Alexander Hollins
Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:47:57 -0800
okay, WHERE was it published, is the big question. On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Do you think I would upload unpublished material?!?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 > >