Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Intelligence, Evaluation, and Truth

By Gordon Francis Corbett

    When we hear a rumor, we can believe it, disbelieve it, or regard it as an unknown awaiting proof.  Unless we have solid evidence, we should never repeat it.  It may not be true;  besides, telling someone something that proves wrong may make him disregard something else we say later that proves right.

    If we hear something false, we might want to repeat it as a bad example.  Recently, someone started a rumor that Lieutenant Colonel Oliver Lawrence North installed an expensive security system around his farm because Osama bin Laden had threatened his life.  He did install the system, and someone had threatened him;  but, the threatener was Abu Nidal, who recently was found shot to death in Iraq.

    Rumors fly during any crisis.  Any crisis frightens, and frightened people sometimes transfer their fright to others by relaying, or even creating, rumors and surmises that they do not bother to label as such.

    Repeating what one hears, or stating what one suspects, is fine if the teller cautions, "I think that this is true, because.....", or "I read this on the Internet:....."  Statements like these warn that the teller cannot vouch for his statement from his own experience, but is merely stating a guess or repeating a rumor.

    Also, one can conjecture:  "Look.  Previously, we have seen X precede Y.  This looks just like X;  therefore, we will probably see Y."  The teller only surmises that Y will recur;  and, the word "probably" warns that he is guessing.

    When we hear or read of strange things, we should not only gauge that information, but should also assess its sources.

    If a source says things that sound right, try to verify basic facts you cannot confirm from your own knowledge.  If you can obtain them, original documents are best.  Otherwise, standard references such as encyclopaedias may suffice.  A history text can help.  Nevertheless, because some references do differ factually, you should always consult several.  Finally, remember that factual accuracy cannot sustain contentions dependent on interpretation.

    Consider the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  For the past fifty-five years, historians have been slugging out a lusty donnybrook.

    Some believe that President Franklin Roosevelt had no foreknowledge that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor.  Others maintain that he not only knew about the attack, but welcomed it, because it would arouse our people against the Axis and let him defeat Hitler.

    Your first book might tell only the attack's basic story without mentioning the controversy.  Remedy:  consult several books.  If the subject interests you intensely, by all means, read two or three books from each camp and decide for yourself.

    If, after checking your source's information, you decide that its facts are correct and that its interpretation is sound, repeat what he told you to everyone who will listen, but say who told you and cite any references or other books that you checked.

    On the other hand, if the source says something that you know is false, such as Red China's belonging to NATO, correct his error gently.  If you suspect that other aspects of his information are wrong, explain why you disagree.  Further, please remember that if he cannot discern basic factual falsehoods, his other assertions might be wrong, too.

    Not every rumor is completely wrong.  Occasionally, we see videotape or other solid proof that supposedly exposes something.  The problem is assessing it.

    Some months after the Alfred P. Murrah Building was bombed in Oklahoma City, Johnny Rowland's "The Shooting Show" played videotape of Soviet-made trucks parked in a wire-fenced lot somewhere in the United States.

    Perhaps a little earlier, "The Shooting Show" played videotape of a large and apparently deserted enclosure photographed from the outside.  It boasted a chain-link fence, barbed wire, guard towers, and a few buildings.  A forest of leafy trees surrounded it.

    As best as I can recall, Mr. Rowland let the footage of both enclosures speak for itself.  He said neither what purpose was intended for the trucks, nor for the empty enclosure.  I do not remember that he said where they were.  My guess is that he did not know.  Neither did, nor do, I.

    Whenever we see videotape taken or supplied by an unknown source, we should believe nothing the source tells us about what the videotape shows.  Instead, we should analyze the tape's images.

    Take the trucks.  Did they have markings?  What did they say?  Did they indicate who had owned them?  What about the lot's fence?  Did it have a sign?  If so, what was the sign's language?

    I later saw still photographs of perhaps the same trucks and fenced lot that I had seen on "The Shooting Show."  These trucks bore markings that said, "NVA."  From other research, I knew that these letters meant "Neue Volksarmee," which translates as, "New People's Army."  Those trucks had been owned by East Germany.

    Or, consider the almost-empty enclosure.  Did anything about it, or about its buildings, indicate where they might be?  Sometimes, windows, architectural style, or signs can indicate location.  Unfortunately, the original footage yielded no such hints, and I saw no still photographs later.

    Some people hide information.  Some are corrupt State or local politicians;  some are corrupt businessmen.  Some are Federal officials anxious to preserve prerogatives or to protect powerful people from embarrassment or worse.  A classic example is President Bush, who placed his father's and his own papers under lock and key by "re-interpreting" the 1978 Presidential Records Act.

    When you encounter such obstacles, think.  Occasionally, journalistic research and legwork can let you dig out facts without having to look at the sequestered documents.

    Please keep your head.  When you hear an exciting allegation, sometimes your first check produces superficial evidence that seems to confirm it.  That moment is the point at which the drudgery needed to test that allegation further is the hardest and the most necessary.

    The work is hard, but its rewards are magnetic.  With an open eye, an open mind, and a desire to find the truth, you gather data, test them, gauge their sources, discard the dross, and assemble from the remaining "chips" a verifiable mosaic.

    Your mosaic may fit an important gap in the broader portrait of the world that every listener or reader builds.  Your mosaic may lead him to gather more chips.  Then, he might well tell those new truths to anyone who will listen to him.

    Freedom, anyone?
 
 

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest / Search / White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN