In my experience I can tend to present too much too fast giving people too much to read not to mention the fact I can be long winded.
I do not conceal things, it is somewhat key to understanding the complete process but it was developed after I made the initial correlation and after Stiffler had gain some experimental success, indeed as the only feedback I have had on it he didn't seem to find it compelling. About the subject of too much to read, Kyle has taken on the task of testing this but I know that at least up to some point he was asking questions that indicate he had not read my main emails on the subject. We all tend to skip or skim material if we are busy or it isn't the most riveting read ever. Since you are willing to read it I am happy to present it although it does involve a bit more effort but I do have an outline written... On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 7:24 AM, William Beaty <bi...@eskimo.com> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote: > > > No it is not, there is plenty of evidence that it is not EM as an EM > pulse > > can't become a static charge. > > A mixture of GHz e-field and ion cloud would mimic an anomalous radiation > which can charge a surface. I suggest taking this possibility *very* > seriously. > > As long as you haven't figured out how to separate such things from a true > anomaly, then chances are you're just fooling yourself. This is not about > "debunking." This is about Murphy's law: if you don't work hard to > discover and eliminate possible errors, then Murphy says that all those > errors are actually happening! > > :) > > How do you get rid of the pulsed GHz e-field while allowing the anomalous > phenomenon to appear? Until you solve this problem, follow rule #1 below. > It's the number one rule for good reason. > > Rules for alt-science > http://amasci.com/freenrg/rules1.html > > > There IS a phenomena that is created by circuits that are abruptly > switched > > that projects a charge in a way that I state. > > The evidence for this that I have not shared is somewhat significant but > I > > believe that going into that direction would distract from the relative > > simplicity task of trying it for those who are mildly skilled in that > area. > > What's the website URL for that? > > I suggest that it's a VERY bad idea to try distorting results by > concealing any parts of it. Concealment is an element of deception, > that's why the legal phrase says "the WHOLE truth." Such concealment is > what manipulative people do. You'd best avoid it. > > Rather just present all your evidence so we have a chance of seeing it > accurately. > > > Still if challenged I can provide further evidence of such. > > I think you should be providing all the evidence, straight and up-front, > not concealing parts of it until challenged. > > > > (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) > William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website > billb at amasci com http://amasci.com > EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair > Seattle, WA 206-762-3818 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci > >
