Cui Bono?  Who benefits from Epstein's death?  Who has enough money to bribe the people necessary to pull it off?  Who has goobermint connections and access to the full list of staff, schedules, floor plans, cell assignments etc?  What does Occam's Razor say?

RE

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 06, 2026, 09:41 PMEh huh, funny yes, and a rube-Goldberg assembly of disconnected facts.  Much ado about nothing.

I didn't use much of any facts. I just used an example to make a point. I could do a dissertation with a ream of footnotes on how this has been done on the interenet forums I've perused over the years.

Of course I expect better from an EE.

Quote from: K-DogTo the ignorant there are obviously no connections to be made.

Not necessarily true. Peak oilers, ignorant of oil, geology and the geosciences at large, were happy to make connections. As are conspiracy folks at large. Some could argue that ignorant and conspiracies go easily hand in hand. I could probably put that correlation just from memory in the peak oil world.

I can NOT necessarily extrapolate that experience with the ignorant and/or uninformed making connections into other topics.

Quote from: K-DogTo the ignorant everything in life is a weird conspiracy theory made from magic and disconnected facts.

To the ignorant everything in life can be a weird conspiracy, or they can be so ignorant that don't have a clue what one might be. Such is the nature of ignorant....and interestingly, I have become convinced that ignorant is not required to be correlated with intelligience. I can name some smart PhD types that prove it.

Quote from: K-DogThink about it, their ground must always move.  Nothing solid.  They can't make, refine and possibly disregard theories in the face of new evidence.  Evidence What's that.  Nothing solid enough for analysis in their sphere, or in contrary reality is for them as solid and unmovable as rock and nothing can change.  Take your pick.

I agree. And can name and have argued with PhDs who fit your description. Belief in something, be it religion or conspiracies, is  powweful thing, and can negate facts, logic, math and even interfere with the ability to think logically, when a given belief is contradicted by evidence.

Quote from: K-DogThe safe path is the middle ground.  In this case X is very important.

I completely agree. Few have the ability to speak truth to the power, and being punished by the Forum Gods for daring to fight back against the a commonly espoused idea is the usual response for those who do. So folks muddle around in the middle because....it is encouraged, socially acceptable, and most folks don't have what it takes to just.....dare.

When bored in retirement one day, I have considered writing a book on the topic.

Quote from: RE on Feb 07, 2026, 01:29 AMCui Bono?  Who benefits from Epstein's death?

About every rich child molesting cheating scumbag he ever met.

Quote from: REWho has enough money to bribe the people necessary to pull it off?

About every rich child molesting scumbag he ever met.

Quote from: REWho has goobermint connections and access to the full list of staff, schedules, floor plans, cell assignments etc? 

Just about every rich child molesting scumbag he ever met.

Quote from: REWhat does Occam's Razor say?

RE

He killed himself.

Quote from: RE on Feb 07, 2026, 01:29 AMCui Bono?  Who benefits from Epstein's death?  Who has enough money to bribe the people necessary to pull it off?  Who has goobermint connections and access to the full list of staff, schedules, floor plans, cell assignments etc?  What does Occam's Razor say?

RE

Exactly - And it turns out the noose was not around the body.  Forensic evidence establishes that he was strangled.  Hyoid bone injuries. 

There is your razor pivot point Mr Occam.  Forensic evidence knows the difference  between being strangled to death and being choked by a noose.

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 07, 2026, 08:43 AMExactly - And it turns out the noose was not around the body.  Forensic evidence establishes that he was strangled.  Hyoid bone injuries. 

There is your razor pivot point Mr Occam.  Forensic evidence knows the difference  between being strangled to death and being choked by a noose.

Absolutely.  Besides that, his political power as POTUS giving him hiring and firing power and promotions and job assignments puts him far ahead of other wealthy pedophiles.   The CIA gives him access to the assassin needed to do the job.  Finally, his personality profile isn't consistent with being suicidal.

Suicide is a possibility, but unlikely considering the forensics and taking into account the threat he posed to Trumpolini as long as he was alive.  Anyone that much of a threat HAS to be eliminated.

Finally with suicides that are this convenient



RE

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 07, 2026, 08:43 AM

Quote from: RE on Feb 07, 2026, 01:29 AMCui Bono?  Who benefits from Epstein's death?  Who has enough money to bribe the people necessary to pull it off?  Who has goobermint connections and access to the full list of staff, schedules, floor plans, cell assignments etc?  What does Occam's Razor say?

RE

Exactly - And it turns out the noose was not around the body.  Forensic evidence establishes that he was strangled.  Hyoid bone injuries. 

There is your razor pivot point Mr Occam.  Forensic evidence knows the difference  between being strangled to death and being choked by a noose.

So between your EE and my precognitive abilities when it comes to oil and whatnot, you figure that the Chief Medical Examiner lied?

