That is something we need to be careful about assuming.
***It’s not an assumption. I examined the evidence and came to a conclusion. Polarik’s 160 page report was just the latest analysis that generates devastating point after point.
It was not ‘proven’, as it was an examination of an image of a document, not the actual document.
***True enough, using ‘proven’ as a fact in a court of law. But that’s just because it has not yet been examined by the courts, rather than it not being compelling enough evidence to call it “proof”.
Polarik(sic) also hasn’t proven he is who he claims to be.
***Ron Polarik was invited to an Interview on TV, so who was the masked man that showed up in his place? Your line of inquiry here is ridiculous.
He admits his name is not really Polarik and he hasn’t given anyone documented proof he is an ‘expert’, he hasn’t even produced the affidavit he claims he signed.
***We’re all from Missouri on that item: SHOW US.
Nor have has his charges been examined on the source document in a court. It is not ‘proven’ just ‘alleged’.
***Is it “proven” that a rock accelerates due to gravity at the rate of mg^2, even before a court of law says so?
For all we know, he is a guy who works at Kinkos (thus assumes he is an expert) who made all this up like all the bogus structural engineers on truther sites claiming fire doesn’t melt steel.
***You need to amend your statement to “for all I know” because Polarik has proven his mettle here on FR. You haven’t.
We need to examine our evidence and experts as much as we do Obama’s to make sure we have an air tight argument.
***I agree. And I try my best to do so. You, however, have just delivered false accusations about a fellow freeper and you’ve made several logical fallacies in your libelous statements.
Would you care to amend this. I am saying Polarik prove who he is and his status as an expert. The other statements are "If" statements. "If" he is not an expert as he claims, then he could produce a thousand page document but all the conclusions will be in question. You came to the conclusion he is accurate, but would that conclusion be compelling if you found out that he is not the expert he claims?
I have asked and pinged Polarik on many threads to produce evidence who he is for the sake of establishing his expertise, even, if he wishes, to provide the affidavit he signed with his last name blacked out if he is concerned about security. He has never responded. Heck, a photograph of his PhD with his name blacked out would be fine.
Ron Polarik was invited to an Interview on TV, so who was the masked man that showed up in his place?
Not questioning he is a real person (albeit, he admits that isn't his name), I am asking him to prove he is the expert he claims. The credence of all his 'evidence' rests on if he is actually an expert. Go back and look at his evidence. Look at how many conclusions he comes to using phrases like 'from my experience' or 'in my expert opinion'.
If he is an expert as claims, those can be registered evidence. If he is not an expert, then those are just opinions.
Polarik has proven his mettle here on FR. You haven’t.
My 'mettle' here isn't to argue if it is real or not, my mettle is simply to raise the standard of what we call proof and to provide a little critical thinking so we don't fall for the next game change de'jour like we did Larry Sinclair, Whitey Tape, Michell Obama Tape, drug dealing, API stories, etc, etc.. We are batting something like 0 and 10 on these game changers we where hoping for. Time to make sure our swings at the ball are a little tighter.