Big Trumper here, but its probably best if he gets impeached, even if not legal

I agree that intelligent, rational people are capable of doing this. But this doesn't imply everyone has this capability, nor that this capability is always utilized by those who possess the skills. Consider that 70% of Republicans believe the election was stolen, despite there being no rational basis for such a belief. Surely this includes many intelligent, rational people who simply failed to critically examine the source of their belief, and exercised confirmation bias when examining available facts. Obviously, to steal the election would have required an implausible widespread conspiracy, since elections are independently managed by each state.

 

There was a time when such a thing would have required widespread cooperation. There was also a time where your social security number was to be revealed only to government and employer for tax purposes, not as a national ID. A time where your identity couldn't be stolen by someone in another nation and sold on the dark web. A time when your own telephone couldn't used to track your movements no matter where you go, without your being aware. Votes are no longer counted by hand in the process of summarizing, they are counted by computer- the same devices that cause you to start getting email and pop-up ads for the product you did a little research on 5 minutes earlier. Fascinating- and very dangerous precedents. Our own government has sought to use all the available means that technology has created- to spy on all of us. Ask Edward Snowden.

We have perhaps the most sophisticated cyber warfare systems in the world, in the hands of our military and intelligence communities. We have found there are people like Peter Strozok within our systems that have been so drastically anti-Trump as to make plans for an "insurance policy" to make sure he couldn't win. So- we have both the means and the people among us that could do such things, and we do not know the real extent of either of those factors. Tip of the iceberg, perhaps.

Now If I were a person planning such a massive thing as subverting a national election, the last thing I would do is try to bring in hundreds or thousand of conspirators across the voting points, because even if you could find them, you could never rely on them keeping quiet. That would indeed be a massive and impossible task that would never succeed. I would be looking for the Achilles heel, the crack in the armor that had been ignored and would not be suspected. I would be using as few people as possible; all of them would be hardline, dedicated to the cause- and then, I would throw out as many red herrings (things that look suspicious) into the visible electoral process as possible, so that any complaints of fraud and any investigations would be focused there- but unable to produce viable evidence. I would want confusion, disorder, as much turmoil in the visible part of the voting process as possible to make it appear even more likely- and of course, I would plant stories that fueled the suspicions that those red herrings were actually the source of fraud. Create a distraction that would get the attention and blame, but never produce evidence.

Now this is- theory; asking yourself what you would do if you wanted to pull that off; asking yourself how you could insure it couldn't be detected. Try to think like the kind of person that would be behind such a thing. Of course, you have to find all the pieces of the puzzle, or your picture isn't viable. And, validity of the theory still doesn't mean it's valid in the act; it has to fit with other incongruities and factors that indicate the the probability of such an act being real are very high. Those do exist; I've read a very compelling and documented analysis of voting patterns which show that the resulting count would be virtually impossible without manipulation. I apparently didn't save a link, I am looking for it. None of this is absolute; but it is cause for belief that a criminal act has occurred and that through investigation must take place. That is why 10's of millions of Americans feel fraud took place.

The idea that any computer system is invulnerable is proven wrong every day. In my computer systems, I have a hardware firewall device in front of the entire network. I've used these for a long time- and they track everything. A hacker in China or anywhere can scan the net in a broad fashion- looking for open ports on any computer. The initial effort is a "ping", just what it sounds like bounced signal. IF it hits an open port, (and your machine has many thousands of ports) your computer acknowledges it. If they find one, they then have a doorway to access your system. This firewall device creates a log of all such pings. When I first installed one- more than 20 years ago, I was astounded to find that such attempts were hitting my computer at least a hundred times a day. The log report includes the path that each attempt traveled, and where it came from. Sometimes just the nation or city, sometimes an identity. Most were from outside the US, and often bounced through several other countries, but that was listed. The most surprising attempts came from inside the us. One that hit us everyday at that time was from US Naval Intelligence. Why would US Naval intelligence be knocking on my computers back door? We don't know the why- we do know they did. It's not illegal to knock; it is illegal to come in. This equipment locks all open ports, so they can't. But if they do not intend to come in, why do they knock? The question remains unanswered.

Could vote fraud have been accomplished by computer hacking? Absolutely. Computer systems of nearly every government and military agency get hacked. The US Army system had 52 such events take place in 5 weeks- that they know of. The actual act of altering vote numbers remotely by computer manipulation in this way could be done invisibly, in a minute, and there would be no red flags. Thus- it would be the strategy of choice, especially if done with inside cooperation which would leave no trail of illicit intrusion.

