The principle of parsimony states that the solution set with the fewest assumptions is the most likely best solution.
The hypothesis is that the shot that resulted was an accident.
The alternative hypothesis would be that the apparent result was not an accident.
Let's look at the first hypothesis. I am looking at this from a statistical mechanics perspective. Let's assume that the shooter was aiming for the center of Trump's head. The actual shot (assuming there was any bullet at all) appears to have had a minimal impact on Trump. I think it's safe to assume that a greater than 2mm deep impact would not have been so minimal. It also hit him in a spot that had maximal dramatic impact. If it had grazed his cheek for example, it wouldn't have caused anywhere near as much blood. It probably would have self-cauterized. That pretty much leaves the left ear (the one that would face the camera) as the only place for minimal impact but maximal drama. But again, it can only graze the ear. Any more and we would see his ear dangling, or blown off, etc. But it also has to get enough of a chunk to cause all the blood and not self-cauterize.
So how many 2mm squares (4 sq mm) are there that would have maximal drama, but minimal health impact? Maybe 20? 50? We'll call it 50 for simplicity. Now, assuming he was aiming for the center of Trump's head but missed, how many squares are there total between the center of his head, and twice the distance to the border of his head where the bullet (if it existed) appears to have hit? That total area has an about equal chance of being hit assuming a miss from center, so all are weighted equally. A bit of quick napkin math gives me about 50,000 possible 2mm boxes he could have hit, each with the same probability. If we were to expand that out to include his body, or the larger air around him there would be a great many more place he could have hit, but they would have a lesser probability, so I will not include them for simplicity.
In order for it to be an accident, we have to assume that he just so happened to hit one of the 50 choices for minimal health, maximal drama impact instead of one of the other 49,950 others. Each of those choices (akin to a microstate) is an individual assumption, because each is individually equally likely.
For the alternative hypothesis we really just need one assumption in this regard. That assumption is that the outcome was what was intended.
Thus, choosing the set with the fewest assumptions demands we choose the alternative hypothesis.
If we then consider Q this becomes more dramatic.
For example, Q stated:
#q/326
False flag(s).
POTUS 100% INSULATED.
Expect fireworks.
#q/35
POTUS will be well insulated/protected on AF1 and abroad (specific locations classified) while these operations are conducted due to the nature of the entrenchment.
#q/813
You are watching a movie.
Enjoy the show.
#q/3387
Listen very carefully (again).
Note past (2) years.
Note next (6) years.
You were told what was going to happen.
You were told what battles we face.
Strategic.
Pre_planned.
Patriots in control.
In order for this to have been an accident, we must believe Q lied or is otherwise completely incompetent. There are thousands of reasons to not believe that, so that requires a new assumption for each piece of contraindicating evidence.
For the alternative hypothesis on the other hand, we only need one assumption. Q was telling the truth.
The principle of parsimony states that the solution set with the fewest assumptions is the most likely best solution.
The hypothesis is that the shot that resulted was an accident.
The alternative hypothesis would be that the apparent result was not an accident.
Let's look at the first hypothesis. I am looking at this from a statistical mechanics perspective. Let's assume that the shooter was aiming for the center of Trump's head. The actual shot (assuming there was any bullet at all) appears to have had a minimal impact on Trump. I think it's safe to assume that a greater than 2mm deep impact would not have been so minimal. It also hit him in a spot that had maximal dramatic impact. If it had grazed his cheek for example, it wouldn't have caused anywhere near as much blood. It probably would have self-cauterized. That pretty much leaves the left ear (the one that would face the camera) as the only place for minimal impact but maximal drama. But again, it can only graze the ear. Any more and we would see his ear dangling, or blown off, etc. But it also has to get enough of a chunk to cause all the blood and not self-cauterize.
So how many 2mm squares (4 sq mm) are there that would have maximal drama, but minimal health impact? Maybe 20? 50? We'll call it 50 for simplicity. Now, assuming he was aiming for the center of Trump's head but missed, how many squares are there total between the center of his head, and twice the distance to the border of his head where the bullet (if it existed) appears to have hit? That total area has an about equal chance of being hit assuming a miss from center, so all are weighted equally. A bit of quick napkin math gives me about 50,000 possible 2mm boxes he could have hit, each with the same probability. If we were to expand that out to include his body, or the larger air around him there would be a great many more place he could have hit, but they would have a lesser probability, so I will not include them for simplicity.
