OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
It's funny you quote this when every single paper I've ever read supporting the completely physically impossible collapses does exactly this. Start with a conclusion and make up evidence to fit it. Literally, it's all models (some of which still can't be released for public consumption apparently) and all of it completely unsupported by the actual evidence."Pseudoscientists – those pretending to do science (maybe even sincerely believing they are doing science) but who get the process profoundly wrong, use anomalies in a different way. They often engage it what we call anomaly hunting – looking for apparent anomalies. They are not, however, looking for clues to a deeper understanding of reality. They are often hunting for anomalies in service to the overarching pseudoscientific process of reverse engineering scientific conclusions."
"What this means is that pseudoscience almost always works backwards – that is its primary malfunction, starting with a desired conclusion and then looking for evidence and twisting logic to support that conclusion."
"With regard to anomalies the logic often works like this: “If my pet theory is true then when I look at the data I will find anomalies.” The unstated major premise of this logic is that if their pet theory were not true then they would not find anomalies. This is naive, however. Another component of this line of argument is the broad definition of anomaly."
"In real science an anomaly is only declared so after exhaustive efforts to explain it within existing theories fail. Astronomers checked and quadruple checked their calculations of Mercury’s orbit. They hypothesized that there were other bodies in the solar system exerting gravitational effects on Mercury. They did everything they could to explain Mercury’s orbit within Newtonian physics. This process didn't really end until Einstein explained the orbit of Mercury."
"What pseudoscientists often fail to recognize is that if you take any complex natural phenomenon, historical event, object or process and you look for apparent anomalies (broadly defined), you will find them. Humans are great at pattern recognition, and so if you look for coincidence in the data you will detect them. You will also find features that resulted from a complex interplay if unique events and therefore will be impossible to prove a specific explanation."
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anomaly-hunting/
It's easy to cherry pick this because there's so much misinformation out there. But there's way more than enough evidence to start serious criminal investigations of major individuals in the US government - way more than enough significantly more thorough investigation and questioning than was actually done.
What exactly happened and who was involved exactly will probably remain a mystery, but to suggest all the CT'ers stuff unravels under closer examination is simply incorrect. Too many questions, not enough answers.
And stuff like this is always going to have multiple rabbit holes so as to provide cover and disinfo to discredit. Because it's really easy to jump on bad intelligence that seems good, for some of the reasons you stated above.
Most of the people who ended up being involved in this probably never knew what it is they were actually involved in.