Never assume that what you don't see happening isn't happening or can't happen- nor that when you see something out of place that it is some kind of fluke without a cause.
That's not paranoia or pessimism- it's awareness and skepticism, coupled with an understanding of the unlimited range of behavior human beings are capable of.

None of the above will seem plausible to you, because you have read a wikipedia article, and your critical thinking is already finished, right?

 

Thanks for explaining your theory. I see a number of problems with it. I'll start with the most obvious.

Voting machines are not connected to the network, so they cannot be hacked. This seems to be a fatal flaw in your theory, but I'll go further - since I see other reasoning errors.

Let's examine Strozok's "insurance policy" statement in full and in context:

"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's no way Trump gets elected—but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."

What exactly was Strozok referring to as the "insurance policy"? One possibility is that he was referring to the investigation he was involved with, that he believed would show Trump had nefarious connections with Russia that reflected his being compromised. Given his anti-Trump position, his judgment was very possibly biased.

Another possibility is that this was a tip of the iceberg of a vast conspiracy by a number of FBI agents, and perhaps others in government, to manufacture a case against Trump. Both possibilities should be examined and compared.

The first possibility is certainly the simpler explanation - it reflects a biased opinion of the person who made the comment. This explanation omits no facts. The second possibility depends on assuming, without evidence (and therefore it is ad hoc) that many people were involved. Without more evidence to support such a conspiracy, it's irrational to choose the more complex answer over the simpler. Nevertheless, the second possibility has been investigated by the Inspector- and no such conspiracy has been exposed. Durham is investigating this again, and it's within the realm of possibility he'll uncover somethin, but in the meantime - it is irrational to ASSUME he'll uncover a government conspiracy.

That people "could" do such things implies no more than a bare possibility, unless you have evidence to support that it occurred, and you would still have the burden of showing that this is more likely than other possible explanations of all available evidence.

Now let's examine your theory:

Your theory is entirely a product of your imagination - it wasn't the product of evidence. This establishes it as no more than a bare possibility. Furthermore, it is implausible, because you would still require a large number of fully dedicated people working in perfect secrecy, none having second thoughts and exposing the crime. It would require people working in a number of states, because - as I pointed out, elections are independently managed at the state level, and voting machines are not attached to the network.

The fundamental problem is that you start with an imaginative theory and then confirmation bias is applied. Evidence to the contrary is dismissed, as you did with treating debunked allegations as "red-herrings". Objectively, they are evidence of what is going on, but you're rationalizing them to fit a theory developed from imagination rather than evidence. When you do this, you've boxed yourself in - your theory is incorrigible; you leave yourself no basis for reconsidering it. Rationally, ALL possibilities should remain on the table, and you should have to consider what is the BEST explanation - and also consider the very real possibility that there's simply insufficient data available to be confident that any particular explanation is the correct one.

The problem with this is that your theory is not the PRODUCT of evidence, it is the product of your imagination, and you're treating data that is consistent with your theory as confirming it. It's irrational to simply ASSUME the theory is true without considering all the possibilities that are also consistent with the evidence.

I'll first note that you're considering a theory "valid" if it's just a bare possibility. The epistemic probability doesn't get any higher just because you can fit data into it (and make excuses to dismiss that which doesn't fit); you would have to show that it's a BETTER explanation for ALL the evidence than alternative explanations.

Sure you did.

I agree that there is a lot going on that we can't see, and the possibilities are endless. Acknowledging that is not paranoia. It becomes paranoia when you construct a scenario from your imagination, and then treat this as a working hypothesis that becomes incorrigible, because of applying confirmation bias and rationalizing everything that is inconsistent with it. When there are endless (or many) possibilties, the implication is that any ONE possibility is low probability. Objectively, you would need to examine each of the possibilities and demonstrate that your preferred one is more probable. The epistemological process is called, "inference to the best explanation" (here's a succinct description of the process, with regard to historical analysis).

Your reasoning does indeed fit the pattern of irrational conspiracy theories, but I showed some of the specific reasoning errors you've made without simply giving you a quick dismissal because it fits the pattern.

 

Not quite. Individual machines are not networked to my knowledge- but as the data moves upstream, it becomes computer managed. In my district, you enter a form into the machine you vote on. It prints encoded data on the form with your vote. You turn the vote form in, and it is scanned by a computer that collects all data from that polling place. The voter watches this happen, thus assumes his vote is permanently included. The data from that machine goes to a larger system, then to a state system, then to a national one. I don't think you believe that the near instant updating of the flow of votes you see reported is coming from room full of industrious little people with calculators, do you? No. you're smarter than that. Such hacking would not take place in individual machines anyway- but with the top=level systems that summarize the totals coming in from all the thousands of local ones.

