Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Zig goes FULL RANT during the interview.I'll listen later and comment
I have watched nearly every video he has made on the Sandusky issue. He is a very annoying speaker but I listen intently to what he brings up. The main problem for me is that he tends to base his theories off erroneous conclusions that he has drawn from information he thinks he knows. When you start wrong you end wrong. He blocked me a long time ago because he didn't like what I had to say but I still try take his opinion into consideration. I'll listen to this one too, but God is he a terrible speakerZig goes FULL RANT during the interview.
Now, I am not a guy to write a person off because they go FULL RANT , but I know that with a lot of people that will just turn them off......so be it.
_______________________________
Now....that being the case:
- Whether you want to adopt JZ's conclusions, or not (including stuff like Jerry S's innocence etc) and I don't claim - nor will I try to convince anyone - that his information insures that all of his conclusions are airtight.
- A reasonable person would realize that this "ranter" brings up a whole SLEW of points that SHOULD HAVE BEEN (and should still be) in the front lines of the narrative, but are instead completely ignored.
Several of his points regarding the "victims"....the legal process....the media....etc are very valid - and only the intellectually retarded will "right those issues off" simply because they may not be the "politically acceptable" viewpoints or they are delivered by a guy who's style they don't like..
I won't go into listing some of the most relevant....but if you listen - to the words, without shutting down due to the rant - there is a lot there that people SHOULD be evaluating.
My idea of hell would be being trapped alone in an elevator with Zeigler after a night of heavy drinking.
You were right about the ranting but nothing knew for him. This was just a continuation of the same things he has been saying.
No doubt NE, he was in full rant. Not that it's really any skin off my nose, but I do wish he'd not go all cray cray with regar. To his issues with Scott P.....seems like a waste of time. I do think some of his stuff about the media. The relationships between the victims and the attorneys etc. is interesting.bjf1984, I listened to this because of your history as a reliable, rational poster. But this was an absolute train wreck by Ziegler. He is actually getting worse with his presentation skills over time--I didn't think that was possible.
No one is 100% correct on this mess and conversely, no one is 100% wrong. Only a fool would refuse to consider all possibilities. JZ can make one very uncomfortable with his presentation style and some of his assertions. I do dismiss the SP, JZ feud, since I don't see it as a key to the truth and only they know the source of the acrimony.
Two things that seem to bring a great deal of venom here are questioning the veracity of some of the "victims" and arguing that JS did not receive a fair trial. Personally, I don't have an issue with either one. I do have a difficult time believing Jerry is 100% innocent.
I try to listen to Ziegler every time he is on the local radio. I am still waiting for him to actual proof besides "it doesn't make any sense." Or as he puts it: "IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!!!!!!"
Just because 'A' doesn't make any sense doesn't prove that 'A' is false, nor does it prove that 'B' is true.
If he can't provide any actual, credible proof when he has my attention on the radio, I'm not going to waste any more of my time to sort through his lunacy of a website.
I try to listen to Ziegler every time he is on the local radio. I am still waiting for him to actual proof besides "it doesn't make any sense." Or as he puts it: "IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!!!!!!"
Just because 'A' doesn't make any sense doesn't prove that 'A' is false, nor does it prove that 'B' is true.
If he can't provide any actual, credible proof when he has my attention on the radio, I'm not going to waste any more of my time to sort through his lunacy of a website.
What proof do you need that Aaron Fisher is a liar?
Mike McQ is a liar?
The Second Mile are liars?
The OAG and Fina are liars?
Scott Paterno is an A hole and a liar?
The BoT are liars?
Corbett / liar?
What?
N i t t a n y A m e r i c a
I've heard people complain about Ziegler's delivery as yelling and ranting many times before.
His voice, delivery and passion are not problems with me. I find Ziegler to be the one with the most articulation, knowledge, dedication and honesty about the situation. I've been following him from the beginning and I now have personally started to put the pieces of this convoluted puzzle together for myself. I commend the man for searching for the truth, and for having an open mind about the case. Ziegler, unlike many, is willing to put aside political correctness in his zealous pursuit of the truth. That, my friends, is admirable and unusual trait in this day and age.
He bases all his theories on his own speculation. Since he believes his speculation is fact, his theories must be true. At this point he just another carnival barkerIt's what I've heard him delivering that I have my main issue with. His theories are just that. Theories. I have yet to hear him offer any actual proof when I hear him on the radio. If he doesn't bother to do that, why should I waste my time going through his website?
As I said before, his main argument is always saying how it doesn't make any sense. Pedophilia doesn't make any sense to me, but that is hardly proof that it doesn't exist.
That doesn't fit nittanyamericas little rants tho.How about something other than blind accusations and saying that "it doesn't make any sense?" That's all he ever provides when he is on WRSC.
How about something other than blind accusations and saying that "it doesn't make any sense?" That's all he ever provides when he is on WRSC.
You're missing the point. You have to remember that the entire case is built on what supposedly makes sense since there is literally no evidence beyond accuser's testimony (unlike the Jarod case where there was a mountain of evidence including porn, texts, admissions of guilt, etc. Nothing close to that exists in this case.)
Accusers who would make millions of dollars.
Ziegler is pointing out how ludicrous Mike McQueary and Aaron Fisher's stories have to be to make any logical sense based on what is known. This is done through uncovering layer upon layer of detail between all the players and circumstances, of which there are many. The story about Fisher's mom is many layers deep and central into determining the validity of Fisher's story. It's not a "smoking gun", but it certainly is an indication to what makes more sense. The courts failed us in Pennsylvania. They didn't come close to fully investigating this case and it's obvious.
Cowardice and totally irrational decision making by grossly incompetent people in key positions has lead to the current narrative. It doesn't make sense. And yet there is another narrative that makes a hell of a lot more sense with a hell of a lot more layers of evidence to support it.
I can't think of anyone with less of an agenda in this than Ziegler. Seriously, what does someone gain by shouting to the world that Jerry Sandusky is innocent? Like him or not, like his political views or not, he is not stupid. He has no agenda. He has covered this closer than anyone, and the next person isn't even close imo. He's also right on the money analyzing the media's role in this. A role the media themselves practically always fail to acknowledge. In addition, no one has gone as far as identifying the incentives of each key player as it relates to the Sandusky case and no one has even considered the idea of doing such a thing. This stopped being a national investigative story more than 3 years ago. I understand many Penn Staters want to move on or have already done so. Personally, I haven't had closure with this yet. I for one applaud John for pursuing the truth.
Yeah everybody's a liar. Everybody is a liar except the guys you support. The guy who said nobody is 100% percent right or wrong on the whole affair put it best.What proof do you need that Aaron Fisher is a liar?
Mike McQ is a liar?
The Second Mile are liars?
The OAG and Fina are liars?
Scott Paterno is an A hole and a liar?
The BoT are liars?
Corbett / liar?
What?
N i t t a n y A m e r i c a
I do not believe that you've listened to him very much.How about something other than blind accusations and saying that "it doesn't make any sense?" That's all he ever provides when he is on WRSC.
Of course they're theories. There has only been one eye witness in this entire case and that is MM. The victim in the shower that MM has claimed to see denies that anything happened on that day, and the court ruled that JS was cleared from that charge.It's what I've heard him delivering that I have my main issue with. His theories are just that. Theories. I have yet to hear him offer any actual proof when I hear him on the radio. If he doesn't bother to do that, why should I waste my time going through his website?
As I said before, his main argument is always saying how it doesn't make any sense. Pedophilia doesn't make any sense to me, but that is hardly proof that it doesn't exist.
Of course they're theories. There has only been one eye witness in this entire case and that is MM. The victim in the shower that MM has claimed to see denies that anything happened on that day, and the court ruled that JS was cleared from that charge.
So of course the entire case is full of JZ theories. The pillars of the case are weak. That is why there is much doubt about JS being a pedophile.
I do not believe that you've listened to him very much.
The last time I checked, being convicted of felony Indecent Assault could hardly be considered as "cleared".Of course they're theories. There has only been one eye witness in this entire case and that is MM. The victim in the shower that MM has claimed to see denies that anything happened on that day, and the court ruled that JS was cleared from that charge.
So of course the entire case is full of JZ theories. The pillars of the case are weak. That is why there is much doubt about JS being a pedophile.
Of course they're theories. There has only been one eye witness in this entire case and that is MM. The victim in the shower that MM has claimed to see denies that anything happened on that day, and the court ruled that JS was cleared from that charge.
So of course the entire case is full of JZ theories. The pillars of the case are weak. That is why there is much doubt about JS being a pedophile.
Yeah, all 8 testified after Shubin, their lawyer, coerced them for the big Penn State payday.Wrong, 8 victims testified to what Jerry did. That is 8 eye witnesses and the ones that actually were molested. There is very little doubt JS molested children to anyone not wishing this all was just a bad dream for PSU. His theories can't discount every witness and in fact all he can do is say one of the victims didn't grow up a model citizen which means next to nothing. 8 victims testifying what the man did is not a weak case by and stretch and why he was convicted. I know a few of you would follow JZ off the cliff if it meant this all would be reversed, but it's not going to happen. Focus on taking down the BoT and finding the real truth there as that is where there is some real smoke.
The felony indecent assault did not come from the shower incident.L
The last time I checked, being convicted of felony Indecent Assault could hardly be considered as "cleared".
Way too many unanswered questions with regards to oversight from Dr. Jack Raykovitz and the Second Mile.
Let's put it this way - you're Raykovitz - and the University is on your doorstep complaining about your Founder & charity Figurehead's behavior with a youth on campus. A behavior that, AT THE VERY MINIMUM, could be a charge of Indecent Exposure if it were escalated. Your charity has (let's call it what it is) a parasitic relationship with that University and depends on the good will and volunteer base coming from that institution to survive.
Do you really want your childrens' charity to go down the tubes if it was plastered across the papers that your Founder & Figurehead has a habit of "exposing himself to minors"?
No.
Rather than suggesting Jerry wear "swim trunks" the next time - you haul his ass into that conference room and lay into to him THAT THIS IS THE WAY IT'S GONNA BE FROM NOW ON BUDDY.
No One on One contact with TSM kids. No little jaunts to campus after hours for "work out" sessions with TSM minors unless it's an approved TSM group outing with another counselor. No toodling off to a TSM minor's home in the next county without approval thru TSM offices and proper paperwork on file. No individual "sleepovers" with TSM kids. No gifts or football tickets to TSM kids, unless they are arranged thru TSM offices. No personal contact with a TSM kid on the phone, email or in person unless it's via approved TSM channels and for approved TSM programming. No TSM youths monkeying around on equipment designed for elite, adult, college athletes.
Most importantly - KEEP YOUR CLOTHES ON and KEEP YOUR HANDS & LIPS TO YOURSELF.
This is just a few of the things that could have easily been implemented by Dr. Jack Raykovitz to ensure all adults and kids were protected.
Now I have to ask - if Jerry was conducting himself around teen girls this way - NO ONE would declare him innocent. I fail to see why, since these are males, that it's somehow OK. It's not. They are someone else's kids.
Anyone that has ever been sexually groomed, manipulated, had the mind games played on them, the gifts & the money, the secrets & "contracts", the flattery & special attention, etc - plyed to them from a person of status, power & position can understand the dynamics that Jerry was using. These people are good - they cruise along the edge of plausible deniability when people start asking questions and easily spin it onto the weaker individual. In this case, it's at-risk youth from dysfunctional families, how much weaker can you get?
Dr. Raykovitz should have recognized this (potentially) felonious behavior and addressed it. He & a few others had a duty of care to those clients and to keep Jerry on a short leash. Simply blows my mind that these people have skated.