View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Inconsistensies

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby NinjaPuppy » 07 Oct 2012, 06:30

Arouet wrote:If we bring it down to basics, what we're usually dealing with is basic forensic analysis.

If you say so.

Arouet wrote:We're trying to piece together events after the fact based on the evidence uncovered.

OK.

Arouet wrote:Putting aside any specific case, isn't this an inexact science at the best of times?

The inexact science being forensic analysis? If you google 'forensic analysis' and 'forensic science', you get the same page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_science
In modern use, the term "forensics" in the place of "forensic science" can be considered correct as the term "forensic" is effectively a synonym for "legal" or "related to courts". However the term is now so closely associated with the scientific field that many dictionaries include the meaning that equates the word "forensics" with "forensic science".

I did find this interesting tidbit at the bottom of the page:

Controversies
Questions about forensic science, fingerprint evidence and the assumption behind these disciplines have been brought to light in some publications,[20][21] the latest being an article in the New York Post.[22] The article stated that "No one has proved even the basic assumption: That everyone's fingerprint is unique."[22] The article also stated that "Now such assumptions are being questioned - and with it may come a radical change in how forensic science is used by police departments and prosecutors."[22]

On 25 June 2009 the Supreme Court issued a 5-to-4 decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts stating that crime laboratory reports may not be used against criminal defendants at trial unless the analysts responsible for creating them give testimony and subject themselves to cross-examination. The Supreme Court cited the National Academies report Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States[23] in their decision. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia referred to the National Research Council report in his assertion that "Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation."

In 2009, scientists indicated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence therefore suggesting it is possible to falsely accuse or acquit a person or persons using forged evidence.[17]

Although forensic science has greatly enhanced investigators ability to solve crimes, they have limitations and must be scrutinized in-and-out of the courtroom to avoid wrongful convictions, which have happened.[24]


Arouet wrote:Isn't there a pretty good likelihood of at least some inconsistencies even when the parties are all in good faith? And wouldn't we expect, the more complex the scenario, the more inconsistencies and unanswered questions to arise naturally?

And according to Justic Scalia: "Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation." If forensic evidence can't be used in the US without proper human testimony and cross examination, why should we swallow some written report without the same?

Arouet wrote:Again, for this part of the discussion, let's not get distracted by specific cases, I'm just trying to establish the basic principle here.

Can you please give me an idea of the basic principles that you would like to establish? Is it that forensic evidence can at times, be a tool but isn't an exact science? I'm confuzzled.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44






Re: Inconsistensies

Postby Arouet » 07 Oct 2012, 06:52

It's a tool. We're trying to reconstruct the past using clues that are left behind. The point is that inconsistencies aren't necessarily a result of deception, from any side. The fact that there are inconsistencies on one side does not automatically support the other side's argument.

The principle I'm trying to put forward is that we must evaluate the inconsistencies and not jump to conclusions about how they arose.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby NinjaPuppy » 07 Oct 2012, 08:21

Arouet wrote:It's a tool. We're trying to reconstruct the past using clues that are left behind. The point is that inconsistencies aren't necessarily a result of deception, from any side. The fact that there are inconsistencies on one side does not automatically support the other side's argument.

The principle I'm trying to put forward is that we must evaluate the inconsistencies and not jump to conclusions about how they arose.

Jumping to conclusions about anything doesn't work on anything. That why I always feel it's better to discuss one individual thing at a time until all parties can agree on a common answer. Even then it doesn't make the common answer correct.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby really? » 07 Oct 2012, 21:07

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Arouet wrote:It's a tool. We're trying to reconstruct the past using clues that are left behind. The point is that inconsistencies aren't necessarily a result of deception, from any side. The fact that there are inconsistencies on one side does not automatically support the other side's argument.

The principle I'm trying to put forward is that we must evaluate the inconsistencies and not jump to conclusions about how they arose.

Jumping to conclusions about anything doesn't work on anything. That why I always feel it's better to discuss one individual thing at a time until all parties can agree on a common answer. Even then it doesn't make the common answer correct.


Ct'ers don't think that way. They start with an ideology ( the world is run by... etc.) then they shoehorn inconsistencies validating what they know is true all along. They have too much vested interest to change how they believe the world works. Imagine trying to persuade David Ick he's wrong or Victor Zammit he's wrong. That's why parties would never agree. Notice none of the ct'ers take issue with cts such as the assassination of President Lincoln, Watergate etc.

P.S. One more thing. Imagining there are boogeymen out there conspiring is much more fun for the ct'er.
Last edited by really? on 08 Oct 2012, 02:21, edited 1 time in total.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby NinjaPuppy » 07 Oct 2012, 21:12

really? wrote:Ct'ers don't think that way.

I do, and I happen to think that there is some merit to various points discussed.

really? wrote:They start with an ideology ( the world is run by... etc.) then they shoehorn inconsistencies validating what they know is true all along. They have too much vested interest to change how think believe the world works. Imagine trying to persuade David Ick he's wrong or Victor Zammit he's wrong. That's why parties would never agree.