If you wish to solve any problem, you start with the possibilities. HOW could it have happened? We know Mickey Mouse and friends didn't run around with erasers changing paper votes, so we don't consider any such ideas that could not be viable in the first place- we look for all the possibles, then keep looking for flaws in them, narrowing the list until we have a solution we can't rule out. It's a matter of ruling out what could not be, to find what actually is-
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Old Sherlock Holmes line. (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

If you invent anything, or take on any new challenge- you first imagine how it could be done. I've invented many products and some methods of forming that are original. You start with an idea for a product- (imagination) then you think about what it would take to make it work (more imagination) then you think about the kind of process and tooling it would take to produce it (more imagination) and then- you build a simple prototype we call a proof of concept. If it works, you refine it. If it doesn't you go back to the drawing board. This is no different, and we do it everyday when we conceive anything new. Just read an article on a guy who is building glider aircraft, non-powered, that has achieved a speed of 548 miles an hour- a bit faster than a 757 airliner at cruising speed. Seemingly impossible things are happening all the time, you just have to have the kind of mind that can figure out how to do them. Of course some things just appear to be happening, but are tricks. Any decent magician can pull off a trick you can't prove is fake, but you're smart enough to know it's not real- aren't you? If you are and want to know how it was done, you aren't going to take things at face value- you are going to intentionally get outside the box, or obvious parameters, and put your imagination to work. Try it.

The theory that Joe Biden won the election honestly is hardly a viable theory. The man spent a great deal of time in his basement, while Trump was doing 2-3 rallies a day. He's 78 years old, has had two brain aneurysms and numerous other serious health issues. He's demonstrated a significant number of signals that he's in the early stages of cognitive decline, and has never been an innovative political leader- mainly, rode the mainstream. So, people elect him to the most intense job in the world that requires quick thinking, accurate decisions and a great deal of energy, and is on duty 24/7? I fully agree we have a lot of people out there who aren't exactly razor sharp, but I don't think that democrats are so blind they won't weigh these factors into the question of presidential qualifications for office. Electing Joe is like entering a 30 year old horse in the Kentucky Derby. Most voters would know Joe's chances of surviving the stress and term would be very questionable, and that would risk Kamala Harris becoming president, and that scares everybody with a functioning brain. Though I question the wisdom of the average democrat today, I can't imagine they are so oblivious to these facts that they would ignore them. That indicates that the theory of this being an honest election is seriously full of holes.

You of course, can't see that? Only if you refuse to look.

 

Yes, in a variety of ways - each of which would require independent efforts to break into, analyze how the data is stored, and to then change it without being detected. Bear in mind that the results are stored at the precinct level, and every precinct is able to verify that those uploaded results match what they obtained at their site.

Cybersecurity vulnerabilities in back-end servers were identified following the 2016 election. Hacking attempts were found. Subsequently, the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency was formed to assist State and Local governments improve their cybersecurity. See this document.

Your view of what is possible is based on a vague understanding - you aren't a cybersecurity expert, nor do you understand what safeguards are present to protect election security that would need to be addressed. More generally, you are treating a POSSIBILITY as a PROBABILITY. Finally, consider the fact that with this approach, the LESS you know, the more probable the hypothesis will seem. The more you know, the more obstacles you'll see.

What fraction of the voting public do you think attended Trump's rallies? What fraction of attendees were persuaded to vote for him, vs the fraction that attend because of their prior enthusiastic support?

Your claim depends on the unsupported premise that large, in-person events are needed to convince people to vote for a candidate. There are other means of campaigning, including TV advertising - where Biden far outspent Trump. And I remind you of that 1st debate, in which Trump's performance was widely panned (except by his devoted followers)?

You're also ignoring other background data: Trump's disapproval rating exceded his approval rating throughout his term (with the exception of a single Jan 2018 poll). Finally, you are ignoring polling. Indeed, the polling suggest Biden would win by an even bigger margin than he actually did, but the polling still does add to the high probability that Biden genuinely won. (If you are tempted to react by dismissing the validity of polling, I'll just point out that it's yet another example of making excuses to dismiss contrary evidence.)

You are expressing your own biased opinion of the man and treating it as a fact that would cost him votes. Even if you feel absolutely certain that you have the correct view of Biden's physical and mental health, what makes you think this view is shared by Democrats (and the Republicans and Independents who were anti-Trump)? Do you have any opinion polls to support it? Perception is what matters, not your personal beliefs.

