I'm sorry but I didn't learn a whole lot from "Casolaro" on this

[hangloose]

thread. I appreciate that he took the time to participate but other than a supporting appearance where DUers could offer comment and ask questions what did we learn, what insights were given to help advance our understanding of his effort? Did I miss something?

[New Earth]

1. oh, no! don't question Madsen!!!

that will mean you are either a freeper, loon, or nonsensical!!!! :eyes:

[jamboi]

5. I have no problem w/ anyone applying healthy, reasonable skepticism &

questioning to anyone, including Madsen. But some posts have been just plain silly, like "was that really Madsen." Etc. We can ask more questions of him as they occur to us, and he can come back on, no prob. till we can make a good judgement of his story. I'm not convinced yet of it, but I do think its substantive enough that we should give it a full hearing. Also its a investigation in process, so I don't expect him to have all the answers immediately. Also we can help w/ research.

[rdmccur]

9. Agreed!

[democraticinsurgent]

2. his appearance was quite useful as as i'm concerned

i don't think it's so much about what specifics we learned--though there were some. it was more about establishing dialogue with a major investigator. i know some have questioned his credibility, but it looks to me like he's got something.

for him to reveal much more would put many people, including himself, in danger. think it was any coincidence that he picked "casolaro" as his screen name?

[Nordic]

3. I thought it was fascinating

but maybe that's just me. :)

Rather than pouring through his articles, which can be a bit dense and filled with a lot of details that are difficult to keep track of (like the one involving all the financing in the Cook Islands etc) he just sorta hit the broad strokes and I found it extremely compelling to hear the broad strokes coming from this particular horse's mouth (so to speak)

[buddysmellgood]

4. No, I don't think we did. Until some hard evidence comes out, this is just

another conspiracy theory. At first, I thought it made no sense to release the story given the lack of proof. Later, I thought that it were me, I'd release it now too because if something happened to me, I want someone to know what I'd learned. If this is true, the reporter is in danger. But too much of the story so far smacks of a cheap James Bond novel. We need proof.

[shraby]

6. How many prosecutors give out the proof

when they are building a case against someone? Particularly if that was someone like John Gotti?

[rdmccur]

10. Good point!

[anamandujano]

8. The info is most likely with a few third parties;

most investigators have backup plans. I didn't read the whole thread but if no one tripped him up, then that adds credibility.

[Ducks In A Row]

7. yes you did miss something.

[marions ghost]

11. Keep it open

see if there's anything more....
OK to express doubts, but too soon to pass judgment
truth will out