Facts and Hypothesis

THIS POST IS VERY LONG- READ IT IN PARTS IF NECESSARY
This site is intended to be for presenting some' facts' (as reported) known about subjects, especially news events, and then formulating some hypothesis around them. My intention is to show, that what some may call conspiracy theory or theories of crazy men, may not be so conspiratorial or crazy after all. What some say is heretical may not be heretical after all. Paradox does strange things, and often will create paradigm changes in a man's truth, and what he at least believes to be true.
Much of conspiracy theory is built upon several "facts" to which one has stated a conclusion, that may or may not be true. Most majority opinion or the status quo facts are built upon the same sands.
The same with "orthodoxy or what they prefer to call heresy, is built upon sand as well.
My attempt here is to show that. My desire is to lead you to think about what you believe about anything, and to be compelled to prove it to yourself first. My desire is to get the reader to do so by reasoning, searching and studying. My desire is to motivate you  not to believe just anything because it is popular to do so, or you are liked  to do so, or have lots of friends that believe the way you do. It is my desire to motivate you to come to an individual arrival of your own truth. First by gathering as many weighty facts or information on any subject that you can, then to draw up a hypothesis for yourself, and then even for others to prove whether it is true or not true.
An individual must make up their mind, as well to be able to express that truth in a matter for others to understand them, and they must understand, that we are all equal no matter what, in our need for faith, regardless.
They must understand  none of us can prove anything to the other, we can only present things as reported, written, and our own testimony, but we cannot prove truth, it takes great faith to find truth for it is not something we can feel, touch, taste,see and handle. I will say more about that later in this introduction.
Before you can decide for sure if you or anyone else has truth or not, and yours or someone else has truth, then your truth must contain more than a few objective truths, but many, and must contain more than a few subjective truths they must have many but most of all, it must come from individual experiential discovery.
I believe truth is not truth until experienced. Objective facts alone do not prove truth. Subjective bias, prejudice or what you have been taught to think, does not make for truth. In the end only experience becomes truth, and that alone is "your experience" that makes up truth for you. So, if that be true, then what is truth?
The truth is, there is an Absolute Truth, and to have and know that truth, one will have to set aside subjective truth based on bias, prejudices, and traditions, and come to experiential knowledge alone that can be revealed to others by the use of objective "facts," but even in this you cannot express or convince other as to the truth  until they too share your experience. So when looking for truth, it cannot be for the purpose to say, I have the truth and no else does, but to seek out others who may share your truth, and if not, ask yourself, why not?
We do not find truth to convince others to come along on a ride with us, to blindly accept our truth, they cannot for if they don't share our experience, they cannot know our truth. Thus objective facts presented alone will not and cannot establish Absolute Truth. Sadly men use power over others to make their truth become everyone else's truth without their personal examination of the "facts" presented  to them as truth. .
Truth in culture, society, organizations of men, has always been decided by a few at the top to dictate to the many at the bottom, and then get the majority to come along with them, by reason of their status, and their position, whether what they are telling you to believe is truth or not. This has been done by force, and use of fear time after time.
History has proven time after time, majority truth most often is far from the truth and many times to most occasions in history, it is the minority, that resisted the majorities truth, that really had the truth.

Thus, there is a great need in this country, and within the Christian community as well, for us all to become more intense in finding and discovering truth and not just settling for anything because someone else said to do so.
We must  become diligent in seeking the truth, we must be able to find enough evidence, real evidence, objectively and subjectively, to settle into truth and know that we have it, even if no one else believes it or opposes our truth. Then we must experience our hypothesis to arrive at absolute truth.
For men who know Absolute truth,  they are unshakeable, you cannot move them away from it.
Men who  seek truth are also always willing to check, substantiate, look for and examine all other expressions of someone else's truth to see if they alas can still arrive back where they started from as to what they believed or if they need to move beyond what they believed. Absolute truth will become what they really know by experience - the real knowing.
There is no shame in admitting at times I thought I had truth, I may have had some truth, but now I can say, I have the Absolute truth.
One can say my heart and mind are settled now for I have examined all other possibilities, I have examined all hypothesis and sought for an answer, and I am now truly satisfied,  for I experienced that for which I sought and have learned.
One can say, I know now for sure, that my truth isAbsolute truth.
It is no longer in a knowing facts about something, but living in that something, experiencing it, having it put to the practice, tested and proved to you time after time and doing it in your life.
One may say, Absolute Truth has become my experience.
Job of the Bible, is typical, in the beginning he knew something about God, it is clear from the passages, he even lived as a good man, righteous among men, but He still did not have Absolute Truth until the end of His ordeal, He had experienced truth, seen God act, he had objective facts, but in the end, it was God spoke to Him, and alas He had Absolute Truth, as Job says in the end, I had heard of you, but now I have seen you.
Job found what he had believed about God, was largely untrue, with one basis objective fact that was true during all this, Job at least understood the Sovereignty of God, which sad to say most do not today, He would say time after time, "The Lord Giveth, the Lord Taketh Away" in all saying this the passage is there to remind us, that in this He had not sinned. Yet there are men, today who call you a sinner and a heretic for believing that God is behind the scenes of much of the evil we experience in this life, and that He alone is Sovereign, over all of His creation including men, nature and heavenly creations such as angels.  They unlike Job deny God being ALL POWERFUL. How shall they ever come to know God, if they can't recognize God when He is what He is. Creator of the Universe and all that is in it, and that God does as He wills and that men cannot do the same. They even deny that God created evil. They have had to even invent a new God (Satan) as the creator of that which alone our Sovereign God created for purposes of His own will and counsel -evil.


Conspiracist and Heretics, The Orthodox and non- Orthodox, at least their objective views are all equal in that they hold value as at least  hypothesis, which may be based on some objective facts, but they do not anyone of them hold Absolute Truth, until Absolute Truth becomes experiential knowledge. In other words head knowledge alone is not truth, it must be heart knowledge before it is Absolute Truth.
This doesn't mean a person is rational or not rational in their thinking or even a Christian or not a Christian.
Most conspiracy theories or christian ideas that others would consider crazy or heretical have in many cases proven in the end to be the Absolute Truth for themselves at some point in their own life if they are seeking truth.If they really examine what they believe, and put it to the crucibles of testing it.
If they do not, then truth will always remain, an unknown for themselves, and they can only conjecture, accuse or taunt others who believe what is not popular to believe. They will simply believe something because it is either safe to believe what they think is truth, or it is popular, or that those who rule or have some sense of self established authority over them, say one must believe as they do.
Conspiracy nuts and heretics are usually called these names because they are out of the main stream or majority thought or reflections on any matter.
Most who resort to this name calling, have no foundation on which their truth is built, no rock in what they believe about something, thus they can't speak with any authority, they don't speak from experience or story, They try to build their case on the majority beleives this, or such and such believes this , or this is what I know by tradition or culture and you must believe it. Why? Because majority rules.

