Friendly reminder that just because a statement can't be proven false doesn't

>>27061885
Life is so much better when you go into every """leak""" thread and automatically assume that they are fake and then judge the OP based on how well they did.

It's not that it can't be proven false, it's that we have a decent amount of coincidences piling up making it more believable than "not at all".

t. OP from the various threads discussing this shit.

>>27061957
But he's right. You're just defensive because you know deep down that your "leaks" are fake.

>>27061885
I love these images

I wish I could find similar ones

File: post to trigger 2.png (505KB, 800x850px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

505KB, 800x850px

>>27061885
>implying pic related is fake
kek. post more bait pls

>>27061950
No, it is literally what OP is saying. There's way too many people on this board that honestly believes that if you can't prove it fake, then that's enough reason to say they're real.

>>27061885
Guilty until proven innocent

>>27061885
>This -should- include the poster proving that they have inside information.
FTFY

>>27061950
All the "coincidences" hinge on the existence of a leak from weeks ago which NOBODY has seen or even heard of.

>>27061885
> if a statement can't be proven false doesn't make it true.
>All leaks should be treated as fake until proven true.

Due to people not understanding the logic behind this completely, I tend to phrase it as "The information in question should be treated as neither true or untrue, until proven either."

Which is very similar to treating it as if it doesn't exist, but not identical.

>>27061950
>a decent amount of coincidences
>one
>a decent amount

anon pls