Joshua Cude wrote:
Of course I knew that. We've been over this a dozen times. That's why I said *replication*. So it was not dishonest.
Ah. So you did. I did not notice the word "replication." I apologize. However, other people have published similar helium results in the peer-reviewed literature.
Even advocates admit that Miles' results were preliminary and crude, and they were controversial, and challenged in refereed literature.
That is nonsense from start to finish. He worked on that project for 5 years as I recall, and he wrote hundreds of pages. That is not a preliminary result. It was not crude all. His research partners who did blind tests include two groups with the best helium detection equipment in the world. The results are only controversial in your imagination. As far as I know, no papers in the refereed literature challenging these results.
- Jed
