Thanks for your detailed and passionate reply. Appreciated!

"Trump is slightly excited to be in her presence"

That was a question, I was asking for an opinion, and you gave it.

Yes, you are correct. You did frame it as a question.

I guess a more direct reply for me would have been "I don't think the photo indicates that Trump is ESPECIALLY excited to be in her presence". Sorry if that wasn't clear.

In my opinion, he does seem excited.

OK. You may well be right! I thought the photo was a bit small to see much detail tho. A larger resolution would have been nice, but maybe there aren't many of those around. EDIT: I found a much better resolution one here

You say he shook thousands of hands, did they all work on his transition team?

Obviously no. But my point is, having a photo of Halper-Hayes standing next to Donald Trump with him flashing a big grin and a thumbs up is, for me, nothing that seems in any way out of the ordinary. Just as a photo of Trump in proximity to Epstein doesn't indicate that Trump and Epstein were working in cahoots or that Trump was compromised by Epstein.

Also, I speculate that he's probably done many of such photos, with members of the transition team, or any other team, that he's worked with on various projects or campaigns, etc. What makes this one special, except for the idea that "it means something special"? Empirically, is it special?

But obviously that's subjective. You think the photo says something special. I don't. Different opinions. Nothing wrong with that, right?

I guess I can see that you take a LOT of little things and that you weave them together to form a much larger picture that to you seems quite consistent. "Little clues like this have meaning."

However, personally, I'm wary of extensive theories that have (in my view) an over-emphasis on pure reasoning and conjecture as the basis for elaborate explanations, and think its important to consistently check the ideas the more one moves along.

I mean, isn't a theory really only as good as far it can be tested against actual empirical evidence? If a theory can stand up to rigorous questioning and eliminate any alternative explanations for the observed phenomena, then it's good. If alternative explanations are possible, doesn't ignoring them simply weaken the theory instead of strengthening them?

Theories that are strengthened through ignoring alternative explanations become dogma. We, when we hold to them regardless of alternative explanations, become dogmatic. Dogmatism is a trap very easily fallen in to by those who overly focus on their own reasoning because of held but (unrecognized) beliefs or bias confirmation, etc.

"Works for the DOD?" "Do we have direct corroborative evidence of that?"

Ya, you could be correct, maybe she is lying.

For me, that is not the point. Maybe I'm just a reformed Reaganite? (dis)Trust, but verify? I don't necessarily think that she's lying, but she has made a LOT of claims as far as I know, and I personally think that corroborative evidence - factual and empirical evidence that can be verified - is important in establishing the truth. But maybe that's just me?

The more claims, the greater the relevance or need for some sort of evidence backing at least some of them up. It's certainly possible to develop elaborate theories, hard held beliefs and passionate convictions based entirely on reasoning, speculation and inference, etc., but my own approach is that that evidence and facts are also very important when it comes to establishing truth, which is what any of us, I assume, would want our theories, beliefs and convictions, etc, to be based on.

One of my favorite Q quotes is the one on freedom of thought (emphasis added).

"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.

My rationalization is pure opinion, what is yours? The same.

Yes. That's true. I guess that I'm simply questioning the reasoning behind "NCSWIC most likely means, it can't be stopped because it has already taken place"

As in, why does NCSWIC most likely mean = [X]?

I think that's a highly subjective conclusion, not very objective, and I gave an example to show another very plausible explanation (in my view) of what NCSWIC could mean. So why does it 'most likely' mean (it already happened)?

I'm not saying you cannot have or express your own opinion. I just saying I find it highly subjective in this case, and I wanted to emphasize that.

I don't know if you are doing it, but I'm wary if it seems like someone is conflating their own opinion with a fact, or their belief with a fact, because if they then carry on extensive reasoning and argument AS IF that opinion is a fact, they can get further and further away from the recognition that what they are doing is speculating and they end up conflating their entire belief system with .... fact.

I mean, I think I can sense that you have a very firm and powerful conviction about your own conclusions, but a lot of it seems like very subjective reasoning to me, and that makes me wary and also makes me want to question whether the dozens of tiny premises on which the bigger picture is based are actually reasonable, or better yet, verifiable through evidence.

How many others have met the same fate? ..... .... Maybe that is why Q called it a movie, you are watching actors, the originals are long gone and thus, NCSWIC.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective on all that. I do thinks its food for thought and there is some good reasoning there. I don't mean my comments or questions as a personal attack, and I'm grateful you've elaborated your thinking.

It seems to me that we take a certain set of facts and reason them out along very different lines. I think that could be an advantage if understood from the viewpoint that very often, it is contrastive perspectives that highlight little understood aspects.

On the other hand, maybe you just see everything in perfect clarity and I'm just seeing 1/3 of it, and so I doubt your explanations! I mean, that's possible too, right?

In any case, thanks again for the response and discussion.

