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 Do you think I would upload unpublished material?!?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
>
>
