I agree with you that online communities like PF, with it's general requirements of documentation, logical analysis, and scientific verification are a good resource for getting at the truth of some things. However, some of the most controversial issues are barred from being discussed here, because it's not primarily a political forum.
Thanks Thomas, I'm happy that it makes sense.
About the barred subjects, it's okay that they are; knowing that moral entrepreneurs are most happy to unleash their powerful fallacies, when they are allowed to do so.
On the other hand it would be nice if PF could lend itself to solving logical issues, with a high political footprint, and then strictly heuristical*, within the scientific method using scientific ethics. Some issues from 1963, 1988 and onwards and 2001 appear to raise some legimate questions.
I realize that this is very sensitive. However, there is (are) forums with very restricted posting rules, with limited authorisations to guard against 'crackpots'.
* heuristical: things like witness A says B, witness C says D. B and D contradict but B sounds gut feeling better however D is supported by evidence E, etc etc etc.
How to find your logical mathematical way in such a maze