View Single Post
  #6  
Old 03-31-2015, 08:45 PM
Jacknola's Avatar
Jacknola Jacknola is offline
Skilled
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 625
Sam that is a very solid treatise. I investigate significant accidents in the offshore oil industry for Uncle Sam. I also write up those investigation findings for the US Government. So, I understand levels of confidence in "findings." (Yes... I was involved in the Deepwater Horizon-Macondo investigation.)

We use a range of terms. Proved (90 percent sure), probable (60-90 percent surety), and possible (10-50 percent surety). The reason for this is that the truth often cannot be proved to a criminal legal requirement, "beyond reasonable doubt." But it CAN often be proved to a tort level of legality, which is "preponderance of evidence." Yet many of the root causes of an accident can only be determined from application of the principles of pre-determinism, and logic... i.e. "possible."

If one reviews our (Ron and me) development of this thesis in the "Magic Randall" line, you will see that we did not claim "fact" until there was only one reasonable conclusion. There has been no objective rebuttal of that conclusion, only further tightening of the logic and proof as others such as Gary Clinton provide the data from their extensive collections.

I am amazed at your Heiser contact and hope he has some Randall stamps. But even if he doesn't, in truth there is no record of Mr. Johnson being provided a Randall stamp either, yet he obviously had one. And, there is no record or even a reasonable way for the shop to have stamped those sheaths "Randall." But the real kicker is that there is zero evidence that a "Randall Stamp" on a sheath indicates it was made by Johnson. On the contrary, to believe that would require Johnson making LOTS of sheaths in 1960... which is ridiculous.

Thanks again for your input. And rest assured, I'm looking for truth and don't care who solves a mystery. Regards. Jack
Reply With Quote