No, you believe the *conclusions*, not the evidence.
Evidence is what it is. It is the *conclusions* that are *drawn* from the evidence that are 'believed' or not and those go both ways.
But, your choice of words to conflate evidence and conclusions are common when one wants to make their case seem stronger than it really is.
Or maybe OJ really didn't do it.
You know what I'm saying?
____ No, you believe the *conclusions*, not the evidence.
Evidence is what it is. It is the *conclusions* that are *drawn* from the evidence that are 'believed' or not and those go both ways.
But, your choice of words to conflate evidence and conclusions are common when one wants to make their case seem stronger than it really is.
Or maybe OJ really didn't do it.
You know what I'm saying
____ Dan, are you an expert on the ACTUAL evidence?? Those who have gone in depth and don't have a book/documentary/tv series/special to sell believe Oswald killed Kennedy.
The most logical conculsion is that Oswald killed Kennedy, WHICH conspiracy theory has been proven????? Look how many HERE believe ONE of the many "theories". Which "theory" has been meticulously proven-I'll tell you, the Oswald one, NO others.
As for OJ, to anyone with half a brain, there was a mountain of evidence leaving no doubt OJ was the killer, just like there is a mountain of evidence on Oswald. Still, many people believe OJ is innocent, same with Oswald. You know what I'm saying Yes, I know what you're saying, better than you do. You're parroting things that you haven't really researched and taking at face value.
Here's an experiment for you:
Try and prove ANY of the conspiracy theories with the wealth of information out there.
Then, try and prove Oswald did it with the mountains of evidence about him.
The difference is staggering.