Did Epstein run a World Satanic Ring?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Or perhaps she is fed up with prodnoses making her and Harry's lives a misery. I know I would be.

Personally, I am happy for Harry taking a stand to live his own life unconstrained by the trammels of courtly life. When one considers it, being a royal is a life sentence without parole to never being YOURSELF. Never being ones-self. Never being quite human with all of the flaws pertaining to just being a person.

And I really struggle to believe that anyone in the 21st century takes any of this "satanic" superstitious crap seriously. 'horned Ba'al' signs? Grow up.

My wife and I are just catching up with The Crown on Netflix. Being a participating member of the Royal Family is a full-time job.

I wonder if Harry and Meghan were binge watching it over their Christmas vacation in BC?

 

[LondonJohn]

The likely hood of any actress/model/whatever finding fame and keeping a sex worker life secret is -0- in today's world.

Well firstly, would you have said that the likelihood of famous Hollywood male actors being regular clients of high-end prostitution rackets was -0- througout the 1990s?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...-macaw-cause-drug-addict-tom-sizemore-1117449


And secondly, and pertaining directly to the matter of reasonably well-known (say, B-list or C-list) actresses (and models etc) working as high-end sex workers "in today's world" (my bolding for emphasis):

Women installed on yachts in Cannes during the film festival are called “yacht girls,” and the line between professional prostitutes and B- or C-list Hollywood actresses and models who accept payment for sex with rich older men is sometimes very blurred, explains one film industry veteran.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/05/cannes-escorts

(article published in 2013)

 

[LondonJohn]

Other than "google yacht girl" or "I have secondhand info" is there any evidence for your claim that our fair princess was a prostitute?

No. But that's the nature of the beast. These sorts of things tend not to get documented unless/until they happen to be exposed for some reason. I'm just telling you what I know from people whom I consider to be very good and very reputable sources. Feel free to judge it on that merit, and feel free to disregard or reject it if you like.

 

[carlitos]

No. But that's the nature of the beast. These sorts of things tend not to get documented unless/until they happen to be exposed for some reason. I'm just telling you what I know from people whom I consider to be very good and very reputable sources. Feel free to judge it on that merit, and feel free to disregard or reject it if you like.

This being a skeptics forum, the lack of evidence to support your claim means that I will disregard it.

 

[Lithrael]

Is this supposed to be like how the con girls don’t rat out which b and c list con guests are a bit slutty?

 

[BStrong]

Well firstly, would you have said that the likelihood of famous Hollywood male actors being regular clients of high-end prostitution rackets was -0- througout the 1990s?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...-macaw-cause-drug-addict-tom-sizemore-1117449


And secondly, and pertaining directly to the matter of reasonably well-known (say, B-list or C-list) actresses (and models etc) working as high-end sex workers "in today's world" (my bolding for emphasis):

Women installed on yachts in Cannes during the film festival are called “yacht girls,” and the line between professional prostitutes and B- or C-list Hollywood actresses and models who accept payment for sex with rich older men is sometimes very blurred, explains one film industry veteran.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/05/cannes-escorts

(article published in 2013)

The problem here is that evidently your pov on the subject is formed by trusted sources and news reports.

My pov is formed by 15 years as a working cop, and something that I believe I've mentioned before on ISF, in non-specific terms

At one point in my post-military pre-LE career I was waiting on a security clearance that was held up by the fact that a branch of my family were/are involved in crime, and that was an understandable issue, one that was eventually overcome.

There are more parts to that story than my NOLA cousins lowlife criminal activities.

Right here on the S.F. peninsula, family by marriage were deeply involved with prostitution:

There's more on Newspapers.com if you have an account - search for San Mateo Times, 1970 - 1990 Prostitution Easy Street

This is stuff that I'm not proud of. I was away in the army when this part of it went down, but "Uncle Sal" fought off city and county authorities for years before the San Mateo city ran him out and his Redwood City location ran into the 1990's.

I'm not proud of this either. I saw the sights in the Zona Rosa in Salvador and I've been to Amsterdam and elsewhere and paid for sex. The fact that I was single when I did it doesn't mitigate my regret.

This part I'm not ashamed of, but I have regret for the other party involved. I had a long term relationship with a woman who worked as a legal prostitute in Nevada. Her work didn't disturb me, but as the facts of her exploitation by her family members became clear to me - interestingly not by her employer - I couldn't deal with her reality and what she was being used for.

The above all went down before I was otj, and it was there that I saw the full monty truth about how the actors in the life used each other and anyone they could possibly work an angle on - this "Happy Hooker" ******** and "gentleman of means" buying the services of beautiful, articulate courtesans is complete ******** - this is closer to reality:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/call-girl-killer-faces-new-murder-charge-for-exs-overdose-death

Alix Tichelman served three years for the overdose death of a wealthy Google executive on a yacht in California. Now she’s been indicted on murder charges for the death of an ex.

As far as your yacht girls reference, to me it's just another run-of-the-mill misogynistic pov that all attractive women are for sale, the only difference is in the final price.

 

[carlitos]

Thank you for sharing that, BStrong.

 

[Thermal]

I am soooooooo waiting for Beyesian probability to factor into this.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I am soooooooo waiting for Beyesian probability to factor into this.

Or indeed satan.

 

[Craig4]

Or indeed satan.

I was noticing that too. It seems odd that the evidence for satanism lacks references to satanism.

 

[LondonJohn]

The problem here is that evidently your pov on the subject is formed by trusted sources and news reports.

My pov is formed by 15 years as a working cop, and something that I believe I've mentioned before on ISF, in non-specific terms

At one point in my post-military pre-LE career I was waiting on a security clearance that was held up by the fact that a branch of my family were/are involved in crime, and that was an understandable issue, one that was eventually overcome.

There are more parts to that story than my NOLA cousins lowlife criminal activities.

Right here on the S.F. peninsula, family by marriage were deeply involved with prostitution:

[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/922/GmzuR2.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/923/1a5Ftw.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/923/pdzEby.jpg[/qimg]

There's more on Newspapers.com if you have an account - search for San Mateo Times, 1970 - 1990 Prostitution Easy Street

This is stuff that I'm not proud of. I was away in the army when this part of it went down, but "Uncle Sal" fought off city and county authorities for years before the San Mateo city ran him out and his Redwood City location ran into the 1990's.

I'm not proud of this either. I saw the sights in the Zona Rosa in Salvador and I've been to Amsterdam and elsewhere and paid for sex. The fact that I was single when I did it doesn't mitigate my regret.

This part I'm not ashamed of, but I have regret for the other party involved. I had a long term relationship with a woman who worked as a legal prostitute in Nevada. Her work didn't disturb me, but as the facts of her exploitation by her family members became clear to me - interestingly not by her employer - I couldn't deal with her reality and what she was being used for.

The above all went down before I was otj, and it was there that I saw the full monty truth about how the actors in the life used each other and anyone they could possibly work an angle on - this "Happy Hooker" ******** and "gentleman of means" buying the services of beautiful, articulate courtesans is complete ******** - this is closer to reality:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/call-girl-killer-faces-new-murder-charge-for-exs-overdose-death

Alix Tichelman served three years for the overdose death of a wealthy Google executive on a yacht in California. Now she’s been indicted on murder charges for the death of an ex.

As far as your yacht girls reference, to me it's just another run-of-the-mill misogynistic pov that all attractive women are for sale, the only difference is in the final price.

Hmm. Interesting (I'm pretty confident I don't have any similar personal family connections to the practice)... but somewhat, erm, peripheral to the subject under discussion. Which is whether or not a) it's feasible that there's a "hidden" practice of reasonably well-known (but not superstar) US female actors and models working as very expensive escorts, and b) there's any evidence of any sort to support that notion (which, if it's "hidden", is likely to be slightly harder to find in any case).

I find your last sentence personally offensive by the way. I am doing nothing more than repeating things that I've heard from people whom I trust (and whom I also do not regard as holding "run-of-the-mill misogynistic PoVs") and from the limited amount of media reportage. If you or others choose to conclude that what I've written doesn't meet your standard of proof, I entirely understand that. Indeed I'd expect it. All I was ever saying was that I'd come to understand information about it, and it was information which also tended to be supported to a degree by that Vanity Fair article I linked to above.

But please don't go accusing me of holding misogynistic views, OK?

 

[LondonJohn]

This being a skeptics forum, the lack of evidence to support your claim means that I will disregard it.

And that of course is fair enough. I am not requesting that others take it as truth. Indeed, I myself do not take it as truth. But I do consider that my knowledge came from reputable sources (who of course may themselves also have been misled....). And I deemed it appropriate to the debate to raise the matter in respect of what I'd heard about Markle. As I say, I never a) presented evidence to prove ("on a skeptics (sic) forum" lol) that Markle certainly pursued this line of work, and b) never requested/demanded that anyone (including myself) came to that conclusion in any kind of definitive manner.

