and partly on your SFX budget.

At every point since the first audiences screamed when a monochrome film of a railway locomotive heading straight towards them was shown in a cinema, people have declared that now we can make fakes too good to spot, and that truth is going to die.

They would probably have been right, if only truth had ever been available to begin with. "The camera never lies" was untrue practically from day one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is there are so many fake photos and videos out there, that without someone who understands how to figure out if they are real or fake, we really can't trust what we see any more. For example, I had posted a link about AI generated fake videos regarding the war in Iran. The excellent reporters at the NYTimes were able to investigate and find the evidence that many of them were fake. A few months ago, there was an AI fake video of Racheal Maddow claiming that Trump was being arrested and my neighbor thought it was real. There have also been some of Doctor Gundry making false claims about a cure for Alzheimer's. That is the problem. The average person no longer knows what is real and what is fake due to fucking AI.

Exactly. I haven't been paying attention to the Iran stuff because I saw so many fakes in Gaza that I no longer consider it meaningful. And just because there's no AI flaws doesn't mean it's real--there was a lot of stuff where if you back up and try to reconstruct exactly how the force was applied you end up with contradictions. (I have in mind a van purportedly destroyed by tank fire--there's nothing about the scene to indicate the vehicle wasn't destroyed, but when you try to figure out exactly what the tank did there's no answer--anything the tank could have done would have caused other damage that we don't see.) And there have been many cases of video of protests etc that have signs in the wrong language--real video, but not of what it claims to be.

I think this is probably the answer to the Fermi problem. It becomes impossible to tell what's real and thus impossible to make reasonable decisions. Eventually something goes horribly wrong.

 

[Elixir]

Eventually something goes horribly wrong.

It already did.
We have a fake President spending real dollars to drop real bombs on fake enemies, causing real damage to life limb and property, National security and global prosperity.
An emotional infant, career fraudster, serial rapist and certifiable dementia patient with nukes …how much more horribly wrong can it go?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

By the time Trump smeared his ugly visage and habitual dishonesty all over the American media landscape, I was already a long time holder of the belief that if I lacked the means to verify stuff myself, it was likely fake or badly slanted to the content creator’s thoughts and wants.
The average person NEVER DID know what was real or not.

Partial agreement. Video used to be a pretty good indication. While it could be faked it took a lot of work and thus the vast majority of it was honest. I see no way Apollo could have been faked given the technology of the time. We didn't have computers capable of digital image manipulation, doing stop-motion animation with close-ups of humans in the scene is extremely difficult. But Hollywood has been pasting characters into scenes for a long time and pasting skin onto bodies for a fair while--but note they paste skin onto bodies rather than create it from scratch because adequately modeling human movement is still extremely hard.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We get it beave. Trump is completely innocent and this is just a witch hunt by radical Marxist leftists like Marjorie Taylor-Greene .

He’s just saying “pictures, or it didn’t happen”.

So the video deposition of one of his victims doesn't count. Cause you know, she's a woman and obviously a liar.

A video deposition doesn't prove she wasn't being paid to lie. Credibility of a witness is of vast importance, although the real smoking gun is if the witness provides information that was not previously known and then it's confirmed. Remember Norma McCorvey? Roe vs Wade, she later became an anti-abortion advocate--but on her deathbed revealed that had been purely for money and didn't represent her actual feelings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Snopes link puts into question what specific event Trump was referring to as gawking at the competition. It confirms Trump was bragging about gawking.

Competitors in the Miss Teen competition allege Trump did likewise to them. But it isn't clear that Trump bragged about doing that with the Miss Teen comp.

To conclude, at best, the Snopes link demonstrates Trump is a pervert. It is one thing to find it attractive, it is another thing to invade a person's privacy to do so!

Yeah. Is he a perv? Unquestionably, we have him basically admitting that one rape case and him bragging about doing that sort of thing.

But that doesn't translate into proving any specific other allegation. Our legal system is not based on this is the sort of crime this person commits so they must be guilty of this specific allegation of a crime. And it doesn't matter--if someone doesn't consider the admitted rape to be an adequate reason to reject him then they aren't going to accept anything as a reason to reject him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Epstein data is known to be compromised.

How is that? we know the Biden data was compromised but I never heard that about the Epstein data being compromised.

"Compromised" as in no way to verify integrity. Not "compromised" as in known to have been edited.

You don't get to use evidence if the chain of custody is not intact. And in this case it isn't.

Defense attorney: "Can you establish that this image was actually recovered from Epstein's data?"
Prosecution: "No".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You could have faked video even before. It just would have been a lot harder.

