I wrote:
> I heard from Mike Nelson today, and confirmed that is what it was. "More > extensive tests were needed." DE finally did these extensive tests, and now > we know the facts. > I mean that Mike Nelson said "More extensive tests were needed." Lewan described Nelson's report: "The report was fairly extensive but contained no data, only a sort of checklist of what had been implemented and a summary of the results. The summary was interesting, though Nelson stressed that the results must be considered provisional until more accurate tests had been performed." Nelson agreed. In a message to me he commented, "And that was exactly what happened" He said "more extensive tests were needed" and that is just what we finally got -- more tests. He never meant to endorse the claims. He sure did not endorse them when I spoke with him last year. As I have said many times, he and the others said things like, "it doesn't work" or "I couldn't tell" or "more tests are needed" or "meh, it wasn't worth the trip." Not one of them told me it worked, and I sure as heck would not have reported they did, after hearing so many negative reports. I figured it was a mistake. It looks more like fraud now. Inept fraud. But I can't tell. I am not an investigator. I cannot bring those people into a police station and grill them, or get a warrant to look through their business records and correspondence. - Jed
