Ahkenaten
9th November 2010, 00:41
I have observed in Camelot that we are asked to regard certain similar information being provided by different people in various interviews, etc. as "corroborating" that information.
I submit therefor the definition of "corroborate" for the purposes of clarifying that particular issue:
One definition of 'corroborate'
Corroborate v. to confirm or to sometimes add substantiating (reinforcing) testimony to the testimony of another witness or a party in a trial.
Source: legal-dictionary thefreedictionary.com
I assert that when people make statements those are assertions not necessarily facts. In the law when a person testifies under oath, under penalty for perjury, the credibility of such statements are stronger than a mere statement. Unless or until witness testimony rises to that higher level of credibility here or elsewhere, I do not believe we should regard such statements as very strong, let alone absolutely true.
So in this and other forums when people express their opinions or beliefs or the opinions or beliefs of others, they are just that, statements and not necessarily truths.
To assert, therefor, that similar statements "corroborate" one another is not correct. Rather, it would be more correct to state that such statements ECHO one another, with the caveat that echoes can, together create a misleading echo chamber effect, WHICH MAY BE VERY VERY FAR FROM WHAT IS CORRECT OR TRUE TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN KNOW IT.
Further, the mere fact that some of the narratives of many who have been interviewed in Project Camelot seem to include similar threads DOES NOT mean that the observer noting such as stumbled upon The Truth about any particular thing. One has only noticed similarities which COULD be meaningful, but also be a contrivance, or something else.
I submit therefor the definition of "corroborate" for the purposes of clarifying that particular issue:
One definition of 'corroborate'
Corroborate v. to confirm or to sometimes add substantiating (reinforcing) testimony to the testimony of another witness or a party in a trial.
Source: legal-dictionary thefreedictionary.com
I assert that when people make statements those are assertions not necessarily facts. In the law when a person testifies under oath, under penalty for perjury, the credibility of such statements are stronger than a mere statement. Unless or until witness testimony rises to that higher level of credibility here or elsewhere, I do not believe we should regard such statements as very strong, let alone absolutely true.
So in this and other forums when people express their opinions or beliefs or the opinions or beliefs of others, they are just that, statements and not necessarily truths.
To assert, therefor, that similar statements "corroborate" one another is not correct. Rather, it would be more correct to state that such statements ECHO one another, with the caveat that echoes can, together create a misleading echo chamber effect, WHICH MAY BE VERY VERY FAR FROM WHAT IS CORRECT OR TRUE TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN KNOW IT.
Further, the mere fact that some of the narratives of many who have been interviewed in Project Camelot seem to include similar threads DOES NOT mean that the observer noting such as stumbled upon The Truth about any particular thing. One has only noticed similarities which COULD be meaningful, but also be a contrivance, or something else.