--- On Mon, 2/21/11, Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão <drferdina...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >http://www.psrast.org/mobileng/mobilstarteng.htm#junk > > You are a shame to the science profession. >
Quite predictably, Ferdinando has now started abusing me again, and providing links to crackpot conspiratorial websites. I correct below all the mistakes and falsehoods in this latest installment of his. > > 1- It is not illegal to upload a document. It is only illegal to >reproduce > someone else’s document under your name or pirate copies for >sale. That is > copyrights. > This is garbage. Here is a description of the U.S. copyright law (which is applicable to me): QUOTE The Copyright Act grants five rights to a copyright owner, which are described in more detail below. * the right to reproduce the copyrighted work; * the right to prepare derivative works based upon the work; * the right to distribute copies of the work to the public; * the right to perform the copyrighted work publicly; and * the right to display the copyrighted work publicly. UNQUOTE Please see - http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html Please note the rights to distribute publicly and display publicly. It is illegal in the U.S. for anybody to violate these rights of the copyright holder. > > 2- The link to the site on Medline by me in my last post is very clear. >The > contents have been removed. Medical papers dated even from 1960s are > >available online. > This is nonsense. Please see for example that the following paper from 1974 cited in Pubmed/Medline is not available online, and it has nothing to do with Linoli, miracles or religion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4842403 Contrast that with this paper of mine from 2010 that is freely available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21152340 > > 4- According to the report Santosh claims to be in possession, what was >it > then. Why does he not specify what is stated? Cannot think of something > plausible? > I have already mentioned what is stated in the Linoli paper, and provided my interpretation in the following Goanet post: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2011-February/205418.html One additional thing that I forgot to mention is that it also uses an antiquated, outdated and highly inadequate (by modern scientific standards) zonal precipitation test to make one of its claims. > > 5- If that is so, why was a review of this report not published with >correct > interpretation of findings? > Scientists do not write reviews of poor quality papers published in obscure or non-peer-reviewed publications. > >To him, even Einstein of the 18th century maybe considered as a cretin, >and >all Goan fools. > Einstein lived in the 19th and 20th century, not the 18th century. Cheers, Santosh --- On Mon, 2/21/11, Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão <drferdina...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Santosh Helekar chimbelcho at yahoo.com wrote : > <<< ……. 1- I do not want to upload > the scanned paper in the public domain and provide a link > to it for copyright > > reasons. 2- As far as the paper is concerned, > the claim below that it was removed by somebody is > false….Like most papers > cited in the medical databases prior to the late 1980s it > is not available > online. 3- This paper is not a "confirmation" by "modern > science" > of any miracle. 4- The results > described do not come even close to confirming > unequivocally the claims that > the material is human heart and blood, that it is fresh, > that it is from a > living person, 5- Regarding why such a flawed study would > be published, the > answer is that obscure publications like the one in which > it was published do > not have a rigorous peer-review process, and/or high > standards. ….Cheers, > Santosh>>>> > > > > RESPONSE : > > 1- It is not illegal to > upload a document. It is only illegal to reproduce someone > else’s document > under your name or pirate copies for sale. That is > copyrights. > > 2- The link to the site > on Medline by me in my last post is very clear. The > contents have been removed. > Medical papers dated even from 1960s are available online. > > 3- I have already stated > that science and scientist cannot confirm miracles. Science > cannot explain the > bizarre occurrence against all laws of science. > > 4- According to the > report Santosh claims to be in possession, what was it > then. Why does he not > specify what is stated? Cannot think of something > plausible? > > 5- If that is so, why > was a review of this report not published with correct > interpretation of > findings? > > Santosh has delusions > that he has much better knowledge > than eminent scientist of the 1970s. To him, even Einstein > of the 18th > century maybe considered as > a cretin, and all Goan fools. Stop looking in the mirror > Santosh and drawing > conclusions. You have already exposed your capabilities and > incompetency on > Goanet. > > http://www.psrast.org/mobileng/mobilstarteng.htm#junk > > You are a shame to the science profession. > > Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão. > >