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.

 

[NoParty]

...I think Trump bladed himself...

You've seen Trump move, yes? His version of "dancing" looks like Calvin Coolidge and Elaine Benes had a drunken love child.
You think it's probable that he--deftly & lightning fast--intentionally cut himself, so quick that no person or camera could detect it?


Are you conflating "conspiracy" with "conspiracy theory"? Conspiracies are common, and I doubt anyone here doubts that.
Conspiracy theories, however, have a bad rep, because they usually ARE so much less likely than other, less fun, explanations.

Here's Wikipedia's take on the difference:
"A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy (generally by powerful sinister groups, often political in motivation),[3]​[4]​[5]​ when other explanations are more probable.[3]​[6]​[7]​ The term generally has a negative connotation, as it can often be based in prejudice, emotional conviction, insufficient evidence or paranoia.[8]​ A conspiracy theory is distinct from a conspiracy; it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, including but not limited to opposition to the mainstream consensus among those who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy, such as scientists or historians.[9]​[10]​[11]​ As such, conspiracy theories are identified as lay theories.

Conspiracy theories are usually resistant to falsification either by evidence against them or a lack of evidence for them.[12]​ They are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and absence of evidence for it are misinterpreted as evidence of its truth.[8]​[13]​ Psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky observes "the stronger the evidence against a conspiracy, the more the conspirators must want people to believe their version of events."[14]​ As a consequence, the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proven or disproven."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

 

[Mendel]

Just because something can be called "a conspiracy" doesn't mean that it is less likely than the alternative.

Yes, it does mean that. Conspiracy theories tend to not turn out to be true. It is very hard to pull off this level of secrecy.

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.

I have built a better case, you're just ignoring it.
I'm making it clear which of your points I have issues with. Your own post remains unchopped above, just scroll up.

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.

Yes, but here we have evidence:

Article:

On June 30, 2008, in the 15th Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Epstein pled guilty to one count of "Felony Solicitation of Prostitution" and one count of "Procuring Person under 18 for Prostitution." He was sentenced to 18 months in prison and officially registered as a Sexual Offender.[134] Also as part of the deal he was required to pay restitution to three dozen victims identified by the FBI.[70][124]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein#Federal_prosecutors

We already know Epstein engaged in sex trafficking of minors to a criminal justice standard of evidence.
And we see the files.
What I'm not aware of is that Epstein was the long-standing subject of conspiracy theories before the evidence came out, meaning that's not a good example.

You can't compare that with evidence-free speculations.

 

[Mendel]

Conspiracies are common, and I doubt anyone here doubts that.

I doubt that conspiracies are "common".

 

[Mendel]

My suggestion is that you build a better case instead of nitpick the case presented.

You seem to be defending your "Trump's ear wound was self-inflicted" speculation by claiming here that explanations without speculation are impossible.

Your points in support of that thesis were,
1) "Any use of logic is speculation. To not allow speculations is to turn off the brain."
2) "If you think you are arguing evidence-based, it is only because you make certain assumptions so instinctively that you don't even notice it. You have to speculate, and you have to do it based on something outside of the evidences."
3) "My evidence for this whole post is that it can't be done and that it can be tested. Maybe just point me to a post where this has been done successfully."

This is your case of post #155 in a nutshell.

I've adressed this here, in post #157.
I've noted that 1) is obviously false, that 2) requires an example for support at a minimum, and met your challenge in 3) to an example of our own, specifically how investigation, theorizing, prediction and testing established an explanation by following the evidence.

I'd say that goes at the foundations of your argument.
I'd speculate you are ignoring this and playing it down as 'nitpicking' because your argument is weak.
But we are in a dialog here, and you have the opportunity to strengthen it, or to change your mind.

Follow the evidence.