Common Ground?

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Common Ground?  (Read 61977 times)

Offline Duncan MacRae

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
    • JFK Assassination Photographs
Re: Common Ground?
« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2019, 03:48:53 PM »
I assume you are going to say it has an outside and an inside, but if it is solid there isn't any inside.

Everything solid has an inside.

If you snapped your solid cylinder in two, then the two broken pieces would now consist jointly of 8 sides in total, ie, 6 outsides plus 2 separate insides created from the one original inside, by the snapping of the cylinder.

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: Common Ground?
« Reply #22 on: April 12, 2019, 03:53:23 PM »
Everything solid has an inside.

If you snapped your solid cylinder in two, then the two broken pieces would now consist jointly of 8 sides in total, ie, 6 outsides plus 2 separate insides created from the one original inside, by the snapping of the cylinder.

Wrong, whilst it has an "inside", a solid object doesn't have a "side" inside it.


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4402
Re: Common Ground?
« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2019, 03:55:26 PM »
4 sides, Ray. :)

Maybe we should flip a coin to see who is correct. (Heads I win, tails you lose.)
« Last Edit: April 12, 2019, 05:32:57 PM by Charles Collins »

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6008
Re: Common Ground?
« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2019, 03:55:35 PM »
Is there any ?common ground? items that both sides of the controversy can agree upon?

Not much.  You have two opposing approaches to the evidence.  Those that believe you can derive conclusions from making logical inferences from the facts and evidence and those who don't.  The latter do not subscribe to the notion that anything can be proven so long as there is any possibility that something else occurred no matter how improbable or absurd.  They grasp at any straw and ignore the mountain of evidence to the contrary presumably as the product of a frame up.  On the CTer end it is mostly about nitpicking evidence of Oswald's guilt to imply a conspiracy by default. 

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: Common Ground?
« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2019, 04:50:31 PM »
Maybe we should flip a coin to see who is correct. (Heads I win, tails you loose.)

Or even lose.

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4402
Re: Common Ground?
« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2019, 05:33:52 PM »

Offline Duncan MacRae

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
    • JFK Assassination Photographs
Re: Common Ground?
« Reply #27 on: April 12, 2019, 05:43:03 PM »
Wrong, whilst it has an "inside", a solid object doesn't have a "side" inside it.
Of course it does, it's called the Inside  from which two new outsides were created.
Everything that has an outside must have an inside, simple physics. One can't exist without the other.
Even if you can never see it, for example inside a Black Hole, it's still there.