https://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2015/02/06/probability-of-rossi-is-real-is-now-19/
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: > It's not gratuitous at all. To lie like that to support other people who > are lying while representing the government is a crime. When a group of > people commit a crime together, it's called a conspiracy. > > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:33 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 <[email protected] >> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
