Originally posted by jfj123
Do you expect the government to set up a "take a number" system to hand out information upon request?

Well that why there are rules as to what information can an cannot be released by FOIA request.

The problem comes about from information that should be released is not.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Do you expect the government to set up a "take a number" system to hand out information upon request?

Well that why there are rules as to what information can an cannot be released by FOIA request.

The problem comes about from information that should be released is not.

But how do we know what info. should be released and is not?

How often does evidence get released to satisfy public curiosity before all possible legal proceedings are finished?

As long as there's any possibility of needing it for prosecution or defense purposes it won't be made public other than as required in those cases so expect to see it a bit at a time as long as it it's not deemed to be sensitive information in terms of national security.

The best way (probably the only way) to see it would be to bring a case against the government requiring them to use the evidence in their defense.

Does anyone have enough non-frivolous evidence to start such a case?

There are a couple of cases ongoing that may get some results if they last long enough.

Originally posted by jfj123

But how do we know what info. should be released and is not?

Well if you have any edication and background in crime scenes and evidence then you have an idea about what can and cannot be released.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Well if you have any edication and background in crime scenes and evidence then you have an idea about what can and cannot be released.

Ultima... it is education. You often tell people how educated you are, while you parrot the same posts over and over.

Any luck showing the mods your NSA credentials? We are still waiting.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Ultima... it is education. You often tell people how educated you are, while you parrot the same posts over and over.

Well i have to keep repeating the same facts and evidence untill the closed minded beleivers like you finally accept them.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123

But how do we know what info. should be released and is not?

Well if you have any edication and background in crime scenes and evidence then you have an idea about what can and cannot be released.

My point is that what one investigator may deem to be needed evidence, another may not. My whole point is that if EVERYTHING is released, we don't need to:
1. Keep making FOIA requests.
2. Everybody gets to see the stuff that interests them.
3. If everything is released, nobody can say they're holding something back.

Regardless of my education or background in Criminology (that's what it's called by the way , I do know that investigators may have specialized backgrounds and would require different information to be released then another investigator.

Originally posted by jfj123
I do know that investigators may have specialized backgrounds and would require different information to be released then another investigator.

WRONG. Facts and evidence is the same for any investigator.

Any good investigator can look at facts and evidence, it does not have to be for a specific background.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I do know that investigators may have specialized backgrounds and would require different information to be released then another investigator.

WRONG. Facts and evidence is the same for any investigator.

Any good investigator can look at facts and evidence, it does not have to be for a specific background.

Well this just goes to show you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to investigative specialties.

There are different specialties:
evidence personnel, crime scene photographers, property specialists, fingerprint specialists, investigative medical examiners, forensic science specialists, computer specialists, etc...

Originally posted by jfj123
There are different specialties:
evidence personnel, crime scene photographers, property specialists, fingerprint specialists, investigative medical examiners, forensic science specialists, computer specialists, etc...

Yes, but i will state it again for you to understand,

"Any good investigator can look at facts and evidence, it does not have to be for a specific background."

Please read it until you can understand what it states.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
There are different specialties:
evidence personnel, crime scene photographers, property specialists, fingerprint specialists, investigative medical examiners, forensic science specialists, computer specialists, etc...

Yes, but i will state it again for you to understand,

"Any good investigator can look at facts and evidence, it does not have to be for a specific background."

Please read it until you can understand what it states.

Evidently you didn't read what I wrote so I'll repost it for your convenience

My point is that what one investigator may deem to be needed evidence, another may not.

Here I'm making a point that REAL investigators may want to look at specific pieces of "evidence" based on their background specialty. When I mean "real investigators", I don't mean people like yourself who are looking into things on their own, I'm talking about people who actually work in the field.



[edit on 29-6-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jfj123
When I mean "real investigators", I don't mean people like yourself who are looking into things on their own, I'm talking about people who actually work in the field.

Well see that where you are wrong. A "real investigator" can look at any facts and evidence and know where, how and who to go to know what the facts and evidence are saying.

You should do a little research before posting about something you seem to know very little about.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
When I mean "real investigators", I don't mean people like yourself who are looking into things on their own, I'm talking about people who actually work in the field.

Well see that where you are wrong. A "real investigator" can look at any facts and evidence and know where, how and who to go to know what the facts and evidence are saying.

You should do a little research before posting about something you seem to know very little about.

Well I'm done discussing this with you. As example, a general investigator is not going to have the skills of a computer forensics investigator. That should be very obvious.
Oh and before posting anything, I researched criminology and forensics investigations in general at several federal sites and University sites that discuss their programs. My information came right from those sites so if I'm wrong then all those sites are wrong and as it turns out the universities that train future FBI, ATF, etc.. agents have been doing it all wrong. I'll contact them and let them know they need to contact you so they can finally learn how to do it the right way. What contact information should I give them so they can get ahold of you and learn how to do things the right way??? I'm sure they'll be really excited about finally doing it right !!!!!



[edit on 30-6-2008 by jfj123]

I'm not sure it is US governement, but there is something wrong. As for source of evidence -- I am such source. My evidence is in thread352220/pg1 and it clearly shows that scenario of the 9/11 attack existed in Russia in late 80's. The big problem is I am unable to make it known to anyone.

Originally posted by jfj123
Well I'm done discussing this with you. As example, a general investigator is not going to have the skills of a computer forensics investigator. That should be very obvious.

But the investigator will know who to take them to that has the skills. That should be even more obvious.