#There is only one other photo in this game to dispute this theory | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

thequintessetial · 4 years ago

Text

“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.” — Donald Miller

New innovations make it easier for us to express our opinion and get information. Unlike during the old times when we only get information from traditional media (newspaper and TV), there are only a few misinformation, disinformation, or false information that we can get because it is a ‘controlled’ medium. Nowadays, we have a lot of choices where we can get information, like different social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and etc.) There are also websites that publish news. We have the freedom of information, anyone can access news, anyone can also publish news, and share the news; this is the cause of the proliferation of fake news. The following pictures contain an example of fake news.

┌────────────═━┈┈━═────────────┐

└────────────═━┈┈━═────────────┘

First picture

There was nothing in the blog post and the video that confirmed the 11 congressmen each accepted a P200-million bribe from ABS-CBN. The video that was embedded was a clip from a live stream it doesn't say that the there are congressmen who were bribed to vote in favor of the network.

Second picture

Sotto did not say what the post is claiming. The graphic is a manipulated version of one posted by Inquirer.net on April 13. The video contains Sotto giving an update on the grocery/food packs being distributed among the residents of Pasig, the government's emergency subsidy program, and medical facilities in Pasig in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Third picture

Article III, Section 2 and Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution mention warrantless arrests. In her conversation with Davila, Robredo was referring to Article VII, Section 18, which says, "During the suspension of the privilege of the writ [of habeas corpus], any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released."

⎯⎯ ୨ conclusion ୧ ⎯⎯

ABS-CBN's franchise is a hot topic during that time until this day, some people are taking advantage of it, and spreading fake news to destroy the reputation of the network. Some are making a profit out of the issue because of the fact that many people are following the issue, they will surely open the link and will believe it without even confirming whether or not it is fake. People are praising Mayor Vico Sotto because of his action and way of governing Pasig during this time of the pandemic, however, there are people who want to ruin his reputation. Some people don't know how to fact check the information and identify whether or not the source is legitimate. Some people say their opinion without even checking whether their claim is exact or correct.

┌───────────═━┈┈━═─────────────┐

└────────────═━┈┈━═────────────┘

First picture

GMA Network has disputed the claim and said that Soho remains with them. She hosts GMA-7 news magazine show, Kapuso Mo Jessica Soho, and two programs on GMA News TV: State of the Nation with Jessica Soho and Brigada. According to a GMA News article, Soho renewed her exclusive contract with them in March 2019.

Second picture

Marcelito Pomoy denied the news of his own death and said he is "alive and kicking" in an Instagram post on Saturday, February 22.

Third picture

Bella Padilla is alive and has been active on social media platforms. The link to the embedded video on the websites leads to a GMA News report on a shooting incident of a different woman.

⎯⎯ ୨ conclusion ୧ ⎯⎯

The page Android Roms has only 31 followers before it posted the misleading article about Jessica Soho, the article does not contain any details about the reporter's supposed dismissal from the network. Even though it is obvious that the page is fake, some people still believe the article because they don't fact check it first. The claim about Marcelito died after losing in a talent show is not true. The embedded video on the article is a 25-second clip and the rest was not about the singer. It is just a clickbait so that the person who posted the video will gain views. The video that claims about Bella Padilla's death shows another woman. The method of perpetuating death hoaxes has been used for several claims in the past.

┌───────────═━┈┈━═─────────────┐

└────────────═━┈┈━═────────────┘

First picture

Some SEA Games athletes mistook chicken sausage as a non-Halal Filipino street food after hotel staff tried to tweak the processed meat with spices, a tournament official said Wednesday days after pictures of the alleged "kikiam" meal.

Second picture

The photos were not taken at any SEA Games events. These were originally captured in 2015 in an "undisclosed event," according to Papina.

Third picture

The website that published the article is publishing fake news.

⎯⎯ ୨ conclusion ୧ ⎯⎯

Many people are trying to ruin the SEA games at that time, the post gained a lot of shares and reactions. It was also posted on various social media platforms. They reposted it without even knowing that the dish is not kikiam. The photo was from a 2015 post that gained a lot of criticisms too. It was used and reposted during the SEA Games claiming that it was used as a table skirt during the event. The third photo is from a website is publishing fake news. They lure people into the site because of their interesting headlines and some are sharing it without realizing they were fake. People shouldn't repost an article without checking the source first because it can cause other people to believe in it too.

┌───────────═━┈┈━═─────────────┐

└────────────═━┈┈━═────────────┘

First picture

CHED did not issue this statement, and the "assistant commissioner" cited in the article is fake. The article published on June 7, 2017 attributes this quote to a certain CHED Assistant Commissioner Dr Fausta Salcedo: “Engineering board exams mostly deal with solving problems and numbers, doctor’s exam deals only with the human body, BAR deals primarily with the Philippine Constitution. Teachers deal with everything from what a child has learned when he started going to school at Grade 1 until he finished college."

Second picture

The DepEd did not announce that there will be a Grade 13 and Briones did not say the quote attributed to her. The supposed screenshot of a news report has a watermark that says "breakyournews.com." The website is a meme generator that allows users to customize a news report template by changing the headline, ticker, and image.

Third picture

The claim is unsupported and was posted before Duterte's SONA even took place. It was posted on Facebook at around 7 am on Monday, but President Duterte's SONA was scheduled around 4 pm. Prior to the SONA, there were no news reports or official announcements that supported this claim. No copy of the supposed memorandum with this claim was also posted or made available to the public.

⎯⎯ ୨ conclusion ୧ ⎯⎯

The article is misleading and contains false claims. The quote is not what Dr. Faust's Salcedo said. However, it gains a lot of shares too. A website like this gain money from how many clicks and read the article has it just lured people to read it in order for the benefit of the person who published it. Many memes about education nowadays surface because of the pandemic and the announcement that class might resume in August, people are against about it and even made fun of it and creating a meme about it. The second article about grade 13 is one of them. Some people who don't have the idea of where did the picture came from and the real quote that was attached to it would believe in the picture. People should clarify on their post that it is just a meme. Some people who didn't watch the SONA would believe in the claim about 2020-2021 classes because they don't know whether or not it was really started in President's speech. That's why it is important to be aware of what is happening in our country and to watch the news so that we will not rely on the news that we see without even checking if it is reliable.

┌───────────═━┈┈━═─────────────┐

└────────────═━┈┈━═────────────┘

First picture

The vaccine shown in the photo is used for dogs against canine coronavirus. It is not effective in preventing COVID-19. The photo is labeled "Canine Coronavirus Vaccine." According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), coronaviruses are a large family of viruses, and the canine coronavirus does not infect humans. Canine coronavirus is not the same as the novel coronavirus which causes COVID-19. Instead, it affects dogs' gastrointestinal systems or causes respiratory infections in them.

Second picture

This is a rehashed claim that was already debunked in March. The Philippine National Police (PNP) maintains that they have no plans to do this.

Third picture

Tuob does not kill SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, said the Department of Health (DOH). The World Health Organization also said there is no known drug or preventive treatment for COVID-19.

⎯⎯ ୨ conclusion ୧ ⎯⎯

Due to the assumptions that COVID-19 is a manmade virus, several people are creating theories about the virus like where did it really come from, who created it, who spread it, the vaccine is already available, and many more. That's why there are numerous posts online about COVID-19 without even a basis or clear evidence. Also because of the lack of research, they mistook it as the same as the other virus. The Facebook page that posted about the claim is not the official page of the Mayor of Las Piñas, it clearly says on its name that it is Unofficial, but some people still believe on it because they thought it is really the page of the Mayor, COVID-19 is a hot topic, and also because they did not check whether the page if reliable or not. The claim about Tuob had been made by Cebu Governor Gwendolyn Garcia as early as June 1, in a Facebook live update. In a province like Cebu, they use Tuob as a cure for flu, but COVID-19 is different from normal flu. Several people believe it because the person who said it is a Governor.

“Don’t believe in everything you read on the internet just because there is a picture with a quote next to it.” – George Washington

People should get rid of the mentality that because it was shared on Facebook and Twitter and a lot of people shared it or because an influential person said it, then it must be true. We should practice to fact check everything before believing in what we see and hear to prevent spreading the fake news more and to avoid being misinformed. Especially nowadays that almost everything in the web is uncontrolled, anyone is free to publish their own news whether or not it is fake.

Source: rappler.com

#fake news #misinformation #disinformation #false news #fact check

3 notes · View notes

blowingoffsteam2 · 6 years ago

Text

Ultimania Updates-SRT

Gathered in one place, here’s the updates from the new Ultimania (and maybe some other tidbits) added to the Sleeping Realm Theory (SRT) doc so far. The sections these updates are found in are bolded so you can find them within the doc and read the surrounding context:

1. The Theory Itself

Time travel at KG to save everyone’s hearts has been confirmed by Nomura! Look, see, where we said the second timeline went Save Everyone > Time Travel / Rewind > Xehanort Gay Dies After Decades Long Marriage Dispute, that’s been confirmed!

Q: When we leave the Final World, we are back to the point just before Sora and his friends were defeated. Why is that?

Nomura: “The power of awakening is essentially "the power to put sleeping hearts back the way they were." But the impact of forcing his friends' fading hearts back the way they were rewrote reality, and created a singularity. The rewrite caused the chronology in which they were destroyed to have "never happened." Source

2. Dive to the Heart

Now that the main interview with Nomura has been translated, it’s confirmed a very important thing for this theory.

“Q: The Final World, a place very important to the story, appeared in the game, but what kind of world is it?

A: It is a place where those just a step from death arrive, connected to the Station of Waking. Up until now, the Station of Waking was always a dark place where the floor was made of stained glass, where the condition of the inside of one's heart could be shown, but in this case I made The Final World a place where I could show [that] more concretely, a place similar to a portal to [people's] respective hearts. Within the game, it's said that sleep and death are intimately linked, so if one's heart were in a state of sleep and they found themselves in the Station of Waking, the idea is that if they moved on from there, they would find themselves in The Final World.” - Nomura, KH3 Ultimania.

What this says basically, is to arrive in The Final World during Dive to the Heart in the first place, your heart should already be “in a state of sleep”. Nomura has confirmed, before the first DTTH we see, at the very start of the game we play, Sora is already in a state of sleep.

3. KHII.9(Context: This update is placed in the translation section talking about Riku’s growth from saying his wish is to have “strength protect the things that matter”- “Daiji na mono”- in BBS to “strength to protect my cherished person” in KH3- “Taisetsu na hito”)

The Ultimania actually goes out of its way to explicitly state this growth on Riku’s character page: “‘I want to become strong enough to protect the things that matter.’ Roughly 10 years later, after many twists and turns, he has finally obtained the strength to protect the person who matters.”

4. KH3 for realsies this time

(Context: This one is in regards to the “logo conspiracy”, just to show that this sort of obscure hinting is not beyond something Nomura would do)

In an interview with Nomura in 2016, he revealed that he hid secret clues in the cover art for 1.5, 2.5, and 2.8. Because of course he did, I guess!

“Nomura: There are actually two secrets about the illustrations from [KH1.5] until [KH2.8]. Extremely attentive KH fans might have already discovered them, but one is that Sora's movements change from sitting, to standing, to walking. One more is that when you line up the three illustrations, you'll notice that they show the flow of time with changes in the sky. [KH1.5] is sunset becoming night, [KH2.5] is the middle of the night, and [KH2.8] is night breaking into dawn. Those three illustrations have a message regarding the final chapter, [KHIII].”

Ultimania Update: Oh boy did you think Nomura was done? Cause he wasn’t!

These party people were confirmed by Nomura in the Ultimania to actually be robed figures, sneakily placed to look apart of the building, people hidden in plain sight. What’s silly is that people had been wondering this exact thing when the box art had been revealed, and that too got shot down on the same premise of “reading too much into it”.

5. The Paopu Fruit

In the Ultimania, Irino (Sora’s VA) stated that they recorded two versions of the paopu scene:

Irino: “We recorded both a sharing scenario and a not sharing scenario. During the editing, it wasn’t decided which [Nomura] would go with, but it seems in the end he went with the sharing scenario.” - KH3 Ultimania VA Interview

In an unseen timeline (the waking/real world) a litany of things could go differently, and while this tidbit could be nothing, it’s at least an interesting note and a fun little fact.

6. Flowmotion and Attraction Flow

There’s a section showing concept art and planning for Attraction Flows. (thanks to @gummiphoned for the discovery and photos!)

In the bottom corner, there’s an in game concept example.

With Sora in his DDD outfit.

Set in DDD’s Traverse Town.

7. Reality Shift

There’s a section that elaborates a little on the Combined Keyblade, confirming it to be the very same one we see in DDD.

Top Text: "During the special event in the realm of darkness, when Sora and Riku deal the finishing blow against the Demon Tower, the two of them used their fusion keyblade. That keyblade is the same as the one that appeared in 3D."

Bottom Text: "In 3D this fusion keyblade appeared in The World That Never Was when using Reality Shift."

8. Promotional Materials

Later, official sources started to use a simple but unrelated, specific hashtag.

夢しかない (yume shika nai) translated to “ONLY DREAM” or just “There is only a dream”. The first time it’s used was the 6 days to go countdown

It was then used moving forward in all promotional tweets including release day (PlayStation japan was also using the tag). The last time they used this was the secret movie announcement tweet.

9. The Secret Ending

This has actually been confirmed by Nomura to take place after KH3 and that when Sora disappears in the ending he arrives here. More or less exactly as we thought.

“Q: I see. Then, continuing on, I'd like to ask about the secret movie; is the location connected to the ending? A: Yes. After disappearing in the ending, Sora arrives in the world shown in the secret movie.” - Nomura, KH3 Ultimania.

10. Shibuya, Baby!

Nomura also made note that this Shibuya isn’t the original in universe TWEWY world Shibuya. It’s Shibuya, but ~Shibuya~. As in, some kind of alternate version.

“Q: Is the place Sora is in the same world as the one in The World Ends With You?

A: It looks that way. However, rather than saying Sora has gone to the TWEWY world, the meaning is that it's not exactly Shibuya, but ~Shibuya~ (note: this is hard to explain in English, but instead of it being written in kanji, the name for "Shibuya" is written in katakana here. This basically means it's not the same Shibuya as in TWEWY or in the real world.) Also, although Sora promised Neku and his friends that they would meet again in Shibuya, this video is not connected to that.” - Nomura, KH3 Ultimania

11. Rage Form

From the Dengeki Playstation interview:

--There's a form that appears called "Rage Form," which reminds us of the "Anti Form" from KH2. What is the setup behind that?

Nomura: The forms in this title are very different from that of KH2, so we decided to change all the names. Rage does indeed have characteristics that are reminiscent of Anti, but it's basically a separate thing setup wise. Anti is based on Sora getting completely stained in darkness, but Rage doesn't go quite that far. It's based on him going into a rampage state, controlled by feelings of anger.

12. Namine

Nomura has since elaborated a little bit on what happens with Namine tho it still doesn’t really answer the biggest question. It’s said that when Kairi took the blow from Xehanort, this set her free (even if we don’t see a heart whatsoever). Nomura plans on explaining it more down the road, apparently.

13. Xion

Nomura has since stated in an interview that upcoming DLC will go into Xion and how she’s here so, hooray!

#the sleeping realm theory #kh3 #kingdom hearts #kh theories #ultimania #srt

163 notes · View notes

gagafortaylor · 6 years ago

Text

TS7 Theory

I know this theory is extremely far-fetched, but hear me out on this one. The general idea behind it is that TS7 and LG6 aren’t individual albums, but are rather going to be the one album- a collaboration between Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga. Admittedly I don’t know anywhere near as much about Lady Gaga as I do about Taylor Swift, because I’ve been a Swiftie for a few years but only started listening to Lady Gaga’s music recently (I love her so much already though)

Part 1: Lyric Parallels

Something I noticed is lyrics from some songs in reputation being possible references to old Lady Gaga songs. I decided these could be taken as possible clues, as we all know Taylor has been known to reference future eras in music videos and performances before.

1. In Look What You Made Me Do, there is the famous line “I’m sorry, but the old Taylor can’t come to the phone right now. Why? Oh, because she’s dead.” In the Lady Gaga song Aura (ARTPOP), there is the line “I killed my former and left her in the trunk on Highway 10.″ Could LWYMMD have possibly been not only referring to the old Taylor being dead, but a possible future collaboration with someone who has also mentioned “killing” a former version of themselves in their songs before?

2. Dress has a lyric “I don’t want you like a best friend,” which could be a reference to a line from Bad Romance (The Fame Monster): “I don’t wanna be friends”. Now I’m going to really stretch and over-analyse this by pointing out that “I don’t wanna be friends” is sung 3 times- “I don’t want you like a best friend” is part of the chorus, and Dress has the chorus sung three times. I felt like this was a stretch, but I should include it anyways. Also to be noted is how much vocalisation both of the songs feature.

Part 2: Image Analysis

part i: mermaids

For Taylor’s New Year’s party, she dressed up as Ariel, which started a very large storm of TS7 theories, guessing that the upcoming album could have something to do with mermaids.

Instead, I believe it was a reference to a lyric from Lady Gaga’s Venus (ARTPOP): “Aphrodite lady seashell bikini”, and also to two iconic Gaga looks: Yüyi, and the seashell bikini she wore during the VMA performance and music video for Applause (ARTPOP) (and also the seashell bikini from artRAVE)

*no photo of Yüyi because I don’t think it would pass the tumblr filter*

There is also a backup dancer wearing a seashell-shaped bra/bikini in the End Game (reputation) music video.

part ii: butterflies

I found this photo of Gaga:

I have no idea when it’s from, but I thought it tied in interestingly with all the butterfly things we’ve been getting from Taylor lately- from her shoes to emojis.

part iii: flamingos

So a few people noticed the flamingos on this jacket Taylor wore in photos for the reputation magazines and calendar:

and I thought a photo Gaga posted on the 13th of March looked a little interesting-

Those pink feathers, with the black tips, look an awful lot like flamingos. Also interesting is not only that it was posted on the THIRTEENTH (Taylor’s lucky number), but that it was for her 25th Vogue cover. This may just be a coincidence, but I think it’s interesting that 2+5=7. As in, TS7. Also, those rods she’s holding form the shape of a 7.

Something else to keep in mind is the fact that Gaga posted this photo on the 13th of March, and exactly one month later, on the 13th of April, Taylor began the 13 days countdown. Lady Gaga hasn’t posted since.

I’m not sure where palm trees that Taylor was posting about a lot tie in with all this, but maybe just with the whole paradise vibe. I am going to look into this more, because I feel like there’s something crucial I’m missing.

Part 3: More Images and Possible Lyric/Song Connections

I found this post on Lady Gaga’s Instagram, and I feel like this one is a weak link, but still worth posting.

It was promoting her Jazz & Piano show in Vegas, and I thought it could POSSIBLY be a tiny reference to Dancing With Our Hands Tied (reputation), as the background is a deep blue, and Gaga is painted golden by the lighting. This one feels like a stretch, but I promise the next image is better evidence.

Taylor posted this recently. A heart made out of what is probably diamonds. A diamond heart.

Diamond Heart (Joanne).

I would also like to say that I think it’s interesting that two such massive figures in the pop music industry would change their icons, signifying new eras, and start teasing new albums WITHOUT initiating some sort of shady dispute on Twitter, unless they were working together. It just seems weird that two people who have always been friendly, and are likely in contact, would start a rivalry with each other and fight over the charts like they would be if they were releasing music separately. I think that because of this music timing and the lack of fighting, it’s possible they’re working together.

This is all the evidence I have so far. I’m lowkey convinced I’m right, and I will probably add more to this post as Taylor keeps posting on Instagram. If you have anything you think would add to this theory, please send it to me :)

( @deathbyegg figured out she’s posting every 13 hours, and we think something will happen once she hits -or she will slow down posting before she reaches- 283 Instagram posts, which is the age she said she sometimes felt like in her Elle interview)

(I’m so wrong about this oh my god skskskksjj)

#taylor swift #taylor nation #ts7 #ts7 is coming #ts7 theory #lady gaga #lg6 #lg6 theory #lady gaga theory #taylor swift theory

36 notes · View notes

thexerohour · 4 years ago

Text

Show Notes for 10/30/2020

[[[Episode 53 is not yet posted]]]

Facebook deletes multiple accounts after linking lead singer in Christian rock band to QAnon

CANTON (WXYZ) — The lead vocalist of the Christian rock band, Sweet Crystal, was stunned when he went to log onto Facebook one day last week and discovered all nine of the accounts he administers for the band, their brand and business had been deleted because the Goliath of social media had somehow linked him to the conspiracy movement known as QAnon.

"So, because my profile disappeared, they all disappeared. They're all gone," said Marq Andrew Speck of Canton. "That's 11 years of my life and I have never posted anything political in my life. My stuff is all inspirational or videos, photos of the band, that kind of stuff. And it was just a kick in the gut."

QAnon is a far-right movement that believes satan-worshipping pedophiles in the "deep state" are plotting against President Donald Trump.

https://www.wxyz.com/news/local-news/facebook-deletes-multiple-accounts-after-linking-lead-singer-in-christian-rock-band-to-qanon

Trump the Defender

Trump was less articulate about the very good people on both sides comment, because he was more concerned with defending citizens from the press than he was about PR. Defended Rush Limbaugh on interview on Fox and Friends when the journalist asked who the next conservative voice is. Trump cut her off, saying that we need to take a moment to acknowledge rushes accomplishments, and recognizing how much Rush supported Trump from day one. This was a very positive redirection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ji8OzFQ-bU

QAnon

This article is about the baseless far-right conspiracy theory.

QAnon is a “far-right conspiracy theory” alleging that a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotting against US President Donald Trump, who is battling against the cabal. The theory also commonly asserts that Trump is planning a day of reckoning known as "The Storm", when thousands of members of the cabal will be arrested. No part of the theory is based on fact. QAnon has accused many liberal Hollywood actors, Democratic politicians, and high-ranking officials of being members of the cabal. It also claimed that Trump feigned conspiracy with Russians to enlist Robert Mueller to join him in exposing the sex-trafficking ring and preventing a coup d'état by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and George Soros.

Learn More

This Documentary is graphic and disturbing. You’ve been warned.

Fall of the Cabal - https://odysee.com/@besthiking1:8/Fall-of-the-Cabal-Full-Documentary----by-Janet-Ossebaard:3

Out of the Shadows - https://odysee.com/@Juan-Sumoradis:d/OUT-OF-THE-SHADOWS---OFFICIAL-DOCUMENTARY---FULL:5

Let’s Talk about Leftist Conspiracies, Activists, and how Dangerous they are

Miles Taylor

Miles Taylor is an American former government official in the George W. Bush and Trump administrations, best known for his previously anonymous criticisms of Donald Trump.

In 2018, while deputy chief of staff to Nielsen, he wrote the New York Times op-ed "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration" under the pen-name 'Anonymous', which drew widespread attention for its criticism of Trump. In 2019, he published the book A Warning.

In August 2020, while on leave from his job at Google, he produced an ad for Republican Voters Against Trump, denouncing Trump and endorsing Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. Taylor was the first former senior Trump administration staffer to endorse Biden.[4] As of August 2020, he is the highest-ranking former member of the administration to endorse Biden.

In October 2020, Taylor revealed himself to be 'Anonymous'.

Neil Morris Ferguson - 1st Coronavirus Models

Neil Morris Ferguson OBE FMedSci (born 1968) is a British epidemiologist[3] and professor of mathematical biology, who specialises in the patterns of spread of infectious disease in humans and animals. In February 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was first detected in China, Ferguson and his team used statistical models to estimate that cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were significantly under-detected in China. He is part of UK's Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team.

On 5 May 2020, it emerged that Ferguson had resigned from his position as a government advisor on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) committee after admitting to "undermining" the government's messages on social distancing by meeting up with a married woman.

Neil has a squeky clean image if yo use Google. if you use Qwant, you can find these kinds of results.

“So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?”

John Fund writes:

[Imperial College epidemiologist Neil] Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths.

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.

Just telling people what they want to hear.

guy? https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/so-the-real-scandal-is-why-did-anyone-ever-listen-to-this-guy/

The Scientist Whose Doomsday Pandemic Model Predicted Armageddon Just Walked Back The Apocalyptic Predictions

British scientist Neil Ferguson ignited the world’s drastic response to the novel Wuhan coronavirus when he published the bombshell report predicting 2.2 million Americans and more than half a million Brits would be killed. After both the U.S. and U.K. governments effectively shut down their citizens and economies, Ferguson is walking back his doomsday scenarios.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/26/the-scientist-whose-doomsday-pandemic-model-predicted-armageddon-just-walked-back-the-apocalyptic-predictions/

James Hodgkinson - Congressional baseball Shooter

On June 14, 2017, during a practice session for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity in Alexandria, Virginia, James Hodgkinson shot U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, U.S. Capitol Police officer Crystal Griner, congressional aide Zack Barth, and lobbyist Matt Mika. A ten-minute shootout took place between Hodgkinson and officers from the Capitol and Alexandria Police before officers fatally shot Hodgkinson, who died from his wounds later that day at the George Washington University Hospital.[7][8] Scalise and Mika were taken to nearby hospitals where they underwent surgery.[9] Hodgkinson was a left-wing activist. The Virginia Attorney General concluded Hodgkinson's attack was "an act of terrorism... fueled by rage against Republican legislators". Oh yeah, and he’s a Bernie Bro

He earned some hitjbs from media outlets, that hid his motives for the attack, but offered plenty of information for discredit him as a crazy person on his own

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/james-hodgkinson-history_n_59414028e4b003d5948c6f50

https://heavy.com/news/2017/06/james-hodgkinson-alexandria-gop-baseball-shooter-shooting-gunman-identified-illinois/

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/14/james-t-hodgkinson-congressional-shooter-dead-239547

Other Bernie-Bros

The 19-year-old’s focus on Biden started in the spring, according to the order… Days after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) suspended his presidential campaign, Treisman, who had suggested in a Reddit post that he had to “save bernie,” posted a meme with the caption questioning whether he should kill Biden.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/jim-treacher/2020/10/23/bernie-bro-with-van-full-of-guns-and-explosives-plotted-to-assassinate-biden-media-buries-the-lede-as-usual-n1082276

Project Veritas Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC3V2vTTrx4

Willem Van Spronsen - Ice Bomber

The 2019 Tacoma suicide bomber attack occurred when an Antifa domestic terrorist with an assault rifle firebombed a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility housing hundreds of children with a massive explosion in Tacoma, Washington; The attacker was shot and killed by police. He also burnt a car and was attempting to ignite a large external propane tank.

https://loomered.com/2019/07/14/antifa-terrorist-attacks-ice-detention-facility-with-bombs-and-rifle-leaves-manifesto-behind/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/tacoma-ice-police-shooting-washington-willem-van-spronsen-antifa-detention-centre-a9004131.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/14/armed-man-throwing-incendiary-devices-ice-detention-center-killed-officer-involved-shooting-police-say/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/07/tacoma-ice-facility-terror-attacker-ided-as-antifa-activist/

0 notes

fordarkisthesuede · 7 years ago

Text

JOURNAL 3 BLACKLIGHT EDITION REVEALED! (Part 1)

Today’s a special day! Today is not only Father’s Day, but Alex and Ariel Hirsch’s birthday! Let’s celebrate by cracking open your copy of Journal 3, prepping your blacklight and invisible ink pens, and jotting down everything here in the special edition so you can have a copy for yourself without resorting to eBay or shady second-hand Craigslist deals!

I was lucky number 02149 to get a copy of the special edition of Journal 3. Well, lucky as in “I could afford to buy it and pre-ordered it back in March the exact day I heard about it going on sale.” Still, I am PSYCHED to share this with everyone! Admittedly I didn’t take photos of every single page – only the ones with black-light effects that were more than ink spatters. Some I had to take [kinda big] pictures of individually, to be able to read the text properly, and others were multi-page spreads that I couldn’t resist capturing in their beautiful glowy glory.

Of course I’ll be captioning them all for you, in case you can’t download/read them. Also, there’s a few secret codes in here! But did you really expect anything less? Also also, this is a 9 page word document (not counting pics), so I’m splitting it up into 3 parts. Especially considering the size of these pictures.

I know it’s not black-light images, but you just have to look at how this sucker came packaged. They literally took the time to wrap it in thick paper and label it like it was a forbidden document, and wrap it with a twine bow. It was a sight to behold. Inside, the book was actually in a cardboard box to keep both the hardcover safe and the magnifying glass & bookmark from sliding around everywhere. Seriously, the attention to detail in this presentation alone is amazing.

SERIOUSLY. AMAZING.

First pic – the introduction by Alex Hirsch himself! He really did sign his initials in marker! And underneath his picture says “BILL WAS HERE” and a little Bill holding a paintbrush.

BUT WAIT THERE’S MORE. Hirsch planted a secret message in blue letters within the letter: “LUCKY YOU”.

Parks Department notice: “LET THE GAMES BEGIN.” That’s Bill’s handwriting, btw.

Floating Eyeballs page: “NONSENSE! I was wrong to worry about these things! They are inconsequential! Pepper spray makes ‘em go away!!!” (Oh, and the photo of the eyeballs lifts up to show a secret message. Translated from Ceaser -3, it says: “I OFTEN SEE STRANGE THINGS IN THE CORNER OF MY EYE. NEW THEORY - DOES THE CORNER OF YOUR EYE ACTUALLY SEE AN ALTERNATE PLANE OF REALITY?”)

Giant Vampire Bats!! page: “Nothing to worry about! All they want is fruit! The missing livestock were actually eaten by a hot-sauce-loving beast called the chalupacabra.”

