David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[John Mytton]

Still living in your own little fictional and imaginary world, I see.
Putting your inability to actually discuss the evidence on full display, yet again. Sad.

Wow, are you still posting here?
I don't post for ages and again you respond almost instantly.
Martin, you desperately need to get a life.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Wow, are you still posting here?
I don't post for ages and again you respond almost instantly.
Martin, you desperately need to get a life.

JohnM

Just happened to check in when I noticed your BS post.

Two hours is "almost instantly" to you? Wow

[John Mytton]

Just happened to check in when I noticed your BS post.

Two hours is "almost instantly" to you? Wow

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

JohnM

Stop posting photos of yourself. It's embarrassing.

[John Iacoletti]

The only reason that WC-cultists are always demanding an “alternative narrative” is to shift the burden of proof and draw attention away from their own inability to substantiate their own narrative.

[Andrew Mason]

The only reason that WC-cultists are always demanding an “alternative narrative” is to shift the burden of proof and draw attention away from their own inability to substantiate their own narrative.

No.  I think the WC defenders want to know what the alternative to the LN conclusion is.  The only alternative seems to be one that considers all of the evidence to either be faked or the result of some miracle that not only allowed this huge body of mutually consistent evidence to exist by random chance.  Fakery requires an enormous number of people all working together to deceive the public and to keep completely silent for 58+ years.  The coincidence argument is statistically as likely as heat flow occurring spontaneously from cold to hot.

[John Iacoletti]

No.  I think the WC defenders want to know what the alternative to the LN conclusion is. 

The alternative to the LN faith-based conclusion is:

Indeterminate

The only alternative seems to be one that considers all of the evidence to either be faked or the result of some miracle that not only allowed this huge body of mutually consistent evidence to exist by random chance.

I don’t consider all of the evidence to either be faked or the result of some miracle. What little evidence there is (real evidence, not nonsense like a ring in a cup) is weak, unreliable, circumstantial, contradictory, and tainted. It simply doesn’t lend itself to any solid conclusion.