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

191–200 of 353 posts

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#191

Post by undersuit »

ergothus wrote: post #80
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…

> Professor Lloyd also visited Epstein’s private island, though for only a few hours for lunch, I live a fairly privileged life as a U.S. West Coast techie...and stopping at a private island for a few hours sounds crazy. Do non-billionaire people (active academics at that) really lead lives like this? `

The friends of billionaires do, I would argue. Why would Epstein leave his private island to go to lunch in a public location in Boston when he can entertain his guest at his home?

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#192

Post by ghaff »

generationP wrote: post #187
gumby wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I replied "this is an excellent analogy" and it was voted down. On the assumption that I was too brief, I'll try again. From the early 40s through the early 90s MIT was essentially entirely (> 80%) funded by various organs of the US government (I used to read the budget when I was a student, and nowadays the development office sends me the budget). With the end of the Cold War that era came to an end. Interestingly N…

> Building 2 actually has a name but who really knows it? It helps that rooms are numbered with the building number up front (e.g., 2-351 is building 2 floor 3 room 51), so the number is much more informative than the name. Also, it's only been the Simons building for 4-5 years or so; before that it was just building 2.

Although the building number (mostly) doesn’t tell you much about the location except approximately.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#193

Post by sequoia »

mlyle wrote: post #127
sequoia wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Professor Lloyd also visited Epstein’s private island, though for only a few hours for lunch Normally one would give the benefit of the doubt, but given the abhorrent acts people were perpetrating or turning a blind eye to in this case, I'm inclined not to. Hence this question of fact: Unless there are credible witnesses attesting to the fact that he spent his few hours on that island eating lunch, the report shoul…

> Normally one would give the benefit of the doubt, but given the abhorrent acts people were perpetrating or turning a blind eye to in this case, I'm inclined not to. I think this is a dangerous way to look at things... Just because there's a lot of shady people doing awful things, doesn't mean we should tar everyone who associated with the person. Whatever other things happened with other people doesn't really matte…

> I think this is a dangerous way to look at things

That's a fair point. I should have said "while a small technical oversight such as stating 'he went for lunch' as a fact (absent proof) would normally not be worth highlighting, the facts of this case make me feel that even such small technical oversights should be avoided or highlighted when they occur."

By "the facts of this case" I mean the facts that 1) Epstein appears to have been guilty of trafficking many underage girls and directing them to have sex with friends or business partners of his and 2) this guy who had other inappropriate/unethical dealings with Epstein went to his island, for a few hours.

Basically I'm saying they should just say "This friend of Epstein made a 3 hour visit to him on pedophile island" which are the only known facts. Not saying he did anything, but neither should the report claim he didn't unless they have evidence. Just stick to the facts.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#194

Post by alias_neo »

shadowgovt wrote: post #128
alias_neo wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is a matter of trust. The information therein is potentially bad for their reputation, and not "signing on the dotted line" leaves scope for them to come out in the future and say "that's not actually what we said, must have been MitMd" (for example). An institution of this calibre should be considered viable to pull off something this obtuse to your average person, and thus should not be given the benefi…

That risk doesn't make any sense when they can also just edit the page content on their end. Are we taking seriously the risk MIT would try and blame editing their own page on some kind of MITM that successfully masked true page content a) consistently b) for 100% of readers c) applied at an attack location in the network that someone had access to that isn't the same someone as controls the TLS-verified content host…

I'm not seriously suggesting this is likely, im just presenting a hypothetical scenario, and it doesn't need to be plausible in order for it to be used as a narrative. Do it properly, remove any doubt, secure your (one's) website so people _know_ the information came from you.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#195

Post by hackinthebochs »

malvosenior wrote: post #189
hackinthebochs wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a billionaire being surrounded by young woman be a red flag? Being a billionaire is enough to explain their presence without any hint of coercion.

Because it was supposed to be a professional event and that's not even remotely professional? There's a second hand account in this thread by someone who knows people who went to the island and were propositioned for sex there. It's unprofessional at best but as we know know, many of these girls were sex trafficking victims and underage. It's also known that Epstein's island residence was decorated with pictures of u…

I think the concept of "professional event" has changed considerably in the last few decades. So judging what should or shouldn't have been known by the guests based on modern standards is a mistake.

