Carnivore
Salad Dodger
I dont think we mean quite the same thing when we say "implausible". To me it means that a third party hearing of an event would have a hard time accepting it was true without supporting evidence. That your initial reaction is to doubt whether a reported event is possible. As I said though, implausible things happen all the time. The odds against your birth are astronomical.
I think that it is implausible that a car would be skewered by a light pole knocked over by a low flying jet that's about to crash into the Pentagon, but that doesnt mean it didnt happen. Maccy's post (684) showed the aftermath of some thoroughly implausible road crashes, the sort of thing that would set people saying "No way!" when they heard about it. But they did happen.
Basically what you have presented so far is the fact that Mr Englands story is strange and unlikely to begin with (it doesnt often happen that cars are damaged by flying planes) and your belief that his story is inconsistent with the observed facts. Fine. I agree that it is a strange and unusual story. And if (and I mean that "if") Mr England's testimony differs from the physical evidence at the scene, I say trust the evidence rather than the testimony.
What you have not shown so far is evidence that the basics of Mr Englands tale is untrue. You have told us you find it to be too incredible to be true, and added that you have other evidence which confirms it.
I dont have the advantage of that extra knowledge. I have only seen you start a thread which states that you dont believe Mr England because his story is implausible. That logic would seem to seem to insist that any outlandish the-odds-are-against-it occurence cannot be true. (If I'm straw manning your position here I apologise, and stand ready to be corrected, this is just how it looks to me.)
We know however, that incredible, implausible things happen all the time. Someone wins the lottery every week. Most of my older male relatives have amazing war stories. Sometimes their memories contradict each other on details, but their stories are still true.
In short, so far you have brought nothing to the table but your accusation based in your personal sense of incredulity. Quibbling over the details of what Mr England remembers does not constitute evidence of any kind.
You say that the evidence proving your case against Mr England is being worked on. I look forward to seeing it, but I have to say, I think it was irresponsible to start a thread like this without having those facts to hand. If you were prosecuting a case against the conspiracy, and this were a depositions hearing, your case would now be dismissed for lack of evidence. If you are going to make highly prejuidicial statements against real living people, you have to be able to back up your assertions at the time you make them.
I am bending over backwards here to be polite and meet you half way. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are sincere and actually have some evidence that you believe is conclusive. I am willing to be shown. However, I will require hard evidence before I accept your proposition.
Will you concede that accusing Mr England before you have your hard evidence ready is at least premature and in poor taste?
Last edited:
