[JockoManning]

Yes and no.

There's some worthy cautions in your words.

HOWEVER, if your exhortations re evidence are strictly followed, the main result will be a huge amount, percentage of false negative errors.

IT IS NOT LOGICAL or practical that highly secret things are going to present lots of laboratory level proof.

It is absolutely ONLY possible for such information initially to appear via rumor, leaks, nuance etc. etc. etc.

It may be risky to fairly consider it but there is no other alternative and only fools ignore it automatically and totally.

[TXnMA]

Right now, I've just made screen captures of virtually every scene in that little 45 second Trump Tweet-video & am trying to organize it so that each of us can contribute the observations that our diverse experience and skill sets allow.

I advocate speculations based on observations and examination of all available evidence. And insist on avoiding fact-free, persistent idiocy like, "That megaton freighter [that takes 5 minutes and a half-hour to turn around] had a Muslim terrorist at the helm, and chased down and rammed our [faster & as agile as a cat] destroyer" kind of wild-hair mind-drivel...

We're doing intel work, here. There are lots of FReepers who want to skip digging for and analyzing evidence -- and want an instant, spectacular answer -- even if they have to make it up. I'm not one of those, and have little patience with them -- especially when it diverts me from gathering & collaborating on analyzing intel.

Clear enough?