Trump's Ear wound

[fizzBuzz]

I think you misunderstood me.

I don't mean that you can't find an answer, I mean that you can't say anything meaningful with just facts/evidence, because you can't bind them together without speculation. Concluding that something is "probable", "likely", "unlikely", and so on is fine, but you can't do that without speculations.

Your example doesn't work and is an example of the speculation I am talking about. You can't say that it is unlikely or likely or anything if you stick to the evidence or lack of evidences. That is why I said these rules turns everything into a (permanent) mystery. There is nothing to discuss. Only a bunch of possibly reliable facts, such as a dead firefighter. But he doesn't imply anything without speculation about the whole situation. You just expressed an opinion, which we weren't supposed to do here, I think.

@Everyone I tried...

 

[boringrealit]

@boringrealit
I too believe this an administration is corrupt to an unprecedented degree, but the subject of this thread is specific to his ear wound at Butler, PA. The known facts of the case tell us the young shooter was not a trained sniper, nor did he provide himself with matching ammunition. Would you expect someone who misses the target twice to be entrusted with the job of just nicking an earlobe without causing serious damage? It strains credulity.

As for the complicity of a number of secret service members, still under Biden's presidency, that's (1) highly improbable, and (2) insulting to those dedicated individuals who put their own lives at risk. This claim would thus require significant and solid evidence, which you do not have.

Please don't construct wild fantasies out of thin air. There are too many facts known for you to imagine irresponsible non-factual scenarios.

Well, I don't believe he was the shooter or even that he had sharp ammo. But that is irrelevant because I don't think the shooter shot at Trump's ear. I think Trump bladed himself or released fake blood when he hit at his ear as the first shot went off.

Regarding Biden. I don't think was much in control and I think both parties are controlled both by blackmailing through Epstein-like networks or just legally bribed through donations, so that the important positions in USG goes to the Swamp.

Regarding SS-members. They deserve to be insulted either because I am correct, or because I am wrong and they are just incompetent. My facts/evidence is that, real or not, the event took place, a noob got up on the roof and people was shot somehow. All unacceptable. Btw, do you think the "assassination-attempt" last night was staged? Great if you back your conclusion with lots of evidences.

 

[boringrealit]

@Everyone I tried...

Do you seriously not see the problem with your example? You complain about evidences and then come to your own conclusion from the lack of evidences!

 

[Landru]

I think you misunderstood me.

I don't mean that you can't find an answer, I mean that you can't say anything meaningful with just facts/evidence, because you can't bind them together without speculation. Concluding that something is "probable", "likely", "unlikely", and so on is fine, but you can't do that without speculations.

Your example doesn't work and is an example of the speculation I am talking about. You can't say that it is unlikely or likely or anything if you stick to the evidence or lack of evidences. That is why I said these rules turns everything into a (permanent) mystery. There is nothing to discuss. Only a bunch of possibly reliable facts, such as a dead firefighter. But he doesn't imply anything without speculation about the whole situation. You just expressed an opinion, which we weren't supposed to do here, I think.

This is a discussion of Trump's ear wound. Please stick to that topic. Aggressive speculation is against the Posting Guidelines.

 

[Edward Current]

Do you seriously not see the problem with your example? You complain about evidences and then come to your own conclusion from the lack of evidences!

That conclusion is just the null hypothesis. If the observations are a shooter, injuries, and a death, the null hypothesis is that the shooter caused the injuries and the death. The evidence is the observations! Additional evidence is required for more complicated theories — evidence for the necessary complications.

 

[Mendel]

I think Trump bladed himself or released fake blood when he hit at his ear as the first shot went off.

You are going off into conspiracy land here, because this would've been obvious to all attending physicians and nurses. It implies Trump came prepared for this and anticipated the shots.

There is a complete lack of evidence supporting this speculation.
Instead, we prefer to follow the maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

(I also note you ignored my previous reply to you.)

 

[boringrealit]

That conclusion is just the null hypothesis. If the observations are a shooter, injuries, and a death, the null hypothesis is that the shooter caused the injuries and the death. The evidence is the observations! Additional evidence is required for more complicated theories — evidence for the necessary complications.

No, but I already been warned for off topic, so I end this here.

You are going off into conspiracy land here, because this would've been obvious to all attending physicians and nurses. It implies Trump came prepared for this and anticipated the shots.

There is a complete lack of evidence supporting this speculation.
Instead, we prefer to follow the maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

(I also note you ignored my previous reply to you.)

Just because something can be called "a conspiracy" doesn't mean that it is less likely than the alternative. It is very reasonable to say that there is a conspiracy behind the decade long refusal to investigate and release the Epstein Files, for example. The extraordinary in that case would to deny that there is a conspiracy. So that maxim isn't so straight forward as people seem to think (besides what even is a extraordinary evidence compared to a normal evidence?)

Yes, I skipped your post and another similar post, because they chopped up my post into little pieces. I don't care for that sort of argumentation. My suggestion is that you build a better case instead of nitpick the case presented. But do that in some other thread, since I've been warned already for off topic. Just me, for some reason, but ok. I leave this thread now. Bye.