• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Penn State Cult (Joe Knew)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
jwinslow said:
Quote the madness, folks. Otherwise we have a collection of links to expiring topics.
Click to expand...
somebody tries to post with a brain...
wbcincy said:
It's just incredible to me how much pure conjecture is involved here. When Louis Freeh makes conjecture, we all rightly freak out. But when JZ does it in a way that's beneficial, there's many here who accept it as gospel and support him. You either approve of conjecture or you don't, but you can't have it both ways depending which side the conjecture comes down on.

Examples:
Jerry didn't know McQ was the witness. This is "proven" because Jerry didn't try to ingratiate himself to McQ, or basically bribe him with another job offer. JZ ignores the possibility that Jerry could've just hoped McQ didn't see too much and therefore purposely acted nonchalant about it to avoid the appearance of guilt. There's more than 1 rational explanation, but JZ will only consider the one that fits his narrative (just like Freeh).

A 13 year old would fight back, know about consent, etc. Since when is JZ an expert on how child sex abuse victims would react? Does he think 13-14 years old aren't sexually abused without a fight and without the kids going to police? Adults are sexually abused and often don't do those things, so JZs conjecture here is not only wrong, but disgusting.

JZ lists things the alleged victim did with Sandusky afterwards. Again, I'll stick with experts in considering how abuse victims react and continue relationships with their abusers. I can agree all day with JZ that it doesn't make logical sense, but I also don't think Stockholm Syndrome makes logical sense, and yet it exists. Because you can't apply rational thought to the actions of a person experiencing something traumatic.

McQ's father saw this is a good opportunity for face time with Joe to help land the WR coach position. Zero proof of that, just none. Pure conjecture.

It's peeeerfectly understable that the alleged vic gets the date wrong or the time frame all wrong by a couple weeks, but it's HUGE when anyone else gets a date wrong! Again, JZ views everything with an eye towards fitting into what he wants to believe.

I love JZ defending himself on the hack...errrrr...glitch. I think it's obvious by now that he would never accept such a 'coincidence' from anyone else.

Also, JZ keeps saying he outed himself, but where does he out himself as Vic 2? He uses his name in those letters to the editor, but I don't see where he describes himself as alleged vic 2 in them (I could be wrong, show it to me). So JZ was in fact outing him as Vic 2 if all he had done in the past was write letters defending jerry without stating that he was vic 2.

JZ thinks laughing makes his points stronger. It doesn't. But the constant laughing does make him look pretty crazy at times...

JZ thinks the attorney cut a deal with vic 2 based on the contingency fee. Once again, absolutely nothing but conjecture and disgusting accusations to make with zero proof.

Yes, the Penn State settlements are a sham. But Penn State had to decide which would cost more, paying the alleged victims, or fighting them in open court. I'm not sure they chose wrongly. Anyone involved in the law can tell you that company's constantly have to make decisions about settling suits where they know they're in the right, but the cost/benefit analysis forces them to settle anyway.

So look, even if I were to agree that vic 2 was not sexually abused, and neither was Matt Sandusky, it doesn't change my point here. And that is that JZ constantly makes leaps based on assumptions and what must "rationally" or "logically" make sense in JZ's mind. That isn't proof, and we all rightfully jumped down Freeh's throat for doing the same thing.
Click to expand...
followed by the usual suspects and their usual stupidity:
pnnylion said:
One thing for sure cincy. After cruising around the web, trolls are frightened by Ziggy's latest and the Spanier thing. They are cowed and pretty much fade away when confronted. You can almost smell and feel the fear.
Click to expand...
buffalo lion said:
Except Ziegler, unlike Freeh, admits those are "theories". Freeh presents his interpretations as "facts".

Ziegler has seen AM's Penn State Insurance file, and talked to the Insurance attorney and case worker that handled the case. There is nothing in the file that claims abuse. No statement by AM. All Shubin does is claim that AM was THE 2001 kid in the shower. Nothing more.

Neither the Insurance attorney or Case worker know anything about AM's letters to the newspapers or the statement to Amendola. They just cut a check for $3,000,000 dollars based on McQueary's testimony, media reports, and Shubin's claim that AM was THE 2001 kid in the shower.

Based on a recent taped interview with AM, AM still claims nothing bad happened that night, and that he was never abused.
Click to expand...
simons96 said:
Freeh cherry picked from 7 vague emails, took their contents out of order and out of context, and created a massive conpiracy that smeared 4 people and the University, bringing about the worst sanctions in NCAA history. supposedly, Freeh's team reviewed 3.5 million documents, yet they (and the BoT) have so far stonewalled the release of ANY of that work product. Ziegler has published all his documentation, interviews, and work product free of charge and in the light of day.

I may not agree with everything Ziegler says, but he has backed up most of his conclusions with simple logic and more exhaustive documentation. To compare JZ to Freeh is recklessly ignorant.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
There was also this...
Victim??? Define your terms.... The real victim in this entire matter is JUSTICE!! - TRUTH - AND HONEST GOVERNMENT & A FAIR LEGAL SYSTEM.