On a "skeptics (sic) forum" (lol) I suppose I might have expected to receive the following kind of response: "That's interesting, and I guess it may be the case (and if so, it'd certainly be germane to the situation), but I think you'd agree that there isn't sufficient reliable evidence to reach that conclusion with any degree of certainty. Perhaps more will come out in the future, or perhaps not". But, y'know...... skeptics and all (lol)

Not directly related to the quoted post, but it never ceases to amuse me how so many people seem to think that posting on a "sceptics' website" (which literally anyone in the entire world can join and post to) somehow necessarily imbues one with genuine sceptical thinking skills.....


(PS: are we all - BStrong included - disregarding that Vanity Fair article which I quoted and linked..... or is that also part of the "run-of-the-mill misogynistic PoV"....?)

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I was noticing that too. It seems odd that the evidence for satanism lacks references to satanism.

Oh, come on. We're overrun with cushions and sundials, not to mention cockatoos.
How much more Satanism do you need?

 

[carlitos]

And that of course is fair enough. I am not requesting that others take it as truth. Indeed, I myself do not take it as truth. But I do consider that my knowledge came from reputable sources (who of course may themselves also have been misled....). And I deemed it appropriate to the debate to raise the matter in respect of what I'd heard about Markle. As I say, I never a) presented evidence to prove ("on a skeptics (sic) forum" lol) that Markle certainly pursued this line of work, and b) never requested/demanded that anyone (including myself) came to that conclusion in any kind of definitive manner.

You heard a rumor. You repeated that rumor here. You have no evidence to support it. If you were a journalist, you'd be rightfully be sued for libel and lose. Hedging your defamatory, libelous BS by saying that you "never requested/demanded that anyone" believe you is just a load of passive-aggressive crap. You should be ashamed of yourself, honestly. "I'm not saying you have to believe me, but I heard this rumor" is just a way to repeat salacious stories here without having to defend your argument.

Since we are on a skeptics forum, I'll note that I have seen this type of argument here before, from believers in God, UFOs, bigfoot and mysticism. They tell me that they have seen evidence, but I don't have to believe it myself.

On a "skeptics (sic) forum" (lol) I suppose I might have expected to receive the following kind of response: "That's interesting, and I guess it may be the case (and if so, it'd certainly be germane to the situation), but I think you'd agree that there isn't sufficient reliable evidence to reach that conclusion with any degree of certainty. Perhaps more will come out in the future, or perhaps not". But, y'know...... skeptics and all (lol)

But it's not interesting. You are asserting that a general category of things (yacht girls who prostitute themselves) exists, and have somehow deduced that Megan Markle was one of them. You have provided ZERO evidence for this claim. Not even "ordinary" evidence for your extraordinary claim. Literally you claim to have the quality of evidence along the lines of "guy at the pub told me" a thing about a goddamn British princess being a former call girl and you post it here? Go on, then:

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - got any?

Not directly related to the quoted post, but it never ceases to amuse me how so many people seem to think that posting on a "sceptics' website" (which literally anyone in the entire world can join and post to) somehow necessarily imbues one with genuine sceptical thinking skills.....

(PS: are we all - BStrong included - disregarding that Vanity Fair article which I quoted and linked..... or is that also part of the "run-of-the-mill misogynistic PoV"....?)

That article did not mention Ms. Markle.

 

[Mycroft]

You heard a rumor. You repeated that rumor here. You have no evidence to support it. If you were a journalist, you'd be rightfully be sued for libel and lose. Hedging your defamatory, libelous BS by saying that you "never requested/demanded that anyone" believe you is just a load of passive-aggressive crap. You should be ashamed of yourself, honestly. "I'm not saying you have to believe me, but I heard this rumor" is just a way to repeat salacious stories here without having to defend your argument.

Meh, I don't have any objection to someone giving their personal experience without being able to offer proof. Just because I witnessed something doesn't necessarily mean I can prove I witnessed it, but it's still a part of my story.

That article did not mention Ms. Markle.

Yes. It's important to note that knowing something happens isn't evidence that it happened at a particular place and time with a particular person. I know prostitutes exist, but that's no reason to claim your mom is one. Too often conspiracy kooks don't get that.

 

[Elagabalus]

I was noticing that too. It seems odd that the evidence for satanism lacks references to satanism.

You guys just aren't getting it! Epstein's Island hideaway/underground lair-Submarine Base has Satan literally written all over it!

