21-06-2016, 05:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 21-06-2016, 05:41 PM by Scott Kaiser.)
If you think of the JFK assassination and Watergate similar to Agolo and how it can summarize these events into accurate information, then, anyone who calls themselves an expert on either subject without this knowledge is really no expert at all right? I mean, how could anyone have information, or a [newsfeed] from Reuters, but not understand the source, where it came from, or the groups involved? For example, like Agolo, if one takes pertinent information that leads to other connecting dots, then it will begin to conform into a picture right? There's really no other way of explaining it, however, if one just takes a story that leads to nowhere, then how could anyone possibly connect the dots right? (Not picking on any specific author, but, I'm certain you have a few in mind.) It really is a simple equation, any thinking person who wants to push their knowledge will further understand.
Like Agolo, if one discovers the connecting dots, it will certainly lead you to others right? However, if someone provides you with an interesting story that has no connecting dots, it will lead you to nowhere right? In other words, if the names found in my father's address book leads to other connecting dots that are the [same] members who were in New Orleans in 1962 who also encountered Lee Oswald, yet, they were also apart of my father's group, and ended up in my father's address book, with the word [DALLAS] now we have a connection.
Would I be more inclined to believe the man who said I shot Kennedy, or, the man who has provided connecting dots that's led to Kennedy's assassination? But, why would I not believe the first person, yet, inclined to believe the second? Is it because the fist person is still alive and the second isn't, or would it be because the fist person never considered any harm to come to his family, but the second did? There is a concept I believe should be followed.
What do I mean exactly? It's called, "connecting the dots between information to build content that allows for a superior summary." Now, you get the picture! You begin to turn that information into knowledge and instantaneously begin to broaden the picture by eliminating all these other stories that leads to nowhere. Get the picture? This is how you'll know who's telling the truth, and who's not.
Like Agolo, if one discovers the connecting dots, it will certainly lead you to others right? However, if someone provides you with an interesting story that has no connecting dots, it will lead you to nowhere right? In other words, if the names found in my father's address book leads to other connecting dots that are the [same] members who were in New Orleans in 1962 who also encountered Lee Oswald, yet, they were also apart of my father's group, and ended up in my father's address book, with the word [DALLAS] now we have a connection.
Would I be more inclined to believe the man who said I shot Kennedy, or, the man who has provided connecting dots that's led to Kennedy's assassination? But, why would I not believe the first person, yet, inclined to believe the second? Is it because the fist person is still alive and the second isn't, or would it be because the fist person never considered any harm to come to his family, but the second did? There is a concept I believe should be followed.
What do I mean exactly? It's called, "connecting the dots between information to build content that allows for a superior summary." Now, you get the picture! You begin to turn that information into knowledge and instantaneously begin to broaden the picture by eliminating all these other stories that leads to nowhere. Get the picture? This is how you'll know who's telling the truth, and who's not.