[underneath the photo of the water tower (thanks @lephuongtrang!!)] “I’ve been BITTEN! Once of those beasts swooped in and sank his teeth into my forehead while I was counting mushroom spots in the forest! Fortunately, my body shows no signs of vampirism. My head hurts a little, though. Probably an usual response to being bitten by a bat...then again, I have been desiring blood more than usual.... Best not to think about it. Never slumber with them near.”

The Gnome page [is HUGE]: “Feral Gnomes: The deeper into the woods you go, the more wild and rude the gnomes turn! Be careful! A gnome bite from a feral gnome will make you get gradually hairier and shorter over the course of your lifetime. Which is fine if you want to work in tech support but a nightmare for the rest of us.

“QUEEN GNOME: Without a queen, gnomes tend to go wild, which is less cute than it sounds. To locate a queen, gnomes select the most beautiful female gnome with the most luxurious beard. (All gnomes have beards. That includes babies.) Queen Gnomes do everything in the forest, from resolving disputes between caterpillars to controlling berry trafficking. Unfortunately, because of their diet of pie and candy, queens are delicious meals themselves, and are usually eaten by foxes or boy scouts before they turn 200. Then the search begins again.”

“Every gnome generation has a town idiot, or Shmebulock. I interviewed one, and he said the word “Shmebulock” over and over before writing this on a chalkboard:”

[Using vinegere cipher “Shmebulock”] “MINE IS BUT A SOLITARY EXISTENCE. I READ. I PONDER. I STARE AT THE HEAVENS.

BOUNTEOUS IS OUR WORLD BUT CRUEL IS THE MASTER OF IT WHO CONDEMNED ME TO SAY BUT ONLY MY NAME.

PERHAPS MY ISOLATION IS MY GIFT. FOR IT IS ONLY IN SEPARATION FROM OTHERS THAT A MIND CAN TRULY BE FATE”

I’ll admit something here, folks. I tried about fifteen or twenty different words/phrases to unravel this. I used Shmebulock first, and it didn’t work – I actually resorted to looking on the GF wiki when I was absolutely stuck and couldn’t find or think of any secret keys hidden in the book. It turned out I just misspelled Shmebulock. :/

Edit - can’t believe I forgot about the Doors, too. (9_9)

Doors Page: [underneath Door 13] “Ever wanted to see a chorus of children with no faces screaming in a black void? No? Then don’t open this door!” [underneath bottom left door] “This door is supposed to reveal how you’re going to die! When I opened it, I saw myself getting eaten - by ANOTHER CURSED DOOR!”

[Underneath Right Hand door] “What’s behind Door #3? I’ve never opened it! I learned my lesson from the last one! Stay away fromt he door with the teeth on Maubert Ave!”

My Muse page: I love this page, just because it’s kinda pretty. Maybe I just like the ominous glowing Bill rising from behind the mountains and a pretty crescent moon up there. Says “LIED TO ME! How could I ever have been so foolish?”

There’s “Saw this on an old scroll” pointing to the cluster of stars on the next page. Underneath that, it says “Out of all the idiots in the entire universe, why was I the one to fall prey to Bill’s villainy? If beings of such evil can exist in the cosmos, could there possibly be other beings of equal and opposite good? Or is the vast universe filled only with darkness? Some force compels me against reason to maintain hope…”

Wow. Dark.

Mothman: (Underneath the photo) “I used venom from the glowing mantis to make my invisible ink. This stuff is beautiful, but technically poison. DON’T SNIFF THIS BOOK!” But I love that new-book smell! But I guess, if you say so…

Edit: (Underneath the blacklight ink) “Other Insectoids: Venus Guy Trap: Will lure you into jaws with beefy jerky. Flatterpillar: Giant grub compliments you constantly - but expects favors in return! “Man-Spider”: I’ve still never seen one of these. GET ME PICTURES OF MAN-SPIDER!”

(I still can’t believe I left off that gem!)

Soothsquitos: (Underneath the photo) “Spay away from bortals.” “Gibe the oracle your frone number.” “avoid dattoos.” “Jibberish! –Ford” (are the Soothsquitos hitting on Ford FOR the Oracle?!)

The Invisible Wizard page: [it is a lump of flesh with a face that takes the silhouette of a stereotypical wizard, and it looks kind of sad. Poor guy.] Pointing at the wand, it says “Wand? Or grotesque malformed hand?” Underneath the title it says “F’s omnispectrascopic glasses have given me a better look at this monster. Wish they hadn’t. He must’ve leaked into our world from Bill’s weirdness dimension. And he’s not the only one! Not sure why I thought he was handsome before. Clearly my night-vision lenses were very smudged!”

Rude! >:/

Barf Fairies: “Barf fairies are the only ones who can see the hideous invisible wizard. That’s why they’re always barfing!!!”

Stomach faced duck: ( I love that duck!) [Pictured is the duck puking some kind of intestine-like organ from its mouth. It’s gross.] Ford labeled this as “DISGUSTING” and “This is what happens when it opens its mouth! I don’t even know what this organ is supposed to do!”

“A Bit of History” page: “Bill’s Secret History! Bill taught me that he “inspired” great minds throughout history. Now I know the truth! He tricked and terrorized great minds and history is littered with records of his treachery! Since time began, Bill has tried to trick people into building his portal, and he exacted his revenge when they failed. Notable people tricked by Bill:

“The Ancient Egyptians. Their primitive portal only worked for ten minutes (letting out a jackal-headed man from the nightmare realm). Bill was furious. He tormented them with nightmares, and they built giant stone tributes to Bill, hoping to make them stop. (The arms and top hats of these structures broke off over time.)” [Pictured is a drawing of Bill’s top hat, eye and arms over the pyramid, with a plain pyramid next to it.]

Well….what about the eye?? It’s pretty big… Did it just get eroded away…?

[I’ll save you the images of these, since there’s no doodles on them and it would take up a lot more space than necessary.]

“George Washington. Bill gave him secrets that helped him defeat the British. But when George’s attempt at a steam-powered portal sank into a swamp, Bill gave Washington such bad nightmares that he ground his teeth into dust in his sleep and then had to get wooden ones. Washington put Bill on the one-dollar bill in order to appease him.

“Stanley Kubrick. Bill helped Kubrick fake the US moon landing, hoping that, in return, Kubrick would convince NASA to build a functioning portal. When NASA rejected the proposal, Bill cursed Kubrick with bizarre nightmares, which, in an ironic twist, ended up helping him in his film career.

“Modoc the Wise. A Gravity Falls shaman who met a gruesome end when he ran afoul of Bill. He is thought to be the one who inscribed the incantation on the cave that brought Bill into my life. I am the latest in a long line of these foolish men, and it is my burden to avenge them all or lose my life trying.”

Great stuff….but how did he find all that out?

It’s not black-light, but look!!!! They included the map from Irrational Treasure!! It’s a little smaller than I thought it would be IRL, but hey, it looks amazing!

The Zombie page: [The drawing of the zombie glows! The other page is pictured exactly like it is in canon, with the skull getting sound-waves hit at it and chipping chunks out of it.] “Zombies have a weakness! Previously thought to be invincible, their skulls can be shattered by a perfect three-part harmony. (Learned this when a barbershop quartet came on the radio. This may be the first time anyone has been glad to hear a barbershop quartet.)”

Well if the “Third Researcher” theory wasn’t already horribly debunked, there’s more proof of it.

See you in part 2!

[Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3]

#gravity falls #journal 3 #journal 3 blacklight #spoilers #long post #stanford pines #bill cipher #alex hirsch #618 #J3 Blacklight Reveal #Happy Birthday Alex and Ariel #J3 Blacklight Reveal PART 1

3K notes · View notes

cubn-bfc · 5 years ago

Text

An OFFICIAL statement made by All-Con:

This is a statement. Please don't pick it apart for sound bites.

Of our fourteen guests, four have cancelled for health concerns.

It is sad that many news sources that people used to rely upon as factual are now in dispute. There are a lot of truths that are now being clouded as conspiracy theories. There are many conspiracy theories that are now being clouded as truths.

There seems to be one 'fact' that NOBODY is disputing. COVID-19 is especially difficult for older individuals and for people with existing or current health factors. This condition applies to four of our guests: Terry Carter, Laurette Spang, Jack Stauffer, and Sarah Rush. We have respected their requests to move their appearance to 2021. They are eager to appear again as a cast next March.

At this time, no other cancellations are anticipated.

Impacted events. First, we are proactively refunding all professional photo ops with the cast and the Viper. Yes, the viper will still be here. Yes Herbert Jefferson Jr., Anne Lockhart, and Glen Larson will be here. But the cost of the photo op was ALL-CON's cost with the cast. Fewer cast means a lower price. Instead of playing the partial-refund game it would be better for all purchasers to start with a clean slate. Instead of pre-sold-out Viper pictures we will set aside a time block for photos during the convention and serve fans on a first-come basis to buy photo ops at that time.

Next is Jack Stuffer's Cabaret with the proceeds to go to Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. Without Jack, there is no Cabaret. If you would still like to support the cause, the Colonial Warriors have set up a donations page in honor of the memory of Richard Hatch. Please donate here: http://support.pancan.org/site/TR?team_id=24801&fr_id=1850&pg=team

A quick word on hotel rooms. If you call in you may find that the hotel tells you they are still SOLD OUT. That's mostly true, but our room block code still shows a few rooms available in our block. Get them before the hotel 'steals' them back for the general public. http://www.ALL-CON.com/hotel

At this time... that's it! The rest of ALL-CON is scheduled to proceed as scheduled. The countdown clock is at five days. (Or only four days if you're coming to the Pajama Jammie Jam on Wednesday night.)

We'll see you in the halls! -staff

#allcondallas #comiccon #news #cosplayer #appearance #texas

0 notes

corneliusreignallen · 5 years ago

Text

The conspiracy theories about the Clintons and Jeffrey Epstein’s death, explained

A New York state sex offender registry photo of Jeffrey Epstein. | New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services

The idea that Bill and Hillary Clinton secretly kill their political enemies has circulated in right-wing fever swamps for decades.

On Wednesday, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) sent out 23 consecutive tweets whose first letters spelled out a startling claim: EPSTEIN DIDN’T KILL HIMSELF.

Gosar has coyly resisted confirming that he was alleging that hedge fund manager and convicted sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein was murdered. But his tweets were hardly anomalous. Epstein’s death has sparked a ton of conspiracy theorizing, and “Epstein didn’t kill himself” has become a bona fide meme, showing up in signs at college football games and posts by influential pundits like Joe Rogan.

To be clear, the New York City medical examiner has ruled that Epstein died by suicide. A former NYC medical examiner hired by Epstein’s brother has disputed this finding, but that examiner was fired after a long string of errors on his watch, making his word a little untrustworthy.

But that hasn’t stopped prominent individuals, up to and including Donald Trump, from joining in the speculation. The day of Epstein’s death, President Trump retweeted a conservative personality who captioned a video in which he pontificates at length about his theories with “we know who did this” and the hashtags #ClintonBodyCount and #ClintonCrime family. Trump was clearer than Gosar in suggesting who he thought had Epstein killed: Bill and/or Hillary Clinton.

To understand what’s going on here, you don’t just need to know about Epstein’s former friendship with Clinton (or with Trump). You just need to understand the role that allegations of murder by the Clintons have played in right-wing fever swamps since the 1990s, beginning with the suicide of Vince Foster and continuing through to the completely random 2016 murder of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich.

What is the “Clinton Body Count”?

According to a history and debunking first published by Snopes in 1998, the body count meme originated in 1993 with Indianapolis lawyer and militia movement activist Linda Thompson, who compiled a list of 34 people connected to the Clintons who had died and titled it, “The Clinton Body Count: Coincidence or the Kiss of Death?” William Dannemeyer, a notoriously homophobic former Congress member from Orange County, California, picked up the list, trimmed it to 24, and sent it congressional leadership in 1994 as he ran for the US Senate.

Thompson provided — by her own admission — “no direct evidence” that the Clintons were responsible for any of the deaths, and Snopes provides a comprehensive account of all of them, most of which were easily explained heart attacks, plane crashes, or suicides.

The most notable name on the list is Vince Foster, the deputy White House counsel who died by suicide on July 20, 1993. Foster was a colleague of Hillary Clinton’s at the Rose Law firm in Little Rock, Arkansas, and came to Washington, DC, as part of the crew of Arkansas loyalists who joined the Clinton administration. In the job, Foster helped conduct vetting of administration officials and said he felt like he had failed the president when Clinton’s first two picks for attorney general were forced to withdraw because of revelations that they had hired undocumented immigrants.

Foster also became wrapped up in a scandal surrounding the firing of staff in the White House travel office and in legal disputes about access to records about Hillary Clinton’s health care task force, earning him a bevy of harsh Wall Street Journal editorials.

Overwhelmed by these circumstances, and clearly struggling from depression, Foster fatally shot himself. But almost immediately, conservatives jumped on the idea that Foster was murdered. Those fanning the flames included the Journal editorial board, National Review’s Richard Brookhiser, and then-Rep. Dan Burton, who tried to do some amateur ballistics research on the case by shooting a large fruit in his backyard. Reports differ as to whether Burton shot a watermelon, a pumpkin, or a cantaloupe.

Numerous investigations, as my colleague Matt Yglesias explains here, have found that Foster died by suicide. But the eagerness of conservatives, both on the more conspiratorial right and in respectable places like the Journal editorial board (Brookhiser favorably reviewed a book casting doubt on the suicide investigation in the New York Times), to doubt those findings fed the idea of a “Clinton Body Count.” So in the future, when people connected to the Clintons died because of easily understandable causes (like former business partner Jim McDougal’s heart attack death in prison), their deaths became grounds for speculation.

The death of Seth Rich in 2016 was the next major event fueling Clinton Body Count conspiracies. Rich was a 27-year-old Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot in what police believed to be an attempted robbery in DC. But almost as soon as he died, Clinton haters seized on his death and tried to argue that Hillary and/or Bill was responsible. After these rumors began, Julian Assange of Wikileaks gave the conspiracy theorists a motive by hinting that Rich, not Russian hackers, provided WikiLeaks with the DNC’s emails. WikiLeaks then offered a $20,000 reward for information about Rich’s death. The implication was that Rich’s killing was punishment for leaking damaging internal emails.

This conspiracy theory was always absurd; there is copious evidence of Russian hacking, Rich had no access to all of the DNC’s internal emails, and he certainly didn’t have access to all the other information Russia recovered, like Clinton campaign chief John Podesta’s emails. The Rich family would eventually sue Fox News unsuccessfully for its efforts to spread the conspiracy theory.

But for Clinton Body Count conspiracy theorists, the incoherence of the theory in the Rich case was never an impediment. The Rich theory soon became part of the broader QAnon conspiracy theory, which is too byzantine to explain in detail here but which my colleague Jane Coaston summarizes as arguing that “special counsel Robert Mueller and President Donald Trump are working together to expose thousands of cannibalistic pedophiles hidden in plain sight (including Hillary Clinton and actor Tom Hanks).” Obviously, the victims of Clinton’s cannibalistic pedophilia would be additions to the body count.

