🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1h3059INNq8n@news.cerf.net>, eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l) writes:
> 8) One source that you may want to use for your research is "Aviation Week and
>    Space Technology".  This weekly industry journal has reported every shuttle
>    flight in great detail.  They go to great lengths to find and report on
>    secret or classified data.  You will find not a hint about the secret flight.
> 
>    THEY ARE EITHER IGNORANT THEMSELVES, OR AFRAID TO SAY ANYTHING.

Umm -- have you ever read it?  If so, you'd know that neither alternative
makes any sense at all.

Before I engage in further debate, let me ask just one question:  what
evidence will persuade you that you're wrong?  I'm perfectly serious --
you have a theory, which virtually everyone else here disagrees with.
Clearly, either you're wrong or we are.  But for every objection that's
been raised here, you say that either people are lying, or covering things
up.  So -- what would it take to convince you?

To be fair, I should answer the same question.  I'll find your story credible
if any of a number of things happen.  (a) Someone publicly demonstrates any
one of the technological miracles you've described (cosmospheres, electro-
gravitic whatsits, cloned or otherwise-replicated people, etc.)  (b) an
official who was involved in the coverup or the plot admits it publicly,
and produces some documentary evidence.  (c) the release, via the Freedom
of Information Acts, of substantive documentation of any of this; (d) photos,
from a lunar orbiter, of (the wreckage of?) military bases on the moon.

You're asking us to prove a negative, a notoriously difficult task,
especially when you reject any and all evidence.  We're asking you to
prove a positive, which is much easier.  Do you have any hard evidence?
(References to previous issues of the AUDIO LETTER aren't evidence, of
course.)