u/StayFluffy98

During the Bush years, gay marriage was pretty much seen as an ultra-liberal position. At least that’s how I remember it, as I was a kid during this time. In the 2008 election, Obama, Biden, and Hillary were all (publicly) opposed to it. So even in the Democratic Party, it wasn’t necessarily a mainstream position.

And yet by 2011, Gallup found majority support for gay marriage for the first time. Some polls actually had this happening in 2010. Whereas in 2008 even California voted it down. By 2013 or so, NOT supporting gay marriage was considered politically incorrect or even bigoted.

Why did the public change its mind so fast on this issue? I can’t recall anything specific involving LGBT people around that time. And it’s not as if the Constitution changed either. I also can’t think of an analogous instance where a hot-button social issue disappeared so quickly. Theories?

The Universe is a big place, to put it mildly, so one would expect that it could be likely, if not certain, that we humans would encounter another intelligent civilization.

But there’s a lot of major factors standing in the way of this ever happening. Consider all that must take place for intelligent alien life to develop.

1. A star that is capable of providing the energy needed to sustain life in a stable, consistent, manner. This is the easiest part.

2. A planet that orbits within the habitable zone of such star. This is also common enough considering the size of the galaxy.

3. Life to arise on such planet. Considering that life on Earth took root as soon as conditions were stable, this could just be an extension of 2. In other words, life could be inevitable. So far, it’s not looking too bad.

4. Intelligent life to develop. Here is where the trouble begins. Of the millions of species to have existed on Earth, one has progressed to a civilization-building level of intelligence. We only have one planet to look at, but still, one million is a pretty big sample size.

5. That intelligent life to chronologically overlap with ours. Out of the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth, there have only been 5500 years (and that’s putting it generously) of advanced civilization, 150 years of a relatively-strong understanding of the universe, and zero years of interstellar travel.

6. A way to interact with such intelligent life, despite the vast distances between each star system. Even if we get extremely lucky, and there’s intelligent life in the Alpha Centauri system (the closest to Earth), we’re still looking at major logistical issues. Voyager 2, the farthest man-made object in space, will need c. 80,000 years to reach it. And again, this is the closest star.

Long story short, it’s reasonable to expect that alien civilizations will never be encountered. Somewhere out there in the distant reaches of space, this same conclusion is probably being reached.

I have my take but I’ll wait a bit for results.

View Poll

I certainly think John is a possible suspect, but it does seem strange that he would put himself out there to the extent he has if he was truly guilty. I mean he is active in helping with the doc specials and is very insistent on calling for answers regarding DNA.

The most obvious reason would be to hide his own guilt, or that of his deceased wife, but why even take that chance? Why risk exposing Burke? As it stands now, he is in no danger of being arrested, and regardless he’s 82 years old. He can simply die a free man. There seems to be no logical reason for him to be so public about the case unless he genuinely wanted it solved.

If he is guilty, is he really THAT arrogant as to think there’s no possible way people will ever find out?

To me this is the biggest knock on the JDI theory.

Is there any possibility that both of the competing theories contain parts of the truth? It seems as if both RDI and IDI explain things, and yet have huge holes in them. What if we discard what doesn’t make sense about both and maintain what does in each?

What if the Ramsays invited someone into their home that night, or at least let someone in, and he committed the murder. It sounds ridiculous at first, but this would explain…

1. The parents’ suspicious behavior. They didn’t kill their daughter, but they feel responsible for it and can’t let anyone know they let this man in their home willingly.

2. Their insistence that JB went straight to bed, despite some evidence that seems to refute this (the pinapples most strikingly).

3. The ridiculous ransom note. Also, Patsy’s unusual phraseology on the 911 call. The “kidnapping” is still nonsense in this theory.

4. Why there were no signs of a break-in.

5. The fact that there was no history of child abuse on the part of either parent. The chronic SA claims are very weakly based. Her own pediatrician said he saw no evidence of it.

6. Burke never even being considered a suspect. All he knows is to stick with the story.

7. The Ramsays being indicted by a grand jury for child endangerment. Not homicide. Not even manslaughter.

8. John’s supposed determination to bring the killer to justice. If he is guilty, his arrogance would be off-the-charts. He’s a smart man.

9. The parents quickly getting lawyers.

10. The strange combination of body-found-in-house and 911 call. If there was a kidnapper, there shouldn’t be the former. If RDI, you wouldn’t expect the latter, at least not for awhile while they get their story straight.

Unlikely? Yes. But this story is fairly simple, consistent with the actions taken post-murder, consistent with the family history, and consistent with the forensics.

Did the Ramsays kill their daughter? No

Did were they being honest about that night’s events? No

Both can be true.

I’m probably wrong, but I’m more probably not wrong that anything else I can think of.

I have my opinion but I won’t share it until I see the results.

View Poll