In order for it to be an accident, we have to assume that he just so happened to hit one of the 50 choices for minimal health, maximal drama impact instead of one of the other 49,950 others. Each of those choices (akin to a microstate) is an individual assumption, because each is individually equally likely.
For the alternative hypothesis we really just need one assumption in this regard. That assumption is that the outcome was what was intended.
Thus, choosing the set with the fewest assumptions demands we choose the alternative hypothesis.
If we then consider Q this becomes more dramatic.
For example, Q stated:
#q/326
False flag(s).
POTUS 100% INSULATED.
Expect fireworks.
#q/35
POTUS will be well insulated/protected on AF1 and abroad (specific locations classified) while these operations are conducted due to the nature of the entrenchment.
#q/813
You are watching a movie.
Enjoy the show.
#q/3387
Listen very carefully (again).
Note past (2) years.
Note next (6) years.
You were told what was going to happen.
You were told what battles we face.
Strategic.
Pre_planned.
Patriots in control.
In order for this to have been an accident, we must believe Q lied or is otherwise completely incompetent. There are thousands of reasons to not believe that, so that requires a new assumption for each piece of contraindicating evidence.
For the alternative hypothesis on the other hand, we only need one assumption. Q was telling the truth.
The principle of parsimony states that the solution set with the fewest assumptions is the most likely best solution.
The hypothesis is that the shot that resulted was an accident.
The alternative hypothesis would be that the apparent result was not an accident.
Let's look at the first hypothesis. I am looking at this from a statistical mechanics perspective. Let's assume that the shooter was aiming for the center of Trump's head. The actual shot (assuming there was any bullet at all) appears to have had a minimal impact on Trump. I think it's safe to assume that a greater than 2mm deep impact would not have been so minimal. It also hit him in a spot that had maximal dramatic impact. If it had grazed his cheek for example, it wouldn't have caused anywhere near as much blood. It probably would have self-cauterized. That pretty much leaves the left ear (the one that would face the camera) as the only place for minimal impact but maximal drama. But again, it can only graze the ear. Any more and we would see his ear dangling, or blown off, etc. But it also has to get enough of a chunk to cause all the blood and not self-cauterize.
So how many 2mm squares (4 sq mm) are there that would have maximal drama, but minimal health impact? Maybe 20? 50? We'll call it 50 for simplicity. Now, assuming he was aiming for the center of Trump's head but missed, how many squares are there total between the center of his head, and twice the distance to the border of his head where the bullet (if it existed) appears to have hit? That total area has an about equal chance of being hit assuming a miss from center, so all are weighted equally. A bit of quick napkin math gives me about 50,000 possible 2mm boxes he could have hit, each with the same probability. If we were to expand that out to include his body, or the larger air around him there would be a great many more place he could have hit, but they would have a lesser probability, so I will not include them for simplicity.
In order for it to be an accident, we have to assume that he just so happened to hit one of the 50 choices for minimal health, maximal drama impact instead of one of the other 49,950 others. Each of those choices is an individual assumption, because each is individually equally likely.
For the alternative hypothesis we really just need one assumption in this regard. That assumption is that the outcome was what was intended.
Thus, choosing the set with the fewest assumptions demands we choose the alternative hypothesis.
If we then consider Q this becomes more dramatic.
For example, Q stated:
#q/326
False flag(s).
POTUS 100% INSULATED.
Expect fireworks.
#q/35
POTUS will be well insulated/protected on AF1 and abroad (specific locations classified) while these operations are conducted due to the nature of the entrenchment.
#q/813
You are watching a movie.
Enjoy the show.
#q/3387
Listen very carefully (again).
Note past (2) years.
Note next (6) years.
You were told what was going to happen.
You were told what battles we face.
Strategic.
Pre_planned.
Patriots in control.
In order for this to have been an accident, we must believe Q lied or is otherwise completely incompetent. There are thousands of reasons to not believe that, so that requires a new assumption for each piece of contraindicating evidence.
For the alternative hypothesis on the other hand, we only need one assumption. Q was telling the truth.
The principle of parsimony states that the solution set with the fewest assumptions is the most likely best solution.
The hypothesis is that the shot that resulted was an accident.
The alternative hypothesis would be that the apparent result was not an accident.
