I didn't look at the argument fully. Because it's not an Occam's razor analysis.

Occam's Razor is strictly a question of theory complexity. The problem here is, we are defining complexity differently. I am defining it as it is defined in formal analysis, in the information theoretic way. I am thinking about how to write computer programs to solve the problem of which is most complicated (similar to the travelling salesman problem). You seem to be defining it in the "how do I present this argument to my coffee shop buddy" sort of way.

If we define the basic terms differently, of course we can't have a meaningful conversation about it.

That's how you look at something parsimoniously.

I couldn't disagree more. You are loosing too much information in your reduction. A loss of information will automatically make for a simpler model, but will also be counter to one of the requirements for the application of Occam's Razor, which is that ALL of the evidence must be considered. This elimination of information (or relevant evidence if you prefer) is, in my experience, very common in people's attempt to apply Occam's Razor, which is why it is so often misused/abused/misunderstood.

This doesn't seem very Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor doesn't in any way reject a theory before it has been analyzed. It can't be "not very Occam's Razor" until after all of the entire theories have been put into their "sets of assumptions" and then weighed.

You reject it because you think that:

you have to account for gunshot sounds timed perfectly with multiple different injuries spaced out a bit, and synced to video and the picture that captures the bullet in flight.

Is something difficult. On the contrary, this type of stuff happens all the time in crisis actor situations. It is daily practice for agents provocateur.

In addition, all of the information you know about you received via video. Such things are faked all the time. Ever seen the movie Wag the Dog? Ya, that's not bullshit, that's the daily news. There are specific programs in the intelligence agencies whose job it is to do exactly these things. These things are trivial to make happen for these agencies.

That doesn't mean that's what happened, or even that I think it has, but your assumption that such things are extremely difficult (or somehow increase complexity) is a "hidden assumption" that I completely disagree with. On the contrary, I've seen too much evidence that make me think such things are trivially easy. There are too many examples of exactly those types of things happening. There are explicit statements of such programs existing by the FBI, CIA, corporations, etc.. They don't call them crisis actors because they suck at acting so bad it's a "crisis."

I didn't look at the argument fully. Because it's not an Occam's razor analysis.

Occam's Razor is strictly a question of theory complexity. The problem here is, we are defining complexity differently. I am defining it as it is defined in formal analysis, in the information theoretic way. I am thinking about how to write computer programs to solve the problem of which is most complicated (similar to the travelling salesman problem). You seem to be defining it in the "how do I present this argument to my coffee shop buddy" sort of way.

If we define the basic terms differently, of course we can't have a meaningful conversation about it.

That's how you look at something parsimoniously.

I couldn't disagree more. You are loosing too much information in your reduction. A loss of information will automatically make for a simpler model, but will also be counter to one of the requirements for the application of Occam's Razor, which is that ALL of the evidence must be considered. This elimination of information (or relevant evidence if you prefer) is, in my experience, very common in people's attempt to apply Occam's Razor, which is why it is so often misused/abused/misunderstood.

This doesn't seem very Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor doesn't in any way reject a theory before it has been analyzed. It can't be "not very Occam's Razor" until after all of the entire theories have been put into their "sets of assumptions" and then weighed.

You reject it because you think that:

you have to account for gunshot sounds timed perfectly with multiple different injuries spaced out a bit, and synced to video and the picture that captures the bullet in flight.

Is something difficult. On the contrary, this type of stuff happens all the time in crisis actor situations. It is daily practice for agent's provocateur.

In addition, all of the information you know about you received via video. Such things are faked all the time. Ever seen the movie Wag the Dog? Ya, that's not bullshit, that's the daily news. There are specific programs in the intelligence agencies whose job it is to do exactly these things. These things are trivial to make happen for these agencies.

That doesn't mean that's what happened, or even that I think it has, but your assumption that such things are extremely difficult (or somehow increase complexity) is a "hidden assumption" that I completely disagree with. On the contrary, I've seen too much evidence that make me think such things are trivially easy. There are too many examples of exactly those types of things happening. There are explicit statements of such programs existing by the FBI, CIA, corporations, etc.. They don't call them crisis actors because they suck at acting so bad it's a "crisis."