Talk:Clinton body count

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon conspiracy.svg

This Conspiracy related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

JFK JAQ[edit]

Where were the Clintons on 22 November 1963? Anna Livia (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Origins[edit]

Why does this page claim in multiple places that Danny Casolaro originated the Clinton Body Count conspiracy? Citation needed. Casolaro was known for the Inslaw PROMIS case, which didn't have anything to do with the Clintons, and he died before Bill Clinton ran for president and before most of the alleged body count victims died. — Unsigned, by: 104.254.92.61 / talk / contribs

I've corrected the information on the conspiracy's origins. Bongolian (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein might warrant a second article[edit]

I have seen so many variants of the Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theory with different culprits that I'd be interested in seeing something discussing it. StudentofPhilosophy (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree that Epstein probably merits an article of his own, both due to his own deeds, but especially due to the oodles of conspiracy theories about his life and death and I think these go well beyond “The Clintons did it!!!11!!”, which is the only variant under discussion in the current section. ScepticWombat (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean?[edit]

"Moreover, evidence of other possible crimes (e.g., emails, phone records, financial statements, address books[27], etc.) would easily survive Mr. Epstein. Assuming that conspirators were powerful and clever enough to murder Mr. Epstein in a secure federal detention facility by himself, yet incapable of eliminating other witnesses and destroying other evidence, or too stupid to consider that killing Mr. Epstein might not be enough to cover their tracks, is beyond credulity."

This just doesn't make sense, is the article saying that it's unlikely that conspirators didn't destroy emails and phone records if they killed Epstein? How do we know they didn't do that? No alleged sex offender is arrested yet, so as far as we know there's no evidence, yet this article suggests it's probably true other rich people were involved. The Epstein conspiracy, like a lot of other conspiracies, is literally unfalsefiable, you can't proof that it did or didn't happen because there's no evidence of how Epstein died, and as far as we know there's no evidence that other people raped those girls either, so either the evidence for those things doesn't exist or was destroyed/hidden/obfuscated. Conspiracy theories are simply explanations of certain events, and usually those explanations are wild, illogical, complicated, contradictory and far reaching, but that's not the case for this conspiracy theory, so to just dismiss it entirely with the argument "it's a conspiracy so it's not true," is unfair. Maybe the theory is far reaching and stupid, but that's not properly demonstrated in this article. Dapperedavid (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)