2026-04-30 12:33 UTC
Replies (1)
-
@FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2026-04-30 17:53
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the individual agents who were on the scene probably has a pretty good idea of what happened just by observing the state of things the moment he was captured. It's just that their interpretation, like any crime scene evidence, isn't made public so we can only speculate. The less information we have, the wilder the speculations can be and still fit the evidence. When there is new evidence the wild speculations can be updated to take into account the new information because there will always be things that are not clear or that we don't know and a motivated person could find explanations and 'just so' stories that fit those gaps. This happens constantly with Evolution vs Religion arguments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps Every time we don't know something, some theist will come along and insert god into that unknown. We didn't know how eyes evolved so theists said that it must be god that did it, then we learned how eyes evolved. The trick here is that given incomplete information, which is often the case, anybody can create a story that just so happens to fit. Here, we have a ton of incomplete information so there is fertile ground for people to just make things up.