As far as nude pictures and paintings, were they clearly underage and non artistic? There's a lot of post hoc reasoning by those who want to spread blame around that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#196

Post by samstave »

mlyle wrote: post #127
sequoia wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Professor Lloyd also visited Epstein’s private island, though for only a few hours for lunch Normally one would give the benefit of the doubt, but given the abhorrent acts people were perpetrating or turning a blind eye to in this case, I'm inclined not to. Hence this question of fact: Unless there are credible witnesses attesting to the fact that he spent his few hours on that island eating lunch, the report shoul…

> Normally one would give the benefit of the doubt, but given the abhorrent acts people were perpetrating or turning a blind eye to in this case, I'm inclined not to. I think this is a dangerous way to look at things... Just because there's a lot of shady people doing awful things, doesn't mean we should tar everyone who associated with the person. Whatever other things happened with other people doesn't really matte…

>I think this is a dangerous way to look at things

No it is not. Its sound.

>Whatever other things happened with other people doesn't really matter.

YES. They Do!

The guy was trafficking kids for sex and blackmail, and was frequently ferrying high profile people to his island which to every account was used for sex acts with minors.

The witnesses are many. His ties to Mossad, high powered elites in royal and political circles globally are well documented, his personal fixer/trafficker, Maxwell, is still MIA, assumed to be protected by those involved in this - with close ties to people in the UN and in compromising situations such as the Silsbey event in Haiti etc...

It stinks to high heaven and it is foolish to deny the literal mountains of evidence.

It just came out that Comey's daughter was responsible for the deleted tapes from the prison FFS...

This case is unbelievably bad.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#197

Post by jcranmer »

grey-area wrote: post #165
gizmo385 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I have no claim, I have no idea what happened, but I do know that video footage of prison cells where prisoners killed themselves does does not disappear by accident, saying it dies in such a high profile case alone requires quite a high burden of proof (I.e, the prison burned down, there was an unexpected solar storm). If there is no obvious explanation, the most likely one is it was deleted deliberately.

> I do know that video footage of prison cells where prisoners killed themselves does does not disappear by accident

How do you know that?

To me, this is like saying "backups of important data do not become unrecoverable by accident." Except backups (and CCTV footage) is routine, high data volume, and very usually uninteresting, so something going wrong can very easily be missed. And things can go wrong with relatively high frequency--I would not be surprised if most attempts to restore from backups failed.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#198

Post by dguaraglia »

ww520 wrote: post #161
dguaraglia wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in the picture: the President of the United States and very close friend to Epstein, Donald Trump.

Are you saying Donald Trump work with James Comey's daughter Maurene Comey (the assistant prosecutor for the Epstein's case) to destroy the suicide video?

No. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of conspiracy theories trying to link people who had at best tangential relationships with Epstein with his demise, but somehow manage to ignore that literally the most powerful man on planet Earth had a lot to lose from Epstein's indiscretions becoming public.

It's interesting how conspiracy theories seem to always have a very particular... 'conservative' bias.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#199

Post by malvosenior »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #195
malvosenior wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it was supposed to be a professional event and that's not even remotely professional? There's a second hand account in this thread by someone who knows people who went to the island and were propositioned for sex there. It's unprofessional at best but as we know know, many of these girls were sex trafficking victims and underage. It's also known that Epstein's island residence was decorated with pictures of u…

I think the concept of "professional event" has changed considerably in the last few decades. So judging what should or shouldn't have been known by the guests based on modern standards is a mistake. As far as nude pictures and paintings, were they clearly underage and non artistic? There's a lot of post hoc reasoning by those who want to spread blame around that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

This wasn't a "few decades ago" it was 2015. The standards for professional events have not changed since then.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#200

Post by gowld »

malvosenior wrote: post #85
gumby wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really surprise Marvin visited him in jail. It's not out of character of him (he was really a kind human) but I'm surprised he had that close a relationship. I like Nicholas a lot but some of his remarks do surprise me.

Marvin Minsky was accused of assaulting Virgina Guiffre. Virginia had been trafficked by Epstein starting when she was 15. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/new-details-in-unsea... > Giuffre also alleges Epstein and Maxwell told her to have sex with former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson; former Democratic Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell; the late MIT computer scientist Marvin Minsky; and MC2 model a…

Why does that say "Epstein and Maxwell told her to have sex with" and not "had sex with, as ordered by Epstein and Maxwell" ? Did Giuffre say that the sex happened?
Post reply on HN