Well if majority rules, then Christ and the Disciples were sadly mistaken and deluded men, to teach and believe what they believed, because they went flat against the majority rules "rule."
In many to most all cases, the thoughts or hypothesis of those named conspiracy "nuts" or "heretics" are drawn from questions asked, and answers found, that may or may not be proven true objectively.
Absolute Truth cannot be proved, by saying look here, look there, but even as Jesus said, look inside, what is your experience, what is your story, what has life taught you, what have you really learned? Absolute Truth is not of this world. It is not tangible, it is not explainable, it is not something that can be written down in a formula, boxed up and sold on the marketplace, or exchanged for money and fame. Thus in speaking of the Kingdom of God, Jesus did not speak of some objective Kingdom he spoke of one that is subjective, and the subject was Himself, in other words as one guy said, Look, the Kingdom of God is "in your face,"
Yet, they would not believe that, because He couldn't box it up into nice little neat packages of religion for them, or even their Jewish beliefs. Matter of fact, it opposed all that to which they believed was truth, and that they had convinced the majority to believe was truth. No, Absolute Truth was revealed by the Creator in flesh and person, but even the Disciples who could touch, see and handle them, did not have truth, until it was revealed to them by the Father. How can one expect to convince others of truth by words alone of the Bible, when they weren't convinced with the Absolute Truth standing smack in front of them, empirical evidence, as many would call it. There was God right there, in the form of us, eating, drinking, living, sweating under the Sun with them, suffering as they do, yet, He was the Son of God, the very essence of the Creator.
It took revelation, it took the resurrection, it took the Spirit to reveal this truth to them, but today thousands think they can prove Jesus was the Christ to others by argument of Scriptures alone, objective facts, that can be objected to by many as not being empirical. There questions will go something like this. How can you prove that these words weren't made up by the writers? How can you prove that the Bible and every word in it is true? Well they have you stumped, because you can't! Unless God opens eyes, and open ears for one to have faith, they remain blind, just as you would have, unless God would have opened your eyes and your ears and most of all your heart to come and experience Absolute Truth.
The greatest failure of the "christian church' today is the failure to pray for God's grace on others to see Jesus Christ, and living out that which is inside them for others to see- Jesus Christ.
They have chosen, theology, doctrine, sacraments, symbols, church, denomination, and everything other then the mercy of God and His compassion for all men as revealed in Jesus Christ, and they do not know Him so they don't live and walk as Christ, and all men see is another version of themselves. Perhaps a religious version of themselves. They do not see Jesus!
Any conclusion or hypothesis, is never true until proven, however, any fact given, or believed by the majority in most cases, is not true either until proved  to be true.
So it is best to always examine all sides of the questions and answers and to even ask new one's if necessary to get to truth. One has to be willing to step out of the box and think outside of the box.
So in knowing that neither side is right for sure unless a hypothesis stated is acted upon to prove or disprove, then really both with opposite truths are still mere hypothesis, for one to prove something they either had to be present when an event took place, and been involved in the event for something to be actually declared a fact and it must be truly a fact,or at least the weight of all evidence considered must prove it to be at least more plausible then the one argument over the other. .
In other words, experential knowledge far exceeds just statements made by others on what they have been told.  Much of today's media news, and even much theology is built on innuendo and what we are told, and not what we have experienced or found on our own initiative.
Certain facts are presented that may seem empirical but are they?
Let me use a news report as an example.
A man turns on the television and hears the following reported on his local television news.
"A man is reported driving recklessly down the highway, and police are seeking to locate and stop this person, so they don't harm anyone."
Now our first inference from what has been reported based on the "facts" presented us, is the man is reckless, and endangering others, and their is a need to stop and arrest such an individual, and perhaps even take their drivers license away, so they don't do it again.
However, hours later more facts come out, one person called the report in. The news reports this.
"So far only one report has been made of the reckless driving of this person, police are still trying to locate them"
So our next inference is, perhaps the person is driving reckless, and maybe he is not
"No other reports were made to the police," the news person states in their last sentence.

