Replies

No, you don't get it. It doesn't make the entire investigation look foolish unless you are somebody who is desperate for a reason to dismiss all the findings. They have multiple data points, and what you are arguing is that on one data point, the interpretation is flawed because they may have used the wrong version of an obscure manual to interpret it, and therefore all the data points can be tossed aside, the experiment invalidated, and the researchers discredited. That's like saying that the latest model Ferrari is a POS car because the passenger side view mirror is listed in the owner's manual as having a 1.24 magnification when it really has 1.25 magnification, since 1.24 was from the 2011 model.

This investigation involves uncovering document procedures, standards and practices from a process 50 years old that was used in a region where imprecision was the norm and everything was done on paper in pre-digital times where most of the original actors are either dead or old enough to have forgotten their own names. Expecting perfect, absolutely precise interpretations on every data point in order for any part of the investigation to be valid is beyond ridiculous and is, quite frankly, indicative of a desperate need to believe that this can't be true.

The investigators said that based on the written numbers, the certificate was fake. They used what they said was the 1961 manual to prove the written numbers didn’t match what was typed in. Now if it turned out it was a 1960 manual instead of 1961 but was still valid, that would be a minor point, slightly embarrassing but not affecting the conclusion. (Although you can bet the libs and lawyers would be all over any minor error.)

However, when the manual they are claiming proves the mismatch is actually from years later, and a totally different numbering system was in effect at the time, it shows they were not using due care with their proof. Your Ferrari analogy is not applicable - it’s more like an official investigation claiming you broke a 1975 law when your alleged lawbreaking occurred in before the law was in effect in 1970.

To repeat, it makes them look foolish and careless. It’s not a matter of “interpretation” it ‘s a matter of whether the material they claim they have is actually what they do have.