Originally posted by Michael W Richards
View Post
The paradoxes exist because what Schwartz stated directly contradicts the hypothesized goals of the conspiracy of which he's suggested to be a member - the paradoxes, therefore, exist within the logic of the argument that ties the conspiracy to being the source of his testimony rather than Schwartz's actual experience being the source of the information. The latter allows for him to be mistaken through misinterpreting what he experienced, the former does not - a concocted story would be one that is suitable to purpose as given, not one that does the opposite. Just because others reinterpret Schwartz to make it suitable to the conspiracy doesn't mean his testimony, as given, was originally suitable to the conspiracy. And since it isn't/wasn't, that means the conspiracy cannot be the source of his original statement.
- Jeff
Comment