Now depending on the significance of the event, a news reporter may or may not be dispatched to gather the "facts", all depending on whether the event turns out to be true based on the first inference.
\Why?
Because the first is more out of the norm of what normal people do,or at least that most people like to think of themselves as not doing, at least not on purpose!  This makes is what makes NEWS.
Why?
It  will produce more questions of the public, this in turn will require more news to be reported.
The answers are desired by people. They desire to know the Who? Why? Where? When? How? and even the What? What did they exactly do that was considered reckless driving?
If our first inference becomes somewhat true, then it becomes news worthy, meaning more than one witness, several incidents of the person seen driving reckless, and alas the confession to others that he or she was intentionally driving reckless and perhaps the arrest and a jury conviction of the person.
Even then, was the confession coerced from the party or was it based on "fact"? Were the witnesses truthful, could they have made a mistake at what they saw?
We in America in all criminal cases have decided that justice is to be handled in a certain manner, we have decided to leave truth to others to decide- the jury , the courts, the attorneys, and the judges, but does their decision mean that the truth has really been told or shown? Has the case and facts been REALLY examined and presented truthfully.
Of course not, we know better, from history, from news, articles we have read, that they are not always right and can be even seriously wrong, especially in cases of long term imprisonment of innocent people or even capital punishment, but because we prefer to have faith that the criminal justice system of America is proving the truth more often then the lie, we place faith in their decisions, we don't really know the truth, and to be quite honest only God in heaven or that person knows whether the truth was discovered or not. But do we ever actually question is this the best way to try to arrive at the truth of accusations made against someone accused? No, why? Tradition, Constitution, Majority Rule. Frankly, most don't care to know the truth, they just want what they perceive is justice, without ever really understanding or having to experience justice needed in one's own life.
Should we rely on something so imperfect as this, is it really truth, or only half truth?
Each men decides which side he will place his faith in.
Thus some will be for capital punishment and prison, others will be against it and for rehabilitation more then retribution or deterrence. Many will go along with the majority on these things, rather then be called a "bleeding heart liberal" or other names. They fear men and reprisal even when in their hearts they may know that something is not quite right, or something just doesn't seem right about it all. It's safety to go with the crowd. We know that old saying well, " Don't rock the boat", So rather then seeking transformation and making sure we not only believe righteously and think that way, and act righteously, we go along for the ride of the majority and find we are conformed to this world, we think like them, talk like them, and even will act like them. It is always easier to please men, then it is to desire to please God and Him only.
Much has to do with whom we choose to believe, and for reasons, that most often are based on fear rather then true faith.
Objective facts usually won't persuade us to have a different opinion, but a new subjective experience that may negate what we believed before will in almost every case give us a paradigm shift of thought and opinion and most often become Absolute Truth for us. 
In my example provided of the "reckless driver", we will never know really what happened, who really is gulity, we weren't there and we weren't the person driving either vehicle.
It still remains a hypothesis that most prefer to call facts based on what is presented to them through other parties who claim they know the facts.
In this case, it turns out it was an elderly man, who was driving too slow for those driving behind him. The person behind him, was blowing their horn, so the individual, went to change lanes to allow the person to pass them in the lane they were occupying behind him. At the moment the driver behind the elderly man changed lanes as well, in an attempt to pass them in the lane that the elderly man was changing to at the same moment. The person attempting to change lanes is now agitated, as they nearly hit this individual in the rear or side. They now are beyond agitated they are angry.
In the mind of  this individual,  not only has the man in front of them been driving slow, but they have nearly had an accident trying to pass. So they out of anger pick up their cell phone call the police and report a "reckless driver.".
The news station hears the call over their police scanner, and ask about it. They are told simply the police are looking for the person reported as a reckless driver. This is in turn is relayed to them not by the person who reported the incident but by perhaps a second or third person within the Police Department perhaps the Dispatcher, who then is passing that information to the Police Departments Public Information Officer.
Can we be sure, that person is reporting exactly what has been told to the Dispatcher who answer the first phone call, and can we be sure, that the dispatcher has not colored the callers statements due to her own thoughts, opinions or beliefs about a person that would do such a thing? Well, today we can go back at least and listen to the call as recorded. Is some news reports this is done for us, some not. But wouldn't it be safer as listeners of news to at least pursue the recording before forming an opinion  of what is truth or declaring something truth. Or shall we be lazy, and just accept the news report version of the event?
Most people live in absolute faith of other men, very few seek truth for themselves or care to take the time to discover it. The Christian church is largely made up of the few telling the many what they must believe, and the many lazily agreeing with whatever they are told is "this is the truth" rather then seeking the answers for themselves, they are the blind leading the blind. As Jesus said, let the dead bury the dead. 

Many in turn report what was said to others.
We draw conclusions based only on what has been presented to us. Most often even beyond that, we will take the fact presented, and based on what we have been taught and of course to make sure we feel better about ourselves (self justification) we draw up a conclusions, that may or may not be true.
What if the report was bogus altogether and was reported just to have news that day?
We first don't believe that kind of thing would go on, or at least not with a reputable or more famous news channel, we have "faith" that no one would ever stoop that low to report something as news, when it wasn't even true, so we believe what was reported is fact, but we also make inference from it, subjectively because we have already started on that basis. We think in terms of what we think is true, which doesn't mean it is or it isn't true.
The police pull over the man upon location. They go through normal procedures, realize the man is elderly and disabled. They begin to try to ascertain, was the driver driving reckless or not? The driver explains what happened and that because traffic was snarling up, he was just trying to be more cautious and not tailgate others to avoid a collision if someone stopped quickly out in front of him.
So, the police in order to sort out what really happen make contact with the person who reported the incident. The driver who reported the incident to the police is now in turn ashamed to admit they were impatient, and angry, trying to rush around the other party, or any fact based statement on the event.
They tell the police the person nearly cut them off changing lanes, "without signalling."