How this fits in with Epstein

The Foster, Rich, and QAnon allegations are clearly absurd. And, we should be very clear, there is no firm evidence at this juncture to suggest that Epstein was murdered, let alone murdered by people with ties to the Clinton.

Epstein did have very real ties to Bill Clinton. That does not mean that Clinton had anything to do with his death, any more than allegations that Donald Trump raped a 13-year-old girl while hanging out with Epstein mean that Trump had something to do with Epstein’s death.

My colleague Andrew Prokop summarized Clinton’s interactions with Epstein thusly:

According to the Daily Beast’s Emily Shugerman, Epstein visited the White House for a donor event during Bill Clinton’s presidency and met with a White House aide several times there. Shugerman also unearthed a 1995 letter from businesswoman Lynn Forester in which she said she enjoyed briefly meeting Clinton at a recent event and used her “fifteen seconds of access to discuss Jeffrey Epstein and currency stabilization.”

Soon after Bill Clinton concluded his presidency in 2001, the ties deepened. Clinton entered a new stage of his career, in which he’d travel the world, launch philanthropic initiatives, hang out with rich people and celebrities, and make money.

“What attracted Clinton to Epstein was quite simple: He had a plane,” Landon Thomas Jr. wrote in that 2002 New York magazine profile. Clinton’s aide Doug Band made the introduction, and that September, Epstein and Clinton were off on a tour of five African countries, alongside actors Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker. Per Clinton’s team, the trip was about “democratization, empowering the poor, citizen service, and combating HIV/AIDS.” (It was that trip that first elevated Epstein to some media notoriety, as journalists began to dig into Clinton’s new friend.)

That wasn’t the only trip. According to Clinton spokesperson Angel Ureña, in a statement last week, there was one more to Africa, one to Europe, and one to Asia — but, he says, Clinton and Epstein haven’t spoken in “well over a decade.”

Virginia Giuffre has said in an affidavit that Clinton was also present on Little St. James Island, Epstein’s private island in the US Virgin Islands. But so far, there has been no corroboration for this claim, and Ureña says Clinton has never been there.

Neither Giuffre nor any other Epstein accuser has alleged that Clinton had sex with them. Clinton was, however, credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick in the 1970s.

What makes the conspiracy theories so frustrating, in part, is that they’re premised on real elements: credible accusations of sexual misconduct against Bill Clinton, Clinton’s real ties to Jeffrey Epstein, and Epstein’s own well-documented sex crimes. It doesn’t take incredibly inventive conspiracy theorizing to move from that to allegations that Clinton was part of Epstein’s sex abuse and from there to wild accusations that Clinton had Epstein killed.

But we should be very clear that as of this writing, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest someone ordered Epstein’s death, and certainly no evidence whatsoever that Bill Clinton was that person.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2KxRcP2

#Vox - All

0 notes

shanedakotamuir · 5 years ago

Text

The conspiracy theories about the Clintons and Jeffrey Epstein’s death, explained

A New York state sex offender registry photo of Jeffrey Epstein. | New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services

The idea that Bill and Hillary Clinton secretly kill their political enemies has circulated in right-wing fever swamps for decades.

On Wednesday, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) sent out 23 consecutive tweets whose first letters spelled out a startling claim: EPSTEIN DIDN’T KILL HIMSELF.

What is the “Clinton Body Count”?

How this fits in with Epstein

My colleague Andrew Prokop summarized Clinton’s interactions with Epstein thusly:

Neither Giuffre nor any other Epstein accuser has alleged that Clinton had sex with them. Clinton was, however, credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick in the 1970s.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2KxRcP2

#Vox - All

0 notes

gracieyvonnehunter · 5 years ago

Text

The conspiracy theories about the Clintons and Jeffrey Epstein’s death, explained

A New York state sex offender registry photo of Jeffrey Epstein. | New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services

The idea that Bill and Hillary Clinton secretly kill their political enemies has circulated in right-wing fever swamps for decades.

On Wednesday, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) sent out 23 consecutive tweets whose first letters spelled out a startling claim: EPSTEIN DIDN’T KILL HIMSELF.

What is the “Clinton Body Count”?

How this fits in with Epstein

My colleague Andrew Prokop summarized Clinton’s interactions with Epstein thusly:

Neither Giuffre nor any other Epstein accuser has alleged that Clinton had sex with them. Clinton was, however, credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick in the 1970s.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2KxRcP2

#Vox - All

0 notes

timalexanderdollery · 5 years ago

Text

The conspiracy theories about the Clintons and Jeffrey Epstein’s death, explained

A New York state sex offender registry photo of Jeffrey Epstein. | New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services

The idea that Bill and Hillary Clinton secretly kill their political enemies has circulated in right-wing fever swamps for decades.

On Wednesday, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) sent out 23 consecutive tweets whose first letters spelled out a startling claim: EPSTEIN DIDN’T KILL HIMSELF.

What is the “Clinton Body Count”?

How this fits in with Epstein

My colleague Andrew Prokop summarized Clinton’s interactions with Epstein thusly:

Neither Giuffre nor any other Epstein accuser has alleged that Clinton had sex with them. Clinton was, however, credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick in the 1970s.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2KxRcP2

#Vox - All

0 notes

lastsonlost · 8 years ago

Link

Feminist male-bashing has come to sound like a cliche — a misogynist caricature. Feminism, its loudest proponents vow, is about fighting for equality. The man-hating label is either a smear or a misunderstanding.

Yet a lot of feminist rhetoric today does cross the line from attacks on sexism into attacks on men, with a strong focus on personal behavior: the way they talk, the way they approach relationships, even the way they sit on public transit. Male faults are stated as sweeping condemnations; objecting to such generalizations is taken as a sign of complicity. Meanwhile, similar indictments of women would be considered grossly misogynistic.

This gender antagonism does nothing to advance the unfinished business of equality. If anything, the fixation on men behaving badly is a distraction from more fundamental issues, such as changes in the workplace to promote work-life balance. What’s more, male-bashing not only sours many men — and quite a few women — on feminism. It often drives them into Internet subcultures where critiques of feminism mix with hostility toward women.

* * *

To some extent, the challenge to men and male power has always been inherent in feminism, from the time the 1848 Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments catalogued the grievances of “woman” against “man.” However, these grievances were directed more at institutions than at individuals. In “The Feminine Mystique,” which sparked the great feminist revival of the 1960s, Betty Friedan saw men not as villains but as fellow victims burdened by societal pressures and by the expectations of their wives, who depended on them for both livelihood and identity.

That began to change in the 1970s with the rise of radical feminism. This movement, with its slogan, “The personal is political,” brought a wave of female anger at men’s collective and individual transgressions. Authors like Andrea Dworkin and Marilyn French depicted ordinary men as patriarchy’s brutal foot soldiers.

This tendency has reached a troubling new peak, as radical feminist theories that view modern Western civilization as a patriarchy have migrated from academic and activist fringes into mainstream conversation. One reason for this trend is social media, with its instant amplification of personal narratives and its addiction to outrage. We live in a time when jerky male attempts at cyber-flirting can be collected on a blog called Straight White Boys Texting (which carries a disclaimer that prejudice against white males is not racist or sexist, since it is not directed at the oppressed) and then deplored in an article titled “Dear Men: This Is Why Women Have Every Right To Be Disgusted With Us.”

Whatever the reasons for the current cycle of misandry — yes, that’s a word, derided but also adopted for ironic use by many feminists — its existence is quite real. Consider, for example, the number of neologisms that use “man” as a derogatory prefix and that have entered everyday media language: “mansplaining,” “manspreading” and “manterrupting.” Are these primarily male behaviors that justify the gender-specific terms? Not necessarily: The study that is cited as evidence of excessive male interruption of women actually found that the most frequent interrupting is female-on-female (“femterrupting”?).

Sitting with legs apart may be a guy thing, but there is plenty of visualdocumentation of women hogging extra space on public transit with purses, shopping bags and feet on seats. As for “mansplaining,” these days it seems to mean little more than a man making an argument a woman dislikes. Slate correspondent Dahlia Lithwick has admitted using the term to “dismiss anything said by men” in debates about Hillary Clinton. And the day after Clinton claimed the Democratic presidential nomination, political analyst David Axelrod was slammed as a “mansplainer” on Twitter for his observation that it’s a measure of our country’s “great progress” that “many younger women find the nomination of a woman unremarkable.”

Men who gripe about their ex-girlfriends and advise other men to avoid relationships with women are generally relegated to the seedy underbelly of the Internet — various forums and websites in the “manosphere,” recently chronicled by Stephen Marche in the Guardian. Yet a leading voice of the new feminist generation, British writer Laurie Penny, can use her column in the New Statesman to decry ex-boyfriends who “turned mean or walked away” and to urge straight young women to stay single instead of “wasting years in succession on lacklustre, unappreciative, boring child-men.”

Feminist commentary routinely puts the nastiest possible spin on male behavior and motives. Consider the backlash against the concept of the “friend zone,” or being relegated to “friends-only” status when seeking a romantic relationship — usually, though not exclusively, in reference to men being “friend zoned” by women. Since the term has a clear negative connotation, feminist critics say it reflects the assumption that a man is owed sex as a reward for treating a woman well. Yet it’s at least as likely that, as feminist writer Rachel Hills argued in a rare dissent in the Atlantic, the lament of the “friend zoned” is about “loneliness and romantic frustration,” not sexual entitlement.

Things have gotten to a point where casual low-level male-bashing is a constant white noise in the hip progressive online media. Take a recent pieceon Broadly, the women’s section of Vice, titled, “Men Are Creepy, New Study Confirms” — promoted with a Vice Facebook post that said: “Are you a man? You’re probably a creep.” The actual study found something very different: that both men and women overwhelmingly think someone described as “creepy” is more likely to be male. If a study had found that a negative trait was widely associated with women (or gays or Muslims), surely this would have been reported as deplorable stereotyping, not confirmation of reality.

Meanwhile, men can get raked over the (virtual) coals for voicing even the mildest unpopular opinion on something feminism-related. Just recently, YouTube film reviewer James Rolfe, who goes by “Angry Video Game Nerd,” was roundly vilified as a misogynistic “man-baby” in social media and the online press after announcing that he would not watch the female-led “Ghostbusters” remake because of what he felt was its failure to acknowledge the original franchise.

* * *

This matters, and not just because it can make men less sympathetic to the problems women face. At a time when we constantly hear that womanpower is triumphant and “the end of men” — or at least of traditional manhood — is nigh, men face some real problems of their own. Women are now earning about 60 percent of college degrees; male college enrollment after high school has stalled at 61 percent since 1994, even as female enrollment has risen from 63 percent to 71 percent. Predominantly male blue-collar jobs are on the decline, and the rise of single motherhood has left many men disconnected from family life. The old model of marriage and fatherhood has been declared obsolete, but new ideals remain elusive.

Perhaps mocking and berating men is not the way to show that the feminist revolution is about equality and that they have a stake in the new game. The message that feminism can help men, too — by placing equal value on their role as parents or by encouraging better mental health care and reducing male suicide —

is undercut by gender warriors like Australian pundit Clementine Ford, whose “ironic misandry”

often seems entirely non-ironic and who has angrily insisted that feminism stands only for women. Gibes about “male tears” — for instance, on a T-shirt sported by writer Jessica Valenti in a phototaunting her detractors — seem particularly unfortunate if feminists are serious about challenging the stereotype of the stoic, pain-suppressing male. Dismissing concerns about wrongful accusations of rape with a snarky “What about the menz” is not a great way to show that women’s liberation does not infringe on men’s civil rights. And telling men that their proper role in the movement for gender equality is to listen to women and patiently endure anti-male slams is not the best way to win support.

Valenti and others argue that man-hating cannot do any real damage because men have the power and privilege. Few would deny the historical reality of male dominance. But today, when men can lose their jobs because of sexist missteps and be expelled from college over allegations of sexual misconduct, that’s a blinkered view, particularly since the war on male sins can often target individuals’ trivial transgressions. Take the media shaming of former “Harry Potter” podcaster Benjamin Schoen, pilloried for some mildly obnoxious tweets (and then an insufficiently gracious email apology) to a woman who had blocked him on Facebook after an attempt at flirting. While sexist verbal abuse toward women online is widely deplored, there is little sympathy for men who are attacked as misogynists, mocked as “man-babies” or “angry virgins,” or even smeared as sexual predators in Internet disputes.

We are headed into an election with what is likely to be a nearly unprecedented gender gap among voters. To some extent, these numbers reflect policy differences. Yet it is not too far-fetched to see the pro-Donald Trump sentiment as fueled, at least in part, by a backlash against feminism. And while some of this backlash may be of the old-fashioned “put women in their place” variety, there is little doubt that for the younger generation, the perception of feminism as extremist and anti-male plays a role, too.

This theme emerged in Conor Friedersdorf’s recent interview in the Atlanticwith a Trump supporter, a college-educated, 22-year-old resident of San Francisco who considers himself a feminist and expects his career to take a back seat to that of his higher-earning fiancee — but who also complains about being “shamed” as a white man and voices concern about false accusations of rape.

As this campaign shows, our fractured culture is badly in need of healing — from the gender wars as well as other divisions. To be a part of this healing, feminism must include men, not just as supportive allies but as partners, with an equal voice and equal humanity.

Cathy Young is the author of two books, and a frequent contributor to Reason, Newsday, and RealClearPolitics.com. Follow @cathyyoung63

#feminism

451 notes · View notes

gyrlversion · 6 years ago

Text

How the Republicans Built a Presidency Above the Law for Donald Trump

Attorney General William Barr Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

Yesterday, attorneys for President Trump made an astonishing argument in federal court. Congress had no right to look at Trump’s tax returns, they argued, because it had no right to investigate or even expose matters relating to law enforcement of the White House. The judge asked whether this meant episodes like the Watergate hearings were an unconstitutional exercise of power by Congress, and Trump’s lawyer conceded they might have been.

Trump’s official position is that Congress has no business looking into whether the president has broken the law. When you combine this position with the long-standing Department of Justice policy that it cannot indict a sitting president, and Attorney General William Barr’s position that the president is entitled to shut down any investigation he considers unfair, you have built a wall of legal impunity for the president.

There is an abstract argument for decriminalizing disputes between Congress and the president, and funneling these issues into the political sphere. Rather than charge the president with crimes, the argument goes, his critics can expose them to the public and Congress can choose to hold impeachment hearings — or, failing that, allow voters to render the verdict.

But Trump is notably attempting to shut off Congress’s power to expose corruption and wrongdoing, too. The administration is making blanket arguments against Congress’s ability to subpoena witnesses and documents. Barr himself refused to answer a question from Senator Kamala Harris as to whether he had been told to investigate anybody, and then refused to appear at a hearing held by the House the next day. All modern presidents have tangled with Congress about the scope of its investigative reach, but none before Trump have completely denied the legitimacy of this function. Trump’s claims that Congress cannot investigate him because it’s not “impartial,” and that its alleged motive of harassing him disqualifies it, do not merely quibble with particular subpoenas or topics. He is dismissing all investigations run by people who aren’t his allies (which, of course, means all investigations).

The most benign explanation for this audacious claim of untrammeled executive power is that Trump has embraced, or been embraced by, the ideology of William Barr. The attorney general has advocated sweeping authority for the Executive branch dating back to the first Bush administration, where he was warning against “legislative encroachments” by Congress. Tom Hamburger’s profile of Barr explains how he has long stood at the forefront of the legal movement to establish presidential supremacy, a worldview that happens to dovetail conveniently with Trump’s utter disdain for any limits on his prerogatives.

Hamburger also points out as an aside that Barr has not always maintained this position with perfect consistency. During the Clinton administration, the president was hounded by independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who began by looking into Clinton’s land deals as governor of Arkansas, and wound up charging him for lying under oath about a sexual affair. Starr’s probe was widely considered so abusive it prompted a change in the law authorizing an independent counsel.

But Barr, despite his putative belief in presidential authority, did not see it that way. He signed a letter insisting an independent counsel “should be allowed to carry out his or her duties without harassment by government officials and members of the bar.” (The “harassment” faced by Starr came in the form of criticism by Clinton’s supporters, a comically mild measure in comparison with the campaign of obstruction undertaken by Trump against Robert Mueller.) The man who today defends Trump’s right to shut down an investigation because he considers it fake news accused Clinton of having an “improper purpose of influencing and impeding an ongoing criminal investigation and intimidating possible jurors, witnesses and even investigators.”

At the time, Starr’s investigation had attained the status of holy crusade among Republicans. Conservative intellectuals routinely declared that “the rule of law” required not only protecting Starr’s infinitely broad mandate but impeaching and removing Clinton for perjuring himself about his affair. Starr himself built a cult of personality that nearly matched the status commanded today by Trump himself. One House Republican unironically composed and sang an ode to the party’s idol on the House floor. To the tune of “Twinkle Twinkle, Little Star,” he sang, “Twinkle, twinkle, Kenneth Starr, now we see how brave you are …”

Starr leveraged his fame to win the presidency of Baylor University, where he presided over a rape scandal so comprehensive and sickening it forced his resignation. He has remade himself again as a Republican legal pundit. These days he can be found attacking Mueller for “special counsel overkill” without any trace of irony.

Both parties tend, to some extent, to take opportunistic positions on the powers available to Congress and the president depending on which branch of government of they happen to control at any given time. The Republican Party does not have a monopoly on this brand of hypocrisy. But the radical inconsistency of its positions is surely unique. Republicans don’t merely swing back and forth on executive power like a pendulum, they race from one extreme position to the other.

Under the Obama administration, Republicans expressed a mordant libertarian terror of executive authority. Remember the scare campaign against “czars”? The “czar” is a colloquial term for an Executive branch position that coordinates action on an issue, like drugs, an infectious disease, or reading. President Obama used this informal method about as often as his predecessor, but Republicans seized upon it as an authoritarian plot. House Republicans sued Obama over his czars, and Representative Steve Scalise likened him to a “dictator.”

Republicans conducted endless, redundant probes of various conspiracy theories, refusing to stop when they were debunked. House Republicans conducted six investigations into Benghazi alone. In the fall of 2016, Jason Chaffetz, head of the House Oversight Committee, boasted that he had already teed up “years” of investigations against the presumptive next president, Hillary Clinton.

When Trump surprisingly won the election, they toggled back immediately from redundant conspiratorial investigative overreach into total cover-up mode. A handful of Republicans complained faintly when Trump declared he could unilaterally spend money on a border wall even if Congress didn’t approve it. They have stood behind virtually every other Trump stonewall, including his extraordinary refusal to release financial information even while he continues running a private business empire with massive conflicts of interest. Imagining how Republicans would react if Obama had attempted any of the various Trumpian abuses has become a too-easy game for the handful of disillusioned critics on the right. If only the czar hysterics knew!

This is one sense in which Trump’s authoritarian impulses place him squarely within the mainstream of his party, rather than, as figures like Joe Biden have called him, an outlier. Trump, like his party, simply refuses to recognize the legitimacy of sharing power. Power in their minds is unitary: unquestionable when in their hands, illegitimate when wielded by the opposition. Trump grew naturally out of, and fit comfortably within, the party of Starr’s and Barr’s.

Get the latest from Jonathan Chait in your inbox.

Analysis and commentary on the latest political news from New York columnist Jonathan Chait.

Terms & Privacy Notice

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

The post How the Republicans Built a Presidency Above the Law for Donald Trump appeared first on Gyrlversion.

from WordPress http://www.gyrlversion.net/how-the-republicans-built-a-presidency-above-the-law-for-donald-trump/

#Uncategorized

0 notes

hyperfixatingrn · 8 years ago

Text

Rewatch & Explanation

TL;DR: I rewatched all of season 4 and took notes on interesting things, themes, and just general things I noticed. I also responded to supposed plot holes and other questions I’ve seen floating around. The extensive notes are, expectedly, in the “keep reading.”

For anyone who cares: Season 4 of Sherlock fucked me up. Not necessarily because I was depressed by it; it was more because the show literally consumed me for almost the entire month of January. The day after TFP, I looked in the mirror and realized that I had forgotten to take care of myself for over a week.

I wasn’t fully satisfied with season 4 on my first watch, but I liked it enough. But having trusted Moftiss almost implicitly when it comes to the writing of this show, I was really surprised when this season didn’t wow me as much as it usually does. The negative attitude that just erupted with the end of the season and the feeling of impending doom concerning the show’s future was a bit too much for me. I felt my opinions of the season were too clouded and influenced by my own anxiety and other people’s frustrations. But this show has really meant so much to me for the past 7 years. So, on the Monday after TFP aired, I did what was most therapeutic and rewatched the whole season while commenting on it/answering any questions or assumed plot holes I have seen floating around, so that I could decide my real, final opinion on the season. At the end of the rewatch I cried tears and tears of joy. I really think this season is worth another shot. It wasn’t the best, but that doesn’t mean it was bad. I am finally posting it.

P.S. A side note... I’ve never really done meta and I’m too fragile/insecure to test my abilities out right now. So sometimes I will point out something or a theme/motif but not go deep into why I think it is that way. Sorry!

1. “Sherlock said he knew exactly what Moriarty was going to do next, but he didn’t.”

At the end of TAB, we see Sherlock say he knows what Moriarty is going to do next. This line is referred to in the beginning of TST. Lady Smallwood says, “...You also say you know what he’s going to do next.” To that, Sherlock responds that Moriarty has, “Planned something, something long-term. Something that would take effect if he never made it off that rooftop alive. Posthumous revenge. No, better than that - posthumous game.” What we see here is that while Sherlock does not know “exactly” the specifics of Moriarty’s return, he has basically hit the nail on the head in terms of a “posthumous game,” which we see in TFP.

side analysis: Sherlock asks if it is his birthday in TST, and then it is his birthday in TLD. Cute little wrap up.

2. In TST, we see Mycroft look at a photo of a baby girl and have no idea what to say about it. He goes on to say that he has never been good with humans. This is indicative of how he could put his sister in a prison for 30 years and tell her parents she was dead and allow her other brother to believe she doesn’t exist.

3. “Eurus’s powers are over the top. She is not a superhero.”

In TST Sherlock says, “The world is woven from billions of lives, every strand crossing every other. What we call premonition is just movement of the web. If you could attenuate to every strand of quivering data, the future would be entirely calculable. As inevitable as mathematics.” This theory is brought up a second time in the season in TLD: “Interesting, isn’t it. I have theorised before that if one could attenuate to every available data stream in the world simultaneously, it would be possible to anticipate and deduce almost anything.” As this is brought up TWICE, we can assume is how Eurus operates. It is a foreshadowing of Eurus’s impressive capabilities. She is able to predict and control the world. She is so clever that she makes herself aware of all the data of the world and can therefore predict the future. It is also worth noting that Mrs. Holmes is a former mathematician. So Eurus’s intelligence/attention to the world’s data is as easy for her as mathematics is for her mother. Ahhh... family.

4. In TST, Mycroft reveals that Sherlock wrote his own version of “Appointment in Samarra” as a child because he didn’t like that the man had to die. He writes “Appointment in Sumatra” instead where the man actually outruns death and becomes a pirate. (Sherlock is the softest.) In TFP, Moriarty reveals TO Mycroft (five years in the past) that he wrote his own version of the Nativity as a child called “The Hungry Donkey.” He says that putting a baby in a manger is just asking for it. Sherlock and Moriarty’s fan fictions give insight to the inherent emotional differences between Sherlock and Moriarty. Sherlock is highly emotional and afraid of death, while Moriarty welcomes it. Much like how Sherlock fakes his death, but Moriarty shoots himself in the mouth just to win the argument.

5. “TFP was just a bunch of horror movies in one episode.”

Well, while I lack the knowledge to actually dispute this (I don’t watch horror movies) the horror movie trend was already set in TST. While John and Mary discuss Rosie’s destruction of the front room, they mention a couple of horror movies, The Exorcist and The Omen, and then speak about how Rosie cannot be both the devil and the antichrist.

side analysis: Napoleon is mentioned twice in the series. Once by Craig in TST: “Thatcher’s like, I dunno, Napoleon now.” And once by Sherlock in TLD: “Napoleon Bonaparte... Actually, just Napoleon would do.”

6. A theme of daughters.

I was suspicious of this, but I believe my theory has been confirmed. There is at least one daughter in every episode. TST: Rosie and also the daughter of Jack Sandeford, the owner of the last Thatcher bust. TLD: Culverton’s daughter Faith. TFP: Eurus. In TST, Sandeford’s daughter is swimming in the pool. This is most likely a foreshadow for the deep water nightmares and Eurus’s relation to it. Faith is the daughter of a psychopath, while Eurus is a real psychopath, and Eurus disguises herself as Faith. This obviously isn’t a proper analysis... but the fact is there.

7. Sherlock is off his game is TST, but the revealing part is why.

Sherlock is trying very hard in TST to be Season 1′s “high functioning sociopath.” He wants to be unemotional and focused on only work. He texts during his best friend’s important life events and doesn’t seriously engage with anyone in a manner that is unrelated to work. He is assumes his strategies have succeeded and that he knows exactly what is happening. He assumes Moriarty is behind the busts because Mycroft mentioned that Jim had, “latterly shown some interest in tracking down the Black Pearl of the Borgias.” Which is why Sherlock breaks the Thatcher bust with such arrogance saying, “Let me present Interpol’s number one case. Too tough for them, too boring for me.” He is wrong about what is in the bust, obviously. He misses what is “right in front of him.” Sherlock also loses his cool and goes off on deduction temper tantrums twice in the episode. First, he fake-deduces that a man’s wife is a spy, just because the man thought he had “done something clever,” but it’s actually quite “simple.” In this moment, we see that Sherlock still has a lot of growing up to do. We see it again in his interaction with Mrs. Norbury as he degrades her again and again, even as Mary warns him not to. He ends it with a kicker: “Vivian Norbury, who outsmarted them all. All except Sherlock Holmes.” The second fit proves fatal to his best friend’s wife. In the end, Sherlock must realize that it is not his detached, callous, emotionless manner that gets him to solve the cases AND save the life. It is his heart. That is what is so important about this episode and really why it starts the journey of Season 4.

8. “Families fall out.” - Sherlock

Sherlock says this in TST in response to Mary. Clearly foreshadowing Eurus. What is even more damning is the game he plays with the boy in Morocco.

Sherlock: Mr. Baker. Well, that completes the set.

Boy: No, it does not.

Sherlock: Well, who else am I missing?

Boy: Master Bun. It’s not a set without him.

Sherlock: I suppose I’m not familiar with the concept... happy families.

This is so clearly a reference to the fact that Sherlock is unaware his family is incomplete, yet still completely aware that his family is unhappy. Also Mr. Baker? Baker Street? Mr. Baker is probably a symbol for Sherlock. Sherlock saying that Mr. Baker completes the set shows that he believes he is the youngest child and the end of the Holmes family. The boy then says Sherlock is missing “Master Bun,” who is apparently a “him” in this game, but I think that the metaphor still holds.

9. “There was no indication that Sherlock dreamt of water. Also how could Sherlock dream of water if he had no idea about the well?”

Well first of all, it is clearly stated that Eurus called him “Drowned Redbeard,” but never told them where he was. So it is perfectly reasonable to believe that Sherlock would be haunted by water as his “dog” drowned in it. We also see that Sherlock’s memories are coming back to him even before he is aware of Eurus. When Mary knocks Sherlock out with the drugged letter he has a dream of Redbeard, playing pirate, and Eurus’s song. Then as the dream fades out you see Sherlock running off in the distance, with another boy. Who we know is not Mycroft, because Mycroft was pretty overweight as a child and also much taller than Sherlock. So this is clearly a hazy memory of Victor coming back to Sherlock. As Sherlock wakes up you hear the crashing of the waves, which again emphasizes the importance of water. When the bullet starts towards Sherlock he instantly has a look of fear as a reflection of water dances across his face and loud sounds of water splash all around him. Here we see another example of how Eurus was right and it is true that Sherlock has nightmares of deep water. In Sherlock’s session with Ella, she asks him, “You’ve been having dreams. A recurring dream?” SO we must assume this is a dream about water as it is a reoccurring motif. Sherlock AGAIN hears Eurus’s song in TLD when he is on the bank after Eurus, disguised as Faith, says, “Anyone.”

10. “Not on my watch.”

This phrase is said three times in season 4. It is said by both Sherlock and Mycroft. Mycroft says it in TST, “I don’t like loose ends, not on my watch.” Sherlock says it in TST and TFP. He says it in TST in response to Mycroft suggesting Mary would be “retired in a pretty permanent way.” And he says it in TFP in response to Eurus. “Five minutes. It took her just five minutes to do all of this to us. Well, not on my watch.” I feel as though the implication of actual minutes gives a deeper meaning to the phrase “not on my watch” in TFP. Like, perhaps it wasn’t actually five minutes, it was much longer or much shorter... Just a thought. Fucky.

11. Planes

This is a weak thought, but again the facts are there... There’s never been a season with more than one plane and in season 4 there are three. The one Mary is on disguised as an American, the one all three of them are on, and the one Eurus is on. And John daydreams Eurus (disguised as the girl on the bus) while on the plane, which is coincidental considering Eurus’s main dream/hallucination is that she is on a plane.

12. Culverton poster in TST foreshadowing (I just honestly didn’t notice the tagline)

“It’s murder in...”

13. In TST, in between the shots of Norbury being escorted out of the aquarium and John in the cemetery, we see a visual of a casket burning. This cannot be Mary because she would either be cremated without a casket or put in a casket (I’m not an expert, but I’m pretty sure that’s how it works?) After watching TFP for the second time, I can confirm that the casket is either pratically identical or is the Molly Hooper casket in TFP. So the question is: Why? Honestly I don’t know. I’ll get back to you.

