it means that I can arrive at conclusions relating to the SFK theory in the most efficient way possible and without resorting to doing flips or wearing baggy pants.
SMILEY FACE KILLERS
- Thread starter jaretac
- Start date
it means that I can arrive at conclusions relating to the SFK theory in the most efficient way possible and without resorting to doing flips or wearing baggy pants.
Except doing a flip is not something you "prove."
Again, I fail to see your point and you have yet to provide any counterexample to your original assertion. With anything in life, if you claim something, you have to provide proof supporting your claim. Since you asserted something, you have to provide proof in support of your claim.
The only thing I've seen so far from you is a tautological phrase, which is an opinion instead of any sort of fact.
it seems like instead of actual proof you just make smart *** remarks.
you can't prove or disprove anything because little is known
Are the police officers who investigated these deaths required to prove that it was not the SFK, or Jack the Ripper, or Sasquatch? Show me some counterproof in other police investigations.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS9oNBJEtNU]YouTube - Law & Order Theme Full Version[/ame]
BINGO!!!
Thank you so much for saying that. Little is known about these cases, so any suggestion of foul play at this point is pure speculation. There isn't enough evidence to prove murder. There is, however, enough evidence to show accidental death, and that's what the law has determined the majority of these cases to be.
Thank you so much for saying that.
The burden of proof is not on me this time. It's actually on you since you provided a claim. The entire thread I have been arguing the logical soundness of the theory, not the theory itself. There's a big difference.
I'll tell you what that means. I'm arguing on point that it is logically possible, not that it happened.
So on that same token, how about you provide a counterproof rooted in logic for why, logically, this cannot be.
Let's not be bringing Jack the Ripper into this. He hasn't done anything lately; he turned over a new leaf.
So which police files or records do you personally have? Surely you must be looking at some sort of official records to be drawing your opinion.
Last edited:
no one said it wasn't logically possible... it's just not probable
don't make me bust out the conspiracy theory picture again
I'm pretty sure the Smiley Face Killers are ghosts or some other supernatural creature, since in this latest "case" (LaCrosse, WI) there were a single set of footprints leading to the river ice, and security cameras caught footage of the guy walking alone through downtown LaCrosse in the early hours of the morning.
I got your point, but I'm saying the guys have yet to have any sort of payoff in the last 13 years or even close to it. They don't even have a website. The website for SF Killers is owned by an investigative reporter from the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.
you can't logically prove the serial killer didn't step in his footprints, wearing a transparent robe to conceal himself from the cameras.
am i right maroth!?