Fledermaus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 121,657
- Reaction score
- 32,573
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I posted an article that explains it.
So, no actual evidence.
I posted an article that explains it.
Even in law circumstantial evidence can result in a conviction.I have read articles that bigfoot exists. The fact that an article was written does not mean it proves bigfoot exits.
From your OP.
"To Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of the CDC at the time, it seemed not only possible but likely that the virus had originated in a lab. “I personally felt it wasn’t biologically plausible that [SARS CoV-2] went from bats to humans through an [intermediate] animal and became one of the most infectious viruses to humans,” he told Vanity Fair. Neither the 2002 SARS virus nor the 2012 MERS virus had transmitted with such devastating efficiency from one person to another."
"it seemed", "I personally felt", are all opinions.
Where is your proof that it came from a lab. The article does not provide the proof.
The notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is, of course, false. Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, although it must be adequate to meet established standards of proof. See also hearsay.
and that proves what?Even in law circumstantial evidence can result in a conviction.
Circumstantial evidence | Criminal Cases, Proof & Admissibility
Circumstantial evidence, in law, evidence not drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue. If a witness testifies that he saw a defendant fire a bullet into the body of a person who then died, this is direct testimony of material facts in murder, and the only question is whether the witness iswww.britannica.com
The circumstantial evidence points more to a lab leak than a wet market, but for some reason (unknown to us) you think the circumstantial evidence regarding the latter more compelling. You trust China?and that proves what?
The operative word is "can". That does not mean it always is.
The circumstantial evidence points more to a lab leak than a wet market, but for some reason (unknown to us) you think the circumstantial evidence regarding the latter more compelling. You trust China?
You recognize a question, do you not?Your opinion is noted"
Point out where I stated I trust "China"?
Do you trust Q?
Do you?You recognize a question, do you not?
Yes, and I know how to answer them.Do you?
Then please do.Yes, and I know how to answer them.
That is what can be considered part of circumstantial evidence. They have a reputation of lying and killing 100 of thousands of their own people for political reasons. They resisted a full investigation into the lab (but didn't mind taking our money to support research there). A wet market just happened to be located near a lab doing research on covid. Convenient? Plausible deniability?Then please do.
Do I trust China? Not in all situations. I suspect they have held back information regarding the covid outbreak.
Only on what I can verify.Do you trust Trump?
same for China.That is what can be considered part of circumstantial evidence. They have a reputation of lying and killing 100 of thousands of their own people for political reasons. They resisted a full investigation into the lab (but didn't mind taking our money to support research there). A wet market just happened to be located near a lab doing research on covid. Convenient? Plausible deniability?
Only on what I can verify.
Then we can both agree that it could have been a lab leak. China will never acknowledge that (the lawsuits would bankrupt them). So we're left with just circumstantial evidence. Based upon that it's more likely a lab leak.same for China.
only what I can verify.
News flash, the genetic evidence far and away counters your "location" circumstantial "evidence", "counselor".happened to be located near
False.So we're left with just
Sure. as long as you agree that Bigfoot could exist. You know, based on circumstantial evidence.Then we can both agree that it could have been a lab leak. China will never acknowledge that (the lawsuits would bankrupt them). So we're left with just circumstantial evidence. Based upon that it's more likely a lab leak.
Your media:So we're left with just circumstantial evidence.
I invite you to re-read the link I first cited related to this subject. I guess we're done here. Enjoy your evening.Sure. as long as you agree that Bigfoot could exist. You know, based on circumstantial evidence.
I have read articles that bigfoot exists. The fact that an article was written does not mean it proves bigfoot exits.
From your OP.
"To Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of the CDC at the time, it seemed not only possible but likely that the virus had originated in a lab. “I personally felt it wasn’t biologically plausible that [SARS CoV-2] went from bats to humans through an [intermediate] animal and became one of the most infectious viruses to humans,” he told Vanity Fair. Neither the 2002 SARS virus nor the 2012 MERS virus had transmitted with such devastating efficiency from one person to another."
"it seemed", "I personally felt", are all opinions.
Where is your proof that it came from a lab. The article does not provide the proof.
Obviously we know it has not been proved. China will not help or provide needed data. It is stupid to insist that opinions of experts are worthless.
The circumstantial evidence points more to a lab leak than a wet market, but for some reason (unknown to us) you think the circumstantial evidence regarding the latter more compelling. You trust China?
I think Faucet has some skeletons in his closet. Fortunately he'll probably retire soon.Nobody will even look into the lab leak. Remember it was buried and whoever spoke of it was called a conspiracy theorist. Everyone is wrong except Fauci. I don't know what the big deal is that everyone wants to believe government officials. The least trustworthy people on the planet.
I think Faucet has some skeletons in his closet. Fortunately he'll probably retire soon.
I remember there were issues with their safety protocols. Iirc, they got cited for it. If that's true it's one more plank in the circumstantial evidence building.I don't think he'll ever retire. Even if he did we would have people singing his praises for eons to come. The story of the lab leak was put out there fairly early and now it's coming back. The lab leak always made more sense to me. Th first article I read about it was from my niece in an email and she sent me an article about how the lab or labs in China had a lot of college age people that worked there and the safety and protocols were never as good as they should have been and were being ignore.
This does nothing to bolster the lab CT. I checked her cites in the article, based on others conjecture.You have heard recently from mainstream news, and many of you believe, that covid came from nature. But if you read this Vanity Fair article, you will probably change your mind.
“This Shouldn’t Happen”: Inside the Virus-Hunting Nonprofit at the Center of the Lab-Leak Controversy
Chasing scientific renown, grant dollars, and approval from Dr. Anthony Fauci, Peter Daszak transformed the environmental nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance into a government-funded sponsor of risky, cutting-edge virus research in both the U.S. and Wuhan, China. Drawing on more than 100,000 leaked...www.vanityfair.com