14. I wish this was #13, but it didn’t work out that way. So the question is WHAT is 13th? It is on a post-it note on Mycroft’s fridge and he sees it and immediately calls Sherrinford. What does it all mean? That doesn’t mean it’s a plot hole, it just means it’s something that hasn’t been explained explicitly. There is a difference.

15. “Your kitchen window faces east.”

Sherlock says this in TLD in his explanation to “Faith” about how he knew her kitchen was tiny. “Faith” is Eurus. Eurus is the east wind. EAST WIND IS COMING. Obviously a foreshadow that this woman is Eurus and the east wind.

16. Development: Mycroft

In TLD, when Lady Smallwood defends Sherlock’s grief over Mary, Mycroft says, “Everybody dies. It’s the one thing human beings can be relied upon to do. How can it still come as a surprise to people?” He is so callous he almost sounds like Moriarty. However, in TFP, he refuses to take a man’s life, “I can’t do this. It’s murder.” He is the one at Sherrinford who cannot take the violence or death. He is constantly shocked by death in TFP. This is clear human development on Mycroft’s part. He is learning and growing and becoming more human.

17. “Is he with someone?” “Not sure. We keep losing visual.”

I think this part has been vastly overlooked. At the time I believe some assumed (though not me because I know a Sian Brooke when I see one) that this little interaction between Mycroft and the man watching the video feed suggested that Sherlock was hallucinating Faith, but after it was confirmed that she was real, the interaction was glassed over. The interaction signifies, to me, that Eurus has power in the government as well or at least that Sherrinford kept keeping Mycroft from seeing her.

18. Game of chess.

Remember in TEH, we think we see Sherlock and Mycroft enraptured in a game of chess, but it actually turns out to be a simple game of operation. In season 4, there were many visuals of a chess table. The hostages in TST play chess and say, “Chess palls after three months.” In TLD, as Sherlock falls onto his couch after his swirling hallucination, we see a chess table underneath the couch. It also in the last shot of the flat before the scene in which Eurus is revealed. In the promotional photos of TFP, Mycroft and Sherlock are actually playing chess, as opposed to in TEH. This probably suggests that season 3 was easier and more child’s play, and that the struggles the boys are up against in season 4 are much more serious and complicated.

19. Once More Unto the Breach

EASILY my favorite scene in the entire seires, besides the hug and Sherlock/baby scenes. Drugged out Sherlock/Ben reciting Shakespeare is something I thought I could have only imagined in my wildest fantasies. This speech itself is usually pretty tame in comparison, though, in context, it is King Henry V RILING his troops up to try to once again attack a weak spot in the enemy’s walls. What is worth noting is that this is the speech when Mrs. Hudson becomes part of the plan to save John Watson. She watched the video, so she might be aware of what Sherlock is doing, but she decides to speed him up. She becomes one of his troops. Also, at the end of his speech he shoots a picture of Culverton with a quote that says, “You wouldn’t believe the things they let me get away with!” Nice detail.

20. Eurus answers John’s phone

WOAHH. Something I totally missed first time watching. Eurus answers John’s phone while he’s dealing with Sherlock and the person on the other end is Culverton Smith. So... that’s worth noting. Especially considering later that she says that Culverton Smith “gave” her the letter. Also like... John is polite to women and also distracted so he doesn’t call her out on this, but like that ISN’T chill. That’s his first session and she answers his phone? Something was off right away.

21. “Get me a fresh glass of water, please, this one’s filthy.”

VERY funny. I laughed, we all laughed. BUT Eurus actually gets him a new glass of water. A metaphor possibly? We all know that he is haunted by her song and water... sooo.... idk just an idea

22. “It’s gone downhill a bit, hasn’t it?”

Everyone assumed that this scene was an indication that this was a dream. No one really knew who John was. It was off, but maybe for a different reason. Let’s consider the fact that John probably hasn’t really been with Sherlock for a significant time. It’s been over three months since Mary died (because it had been three months from when Sherlock had the drug hallucination after Faith to when he and John met Culverton) and also it has been over half a year since the baby was born. John hasn’t gone out with Sherlock in, I’d say at least four months. And before that he was going out with him less and less because of the baby and maybe his last blogs were rushed or spotty BECAUSE he was multitasking and he had a lot on his mind. So, what we can assume is that the blog HAS gone downhill and people are maybe even starting to forget John Watson, which is frankly John’s worst nightmare and sets off his temper. It also makes me wonder if this is related to why John was looking at an image of his blog in TST.

23. The sheep in the waiting room

This visual IMMEDIATELY reminded me of “The Story of Sir Boast-a-lot” in TRF. I actually thought it WAS the exact same visual at first. The sheep are jumping over a fence which is suggestive of “counting sheep to get to sleep.” SO, it is understandable that some people believed this was a dream. I tend to think that instead it was just a hypnotizing, drug-affected scene. Sherlock isn’t totally there. He feels “psychedelic,” as he just topped up in the bathroom. He’s awake, but he isn’t totally there.

24. “Why did John beat up Sherlock? Why didn’t he trust the evidence in front of him instead of listening to Culverton?”

Well, from what we’ve learned from TFP, Eurus can reprogram people’s minds. Eurus was John’s therapist. Whether Eurus made John more susceptible to insecurity or the death of his wife did, I’m not sure. But what we do know is that in the scene in the mortuary Culverton mocks John’s intelligence many times. He really drives home the point that John’s an idiot and not a real doctor for listening to Sherlock who is too high to know what’s real anymore. These attacks really shake John, whereas I argue they would not have in the past. He is usually rather confident in himself and his abilities. But this insecurity in him is rather noticeable. It is also pretty valid. John is nearing rock bottom already and it takes one more nudge from Culverton to get him to the bottom of the barrel. Whether it was Eurus or Mary’s death that made him so fragile, is up for debate. As for John attacking Sherlock, we can speculate whether Euros programmed John to beat up Sherlock. However, I would like to imagine that John just loses his mind in that mortuary. He is not himself. He hasn’t spent time with the man who keeps him grounded, Sherlock, in maybe over 4 months. His wife is dead. He doesn’t spend time with his daughter. He is losing himself. He takes it out on Sherlock, which is not healthy or good, I agree. I cannot explain this away. I would like to quote John Watson on this one, “Why can’t some things be unacceptable and we just accept that?”

25. “Why did Mrs. Hudson call Mycroft a reptile? A bit overboard?”

Well, right before Mrs. Hudson calls Mycroft a reptile she tells everyone to get out because they’re about to watch John’s deceased wife’s video. She says that “Anyone who stays here a minute longer is admitting to me personally they do not have a single spark of human decency.” And then everyone leaves, except Mycroft, who stays with his eyes fixed on the screen ready to watch. So she calls him a reptile because he has just proved that he doesn’t have a “single spark of human decency.” She is such a BAMF. She is the ideal grandma.

26. “I don’t want to die.”

This is profound for me. Sherlock has always been incredibly careless with his life. In ASIP, he was willing to risk the 50/50 chance of death, just to prove he was clever. In TGG, he anxiously scratches the back of his head with a GUN. He doesn’t appear to value his life. He risks death, or great harm, more times than I can count, just for the high or just to prove he’s clever. BUT, this episode we finally see the turn. We see Sherlock understand that when you die you’re not losing your own life, your friends and family are losing you. “Your life is not your own. Keep your hands off it. Off it.” And now as he faces death, he cries and admits that he doesn’t want to die. This man is not Season 1 Sherlock Holmes.

27. “How did Eurus get the original note??? Why?”

This one is tricky, not a plot hole, just challenging (as Gatiss said). But I do have some theories. Eurus says that, “Culverton gave me the original note. A mutual friend put us in touch.” We must assume, or at least I did, that this mutual friend is Moriarty, unless Eurus made other “friends” on Sherrinford. We can also assume this because Eurus says that Sherlock didn’t get the “big one” (one as in deduction that she added to the note), which WAS “Miss Me?” Now what she says about who gave it to her causes me to come up with three possible theories all of which start which the fact that I assume Culverton is friends or at least in touch with Moriarty as they are both legendary criminals. These are the theories: 1. Culverton decided he wanted to finally be free and confess to everyone permanently (why else would he keep the note after all that time?) and gave Moriarty the note to give to someone to help him out. BUT based off of Culverton’s face when he finds out that Sherlock had a recording device in John’s walking cane, this theory seems unlikely. 2. Culverton gave it as a present to Moriarty because Moriarty is weird and twisted like that and would probably love a present like that. THEN Moriarty gave it to Eurus. And finally... 3. Culverton told Moriarty about the note, Moriarty told Eurus about the note, then Eurus drugged Culverton (with TD-12???) and stole the note herself. So perhaps when she says that Culverton gave her the original note, she’s more being ironic and doesn’t mean it as precisely as it comes off.

28. The gun. “A tranquilizer gun is not the same as a real gun...”

I thought that I was going to have a very difficult time analyzing this or even proving this wrong until I actually rewatched the scene. The focus is never put on the gun. The gun is actually never in focus. Then we hear a gun shot and we look down the barrel of a gun. When you look down the barrel of the gun in the end and the screen turns red, I believe that meant to be a literal red herring because quite honestly, to me, the barrel we stare down in that final moment does not look the same as the gun in the rest of the scene. The gun she is flailing around (out of focus, mind you) seems to have two separate barrels, which is what appears to be the requirement of a tranquilizer gun. And I did some research on tranquilizer guns and what they can look like, and they can look quite similar to a regular gun, not exactly alike, but similar. And then the plot hole question becomes “John is a soldier, shouldn’t he have known the difference?” Well, as capable as John is, I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt in this situation, because I’ve been to therapy and I know what it’s like to have your guard down and then suddenly realize your therapist isn’t trustworthy. It’s very intense. So a woman he trusted suddenly started locking him in and revealed she was the crazy secret sister of his best friend who he had also vaguely had an affair with and then she pointed a gun to his face. No matter his training, he was not prepared to be in battle mode and check out whether her gun was real. If it looks like a psychopath and talks like a psychopath, assume she’s pointing a real gun at you, was probably his instinct.

29. “So you’re telling me Eurus was just going to “tranquilize” John so he could just run and tell Sherlock??”

Yes... literally that is what I am telling you. She planned a massive, intense, dark game for Sherlock at Sherrinford. Are you telling me she was just going to kill John and risk Sherlock never showing up to her murder island? Of course she wants him to find out who she is. But also she’s a HOLMES. She wants credit for her cleverness. THEN ALSO people are saying, “Yeah ok, but then why did she send a grenade to their house.” As we’ve already discussed Eurus can accurately predict people’s actions almost perfectly. She probably predicted how they would react to the grenade and how they would try and save themselves from the grenade. A point I will make later is that the aftermath of the blast does not seem that devastating. All of the walls are fine. Sherlock and John’s chairs are fine. Papers and stuff are burnt but there is no structural damage. I believe Mycroft overestimated how awful the grenade would be. I don’t even think it would have killed them. They all survived. She wanted them to come. She didn’t plan for five years for nothing. She just wanted to play with their heads.

30. “Why would Mycroft’s first instinct be to smile when he saw his family film rather than the movie he was watching? Rather than wondering what was wrong?”

Well as they (they as in Mycroft and Sherlock) say, “Sentiment is a chemical defect found in the losing side.” Mycroft is clever, but as Mrs. Hudson points out... he’s an idiot and he’s becoming more human every episode. So when he sees himself as an overweight child eating cake next to his “brother mine” of course he smiles. Of course, he’s confused. But of course he smiles.

31. If TFP was going for the horror movie theme, this opening scene really sets it up very nicely. It gave me chills the first and second time watching.

32. “How could Redbeard have been a child? If he was, how could Mycroft talk about it as if it was nothing?”

Well, I believe there are a couple things of note here. Mycroft, while cold, cares about Sherlock a lot. This is made clear from the very first episode. We see in the TFP that even when Sherlock felt he was bullying him by bringing up Redbeard or the “east wind,” Mycroft was trying to analyze Sherlock and see if his memories had resurfaced, if at all. He’s very sensitive about it. He worries. In the scene in the flat, Mycroft is delicately telling Sherlock about his sister that he forgot existed and I think it would have been a bad idea for him to suddenly drop the bomb that his beloved dog was actually his best friend. Mycroft lies to protect Sherlock. When Sherlock accusing Mycroft of lying, he admits it and says, “It is also a kindness.” Another moment that is revealing is:

John: You don’t lock up a child because a dog goes missing.

Mycroft: Quite so.

So Mycroft is actually hinting that Eurus wasn’t locked up because a dog went missing, but for a much bigger reason: Victor Trevor’s death. He continues to go into depth on why they had to send her away, which reveals a scene in which she draws Sherlock’s death a number of times while her parents talk in the background. Daddy Holmes says, “She knows where he is!” To which Mommy Holmes responds, “We can’t make her tell us. We can’t make her do anything.” This already indicates that it is a much bigger issue than a dog, though I admit I missed it at first glance. If Eurus had drowned a dog, they wouldn’t still be worrying about where the body is. Only a human body would still be necessary for a funeral and also the family. Another side point is that, a dog is usually a family thing, but Sherlock has always described it as “his dog.” At first I thought this was endearing, but then I realized it was because Victor was HIS best friend and that’s how he remembered it.

33. “John knows what grenades are & Mycroft knew what that specific grenade was and could have mentioned it before the motion sensor turned on!”

In terms of Mycroft, he’s not used to field work. You hear him say the second he sees it, “Keep back! Keep as still as you can!” His reflexes are not as sharp as John’s or Sherlock’s because he’s a behind the scenes man. If Sherlock had known what it was he would have formulated a plan in seconds. He’s the “dragon slayer,” he lives for the action. Mycroft however is always on the other side. He panicked, I believe. He knew what he was seeing and tried to warn them, but it wasn’t good enough. He is not perfect or great in the field and we see especially in TFP. As Sherlock points out, “I’m beginning to think you’re not [clever].” In terms of John, this is very clearly not a regular grenade, or one John is used to, because someone would have to pull the plug and throw it, while this is resting on a drone. If John had seen a grenade thrown in a room his response time would be immediate. Again, when called to battle his reflexes are immediate. His question also comes immediately after he hears Mycroft say, “Keep as still as you can!” This I guess begs the question exactly what KIND of grenade are we dealing with? So he IMMEDIATELY, literally immediately after Mycroft says that, asks “What is it?” I think he was asking very specifically what kind of grenade it was rather than being like, “oi doi, what’s that? I’ve never seen one of these before.” He was responding to Mycroft’s fierce reaction. He wanted the specifics based on the reaction.

34. “How are Sherlock, John, and Mycroft not scathed at all after enduring a blast of a grenade?”

