Come back with an microbiological-psychological study and we might talk about it. Posing a sheer speculation is worthless. "Probably" is a concept that doesn't apply; you are just applying it to make the off-the-wall quality more respectable.
"Probable" - as in too many coincidences for it to be statistically possible.
And no, I'm not searching for a study. You could search for "the Titanic sinking was an accident" and another search for "the Titanic sinking wasn't an accident" and find plenty of web pages on either. I have neither the time nor resources to mount an expedition to go to the North Atlantic to prove that, or invest in a biolab with subjects willing to be experimented on to come to a proper conclusion, much like the rest of the people here at GAW. Maybe go troll elsewhere.
Probability is a calculated value, not a qualitative arm-waving portent of truth. The crack about coincidences is meaningless. Possibility is not determined by statistics. There is always the tail of a statistical distribution. Many "improbable" things happen, simply because there are so MANY things happening, there are too many coincidences for them to be impossible.
The Titanic struck an iceberg and sank. Stories to the contrary are fever dreams. Lots of web pages on utter nonsense, like Moon Hoaxes, Flat Earth, and "chemtrails." Nothing easier---and more meaningless---than to cite a webpage. You ought to read the debunking web pages and get some education (and humility).
I'm interested in political reality, but I have no patience for political fantasy, or the search for trolls under one's bed. I have noticed that people here are prone to make bold statements, unprepared to defend them, retreat into excuses when pressed, and basically suggest the questioner get the hell gone from the page. It seems the culture of "question everything" cannot look at itself in a mirror. A complete failure of conviction.
Come back with an microbiological-psychological study and we might talk about it. Posing a sheer speculation is worthless. "Probably" is a concept that doesn't apply; you are just applying it to make the off-the-wall quality more respectable.
"Probable" - as in too many coincidences for it to be statistically possible. And no, I'm not searching for a study. You could search for "the Titanic sinking was an accident" and another search for "the Titanic sinking wasn't an accident" and find plenty of web pages on either. I have neither the time nor resources to mount an expedition to go to the North Atlantic to prove that, or invest in a biolab with subjects willing to be experimented on to come to a proper conclusion, much like the rest of the people here at GAW. Maybe go troll elsewhere.
Probability is a calculated value, not a qualitative arm-waving portent of truth. The crack about coincidences is meaningless. Possibility is not determined by statistics. There is always the tail of a statistical distribution. Many "improbable" things happen, simply because there are so MANY things happening, there are too many coincidences for them to be impossible.
The Titanic struck an iceberg and sank. Stories to the contrary are fever dreams. Lots of web pages on utter nonsense, like Moon Hoaxes, Flat Earth, and "chemtrails." Nothing easier---and more meaningless---than to cite a webpage. You ought to read the debunking web pages and get some education (and humility).
I'm interested in political reality, but I have no patience for political fantasy, or the search for trolls under one's bed. I have noticed that people here are prone to make bold statements, unprepared to defend them, retreat into excuses when pressed, and basically suggest the questioner get the hell gone from the page. It seems the culture of "question everything" cannot look at itself in a mirror. A complete failure of conviction.