A: This?
Q: Nope. This. You're holding it now.
A: Yes, yes.
Q: This. Was it in front of your eyes and you copied it into your opinion?
A: From Acwiki, a meeting place on the subject of social ecology. It could be.
Q: Maybe. Maybe.
A: Maybe. Yes (pp. 226-231).
- This was also shown to Dr. Shlita later on, and towards the end of his cross-examination, that pages 5-7 of his opinion were also copied from the EquiWiki website, and he replied, inter alia, as follows:
Q: You have all kinds of exhaust sources there. I suggest to you, in order to save, that it is not the result of an examination that you conducted, But it's also simply copied from Wiki.
A: It's copied, I don't know from Aquiki, it's copied, yes, I think something from environmental protection.
[....]
Q: You have, you are referring to all kinds of emission sources.
A: True
Q: You've checked the same data?
A: No, I treated it as it was written, I didn't check every one.
Q: As it was written, where?
A: I say what, is this an environmental protection report?
Q: Yes
A: No, it's not my invention here, not a word, I copied everything.
Q: Yes. But we ask you,
A: I didn't test them.
Q: It's important to us, and that's why we're asking you.
A: And I didn't check schedules.
Q: Didn't you check and didn't check schedules?
A: True
[...]
Q: Is there another expert who gave an overview of the sources of emissions in the Haifa Bay area?
A: I can't tell you because I don't know.
(pp. 298-299).
- In the continuation of his cross-examination, Dr. Shlita replied regarding the alleged copying in his opinion from the EquiWiki website, as follows:
Q: Why didn't you write in your opinion that you're copying from Wiki, that this whole thing, it's 5-10 pages in your opinion, that it's copying from WikiWiki? Why didn't you write it, that the court knew? It wasn't me who wrote it, it was EquiWiki who wrote it.