Mate, people saw video of a giant lizard stomping on Tokyo back in 1954, when only governments owned computers, and no computer could manipulate pictures. It didn't require government level funding, nor was it footage of a real event (at least, it seems unlikely to me that it was a real event). All you need is some skilled model makers, and a bloke in a rubber dinosaur suit.

I have not seen the movie but I strongly suspect a proper examination will show scaling problems. Look at what happened when the Mythbusters tried to fake lunar gravity: slowing the scene down made the rest of the body move unrealistically. You can easily fake size of static things, but it becomes very hard to fake the size of things with a lot of freedom of movement. Getting it to look good enough for Hollywood is not the same as getting it to look good enough to stand up to a proper examination.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Eventually something goes horribly wrong.

It already did.
We have a fake President spending real dollars to drop real bombs on fake enemies, causing real damage to life limb and property, National security and global prosperity.
An emotional infant, career fraudster, serial rapist and certifiable dementia patient with nukes …how much more horribly wrong can it go?

I mean "horribly wrong" as in something that takes us out as an advanced civilization.

 

[unapologetic]

Eventually something goes horribly wrong.

It already did.
We have a fake President spending real dollars to drop real bombs on fake enemies, causing real damage to life limb and property, National security and global prosperity.
An emotional infant, career fraudster, serial rapist and certifiable dementia patient with nukes …how much more horribly wrong can it go?

I mean "horribly wrong" as in something that takes us out as an advanced civilization.

Patience grasshopper. The end is comming.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Epstein data is known to be compromised.

How is that? we know the Biden data was compromised but I never heard that about the Epstein data being compromised.

"Compromised" as in no way to verify integrity. Not "compromised" as in known to have been edited.

You don't get to use evidence if the chain of custody is not intact. And in this case it isn't.

Defense attorney: "Can you establish that this image was actually recovered from Epstein's data?"
Prosecution: "No".

When has the chain of custody been broken? The FBI grabbed the evidence and still holds it.

Michael Wolff has said Epstein took photographs out of his safe and showed them to him. They were photographs of Trump with two underage topless girls who were laughing at the stain on the front of Trump's pants.

 

[bilby]

Eventually something goes horribly wrong.

It already did.
We have a fake President spending real dollars to drop real bombs on fake enemies, causing real damage to life limb and property, National security and global prosperity.
An emotional infant, career fraudster, serial rapist and certifiable dementia patient with nukes …how much more horribly wrong can it go?

I mean "horribly wrong" as in something that takes us out as an advanced civilization.

Oh, you think the US is still an advanced civilization? That's cute.

 

[unapologetic]

When has the chain of custody been broken?

When Pam Blondi had them 'on her desk', then lost them.
When J. Edger Boozer redacted every name.

 

[Elixir]

When has the chain of custody been broken?

When Pam Blondi had them 'on her desk', then lost them.
When J. Edger Boozer redacted every name.

I don’t think that does it.
There are digital signatures for every deletion or alteration of data. Compromise of the chain of custody is more difficult than just pressing a button.

 

[unapologetic]

There are digital signatures

SO?
We know who. They are not afraid of breaking laws. They think they ARE the law. The chain of custody was broken over a year ago, when the criminal administration got ahold of the files.

 

[Jarhyn]

There are digital signatures

SO?
We know who. They are not afraid of breaking laws. They think they ARE the law. The chain of custody was broken over a year ago, when the criminal administration got ahold of the files.

Digital chains of custody are a little different from physical ones.

The way a digital signature works is through doing two things: making a mathematically "difficult-to-collide" number from a document, often the entire document itself, and then doing an operation on it with some hidden number.

The result of that operation can be validated using a publicly known number.

This is then put into a digital structure which is resistant to tampering with a timestamp, and then signed by the system itself to produce a record that is kept elsewhere for the integrity of the system itself.

The result is that you can validate whether you have "exactly the document that was signed" by whether you can take the document you have and the signature that you found made at that date and get the correct answer.

Because the history of previous actions is a calculated part of the journal on the system, a validation tool in its own right, they can't just delete the transaction, either.

This means that the signature is an indelible checkpoint where, assuming the original document exists at all, it can be verified as exactly identical to the one signed. It doesn't matter if you have a thousand later signatures on a thousand forgeries. You can just check using the known good signature through the lot of them until you find the real one.

 

[unapologetic]

assuming the original document exists at all,

That is a big assumption at this point. If the origional disappeers, your digital signatures don't mean shit. The signtures do not protect the originals, if the administration or it's injustice dept is a law unto itsself and just ignores court orders.
The files are not safe in their hands.