So now a  question or problem having only a conjectural answer exist.-what is called a Conumdrum.
Which is true? Well based on the information I have provided you, in this story, it could be true, or not true, for you see I made this story all up.
So what really happened?
Nothing in this case for I made the story up, but let us assume for a moment that the story is true, by me letting you know, I am either the elderly driver, or I am the one that reported the incident, and it really did happen as stated here.
Of course I am only telling you to assume it is true as the story is told here by myself.
Either way, what conclusion could you draw unless you were there? What absolute truth could you arrive at unless you are at least one of the participants to the event either the elderly driver or the guy in a hurry?
None of course, that is a fact, you can only draw up a hypothesis.
Thus unless the police can locate at least one witness, that heard the horn blowing, saw the old man driving to slow, the horn blower rushing to change lanes to go around them, saw anger or some expression on his face, indicating their impatience, and they saw the old man either signal or not signal and witness the traffic was heavy at the moment, and "perhaps" the old man was being cautious, then you are still left with a Conumdrum. Was the old man driving to be cautious? Perhaps he was doing it to be obnoxious?
So, if this were a real incident, which this is not, all the same what conclusion would you draw as a news listener? What conclusion of fact or truth could you arrive at as one that never hears the stories of the two people from their own mouths, never finds out there are no witnesses to the event, and that it comes down to one persons testimony against another. Even the police would have to make a judgment, formulate a hypothesis to act on. They would have to ask themselves, which one is telling the truth?
Their choice may be influenced by prejudice or bias.
Let us say for my example here, an opposite fact had taken place, that the old men saw the Afro American behind him, and he happens to be a rascist, so he decided to purposely slow down and purposely cut off the man from passing him and swerved with purpose into the other lane just before the Afro American man could pass in the other lane, and nearly caused an accident, and that when the guy called and reported the old man driving recklessly, he has not lied but reported what happened. 
For example two elderly white police officers arrive at the scene, and after locating the elderly gentlemen driver, and the driver tells them that  he was just driving cautiously and it was the" black man" that was driving recklessly, and that he had signaled to get out of his way to let him by when the "black man" cut me off, he says. So the police locate the person that called the report in and ask him to meet them there,  he pulls up, in a really nice expensive car, he is  Afro American, has some fancy, expensive clothes on. Now let us assume that these two officers have worked mostly cases in the part of the town where prostitution and big time drug dealers work all the time, and most the guys they have picked up, and have arrested based on observable facts made in their investigations, dress and look just like this Afro American.
They are already influenced subjectively, by their previous objective facts, but they have not been in the position yet to see anything other that would make them doubt their view of those who look and dress and act like those they have previously arrested. So, would they really believe the elderly man's story over the Afro American's story?  Probably so! Let us say they would have at least a tendency to believe the elderly man. Even though it may be in this case, that this Afro American worked hard for all he had, was a college professor, and wasn't a drug dealer or pimp and was telling the truth.
These prejudices have been found to be true in all areas of life, it was shown by experiments, that taller men or women will be hired before shorter people or people that are fatter, even when the shorter person or fatter person was more qualified and had a better work history. Our truths are more often based on prejudice and world opinion or majority opinion rather then truth. If this be so true in the natural things, how much more do we have a tendency to carry that same kind of thinking into Christianity. We do and more often are not are no different in our thinking processes then the rest of the world and in turn act no different then the rest of the world.
What I say to you, you have to have revelational experience with God to know Him and not just know about Him. To do so, there are a lot of paradigms that will have to be transformed in your thinking, thus we are encouraged by the written word to do this, to ask to receive, to seek to find, and to knock to have the doors of truth opened to us.  If we just go along with what we have been told is Christianity, can we be sure about the many doctrines we are told we have to believe outside of Christ?
Going back before all of this I have written to the original thought processes of worldly men and often Christian men,  you would naturally have based on the news report,  still believe the facts as reported, to which we have found are no facts in the first case of the elderly gentlemen's story at the beginning of this article, that "there is a reckless driver on the highway, and you sure hope the police catch them." It turned out to be false, or in the second story it could be true, but who is to say which is which, which is truth, there are only facts to be presented which regardless are highly based upon those "in charge" and their judgments made of the situation, but as we can see in the second case, those may be colored as well, so do we really KNOW the TRUTH. Do we have ABSOLUTE TRUTH, unless again we are one of the drivers of the cars. Only we would know the truth of what happened even if we lied, our hearts and minds in the meantime as a liar would condemn us, or let us know we are lying. Nevertheless, that would be Absolute truth, that we are lying, we would know that if we are the liar, though we may suppress it, and deny it. Deep down the absolute truth would stand in our deepest parts of humanity. Even though we will find ways to get around that consciousness by finding justification to do so.
It might even remind you of a real incident in your experience where you encountered a reckless driver, which will strongly influence you even more toward seeing this person as reported on the news as guilty simply because of incomplete facts presented by the news media. Or, you could be an honest person and admit that there were times you did drive recklessly, sometimes on purpose, other times not. Remember the time, you didn't see that car in the right lane as you started to change lanes, you signaled but they were in your blind spot, and you hear their horn blow just as you are moving into the lane, and you look in the mirror and you think where did they come from? They pull back out of the way just in time, to avoid a collision with you and moments later they fly around you in the other lane, either giving you a dirty look or giving you the "finger." Then you might not settle into an inference of speech by the news reporter that this is a crazy person, or a criminal,  that you hope the police will catch, and lock up, or at least take their drivers license away.
You might just say to yourself, ah! the news it's making a mountain out of a molehill, I have made the same mistake. Now you may yet be mistaken as we have shown, the news may be right, but how to know for sure?
Which person in the above example relied on their own experience and were honest in their evaluation of the news story as presented versus the other who just immediately passed a judgment as the report being fact and without doubt that the driver needed to be arrested and charged.
What if truth is something we strive to really know, so when we do hear a news report before passing judgment either to a person being guilty or innocent, or that facts reported are facts or not. we decide in this case we really would like to know more, even if the news never reported anything more on this incident or event again.  Some will not bother, it depends on your interest, what you really want to know about.
I have a friend who is interested in justice for the accused. At one time he was more interested in justice for the accuser. In other words, at one time if he would have gone to law school he would have probably become a prosecutor but after an experience in his own life that showed him the injustice of the criminal justice system, and he can see that the side that is normally declared good and the defense as evil, he has found incident in his own life to see, that may not be the case, and to be so, is error! So, he his one year away from becoming an Attorney at Law who wants to do Criminal defense for the defenseless, the poor, those who don't get real justice because it doesn't exist. Justice in America and in life is not always just or blind.
But most people, the majority believe it is, and thus still believe in their mind, that those accused must be guilty on the fact that previous judgments made by the "authorities" would not have resulted in their arrest unless it was true. So can a juror be truly non biased, non prejudicial, of course not, will they makes judgment on facts or innuendo or the preponderance of evidence, which in itself may be a lie. We have found that to be true at times, have we not. So, has real justice been meted out? Since those who have may been convicted of a previous crime, that may have served time, and was truly innocent at the time, of conviction is not allowed to serve on the jury, have we not already prejudiced a jury? My goodness we won't even allow them to vote, as if we are righteous or something, without sin! I think the facts of our own lives is a fact, that "none is without sin:" but we resist this on all accounts to avoid standing convicted before He that is God so that we can remain gods.
I hope you understand the gist of my argument.
Most of what we do in this life, requires "faith" none verifiable facts. This faith, is mostly often subjective, though it may be based on some facts as reported. Though they may not beTruth.
So a huge amount of " faith" is needed in believing most anything. Even what others would like to call empirical evidence. Is their really such a thing?
Well, yes there is, but for things in life, and  it is based on our experience and the answer perhaps to former  hypothesis we had but treated them as if they were proven and that changed because of an event we lived out or through. This then becomes truth for us. As in the case of my friend that is going to be an attorney, its not that he doubts that some are guilty but that he now sees, and has a different paradigm due to experience which he has come to see, that men live on both side of the same tree, good and evil, it is still the same tree, no matter which fruit you eat from it, both can and often and mostly end up being evil if you aren't careful, they will. Let me give you an example, if because of what happened to him, he approaches every case as that the party accused is really innocent, because the criminal justice system in his life proved that the accusers can be and often as evil as the accused, he may just end up doing such a fine job of criminal defense, that he gets off the guilty and they get away with the first crime, and go on to do it again. Would he have a new paradigm in revert to his old thinking? Perhaps, but probably not likely, because he once was the accused. He will hold to this one truth, that truth must be examined, every route taken to find truth, and present that truth, but how?
He will find, that even with truth known, of a case, or at least the preponderance of evidence, he will have to defend his client to the very best, because what it really comes down to, is not who is really guilty or innocent but who can sway the jury to think that a person is guilty or innocent, which has nothing to do with Truth, only a justice that is neither just or blind, or knows the truth for sure, only the party that is accused knows the truth. That person was the actor, and only he REALLY knows what he has done or not done. Thus to try to override this blindness, the system does everything in their power to get a confession from the accused, but in so needing it, to win their side of the accusation, it has been proven that all kinds of inhumane and unjust things can be used to get it. Even lying to a liar becomes justified if you can get them to even slightly confess, so has righteousness been served by lies? No! So, regardless, criminal justice like everything else in life leaves a conumdrum, So how do we get to truth. I believe in the case of my friend, he would be best to defend always his client, even if guilty or to do otherwise, may later come back and bite him. What if his client told him he was guilty, and he defends him and all the evidence does seem to agree with what his own client told him, yet, he comes to find out, after winning the case, feeling a little discouraged that he has got a guilty person off, and he starts considering switching to the other side. He does so, then years later the client is still not doing any other crime, and comes to him and admits he was having mental problems at the time, and he was scared because they police were so harsh with him and that some of the stuff they presented as evidence was stuff he gave them because he wanted to appear guilty but wasn't. Wouldn' this defense attorney feel better about his decision to defend this person and get them off and to have helped them avoid a needless punishment, of course he would. Now the question, which would make you feel better saving somebody, that may be guilty, or punishing somebody that may not be guilty. Tough question isn't it? 
So, one to arrive at a decision to be a defense attorney and to do it with integrity and honesty to themselves would have to have something more than justice to rely on, for we have seen that either side can go either way on the tree of good and evil. So this person needs to ask which is righteous as revealed in God?
Is the fact that a guilty person never went to prison, more righteous then one that wasn't guilty that did?

