From: Steven Krivit
> I note your non-response to name your anonymous advisors with whom you discussed and dismissed the Piantelli-Focardi results. I note your non-response to present the specific scientific critique of your anonymous advisors. I am sure that there is no innuendo here from Steve, of the type which I will more clearly verbalize; but the original comment about "disproof" was so blatantly indefensible and really . well . what else can be said but "stupid," especially after a second read of the underlying papers - that this does bring into question things like "hidden agendas", "ultimate motives", and "secret advisors", etc- and does deserve a clear answer. When excellent results *without deuterium and palladium* turn up in experiments, and are subject to excessive and unwarranted criticism, without a good factual basis (and Bush/Eagleton comes to mind here as well) - then there is a natural suspicion (given the history if this field) that there is some kind of an "anti-Mills" agenda in there at some 'policy' level. Is there? Jones
