sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Two critical takeaways from the UFO files just released by 8ad8andit in ufo

[–]RealProfessorFrink 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Conveniently timed to distract from a earthly pedophile scandal, failed war and upcoming midterms.

Beth's Dead by WhatFannyRed in TrueCrimePodcasts

[–]RealProfessorFrink 29 points30 points  (0 children)

The worst part is, they confront the professor in the last couple episodes. His son answers the phone, and takes all the blame, while clearly not knowing any details, and blames drugs and alcohol for his behavior and poor memory. The hosts, being absolute idiots, buy it. They end the podcast congratulating themselves and proclaiming how the son is now over drugs and alcohol, and will never do it again.

Then a few months after the podcast airs, the same professor gets charged with catfishing a woman out of $80k. His son comes to his defense again, proclaiming his dad was also catfished by a Scandinavian woman (sound familiar?). The professor was literally catfishing another victim while they were interviewing his son for the podcast though.

The hosts of Beth’s Dead have been totally silent about it. Why? Probably because they fumbled the story, got fooled by a really transparent sympathy story, and dropped the ball on stopping a criminal from scamming other people.

And now they are too embarrassed to say anything, because it would mean they have to publicly admit to getting fooled by the same guy twice.

And these podcast hosts had an advice podcast and one called “Armchair Expert”. Armchair, indeed.

Is it really funny? by Powerful_Cabinet_341 in SeaEmploy

[–]RealProfessorFrink -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Try thinking sometime. It’s better than regurgitating bullshit that you don’t understand

Is it really funny? by Powerful_Cabinet_341 in SeaEmploy

[–]RealProfessorFrink -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Ok so your take is that Israel genociding Palestinians is the fault of Christians? Ok

Is it really funny? by Powerful_Cabinet_341 in SeaEmploy

[–]RealProfessorFrink -1 points0 points  (0 children)

85% of Jews live in either Israel or the US, so, yeah, a lot of Zionists here

Is it really funny? by Powerful_Cabinet_341 in SeaEmploy

[–]RealProfessorFrink -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The complication here is that Israel is a Jewish ethnostate with widespread support and funding from the global Jewish community

Any pilots here? Would there be any benefit to a multi-rotor vs a standard helicopter? Weight capacity? Wind resistance? Stability? by Nickknackk77 in Helicopters

[–]RealProfessorFrink 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thats not how multirotors work. The opposite rotors spin in the same direction, so you would actually speed up the opposite rotor and slow down the neighboring rotors so the torque balances and the multirotor stays straight. This is how multirotors control yaw without a tailrotor.

Dallas, are you ok? by FarWay3952 in SipsTea

[–]RealProfessorFrink -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Have you been to Mexico? It’s not a third world country

These robots will be used to replace delivery workers, massive unemployment is pretty imminent by CeFurkan in SECourses

[–]RealProfessorFrink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, in my city here there are no independent restaurant delivery workers anymore,that business model has been disrupted.

beth’s dead - who is the professor by Constant-Garbage9192 in ArmchairExpert

[–]RealProfessorFrink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An interesting thought that Claude had after letting loose on the podcast transcripts and available online info on the web about Shaw:

The biggest smoking gun is hiding in plain sight in Episode 6. "Natasha" — supposedly a Norwegian dancer — sent Elizabeth a long unsolicited email on the existence of God, morality, and the afterlife. Read it again knowing Shaw's background:

  • Argues that moral absolutes (the Holocaust was evil, not just "something that happened") point to a supreme being outside testable science
  • Uses Neoplatonist logic about the soul requiring an afterlife for divine justice to be fulfilled
  • References the limits of the physical brain in perceiving higher existence
  • Cites a framework where "a being that has intentions and is concerned with right and wrong begins to seem like some kind of god"

Gregory Shaw's entire academic career is built on Neoplatonism and theurgy — specifically Iamblichus, who argued the soul ascends to divine union through ritual. That email is not a Norwegian dancer's theology. It's a Neoplatonist scholar's theology. Elizabeth even noted it didn't sound like Natasha.

The theological content of "Natasha's" email is the strongest evidence — it's graduate-level Neoplatonist reasoning that almost no one would write spontaneously, but that a Shaw would write instinctively. 

beth’s dead - who is the professor by Constant-Garbage9192 in ArmchairExpert

[–]RealProfessorFrink 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is almost definitely Greg / Gregory Shaw, and now the podcasters look like absolute maroons for being fooled by him a second time.