QuoteChief Medical Examiner Dr. Barbara Sampson said she stands "firmly" behind her findings in the August autopsy report, which ruled Epstein hanged himself and temporarily quelled much of the speculation surrounding the financier's death.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/medical-examiner-dismisses-doubts-about-epstein-autopsy

What conspiracy accounts for someone of high moral fiber and expectations as well as experience deciding to risk it all?

I'll stick with Occams Razer because it is still working fine. Unless you've collected a decent forensic pathology certification along the way somewhere? And then reviewed the evidence?

Hey, I'll take your word for EE stuff without much quetion as long as it matches my basic courses in the same, and I'll trust RE's microbiology opinion.

But we are talking about a conspiracy again. I am trying to get past Toothpaste + electrical current and a splash of pepper = steak.

Quote from: RE on Feb 07, 2026, 12:34 PM

RE

Can't disagree with this meme. Oh...but Epstein wasn't a duck. Maybe Monsta or someone we know has some decent forensic pathology experience and can review the evidence? As opposed to...you know....ducks being involved somehow.

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 07, 2026, 06:10 PMCan't disagree with this meme. Oh...but Epstein wasn't a duck.

The analogy doesn't reference & compare Epstein, it references & compares Suicide.  I taught Analogies on the LSAT for The Princeton Review.  You would not have scored well.

RE

QuoteWhat conspiracy accounts for someone of high moral fiber and expectations as well as experience deciding to risk it all?

I can't believe this is serious.  When I was 12 years old I believed stuff like that too.  Besides which there was nothing to risk,  much more to risk by defying the wishes of the men in black.  Orders of magnitude more risk.  Risk or a nice gift. 🎁  Maybe they told her that national security was at stake.  That going with the flow would save western civilization.  Going with the flow feels like it does.  The warm fuzzy feeling of doing what somebody important tells you to do.  Makes it not hard to do.  Like you are part of things.

MSN.COM • 2026-02-03

Sickening Jeffrey Epstein autopsy photos reveal staggering neck injuries

Images from Jeffrey Epstein's autopsy documentation exposed the devastating severity of the convicted sex trafficker's neck trauma.



"The postmortem examination revealed that Epstein's alleged suicide resulted from multiple fractured bones in his neck. While bone breaks can occur in hanging cases, forensic specialists note they appear more frequently in strangulation homicides. The report documented that investigators observed numerous "hemorrhages" extending from Epstein's lips to his eyebrows."

Quote from: RE on Feb 07, 2026, 06:53 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 07, 2026, 06:10 PMCan't disagree with this meme. Oh...but Epstein wasn't a duck.

The analogy doesn't reference & compare Epstein, it references & compares Suicide.  I taught Analogies on the LSAT for The Princeton Review.  You would not have scored well.

RE

Really? Well...an interesting factoid. And I doubt the Duck analogy is limited to just suicide. Never had any teachers or instructors from Princeton....I learned from Harvard grads. Lawyers, mathematicians, and a very particular resource geologist running an E&P.

His story on why he accepted Harvard was very interesting. He interviewed with several Ivys, including Princeton, Yale and  Brown. Stanford just for fun. He said they all touted the quality of their professors and their accomplishments, how many Nobel prizes, their facilities, accomplishments, and future potential.

Harvard didn't say a single word about anyone else. Those at the top of the heap don't have to pimp themselves.

Among my graduating class in high school, the most popular destination were the military academies. Out of the 40 of us 8 went to Annapolis, 1 to West Point and 1 more to Air Force Academy. Everyone I've ever worked with from BCG were Harvard grads. No more than another 10 in my high school went to various Ivys.

Deffeyes got his PhD from Princeton. You know....Mr "Peak Oil Happening Thanksgiving Day 2005".

Forgive my looking askance at what anything related to Princeton. Other than they get kudos for having Einstein and Oppenheimer hanging around at one point.

 

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 07, 2026, 10:01 PM

QuoteWhat conspiracy accounts for someone of high moral fiber and expectations as well as experience deciding to risk it all?

I can't believe this is serious.

Well, I haven't found any evidence that the medical examiner was in on a conspiracy. Have you? The only part of your quote that matters is:

"forensic specialists note they appear more frequently in strangulation homicides"

Being one of those experts that chips in, in my field of expertise, I am quite willing to allow another most certainly certified expert venture their official opinion and in order to contradict it, you need more than "more frequently".

Quote from: K-DogWhen I was 12 years old I believed stuff like that too.

Not sure what "like that too?" is referring to. That accredited experts know more about their topic than amateur hour folks?

The three of us here are all smart guys. None of us are forensic pathologists. I don't argue with you about EE issues, no one here is qualified to argue with me about the geosciences, and I don't tend to argue with RE about genetics and microbiology stuff.

<shrug>

So....what does another forensic pathologist say? "Appear more frequently" isn't even a reasonable statistic expression for anyone educated on calculating probabilities...which is where experts come in to make the call. One fully capable professional did that. So....how have you discredited HER or involved HER in your conspiracy angle?

