You keep posting like the fact they can is the ONLY evidence. It us not.I think you don't understand the difference between normalcy bias and rational thinking. Logically, the fact that someone can do something is not evidence that they did. It's fair to suspect they did. To be utterly confident that they did is a failure of reasoning given the circumstances. I think you're just pissed at me because I don't accept your instincts as evidence.
With the information available the I don’t know for sure but it is either likely or not likely is the right answer for discussion, and bacon, don’t know is for those that have no idea this even is a subject to discuss.You had claimed that "I don't know" is not an answer, implying that likely yes, or likely no are the only answers for a question like that. The point of the "aliens" example was to help you understand why "likely yes" and "likely no" are not the only answers, and that "I don't know" is actually the most reasonable answer given the circumstances.
It is not uncorroborated you just don’t like it that CNN did not cover it. At one time there were two generals and some press coverage from Europe that has been scrubbed from the internet.Why a raid in Germany instead of some other uncorroborated claim? Why must it be that? Because it's delicious. GWP reported it. You consumed it eagerly.
All I have said is I found enough evidence that a preponderance of the evidence to believe it happed.I would wager that I could completely fabricate a plausible sounding story, have AI make it look exactly like a GWP article, and you'd accept it without scrutiny. And then we could argue about it off and on for 4 years. And I could make the same arguments that I made here, using the same rationale. And you'd eventually post a poll trying to get other people to agree with you. And the only way you'd let it go, is if someone you respect told you it was a sham. Stuff like that is just too delicious to scrutinize.
Again, the possibility is not the only evidence.Just because it can doesn't mean it did. This is a logical fallacy. It's an appeal to possibility.
As I see it GWP and others published the quotes of generals who claimed they had knowledge. Maybe they made it up to fit the other evidence, but I previously laid out the rationale for believing it likely.I think it's difficult to navigate the reports for accuracy. We have to rely on sources that are uber biased. What I mean by that. Both sides can and do fabricate stuff that benefits their own side. On the opposing side, their outlets are the only sources of news that will publish news that is true, that is unfavorable to our side. Of course they'll publish nonsense. But they're eager to publish the truth when it hurts their opposition. It's the same on our side. Only right wing sources were being honest about Hunter's laptop for example. You weren't reading the truth about that on any mainstream center, to left outlets. That creates a problem of credibility, because we don't know when our own side is lying to us or telling the truth.
There have been many articles in conservative media that I hoped was true but quickly discovered they were blown out of proportion or flat wrong and moved on.You're eager to consume information that confirms what you already believe, and you're reluctant to let go of it even if proven wrong.
So you say it is possible but simultaneously it is nutty?None of this is false except I think categorizing it as "the big steal" sounds about as nutty as progressives insisting 2020 was the most secure election ever. There's a space between the extremes where the truth most likely resides.
This is true, but again based on my explanation of what occurred that it was the most secure election in history and the constant opposition to any security measures makes it pretty clear that something is going on.I don't expect deep partisans to see any apparent motive. However. If you're on the losing side, why would it not be advantageous to push conspiracy theories to sow distrust in the election? Not that it required far fetched stories to bring doubt in the election results.
There were some news stories in the European press at the time that have now been scrubbed from existence. Not like the old days when you could just go to some obscure library to get a copy of an obscure paper.You have people who have the means, motive, and opportunity. They also had the means, motive, and opportunity to do a lot of other things we can imagine, but we don't believe everything just because our minds can imagine it. Any evidence a raid actually happened? Any testimony from people seeing strange things when this supposedly went down?
You never have explained the motive that TWO generals, who are now damn near off the grid when I do searches for what they said, gained to perpetuate lies. What did they gain to lie?Anything other than people claiming it happened who have a reason to lie?
You are butt hurt. You really are. You wanted so bad for the great white horse to lead the cavalry to win the war that when they failed to materialize you became bitter over it. I saw it in your posts real time. I was greatly disappointed myself but regrouped to fight another day. You really are scarred over this.Set aside what you want to believe. Ask questions critical of what you do believe. Ask if you'd believe it if the exact same story happened, but for the other side. Does your political leanings make this seem more real than if you had opposite political leanings? Do I want to believe the truth, or do I want to believe what my imagination feeds me.