Let's look at the first hypothesis. I am looking at this from a statistical mechanics perspective. Let's assume that the shooter was aiming for the center of Trump's head. The actual shot (assuming there was any bullet at all) appears to have had a minimal impact on Trump. I think it's safe to assume that a greater than 2mm deep impact would not have been so minimal. It also hit him in a spot that had maximal dramatic impact. If it had grazed his cheek for example, it wouldn't have caused anywhere near as much blood. It probably would have self-cauterized. That pretty much leaves the left ear (the one that would face the camera) as the only place for minimal impact but maximal drama. But again, it can only graze the ear. Any more and we would see his ear dangling, or blown off, etc. But it also has to get enough of a chunk to cause all the blood and not self-cauterize.
So how many 2mm squares (4 sq mm) are there that would have maximal drama, but minimal health impact? Maybe 20? 50? We'll call it 50 for simplicity. Now, assuming he was aiming for the center of Trump's head but missed, how many squares are there total between the center of his head, and twice the distance to the border of his head where the bullet (if it existed) appears to have hit? That total area has an about equal chance of being hit assuming a miss from center, so all are weighted equally. A bit of quick napkin math gives me about 50,000 possible 2mm boxes he could have hit, each with the same probability. If we were to expand that out to include his body, or the larger air around him there would be a great many more place he could have hit, but they would have a lesser probability, so I will not include them for simplicity.
In order for it to be an accident, we have to assume that he just so happened to hit one of the 50 choices for minimal health, maximal drama impact instead of one of the other 49,950 others. Each of those choices is an individual assumption, because each is individually equally likely. In this framework, there are a thousand "hypothesis" assumptions required for each "alternative hypothesis" one.
Thus, choosing the set with the fewest assumptions demands we choose the alternative hypothesis.
If we then consider Q this becomes more dramatic.
For example, Q stated:
#q/326
False flag(s).
POTUS 100% INSULATED.
Expect fireworks.
#q/35
POTUS will be well insulated/protected on AF1 and abroad (specific locations classified) while these operations are conducted due to the nature of the entrenchment.
#q/813
You are watching a movie.
Enjoy the show.
#q/3387
Listen very carefully (again).
Note past (2) years.
Note next (6) years.
You were told what was going to happen.
You were told what battles we face.
Strategic.
Pre_planned.
Patriots in control.
In order for this to have been an accident, we must believe Q lied or is otherwise completely incompetent. There are thousands of reasons to not believe that, so that requires a new assumption for each piece of contraindicating evidence.
For the alternative hypothesis on the other hand, we only need one assumption. Q was telling the truth.
The principle of parsimony states that the solution set with the fewest assumptions is the most likely best solution.
The hypothesis is that the shot that resulted was an accident.
The alternative hypothesis would be that the apparent result was not an accident.
Let's look at the first hypothesis. I am looking at this from a statistical mechanics perspective. Let's assume that the shooter was aiming for the center of Trump's head. The actual shot (assuming there was any bullet at all) appears to have had a minimal impact on Trump. I think it's safe to assume that a greater than 2mm impact would not have been so minimal. It also hit him in a spot that had maximal dramatic impact. If it had grazed his cheek for example, it wouldn't have caused anywhere near as much blood. It probably would have self-cauterized. That pretty much leaves the left ear (the one that would face the camera) as the only place for minimal impact but maximal drama. But again, it can only graze the ear. Any more and we would see his ear dangling, or blown off, etc. But it also has to get enough of a chunk to cause all the blood and not self-cauterize.
So how many 2mm squares (4 sq mm) are there that would have maximal drama, but minimal health impact? Maybe 20? 50? We'll call it 50 for simplicity. Now, assuming he was aiming for the center of Trump's head but missed, how many squares are there total between the center of his head, and twice the distance to the border of his head where the bullet (if it existed) appears to have hit? That total area has an about equal chance of being hit assuming a miss from center, so all are weighted equally. A bit of quick napkin math gives me about 50,000 possible 2mm boxes he could have hit, each with the same probability. If we were to expand that out to include his body, or the larger air around him there would be a great many more place he could have hit, but they would have a lesser probability, so I will not include them for simplicity.
In order for it to be an accident, we have to assume that he just so happened to hit one of the 50 choices for minimal health, maximal drama impact instead of one of the other 49,950 others. Each of those choices is an individual assumption, because each is individually equally likely. In this framework, there are a thousand "hypothesis" assumptions required for each "alternative hypothesis" one.
Thus, choosing the set with the fewest assumptions demands we choose the alternative hypothesis.
If we then consider Q this becomes more dramatic.
For example, Q stated:
#q/326
False flag(s).
POTUS 100% INSULATED.
Expect fireworks.
