With the Benefit of Hindsight

[anon1758050382]

Is anyone else listening to the Penn State scandal podcast? I just started it, and it is really interesting so far.

I pretty much accepted the mainstream narrative back in 2012, but I never understood the testimony and actions of the key witness, Mike McQueary. This podcast attempts to make sense of his testimony, and it contradicts the official story.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Scottie McCreary, what

 

[patdog]

No. And I’m not even sure what you're saying the “official” false narrative was & what the “real” story is. But listening to a podcast of watching a “documentary” you’re almost certainly not getting the real balanced story. They can make you believe anything they want to if you’re not real skeptical.

 

[anon1758050382]

No. And I’m not even sure what you're saying the “official” false narrative was & what the “real” story is. But listening to a podcast of watching a “documentary” you’re almost certainly not getting the real balanced story. They can make you believe anything they want to if you’re not real skeptical.

You could listen to the first episode and know what I'm talking about.

I'm not saying Sandusky is innocent. I'm saying Mike McQueary may not be credible, and Joe Paterno might not have been guilty of a cover-up. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. It's a very complicated case, so it stands to reason that there may be important points that are misunderstood. I am skeptical of completely accepting one narrative.

And you're correct that listening to one source is not likely to be a balanced perspective, but in addition to this investigator, Malcolm Gladwell is skeptical of the official story, specifically the Mike McQueary testimony. I'm not aware of any incentive he would have to discredit the official story. I know he has a huge incentive to protect his own credibility.

You're also correct that they can make you believe anything they want if you're not skeptical. That is why, after learning more about the evidence, I am skeptical of the official story.

 

[TimberBeast]

Yeah but did they have bitcoin?

 

[QuaoarsKing]

"I'm not saying Sandusky is innocent" but you're recommending a podcast that says he is written by a journalist who says he is?

I just don't understand this "I never believe the official narrative" mindset. In order for for Sandusky to be innocent, all of his victims are lying, all of the witnesses, all of the police and investigators and lawyers are corrupt, the jury got it wrong, etc. And why? What incentive would anyone have to get it wrong in that direction? Paterno was one step away from Jesus to most of the Penn State community and people were desperate to clear his name. Back in 2011 most people were nervous that the whole thing would be swept under the rug just to do that. They only convicted Sandusky and fired Paterno (which led to riots) because the evidence was so overwhelming.

I think this journalist is rewriting history in a way that doesn't really line up with the way people were reacting to this case when it actually happened. If I'm wrong, Sandusky is welcome to appeal his conviction.

 

[anon1758050382]

"I'm not saying Sandusky is innocent" but you're recommending a podcast that says he is written by a journalist who says he is?

I don't have to agree with someone to listen to their perspective. I have an open mind. I also don't have to agree or disagree with someone 100%. I can agree with them on some points and disagree with them on some points. I don't have to position myself on one of the extremes of the issue.

I just don't understand this "I never believe the official narrative" mindset. In order for for Sandusky to be innocent, all of his victims are lying, all of the witnesses, all of the police and investigators and lawyers are corrupt, the jury got it wrong, etc. And why? What incentive would anyone have to get it wrong in that direction?

I never said, "I never believe the official narrative." In fact, I said that I believed the official narrative back in 2012. However, as I learn more about the evidence, I'm now questioning some of the things that I assumed were true.

And if you're trying to make me out to be a conspiracy theorist who never believes the official narrative, that simply isn't the case. I believe that the Warren Commission Report contains the best explanation of the Kennedy assassination and that the 9/11 Commission Report contains the best explanation of the September 11th attacks.

I never said, "Sandusky is innocent." I believe Sandusky is guilty. But there is a lot more to this case than just Sandusky's guilt.