Joe Dees wrote:
> >Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 10:35:45 -0400
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >To: email@example.com
> >Subject: Re: Waco FLIR Update
> >Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Ian Goddard wrote:
> >> At 04:16 PM 05/23/2000 -0700, Joe Dees wrote:
> >> >Just as I said - whoever's opinions the test results cut against will
> >> >denounce them as either incompetent or dishonest or both.
> >> IAN: Well, if the situation was reversed and the debris
> >> had been placed on "white hot" ground, obscuring almost
> >> all reflections, and the gunshots were placed over "black
> >> cold" ground, emphasizing them, it would be a legitimate
> >> grievance that there should not be different backgrounds.
> >> Making one phenomena invisible and another exceptionally
> >> visible is exactly contrary to examining their similarity.
> >> Nobody should be asked to accept that Waco FLIR flashes
> >> are not gunshots based on a videotape of gunshots placed
> >> up against a bright background, obscuring them to nothing.
> >Joe isn't interested in the truth, Ian, he's interested in being right.
> Well, Mike, apparently, according to Ian, I can be right about the truth in this instance, although I'm sure it will pain you to admit same. You DID read his discovery concerning the non-gun flash causes, didn't you? I commend Ian for the honesty he has shown in presenting the conclusion that I'm sure was both counterintuitive to him and flew in the face of the way he suspected the US government of operating in this case, a position he had made more than well known.
The difference between you and he is that he waited until all the
evidence was in, while you insisted on a position that countered all the
existing evidence from the beginning, without any evidentiary foundation
for your insistence. Sure you were proven out here, but would YOU be man
enough to admit it if it had gone the other way? I doubt it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:43 MDT