Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
They said they emphasized their own work because they understood
their own work best, and they could discuss it in depth with the
panel without fear of making a mistake or misrepresenting the work.
That seems sensible to me.
Sensible and very wrong. There is another reason to discuss your own
work. It's your work, you are close to it, you think it's important.
And your judgment about that might well be clouded. The big lacuna
is Miles, of course, very old evidence, and heavily verified.
They made a big deal about Miles! Right there in section 3. They
didn't ignore other people's work, especially not his. They
emphasized their own work, but they commented on many others.
I wasn't there. I don't know what the presentations were like. But
McKubre is an accomplished lecturer. I have transcribed his talks and
published them pretty much verbatim, as papers. Hagelstein is pretty
good too. The paper they presented makes things quite clear. It as
edited, improved and commented upon by many people before the
presentation, including me. It was not dashed off in a rush. Some of
the panel members understood the issues perfectly well. If the others
did not, I suppose they were not paying attention or thinking things
through. I doubt it was the fault of the people making presentations.
- Jed
