It sounds like more water cooler talk. More unsubstantiated babble.

Unless they were there and touched the evidence they have no credibility. They either want to promote their books or website or have their 15 minutes of fame.

Nine years and four months bla bla bla.

But they examined the evidence second hand. The first were the people on the scene.

What about you? Your evidence is only Youtube and Google or it comes from someone else who used Youtube and Google.

Why should we put one penny of value to your evidence?

At least the OS came from people who had a chance to view the facts not hear say. Plus they are willing to put their face and name behind the OS. They are not hiding behind screen names and avatars, throwing stones.

Originally posted by samkent
At least the OS came from people who had a chance to view the facts not hear say. Plus they are willing to put their face and name behind the OS. They are not hiding behind screen names and avatars, throwing stones.

Hear, hear!!!