Epstein never mentioned Satan because Epstein didn't know that he (Epstein) was under Satan's spell. That's how good* Satan is!



*eh ... that's how good Satan is AT BEING BAD!!

 

[BStrong]

Hmm. Interesting (I'm pretty confident I don't have any similar personal family connections to the practice)... but somewhat, erm, peripheral to the subject under discussion. Which is whether or not a) it's feasible that there's a "hidden" practice of reasonably well-known (but not superstar) US female actors and models working as very expensive escorts, and b) there's any evidence of any sort to support that notion (which, if it's "hidden", is likely to be slightly harder to find in any case).

I find your last sentence personally offensive by the way. I am doing nothing more than repeating things that I've heard from people whom I trust (and whom I also do not regard as holding "run-of-the-mill misogynistic PoVs") and from the limited amount of media reportage. If you or others choose to conclude that what I've written doesn't meet your standard of proof, I entirely understand that. Indeed I'd expect it. All I was ever saying was that I'd come to understand information about it, and it was information which also tended to be supported to a degree by that Vanity Fair article I linked to above.

But please don't go accusing me of holding misogynistic views, OK?

1. The actual subject of this thread is "Did Epstein run a World Satanic Ring?"

The OP themselves broadened the discussion to a range of nutty assertions regarding their perception of what constitutes evidence for that premise.

You are the poster that brought prostitution into the discussion.

2. That's too bad. I'm to the point in my life where hearing or reading material that denigrates women - and your gossip does just that - doesn't get a free pass.

I could go on ad infinitum about prostitution in general and the symbiotic relationship between LE and prostitutes as sources of information or how prostitution works irl at the level you're speculating on but this thread has already gone into the twilight zone and I doubt that real information on the subject would be to your liking.

WRT misogyny, anyone that speculates about a women being a prostitute based on attractiveness, mode of dress or social standing is a misogynist, period. The fact that prostitution exists and females are known to work as prostitutes, even very beautiful women, does not make speculation that a beautiful woman is a prostitute absent actual evidence a valid path of inquiry.

This is definitely OT in this thread, but my general experience with attractive women is that there is always someone, often another woman, that assigns all manner of negative characteristics to the individual in question based solely on their appearance.

Case in point.

I have a woman friend who I met when she went looking for professional instruction in marksmanship. She was working with a woman of my acquaintance through business and she put us in contact..

Our friendship (and I've known her for 10 + years) is pretty much based on her service as an officer in The Air Force. She left the AF and went to work for NASA, got an advanced degree and her life was exactly as she had hoped, right up till the time NASA was dee-funded on her project and that was it.

What could the above have to do with this discussion?

Her great crime, aside from being a woman in a man's world, is that she's drop dead beautiful. Her nickname in the company she worked for with my other lady friend was "princess (whatever?)" a reference to a Disney cartoon character she supposedly resembles greatly. She is very smart and plain spoken. In certain circles those are not considered positive attributes for a beautiful woman, by both men and women.

This woman is 30 + years younger than I am. We have never gone in the direction of any relationship past friendship and although we have a great relationship as friends, I know she is absolutely not looking for a romantic relationship was a busted up old cop.

When she got into training seriously with me, we shot every Friday. afternoon

One of the new hires at our facility upon getting a look at her, before being introduced and before even knowing her name made the observation to another employee that "She must think he (me) has a lot of money."

That's the casual run-of-the-mill misogynist pov that is on display here and elsewhere.

 

[Allen773]

1) If Epstein was murdered, it was most likely “prison justice.” He wasn’t exactly protected at the very end.

2) If Epstein killed himself, it was an impulsive “**** you” to the system that finally stopped protecting him - a final, irreversible act of obstruction of justice.

No need for “them” to silence him in either scenario.

 

[abaddon]

1) If Epstein was murdered, it was most likely “prison justice.” He wasn’t exactly protected at the very end.

2) If Epstein killed himself, it was an impulsive “**** you” to the system that finally stopped protecting him - a final, irreversible act of obstruction of justice.

No need for “them” to silence him in either scenario.

Sure. But the protagonist believes that "satan" is running around organising all of it. Because.

What can one do in the face of such reckless faith in imaginary entities?

 

[bruto]

Sure. But the protagonist believes that "satan" is running around organising all of it. Because.

What can one do in the face of such reckless faith in imaginary entities?

But if Epstein was running a Satanic ring, I would have thought Satan would have used some of his amazing judo or mojo or whatever it is, to get Epstein out, rather than stealing God's schtick. Killing your loyal minions is so Old Testament.