Posted on 01/26/2020 10:24:40 AM PST by thoughtomator
So someone had to break into his garage to put on a half assed ANTIFA like production. If he is a doctor, he is a stupid doctor!
And would you want a STUPID doctor to operate on you? I sure as hell would not.
If you can’t even cover up a bullshit little lie, you have no business being a doctor.
Well that certainly changes things. Do you have a link that corroborates what you stated?
See post 34. It that post is accurate it changes everything, and just may be the proof I was seeking. While there were red flags with the story, it was no where near a slam dunk as you claim. All that was there were people who pointed out concerning bits of information, but nothing conclusive. Post 34 changes that significantly, if true. Rushes to judgement goes against everything our justice used to stand for. I still believe in that, though I realize I am a vanishing breed, sadly.
Well not quite the smoking gun I was hoping for, unfortunately. While he does state he replaced it back on his windshield, it still does not mean he was behind it in the first place. However, it does answer the inconsistency associated with the picture. But I still remain unconvinced of either his guilt or his innocence. But since I believe in innocent until proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, I have to side with innocent, and that it was not a hoax.
btt
It’s hard proof that the first photo was staged.
Add to that that he only admitted this AFTER being caught out.
This therefore proves that at least part of his story was intentional misrepresentation.
At this point it’s no longer reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt on the rest, especially since we are talking about a high-profile, long time anti-gun activist (proof of motive and malice).
If he filed a police report with the initial claim as-is, he’d be looking at jail time right now.
All that being said though does not convince me that he hatched and carried out a hoax. Because as I said, there is no clear evidence of it being so. Though it certainly can be construed as such. There is just no evidence to confirm either theory. With the absence of that I have to fall in the innocent until proven guilty theory, since that should still be the criteria we use.
Now consider that the photo was taken inside his garage.
The “dog that didn’t bark” is the absence of a claim or photo regarding a break-in to the garage.
It’s a hoax. He’s caught. He’s in trouble, big time.
Just try to come up with a scenario where the second pic, the one with the pristine flyer with just one crease, can possibly exist, if his revised story is true.
It can’t be. That flyer can’t have fewer creases AFTER being removed from his car than before.
The only logical explanation is that the second photo came before it ever touched his car. Nothing else fits the evidence.
I certainly agree with you there, however, it still does not prove that it is a hoax of his doing. As a trauma surgeon, he has reasons for being anti-gun, especially with him having been a victim of gun violence on top of it.
If they can match the flier to a printer that he has access to, then that would be strong enough evidence to most likely secure a conviction. The system being what it is you never know what a verdict will be anymore with a case.
It could be an illusion, due to angle etc. It could also be that he made a copy. Right now I think the printer angle is the best evidence to work with. If the printer can be matched to a printer he has access to, well then he has some real explaining to do.
This surgeon— Johns Hopkins based, was at some point in his life, shot in the throat. Survived to become a surgeon. Ok— so for real a gunshot target at one point.
BUT, now— he puts a made up single sheet “threat” on his own windshield in his own garage.
Totally utterly false, faked up badly. He is a liar.
So in summary, this is a hoax hoax.
There’s nothing to charge him with since he never went to the police.
Which itself is VERY strong evidence in support of a hoax.
If he believed there was a real threat, he goes to the police and files a report so it can be tested for fingerprints and otherwise forensically examined.
His behavior is wholly inconsistent with perception of a real threat.
I admire the stubbornness of your skepticism, but it is no longer reasonable to be skeptical. If he filed that report he’d go to jail for a false report, and that is why there is no police report.
I am at 50/50, and liken it to a he said she said that was brought up years after the act took place. Don't know who or what to believe, nor do I care much now. 8>)
getting you to 50/50 feels like an accomplishment
That’s where I always stood actually. I just stated I had no evidence to confirm it to be the hoax being claimed. I also said I can’t discount it being a hoax either. No evidence to support either theory. 8>)
Now I feel like you completely wasted my time, as any reasonable person would be more than convinced under the weight of this evidence that this is definitely a hoax.
Just the way I'm wired I guess. For I believe in the ideal of innocence until proven guilty. Until I see evidence, I refuse to allow my biases to rule the day. So take comfort knowing that I want to believe, but what I want is not enough, for me personally. Since in the scheme of things it is not an issue that will have long legs, it is best to note it and move along. The fact that it is questionable suffices. 8>)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.