we agree
2013/6/29 blaze spinnaker <[email protected]> > "It has already been proven." > > Clearly you and I have a different standard of proof. > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> blaze spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven >>> this year? >>> >> >> It has already been proven. The best proof is this absurd paper >> by Ericsson & Pomp. This is the best effort by skeptics to disprove the >> paper and it utterly fails. Such weak arguments are tantamount to admitting >> they have no case. >> >> This paper resembles Morrison's best attempt to disprove Fleischmann, >> which was so bad it proved beyond any doubt Morrison was completely wrong. >> See: >> >> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf >> >> The only bet would be: >> >> Will blaze spinnaker / Mary Yugo / Göran Ericsson, Stephan Pomp believe >> the data, or will they continue to spin absurd excuses to ignore it? >> >> I would bet that they will continue to spin excuses. >> >> The only way they will stop spinning excuses will be if the establishment >> agrees that Rossi's device is real. I mean the entire establishment, >> including the DoE and the New York Times. Not just ELFORSK. That is highly >> unlikely. >> >> I do not actually bet money. It is against my principles. I have devoted >> a large part of my life to this business so I do not think I need to >> establish my sincerity by betting. Or my bona fides. >> >> If Mr. Spinnaker would like to prove he is serious, he will address the >> technical issue about the model, raised here by Alan Fletcher. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
