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.)

 

[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 for a type of UA phenomenon 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.

 

[John J.]

Regarding SS-members.

USSS. The United States Secret Service is not usually abbreviated to "SS" for rather obvious reasons.

In a number of different places and times, some detractors of specific security/ policing services etc. have used the "... = SS" trope, e.g. French protestors have used the chant "CRS, SS" referring to CRS police units (Wikipédia https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRS_=_SS).

I don't think anyone here is saying speculation per se is a bad thing, and speculation might be an important early step in composing testable theories. I wouldn't be surprised if many established scientific, historical etc. findings had roots in speculation: "What if...", "Could it be that..."

But where evidence for a piece of speculation isn't found, or evidence mounts for a different theory, then maintaining that speculation as a likely explanation might be seen as a baseless assertion or allegation.

The specific form of bunk focused on at Metabunk is claims of evidence.

Metabunk posting guidelines, 2nd para. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/post-57025
There is no evidence of a conspiracy concerning the events of 13 July 2024. Of course, we might expect hypothetical conspirators to attempt to cover their tracks, but lack of evidence for a conspiracy is not evidence of a conspiracy. Re. these events, we have no evidence to debunk.

We know a little about the 13 July 2024 shooter, Thomas Crooks. It seems likely he acted alone. We don't know his motives, just as we don't know the motives of Lee Harvey Oswald. The significant consequences of their actions (much the more so with Oswald) do not in themselves indicate that their motivations were (objectively) sensible, well-thought through or even non-trivial, much less due to involvement an organised conspiracy.

Crooks must have known there was a significant chance he would be fired upon. It is hard to imagine a (broadly) rational person in his position- even if he were, hypothetically, recruited (and misinformed) by someone else- believing that all law enforcement personnel present would refrain from trying to stop him shooting. After all, there may have been family members of local police in the audience. Risking a violent death or lifelong imprisonment just to boost someone's image doesn't seem sensible. Recruiting an irrational person to stage a shooting in order to boost the apparent target's prestige, and allowing the recruit to be in a position where there would have a good chance of shooting, and killing, that target, seems an absurdly high-risk strategy.

When I first saw footage of the 13 July events, particularly Trump's actions, I did wonder if it might have been an outrageous piece of theatre.
The "bloodgate" scandal in an international rugby match in 2009 came to mind: A player used a capsule of fake blood to feign an injury, allowing his substitution by a colleague. The team doctor cut the "injured" player's lip in an attempt to deflect (the almost immediate) suspicion; Wikipedia, Bloodgate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodgate

But as the seriousness of the 13 July attack became evident, and we got more information concerning the run-up to the attack and about Crooks, it became evident that a simpler explanation adequately covered what is known: A troubled individual attempted to assassinate the US President, as has happened before. Security lapses contributed to the near-success of the attempt, but they were lapses, not malign actions. Occam's razor supports the findings of the subsequent investigation, and it wasn't concealed in Trump's hand to inflict a cut.

 

[NoParty]

USSS. The United States Secret Service is not usually abbreviated to "SS" for rather obvious reasons.

Thank you for pointing that out.

I have the same reaction when someone refers to internment camps, like the ones Fred Korematsu was held in,
during WWII, as "concentration camps." Don't get me wrong: I've always felt that Tanforan, Topaz and the other camps
were wrong...what we did to American citizens of Japanese descent was awful...but not comparable to the Nazi
atrocities of Auschwitz-Birkenau, etc., and thus the term "concentration camp" is usually prudently reserved for those...

 

[Minus0]

I doubt that conspiracies are "common".

I suppose it would depend on one's intuition about 'common' in this context. I view common as inverse to extraordinary, not necessarily majority. For example, I would classify a minority group (eg people with disabilities) as common while making up only a fraction of the population.

The following is an interesting paper from Dutch academics demonstrating the historical prevalence of conspiracism and it's connection to perceived crisis:

A common idea among lay people, journalists, and academics seems to be that we now live in an "age of conspiracism." To some extent, this assumption is understandable: Conspiracy theories can be found everywhere on the Internet, and statistics reveal that large portions of ordinary citizens endorse them for a wide range of topics (Oliver and Wood, 2014; Sunstein and Vermeule, 2009). As a consequence, both authors of this article are regularly approached by journalists who typically ask whether—or even downright assume that—conspiracy beliefs are "on the rise" in our current era. But is this actually true? What does the empirical evidence say about the prevalence of conspiracy thinking over time?

They lay out the various lines of evidence and conclude:

Building on an integration of historical observations with basic psychological research, we can draw the following conclusions.

1. First, conspiracy theories are not unique to our current time or culture. People of all eras and cultures are likely to believe in conspiracy theories, provided that they are confronted with societal crisis situations.
2. Second, this relationship between societal crisis situations and belief in conspiracy theories is attributable to feelings of fear, uncertainty, and being out of control. These feelings instigate sense-making processes that increase the likelihood that people perceive conspiracies in their social environment.
3. Third, after being formed, conspiracy theories can become part of lay representations of history and are transmitted to new generations as coherent narratives even though people do not experience uncertainty about past crisis situations anymore.

Taken together, these processes might explain why human history is replete with widespread belief in conspiracy theories.

Access to the full paper is available here:

• https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1750698017701615

 

[Mendel]

Thank you for pointing that out.

I have the same reaction when someone refers to internment camps, like the ones Fred Korematsu was held in,
during WWII, as "concentration camps." Don't get me wrong: I've always felt that Tanforan, Topaz and the other camps
were wrong...what we did to American citizens of Japanese descent was awful...but not comparable to the Nazi
atrocities of Auschwitz-Birkenau, etc., and thus the term "concentration camp" is usually prudently reserved for those...

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans#Terminology_debate .

Spoiler: selected quote

A concentration camp is a place where people are imprisoned not because of any crimes they have committed, but simply because of who they are. [...] Despite differences, all had one thing in common: the people in power removed a minority group from the general population and the rest of society let it happen.

Birkenau was an extermination camp.

 

[Mendel]

The following is an interesting paper from Dutch academics demonstrating the historical prevalence of conspiracism and it's connection to perceived crisis:

The paper's subject is conspiracy theories, not actual conspiracies.

 

[Ann K]

The following is an interesting paper from Dutch academics demonstrating the historical prevalence of conspiracism and it's connection to perceived crisis

I have no personal thoughts about whether conspiracy theories are on the rise either in number or in followers, but the internet alone is sufficient to explain the speed at which they spread.

 

[Minus0]

The paper's subject is conspiracy theories, not actual conspiracies.

Ah my apologies. I misinterpreted.

it's an interesting paper, however, and seems relevant to the thread/current political climate so I'll leave it up. Mods are welcome to remove it if it's off topic