Mauro Lacy wrote: Yes, but it would be better if that document could be downloaded and/or > referenced from a goverment site.
Yes, it would be better, but the DIA does not do that. So that's not an option. I searched and couldn't find any > official reference. If it's an unclassified document, it must be published > by the agency that unclassified it. > It was published by the Agency. Just not on the Internet. It was released on Friday the 13th. Do you think I would upload unpublished material?!? Do you think I want to get in trouble with a Federal agency? > In my opninion, if this reference is not presented, an skeptic can still > argument, with a reasonable level of doubt, that the document is a > fake/it's not official. > By that standard we would not believe the ERAB report is real, or the comments made by the 2004 DoE reviewers. Or any of hundreds of skeptical papers published before 2000 that are not on the web. But the skeptics would never apply that standard to those documents because they support the skeptical point of view. Along the same lines, at Wikipedia Hipocryte wrote: "[The DIA document is] a primary source. Primary sources are not notable unless they are adressed by secondary sources." He did not dismiss the 2004 DoE report for that reason. The skeptics will come up with one excuse after another to dismiss or ignore evidence they do not want to see. - Jed
