I remember I was doing this project with a group of class mates and I predicted the answer only because it was the most logical outcome. Just a if A and B are true then C can't be kind of situation. It was just logic.
One classmate was like "What is your proof that's the answer?" I explained my logic. The whole group agrees with me, but he still keeps saying "There is no proof of it!"
We hand it in. I was right. He's still insists "But you didn't have proof of that. You were just lucky!"
Same people who don't get how "evidence" works. You almost never have "absolute evidence" of anything. People get put to death based on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is basically when you have so many coincidences that it can't be just random.
If Tom was seen at the shop around the time of the murder, he had the means, the motive and was in the vicinity of the crime, then is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he is the killer? Again, there may be no Absolute Proof (like Tom confessing) but the jury may still pronounce him guilty.
Q proofs also work by the same method. When you create a set of coincidences so great that they could not be random then you create "proof" that these are by design.
But shills and liberal sheep will still go, "Proof? Proof? That's just a coincidence!"
Many crime dramas like CSIC brainwashed people into believing that "absolute proof" was how you solved crime. In Columbo the villains always confesses when confronted with the truth. In real life even when you have the person on video murdering the person the criminal will stay "That wasn't me".
Absolute proof is a fantasy. It almost never happens in the court system. Yet people have been brainwashed to belief that something can't be true if you don't have absolute proof. Even if you do have absolute proof they'll still refuse to believe it and ask "How can you be absolutely sure this is absolute proof?"
The DS wanted it this way. They wanted you to dismiss everything as mere coincidence no matter how absurd and impossible it was. Their comm system worked by creating ridiculous coincidences.
Comedian John Candy died at 43 on 3/4. We are supposed to go "what a coincidence". DS minions know it means murder. John Candy the day before his death seemed to be saying goodbye to everyone like he knew something was up.
I remember I was doing this project with a group of class mates and I predicted the answer only because it was the most logical outcome. Just a if A and B are true then C can't be kind of situation. It was just logic.
One classmate was like "What is your proof that's the answer?" I explained my logic. The whole group agrees with me, but he still keeps saying "There is no proof of it!"
We hand it in. I was right. He's still insists "But you didn't have proof of that. You were just lucky!"
Same people who don't get how "evidence" works. You almost never have "absolute evidence" of anything. People get put to death based on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is basically when you have so many coincidences that it can't be just random.
If Tom was seen at the shop around the time of the murder, he had the means, the motive and was in the vicinity of the crime, then is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he is the killer? Again, there may be no Absolute Proof (like Tom confessing) but the jury may still pronounce him guilty.
Q proofs also work by the same method. When you create a set of coincidences so great that they could not be random then you create "proof" that these are by design.
But shills and liberal sheep will still go, "Proof? Proof? That's just a coincidence!"
Some people are hopeless.
Many crime dramas like CSIC brainwashed people into believing that "absolute proof" was how you solved crime. In Columbo the villains always confesses when confronted with the truth. In real life even when you have the person on video murdering the person the criminal will stay "That wasn't me".
Absolute proof is a fantasy. It almost never happens in the court system. Yet people have been brainwashed to belief that something can't be true if you don't have absolute proof. Even if you do have absolute proof they'll still refuse to believe it and ask "How can you be absolutely sure this is absolute proof?"
The DS wanted it this way. They wanted you to dismiss everything as mere coincidence no matter how absurd and impossible it was. Their comm system worked by creating ridiculous coincidences.
Comedian John Candy died at 43 on 3/4. We are supposed to go "what a coincidence". DS minions know it means murder. John Candy the day before his death seemed to be saying goodbye to everyone like he knew something was up.