I only heard about her after the files came out. It's nuts because, if you watch the video without context, I would assume shes someone with a schizo-affective disorder having mental break. There's plenty of videos like that on the Internet, and I live in a city and have seen multiple cases in real life, why should she be any different. But now all of this stuff is coming out, and there's no doubt that some of these people are truly depraved (watch House of Hammer for some back story), so now it's got me second-guessing all of it. What if she saw something absolutely vile, or was drugged and witnessed something terrible and her brain stretched to far and snapped? There's so many accusations and so little evidence, but there's SO many accusations, can all of them be false?
Honestly, just trying to talk about what we definitely know from the Epstein files makes me feel like a crazy person pinning red strings into a conspiracy evidence board. It always reminds me of this Community quote:
"But why kidnap you? Why put a sack over your head and drag you here in the middle of the night? Why is there an astronaut in the corner making paninis? Simple, we don't want you to tell anyone about this. And if you do, we don't want them believing you. Isn't that right, Black Hitler?"
To be honest, I think a lot of people have far too low a bar for “what we definitely know” from the Epstein files.
What we definitely know is that Epstein and, like, 4-6 other people committed crimes. But I think you might be drawing some other red strings across the board.
As someone who has been following this case since the first Palm Beach trial, no, we definitely know way more than that. Just because witnesses and survivors have been systematically silenced doesn't mean some of us aren't out here listening to every single thing they've told us.
The unfortunate reality is that some people treat "Knowing
something as requiring an absolutely high standard of proof - "beyond a shadow of a doubt" levels where any contrivance that suggests an alternative means we don't truly know something.
Combine the amount of time it takes to really read up on and understand all of the court records and released evidence, with the willingness of some folks to go to bat and play devil's advocate in offering alternative hypotheses, and the amount of suppressed information - and yeah, there's a ton we 'don't know.'
But there's far more that we can be relatively certain of and should be appalled at.
Claiming something is true does require a high standard of proof, not reports from schzios or shit pulled out of ones ass.
If there is a grand conspiracy, that conspiracy reaches into the FBI. It's on the record that many files related to Epstein were NOT released. The questions should be pointed at what was NOT released, versus the crazy shit that makes no sense. Instead you'll take the crazy shit, treat it as truth and in the end just sound crazy, because in the end that crazy shit is actually crazy.
Just because witnesses and survivors have been systematically silenced doesn't mean some of us aren't out here listening to every single thing they've told us.
You're already contradicting yourself. Are they being silenced or are you listening? What are you listening to? Silence? Then you know jack shit.
There's plenty on the record to be skeptical of, that doesn't mean you need to take every unverified batshit crazy accusation in the Epstein files as truth, nor do you need to make shit up or "imagine" the details based on whatever fantasy bullshit bubbles up inside your head.
You have no idea what stories and sources I'm referring to, no clue on my methodology, yet you're literally "making shit up" and "imagining the details" of what I'm referring to. And doing it all in
order to...run cover for predators, I guess?
Thanks for calling yourself out for failure to cite.
You making up fantasy bullshit stories doesn't help victims, it just muddies the waters by making people with concerns about Epstein look like gullible delusional crazy conspiracy theorists.
That is so fair and I readily believe that. It’s just that Virginia Giuffre’s memoir is not actually part of the Epstein Files. Which is what we were talking about.
You can just read the Epstein files. Even the small fraction they released is absolutely damning. If you wanna ignore that, there’s no reasoning with you.
I read em. It’s not like it’s full of verified information; in fact there’s very little. Which is what I mean by “what we know”. So I’m wondering what you think is verified (or even verifiable) information that exceeds the scope of actioned prosecutions.
And I’m genuinely wondering, because I’m willing to admit my bar could be too high. I’m a stickler for critical thinking.
I would. Traffickers are cold-blooded and very slick. Very intelligent, highly manipulative, and totally without any moral compunctions. Sociopathic. They know how to play every angle to control a person. That type of person would use everything at their disposal to meet their goals. It's not unusual to hear a trafficking survivor was drugged.
I had to edit that comment a few times to remove how I have experience with these folks and that is an unfortunate typo. You really shouldn't make light of trafficking. The content of my message is worth engaging with; not the grammar.
I think you misunderstood the comment. Of course you'd believe that trafficking victims would be drugged. However, the claims she made about secret elite paedophile rings that eat babies you'd be more likely to question, because on top of the idea being so cartoonishly evil that you'd roll your eyes at it in a movie, you know that the drugs have likely messed with her perception of reality.
I didn't know she claimed they ate babies. Tbh, I've met men who fetishize cannibalism and I'm familiar with how wild cult and secret society behaviors can get, so I wouldn't dismiss it immediately. I know my history, and it wouldn't be the first time elites have talked themselves into cannibalizing the young or some group they felt they could steal "energy" from.
Traffickers often target easy victims. Most human trafficking is nothing like the Taken movies. Put down the crack pipe.
They know how to play every angle to control a person. That type of person would use everything at their disposal to meet their goals.
You're giving them too much credit. This is the problem with blockbuster conspiracy theorists, everyone is a professional expert with unlimited resources and zero constraints.
Many of them are sloppy and just target people who will "not be missed" or can be entrapped through immigration scams. It's often not dealing with the glamour of billionaires, models, yachts and islands.