#q/35
POTUS will be well insulated/protected on AF1 and abroad (specific locations classified) while these operations are conducted due to the nature of the entrenchment.
#q/813
You are watching a movie.
Enjoy the show.
#q/3387
Listen very carefully (again).
Note past (2) years.
Note next (6) years.
You were told what was going to happen.
You were told what battles we face.
Strategic.
Pre_planned.
Patriots in control.
In order for this to have been an accident, we must believe Q lied or is otherwise completely incompetent. There are thousands of reasons to not believe that, so that requires a new assumption for each piece of contraindicating evidence.
For the alternative hypothesis on the other hand, we only need one assumption. Q was telling the truth.
The principle of parsimony states that the solution set with the fewest assumptions is the most likely best solution.
The hypothesis is that the shot that resulted was an accident.
The alternative hypothesis would be that the apparent result was not an accident.
Let's look at the first hypothesis. I am looking at this from a statistical mechanics perspective. Let's assume that the shooter was aiming for the center of Trump's head. The actual shot (assuming there was any bullet at all) appears to have had a minimal impact on Trump. I think it's safe to assume that a greater than 2mm impact would not have been so minimal. It also hit him in a spot that had maximal dramatic impact. If it had grazed his cheek for example, it wouldn't have caused anywhere near as much blood. It probably would have self-cauterized. That pretty much leaves the left ear (the one that would face the camera) as the only place for minimal impact but maximal drama. But again, it can only graze the ear. Any more and we would see his ear dangling, or blown off, etc. But it also has to get enough of a chunk to cause all the blood and not self-cauterize.
So how many 2mm squares (4 sq mm) are there that would have maximal drama, but minimal health impact? Maybe 20? 50? We'll call it 50 for simplicity. Now, assuming he was aiming for the center of Trump's head but missed, how many squares are there total between the center of his head, and twice the distance to the border of his head where the bullet (if it existed) appears to have hit? That total area has an about equal chance of being hit assuming a miss from center, so all are weighted equally. A bit of quick napkin math gives me about 50,000 possible 2mm boxes he could have hit, each with the same probability. If we were to expand that out to include his body, or the larger air around him there would be a great many more place he could have hit, but they would have a lesser probability, so I will not include them for simplicity.
In order for it to be an accident, we have to assume that he just so happened to hit one of the 50 choices for minimal health, maximal drama impact instead of one of the other 49,950 others. Each of those choices is an assumption, because each is individually equally likely. In this framework, there are a thousand "hypothesis" assumptions required for each "alternative hypothesis" one.
Thus, choosing the set with the fewest assumptions demands we choose the alternative hypothesis.
If we then consider Q this becomes more dramatic.
For example, Q stated:
#q/326
False flag(s).
POTUS 100% INSULATED.
Expect fireworks.
#q/35
POTUS will be well insulated/protected on AF1 and abroad (specific locations classified) while these operations are conducted due to the nature of the entrenchment.
#q/813
You are watching a movie.
Enjoy the show.
#q/3387
Listen very carefully (again).
Note past (2) years.
Note next (6) years.
You were told what was going to happen.
You were told what battles we face.
Strategic.
Pre_planned.
Patriots in control.
In order for this to have been an accident, we must believe Q lied or is otherwise completely incompetent. There are thousands of reasons to not believe that, so that requires a new assumption for each piece of contraindicating evidence.
For the alternative hypothesis on the other hand, we only need one assumption. Q was telling the truth.
The principle of parsimony states that the solution set with the fewest assumptions is the most likely best solution.
The hypothesis is that the shot that resulted was an accident.
The alternative hypothesis would be that the apparent result was not an accident.
Let's look at the first hypothesis. I am looking at this from a statistical mechanics perspective. Let's assume that the shooter was aiming for the center of Trump's head. The actual shot (assuming there was any bullet at all) appears to have had a minimal impact on Trump. I think it's safe to assume that a greater than 2mm impact would not have been so minimal. It also hit him in a spot that had maximal dramatic impact. If it had grazed his cheek for example, it wouldn't have caused anywhere near as much blood. It probably would have self-cauterized. That pretty much leaves the left ear (the one that would face the camera) as the only place for minimal impact but maximal drama. But again, it can only graze the ear. Any more and we would see his ear dangling, or blown off, etc. But it also has to get enough of a chunk to cause all the blood and not self-cauterize.
