Your "conspiracy" jibe was gratuitous. My comment took into account your explanation and provided the obvious reality that the government is a political animal.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: > HmmmmMMMMM careful james, I think you're starting to buy into this mass > conspiracy thing. > > The government is EXTREMELY touchy about anything that could involve > nuclear materials because of terrorism. They probably said he wasn't > credible because they wanted to explain why they weren't following up on > it further. > > Analog's view is interesting for sure, though I think he's fooling himself > if he thinks that his perspective is anymore probable than the idea that > Vaughn just got misquoted. > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:36 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Why would a government official word things in such in a way that is >> obviously biased to serve the open agenda of the querent, "Gary Wright"? >> >> One Rossi-favorable interpretation is that this NC State official is >> attempting to cover his ass with the Federal bureaucrats in charge of >> nuclear matters who, the history of the physics establishment shows, >> clearly share in Gary Wright's agenda? >> >> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, not a big deal when your partner says you have no credibility to a >>>> government rep. >>>> >>> >>> He does not have credibility. No one disputes that. Why are you making >>> such a big deal about it? >>> >>> I assume the statement was not only "paraphrased" but taken out of >>> context. It was probably something like: "He does not have credibility with >>> the scientific community, but we have reason to believe his claims are >>> true." >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