Debating the entire ideology of someone's beliefs is quite different from debating a specific anomaly found in a published document.

really? wrote:Notice none of the ct'ers take issue with cts such as the assassination of President Lincoln, Watergate etc.

I'm certain that there are people out there who would. They're just not attracted to this forum.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby Arouet » 07 Oct 2012, 22:51

My point is that if we're approaching any version from the point of view that 'if there are any inconsistencies that indicates coverup or the entire analysis is wrong" then I don't think we're applying the proper analysis. Inconsistencies are problems, to be sure, and should be addressed. But we need to be cautious about them and what conclusions we draw from them. Additionally, different people can look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions.

Anyhow, I don't think this is a point that needs belabouring (unless someone is going to argue that we shouldn't ever expect any inconsistencies) but nevertheless I think is important as something to keep in mind as we look at these topics.

This point applies to analysis from all sides Sydney, so I'm not sure what strawman you believe I was bringing up - unless you're going to argue that people don't use the inconsistencies as evidence of cover-up...
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby ProfWag » 07 Oct 2012, 23:26

SydneyPSIder wrote:
As another example, look at the moon landing hoax -- there are funny little video snippets that cast doubt on the official story that US astronauts went to the moon. Oxygenated blue skies showing in the modules that are supposed to be travelling in deep space. Physically impossible rocket decelerations at the docking approach reminiscent of a model or an object on a stand in front of a chromakey screen or large moon model in the background. Astronauts being picked up from on high when they fall over. Flags waving in the breeze. No blast crater on landing. No dust disturbance. Moon rocks that are petrified wood or dried in an oven or found in the desert of WA. Access hatches too small to pass through. Lunar rover too big to fold into the lander. Wire flashes in the video footage. Once these snippets are looked at, you can't say 'oh well, there's mistakes on both sides', that's complete and utter BS -- as soon as you have one or two pieces of contrary evidence, the official story is done, it's blown out of the water. You can't have half a fake, or 1/10 of a fake -- the astronauts went 9/10 of the way to the moon or did 9/10 of the things they claimed, or the elites were only a bit involved in 9/11. It's all BS. Either someone knowingly tried to hide evidence and fake things or they didn't. Like common criminals trying to cover up their traces, conspirators try to destroy or disguise as much of the evidence as possible.


Sydney, would you mind if I cut and pasted your paragraph above on the moon landing into a new thread for discussion that's not on point with this thread?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby Misha » 08 Oct 2012, 00:21

really? wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:
Arouet wrote:It's a tool. We're trying to reconstruct the past using clues that are left behind. The point is that inconsistencies aren't necessarily a result of deception, from any side. The fact that there are inconsistencies on one side does not automatically support the other side's argument.

The principle I'm trying to put forward is that we must evaluate the inconsistencies and not jump to conclusions about how they arose.

Jumping to conclusions about anything doesn't work on anything. That why I always feel it's better to discuss one individual thing at a time until all parties can agree on a common answer. Even then it doesn't make the common answer correct.


Ct'ers don't think that way. They start with an ideology ( the world is run by... etc.) then they shoehorn inconsistencies validating what they know is true all along. They have too much vested interest to change how think believe the world works. Imagine trying to persuade David Ick he's wrong or Victor Zammit he's wrong. That's why parties would never agree. Notice none of the ct'ers take issue with cts such as the assassination of President Lincoln, Watergate etc.

P.S. One more thing. Imagining there are boogeymen out there conspiring is much more fun for the ct'er.


As I mentioned before that the word "conspiracy" has a negative connotation in American society. That negative connotation really took root around 1966 when the Kennedy assassination was being questioned. I once had a discussion with general Ben Partin on the nature of conspiracy. Ben pointed out that what people seem to miss is that it is not so much a conspiracy as people understand it, but more like a program[s]. Yes, he said. "Conspiracies are very real, but all too often the program gets caught up by those over-reaching beyond the facts." This not only happens with "conspiracy researchers." It also happens with the established media. One only has to read the memes that were created in Valerie Plame's case to understand this in full. And most everyone bit on the meme.

Therein lies the problem with how information is disseminated and controlled. Many of the facts are withheld and leaves for much speculation. Time is another problem with defining a conspiracy/program. This is what the National Security State relies on to obfuscate the dynamics of any given program. What inevitably happens is that meme takes over and we who look at such historic anomalies must spend an inordinate number of hours trying to find the machinations of controversial events. In essence trying to find the signal from the noise. However, if given enough time to research a particular "program" we may find an unusual pattern which does not comport with the official line. We thus look for precedent, evidence, preponderance of evidence, testimonies and other programs which magnifies our cognitive associations. More importantly, when we have a firm grasp of those associations we find ourselves re-evaluating our thesis as more information comes in. The irony of this is that we had the United States intelligence community engaged in this very same process over the Iraqi WMD issue. Even Valerie Plame said that intelligence for the most part is never quite sure that they got things right. She even admitted that some actions are just well informed guesstimates. I ask, was the invasion of Iraq a program or a conspiracy? Was Iraq on the table before 9/11? Was Iraq on the table right after 9/11? Now, who wants to admit it?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby really? » 08 Oct 2012, 02:29

really? wrote:Ct'ers don't think that way.

