A watcher is always learning

(0448) This is a good self-teaching lesson in approaching data ... take a neutral position on each item until you can't anymore. Like a white horse actually being grey, that doesn't categorically prove something is or is not.

And it doesn't preclude watching ... as someone wrote to me ... watchers watch, this is what we do. Someone wrote on what was relevant, what was not. If I snap at a person, they'll hardly send something again. Truly, there is a lesson here.

There is also trolling which I had done to me on black history yesterday, plus those who really don't know as they're not au fait with royal protocols and history but then there's a comment below I do trust about the horse being uneasy, another about that being common, another about a pale horse in scripture, plus a light green colour of the locust.

My request on everything from everyone is to take a more empirical, rather than disparaging tone in the early part of an investigation, which raises an interesting conundrum or two in itself.  

Firstly, the old 80% correct and experienced thing but the last 20% significantly modifies the truth.

The second is that someone very experienced may be conversing with someone in the early stages, as I am on royal protocols.

And lastly for now ... just because something might not be black "bear" does not mean it was not being used symbolically ... we've shown over and over Them's use of symbolism in plain sight ... their joke on us.  Here were some comments, before even seeing the video:

Embedding disabled ... so this "Celt" turned out to be a prat ... ho hum.

My interest in this is more on what lessons we, the watchers, can learn about investigative procedure. Being aware of the pitfalls, the blind alleys, the 80% 20% conundrum.

Best practice seems to me not to jump on bandwagons early, be open to new data but examine its agenda and authenticity all the same.  I'm still lineball on the moon landing and I'm lineball on this here.