These are the real victims.

The Sandusky Trial & the "legal conviction" - BOTH can not be viewed as anything but corrupted and highly suspicious. Certainly what exists in certifiable fact does not support the "story" used to create The Sandusky Scandal!! There are undeniable breaches in fundamental legal standards that our basic constitutional laws and personal legal protections GUARANTEE EVERY CITIZEN.

I do not know the truth about Sandusky's real actions...only because so many people and entities involved here have so many suspicious motives and there have been so many $ benefactors to a "guilty charge" in this case.

One thing I am sure of.....Laws were broken in the Trial and laws were broken in the actions taken in PSU settlements.

Justice was not served. The truth was not revealed. Basic rights were abused by those in corporate and political power.

Finally, new crimes and new victims were created by the spectacle and "Criminal Football Culture story" a corrupt media has made the prevailing "public truth".
Click to expand...
to which pnnylion wholeheartedly agrees with. you can tell if a new poster is a super nutjob or not by how people like pnnylion, simon96, or nittanyamerica respond to them.
 
Upvote 0
This one is right along the lines of "I'm not a racist, but......"

gsdsgg_zpsb9f7413e.jpg
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow said:
I amended Woody's post, but I'll keep beating the archiving drum.
Click to expand...
Sorry about that - Let's throw in the initial post in the thread, as it is the first one to use quotation marks around the word victim.
JohnZiegler
Post #15
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
New Video Tells REAL Story/Identity of McQueary "Victim" & Matt Sandusky Reply
Tonight, Oprah Winfrey will air an interview with Matt Sandusky in which it appears she has been duped by the most transparent and blatant liar in the entire case.

Because of this event I have decided to release an hour-long video of my own in which, for the first time, I reveal the full story of the Mike McQueary "victim" (including his identity) and how it directly connects to Matt Sandusky. I am positive that you will find this video to be extremely compelling and to contain a huge amount of new information.

Joe Paterno said that he wanted the truth of this matter, and I am extremely confident that no one has come closer to it than what is in this video.

Please watch/like/share the video at this link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlS5LuCkB6s&feature=youtu.be&a

Link: John Ziegler
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Paterno and Lance Armstrong. Fallen idols. What do we think now?
http://www.esquire.com/features/lance-armstrong-interview-0814?click=skybox

"Then it all vanished in an instant. Cornered for transgressions that surprised absolutely no one inside the sport, Armstrong suffered one of the most astonishing and brutal reversals of fortune in American history, a level of punishment so extreme it raises the question of what was really being punished."

Did Paterno really deserve having his wins taken away? Did he deserve being fired for "not doing more"? Wasn't the whole mess his fault? He enabled a pedophile for his own desire to make history. He became blind to everything but winning.
Well, I guess he did make history.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
https://bwi.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=36&tid=173627131&mid=173627131&sid=890&style=2

Starts with some boring story about a guy no one cares about, and how he handled his issue the right way.
Then he compares it to the way Joesus handled his situation (saying he did it right, of course).

Then there's this paragraph:
Joe Paterno was an inveterate rules follower. When faced with McChangingstory's tale, he learned Penn State's procedure and followed it. He later said that with the benefit of hindsight [the phrase the haters always ignore] he wished he'd ignored procedures.
Click to expand...
(I did not add the bold)
So he makes sure to emphasize the part that I guess gets left out by people like me, then he changes the rest of the sentence ("I wish I had done more"). (He also forgets "Beat Nebraska!")

Next paragraph:
If Joe had been more actively involved post-shower, he would have (justifiably) been accused of improperly influencing the course of the investigation.
Click to expand...

So then you get this dude who tries to talk some reason:
Are you serious? Your comparing a situation with a cooperate peon with an adult get sexually harassed to one of the most powerful man in a university handling a child get sexual abused? Do you actually think Joe did what he did because he was afraid of getting fired? It post like these that make Penn State look like a cult. If Joe would have called the cops he would not have been fired.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Zurp said:
https://bwi.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=36&tid=173627131&mid=173627131&sid=890&style=2

Starts with some boring story about a guy no one cares about, and how he handled his issue the right way.
Then he compares it to the way Joesus handled his situation (saying he did it right, of course).

Then there's this paragraph:

(I did not add the bold)
So he makes sure to emphasize the part that I guess gets left out by people like me, then he changes the rest of the sentence ("I wish I had done more"). (He also forgets "Beat Nebraska!")

Next paragraph:


So then you get this dude who tries to talk some reason:
Click to expand...
The zealots over on Audibles are debating the true meaning of the scriptures ( Joesus 4:09 ) They really get upset when someone forgets to use the "With the benefit of hindsight" part of the quote, as if it somehow changes the meaning.
Screenshot from 2014-07-19 19:58:20.png

My bad, I forgot........BEAT NEBRASKA!
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top