Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

news.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 353 posts

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#131

Post by mlyle »

throwaway21210 wrote: post #120
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #20

From the report http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf Professor Lloyd's dealings look very, very shady: > Professor Lloyd remained friends with Epstein after his conviction in 2008. He visited Epstein at his office in Florida during the period of Epstein’s criminal sentence. Professor Lloyd also visited Epstein’s private island, though for only a few hours for lunch, and he has acknowledged Epstein i…

Harvard Professor Mark Newman also has similar shading dealings with Epstein. His own book, SuperCooperators [1], has nearly 3 whole pages dedicated to describing his experiences on Jeffery Epstein's Island, thanking him for all his support and basically sucking up to him by describing his (Epstein's) incredible intelligence. Stephen Hawking even makes an appearance in these stories with a talk about how Epstein rent…

Yah-- Epstein did something nice for Hawking -- unknown if before or after the conviction-- therefore one can reasonably expect that Hawking knew Epstein was raping underage girls on his island and that Hawking participated. /s

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#132

Post by ww520 »

ericfrenkiel wrote: post #24

Epstein didn't kill himself. Video footage "accidentally" deleted and the backup footage also lost due to "technical errors." His death and a cleanup so slovenly and brazenly done in front of the public eye is a mockery of America as a nation of "liberty and justice for all."

Funny how the players are all intertwined in the loss of the suicide video.

https://i.redd.it/6pg6wj8toy941.png

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#133

Post by pvarangot »

Ohn0 wrote: post #55
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens MUCH less today than at any time in the past. Only 2 generations ago, stuff like this was happening on a daily basis everywhere in the world. This was basically what justice used to be. The world is not fair. There is little justice. But it's more fair and just than it's ever been before, by far. Maybe we've taken a step back in the last 10 years. It's hard to say. But compared to even 50 years ago, we a…

"America" is different than "everywhere in the world"

Each place is different in its own way, so replace America for whatever and this will be true. If you think "America" is less corrupt than the rest of the world I'll have to disagree.

A lot of corruption in the rest of the world serves the American government interest of the interest of American corporations. America "is in it" as much as everybody else.

Like, to be blunt, Americans are snorting most of the cocaine from Latin America and having sex with most of the children in Thailand. That doesn't mean those children will wrap themselves in American flags or shoot guns after being fucked, but if you follow the money the trail ends in America and no one is doing anything to stop this. People get killed and raped in the trafficking and cocaine business all the time and I would call that pretty corrupt.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#134

Post by malvosenior »

Waterluvian wrote: post #115
malvosenior wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epstein's was the first suicide in MCC in 21 years: https://nypost.com/2019/08/10/suicide-supposedly-nearly-impo...

Not asking for pieces of evidence. I'm asking for a well-produced case linking lots of evidence.

You're going to have to put the (many) pieces together yourself. The people who would normally be responsible for doing this (the media, the government) are the same people working to suppress the story. And yes, there is plenty of evidence for this (Amy Robach hot mic, Acosta's "intelligence owns him" quote, destroyed video tapes, the plea deal Epstein got...),

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#135

Post by sonofaplum »

thrwn_frthr_awy wrote: post #63
perennate wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sentence reads: > In September, in response to revelations about engagements between MIT and Jeffrey Epstein, President Reif and the Executive Committee of the MIT Corporation asked MIT's general counsel to retain a law firm to design and conduct a review of the facts surrounding those engagements. It is the case that Goodwin Procter's fact-finding investigation began in September. And the report details interact…

I still don't understand. They knew in 2013. What exactly does "in response to revelations" mean then? What was the revelation? They've known. That sentences is bullshit and misleading at best.

MIT is not one person. The report details exactly who knew what, when. According to the report, the President of the institute (Reif) did not know until the reporting linking MIT with Epstein.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#136

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

roenxi wrote: post #108
dr_dshiv wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of impressive, and nice in a way - - since it is so obviously corrupt and we become aware of it because the case is so high profile. Makes you wonder who pulled it off and how often things like it occur.

Epstein might still be alive and the whole thing some sort of elaborate witness protection scheme to protect him from all of the people who want him dead. So there might not be corruption all the way to the top. Corruption seems like an easier explanation though.

This sounds like the plot of Michael Crichton's next thriller.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#137

Post by throwaway21210 »

mlyle wrote: post #131
throwaway21210 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harvard Professor Mark Newman also has similar shading dealings with Epstein. His own book, SuperCooperators [1], has nearly 3 whole pages dedicated to describing his experiences on Jeffery Epstein's Island, thanking him for all his support and basically sucking up to him by describing his (Epstein's) incredible intelligence. Stephen Hawking even makes an appearance in these stories with a talk about how Epstein rent…

Yah-- Epstein did something nice for Hawking -- unknown if before or after the conviction-- therefore one can reasonably expect that Hawking knew Epstein was raping underage girls on his island and that Hawking participated. /s

I'll admit the Hawking part was poorly worded. I didn't intend to specifically point the finger at him. However Mark Newman's own descriptions of spending days on this Island, eating breakfast with Epstein and all of his guests. Well I'm very suspect.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#139

Post by pastor_elm »

ericfrenkiel wrote: post #24

Epstein didn't kill himself. Video footage "accidentally" deleted and the backup footage also lost due to "technical errors." His death and a cleanup so slovenly and brazenly done in front of the public eye is a mockery of America as a nation of "liberty and justice for all."

occam's razor says you're wrong.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#140

Post by galangalalgol »

gizmo385 wrote: post #90
grey-area wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cctv footage existed, it has now been ‘accidentally deleted’. The chances of this happening on a high profile case are infinitesimally small. So on the contrary the great claim requiring evidence is that this was a completely normal suicide in prison. Where is the evidence this video was deleted by mistake? https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/01/10/us/09reuters-peop...

> The chances of this happening on a high profile case are infinitesimally small. You're claiming that the chances of this are infinitesimally small comes off a bit tautological. It kind of feels like you're /saying/ it's infinitesimally small because /if/ that were in fact true, it /might/ help your claim.

Accidentally deleting video of not one but two separate events along with the backups of that video seems pretty far fetched, but how often are they asked to recover video from hours ealier? Maybe the buffer period is just way too short and it is incompetence?
Post reply on HN