SCEPCOP Forum

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.

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...