Replies

photos are a source

of information

from which facts and conjectures can be obtained

Such as: the TP sign is here, the white pick-up is there, etc. which, when consistent with what we see with our own eyes, can become accepted as facts. There are bodies here, for example.

Facts in themselves are not evidence . . . e.g not evidence that the LE shot the persons who became the bodies on the parking lot. Not evidence, that the Bandidos shot the Cossacks that became the bodies in the parking lot. Just objective images, subject to interpretation, but not evidence in themselves. The pictures, however valuable, are not evidence . . They allow us to elucidate facts . . .

they at most provide merely facts, or conjectures rising from the information in the photos.

There exists more than one “hypothetical” explanation for the facts derived from the photos and other raw information.

One does not develop an hypothesis from whole cloth. One develops an hypothesis BECAUSE there ARE indeed facts, which support evidence, that an hypothesis is true. The information —> from which are deduced facts —> which therefore might construe evidence to support the development of an hypothesis WHICH could if substantiated —> truth.

One does not create an hypothesis out of whole cloth, which as constructed, of course agrees with the photos as again mere information and not evidence; which of course, it is precisely constructed to do. NO! It has to be the other way around! No one has any business creating an hypothetical scenario out of whole cloth. NO ONE.

On the contrary, the other explanatory scenario, has testimony which agrees with the facts derived from the same photos, in addition, the independent testimony of two or three actual persons (IOW not an entirely hypothetical construct as the other hypothesis requires). IOW the alternative explanation is based upon external support — which one might question as some have. But it is NOT a merely invented proposed hypothetical.

** My summary: An hypothesis has to be surmised from evolving evidence based upon facts obtained from source information. Not the other way around. **

ANYONE can construct an a priori hypothesis that agrees with information obtained post hoc. That is not the way it works.

The pictures, however valuable, are not evidence . .

That's just silly. Photographs are used as evidence often. So often even Arlo Guthrie made fun of it in the song Alice's Restaurant (...27 8X10 full color glossy photographs with circles and arrows on them and a paragraph on the back...to be used as evidence against us...

One does not develop an hypothesis from whole cloth. One develops an hypothesis BECAUSE there ARE indeed facts, which support evidence, that an hypothesis is true.

Nope, sorry, wrong.

I use the scientific method daily, and that just isn't how it works.

You have a phenomenon. You come up with possible ways to explain that phenomenon, often a bunch of them. Then you use facts (evidence) to eliminate those which just do not explain the phenomenon in light of the evidence you have.

Any surviving hypotheses are put to the test with either newly gathered evidence (facts, because if they aren't facts, they aren't evidence), or design an experiment to discern if particular causative agents could have been factors.

But you start with ideas to explain something. Those ideas, from a police ambush to space aliens to your (nonexistent) Aunt Sally, will be eliminated in turn by facts, or degraded in status based on probabilities. Of the above (admittedly a false trichotomy, but this is hypothetical) we can eliminate your Aunt Sally, because she doesn't exist. We can grossly lower the probability of space aliens because documentation of such creatures is problematical at best, and there were no accounts of such violations of Texas airspace, nor any witnesses who could place them at the scene. That leaves police.

Now, the original list was not complete enough to be workable, but this is hypothetical, which has the same root as a hypothesis.

That hypothesis could be put to the test by the introduction of more information, and while it may not completely fit, it invites the formation of other hypotheses which account for the presence of a multi-agency task force, the discharge of police firearms, pictures of evidence markers outside the parking area at a distance where engagement with handguns would not be optimal, but at which tactical rifles with optics or just good iron sights would be highly effective.

We can hypothesize about why those evidence cones are there, but most likely they are marking accumulations of expended cartridges (brass) from weapons fired from those locations. From that we can deduce that it is likely that police of some stripe were occupying those positions and did, indeed, fire their weapons.

Not likely they were in for a round of skeet, and the positions where the evidence cones are situated would have had advantageous views of the locations in the parking lot where dead bikers accumulated.

For whatever reason, it is likely that rounds fired by police from those locations account for at least some of the dead and wounded in the parking lot.

See how easy that is?

No "whole cloth" involved, Watson. Just simple deduction.

That does not account for motive, malice, or forethought, nor does it indicate a conspiracy, because those are things which cannot be discerned from the physical evidence.

Certainly, some planning occurred (the police were too well dressed for a tactical occasion for it not to have), the angle formed by the positions marked with cones isn't a complete 'L' shape, but there may be more evidence cones we haven't seen. That idea gets shelved waiting for more information.

Who fired at who and why? Well, you can't tell why from the pics, nor who fired first, but at least some of the who is evident.

Two legs of the classic three are present--means and opportunity. Only motive remains in question.

Given that police fired into the parking area, the question of Why? is raised.

That remains to be sorted out.

Possibilities include anything from a pre-planned ambush to attempting to rescue an undercover agent (likely wired if present) whose cover was blown, to attempting to stop violence as a third party, to a stupendous, five star f**k-up. With multiple agencies involved, possibly accustomed to different ROE, the idea someone started shooting and the others chimed in is plausible.

Hopefully, the remainder of the evidence will not be doctored nor edited to try to justify an ambush or screw-up, but that, too is a possibility. Considering other factors (effective sequestration of all present by blanket arrests and ridiculous bail, along with confiscation of any devices capable of providing a recording of events, failure to immediately release video exonerating police, and conflicting and changing official statements), to name a few, things which are indicative of a lack of candor on the part of officials, the idea of a world class foul-up is the nice end of the likely possibilities. And that's my Hypothesis. Now, we will see if it stands up to the test of applied facts and testimony. YMMV.