What if the person, that was guilty does commit another crime? Was it righteous to get him off?
A conumdrum to be sure.. !  What is the answer here for mankind, attorneys, etc.? How can he even know what is righteous, not just good or evil.

Personally for me righteousness is not to get involved in either ways of men, I won't serve on a jury, I won't be an attorney, I won't decide who is guilty or not, because only God is judge and only men know their own hearts and God. Preponderance of facts can never declare truth, only facts. but those facts as we have shown may be tainted by those presenting them. So seek righteousnes, I have. What do I do in the case of those who have been declared guilty, by a jury is I don't see them in the eyes of men, but in the eyes of God, that we are all guilty and without Jesus Christ we all stand convicted, yet my God loved me so much that Christ died for my sins, then I must ask am I willing to lay down my life for the guilty as He did I, so that they may too be set free, free from the guilt and shame, of where they are, and what they going under. That is why I choose ministry of reconciliation rather then combatting in the realm of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and choose to do righteousness, which is shown in God's justice which is mercy and compassion to all that are guilty. That is why I believe in Christian Universal Reconciliation, for since we were all in the same sinking boat, then God to be just must be the one that gets us ALL OUT. Not we ourselves, but GOD!
God created us, set up the scenario for men to sin, so that they could come to know that they can trust God, and rely on Him and love Him and that neither good or evil is what he is but that God is love. Thus we can love Him because He loved us enough to put us in school so we would come to Christ, and know He that is love, and we would love him and not serve God or do what God ask out of blind obedience but out of love with eyes wide open. How would men know what death is if he would have never died, and desired to know life, and how would men know evil and good unless he ate of the tree, and how would men know trusting God in what he say, unless he first discovered what mistrust brings. Only a Creator of love would do what He has done, so that we could come to desire life, righteousness, love, and trust. So though the plan was for us to all to fall, the plan also was for us all to be restored through Jesus Christ one act of love at the cross,
namely..Paul says, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, forgiving them their trespasses.
You mean only those that believe right? No wrong, all of mankind, this is what they are to believe, not that he died for us who say we believe, for we couldn't believe even if there wasn't something to believe in, but we must have TRUE FAITH in God, not just a false fact about the cross, but we must know and experience the cross to see that this was given to all men, not just those that prefer to lift human will up as an idol of their heart and not give glory to God who is Sovereign and saves all, because it is both just and righteous to do so..





Let me give you another example, there are those that believe Jesus Christ was God in the flesh.
Then there are those who say if there is a God show him to me.
Both are purely functioning on faith.
The first one, believes what he believes because he believes it. He may believe on experiences of his, or words of another (the Bible) for example or even the testimony of others who say this is true. But overall He still is operating in faith.
The other person says, well show him to me. Thus they negate the faith it takes to believe Jesus was God in the flesh, for if the first person is right and it is true that Jesus was God in the flesh, they will not accept that He even, came here empirically and stated He was. Why because but we don't even know that, for it takes faith that these events are true, as reported by the writers of the Scriptures particularly the Gospels. Subjectively they both have faith, one in Jesus Christ as God in the flesh, and one in his own subjectivity as well. '
Both are holding onto matters of experience, prejudice, or belief. Both cannot be right, One has to be wrong and the other right. Josh McDowell does a wonderful job of laying out facts by questions and answers. To lead to a conclusion for the reader. But then it will still take faith even though he has presented some argument and logic to make the case.
Many have faith in the words presented in the Bible but not true faith based on subjective reality of experience of the person Jesus Christ working in their lives. They believe the book is true, but do they believe the story.
I mean are they really experiencing Christ in their lives, or do they know only about him and say that is faith because they believe it to be a historical record and they believe in the doctrines they have been taught about Him, but they still have NEVER REALLY KNOWN HIM. To know Him is to experience Him as a living reality in your life, inside you. Not outside you. His story becomes your story.

The non- believer will have to lay out some facts as well, to make his case, which are largely based on his own faith.
Not on empirical fact, and only objective things, that they have drawn subjective conclusions from. You must get them down to experience on their own hypothesis about God.
Thus the resurrection is the most important part of the story of Jesus for it would prove He never lied and was who he said he was. But how can I prove the resurrection story, I can't! I have to rely on my faith in it as well, to make all the other"facts" stand true that Josh McDowell presents in his book. Which ultimately is based on preponderance of facts, and many which can be verified through history, archaeology, and other areas of science.

All the same, I can draw upon my experience, in having some subjective reasoning, feelings or other, that the Resurrection is true, based on my story, and relating it to the story. I have now taken objective "facts" as reported, and internalized those things, and applied them to my experience and arrive at "true faith".

So if you ask the non-believer, since he wants empirical evidence, ask them what would it take if God was here before you right now, to prove He is God?
Well, most will either ask for a miracle or sign, or many will say, have him end evil right now.
So you can see where the argument must go now. First what is a miracle, what kind would you need to believe He is God?
What sign would it take for proof to you that He is God?
Ask,  even if you were to see these things done by this person, how would you know they were true?
How do you know whether or not he might not be a magician or a charlatan playing tricks on you?
It would take faith in the person doing these things wouldn't it as to determine if this was really God or not?
On the question of evil that they have made their statement about.
If God was to end evil, would you be included in that?
Have you ever done evil?
An honest person will always have to say, yes, and if not you can lead them to that conclusion, by questioning their own sense of moral righteousness or their own moral standards they have come up with.These that they desire to push off on God.
You must make sure they come to see, that evil is not an outward problem of events or lies with God alone, but it is an inward problem of men. You may have to ask them to tell you what they believe good is? What makes a good man? Then once they tell you, then you can ask them have they ever violated their own sense of moral rightness, or goodness, and do not all men do so? In the case where I got to this, we had discussed the evil of war, poverty, etc. I told this Atheist how I too believe they are evil. I do! ANY WAR OR POVERTY. I usually conclude with, it seems that all men are evil and need some change of heart and mind to ever rid us of evil, doesn't it?
So thus if God was to destroy evil he would have to destroy you, me and all men.
They must come to see, the problem is not God, but themselves, for they fail to have faith in Him which in turn may provide them the miracle they need, or sign they need, or better yet, the means whereby they could become a righteous person doing righteousness, who doesn't continue in evil themselves.
For example one non-believer wanted to discuss his political views, he was a liberal democrat, so what can you say, about being a democrat, or a republican for that matter, there are enough reported facts out there to draw conclusions that both parties can do evil and good. So you point them out, you need to read up, stay a tuned of these things, you need to be informed. I read everything I can get my hands on. I make sure they see, that both parties in the end do a lot of evil though they may strive to do good or even thing they are doing good. I take no party side, or even say I like one over the other. Personally I don't.
Why is that I ask that it seems they can't just do good?
(Why if his chosen party is so good,) How can they be responsible for so much evil as well.
Why?
Because they are men. Humans do both, and most often all their good becomes evil in the long run anyway.

One must look for these things on both sides, or you have no chance of proving men is the problem and not God.

If you lean to one side or the other as being better or one being good versus the other as evil.
You have lost your argument for God's existence and His love.
You will fail to show, that God is not only powerful and could end evil, but because of his love, he does not. He prefers to change that which is evil in the hearts and minds of men to more then just good or evil, but to make men like him to do righteousness, which includes, mercy and compassion. Which is why He doesn't jsut wipe out evil because it would take us all with it.
Which s you can make plain to them is true justice.
Yes, and you can say God does do justice and already has done so. 
Justice is in that we all must die, and mercy is in that we can all live now because of the one act of Jesus Christ at the cross. Afterlife is not a discussion so don't go there at all! 
It's not about where we go, but about how we live this life!

Which is the only way out of his conumdrum, for without a shift in his faith to a different faith, his faith in no God is hopeless because of the plight of all men to end up doing evil, even him
They may bring up all the evil Christians have done. Don't argue the point, they have done evil!
Yes, Christians have done horrible evil, but just because one goes by that name doesn't mean they are all that way. Tell him that you agree, and you totally disagree with their reasons for doing it, and that is doesn't speak of God as love at all, and nor does it reveal they have His Son Jesus Christ.
Use his own argument, he may be pro-homosexual, or at least believes in the the right for them to be so. Explain you don't want government to regulate or legislate morality as it inevitably doesn't work, men do what men are going to do, with a law or without one. We just discussed how men do that right?
He may say, but isn't it right they should enjoy the same privileges as others, like insurance etc.
Say yes, don't make this an argument of your moral opinion, but then let him know and be clear about it, that before they legalized abortions, women were still getting them but in fewer numbers.
Yes, they are safer now to do so, with proper medical care, however the number of abortions has risen. Tell him that the reason you dislike abortion is you can't answer the question , what if we killed a Beethoven or an Einstein? They consider themselves intelligent, so it's a question worth their pondering.
What if your mother would have killed you instead of giving you the opportunity for life?
So, he mentions the horrible acts of Catholic priest who have molested young boys now? Trying to move the argument back against those who don't live and walk in Christ.  They love to quote that one these days, especially as another finger to point at Christians
I then ask, what if all homosexuals are like the priest you condemn for doing these horrible acts toward little boys?
They will say well you can't prove that is true of all homosexuals.
I can say that based on your generalization that " all christians" are child abusers.
I can say that based on that these "christian priest'  prefers the same sex as himself and therefore he must be homosexual.
So whose right, your premise or mine? Aren't they both generalizations and prejudicial statements without fact? You say the act of a few priest who are Catholics supposedly Christians, represent all Christians, then I can say because they are homosexuals is the reason they do it?
Why don't we say we both are wrong, agree?
What are they to say, if they are even half logical, and I have found in most of my experiences when talking with Atheist, they are more logical then religionist. They will agree that their statement wasn't right and it was being judgmental of all Christians based on the actions of a few. I tell them I hate that they do that, but I don't hate homosexuals. I ask, does it seem biologically feasible that homosexuality is really meant to be, unless we were all made with both sex organs? What can they say to that one?
They cannot out debate a man, full of the Spirit with truth and wisdom in their life.
That takes faith put into action that proves itself and confirms itself not in a conversion of the Atheist, but in argument, and principles of argument where at times there will have to be a draw.
In effect you are not trying to convert the person on the spot but show the uselessness of their arguments against "faith" for empirical evidence of a God, which there is none!
They will have to prove what they say is empirical and of course it is not either.
So faith then becomes the matter that it takes to stand on either side, to believe there is a God or not.
Once they can see that, their empirical evidence declaration goes out the door, they must have a stronger argument then that. Once it is agreed that all men do evil, your argument has destroyed their argument against God with their question of "why doesn't He just wipe out all the evil in the world."
...and what you too?
Where are they to run to, at least now, you may have persuaded one to be an agnostic, and thus go home and analyze their arguments against there being No God.
You have planted a seed of doubt which then God can work with that on them. God is the one that brings the harvest in, not we ourselves, we are to share God's power and love with them as revealed in Christ, dying for their sins, and being raised on the third day. We are not to get into an argument over what is moral and what is not, show them they are immoral by their own standards set against God and their own inability along with all men to do right and good perfectly.
Anyway, I didn't want to digress into "how to win an Atheist into believing in God" but you must at all times think logically but regardless of facts, we must always be aware, unless we are in the experience of knowing Christ,  and have the experience we only hold onto faith based on facts that we have been taught rather then facts we know by life experience in Christ.
We all rely on facts as reported to us, if we have mere belief that something is true, but when we have experience, we have subjective fact, that can be looked at in comparison to objective facts to arrive at a conclusion, of true faith. Not just I believe because I was told to believe or I had to believe or else.
A Christian man that cannot tell me his story and it doesn't relate to what the objective words of the story tell me in the Bible, I doubt He knows God subjectively but is only knowing about God objectively.
The objective reasons for his belief may be fact or fiction.
How do you argue with someone's experience in Christ, and one living the Christian life delivered from sins, they can name on a list?
You can tell them they are deluded, like a lot of immature Bible thumping, hell fire, damnation religious folks like to say to me,  but does that prove anything other then you wish to call people names as a means to prove them wrong? That you have no life experience to stand on, and most I have run into have no knowledge of God's Word, or the meaning of words or the story overall, they just repeat the same tribe they have heard others teach, or they have been taught to teach, and never examined what they believed truthfully with an open heart for the Spirit to be their teacher.
To start judging me and condemning me, I can deal with it, I expect it, Jesus told me this would be so, they didn't to Him and they will do it to me. But when you are trying to get past the "I don't believe in God" person that will only stir animosity, hatred and discourse between men, and will always end in division without unity and in all cases. It always ends up in I am right and you are wrong. Worse yet you now negate your God of love to a God of hate of them and He is going to torment them in hell forever! What confusion you cause for those you are trying convince that God so loved men, He has a solution for men, because of Christ love and forgiveness through the cross for them. Hatred  and setting yourself  up on a higher throne of those who oppose you  are thus the cause of  wars and hatred that persist for these two reasons alone.
Especially if one party isn't willing to at least stay in discourse with the other or at least have relationship with them. Relationship, evidence of your life, the things you say and do, will prove more to a person that your "Faith is true Faith and that it is real then all the doctrinal arguments in the world ever will.
Love does wondrous things to draw a men to God!

Do you really want an Atheist, to believe in your God who you say loved him so much to die for him to die for his sin and yours, then you best put your life where your mouth is, or forget it! You best be willing to lay down your life for them as well. If you wonder why Christian's witnessing is so ineffective and has so few results that's why because your teaching or your eschatology is probably negative toward Atheist, and your actions will negate everything you ever said, once you turn to condemning and judging them because you couldn't get a notch on your belt for "another sinner saved.".
That is not your job and matter of fact it is SIN.
God only is judge- not you, regardless of what you think!
If you already believe that your belief is what saves you, then you will have the wrong approach and not win one of them.
It is not a matter of winning an argument for God  it is a matter of destroying their argument against God and not by threats or fear, but by revealing what you say is true, that God is love.
Show or tell anything else other then God's love, and you just condemned that person to unbelief period!
Matter of fact you have just put bullets in his gun against Christians. They surely win the argument against your evil God then, who would cast them into eternal torment, just because they don't believe like you.
God must be revealed as all powerful and all loving if you hope to change anything about this world. Christianity historically in the way that supposed Christian men have treated other men, those claiming the name of Christ and yet revealing hatred and need for war, and the killing of "pagans and heretics" has not only put bullets in their gun against your arguments for God, but it has given them a huge cannon to fire at you, and most are much more informed then you are on Church history and you best brush up yourself on all the evil that has been done by the "church."
If you try to sell them traditional Christianity- you lose!
You better have love in your heart for them and love in your actions to show them IN ALL SINCERITY or your wasting your arguments. your time, their time and most of all God's time!

With all that said, you will find me writing on Christianity and News on this page, with a fervor for truth, but not as I tell it, but as a hypothesis for you to consider, and prove my hypothesis, true or not. If you cannot prove the hypothesis or disprove them that I might present, then you must accept what I have presented as facts as known by me, that are easy for you to pursue the same research and come up with the same objective facts, which still prove nothing, it will take faith to come to truth.
My faith is my faith and yours is yours, mine is no better then yours, and yours no better then mine, unless you can walk a mile in my shoes, and me in yours, or you were there as part of the news and partook of the event yourself.
Unless I have your experiences subjectively and you mine, both either have to compromise and say, we are both right, or we are both wrong.  The same with the news, we use faith in the hearing of it as well, but unless we were there, involved, part to it, it still takes faith, that will be largely colored by experience or being told what you should believe about an event.
The question is, have you really experienced that for which you claim to believe?
Have you experienced seeing that evil is really everywhere, and men can do no righteousness outside of being in Christ and Christ in you.
Do you see that governments, people, political parties, churches, religion, economics, and all attempts by men end up in evil? That truth be told, they are both fruit from the same tree, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, therefore there is none righteous? Do you actually believe this government, the leaders and all those behind the power of any nation is not going to in the end do some evil with the good they think they might be doing? Then this blog is not for you. Do you really believe all men are in need of salvation and all men needed Jesus Christ? Then this blog is for you.

So whether I talk from a Biblical point of view or just one about news, I have the right to my hypothesis as much as you to yours. I have the right to believe what I believe as much as you do your belief. I will not criticize your faith, if you do not mine, I will not resort to name calling if you do not resort to name calling. Mutually agreed?
Then we can go on. Don't call me a heretic, or a conspiracy nut and I won't call you one. For whatever you believe just may be heretical and whatever you believe just may be conspiracy.
This is a blog to present ideas, thoughts, news with often more facts then what has been presented that but it is not my wish to convert you, win against you, or prove your wrong, it is too only make you reason, think and seek for truth! Ask and you shall recieve, Seek and you shall Find, Knock in the door shall be opened to you. All these require not just accepting things as you were told , but actions on your part, to know God, and His Son, and to learn from the Spirit. This requires an effort which really is no effort at all when you begin to love God so much that you want to know all there is about Him and His Kingdom.

If there is truth, there must be a lie, but it is not my duty to prove you a liar, it is my duty to only show you what I consider to be truth, my hypothesis drawn from my research, my experience, and perhaps my subjective experiences which I will not negate yours, if you do not mine. If you come here to argue, and not at least consider what is being said, I prefer not, at least from the perspective of objective observations only.
Show me your life, show me your love and you might prove something to me. However, whatever you believe is your truth, and whatever I believe is my truth, but if we both believe in the TRUTH, we have common ground. You may ask, like Pilate did now. What is truth? Well that is the purpose of this blog, to work at, to present my view, then let you present your view, but never with conclusion but only hypothesis, as I have said, any objective facts you provide, are no more truth then the objective facts I can provide. However, we should always listen to others, and weigh what is given, then make a decision ourselves what is truth. I can tell you from experience (my subjective truth) don't think you have all the facts, because you don't! There are always more that can be gathered but the rest is faith. You have yours, and I have mine, how can we find unity, by being open minded and having loving hearts toward one another, that is what I BELIEVE you may differ, and if so, this is not the blog you need to read, or comment or want to suggest other ideas, to examine.
In my first discussion on crime and punishment, I wanted to complete what I was going to say:
For the man that believes in capital punishment or prison, he is fine with that, as long as it isn't him that is the victim of it, the one that doesn't he often is fine with rehabilitation or no capital punishment as long as it isn't someone in his family or himself that has had a crime committed against them. WE ALL DEFINE OUR TRUTH by our subjective opinions until we have subjective experience, then it can change, then often we will look at the other side of what we opposed to strengthen our new known truth which is deeper then subjective opinion it is now based on our experience and what is has done for us, to survive, to be human, to keep our freedom, to live independently, safe, and without fear. We have had a paradigm shift in our mindset and opinion. Now our truth is experiential because it dealt with us, individually, it became a reality for us.
So with that in mind, I want to provide various facts, known and unknown by some. I want to provide more then just what we often settle for to say we have truth, and then ask you by posing questions and a hypothesis, if you can prove them experientially or only by present opinion without experience.
I propose that the only truth there is: Is that which is what we know and not what we know about.