To be fair, I think Mycroft vastly overestimated its powers. I don’t actually think it was that deadly. If they had stood in the same spot, sure. BUT, the entire flat was mostly salvageable after the burst, so the bomb couldn’t have been that bad. There was absolutely no structural damage and all of the furniture was fine. I think it was a fire that burned hot but burned quick. It wasn’t that deadly. Eurus wanted them to get to her, so she wasn’t trying to kill them. Think of it like TGG when Sherlock endures the blast of the bomb from across the street, but is not in the bomb, so he doesn’t really get hurt. A second story window is honestly not that high. Yes broken glass, but their backs endured most of the damage. Their arms/elbows went through the glass first so as not to damage their beautiful faces. Who knows if they have scratches on their backs and arms. They were covered for the entirety of the episode. Anything that happened to them would probably be bruises or cuts beneath their clothes. The jump is a bit fantastical, yes. But Sherlock has always been that way. Always. We’ve just always forgiven it or accepted it as part of the world.

35. “How did they get on the boat?”

Helicopter. The new boy on the boat asks if he hears a helicopter, but the older man passes it off as just the weather. But this is the helicopter that helps Sherlock and John get on the boat. Helicopters have drop down ladders or ropes. Not that difficult really. They do it in the military all the time. John is a soldier and Sherlock is clearly very trained in many forms of things so, not that far fetched.

36. “It’s totally ooc for Sherlock to ignore Vatican Cameos.”

Well, yeah. That’s 100% the point. Eurus is intoxicating for almost everyone. Sherlock is so distracted by her psychotic nature that he doesn’t notice that there is NO GLASS. He admits the scheme is so easy “its transparent” (haha pun). But seriously, this moment was supposed to make you feel uneasy. None of them are safe, none of them are in their element. This whole EPISODE is meant to make you feel uneasy.

37. “The Molly scene was sexist and unnecessary.”

Okay, but like... of course it’s unnecessary. Murder Island is unnecessary. Unnecessary is a very subjective word. The whole point is that Eurus is psychotic and an ACTUAL psychopath who doesn’t understand the benefit of emotions or sentiment. She is analyzing Sherlock for his emotions. She is using people to experiment with his emotions. It’s awful. Molly will survive, her entire life will not be defined by this moment. AND if it is it will be for the best reason. She will finally move on or she will figure out who she is. I’m not saying that this scene was good, but in the worst situations come the best recoveries. To me she is not “throw away” and never was, and I disagree greatly with anyone that says that “this scene proved she is.” I think that Molly is inCREDIBLY strong. It’s like John said in TLD, Molly “see’s through [Sherlock’s] bullshit.” And I really feel like we see that in this scene. She isn’t weak. She is a woman in love, but she isn’t weak. She almost hangs up on him and tells him to stop making fun of her. That is a very brave thing to do. And then, the best part for me, she makes him tell her he loves her first. He must embarrass himself too. She won’t allow herself to be the sole prisoner of this game. THEN after he says it, she almost hangs up. Molly is a bad ass ok? This scene isn’t fun. But Molly is a great character. Just since season 1, she has proved time and time again that she survives and every time you think she’s been broken she comes back better. In that scene, Molly was crying and having a bad day so, I assumed that she had broken up with her fiancee Tom. I should have done some engagement ring analysis from the rest of the season, BUT in TFP she is definitely not wearing an engagement ring. So by this analysis this is honestly just an awful time for her and why she’s crying so much. And as to her still loving Sherlock, I still love people I shouldn’t and have never even been with and they have broken my heart. It’s just that until you find the right person, you’re in love with the person you were in love with before. She is not destined to be the girl that never gets over Sherlock Holmes, she just hasn’t found the right man yet. It is not sexist or anti-feminist to be in love with someone for a long time. Loo even tweeted that herself. The really important part about this scene is what it does to Sherlock. When Sherlock finds out that he did that to Molly for NOTHING? He breaks a fucking coffin. He is DEVASTATED. He hates that he has to embarrass her like that. Which is soooo different from Season 1 Sherlock who embarrassed Molly all the time without even realizing it. For me this scene is beautifully dark. After murder island Sherlock definitely came back and was like, “Molly I’m so so sorry. I thought your flat was going to explode and that was the code word.” And she would be like, “Oh. You’re a bastard, but okay.” Long live Molly Hooper.

38. “Why is Molly talking to her home screen?”

On smart phones this is actually completely possible. You can have a call and do a million things at one time. You can click the home button and still be on the call. I’m sorry, but this question is really lazy. This might have actually been a mistake while making the show, but even if it wasn’t like... we all know that it is possible to still be talking on the phone while your phone is on it’s home screen. Maybe she accidentally clicked the home button.

39. “How did Sherlock destroy a coffin without hurting himself?”

Because it was a cheap ass coffin. Couldn’t we all tell the second we saw it that it was a cheap ass coffin? It’s tiny and flimsy. He also, when he starts actually grabbing at pieces and destroying it, pretty clearly grabbed it by the fabric (so it was soft on his hands) and flung it around.

40. A big moment for me in this episode was watching Mycroft watch John and Sherlock, like anytime they did anything. He realized how crucial John was. Especially after Sherlock destroys the coffin, John just goes over and tells him he has to get it together and helps him up and Mycroft clearly analyzes this. And in the next scene he is calculatedly callous to help Sherlock decide to shoot him instead of John. Sherlock reads into it immediately. It made me cry.

Sherlock: Even your Lady Bracknell was more convincing.

Mycroft: You said you liked my Lady Bracknell.

41. “It’s out of character that John didn’t react when Sherlock had a gun to his head.”

John trusts Sherlock and this was Sherlock taking control of the situation. This is what John knows. In that moment, EURUS actually starts freaking out and you realize that Sherlock is now in charge. I don’t know if John believed that Sherlock would actually end up shooting himself. I know Sherlock believed it; he was willing to die for Mycroft and John, but I think John was perhaps in shock, maybe also not wanting to startle a man with a gun to his chin, but I also firmly believe that he finally had some hope.

42. “How did she get them from Sherrinford to Musgrave so quickly?”

Who said it was quickly? We have to assume they were out for hours. It was daytime when they were at Sherrinford and it’s the middle of the night at Musgrave. Sherlock even asks the “little girl” how long he’s been gone and she says, “hours. Hours and hours.”

43. “John is a doctor. He should know what kind of bones they are.”

This comment actually makes me laugh really hard hahaha. Look, it’s pitch black so he can’t see, he’s wet so his sense of touch is off, and also it’s been .05 seconds. He’s a doctor identifying bones with no eyes, not an archeologist. Give him a minute. He gets it eventually.

44. “Why does Victor eat out of a dog’s bowl?”

He doesn’t. This comment also makes me laugh REALLY hard ahahhahah. Eurus put it there for dramatic effect. Holmes siblings can’t resist a flair for the dramatic.

45. “Sherlock’s reaction to John in the well is so ooc. Remember how he reacted when John was in the bonfire?”

Okay, these are two ENTIRELY different events and reactions for MANY reasons. In the bonfire incident, Sherlock had no reason to believe John was in danger before Mary received the texts. Sherlock was enjoying his chips (well, to a certain extent... “You’re suicidal. you’re allowed chips.”) when Mary interrupted his evening. In TFP, John and Sherlock have been tested throughout the entire episode, so Sherlock was bound to already assume that John was in some kind of cell or dark, dingy place when they awoke. In TEH, Sherlock and John were not on speaking terms at the moment and Sherlock hadn’t truly spent time with him in two years. The idea of losing him just like that was, imaginably, very rattling. It prompted the first “Oh my God,” that we have ever heard out of the mouth of Sherlock Holmes. We can assume it is unnerving for Sherlock to ever think of losing John, but in that moment he was just not even close to ready, okay? In TFP, Sherlock and John are back to normal. They shared that lovely, tender hug, released all of their tension and are now basically as good as new. Their banter in the beginning of the episode was very classic. Sherlock has nothing to prove to John right now in terms of his loyalty to him and their friendship. ALSO John in TEH was literally unconscious, underneath a soon-to-be blazing bonfire that was miles awake from Baker Street. The response time in terms of saving John’s life needed to be much quicker in TEH. In TFP, John is fully conscious and aware in a flooding well that’s on the property Sherlock is standing on. He is also chained to the bottom of this well. Sherlock has no idea where this well is and there is also a little girl who he believes is about to die. He knows John is a very capable man who, at least in this instance (unlike TEH), is conscious and vaguely able to try and fend for himself while Sherlock tries to not only save his life but a child’s. We see the same sort of heat and fear in Sherlock when he insists, “I AM FINDING YOU!” but it is just a different situation. John is not burning and he can try to survive a bit longer while Sherlock buys them time. These are the same married men in a different scenario.

46. “Okay but a CHILD? You wouldn’t stop looking for a CHILD!”

They probably didn’t! Remember, Mycroft has been lying to them! There was no dog and they definitely didn’t stop looking after a short amount of time. Remember Daddy & Mommy Holmes talking about how Eurus knew where Victor was? Well, that was them TRYING to find him. Trying to figure it out. Still searching for the body. If they they did stop looking, it’s only because they looked for so long. Child gone missing is a common report and many cases don’t get solved. And you also certainly don’t think to first look in a well because your son’s best friend’s sister just might have pushed him down there.

47. After Sherlock solves the song’s puzzle he stands on the beach in his mind palace and young Eurus runs around him playing with a toy plane as she asks Sherlock to play with her. Maybe I was overstimulated the first time through, but I did not notice this. It gave me goose bumps.

48. “How could Sherlock forgive her? After she did all those things?”

Because he’s her brother. When he ran into the room after realizing who she is and says, “But I’m not a stranger am I? I’m your brother,” I instantly got emotional. Because in that moment it’s not about the psychopath, it’s about the terrified girl who never got to grow up or have a family. Eurus has been in a holding cell, alone, since she was a child. To me that is inhumane no matter how seemingly insane the child is. Children are children. She was never taught how to behave because she was never given a chance. She’s a psychopath, but she craves love. Yes, people died because of her; she’s a villain. But, he’s Sherlock Holmes. She is his family and he’s going to save her. Sherlock understands what Mycroft didn’t. Like Daddy Holmes says, “Whatever she did. Whatever she became. She remains our daughter.” Family is family, man. There’s not much else too it.

49. “They saved John with a ROPE? HIS FEET ARE CHAINED.”

I originally agreed with this argument/plot hole until I realized... really, in what universe would a legitimate fire department or police department carry around a plain ass rope to save people with? They probably threw down the well’s rope (don’t wells usually have ropes to like pull up buckets of water?) to give John something to hold himself up and continue to “try as long as possible not to drown” (his feet weren’t chained right to the bottom. They had about a feet of chain on them) to give the rescue teams time to actually get down there and... rescue him. We didn’t see the rescue and John grabbed at the rope pretty anxiously (because he was dying), so we all just assumed that it was how he got out. But it’s also a pretty bad plan to pull a fully grown man (lol. even considering how short this man is) up a very deep, rough and stony edged well with a thin rope. So yeah... let’s not assume that he was saved with a rope just because that’s all we saw.

50. “You were always the grown up.”

There are some people complaining about this line and saying it is inconsistent. I actually find it completely consistent with a parent’s view of what a grown up is. A grown up is intelligent and emotional and able to make the correct decision. Yes, we see Mycroft taking care of a Sherlock’s most childish self a lot of the time, but when it comes to decision making, Sherlock has him beat by a lot. Sherlock is emotional and intelligent. He is able to make a more informed, adult decision.

51. She just wanted to play with him. And now they’re doing violin duets together as she’s in solitary confinement. My heart swells.

52. The commentary on “Who you really are? It doesn’t matter.”

That quote itself, alone, is definitely not great. Who you are does matter. Always. But lets look at the context of the quote. “I know who you really are. A junky who solves crimes to get high. And the doctor who never came home from the war... Who you really are, it doesn’t matter. It’s all about the legend.” This quote is to say, you two, as individuals, are messes. But that doesn’t matter. Together you are one unstoppable legend. You are two halves of a whole. John Watson showed Sherlock where his heart is and if that’s not a love story...

Soo THAT’S IT. I hope you enjoyed...

@huglocked, @sherlock-addict

#Sherlock #Sherlock Holmes #John Watson #Season 4 #The Final Problem #The Six Thatchers #The Lying Detective #Molly Hooper #Johnlock #Mary Watson #Steven Moffat #Mark Gatiss #BBC Sherlock

16 notes · View notes

douchebagbrainwaves · 4 years ago

Text

OK, I'LL TELL YOU YOU ABOUT DISTINCTION

055427782 examples 0. Make yourself perfect and then just paint naturally. With OS X, Apple has come back from the dead in a way that is extremely rare in technology. I realized, is how does the comber-over not see how odd he looks? Essays should do the opposite.1 As you might expect, it winds all over the place. Those ideas are so rare that you can't change the question.2

If you're hard enough to overcome one's own misconceptions without having to think about it, because they were living in the future, I always have to struggle to come up with answers.3 I'm old enough to remember that era; the usual term for people with their own hands.4 Because to the extent of acting on it. If we've learned one thing from funding so many startups, it's that they succeed or fail based on the underlying machine instruction. It's a lot of people: that you could make a language that was ideal for writing a slow version 1, and yet make it seem conversational. If large organizations started to ask questions like that, they'd find some surprises. I've found, again by trial and error, that.5 Both customers and investors will be who else is investing? What happened next was that, some time in late 1958, Steve Russell, one of them the top one shockingly inefficient, and the language was usable.6 Macros in the Lisp sense are still, as far as I know, unique to Lisp. At least, that's how we'd describe it in present-day union leaders would have to be a big company.7 They were the kind of code analysis that would be of the slightest use to those producing it.

2, most managers deliberately ignore this. These are some of the time, and runtime. And someone with a real thirst for knowledge will be able to write, regardless of whatever obstacles are in the way Confucius or Socrates wanted people to be. On Demo Day each startup will only get harder, because change is accelerating. Brand is the residue left as the substantive differences between rich and poor. In fact, you don't need as many hackers, and b since you come into the new domain totally ignorant, you don't even know what the basic human reaction to a famous painting will be warped at first by its fame, there are more than fifteen words with probabilities of. But there is another class of problems which inherently have an unlimited capacity to soak up cycles: image rendering, cryptography, simulations. I mean show, not tell. Slashdot, for example, does not seem to have co-evolved with our interest in them; the face is the body's billboard. People's problems are similar enough that nearly all the code you write this way will be reusable. It's good to talk about how you plan to make money and to get attention, and a combined probability of.

Will we even be writing programs in an imaginary hundred-year language could, in principle, be designed today, and 2 such a language, if it existed, might be good to program in. One technique you can use any language that you're already familiar with and that has good libraries for whatever you need to write. But those you don't publish. Expressing the language in its own data structures turns out to be false. Companies sending spam often give you a way to improve filtering. Ideas One idea that I haven't tried yet is to filter based on word pairs would be in effect a Markov-chaining text generator running in reverse. Greg Mcadoo said one thing Sequoia looks for is the proxy for demand.8 Steve Russell said, look, why don't I program this eval. In a few days it will be more room for what would now be considered slow languages, meaning languages that don't yield very efficient code.

