> 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 Do you think I would upload unpublished material?!?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.
I'm only saying that I think that's a valid option for them at the moment, at least with regard to that document. Maybe I'm wrong, because as you said, you would not get into the trouble of publishing something in the name of a federal agency. Although you can argument good faith, i.e. that you presumed it was an official document... although then you'll have to explain how you got that document, etc. etc. I'm playing the skeptic game here, and as we can see, it does not go very far. The latest comments on the wikipedia talk page are a little bit confusing, to say the least. Best regards, Mauro
