tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post112250006753218821..comments2023-08-15T01:24:39.187-03:00Comments on The Other Side of Truth: Nick Redfern responds to Part IIPaul Kimballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-1122505494097306802005-07-27T20:04:00.000-03:002005-07-27T20:04:00.000-03:00Some remarks about Nick's response:1. I'm sorry, b...Some remarks about Nick's response:<BR/><BR/>1. I'm sorry, but anything from Tim Cooper must be viewed with extreme suspicion, precisely because of the MJ-12 stuff. If a person has a credibility problem in one respect, he has it everywhere - that is the very essence of "credibility." As for the nurse that Nick refers to, I don't recall him mentioning her name to me, but he may have. The fact is that it doesn't change Cooper's massive credibility problems even if he did get some things right.<BR/><BR/>2. Nick's explanation for the "smoking gun" - and I didn't say it was an original at the MJ-12 website, but clearly noted it was a re-typed copy - just doesn't wash, and makes me even more convinced that someone is pulling his leg / disinforming him here. Why was he not allowed to have a copy of the original document? Surely that would have answered any questions? Until the document itseld, and not a re-typed version or a version that Nick got to look over in Denny's, can be examined, it certainly can't be cited as corroboration of anything. The whole thing smells, frankly, particularly as Cooper was provided with a retyped version of the same document.<BR/><BR/>3. With LaPaz, it is about as clear cut as you can get. With respect, there is no indication anywhere that he continued his work on Fugo balloons after the war, and the fugo threat, was over. There is plenty of evidence (again, www.bluebookarchive.com) that he WAS working on unidentified aerial phenomena with the military. This is indeed a red herring - at BEST it is completely unsupported speculation. <BR/><BR/>4. Newton's "diary" - I neglect to mention Karl's "verification" of Newton's handwriting because it is irrelevant. First, we do not have the original document so that a proper verification can be done. Second, Karl admits in his paper (properly) that he is not a handwriting expert. The key phrase in the passage Nick cites is "while I'm certainly not a handwriting expert." The fact that Karl was in "no doubt" is hardly definitive evidence, as even Karl admitted in his e-mail to me, when he said he would not use the diary as proof of anything.<BR/><BR/>Paul KimballPaul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.com