HmmmmMMMMM careful james, I think you're starting to buy into this mass conspiracy thing.
The government is EXTREMELY touchy about anything that could involve nuclear materials because of terrorism. They probably said he wasn't credible because they wanted to explain why they weren't following up on it further. Analog's view is interesting for sure, though I think he's fooling himself if he thinks that his perspective is anymore probable than the idea that Vaughn just got misquoted. On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:36 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why would a government official word things in such in a way that is > obviously biased to serve the open agenda of the querent, "Gary Wright"? > > One Rossi-favorable interpretation is that this NC State official is > attempting to cover his ass with the Federal bureaucrats in charge of > nuclear matters who, the history of the physics establishment shows, > clearly share in Gary Wright's agenda? > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Yeah, not a big deal when your partner says you have no credibility to a >>> government rep. >>> >> >> He does not have credibility. No one disputes that. Why are you making >> such a big deal about it? >> >> I assume the statement was not only "paraphrased" but taken out of >> context. It was probably something like: "He does not have credibility with >> the scientific community, but we have reason to believe his claims are >> true." >> >> - Jed >> >> >
