Author Topic: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10  (Read 9371 times)

tacobender

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2414
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #275 on: September 11, 2025, 10:13:30 PM »
What does going back 30 years to McVeigh have to do with anything today?
yea no shit I agree coach


nobody in particular

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 475
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #277 on: September 11, 2025, 11:30:02 PM »
anyone know djs whereabouts yesterday?




everyone knows he was doings squats and deadlifts.

Kwon

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 52700
  • PRONOUNS: Ze/Zir
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #278 on: September 12, 2025, 01:47:33 AM »
everyone knows he was doings squats and deadlifts.

He did squats while lifting the rifle on the sniper loft?
Q

38 returns

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8565
  • ANGELA JOHNSON DEAD BECAUSE OF BHANKS COWARDICE
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #279 on: September 12, 2025, 02:02:10 AM »
is that trans army genuine?

if so the place is seriously more fucked than I thought.

either way lots of people I respect on here and we have different opinions. its not my country and its arrogant of me to pipe up when a) I'm not in the middle of it and b) I have limited knowedge of it.

out of respect for getbiggers I will leave this thread alone.

nil homo-en
B

ProudVirgin69

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7985
  • hardcore redneck electric champion
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #280 on: September 12, 2025, 02:51:50 AM »
.

Gee, this “Trans Army” sounds very real and fearsome.  Who knows, as a prominent conservative voice they might come for you next  :D


Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10340
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #281 on: September 12, 2025, 03:07:34 AM »
How's you doing Necrosis of the Brain ?
It appears your idiotic stupidity has got a good few posters on your case,
😂🤣  keep it going its funny watching you get beaten from pillar to post
👊🏻


I take it as a compliment.
Only two posters have decent, well thought out replies. The rest are extreme right wing racist nutters.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10340
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #282 on: September 12, 2025, 03:08:29 AM »
What does going back 30 years to McVeigh have to do with anything today?

do you fear the trans army?

Super Nattie

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 199
  • Getbig!
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #283 on: September 12, 2025, 03:17:56 AM »
Could this sociopath be the guy? looks very similar to the shooter...


balco

  • Getbig I
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #284 on: September 12, 2025, 03:22:19 AM »
RIP Charlie Kirk

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10340
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #285 on: September 12, 2025, 03:34:17 AM »
This is the thing, there is tons of academic dishonesty in the hard sciences too. The whole "Publish or Perish."

"Academic dishonesty in publishing is a significant and growing problem across hard sciences, driven by intense "publish or perish" pressures. The misconduct, which includes fraud, plagiarism, and manipulated peer reviews, undermines scientific integrity, damages public trust, and can lead to the retraction of thousands of scientific papers"


Analyses of PubMed retractions (Fang, Steen, & Casadevall, 2012, PNAS) suggest about 67% of retractions in biomedical and life sciences are due to misconduct (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism).

When asked about colleagues, the numbers were higher: ~14% for fabrication/falsification and up to 72% for questionable practices.

A 2025 study from Northwestern University found that "the publication of fraudulent science is outpacing the growth rate of legitimate scientific publications." The study also discovered broad networks of organized scientific fraudsters. So, even with the hard sciences, fraudulent research is outpacing legitimate research.

Questionable Research Practices:

Beyond outright fraud, there's a broader category of behavior called "questionable research practices" (QRPs). These are actions that violate good research practices but may not constitute outright fraud. They include things like:

    P-hacking: Selectively analyzing data to find a statistically significant result.

    HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known.

    Selective reporting: Not reporting data that don't support the hypothesis.

    Improper authorship: Including someone as an author who didn't contribute significantly.

Studies show a much higher prevalence of these practices. The 2009 meta-analysis found that up to 33.7% of scientists admitted to engaging in questionable research practices.


The first study isn't really helpful here, it just indicates the reasons for retractions, I wouldn't suspect falsification to be so high but poor practice makes perfect sense, tons of cutting corners to get published and copying others is exceptionally high. I would have to see the impact factor and SJR to tell if this study even really matters as the lesser journals are likely allowing things in and would skew the data.

Do you have the second paper? I would like to review the methodology and stats.

The last one, it would again depend on what are considered questionable, are we including using a weaker statistical analysis, not citing things properly etc. if so that's fine and par for the course with any discipline. If we are talkign fraud then obviously its a different beast.

even a PMID would be good for the second study.

