It's not gratuitous at all. To lie like that to support other people who are lying while representing the government is a crime. When a group of people commit a crime together, it's called a conspiracy.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:33 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Your "conspiracy" jibe was gratuitous. My comment took into account your > explanation and provided the obvious reality that the government is a > political animal. > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
