Bob Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: I haven't seen the 22passi discussion, but it is easy to cast doubt on > something that happened in the past without actually having been a part of > the experiment. It is also disreputable to do so without any real evidence. >
Well, my description is brief. It does not give you enough information to judge whether the results are real or not. I believe that is all anyone has to go on. Patterson never published enough to confirm the claim. In the report I did not say "this were inadequate, amateur instruments" but anyone reading my report will see that. It was inexcusable. It is reasonable to have doubts. I have the opportunity to visit with Dennis Cravens, who is only a few > miles away. He shared with me some of the Patterson Cell details. As a > retired Motorola researcher, I wanted to hear more about this story. . . . > That's great! You should write down everything he tells you. Dennis is a great person but he does not write things down enough. His results are lost. > The Motorola deal fell through because Patterson wanted to retain more > control of his technology . . . > He was a fool. He told me he wanted a 100% market share. I said "you will end up with 100% of nothing." I was right. He took his secrets to the grave. > . . . - he was trying to create a business for his grandson to run - to > set him up in business so to speak. Well, in unfortunate circumstances, > Patterson's grandson died. > His grandson was Jim Redding; the person I referred to. He died suddenly in his 40s I think it was. I think it was after a tennis game. He was Patterson's granddaughter's husband. - Jed
