So the first comment that you called out had Giuffre saying after Siri's comments that "whatever pressure got him off the throne was serious enough to keep him off the throne".  This was a reference to the fact that he never came forward with the information to lay claim to the papal election over all those years.  There's nothing illogical about that interpretation of what he said.  Basically, the fact that he was in anguish until his very last years about the terrible things that took place mean they were weighing on him all those years.

Kudos, Yeti. And contra Ladislaus, it is becoming increasingly popular. As the degeneration of society continues and increases at a greater pace, it is certain to become worse than we might imagine possible. The alt-media and their followers on CathInfo have regularly used this type of argument to support their pet causes. It's not limited to this topic, but it shows that even those that claim to be trained in logic fail abysmally at it and fall for the most simple of tricks in a childish manner.

The issue is , why is the SPLC interested in denouncing OR approving any supposed conspiracy in the Church at all? Seems they might have a dog in this fight. Do we as Catholics ruminate over Jєω cօռspιʀαcιҽs like  "messiah" Sabbitai Zevi? Most of us don't know or really care.
 

.

The actions of evil people who are promoting a false agenda cannot be used to establish the truth of anything because falsehood is not a yardstick of truth, but rather it is the other way around. Also, we can't read their minds so we don't know why they do anything in particular. Furthermore, you are assuming they will only attack an idea that is true, whereas obviously they would also attack a false idea that still goes against thier agenda. Lastly, they might incorrectly believe the Siri thesis to be true.

An argument based on the actions of evil people really doesn't get you anywhere.

I think they will attack an idea that threatens them

alt-media and their followers on CathInfo

Isn't this Guiffre guy the thorn in Dr. Chojnowski's side, who claims there are more than one fake Sr. Lucia's, at least three? Excuse the poor spelling of Dr. C's name, which is more profoundly perplexing to say and spell than even the Apocalypse. LOL!!

I won't attempt to comment on the topic of this thread, but I will comment as to this assertion about statistics. When several probabilities are multiplied together, the result (e.g., 6.25% in the example above) is the probability that each and every one of the cited events will ALL occur.

But that's not at all what was said in Reply #10:

Thus, the probability that SHOULD be calculated, relevant to the above statement, is whether NONE of the events occurred. Using the same example of .5 * .5 * .5 * .5, that's what just so happens to work out to 6.25%, i.e., the probability that none of this happened at all is very slim (that is, if we do assume to begin with that the probability of each discrete event is indeed 50/50, apparently arguable from this long conversation here already).

I don't have a "dog in this fight" over Siri or what really happened in 1958 (yes, something off, exactly what, I don't know). But stats? That I do know.

I have one point that has a 50% chance of leading to the conclusion of fact, then another that's 50%, and then 5 or 10 that are 50%, suddenly that can lead to a 90%+ chance of the conclusion being true, given the combined odds.  That's how circuмstantial evidence works.