And I wasn't 12 when I learned how to do statistical investigations, so you must have been quite precocious as a youngster. I was took busy learning to feed my family back at that age by hunting and trapping and whatnot. World class statistical analysis and stochastic modeling didn't happen until after I was out of college, learned it as a lark.

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 08, 2026, 07:18 AMThose at the top of the heap don't have to pimp themselves.   

Then you must be at the bottom of the heap.  You've barely taken a breath between self pimping posts for the last decade.

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 08, 2026, 09:24 AM

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 08, 2026, 07:18 AMThose at the top of the heap don't have to pimp themselves. 

Then you must be at the bottom of the heap.  You've barely taken a breath between self pimping posts for the last decade.

RE

I would say last 7 years. Name anyone else who solved all future peak oils. What is amusing is how by the time I did it, those who couldn't, had managed to discredit the entire concept, and themselves, in the process.  And what I had done went virtually unnoticed. Sort of.

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 09, 2026, 04:26 PMName anyone else who solved all future peak oils.

Nobody has "solved" Peak Oil, anymore than they have solved the problems of the Atmospheric CO₂, the Federal Deficit, Palestinian Genocide, Falling Birthrates or Donald Trump.

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 09, 2026, 06:25 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 09, 2026, 04:26 PMName anyone else who solved all future peak oils.

Nobody has "solved" Peak Oil, anymore than they have solved the problems of the Atmospheric CO₂, the Federal Deficit, Palestinian Genocide, Falling Birthrates or Donald Trump.

RE

You are quite incorrect. There were 3 up and running systems that I am aware one, one commercial, one available for a price out of Palo Alto, and the one I was asked to build. You can buy results from the first two if you know who has them, but not mine. These can't be the only 3, but are just the ones I have access to, have built, or been asked to stress test before commercial sales.

The first commerical system was deterministic in nature, working from central tendency inputs, delivering scenario based answers...."if I assume this price path, what is production potential, and for what length of time". Completely manual, price path of hydrocarbons being the only input variable. Maybe you could control the probability estimate in countries that supplied them under the PRMS system.

The second is an LP, working with proprietary economic assumptions and some really poor resource assumptions, simplistic resource cost curves, deterministic in terms of volumes. Lacking any decent engineering component, building stochastic outputs primarily based on variable price paths. Primrily econometric in nature, not enough detail on the resource side.

Mine is stochastic, based on the three main moving dimensions to the peak oil problem. Lets call them #1, #2 and #3. In order to solve it for any two of these dimensions, you assume a deterministic answer to the third. You iterate on the two until you have a 3 dimensional equilibrium. You change #1 slightly, and do it again. And again. And again. You develop an envelope of performance for the combination of a single changing variable. Then you make #2 dimension the changing variable, and iterate. And then #3. You then have a database of substantial size containing as many pertubations of the underlying data as you'd like...or are willing to wait for. It does take awhile.

The trick wasn't in the overall design, I use this technique for quite a few routines, the trick was in then assembling all this data into a matrix of outcomes for a given input that was possible to display to the user, and not screwing it up with cross correlations and weird dependencies. Once you ran it initially, you tracked down combinations that were ridiculous, and began to fine tune the working input ranges in order for a high price to intersect reserves and resources at a country level, not get too crazy over kerogen, stuff like that.

Call it teething problems. Took 6 months to figure out how to use it intelligently and display the statistical outcomes for any given input assumption. What does world oil look like with high prices, low resources, political instability in OPEC, wars, higher taxes in which countries or region, Venezuela comes off the board because no one wants heavy crude, how much oil can come from Russian LTO in the Bazhenov and under what geopolitical circumstances and resulting price consequences, and so on and so forth.

Took 2 years to design. Another year to build. Six months to debug. Cost mid 7 figures. After debugging and testing it with our own scenarios of whatifs, spewing out scenarions and liklihoods based on what WE thought were interesting scenarios, we built a control system on top of it. The user gave the control system a global volume path, and it would work backwards to figure out the price combinations necessary to figure out where the oil and gas comes from (it did 8 hydrocarbon products I believe). You put in a given price for all countries for all 8 products, and it would take everything it already knew and reverse calculate out all the volumes by country. And if you ran it bunches of times, you could develop a range of outcome for all products and prices based on given input ranges of prices or volumes.

Please. Didn't solve peak oil. And by the time it was solved, prices had crashed and nobody even cared anymore. I still run it on occasion, just for fun to see how it looks compared to what happened since its completion. Nearly all top level global run results did come up with an interesting answer, one in particular that tended to cross all scenarios, or all reasonable, non war, non political nonsense scenarios anyway. And these years later, we are approaching that point. If it pans out, I will be quite happy and consider the model validated.

Didn't even need the PhD Harvard mathematician involved, but he did pimp the idea to the right people to get the money.   

Makes the Limits to Growth models look like a Model T if I do say so myself.