Another prime example of your treating a hyper-partisan judgment of a politician as an objective fact that would be universally perceived. But no, I'm not the least bit scared of a Harris presidency, and I seriously doubt you have any opinion poll data to support the view. Your including the "functioning brain" dig is strong evidence that your position is entirely the product of partisan bias.

Personally, I'm amazed that anyone would vote for a delusional narcissist, rude, p***y-grabber (with multiple credible allegations of sexual assault against him) like Trump. But I have the capacity to understand that people have different perceptions of the man, and some just accept the flaws because they like his policies. Regardless, although I was shocked that he won in 2016 (despite what I considered his obvious, disqualifying flaws and despite what the polls suggested we should expect), I never suggested his win was the product of cheating.

I find it notable that your subjective claims about Biden mirror what Trump said about him. Same with the claim that rally size is a strong indicator of who won the election - so strong that it makes you doubt the election result. Perhaps that's just a coincidence, but even so - it's not rational.

I suggest that for all elections in the history of this country (including this one), the election results should be assumed correct unless there are good, objective reasons to think otherwise. Pointing to vague possibilities is not sufficient reason, and neither are biased assessments of Biden's physical and mental health that you assume (without evidence) are the pervasive view of anti-Trump voters.

I see no evidence of valid analysis in anything you've said. You ignore information even after it's been presented to you (I brought up some of the same points to you in an earlier discussion we had. You seem immune to accepting facts that conflict with your biases). On the other hand, despite your charge that I would "refuse to look", I've actually looked quite a bit. I've asked for evidence of fraud from others, and all I got were claims that have previously been debunked, process complaints, and complaints about Court judgments. I've asked YOU for evidence, and all you gave were statements of imaginative possibilities that reflect a vague understanding of what would be entailed, biased judgments of the Democratic candidates, and the absurd assumption that crowd sizes are a better indicator of who won the election than certified vote totals.

Do you seriously think you've made a rational case for a fraudulent election? I hope you rethink that, because it's anything but.

 

The fact that some hacks are found illustrates that this happens, and we know happens frequently even in highly protected systems. The question is, how often does it happen and we don't find it? All that takes is a higher level of sophistication, and manipulation in a way that doesn't seem to be out of the ordinary. Happens all the time.

Perhaps you've never heard the phrase "You don't know what you don't know". How many people would believe a story that an un-powered glider could fly at the speed of a jetliner? Normal, intelligent and educated people would dismiss that as hogwash, wouldn't bother to investigate it- especially if their interests would be harmed should it be proven. true, so they would call people crazy fools to dismiss the possibility

And the more you know, the more possibilities you see. It's not a matter of choosing an outcome and building a case to back it. The right approach is to learn all you can, gather everything relevant and let the data lead you to the outcome. What I might want to believe is irrelevant to that process. Are you sure you studied critical thinking, or are you just throwing that out as jargon expertise?
People who would attempt that kind of a fraud are betting that the public will not be sophisticated enough to look into the background, and will stop at the first thing that looks like an obstacle. Many of them will and have of course.

Most people use their own level as a benchmark to compare others to. They tend to dislike and dismiss those who see beyond them and call them crazy, while they dismiss those with less vision as ignorant.
It's a convenient way to keep believing you are right. Now I'm old, so I have the benefit of a great deal of life experience in a wide exposure of fields. I'm also a person with a 99%+ percentile IQ. That's been a burden at times, because it keeps you out of synch with most of society, and many do not like that. I know a great deal about the human mind, because it's always been a passion- to know what controls how we think, to learn how to master your own mental abilities and make them work their best. One of the things I know is that while we are all different, and while both our intelligence and natural gifts vary, we all have the potential to be very successful, just in different ways. I know there are people more and less intelligent than I am, more or less wise than I am- and certainly those who may grasp something I do not. Thus I don't dismiss a view out of hand unless it hinges on something I already know is false from previous experience. If it's outlandish but I've not been there to know- and sometimes if I have, or think I have- I look again, and ask myself what I missed. My reason for mentioning the glider speed was similar, to point out that things you automatically think can't be done often can, because it's using principles or techniques you
are unaware of and assume don't exist.

Yes, perception is what determines what we think. I think democrats are having some perceptional problems, but I do give them credit for being able to understand the relationship between questionable health and fitness for office, and that this would cause many of them to believe Biden is unfit. While Trump hate may over-ride that for some, it would still be of major influence.

Now you believe the vote is honestly tallied, and that democrats didn't bother to question fitness. Do you think they are all that foolish? If only 10% of them saw that as a reason not to elect Biden, he wouldn't be there now. On the other hand- if the vote count were manipulated, people's perception of those facts wouldn't matter, and he would be elected anyway.

The point you are actually making is that either democrats are not capable of understanding the risks here, or that the election was rigged. I don't think democrats are that dumb.

Tens of millions of Americans have re-thought this and believe what you continue to dismiss as foolish, crazy, impossible, etc. YOU are the person who see's no evidence, and that is by choice- not by open minded observations. It's like a guy going into a barn that's reeking of skunk, but don't think a skunk was there because you don't see it, and think it's foolish to look further. If that weren't doing such great harm to the nation, it would be funny, because eventually you will be the target of the skunk. The real danger is that ignoring electoral fraud insures that the next election will be handled the same way, and we the people will no longer be in charge of government- government will be in charge of us in every way.

I believe every possible avenue of this must be thoroughly and independently investigated, so that truth either way is beyond question, and the confidence of the public may be restored.
You believe in brushing off those tens of millions with "Nothing to see here, you are just conspiracy theorists and fools, so move along". Brilliant.






.

 

deleted

 

You're again letting your imagination run away with you. Intrusion attempts happen all the time. Actually accessing data occurs much less often, and when it does occur, it entails reading data, not changing it. It typically entails transferring the contents of files to the hacker's location, who then must spend time deciphering how it's structured so that he can make sense of it. To change the data attached to a server, it would require knowing what to change in advance. Would hackers even know specifically what servers to go after? What files on those servers? Which data elements (think spreadsheet: what cells need to be changed)? And as I previously pointed out, the data on the servers that accumulate totals came from precincts that still have their original data, and thus the ability to detect discrepancies. So EVEN IF the technical difficulties could be overcome, it would be easy to detect and correct any changes that were made. If the results are later audited, or a recount is conducted, any major discrepancy would be obvious. A number of states audited their results and/or conducted recounts and no such major discrepancies were discovered, so there's simply no good reason to think this occurred.

You didn't conclude "fraud" based on data that suggested it, you decided there was fraud for absurd reasons (Biden didn't hold big rallies; you think everyone would share your beliefs about Biden's physical/mental health, etc), and then you constructed a vague scenario about how this could be done, a scenario that does not hold up under scrutiny by someone who understands IT infrastructure (an area I spent 30 years in).

See what I mean? You ASSUME fraud, you didn't infer it based on objective evidence.

The possession of intelligence implies you are capable of learning, it doesn't imply you always think rationally, and I suspect it's made you overconfident in your abilities to discern truth through intuition. I've exposed errors in your reasoning, so I suggest you apply your intelligence to understand your errors.

I questioned whether or not you had some data to back up your claim that virtually everyone would perceive Biden and Harris the way you do. Clearly, you do not. Do you seriously consider your intuition to be infallible? Do you seriously believe you lack biases that influence your intuitive conclusions?

I believe you have an extremely biased, and unrealistic, view of Biden. I strongly suspect this was derived from right-wing pundits who made similar claims about him. I know he's old, but both his parents lived into their 90's, so he has a very good chance of living to a similar age. He shows no outward signs of mental impairment, and I've discussed this with a neurologist who agrees (and adds that he thinks the charge is absurd). He's had a stuttering problem since childhood.

In my long life (I'm 67) I've observed that most people are biased toward the political candidates they choose to vote for. The bias creates the tendency to be skeptical of negative accusations, and embracing of the positive (rose colored glasses). This is the case for Republicans and Democrats alike. So EVEN IF there were an objective basis for thinking Biden is impaired, supporters would be apt to dismiss it. As further evidence that Democrats do not share your view, I'll point out that Biden was chosen from among a large number of alternative Democrats that were running. If his alleged impairments were considered important, they would not have chosen him.

No. Unless there was evidence of widespread fraud, there's just no rational reason to think there was rigging. The point is that any risk that is perceived by Democrats was overwhelmed by the imperative to get Trump out of office. I was engaged in many debates with Democrats during primaries about who we should nominate. Biden's age was an issue, but the consensus was that he had the best chance of beating Trump, and that it was therefore worth the risk. My impression of you is that you lack the ability to understand perspectives that differ from your own; you believe you are uniquely able to see the world as it is, and seem unable to accept that reasonable people can have a vastly different perspective from yours.

Those "tens of millions" have been fed the falsehood, directly by Trump. As I mentioned above, it's common to be biased toward one's preferred political candidate, so it's not surprising that so many would uncritically accept his false claims.

What evidence are you suggesting I've actually dismissed? I dismissed assertions of fraud that have been debunked, I pointed out that process errors (e.g. distance of observers from poll workers) do not constitute fraud, and I've personally examined some of the allegations (e.g. Sidney Powell's "Kracken" claims). I looked particularly at Trump's Jan 2 phone call to Raffensperger, and saw that Trump was pressing him on allegations THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DEBUNKED! If that was the best that Trump himself could come up with, what else can there be? Oh yes, there's the rally size (which Trump also mentioned on that phone call). Why can't you admit that this is an absurd reason to base your theory on? But I invite you once again: give me actual evidence of fraud.

Regarding your "theory" (strictly speaking, it's an "explanatory hypothesis"): The examination and judgment of explanatory hypotheses has been explored by epistemologists, and they label this sort of reasoning "abductive reasoning". I'll describe your reasoning errors in those terms. Your argument seems centered on the fact that the "fraud hypothesis" has wide explanatory scope: i.e., if we assume fraud - many questions are answered. Explanatory scope is a positive for a hypothesis - it adds to it's credibility. But there are problems in your case. The first problem is that the questions it answers are actually unsupported assumptions. e.g. 1) you ASSUME a large number of people would vote for Trump (or not vote) rather than take the risk of putting in a man with (what you perceive to be) mental and physical impairments. 2) you ASSUME that the size of Trump's rallies vs Biden's lack of rallies are strong determinants of who won. Both are questionable assumptions, and therefore somewhat ad hoc. Ad hoc assumptions are a negative against hypotheses. There's more ad hoc problems with your hypothesis- specifically associated with the possibility that vote tabulation servers might have been hacked. But there's no evidence of it, there are obstacles to do so - some of which I've explained to you, and those obstacles are multiplied by the fact that you must assume they were overcome in multiple states, and that in each case, they went undetected.

Another criterion in judging hypotheses is DISCONFIRMATION - i.e. evidence that is not consistent with the hypothesis: polling results; Trump's disapproval/approval ratio; Biden outspending Trump. For that matter, the statement issued by the government's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency(link) is disconfirming: "The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history....There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised..." This reflects the opinion of technical experts, working in the Trump administration, who were charged with the responsibility to ensure the election was conducted in a secure fashion. Their expert opinion is not firm proof, but it absolutely constitutes evidence against widespread fraud.

I know you disdain the use of the term "conspiracy theory" but be aware that you're following the pattern: the conspiracy theory hypothesis always has wide explanatory scope, and adherents rationalize or dismiss contrary evidence. This makes it immune from being falsified in the mind of its adherents. In general unfalsifiable beliefs are inherently irrational. Reason demands being open to reconsidering the hypothesis in the light of ALL available evidence. I haven't taken the lazy way out and dismissed your theory based on superficially labeling it "conspiracy theory", I've shown the actual reasoning problems. I don't hold out a lot of hope that you're going to accept this, because you also fit another part of the "conspiracy theory" pattern: the adherent thinks he's special because he's seeing things that others aren't, and he often lacks humility.

 

Since you manufacture an answer for everything to support yourself, what you need to do is run for president as a democrat. They've proven themselves not only expert at doing that, but very good at making others think mirroring that makes you wise.

I don't think there is anything for you to learn, you know it all. Now if you could just explain why it doesn't work...

I'm not going to waste any more time trying to turn your lights on.

 

I did. Sorry it was over your head.

 

I admit - I was a big believer in the JFK conspiracy
After these past few months, I would be too embarrassed to still believe in it

 

That one is instructive to analyze, to understand both the pattern, and what's wrong with it. Consider reading the Wikipedia article on conspiracy theories. It helps to understand their seductiveness, and why they are unreasonable. I tried to get Spiritgide to read it, but he probably thinks the article is part of the conspiracy.

 

NO. You defended and justified your own belief, over and over- and stonewalled anything beyond it. You would be like the flat-earthers that fought facts not compatible with the simple view out their window for a thousand years. Myopic vision... hardly over the head of any perceptive mind. That's not a gift or skill, it's a limitation.

 

I gave you detailed responses to every claim you made. You responded to nothing I said.

You justified your belief in a "stolen election" based on partisan absurdities (crowd size at Trump rallies, failure of Biden to hold such rallies, a hyperpartisan negative view of Biden), and by asserting that vote manipulation is possible, ignoring the difficulties of doing this in an undetectable way that render this implausible. But you treat this implausible possibility as the only viable solution to what has occurred - the only way to explain how Trump could have lost. Like Trump himself, you find it inconceivable that he could lose based on honest voting - you ignore that possibility entirely.