Thanks for your detailed and passionate reply. Appreciated!

"Trump is slightly excited to be in her presence"

That was a question, I was asking for an opinion, and you gave it.

Yes, you are correct. You did frame it as a question.

I guess a more direct reply for me would have been "I don't think the photo indicates that Trump is ESPECIALLY excited to be in her presence". Sorry if that wasn't clear.

In my opinion, he does seem excited.

OK. You may well be right! I thought the photo was a bit small to see much detail tho. A larger resolution would have been nice, but maybe there aren't many of those around.

You say he shook thousands of hands, did they all work on his transition team?

Obviously no. But my point is, having a photo of Halper-Hayes standing next to Donald Trump with him flashing a big grin and a thumbs up is, for me, nothing that seems in any way out of the ordinary. Just as a photo of Trump in proximity to Epstein doesn't indicate that Trump and Epstein were working in cahoots or that Trump was compromised by Epstein.

Also, I speculate that he's probably done many of such photos, with members of the transition team, or any other team, that he's worked with on various projects or campaigns, etc. What makes this one special, except for the idea that "it means something special"? Empirically, is it special?

But obviously that's subjective. You think the photo says something special. I don't. Different opinions. Nothing wrong with that, right?

I guess I can see that you take a LOT of little things and that you weave them together to form a much larger picture that to you seems quite consistent. "Little clues like this have meaning."

However, personally, I'm wary of extensive theories that have (in my view) an over-emphasis on pure reasoning and conjecture as the basis for elaborate explanations, and think its important to consistently check the ideas the more one moves along.

I mean, isn't a theory really only as good as far it can be tested against actual empirical evidence? If a theory can stand up to rigorous questioning and eliminate any alternative explanations for the observed phenomena, then it's good. If alternative explanations are possible, doesn't ignoring them simply weaken the theory instead of strengthening them?

Theories that are strengthened through ignoring alternative explanations become dogma. We, when we hold to them regardless of alternative explanations, become dogmatic. Dogmatism is a trap very easily fallen in to by those who overly focus on their own reasoning because of held but (unrecognized) beliefs or bias confirmation, etc.

"Works for the DOD?" "Do we have direct corroborative evidence of that?"

Ya, you could be correct, maybe she is lying.

For me, that is not the point. Maybe I'm just a reformed Reaganite? (dis)Trust, but verify? I don't necessarily think that she's lying, but she has made a LOT of claims as far as I know, and I personally think that corroborative evidence - factual and empirical evidence that can be verified - is important in establishing the truth. But maybe that's just me?

The more claims, the greater the relevance or need for some sort of evidence backing at least some of them up. It's certainly possible to develop elaborate theories, hard held beliefs and passionate convictions based entirely on reasoning, speculation and inference, etc., but my own approach is that that evidence and facts are also very important when it comes to establishing truth, which is what any of us, I assume, would want our theories, beliefs and convictions, etc, to be based on.

One of my favorite Q quotes is the one on freedom of thought (emphasis added).

"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.

My rationalization is pure opinion, what is yours? The same.

Yes. That's true. I guess that I'm simply questioning the reasoning behind "NCSWIC most likely means, it can't be stopped because it has already taken place"

As in, why does NCSWIC most likely mean = [X]?

I think that's a highly subjective conclusion, not very objective, and I gave an example to show another very plausible explanation (in my view) of what NCSWIC could mean. So why does it 'most likely' mean (it already happened)?

I'm not saying you cannot have or express your own opinion. I just saying I find it highly subjective in this case, and I wanted to emphasize that.

I don't know if you are doing it, but I'm wary if it seems like someone is conflating their own opinion with a fact, or their belief with a fact, because if they then carry on extensive reasoning and argument AS IF that opinion is a fact, they can get further and further away from the recognition that what they are doing is speculating and they end up conflating their entire belief system with .... fact.

I mean, I think I can sense that you have a very firm and powerful conviction about your own conclusions, but a lot of it seems like very subjective reasoning to me, and that makes me wary and also makes me want to question whether the dozens of tiny premises on which the bigger picture is based are actually reasonable, or better yet, verifiable through evidence.

How many others have met the same fate? ..... .... Maybe that is why Q called it a movie, you are watching actors, the originals are long gone and thus, NCSWIC.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective on all that. I do thinks its food for thought and there is some good reasoning there. I don't mean my comments or questions as a personal attack, and I'm grateful you've elaborated your thinking.

It seems to me that we take a certain set of facts and reason them out along very different lines. I think that could be an advantage if understood from the viewpoint that very often, it is contrastive perspectives that highlight little understood aspects.

On the other hand, maybe you just see everything in perfect clarity and I'm just seeing 1/3 of it, and so I doubt your explanations! I mean, that's possible too, right?

In any case, thanks again for the response and discussion.