A guy trying to sell a book is using questionable non peer reviewed science to back up his claim that this one guy did it who they highly suspected anyway?
A guy trying to sell a book is using questionable non peer reviewed science to back up his claim that this one guy did it who they highly suspected anyway?
By your logic the sun isn't real because it got dark last night. Disagreeing because you don't like a narrative is not the same as disagreeing based on evidence.
By your logic the sun isn't real because it got dark last night. Disagreeing because you don't like a narrative is not the same as disagreeing based on evidence.
You were the one using false equivalence excuse, you are the one who would be believing that the sun doesn't exist.
By your logic the sun isn't real because it got dark last night. Disagreeing because you don't like a narrative is not the same as disagreeing based on evidence.
You were the one using false equivalence excuse, you are the one who would be believing that the sun doesn't exist.
By your logic the sun isn't real because it got dark last night. Disagreeing because you don't like a narrative is not the same as disagreeing based on evidence.
You were the one using false equivalence excuse, you are the one who would be believing that the sun doesn't exist.
Apparently, he's been the chief suspect for 100 years. The fascination with Jack seems odd to me. He wasn't the most violent or cunning uncaught serial killer in history and he lived in the infancy of forensics. I think it would be more fascinating if they'd caught him.
By your logic the sun isn't real because it got dark last night. Disagreeing because you don't like a narrative is not the same as disagreeing based on evidence.
You were the one using false equivalence excuse, you are the one who would be believing that the sun doesn't exist.
Good try deflecting the issue at hand though.
What?
Pointing out logical flaws is an excuse and logical fallacies are cheap argumentative tricks. The content of King's posts should not be examined critically as there's no need. They are automatically correct by virtue of him posting it.
A guy trying to sell a book is using questionable non peer reviewed science to back up his claim that this one guy did it who they highly suspected anyway?