But there's more absurdity. You rationalize specific debunked fraud claims as intentional "red herrings" to throw the masses off the trail - an evidence-free assumption that creates a barrier to considering the reasonable implications of there being so many spurious allegations.

And then, you ignore disconfirming evidence, like Trump's perpetually high disapproval rating, his debate performance, campaign spending, and polling. You only consider the evidence that is consistent with your assumptions - confirmation bias on steroids.

The icing on the cake is your bragging about your IQ, as if this incidental fact makes you above reproach.

In brief, you are a conspiracy theorist, with all the negative connotations entailed by the term. (Your defensiveness about the term is now understandable: it hits too close to home). That's why you have no responses to the rational analysis I gave you, and merely provide a blanket, hand-waving dismissal to my detailed analysis. And you hurl insults, the last resort of a person who has no rational response and is incapable of recognizing his own errors.

Which is exactly how I expect you will respond to THIS post.

 

Independent- I was 22 when JFK was killed. Watched the parade, later the film of the actual hits, the investigations, the quick killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby, and the reports covering incidents in which information from witnesses was selectively used or silenced. Then, we watched the Warren Commission that investigated the assassination do what can only be described as a rush to endorse a pre-determined judgment. While a lot of that was cause for doubt, it was the Zapruder film (Taken on the street close up by a citizen) that raised the real questions. Oswald shot from behind; from the window of the depository building. In the Zapruder film, a shot hits Kennedy in the skull and snapped his head sharply backwards. The trunk lid of the limo and a secret service agent were spattered with the spray of brain tissue all coming out the back of the skull- and that is readily visible in the film. This is a physical impossibility with a shot from the rear.

Hundreds of people have tried to reproduce that, using cantaloupes and melons, ballistic gel skull models, animal heads and other things, and can't do so. While all the bullets recovered had matching ballistic marks and that was supposed to be proof, it's not. Three shots (or any number) can be fired at the exact times from different locations and have identical ballistics, and it's not complicated to do at all. The military's best marksmen also tried to duplicate the shooting using an identical weapon (Carcano carbine 6.5) distances and angles as Oswald was supposed to have done- and none could. I was and still am a pretty good marksman, both military and professionally trained, and have some of the finest precision rifles- I'm still shooting 1,000 yard targets. About 15 years back a friend set up a cable towed target at the bottom of a hill at his ranch, with a shooting stand at the top of the hill- similar range and angles as Dallas. Invited his friends to try to match Oswald's accuracy and timing, with any bolt action rifle. There were about a dozen there on the weekend I was, experienced hunters and target shooters. I couldn't do it- none of them could. One shooter tried a semi-auto, he couldn't either. Nobody ever did.

When glaring gaps exist in theories of how something happened, what it says is that we still don't know what actually happened. When events can't be duplicated, the explanations are speculative, not confirmed. Science worldwide applies that test (replication of an event and result) before it will accept any theory as factual. Thus, we have an event full of logical gaps, questionable process, of conflicts with known ballistic behavior, where the alleged process cannot be duplicated. The only rational conclusion is that we don't yet know what actually happened, but we do know that the explanation of what happened is not valid.

A conspiracy theory would propose an alternate explanation. Without proof, that would also be speculative, and I don't have one. I can say that what we are told to believe doesn't pass the tests.
Thus, the most likely conspiracy theory appears to be the one we are told to accept. I'm not embarrassed by believing that; I'm embarrassed that there are American citizens that would expect us to buy an explanation that's full of holes.

 

I told you, I can't turn your lights on. Maybe where you are at, there are no lights; I don't know- but I can't help that either.
You're done here.

 

The most rational conclusion is that Oswald killed Kennedy, acting alone. After all these years, it is far fetched to think there was a conspiracy involving multiple people, all of whom to the secret to their graves, never leaking information or confiding in friends and family that would do so.

The Kennedy assassination was a monumental event in American history. The magnitude of its significance leads us to suspect something monumental behind it. The notion that one crazy man could do this seems inconceivable. But a bullet can kill any man.

Many conspiracy theories have been proposed. It's a cottage industry. It entails identifying unexplained (but often incidental) facts, assuming they are pertinent, and fantasizing about answers. By now, they have all been scrutinized, and no conspiratorial leads have developed. It is impossible to prove a negative fact (e.g. there was no conspiracy; the election was not stolen), but rational belief cannot be justified on mere possibility. Devotees can never accept that.

