Text 3484, 132 rader
Skriven 2007-02-22 09:32:00 av TIM RICHARDSON
     Kommentar till en text av JOHN MASSEY
Ärende: It's gettin deep.
=========================
On 02-21-07, BOB KLAHN said to JOHN MASSEY:


JM>>>>> claims to have witnessed a jet plane crash at a specific
JM>>>>> AFB, during a specified time period, when no record or any
JM>>>>> other witnesses of any such crash can be found, the
JM>>>>> reasonable conclusion  is the person is lying about that
JM>>>>> sighting.


bk>>>>  If that person ever made the claims you say he did.



JM> Are you saying you have doubts the claims of witnessing
JM> planes crash while he was on the base wasn't even made?


BK>I am saying no one ever posted the actual words he posted. All I
BK>had was what they interpreted it as.


bk>>>   If you show evidence of any of it.


JM>>> The person made the claim, admitted he made the claim, and
JM>>> the whole thing was posted in one of the echos. I don't
JM>>> remember which one.


BK>>  Your point? When did the accusers post their proof?


JM> I don't remember.


BK>Good enough.

BK>>  They didn't
BK>>  when asked. As I said then, not in these exact words, I will not
BK>>  give the flamer one inch. If they had proof, they should have
BK>>  presented it.


JM> They did.


BK>Not when I asked for it. What you saw is not incumbent on me to
BK>recognize.


BK>>  Their intention was not to promote truth, but
BK>>  purely to flame.


JM> To point out that a person is not to be trusted because he
JM> lies, is not a flame.


I have both the post where the individual in question made the claim of having
seen `plane crashes';


"I saw first hand (I was in the USAF) several crashes,...."


as well as the post where the individual in question freely admitted they had
*not* seen any at all;


"I've been saving this for the Sewer sharks, since it never occured to them
this: my claim about seeing plane crashes, I never did."



I cannot imagine how the individual ever got the idea they could get away with
making such a statement ("...it never occured to them this...") since I was
onto the `F-15' crash claim immediately, researched it...and posted up the
information on `F-15' crashes in the next few mail packets or two from the
time the individual first made that *false* claim.


Not only that.....for the time the individual was `in' the "USAF", there were
`no' plane crashes at Lackland, and that was also pointed out `immediately'
after the individual in question made the original claim.


BK>It is if you don't back it up.


bk>>>>  Until you do, it's irrelevant.


JM> To you perhaps.  Not to others.


BK>Then don't complain if I refuse to accept it.


JM>>> I can see why you would think so.


BK>>  So, you now say evidence is not necessary?


JM> Nope, didn't say that at all. After all, I've seen the
JM> evidence.


BK>Then you believe it, but don't complain if I don't.


BK>>  You now say we should
BK>>  all accept accusations without evidence?


JM> Nope, didn't say that either. You keep forgetting I've seen
JM> the evidence.


BK>I hadn't.


And there are some individuals who do not alway `get' what they demand.


Life ain't easy, sometimes.


---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)