I am not a fan of gender studies, but do think philosophy, psychology and other soft sciences are extremely useful tools.

Keep in mind while your numbers sound impressive, the rate of retractions per 10k papers is 11.2
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2024/04/18/guest-post-making-sense-of-retractions-and-tackling-research-misconduct/#:~:text=It%20is%20true%20that%20the,paper%20in%20comparison%20to%202014.

so I find the second paper you cited (odd there are no names etc) citing something so outlandish. Did you write an AI response?


joswift

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 36418
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #286 on: September 12, 2025, 03:36:11 AM »
notice how every single cctv clip is of him partially covered or turning away

Fucks sake send the footage to hankins , he will manage to get a perfect pic from footage, hes been doing it here for years

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10340
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #287 on: September 12, 2025, 03:41:12 AM »
Negrosis will ignore this post.

Oh will i baby boi.

Nevermind SF I found your paper, it doesn't say what you say it does or the AI said

"A 2025 study by Northwestern unversity after reviewing aggregated data on the lists of deindexed journals from literature aggregators such as Web of Science, Scopus, Medline, data from Retraction Watch and PubPeer found that while the total number of research publications double every 15 years, articles from suspected research paper mills double every 1.5 years while the number of retracted articles double every 3.3 years and number of articles with PubPeer comments double every 3.6 years"

again the rate I posted is correct, its about 10 papers per 10k so what they found. Also, the study you cited which sounds so impressive is on DEINDEXD journals, aka journals that are removed because they are trash and allowing bullshit in.
So this paper used journals that were removed for doing this and what its stating is that one is doubling faster then the other. retractions are not outpacing production but the number of total "good" papers" is way more that "fraudulent" papers.

The total number of fraudulent papers produced per year based on my math is 0.11% of all published paper, hardly something to cry over

So none of what you stated is troublesome or bothersome and in fact, there is a lower error rate or incidence of fraudulent practices then other institutions, like banking, the market etc..

Science wins again. Imagine arguing against it while using a computer.

ProudVirgin69

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7985
  • hardcore redneck electric champion
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #288 on: September 12, 2025, 04:06:58 AM »
Could this sociopath be the guy? looks very similar to the shooter...



They’re both white men with brown hair, we can’t rule the possibility out.  I’ll notify the FBI hotline with regards to your findings.

ProudVirgin69

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7985
  • hardcore redneck electric champion
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #289 on: September 12, 2025, 04:12:55 AM »
Oh will i baby boi.

Nevermind SF I found your paper, it doesn't say what you say it does or the AI said

"A 2025 study by Northwestern unversity after reviewing aggregated data on the lists of deindexed journals from literature aggregators such as Web of Science, Scopus, Medline, data from Retraction Watch and PubPeer found that while the total number of research publications double every 15 years, articles from suspected research paper mills double every 1.5 years while the number of retracted articles double every 3.3 years and number of articles with PubPeer comments double every 3.6 years"

again the rate I posted is correct, its about 10 papers per 10k so what they found. Also, the study you cited which sounds so impressive is on DEINDEXD journals, aka journals that are removed because they are trash and allowing bullshit in.
So this paper used journals that were removed for doing this and what its stating is that one is doubling faster then the other. retractions are not outpacing production but the number of total "good" papers" is way more that "fraudulent" papers.

The total number of fraudulent papers produced per year based on my math is 0.11% of all published paper, hardly something to cry over

So none of what you stated is troublesome or bothersome and in fact, there is a lower error rate or incidence of fraudulent practices then other institutions, like banking, the market etc..

Science wins again. Imagine arguing against it while using a computer.

It’s not unreasonable to acknowledge some of the issues with today’s research & publication process of today.  On the other hand, what’s the alternative to the scientific method ???

The biggest issue I see is the lack of repeat trials to confirm the findings of previously-conducted studies.  It’s not as sensational or profitable as some of the ground breaking research being conducted but repeatability is a key principle of the scienctific method.  More repeat studies would also help uncover any fraudulent studies/findings.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10340
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #290 on: September 12, 2025, 04:20:07 AM »
It’s not unreasonable to acknowledge some of the issues with today’s research & publication process of today.  On the other hand, what’s the alternative to the scientific method ???

The biggest issue I see is the lack of repeat trials to confirm the findings of previously-conducted studies.  It’s not as sensational or profitable as some of the ground breaking research being conducted but repeatability is a key principle of the scienctific method.  More repeat studies would also help uncover any fraudulent studies/findings.


Not at all, however, if you were to randomly pick papers out of a pile the chances of finding one thats not well conducted in next to zero. What that means is you can trust that science is doing its job. However, without having knowledge in stats and the field you will likely have to rely on reputable experts to interpret the data for you. There is no alternative

Replication is key, that depends on the studies though, the type I mean. For things like epidemiological studies replicability is not truly possible unless you use the exact same data set, stats is king here and good pooling. For double blinded placebo controlled randomized trials replication is a must as the independent variable should be causative and thus replicable.

I think the soft sciences are more prone to errors but nothing like ND is claiming, his claim that all academia is tainted is untrue and anti-science, its frankly dumb and unfounded.

ProudVirgin69

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7985
  • hardcore redneck electric champion
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #291 on: September 12, 2025, 04:40:26 AM »

Not at all, however, if you were to randomly pick papers out of a pile the chances of finding one thats not well conducted in next to zero. What that means is you can trust that science is doing its job. However, without having knowledge in stats and the field you will likely have to rely on reputable experts to interpret the data for you. There is no alternative

Replication is key, that depends on the studies though, the type I mean. For things like epidemiological studies replicability is not truly possible unless you use the exact same data set, stats is king here and good pooling. For double blinded placebo controlled randomized trials replication is a must as the independent variable should be causative and thus replicable.

I think the soft sciences are more prone to errors but nothing like ND is claiming, his claim that all academia is tainted is untrue and anti-science, its frankly dumb and unfounded.

Well said.  Thank you for clarifying the point about replication with epidemiological vs experimental studies - I absolutely agree.  Its been a while since I’ve last thought about this and I forgot to include that point in my original post.  I appreciate you jogging my memory.

SF1900

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 49891
  • Team Hairy Chest Henda
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #292 on: September 12, 2025, 04:43:30 AM »

The first study isn't really helpful here, it just indicates the reasons for retractions, I wouldn't suspect falsification to be so high but poor practice makes perfect sense, tons of cutting corners to get published and copying others is exceptionally high. I would have to see the impact factor and SJR to tell if this study even really matters as the lesser journals are likely allowing things in and would skew the data.

Do you have the second paper? I would like to review the methodology and stats.

The last one, it would again depend on what are considered questionable, are we including using a weaker statistical analysis, not citing things properly etc. if so that's fine and par for the course with any discipline. If we are talkign fraud then obviously its a different beast.

even a PMID would be good for the second study.

I am not a fan of gender studies, but do think philosophy, psychology and other soft sciences are extremely useful tools.

Keep in mind while your numbers sound impressive, the rate of retractions per 10k papers is 11.2
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2024/04/18/guest-post-making-sense-of-retractions-and-tackling-research-misconduct/#:~:text=It%20is%20true%20that%20the,paper%20in%20comparison%20to%202014.

so I find the second paper you cited (odd there are no names etc) citing something so outlandish. Did you write an AI response?

Without going in-depth, the point I was making that fraud is also found in hard science research. Yes, there is different type of fraud and degrees; I was just pointing out that it’s not only found in the soft sciences. Read my PM I sent you.
X

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10340
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #293 on: September 12, 2025, 04:48:20 AM »
Negrosis will ignore this post.

Any thoughts of your own now????


ProudVirgin69

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7985
  • hardcore redneck electric champion
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #294 on: September 12, 2025, 05:02:16 AM »
Bringing the thread back on track:

Quote
Beau Mason, the head of Utah’s Department Public Safety, told NBC’s @BreakingChesky tonight that authorities “have no idea” about the identity and location of Charlie Kirk’s killer, a remarkably definitive statement.  The clip just aired on @PsakiBriefing on @MSNBC

https://x.com/DilanianMSNBC/status/1966313220844753314

Pretty stark difference between this and the response to Luigi Mangione just a year prior.  Either this is a deep state/Israel hit and the feds are getting orders to bungle the investigation, or they’ve just gotten that incompetent in a years time.  Whichever is funnier, I guess.

dj181

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 30599
  • I AM THE SHAPE 😎💪😎💪😎💪
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #295 on: September 12, 2025, 05:07:57 AM »
Bringing the thread back on track:

https://x.com/DilanianMSNBC/status/1966313220844753314

Pretty stark difference between this and the response to Luigi Mangione just a year prior.  Either this is a deep state/Israel hit and the feds are getting orders to bungle the investigation, or they’ve just gotten that incompetent in a years time.  Whichever is funnier, I guess.

It's a deep state hit

Should have been soros and his sons

On a side note my taxi driver was taking bout corrupt politics and he brought up that shitstain soros

Krankenstein

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13043
  • quit·ter : a person can't finish a task
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #296 on: September 12, 2025, 05:26:07 AM »

Not at all, however, if you were to randomly pick papers out of a pile the chances of finding one thats not well conducted in next to zero. What that means is you can trust that science is doing its job. However, without having knowledge in stats and the field you will likely have to rely on reputable experts to interpret the data for you. There is no alternative

Replication is key, that depends on the studies though, the type I mean. For things like epidemiological studies replicability is not truly possible unless you use the exact same data set, stats is king here and good pooling. For double blinded placebo controlled randomized trials replication is a must as the independent variable should be causative and thus replicable.

I think the soft sciences are more prone to errors but nothing like ND is claiming, his claim that all academia is tainted is untrue and anti-science, its frankly dumb and unfounded.

That is debatable

Kwon

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 52700
  • PRONOUNS: Ze/Zir
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #297 on: September 12, 2025, 05:48:54 AM »
This is a post from a fellow called Negrosis on Facebook:

Israel was behind the shooting.

Crystal clear.

That it comes so close after Israeli bombings in Tunisia and Qatar is a signature that reeks of Mossad, especially considering that Charlie Kirk had started to shift in his position on Israel and declined Netanyahu’s personal invitation to “visit Israel.”

Moreover, one of his closest associates wrote that Charlie feared possibly being assassinated by Mossad.


I personally have no regard for Charlie Kirk. He stands for atrocities incompatible with civilization and has carried water for Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians until very recently. That is not where the weight lies – it is the message Israel is now sending to the United States. They are now not only willing to strike allied states but also key figures within MAGA to sow chaos between the already infected rivalry between liberals and conservatives in the U.S., and to silence the Epstein and pedophile scandal, literally through death threats. I would not be particularly surprised if this accelerates the release of the pedophile Ghislaine Maxwell.

Israel judged that the short-term advantage of provoking chaos in the U.S. outweighed the risks as long as they got Charlie Kirk out of the way and left Turning Point USA leaderless (to then install a more “suitable” candidate, preferably a pushover), while at the same time camouflaging their deed by throwing roses on his grave and pointing to “the Left” by leaving behind “evidence” fit only for a slapstick film, when the assassination has clearly been carried out by a professional and the bullet placed in the artery – something Israeli snipers have become notorious for in Gaza against countless children.

This assassination is also a message to others within the American right where opinion against Israel has soured, including Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. Several attacks will occur in the foreseeable future. Israel has estimated that Americans are cowards and will not dare to strike back at them regardless of provocations. The sitting president is moreover their plaything, a dying old man, who stands at the center of Epstein’s empire of kompromat.

“Say it was the Left who did it, or another bullet will come.”

Utterly despicable and disgusting behavior, though nothing new for Israel, who are also reasonably suspected of having murdered JFK. Disappointed to see comments where people lap up the pre-planted propaganda.
Q

Super Nattie

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 199
  • Getbig!
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #298 on: September 12, 2025, 05:51:55 AM »
GREAT NEWS! According to President Trump, they've just caught the fucker  8) 


Never1AShow

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8815
  • World Record Holder in French Toast Diving
Re: RIP - Charlie Kirk Shot Dead at Utah University - 2025-09-10
« Reply #299 on: September 12, 2025, 05:59:47 AM »
According to President Trump, they've got the fucker  8) 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/charlie-kirks-suspected-assassin-captured-after-fatal-shooting-influential-conservative-voice-utah

Already posted a new thread on the capture, are we going to go thru several more days of loony leftist spammers of Facebook knowledge or conspiracy theories in this polluted thread?