Summations Only

Congratulations! You have just earned yourself a place in immortality (or at least until I decide to change my signature again). If we're going to merely consider whether a claim could possibly be true without regard to evidence, all we will be doing is eliminating the logically inconsistent. It's possible there's a parallel Earth orbiting around the sun 180 degrees opposite from us where Mary Poppins was a real person who invented the pet rock. It's possible the Christian Bible was written by an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters. It's possible Napoleon hatched his plan to drive his elephants over the Himalayas while he was in exile on Elba. It's possible Francis Bacon actually wrote all the plays of Neil Simon. It's possible Lee Harvey Oswald was acting alone when he shot 18 under in his first Masters to win by 9 strokes. It's possible the Nazca lines are the result of great big giants writing their names in the sand as they urinated. It's possible the pyraminds are piles of Sphynx scat. It's possible Aborigines carried Kangaroos to Australia in their pouches while flying Pteradactyls across the Bering Strait. It's possible the Emperor of Japan's pet hedgehog Spiny Norman was the bastard child of Godzilla and the Laurentian Abyss.If we're going to dismiss the need for evidence, how exactly do we determine which of these possible hyoptheses we are going to investigate and which we are going to ignore?