('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 06:09:29 -0400
>From: "Ross A. Finlayson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: Waco FLIR Update
>Joe Dees wrote:
>> The speed of the sucession of flashes (repetitive flash rate) did not match the speed of the guns which could have been present, or for that matter any guns. It's just like I said; whichever side's view prevailed, the other side would immediately question the integrity, impartiality and or competence of the reviewers.
>> Tolja So!
>Consider this hypothetical situation: group A and group B have a dispute. After the fact, group A is dead, while at some point when they more alive group B was armed with armored tanks and automatic weapons and was in the state of assaulting group A. The consistency of group A was a set of civilians and group B military.
>Later some people who are still alive decide to have a simulation and see what they can determine about the facts as they occurred. Group B runs all aspects of the simulation without oversight, where group B's goal is to show certain things. What conclusions do you expect to be apparent from group B's simulation?
>Does your answer change if previously in the course of determination of the facts that group B lied and concealed and destroyed evidence in its possession regarding this course of events? Assume the evidence would not be destroyed if it bore out group B's case.
And you prove my Tolja So out just as much as Ian Goddard did. He questioned competence, while you question impartiality and integrity. Thanks to both of you, for making me a bonified prophet.
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:23 MDT