The reason people get their proofs crushed by shills is because they look at evidence all wrong. They look at it individually. You don't do that. You would never do that in a murder trial. Also people have this fantasy about "absolute proof". As Lin Wood (a lawyer) said once you only have absolute proof in maybe 1% of trial cases. Most people are put in jail entirely on circumstantial set of coincidences so great as to be impossibly to occur just by coincidence.
For example, you don't just examine that "Bill" was at a care where the murder took place. Bill just being there could be chucked up to an unlucky coincidence. It's meaningly on its own. Easy to debunk as explainable. You have to look at ALL the evidence. All the coincidences until they paint a picture too impossible to be sheer coincidence.
Example: Bill went to the cafe one hour before the murder. He left and was gone for the hour the murder took place. There are receipts of him buying bleach, rope, ect. at a store two blocks from his home. His vehicle was "stolen" two days after the murder. He had the motive to do the murder. He had the means. He was in the area where it took place. Witnesses and CCTV caught a man who looked like him in the area at the time of the murder. His alibi has been shown to be a lie. Ect.
Again you may never have the absolute proof that Bill did the murder, but when you look at all the coincidences many juries might conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Bill is the murderer.
Unfortunately most people don't understand how to use logic and critical thinking anymore. We look at evidence so piecemeal that we are fooled and misled.
To understand what is going on and not get tricked by the shills look at everything together. Not just one pic of Bidan and the strange fuckery going on. Look at ALL of it. Are the slip ups and mistakes and weird happenings too much to be just "accidents"? Are the coincidences reaching the point as to not be impossible to occur by random coincidence?
Then figure out what is the motive? Once you know the motive you make the map.
That's a very good take on it and the murder-trial analogy helps explain how one might still have confidence even if one bit of evidence is in error. Thank you for your perspective!
p.s. Typo in your 2nd paragraph: "It's [meaningless] on its own."
where has the corporation idea been debunked (god do i hate that word now that MSM and big tech soiled it so badly)?
The reason people get their proofs crushed by shills is because they look at evidence all wrong. They look at it individually. You don't do that. You would never do that in a murder trial. Also people have this fantasy about "absolute proof". As Lin Wood (a lawyer) said once you only have absolute proof in maybe 1% of trial cases. Most people are put in jail entirely on circumstantial set of coincidences so great as to be impossibly to occur just by coincidence.
For example, you don't just examine that "Bill" was at a care where the murder took place. Bill just being there could be chucked up to an unlucky coincidence. It's meaningly on its own. Easy to debunk as explainable. You have to look at ALL the evidence. All the coincidences until they paint a picture too impossible to be sheer coincidence.
Example: Bill went to the cafe one hour before the murder. He left and was gone for the hour the murder took place. There are receipts of him buying bleach, rope, ect. at a store two blocks from his home. His vehicle was "stolen" two days after the murder. He had the motive to do the murder. He had the means. He was in the area where it took place. Witnesses and CCTV caught a man who looked like him in the area at the time of the murder. His alibi has been shown to be a lie. Ect.
Again you may never have the absolute proof that Bill did the murder, but when you look at all the coincidences many juries might conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Bill is the murderer.
Unfortunately most people don't understand how to use logic and critical thinking anymore. We look at evidence so piecemeal that we are fooled and misled.
To understand what is going on and not get tricked by the shills look at everything together. Not just one pic of Bidan and the strange fuckery going on. Look at ALL of it. Are the slip ups and mistakes and weird happenings too much to be just "accidents"? Are the coincidences reaching the point as to not be impossible to occur by random coincidence?
Then figure out what is the motive? Once you know the motive you make the map.
That's a very good take on it and the murder-trial analogy helps explain how one might still have confidence even if one bit of evidence is in error. Thank you for your perspective!
p.s. Typo in your 2nd paragraph: "It's [meaningless] on its own."