today is the 1 year anniversary of the new york times smearing stephen jay by tying him to epstein, but the only evidence provided so far of gould ever having even met epstein comes from stuart pivar, alan dershowitz and steven pinker claiming it when covering their ass. THREAD
a few days before the 1st of august 2019 the new york times published an article which claimed that stephen jay gould was one of the prominent scientists who met with epstein *after his conviction in 2008*. there's one slight problem with that: gould died of cancer in 2002 
I was one of the first to notice this obvious falsehood which had just been published in the "paper of record", and began exposing it to the "journalist" hacks who had written the piece as well as replying it to the nyt tweet quickly garnering thousands of likes and retweets
I immediately knew the game being played: dershowitz, pivar and pinker, who are the only sources for the claim that gould has ever met epstein, had either fed the nyt journos this info directly, or they read it and just copied it uncritically. but they fucked up with the dates
it's obviously impossible for a man who has been dead for 6 years to have met with epstein after his conviction in 2008, so they were forced to put out a retraction a day or two after the initial article with the evidence-free smear was published, on august 1st:
but the revised, "corrected" version kept the claim that gould was "attracted to" epstein at some point in time, without specifying the nature of this and without presenting any evidence for the claim. so I decided to dig deeper. where exactly did this claim originate from?
back to pivar, dershowitz and pinker. when the epstein story blew up in the media they did desperate interviews trying to defend themselves, and a common tactic for all was to cast the net of people epstein was tied to as wide as possible to get the stink off them. here's pivar:
that's from august 23, so after the nyt piece, but pivar was desperately bringing up gould's name as a way of making it seem like nothing extraordinary was happening, that it was all on the level. ok, now let's move to alan dershowitz for the other gould reference I found:
that's from july 15, *before* the nyt piece, actually right as it was being written up and the journalists were in touch with dershowitz to get his side of the story. and look at what dershowitz does to defend himself in that interview: throw out names of other prominent people
and which name does he throw into the mix there? stephen jay gould. hey, here's this leftist marxist guy who wrote that take-down of the bell curve, was on the simpsons, and taught us so much about dinosaurs. if *he* is tied to epstein, you gotta know it was no big deal!
that is the most sickening, vile, grotesque part of it: that these fucking sex creeps are using the reputation of a dead man to launder their fucking sickening behavior and try to get away with it. it actually made me furious with rage that the nyt played along with this shit
what I have just quoted by dershowitz and pivar are the only claims of gould ever meeting epstein. the new york times still has its "epstein attracted a glittering array of prominent scientists" claim with a mention of gould up, which they must have gotten from them and/or pinker
the mother jones piece has one other mention of gould at the beginning w/ a link to another piece, but no mention of gould there, so the source of that was pivar/dershowitz/pinker. intelligencer did a deep dive of epstein ties and no mention of gould, and the nation removed it
there's one other guardian piece I found with a mention of the epstein gould tie claim, but they explicitly say they got it from the aforementioned new york times smear piece they had to correct, so again it leads back to pivar/dershowitz/pinker
so there are some good journalists who don't just verbatim copy smears from desperate sex creeps trying to launder their names by smearing a dead man's reputation. they're at the nation, intelligencer, are people like the below. you won't find them at the new york times
ok, so I've gone over all claims of epstein and gould ever having met now, originating from pivar, dershowitz and pinker's desperate attempts to defend themselves, which new york times journalists happily participated in at the expense of smearing a dead man. and it's still up
now let's look at the evidence. so there's this...wait...hold on, there is no evidence. there is nothing. THERE IS LITERALLY NOTHING. unlike pivar/dershowitz/pinker and all the others named, gould is not on the flight logs, he's not in any photos, he's not in any correspondence
literally the only claims of gould ever having been in the vicinity of epstein come from these depraved sex pests in the interviews I quoted where they desperately threw out his name and went "SEE ITS NORMAL GOULD WAS THERE TOO GOULD WAS THERE". is it journalism to copy this?
the 3 journalists who wrote that new york times piece which is still used as proof that gould met epstein are: @JamesStewartNYT, @MattGoldstein26 and @jbsgreenberg. I want to ask you point-blank: do you have any evidence that they ever met, and if so, what is it? present it to us
present evidence: photos, name on a flight log, disinterested eye-witnesses who detail how they met, under what circumstances, did they ever actually talk or were they just at the same conference at the same time. make concrete that vague allusion which as it stands is a smear
and while you're at it, let us know where you got that information from. was it fed to you by steven pinker, alan dershowitz and/or stuart pivar? if so, why did you accept their claim on faith without asking for evidence? you work at the new york times, the "paper of record"!
you smeared a man who was dead for 6 years by claiming he was associated to a known pedophile, and still you keep up the piece where their names are linked, however vaguely so you can avoid a lawsuit. it's gross. present evidence for your claim or withdraw it. have some shame
there is one guy, john brockman, who was gould's literary agent, and he was apparently associated with epstein. I don't know how to get in touch with him, I'm not a journalist. I just know his handle here, @edge, and it's worth a shot: do you know if gould ever met epstein?
of course the fact this literary agent was associated with epstein says nothing at all about gould ever having met him. it's not evidence. I want evidence. I want to know on what basis the new york times claims that gould was "attracted" to epstein. reveal your source, you hacks
I know it's dershowitz/pinker/pivar who whispered it into their ear, either directly when they were asked for comment or they just read dershowitz' interview where he threw gould's name in the mix. they ran cover for these sex creeps on purpose, and they still won't correct it
