On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Russ George <[email protected]> wrote:
Of course some of the pundits in this swirling Vortex seem far more > interested in making a stink than in letting the data speak, such as is > common amongst bits found in such environments. I happen to fancy Holmlid’s > ‘muon’ as a very good step in the right direction delivered through very > valid experimentation and real data not mere brain farts. Let the armchair > semantic stinkers twist in the vortex, alas if they could only be sinkers > they would disappear sooner. > You are a man of science and of reason. You will surely give reasons to support your suggestion that Holmlid is seeing muons and not something else. And you will respond intelligently and without ad hom to rebuttals to those reasons. Please share with us your reasons for thinking that Holmlid has successfully ruled out other explanations. Eric
