Reply #18: Fishy, if not a nut case

[MarkusQ]

I have a problem with Jeff Fisher web of conspiracy--the very fact that it is a web. It consists of literally hundreds of unsourced, unsubstantiated "links" with nudge-nudge-wink-wink implications. And any time anyone questions the source or significance of something, the response seems to involve another half dozen seemingly unrelated entities tied in with more unsourced, unsubstantiated "links." You could spend literally years on it without getting to the bottom.

This does not mean that it is true or false, but it does make me wonder: even if you could get to the bottom of it, could you communicated to anyone what you had learned in less time than it took you to learn it? More to the point, could you convince them? Especially if, in order to do so, you had to drag in an unending series of mysterious connections between people who are primarily of interest because of the mysterious connections.

In science, this sort of thing is called "unfalsifiable" and the principle is, if it isn't defined in such a way that it could, in principle, be proved false there is not point trying to "prove" it correct since doing so proves nothing.

On the other hand, the head of the committee to reelect the president in at least two states was also the person in charge of allocating resources to polling places, and there is clear evidence that this was done in such a way as to disadvantage the opposition. People have been caught destroying records. People have been caught throwing out voter registrations. Machines have systematically miscounted votes in several places. And so forth.

In each of the later set of cases, there is clear, well sourced, and undisputed evidence of what a reasonable person might term fraud. It isn't a matter of nudge-nudge-wink-wink, and it doesn't require a huge maze of ad hoc "links" to make the case.

Should we chase a cloud of shadows or follow up on concrete leads? I am not saying Fisher is "wrong," I'm saying that he and his supporters (who seem to be small in number) are saying an awful lot of things without backing much of it up, and I smell a troll. If there's something more substantial and less convoluted, I'd love to hear it. Until then, I plan to keep my eye on the ball.

-- MarkusQ