 

Agreed - I'm too rational to fall for it. I had the vain hope that I could educate you on the epistemological problems with your conspiracy theory. You seemed sufficiently intelligent to grasp the problems, but I underestimated the strength of the emotional attraction. While it is frustrating to present rational argumentation, only to have it ignored and get attacked for lacking "enlightenment", it was interesting to experience the incorrigible nature of the theory. That is invariably the case with conspiracy theories.

 

Please, don't embarrass yourself any further.

 

I'm quite proud of the rational analysis I gave you, and that I correctly predicted you would attack me rather than respond to the many points I made. Still, I remain ready to be disabused of any errors I may have made. Feel free to embarrass me with facts and rational argument.

 

Lol...such sour grapes, but it beats sucking at the orange dotard's teat and nursing on his seditious lies.

 

Best reason to change him often! Do you know if they crush them or is he still able to chew grapes?

 

Impeaching a president who is no longer there seems silly. Inciting a riot, given that we know exactly what he said, seems a difficult case to prove. I think if Trump is let alone and able to run again (I don't think he will), the more extreme citizens will be more likely to set their hopes on the next election, and not do anything.

 

YOU are the person that thinks anything labeled as a "conspiracy theory" is automatically crazy.
I never said there were not many such things; indeed there are- and I have no doubt you have accepted many as legitimate without question, thereby removing the label in your own mind, so that 's different.
I said in effect real conspiracies do happen. You automatically dismiss that with your belief that anything that someone labels as "conspiracy theory" is therefore false- which you seem to base on a Wikipedia article, a site composed of information constructed from individuals, contributing opinions. Anybody can write whatever they want on Wikipedia.
"Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles"

I think you accept the article as absolute only because it confirms what you need to believe. Your "analysis" is a self-serving attempt give yourself attaboys by picking argument and telling yourself you win them. You don't discuss or consider what's said, you read only to look for a way to attack it and prove you can't be wrong. That's not rational, and you have repeatedly ignored rational and logical- dismissing out of hand. I don't have to prove you are wrong- it's self evident. I doubt you have ever heard of deductive or inductive analysis, and if you have you obviously dismissed that too.
So- go away, you are neither informative or rational, and I don't expect that to change. I won't respond to this nonsense again.

 

That demonstrates a lack of reading comprehension. As a test, find a quote of mine in which I made such a claim.

Which I never disputed. I simply pointed out that the term "conspiracy theory" is a modern idiomatic expression that has taken a meaning that is more specific than what is entailed by the strict definition of the individual words of the expression. I know you lack an extensive formal education, so perhaps your self-education has some gaps. I encourage you to research the terms I'm using, if you don't grasp what I'm saying. No disrespect intended. Although I graduated Summa Cum Laude, I still rely on self-education to supplement my formal education a great deal.

Nope. Never said that at all. I said that the term "conspiracy theory" has become an idiomatic expression FOR irrational theories. In my analysis of your ludicrous defense of a "stolen election", I never dismissed it on the basis of it being a "conspiracy theory". Rather, I analyzed your stated rationale in terms of standard epistemology. Only AFTER pointing out your numerous errors did I point out that they fit the pattern associated with the idiomatic expression, "conspiracy theory". This was a secondary effort aimed at helping you understand that your irrationality fits a pattern. Understanding the inherent problems in the pattern might help you avoid falling for other arguments in tune future, when they fit the pattern.

Not really. It is a collaborative effort, one that gives deference is given to scholarly resources. Take a look at the references in the article. I'll also remind you that I asked you if you disagreed with anything in the article. You had nothing to say about that.

None of my analysis of your ludicrous position depended on the term "conspiracy theory" or the article. I just find it amusing that you take offense to my applying the term to your view, and that INSTEAD OF RESPONDING to the numerous reasoning errors I identified, you instead choose to make disparaging comments about the process in which Wikipedia articles are developed. You seem incapable of defending the merits of your ludicrous reasoning against the errors I identified, and you don't even seem capable of finding a flaw in the Wikipedia article - not its contents, just the manner in which it is produced.

It's a minor issue that you are resistant to accepting the way Wikipedia defines the term "conspiracy theory,". The issue is that you are being irrational, and I've demonstrated that in detail. Your failure to respond to the points I made, suggests you are either in denial or or simply ignorant of epistemology. If you are as intelligent as your bragging suggests, you should be capable of filling this educational gap. It's up to you as to whether if not you choose to do this.