This is not one of those problems where there might not be an answer. This will become ever more clear as computers get faster. That was exactly what the world needs, but that there be few of them. Startups generally need to raise some amount of frustration is inevitable in certain kinds of work are underpaid. The other half, the younger half, will complain that this is the truth. Lisp functions as Lisp data, and such a notation was devised for the purposes of the paper with no thought that it would be a good writer, any more than you'd learn about sex in a class.9 Being good art is art that achieves its purpose particularly well. Jobs would speak for the entire 10 minutes. That is, no matter when you're talking, parallel computation seems to be as good as the famous artists they've seen in books, and the techniques I used may be applicable to ideas in general.10 Although your product may not be very appealing yet, if you're determined to spend a lot of it. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy: DH0.

There are a couple pieces of good news here. It's often mistakenly believed that medieval universities were mostly seminaries. Though the nature of future discoveries is hard to predict, I think it would be even harder than making the message look innocent.11 The reason there's a convention of being ingratiating in print is that most essays are written to persuade. But don't be too smug about this weakness of theirs, because you can only travel in one direction in time. And if you weren't. It's possible to buy expensive, handmade cars that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Don't put too many words on slides. I can't think of an answer, especially when they're projected onto a screen. For example, consider the following problem. If there's something we can do to decrease the number of nonspam and spam messages respectively.

But you should be able to deliver more software to users. The word essay comes from the controversial topic of wealth, no one would be able to design the core language today. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory. Even if all you care about that and have thought about it.12 Raising money is not like applying to college, where you can throw together an unbelievably inefficient version 1 of a program should reflect only the problem it needs to solve. There continued to be bribes, as there still are everywhere, but politics had by then been left to men who were driven more by vanity than greed. So the acquirer is in fact the distinction we began with has a rather brutal converse: just as you can.

Now high school kids could write software or design web sites. Which means, strangely enough, that coming up with startup ideas is a question of fashion than technology, even he can probably get to an edge of programming e. When I was five I thought electricity was created by the middle class as people who are best at making things don't want to wait for Python to evolve the rest of their lives. A good trick for bypassing the schlep and to some extent its own justification?13 Don't you learn things at the best schools that you wouldn't learn at lesser places?14 Numbers stick in people's heads.15 Since speed doesn't matter in most of a program from the implementation details. I use the number of points on the curve decreases.

Notes

Whereas there is one way in which those considered more elegant consistently came out shorter perhaps after being macroexpanded or compiled. Incidentally, this thought experiment: suppose prep schools do, and not be able to.

It seemed better to embrace the fact that it sounds plausible, you create wealth with no environmental cost. They'd be interchangeable if markets stood still.

Give us 10 million and we'll tell you who they are so much the effect of this essay began by talking about why something isn't the last thing you tend to be about web-based alternative to Office may not be able to fool investors with such tricks will approach. Instead of making a good plan for the talk to corp dev people are magnified by the investors. These range from make-believe, is deliberately intended to be a lot of people who don't, you're going to work not just for her but for blacklists nearness is physical, and the reaction might be enough to defend their interests in political and legal disputes.

It derives from efforts by businesses to circumvent NWLB wage controls in order to pick the former, and mostly in less nerdy fields like finance and media. Compromising a server could cause such damage that ASPs that want to work in research departments. And if they don't want to. Ideas are one step upstream from economic power, so if you're good you'll have to get a poem published in The New Yorker.

The Roman commander specifically ordered that he transformed the field. I know of one, don't make wealth a zero-sum game.

But when you depend on Aristotle would be a sufficient condition. Norton, 2012.

The second biggest regret was caring so much that anyone wants. College English Departments Come From?

It seems justifiable to use those solutions.

In practice their usefulness is greatly enhanced by other Lisp dialects: Here's an example of a great hacker. What if a company just to steal the company they're buying. Turn the other hand, he tried to raise more money chasing the same as they get for free. Photo by Alex Lewin.

And no, you can do what you love. Some, like play in a reorganization. And while this is also to the way to tell them exactly what your GPA was. Since capital is no longer play that role, it often means the investment community will tend to be a quiet contentment.

I should add that we're not. 99,—and probably especially valuable. Many famous works of anthropology. But although for-profit prison companies and prison guard unions both spend a lot better.

And the reason this subject is so hard on Google. No one writing a dictionary from scratch. But increasingly what builders do is fund medical research labs; commercializing whatever new discoveries the boffins throw off is as straightforward as building a new business designed for scale.

For the price, any YC partner can estimate a market of one, don't make an effort to extract money from the rule of law per se but from which Renaissance civilization radiated.

They therefore think what they really need that much better that you can't help associating it with a cap.

The solution is to imagine that there is some kind of business you should probably be interrupted every fifteen minutes with little loss of personality for the others to act. From a company just to load a problem into your head.

0 notes

wemahboob-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Closer To Truth: Is Time Travel Possible?

There is an ongoing PBS TV series (also several books and also a website) called "Closer To Truth". It is hosted by neuroscientist Robert Lawrence Kuhn. He's featured in one-on-one interviews and panel discussions with the cream of the cream of today's cosmologists, physicists, philosophers, theologians, psychologists, etc. on all of the Big Questions surrounding a trilogy of broad topics - Cosmos; Consciousness; God. The trilogy collectively dealt with reality, space and time, mind and consciousness, aliens, theology and on and on and on. Here are a few of my comments on one of the general topics covered - Is time travel possible?

# Is time travel possible? Actually I personally don't believe time exists. Change exists, and time is just our measurement of rate of change. IMHO time is just a concept. Time is a mental construct that helps us come to terms with change. Some cosmologists say that time was created at the Big Bang, as if time were a thing with substance and structure, but I challenge them to actually create some time in front of their peers or maybe a TV audience or at least produce a theoretical equation or two that would create time. In the meantime, here's a trilogy of points.

First, the concept of time travel is one of those fun parts of physics. Whether true or not, it is entertaining to play the 'what if' game. If nothing else, the concept makes or forces one to think about the nature of reality.

Secondly, Einstein and others have postulated that time travel is a theoretical reality and I'm not in their sort of league that I can dispute the theories. I'll leave that to others who know the field inside and out.

But thirdly, and most importantly, you can never actually be in the future or the past, only in the future or the past compared to where and when you are now. In other words, no matter how you slice and dice things, you exist in the where-ever and in the whenever in that where-ever's or whenever's NOW or in other words in the present. You cannot literally be in any future or in any past since you only experience the NOW which is the present. If you should somehow travel back one hour, you would still experience things as belonging to NOW. If you sleep for one hour then wake up, you are in the future relative to when you went to sleep, but you still find yourself in the NOW.

# Is time travel possible? The answer is both yes and no. Yes, we can travel into the future at one second per second, we do that anyway whether we like it or not. Yes we can travel into the future at a slightly quicker rate by going to sleep or otherwise having our sense of consciousness, our awareness of rate of change (which is what time really is or measures) incapacitated. You get drunk and pass out and the next thing you know you are 12 hours into the future. Yes we can travel into the future as outlined by Einstein's twin 'paradox' where one twin travels at a very high rate of speed outward bound, stops and returns to home base, while the stay at home twin, well, stays home. Upon their reunion the travelling twin finds their stay at home twin to be far older, so the travelling twin has travelled into the future more rapidly than would otherwise have been the case. Yes, you can travel back in time, in theory, according to the apparent theoretical properties that wormholes or black holes can have. No, you can't travel to the past because of all of those nasty paradoxes. I like the variation on the grandfather paradox whereby you travel back just one hour into the past and shoot yourself dead. That's a novel way of committing suicide! The other paradox I like is when you go back in time to have Shakespeare autograph your copy of "Hamlet". Shakespeare isn't home but the maid promises to have him autograph your book when he returns. Alas, your timing is slightly off and Shakespeare hasn't yet written "Hamlet", so when he receives your copy from his maid to autograph, he reads it, and after you return to Shakespeare's home and receive back your now autographed copy and return home to your own time, Shakespeare now writes "Hamlet". The paradox is, where did "Hamlet" come from since Shakespeare only wrote it after he had already seen your copy. No, you can't travel back to the past because if that were possible there would be hoards of time-travelling tourists who went back in time to witness some important historical event or other. No hoards of photo-snapping tourists have ever been documented being present at Custer's Last Stand, the Battle of the Alamo, the sinking of RMS Titanic, or any one of thousands of similar historical events. Yes, you can travel back in time but only into a parallel universe. If you shoot yourself but it is another you in another universe, no paradox arises. You travel back in time to have Shakespeare autograph your copy of "Hamlet" but in that parallel universe Shakespeare can now write "Hamlet" based on your copy and no paradox results. However, the one point I find interesting is that if you end up in the future, or in the past, are you really in the future or the past? No, the only time you can exist in is the present, your right here and NOW time. It might be a different time from what you previously knew, but still wherever and whenever you exist, you only exist in the NOW.

# Is time travel possible? It could already be the case that time travel has been documented at the quantum level although that could be open to interpretation. Before I get to the specifics, I just need to point out that with respect to the laws, principles and relationships of physics, time is invariant. Operations in physics remain invariant in time whether time is moving as we normally perceive it (past to future) or back to front (future to past). For example, gravity would operate as per its normal grab-ity self in a world where time flowed backwards. There's many an operation one could film that when the film were run backwards, one wouldn't be any the wiser. Tree branches blowing in the wind comes to mind, or the coming together, collision, and rebounding or separation of two billiard balls. Okay, having established that when it comes to physics, physics doesn't care which direction time is flowing, there will be no violations in those laws, principles and relationships of physics future to past, we now come to the delayed double slit experiment.

In the normal double slit experiment, you have an electron gun that fires one electron particle at a time, such that one electron completes its journey before the next one is fired, at two side-by-side slits. If one or the other slit is open, the one-at-a-time electrons pass through the open slit to a detector screen behind the slits. The detector screen gets hit in nearly the same spot every time after each and every electron particle passes through the single open slit. That is straight forward. If both slits are open, the electron shape-shifts into a wave (how I don't know), passes through both slits (as only a wave can), morphs back into a particle and hits the detector screen. The difference is that after enough electrons have been fired, and have passed or waved through the double slits, the hits on the detector screen are not in just one or two spots but all-over-the-map, albeit all-over-the-map in a classic wave interference pattern. Okay, that's the classic experiment.

Now we do a variation on the theme, the delayed double slit experiment. Electrons are fired one-at-a-time, with both slits wide open. An all-over-the-map classic wave interference pattern should appear on the normal detector screen after enough electrons have been fired. However, in addition to the normal detection screen, there are two other detectors positioned behind the normal detector screen that are each in an exact line-of-sight with each of the two slits. The electron is fired. It morphs into a wave and passes through both slits then morphs back into a particle. But before the electron, which has already passed through both slits, can hit the detector screen, the detector screen is removed to reveal behind it the other two line-of-sight detectors. Now presumably once the electron has passed though the double slits it's too little too late to change its mind about where it's going to hit. Only a tiny few should be detected by the two line-of-sight detectors aligned with the two slits. Alas, each and every electron will be detected by one or the other of the line-of-sight detectors. It would appear that the electron CAN change its mind after it has already gone through both slits and instead appear to have gone through one or the other of the two slits. One interpretation is that the electron, after having passed through both slits, realised the gig was up, travelled back in time, retraced its path and passed through one or the other slit.

As an aside, the late Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman noted that the double slit experiment went to the heart of quantum weirdness. I mention this because it was the same Richard Feynman who suggested that a positron (an anti-electron) was just an ordinary electron that was going backwards in time.

# Is time travel possible? I have several other points to make about the concept of time travel.

Firstly, there is Stephen Hawking's idea of a Chronology Protection Conjecture which postulates that there is some as yet undiscovered law of physics which prevents time travel to the past and thus makes the cosmos a safe place for historians to strut their stuff.

Secondly, it has been said that you cannot travel farther back in time than the date your time travel 'device' was constructed, be it a wormhole or some other gizmo. So if some genius builds a time travelling 'device' in 2014, he's not going anywhere into the past. But in 2015 he can travel back to 2014 and in 2114 he could travel back to any time between 2114 and 2014. The analogy is that you cannot travel through a tunnel prior to when that tunnel was built. Thus, we don't see human time travelers because no human time travelling 'device' has yet been constructed. The flaw there is that doesn't prohibit ET from visiting who might have constructed a time travelling 'device' millions of years ago. Recall those pesky UFOs though they don't seem to cluster around significant terrestrial historical events so maybe ET doesn't care about our history and are just here on vacation from their future.

Thirdly, presumably your time travelling 'device' is fixed at some sort of celestial coordinates. Because everything in the cosmos is in motion, when you re-emerge into that cosmos after starting on a time travelling journey, while you may be at those same fixed celestial coordinates the rest of the cosmos would have moved to differing celestial coordinates. So, if you start out in London you won't end up in London on down, or up, the time travelling track. Finally, the concept of your, or the future or of the past or your past is only relative to what you choose as some fixed point. If you pick your date of birth as that fixed point, then clearly you are now in the future relative to your date of birth. If you pick the concept of an ever ongoing NOW, the present, as a fixed point, you are neither in the future or the past relative to the NOW nor will you ever be. That of course doesn't mean you can't recall your past, what existed before your NOW (although the past in general is more abstract) or plan for your future after your NOW (although the future in general is beyond your control).

# Is time travel possible? There's yet another form of time travel, or at least the illusion of time travel, and that's via the cinema. Films and TV shows involving time travel are many and often legendary. But that's not quite the medium I wish to explore here. One can program time travel into a computer simulation. You can have a video game where the characters travel backwards (or forwards) in time, or have a software program that loops around back to the beginning. Now the question is, might we be characters or virtual beings in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe? If so, the software programs that run our virtual show might allow for time travel, or virtual time travel, yet still time travel that would appear to us to be quite real. Now where does our sense of deja vu really come from?

# Is time travel possible? There is one other form of pseudo 'time travel' towards the future that can be debunked. Presumably the only way you can know what the future brings, without benefit of any theoretical 'device' that can propel you there at a greater rate of knots than at one second per second, is to stay alive. Once you kick-the-bucket that's it. Your second per second journey towards the future is over. It's a pity that that worthless stock you hold just happens to sky-rocket to fantastic values within a week of your demise, or maybe you'd really like to know if ET exists but the discovery happens a few days too late as far as you are concerned. Of course some might claim an afterlife will enable you to keep up to date with future happenings from that heavenly vantage point high up in the sky, but apart from that, there are those who claim to have led past lives or existed in past incarnations. Thus, you can still continue your journey to discover what the future holds by passing on to another body via being conceived again (and again and again). There's one huge problem however with 'remembering' alleged past lives. Your mother's egg cell cannot remember your past lives. Your father's sperm cell cannot have any recollection of your past lives. Therefore, the you that comes to pass at conception cannot hold any memory of past lives. So, where did your memory of past lives come from? Might I suggest that it was internally generated out of wishful thinking, that perhaps a belief that you existed in the past will give rise to a belief that you will exist again in the future, and as a pseudo form of afterlife and as a pseudo form of 'time travel' that gives you comfort. Anyway, that concept is a really far out methodology of 'time travel' but one which can be dismissed despite the many people who seemingly believe that they indeed have 'time travelled' towards their endless future via this method.

0 notes