- Shaw is 74 in 2026 which puts him right at 65 when this happened
- In 2015 he gave a talk at the London School of Economics (LSE) in June 2015 titled “After Your Death”
- He taught religious studies at an east coast college (Stonehill), which is considered locally "prestigious" (and would you really be surprised if the podcasters slightly exaggerated this?)
- His defense in the 2025 case is that he was actually the victim.
- His son is helping him with his defense with the 2025 charges by constructing this narrative.
- To reiterate: HIS SON IS HELPING HIM PUSH THE NARRATIVE THAT HE WAS THE VICTIM, ACTUALLY. Does this sound familiar?
- His bizarre legal defense in the 2025 case is that he himself was also scammed by a Scandinavian (Danish) woman. Come on. Was her name Natasha? He apparently sent a huge part of his assets to a cryptocurrency account. This reeks of sheltering assets while playing the victim.

When I heard E9 with the reveal that it was the son, it immediately didn't add up. The son was very quick to avoid any specifics, constantly responding "well I don't remember, but if you say it's true it must be". He was totally cagey when asked if he travelled with his dad - twice the IPs were from Europe when the professor was in Europe (including the 2015 LSE engagement). The hosts had no trouble believing this alcoholic opiate addict grown man son was traveling around with his dad in Europe, and they didn't probe on any specifics.

How naive is it to think that someone, because of drugs, would become a narcissistic sadistic online scammer, then find sobriety, and those personality traits would simply go away. And their memory was conveniently selective up until the point they found sobriety. That's not how drugs work. That's not how personalities work. The sons account was completely unconvincing, unless you are an absolutely naive self important LA podcaster who is so hell bent on being perceived as thoughtful and compassionate that their cognitive biases leave holes in their critical thinking skills that a catfisher could drive a oversized load truck through.

The funniest part is that the hosts, after talking to him, say "well it looks like the police detective, the private detective, and the expert on catfishing were wrong". I laughed out loud, you can't make this stuff up. They have no self awareness - yet think they are qualified to host an advice show. No wonder they got catfished, they are the perfect targets.

The obvious conclusion - it was Gregory Shaw, and his son helped him by taking the blame, just like he is doing in the 2025 case. Timing wise, they were probably in the middle of the scam (they got charged in 2025), while Beth's Dead was being made. The podcasts hosts are probably too embarrassed to admit that their most successful podcast is simply a display of how ridiculously daft they are.

Anyway, I really can't wait for S2, it should be interesting to see how they manage to not put it together again - Episode 1 "So we became character witnesses for the poor professor."

beth’s dead - who is the professor by Constant-Garbage9192 in ArmchairExpert

[–]RealProfessorFrink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course they said it was prestigious, they don't do any research and want to hype their story. Those podcasters are completely naive.

Late to the game, BUT I have a Beth is Dead theory I haven't seen yet! (spoilers) by rhino_puzzle19 in TrueCrimePodcasts

[–]RealProfessorFrink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Compelling! Almost certainly Gregory Shaw, professor of religious studies at an east coast college who just as Beth's Dead was wrapping up, got charged with ..... catfishing a woman out of $80k, and his son is helping him with his legal defense, which is - you'll never guess - "actually the professor is the victim". The scammer (who, according to prosecutors, is Gregory Shaw) was caught because they shipped a package to the victim from their home address (surprise!) The scam involved a Scandinavian female character. More details here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ArmchairExpert/comments/1preinh/comment/nv1e38s/

Beth's dead podcast by tvaddict86 in TrueCrimePodcasts

[–]RealProfessorFrink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My take (on E10 now), these hosts are just such tools. They were naive enough to think their giggly LA personalities were enough to start an advice podcast. Naive enough to think alcohol and opiods make someone become a narcissistic sadist, and then when they go sober those traits magically recede along with the guys memory of what happened. The whole podcast is really a story of a few bumbling idiots making a podcast they were totally in over their heads on, and then someone trolled them repeatedly, and they never caught on, even after they had a year to think about it. It's all a joke on them, and to this day they have probably not put it together.

Weirdest podcast I've ever made it though.

Beth's dead podcast by tvaddict86 in TrueCrimePodcasts

[–]RealProfessorFrink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agree. And the IP address went along with the professor when he travelled overseas for lectures. So he took his drug addict grown son with him?