"Beagle17", I still have not had time to properly check out this site, but thank you for the courtesy of a reply.
It is, indeed, important to stay abreast of all information, pro and con, regardless of the source, if we are to have any hope of succeeding. The Pentagon's 'information management' operation has one person, that I know of, on their payroll that singles out and targets many of the primary anti DU scientists and experts that I work with and support. For instance, one of their tactics is to submit convoluted "biographies" to Wikipedia, which in turn are picked up by others and used to discredit the targeted person. In many instances the very same Pentagon operative that planted the disinformation will then use it as a reference in a subsequent article, which is then published in mainstream tabloids. As you probably know, the debate surrounding the "Gen. Leslie Groves memo" has been tainted by this type of revisionist propaganda campaign.
Anyway, I will do my best to keep in touch with your efforts, and thanks again
tw
"Doug1943" Regarding those individuals who have apprised me of there being incorrect biographical information, concerning their work and credentials, on Wikipedia, I will respond to your request thusly: I will forward your concerns about the voracity of their claim, and recommend that they speak for themselves, rather than treat you to my less direct information. I can say, from my own knowledge, that upon my request, the Wikipedia editorial staff has seen fit to correct numerous errors brought to their attention. One of the interesting aspects of this matter is that none of the "biographies" in question were submitted, authorized, or reviewed and approved by the subjects of said "biographies." I believe this to be a flawed editorial policy, and have said as much to Wikipedia.
The issues surrounding the use of weaponized depleted uranium are not an ideological or political partisan issue, it is born out of concern for human and environmental health, regardless of any other loyalties.
In the interim, I've noticed that you have called into question the voracity of Leuren Moret and Doug Rokke on another thread, maybe you would be willing to expound upon your reasons for coming to this conclusion and stating it declaritively and publically.
"Doug1943" Regarding those individuals who have apprised me of there being incorrect biographical information, concerning their work and credentials, on Wikipedia, I will respond to your request thusly: I will forward your concerns about the voracity of their claim, and recommend that they speak for themselves, rather than treat you to my less direct information. I can say, from my own knowledge, that upon my request, the Wikipedia editorial staff has seen fit to correct numerous errors brought to their attention. One of the interesting aspects of this matter is that none of the "biographies" in question were submitted, authorized, or reviewed and approved by the subjects of said "biographies." I believe this to be a flawed editorial policy, and have said as much to Wikipedia.
The issues surrounding the use of weaponized depleted uranium is not an ideological or political partisan issue, it is born out of concern for human and environmental health, regardless of any other loyalties.
In the interim, I've noticed that you have called into question the voracity of Leuren Moret and Doug Rokke on another thread, maybe you would be willing to expound upon your reasons for coming to this conclusion and stating it declaritively and publically.
(1) Both of these people give the impression that they are scientists. They are not.
(2) I doubt strongly many of the other claims for himself made by Douglas Rokke. I suspect they have as much intellectual substance as his belief that on 9/11 the Pentagon was hit by a missile, and not a hijacked airplane.
(3) As for other claims: at the moment, I do not recall specifically which of the many ridiculous claims about DU each one of them is guilty of spreading. I would have to go and read what they have written, or are quoted as saying. Maybe I will do that, if we can get a good audience on this forum.
The last time I looked, a few months ago, Wikipedia had nailed the ridiculous Moret, but the charlatan Rokke had gotten a pass. Someone should fix that.
"Doug1943" Regarding those individuals who have apprised me of there being incorrect biographical information, concerning their work and credentials, on Wikipedia, I will respond to your request thusly: I will forward your concerns about the voracity of their claim, and recommend that they speak for themselves, rather than treat you to my less direct information. I can say, from my own knowledge, that upon my request, the Wikipedia editorial staff has seen fit to correct numerous errors brought to their attention. One of the interesting aspects of this matter is that none of the "biographies" in question were submitted, authorized, or reviewed and approved by the subjects of said "biographies." I believe this to be a flawed editorial policy, and have said as much to Wikipedia.
The issues surrounding the use of weaponized depleted uranium is not an ideological or political partisan issue, it is born out of concern for human and environmental health, regardless of any other loyalties.
In the interim, I've noticed that you have called into question the voracity of Leuren Moret and Doug Rokke on another thread, maybe you would be willing to expound upon your reasons for coming to this conclusion and stating it declaritively and publically.
(1) Both of these people give the impression that they are scientists. They are not.
(2) I doubt strongly many of the other claims for himself made by Douglas Rokke. I suspect they have as much intellectual substance as his belief that on 9/11 the Pentagon was hit by a missile, and not a hijacked airplane.
(3) As for other claims: at the moment, I do not recall specifically which of the many ridiculous claims about DU each one of them is guilty of spreading. I would have to go and read what they have written, or are quoted as saying. Maybe I will do that, if we can get a good audience on this forum.
The last time I looked, a few months ago, Wikipedia had nailed the ridiculous Moret, but the charlatan Rokke had gotten a pass. Someone should fix that.
Well "Doug1943" it is enlightening for you to clarify your objectivity and reason at this stage of the discussion. Having functioned as a tenured Professor of Cultural Anthropology, and frequented the librarys and halls of some of our world's finest universities over the past four decades , I do not believe that a further enjoyment of your intelligence and skills need be pursued. Actually, I suspected as much from your initial response, but fairness and compassion demanded that I give you the benefit of a fair hearing. Good luck with your pursuit of partisan vitriol and condescending narrow minded ignorance, and may your harvest reflect your seeding, tenfold.