Last few posts;
So what you mean is that you can't always interpret the facts properly, because certain truths are obscured. I agree.
Or certain information isn't made available for a fact to have form as a fact, but as a fraction.
Which is also attacking a point I never made? I didn't say that the readers are infallible nor more trustworthy than the editors. I said belief in editors based on the assumption that they are more credible is foolish. Based on that assumption. Which implies that I meant based on that alone.
I did also stress the importance of coming to ones own conclusion. Further implication of me not saying anything like what you're arguing against.
Editors have source material and say things like Sabo is dead when readers could clearly tell otherwise. It's ridiculous to trust them over your own interpretation and to discount others PURELY because you think editors are more credible. That is a last resort when you can't argue against the actual arguments made for others' interpretation.
I don't know why you would quote me as if I said anything else.
Give me an example of what you mean. Because it sounds like to me you are conflating fact with interpretation.
The five war potentials. There's the fact that there are five, but there is nothing else. No discernible information to draw facts from, and no clear connection or marker between the known, and the could-have-beens to determine who else might be one. Just theories.
Fragments of information. You have to interpret this information, and speculate on it. You can't just view the facts of it separate from everything else. 3: