Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: David Johnson <trolleyfan_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:26:52 +0000 (UTC)
nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote in
news:mt5u915mv2epug4ri5d5hj0qufk6mkp2a6@xxxxxxx:
[snip]
> 3) He didn't do the experiment at all and merely reported that he had
> for dishonest reasons, giving the false result that suited him.
>
> This is also a strong contender. I take it you currently favour this
> position?
When your results of your tests _exactly_ matches what your theory says
it should - yet your theory is completely wrong and you'd have to botch -
very badly (so badly, that with this level of "skill", it's unlikely he'd
be able to navigate back home...) - the test _twice_ on two different
occasions in _exactly_ the same way...
....hell yes, he fudged the result. Or if you prefer, lied through his
teeth.
David
--
David Johnson http://home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan
"You're a loony, you are!"
"They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..."
"Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too
Remove "_nospam" to email
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: nospam
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: Philip Deitiker
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: nospam
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: David Johnson
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: nospam
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- Prev by Date: Re: True history and myths told by naysayers
- Next by Date: Re: Bronze Age ships
- Previous by thread: Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- Next by thread: Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|