On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I suspect you will take wild notions like mine more seriously if much >> more time passes without any absolutely definitive determination of Rossi's >> veracity. >> > > I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive. > Many capable scientists and engineers do not agree. The measurement method was questionable and unverified and the run was way too short. We've gone over this before and I guess we have to agree to disagree. > The chance of fraud is so low I do not take that seriously. It is no more > likely than a supernatural event. Neither you nor any other skeptic has > suggested any viable reason why this demonstration was not definitive. You > have never come up with a method of committing fraud. If you could suggest > a method, you would have done so by now. > Well, we did suggest several methods but you don't agree. That's OK too. And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential methods to cheat we may not have thought of. > You are asking us to believe in fraud with a trace of evidence for it. Not > a trace! > Behaving like a scammer and resisting all reasonable and safe suggestions to prove that the device is real is definitely evidence suggesting a scam. I agree it isn't proof. > You are a true believer clinging to an absurd hypothesis that is contrary > to the laws of physics. > Perhaps in your view but I find myself in good company. Your company includes George Hants, Sterling Allan, Hank Mills and Craig Brown. Not so great. And yes, that's not conclusive evidence for a scam either but everything they have supported thus far has, for the most part, been delusions and scams.