NinjaPuppy wrote:I do, and I happen to think that there is some merit to various points discussed.

That is your right, but in the case of 9/11 the events were carried out solely by well organized terrorists.

really? wrote:They start with an ideology ( the world is run by... etc.) then they shoehorn inconsistencies validating what they know is true all along. They have too much vested interest to change how think believe the world works. Imagine trying to persuade David Ick he's wrong or Victor Zammit he's wrong. That's why parties would never agree.

NinjaPuppy wrote:Debating the entire ideology of someone's beliefs is quite different from debating a specific anomaly found in a published document.

Not it seems when dealing with ct'ers that are attracted to Moon Hoaxes and 9/11. It's comparable to separating a fundamentalist Christian's religious beliefs from their politics.

really? wrote:Notice none of the ct'ers take issue with cts such as the assassination of President Lincoln, Watergate etc.

I'm certain that there are people out there who would. They're just not attracted to this forum.[/quote]
Yes they call themselves historians. They're people that deal with real history not fabrications.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby NinjaPuppy » 08 Oct 2012, 05:10

ninjapuppy wrote:I'm certain that there are people out there who would. They're just not attracted to this forum.

really? wrote:Yes they call themselves historians. They're people that deal with real history not fabrications.


"Historians are left forever chasing shadows, painfully aware of their inability ever to reconstruct a dead world in its completeness" [Simon Schama Dead Certainties]
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby SydneyPSIder » 08 Oct 2012, 06:56

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:
As another example, look at the moon landing hoax -- there are funny little video snippets that cast doubt on the official story that US astronauts went to the moon. Oxygenated blue skies showing in the modules that are supposed to be travelling in deep space. Physically impossible rocket decelerations at the docking approach reminiscent of a model or an object on a stand in front of a chromakey screen or large moon model in the background. Astronauts being picked up from on high when they fall over. Flags waving in the breeze. No blast crater on landing. No dust disturbance. Moon rocks that are petrified wood or dried in an oven or found in the desert of WA. Access hatches too small to pass through. Lunar rover too big to fold into the lander. Wire flashes in the video footage. Once these snippets are looked at, you can't say 'oh well, there's mistakes on both sides', that's complete and utter BS -- as soon as you have one or two pieces of contrary evidence, the official story is done, it's blown out of the water. You can't have half a fake, or 1/10 of a fake -- the astronauts went 9/10 of the way to the moon or did 9/10 of the things they claimed, or the elites were only a bit involved in 9/11. It's all BS. Either someone knowingly tried to hide evidence and fake things or they didn't. Like common criminals trying to cover up their traces, conspirators try to destroy or disguise as much of the evidence as possible.


Sydney, would you mind if I cut and pasted your paragraph above on the moon landing into a new thread for discussion that's not on point with this thread?


Well, if you like. The disturbing video and other evidence certainly needs some scrutiny. I don't think this thread is very useful or meaningful anyhow, it seems to be set up primarily as a diversion, given that the OP only wants to discuss metaphysical theory without allowing any real world example to be drawn upon, surely a doomed and time-wasting exercise for all involved. Or perhaps he fancies himself sitting around in a Parisian cafe attempting eloquent discourse with Jean-Paul Sartre on being and nothingness.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 08 Oct 2012, 06:58, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby SydneyPSIder » 08 Oct 2012, 06:57

really? wrote:That is your right, but in the case of 9/11 the events were carried out solely by well organized terrorists.

In your current state of belief. Although we can't discuss specifics on this thread.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby Arouet » 08 Oct 2012, 07:09

SydneyPSIder wrote:, it seems to be set up primarily as a diversion, given that the OP only wants to discuss metaphysical theory without allowing any real world example to be drawn upon, surely a doomed and time-wasting exercise for all involved


If this thread topic is distracting you from your preferred topic, there's a "New Topic" button at the top of every sub-forum. This allows you to start any topic you want, in the event that you feel that other threads aren't dealing with the topic you are interested in.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby SydneyPSIder » 08 Oct 2012, 07:32

Arouet wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:, it seems to be set up primarily as a diversion, given that the OP only wants to discuss metaphysical theory without allowing any real world example to be drawn upon, surely a doomed and time-wasting exercise for all involved


If this thread topic is distracting you from your preferred topic, there's a "New Topic" button at the top of every sub-forum. This allows you to start any topic you want, in the event that you feel that other threads aren't dealing with the topic you are interested in.

Thank you. I don't know if anyone is particularly interested in the parameters of this topic. There is also something called 'flooding' that some members on some forums like to participate in.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby NinjaPuppy » 08 Oct 2012, 08:38

SydneyPSIder wrote:There is also something called 'flooding' that some members on some forums like to participate in.

Considering that men seem to like to "mark their territory", I don't want to know what "flooding" is because I ain't gonna clean it up.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests