On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:26 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand your position Jed. You point is well taken about the need for > verification of the data by independent organizations but I feel that any > data at this time is better than none. I plan to operate under the > assumption that the data is accurate and that the proof will be forthcoming > fairly soon. DGTG will be placed in a difficult position if they supply > data that turns out to be fabricated and not reflective of the performance > that they have achieved.
The problem is they won't be left in a *difficult* position. They will just excuse themselves and continue the game. However, business attitudes, ethics and law can be reformed when enough people get fed up with business as usual. It has happened in past and it can happen again in the future. For example there was a time when car companys disregarded public safety. If it wasn't for people like Nader cars would still lack basic safety features we now take for granted. Harry > My main fear is that the information will have major items missing that will > be intentionally left out to keep our theories untenable. I consider this > similar to what Rossi has done in the past. There is still a great deal of > uncertainty as to the nuclear ash that his device generates. Perhaps no > one, including the active parties, really understands what is happening > within their LENR devices but the sooner the true processes are uncovered > the sooner major improvements will occur. > > For these reasons I request that we be fed the important information as soon > as possible but I request that they please leave out the misinformation. > > Dave
