Craig’s assertion is correct \u2013 but it is predicated on “him [being] right about what we’re saying.”<\/p>\n
If we’re right about what we’re saying \u2013 and if the evidence against the 757 impact is persuasive \u2013 then the official story is toast.<\/strong><\/p>\n “Right” means being factually correct – and his this is where Craig has a problem in getting to the conclusion: “then the official story is toast.<\/strong>” Wishful thinking that is devoid of evidence \u2013 either for what did happen and what did not happen cannot turn the official story into toast.<\/p>\n However, Craig’s “evidence” is not persuasive and is best described as CABEMOH\u2013BIFAB<\/a>*.<\/p>\n * C<\/strong>raig A<\/strong>sserts it\u2019s B<\/strong>est E<\/strong>vidence the MO<\/strong>vement H<\/strong>as \u2013 B<\/strong>ut I<\/strong>t\u2019s F<\/strong>limsy A<\/strong>t B<\/strong>est<\/p>\n \u2013<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Craig’s assertion is correct \u2013 but it is predicated on “him [being] right about what we’re saying.” If we’re right about what we’re saying \u2013 and if the evidence against the 757 impact is persuasive \u2013 then the official story … Continue reading
\n