This means much more then just believing something because we think we are right, but because our experience has taught us we are right. This means more then always going with the status quo or the majority at times, because we found they were wrong, and we don't fear be a minority because we found we were right, or the opposite may be true in cases. My life as a Christian for most of my life has been about not to just know about Christ but to knowing Christ. There is a big difference! My life experiences as both a private investigator, security specialist and journalist, have been not only knowing the basis skills about investigation, security and writing but it has been about doing it, living it, being it.
My experiences have taught me truth from lies, right from wrong, and good from evil, and I am settled into my truths based on my experiences and no one, I mean no one can change those. Now there are many things in other areas of life, that can be changed, I have made wrong decisions in finances and other areas of life, based on living on what I knew about, but often times, what I knew about there has been challenged, and shown to be wrong, and I had to learn to know these things, rather then just to know about them. I had to live through my beliefs being as I like to put it, "the rubber meeting the road" or the school of hard knocks.

It is true we must first learn about something. but real learning isn't real learning until we have lived through that something. This is my experiences with my Father, and His Son Jesus Christ and knowing I have His Spirit indwelling me. I use to know about these things for years as a Christian, a typical taught by other Christians the facts, but I found in my experience over the years, many were only passing down what they knew about something as well to which most if not all became false, and a few things that I now agree with that some shared with me that were their experiences, I found to be true as a Christian.  For those things that turned out to be wrong, I have spent numerous days, weeks and months reading, searching, and alas finding that someone else that had an opinion knew what they were talking about, for it was their experience, these I hear from, and it either became mine or at least seems to be what I hope to be mine as well. I believe that compulsion to know God rather then just know about Him truly shows that we have the Spirit of God, for the Spirit is given to guide us into all truth and to reveal to us who the Son is, and the Father is. 
This is what I believe Jesus was talking about the men building their homes on rock versus building on sand.
When you have intimate knowledge of something or someone, NO ONE CAN TEAR DOWN THAT HOUSE but if you only have facts based on being taught by others, then these things become sand in times of trouble, conflicts, and life's turmoil. They fall and you fall with them. Thus when Jesus spoke he did not speak like the Pharisees and Scribe did, He spoke as the people who stood in awe of His Words, with authority, why because he wasn't just throwing out doctrines and teachings and tradition, he was where the rubber meets the road, He was revealing love, revealing whom the Father was, and what the Father does, and how the Father acts. He was in intimacy with the Father. They could only speak about Him, but He knew Him.
His life revealed to others what they needed, and really wanted, and desired above religion. They needed and wanted that intimacy with Father, and now Christ has granted us to know Him to learn of Him, to no longer be afraid to come seeking, asking, knocking. Yet, many sad to say, never do for they don't desire that, they want only religion, and a little knowledge about Him, but they don't want to know Him to know His love, compassion and mercy. Why? because they still live in fear and it binds them to the doctrines, the teachings of men, and tradition, it is their safety net, and not God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Spirit, their trust is not in Him, but in the stale bread of others, and in themselves their majority opinion, at least that way they can remain pleasers of men, and not fear their wrath against them. .They fear being cast out of the syangogues, being called a heretic, a devil, and other ugly names the religious always resort to, whenever you step outside of their moral majority, their churches, their traditons. What is TRUE FAITH, well it's not just believing about something, it is knowing someone or something in such an intimate way, that one has experienced that someone or something, and still is experiencing that someone or something. In the case of the Creator, they are experiencing that which He is- God is Love, and thus true faith will be expressed in love to ALL MEN.
I hope you will enjoy, and obtain something to think about from this blog, like I said it will not be all about being a Christian, but a lot about our normal day to day beliefs in good and evil as we hear it on the news as well, and what I present, should give you pause to think for yourself, and to search for yourself for the truth from the hypothesis presented.


Joseph W. Black D.D.

































I do want to show how facts can be gathered on any event, current event, or other, and how by stating facts one can make a hypothesis, that is left to others to be proven or disproven. Regardless of the hypothesis it is built upon certain knowns and then developed into a hypothesis to determine the unknowns. In essence all evaluations made by any men on facts presented leaves a person with a hypothesis, proven or not proven.
Experiential knowledge is true knowledge all else, is based upon others opinions or reporting of certain facts which may or may not be true, or complete.

So, with that, I want to report some facts, and some research into some of the facts as I know them, or as presented to myself in the news, and then as we all do, present some other facts, that may lead to a hypothesis based on what is presented, but rather then draw a conclusion put forth some questions, and leave the answers to you, the reader. Your comments and even conclusions are welcome. Please make them.
I am interested in your further hypothesis of what is presented, and even your theories, but all the same unless you were present and involved in the incident, and are 100% truthful (which is doubtful) based on  the number of lies that everyone tells for various reasons, then it remains a hypothesis, yet to be proven or disproven.
I will present you news stories, some research references, some know facts that are related, then you draw up the hypothesis, to which I hope someone may prove or disprove. All the same, you end up with story, and story is once again only proven by experience, a taking part in the event, or story. All the same, experientially like in the case above, even your experience of being there, or partaking of in the event, is not provable that your story is truth or a lie. How does one prove or disprove an event? Don't we all really just form hypothesis on the facts and sometimes not fact, presented to us? Don't we most often draw up our own hypothesis of events based on previous experience or beliefs, rather then verifiable, for sure, without a doubt facts,
With news reporting I can tell you this your prejudices and mind set will have more to do, with the conclusion you draw from the reporters presenting the story as it has been presented to him,  then actual facts.
So for fun, and some of my own presentation of inferences, and related facts presented based on news, which really makes no fact at all, I would like to present some other thoughts to you to consider on these events if true.

Facts and Hypothesis