casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:All these lengthy quotes conclude "I still feel that her explanations are POSSIBLE, and complete data would make them PLAUSIBLE, But the half-truths & opaqueness make it less plausible ..."
In other words, "Possible but not plausible." And again, later is was shown that her increase was even worse than estimated by Tucker, making an innocent scenario even less plausible than estimated by Tucker.
rekrunner wrote:
The estimates I called reasonable don't come from me, but I took them from doctors and scientists. You disagree but you are actually not an expert. And no ABP expert agrees with you
Newsflash 1: I am both a doctor and a scientist.
Newsflash 2: The first expert who judged Paula's 2012 ABP violation - yes the one you try to ignore as again demonstrated above - agrees with me.
Newsflash 3: Tucker had Paula as a 7 on his suspicion scale from 0 (innocent) to 10 (doper).
You have her as a 0, I view her as a 10, so Tucker's opinion is a lot closer to mine than to yours.
(Ok, you knew all of these "newsflashes" before, which once more proves your trolling. 5/10, I admit.)