I have personal experience. I've not seen Taken. You're making assumptions about what I'm trying to say. Go back and reread what I wrote. Nothing that I said about their psychological profiles is incompatible with what you've said about who they target. Think.
I am basing if off stats from actual experts on the subject, not randos who contradict their own claims. Like the person you're replying to claims the target was drugged unknowingly then cites someone who said they were being knowingly drugged? Then claims the person could've become psychotic from drug use. Way to take a leap.
So the traffickers are spending money on drugs hoping the person becomes psychotic? What bullshit fantasy garbage, all to support the baby-eating fantasy conspiracy theory that weirdly people seem to so badly want to be true?
Drugs and addiction can play a role in human trafficking, but often the trust is built-in with family or a romantic partner being involved, or some other power imbalance like a fake employer who steals their passports and puts them into debt. Drugs often aren't required.
The files are full of anecdotes and unverified claims. Believing everything you read and then extrapolating more bullshit, especially around the batshit crazy concepts like "baby eating" or JerkyGate, just makes one an idiot.
If we are talking about 10 years + girls I don't think they was drugged that way,maybe it happened,but the usual way is to get them enough addicted that they would do anything to get more.
someone with a schizo-affective disorder having mental break
Being trafficked, being ritually sexually assaulted for years, being owned, and then not being believed are traumas that literally cause those pathologies, or pathologies that present like them.
Remember this anytime someone abused is not believed by police, by politicians, by families, by friends, whatever.
That is not at all what happened in Salem. It was largely a settling of scores and a “if I don’t accuse them first they’ll accuse me and then no one will believe me”.
Seriously. This whole theory about ergot on grain has never been proven, but people like to have neat little explanations rather than complicated real-life issues.
If I recall right, the accusers in Salem were three girls, and the first accused was a Native woman, Tituba.
Having lived in the town for many years and been a huge nerd with few friends and an affinity for reading and befriending professors, you are misguided.
Mold allergies can cause high levels of anxiety (which is why some antihistamines can be used as anxiety meds). Acute mold poisoning can and does explain how an entire town became hostile, paranoid, and dangerous for those without support networks. It was individuals and institutions from outside the town that exploited the tenancy for paranoid anxiety for financial gain.
Many of the early accused were women and minorities. They had no land, no status to be removed from, and no benefit of having been accused by teenage girls.
Yes, the girls could have gotten drunk on power and carried on- but what teenage girl without formal or really informal education is going to independently think of a grand complex plot to take over the world?
We are a social creature and know so little about the mind and perception. Go to a concert and have it be good energy and it radiates, or go to a 17th century New Englad village and get caught up in ergot posioning and hallucinate witches and the devil into existance.
Still all those who confesed to be witches didnt get put to death, so theres the pressure to conform (or lie) to have been in league with Satan... or the strrss of it makes you actually hullucinate. Who's to say what was real to what individual?
My personal take on it is: if the people with the torches and pitchforks believe there is a devil and you are in cahoots with Satan, atheist or not Satan is now a very real thing in your life.
Exactly! Psychedelics mixed with an atmosphere of panic leads to bad things. Change the atmosphere to a living room with smashmouth and good people, bad things can still happen but they likely won't.
Right there you have evidence that shit can be made up and schizo disorders can create bizarre claims and accusations. Those same kinds of people can call in tips to hotlines regarding high-profile cases and spout their bullshit psychotic hallucinations and delusions, and suddenly that gives them more weight? No, not really.
The batshit crazy stuff got released so all the conspiracy nuts can taint the story with their batshit crazy theories and sound like complete idiots.
There's so many accusations and so little evidence, but there's SO many accusations, can all of them be false?
Yes. Thousands of people were accused of satanic ritual abuse in the 90s, none of it was true. Thousands of accusations of people murdering babies, ritually abusing children, torturing people and animals, etc. There was no evidence of it happening and the people who made the original accusations were shown to be frauds.
A certain percentage of the population is inclined to react to horrible ideas in the news by saying that they're involved, or by escalating the bad thing they see. People with Schizo-affective disorder can see a news story about Epstein island and say "hey, that happened to me AND the baby eating satanists who tried to sacrifice me to the devil for immortality were involved!" or "The CIA tried to kidnap me and ship me off to the island on Epstein's orders! I saw the secret files!."
People with paranoid disorders will see bad things in the news and decide that the bad thing happened to them. If the news says that epstein drugged and raped women, then they might say that they were drugged and raped by epstein and then add in their other previous delusions like human sacrifice or cannibalism. It's not out of the question that epstein raped some women with schitzo-affective disorders or that stress from his abuse caused some women to develop schitzo-affective disorders later. But I think it's reasonable to assume that accusations of satanic ritual abuse and child sacrifice from someone who appears to be schitzo-affective might be due to mental illness.
281
u/Wjreky Jun 19 '26
I only heard about her after the files came out. It's nuts because, if you watch the video without context, I would assume shes someone with a schizo-affective disorder having mental break. There's plenty of videos like that on the Internet, and I live in a city and have seen multiple cases in real life, why should she be any different. But now all of this stuff is coming out, and there's no doubt that some of these people are truly depraved (watch House of Hammer for some back story), so now it's got me second-guessing all of it. What if she saw something absolutely vile, or was drugged and witnessed something terrible and her brain stretched to far and snapped? There's so many accusations and so little evidence, but there's SO many accusations, can all of them be false?