So how many 2mm squares (4 sq mm) are there that would have maximal drama, but minimal health impact? Maybe 20? 50? We'll call it 50 for simplicity. Now, assuming he was aiming for the center of Trump's head but missed, how many squares are there total between the center of his head, and twice the distance to the border of his head where the bullet (if it existed) appears to have it? That total area has an equal chance of being hit assuming a miss from center, so all are weighted equally. A bit of quick napkin math gives me about 50,000 possible 2mm boxes he could have hit, each with the same probability. If we were to expand that out to include his body, or the larger air around him there would be a great many more place he could have hit, but they would have a lesser probability, so I will not include them for simplicity.
In order for it to be an accident, we have to assume that he just so happened to hit one of the 50 choices for minimal health, maximal drama impact instead of one of the other 49,950 others. Each of those choices is an assumption, because each is individually equally likely. In this framework, there are a thousand "hypothesis" assumptions required for each "alternative hypothesis" one.
Thus, choosing the set with the fewest assumptions demands we choose the alternative hypothesis.
If we then consider Q this becomes more dramatic.
For example, Q stated:
#q/326
False flag(s).
POTUS 100% INSULATED.
Expect fireworks.
#q/35
POTUS will be well insulated/protected on AF1 and abroad (specific locations classified) while these operations are conducted due to the nature of the entrenchment.
#q/813
You are watching a movie.
Enjoy the show.
#q/3387
Listen very carefully (again).
Note past (2) years.
Note next (6) years.
You were told what was going to happen.
You were told what battles we face.
Strategic.
Pre_planned.
Patriots in control.
In order for this to have been an accident, we must believe Q lied or is otherwise completely incompetent. There are thousands of reasons to not believe that, so that requires a new assumption for each piece of contraindicating evidence.
For the alternative hypothesis on the other hand, we only need one assumption. Q was telling the truth.
The principle of parsimony states that the solution set with the fewest assumptions is the most likely best solution.
The hypothesis is that the shot that resulted was an accident.
The alternative hypothesis would be that the apparent result was not an accident.
Let's look at the first hypothesis. I am looking at this from a statistical mechanics perspective. Let's assume that the shooter was aiming for the center of Trump's head. The actual shot (assuming there was any bullet at all) appears to have had a minimal impact on Trump. I think it's safe to assume that a greater than 2mm impact would not have been so minimal. It also hit him in a spot that had maximal dramatic impact. If it had grazed his cheek for example, it wouldn't have caused anywhere near as much blood. It probably would have self-cauterized. That pretty much leaves the left ear (the one that would face the camera) as the only place for minimal impact but maximal drama. But again, it can only graze the ear. Any more and we would see his ear dangling, or blown off, etc.
So how many 2mm squares (4 sq mm) are there that would have maximal drama, but minimal health impact? Maybe 20? 50? We'll call it 50 for simplicity. Now, assuming he was aiming for the center of Trump's head but missed, how many squares are there total between the center of his head, and twice the distance to the border of his head where the bullet (if it existed) appears to have it? That total area has an equal chance of being hit assuming a miss from center, so all are weighted equally. A bit of quick napkin math gives me about 50,000 possible 2mm boxes he could have hit, each with the same probability. If we were to expand that out to include his body, or the larger air around him there would be a great many more place he could have hit, but they would have a lesser probability, so I will not include them for simplicity.
In order for it to be an accident, we have to assume that he just so happened to hit one of the 50 choices for minimal health, maximal drama impact instead of one of the other 49,950 others. Each of those choices is an assumption, because each is individually equally likely. In this framework, there are a thousand "hypothesis" assumptions required for each "alternative hypothesis" one.
Thus, choosing the set with the fewest assumptions demands we choose the alternative hypothesis.
If we then consider Q this becomes more dramatic.
For example, Q stated:
#q/326
False flag(s).
POTUS 100% INSULATED.
Expect fireworks.
#q/35
POTUS will be well insulated/protected on AF1 and abroad (specific locations classified) while these operations are conducted due to the nature of the entrenchment.
#q/813
You are watching a movie.
Enjoy the show.
#q/3387
Listen very carefully (again).
Note past (2) years.
Note next (6) years.
You were told what was going to happen.
You were told what battles we face.
Strategic.
Pre_planned.
Patriots in control.
In order for this to have been an accident, we must believe Q lied or is otherwise completely incompetent. There are thousands of reasons to not believe that, so that requires a new assumption for each piece of contraindicating evidence.
For the alternative hypothesis on the other hand, we only need one assumption. Q was telling the truth.