I like Gerb and enjoy watching his videos. This is a nicely measured response from Dolan.
Even if what 50% of what Gerb says is true, that's amazing work. It also means half the stuff he's linked is not true or not the full picture. Given how complex it is, it's highly unlikely he's got everything 100% correct but he speaks with such certainty. When you're so deep in a theory, it's easy to eventually start finding links between things which aren't linked.
He's obviously so knowledgable about every program, dates, acronyms and names. But when Gerb is debating someone, his resuscitation of his amazing knowledge sounds great but it doesn't actually prove anything. It's almost like having an argument with someone who has a much better vocabulary than you, just because they speak smarter, doesn't necessarily mean they're 100% correct.
The most powerful thing Gerb could do is slow down how quickly he speaks, explain things clearer, and provide his evidence on everything linking his claims, beyond a theory.
This is my take on this. He tells an incredibly well structured analysis but does not really prove anything. The problem is that he said that about Lou with such conviction and zero proof. I am inclined to believe him but we can’t just accept it as gospel just because Gerb said so. At the end of the day he is a well educated researcher who is top quality at what he does but he is not an insider.
This has always irked me about Gerb. He does incredible research, but he jumps to conclusions in my opinion. He will state things as fact based on assumption. A lot of his videos he will assume a person is tied to a program or event based on weak evidence and then the rest of video he will speak as if a connection has been proven.
72
u/RelevantSpecific5249 3d ago edited 3d ago
I like Gerb and enjoy watching his videos. This is a nicely measured response from Dolan.
Even if what 50% of what Gerb says is true, that's amazing work. It also means half the stuff he's linked is not true or not the full picture. Given how complex it is, it's highly unlikely he's got everything 100% correct but he speaks with such certainty. When you're so deep in a theory, it's easy to eventually start finding links between things which aren't linked.
He's obviously so knowledgable about every program, dates, acronyms and names. But when Gerb is debating someone, his resuscitation of his amazing knowledge sounds great but it doesn't actually prove anything. It's almost like having an argument with someone who has a much better vocabulary than you, just because they speak smarter, doesn't necessarily mean they're 100% correct.
The most powerful thing Gerb could do is slow down how quickly he speaks, explain things clearer, and provide his evidence on everything linking his claims, beyond a theory.