Except the whole lead paragraph is about him and what he thinks the document says, and I'm asking what reason anyone would have for listening to him in the first place?
And why should people listen to you again? Hard for you to be so critical when you have zilch backing it up.
You've shown you're not a conspiracy theorist, so, yet again, your reasons for being here are dubious, at best. As an actual scientist, your complete lack of neutrality on the subject in a pretty good indication of why you are here.
Except the whole lead paragraph is about him and what he thinks the document says, and I'm asking what reason anyone would have for listening to him in the first place?
And why should people listen to you again? Hard for you to be so critical when you have zilch backing it up.
You've shown you're not a conspiracy theorist, so, yet again, your reasons for being here are dubious, at best. As an actual scientist, your complete lack of neutrality on the subject in a pretty good indication of why you are here.
Apparently no one is. At least no one is choosing to tell me why Mr. Dick is worth listening to.
He certainly worth listening to more than you, that's for sure.
Why? He doesn't know what he's reading, apparently, and I haven't pretended that I do.
Where does it say that?
You aren't here to talk about conspiracies, so....
Sure I am. What's the rationale for listening to one that comes from Mr. Dicks, who's not qualified to put one forward?