posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 11:57 PM
reply to post by kosmicjack
In a chaotic trauma situation with cell phones aplenty, I'd expect "confirmations" of a lot of assertions . . .
1. were wrong based on flawed perceptions
2. were wrong based on flakey mentalities and emotionalities
3. were wrong based on raging biases
4. were partly wrong . . . see 1-3 above
5. were right based on first hand observations of high quality
6. were right based on good hunches, logic and/or great intuitive perceptiveness.
7. Were mostly right to right based on inside information from first responders
8. were mostly right based on such
etc. etc. etc.
PERSONALLY, I'd rather have all that stuff on the table for the incredible diversity of fine minds on ATS to sort through and make some discerning
assessments of. Sooner or later the truth TENDS to out. It seems to me it NEEDS to be a robust process to result in the best conclusions.
imho, ATS has far too many knee-jerk sorts of naysayers ready to squelch all manner of early inputs strictly because of their biases; their
personality variables; their emotional denial of hazards etc. I don't see those factors as all that contributive toward truth or accuracy.
IN ORDER TO
WE MUST HAVE
TONS OF INFORMATION. imho, taking it all in, INITIALLY, is essential.