Posted: Oct 11, 2017 2:05 pm
proudfootz wrote:Just A Theory wrote:proudfootz wrote:psikeyhackr wrote:
But you are only going to get data on conspiracies that are exposed. So it presumes there are no large conspiracies that have never been exposed. There would be no data on any that might actually exist. How many conspirators prove from the start their complete willingness to kill anybody?
Speculating about conspiracies is psychological BS.Just do the physics. Conspirators can't change that.
psik
That's kind of what I was thinking.
Imagine if the guy made a formula for how long it takes a bridge to collapse based on data about collapsed bridges with zero input about bridges that didn't collapse.
So let me get this straight. In your hypothetical research on bridge failure modes, you'd examine bridges which haven't collapsed in order to get the most appropriate data set?
See, this is why the "truth" movement has made no progress in nearly 17 years.
Unsurprisingly, you miss the point that the guy assumes all bridges collapse and using only a few examples won't even have a very reliable formula for prediction of future collapses.
But all bridges will collapse so it's not a useful data set anyway. A reliable formula would be developed by using examples of those that fail prematurely.