Originally posted by golemina
... Signifying nothing.
A perfect description of your bluster and posturing .
What is the fuss there IA?
No fuss , the catalogue of your evasions , dishonesty and refusal to even look at the facts , and most importantly
It is no longer about you – I never did care , I pegged you from the get go as a troll
Now I am going to stick this out so that every one else will see you for what you really are .
If all of the hardware is in place... Shouldn't be that big a deal to actually use it for it's intended purpose... Of course, available to
It is used , on a nightly basis , by the scientists qualified to use it .
Your strident demand for “ public scrutiny “ is noting more than a red herring – an empty bluster – demonstrated by your point blank refusal
to actually take any steps yourself to facilitate such “ inspection “
You still have not answered SHP`s question , nor have you publicly taken any steps to “ make it happen “ – why is that ?
Go to Hawaii? Or whereever... some of us might be able to afford it.
Oh really ,
So , a challenge to you , fill in these forms and apply to visit the apache point observatory :
Be sure to state nature of visit correctly , there the ball is in your court – if you actually want
to visit – make a legitimate
application to do so .
Oh – and fill in a separate copy for each member of your” team” , the instructions are clear – but you still have not told SHP what the exact
wording of the question you wish him / her to submit to the director of the McDonald facility on your behalf is yet .
Speaking of nothing... The objections being raised by the NASA disciples are more those the actions of someone trying to defend what doesn't
No our exasperations are more to do with the fact that you keep moving the goal posts , and demanding increasingly irrelevant information , and
expecting us to spoon feed you
ACTUALLY want to visit an observatory , and have a “ team “ as you claim , and the means / opportunity / funding to fly to Hawaii
at the drop of a hat – as you claim
Why are you singularly incapable of doing anything for yourself ?????
You know... being able to reproduce a result.
The results have been reproduced , to the satisfaction of scientists world wide
Why do you insist on appointing yourself sole judge of validity ??
A bit fooking arrogant is it not .
Especially as you have demonstrated no legitimate qualification for this status .
I'm... challenging... YOU... to... reproduce... the... range... finding... tests... /results...
cannot , because i
do not work at an observatory – but you know this – and are simply trolling for cheep points
Thousands of rangings have been made – and scrutinized by experts – their validity assured – they have been published – and the data
correlated to show that the moon is receding from the earth at a different rate to that previously thought
The results are also published in print journals [ several peer review publications [ where they are scrutinized by eminently qualified scientists
from around the world
And none , raise any doubts or objection .
But now you have elected yourself as supreme arbiter of the validity of this program – and demand that only you can pronounce it legitimate , and
only be personal inspection
Though you still have failed to demonstrate any qualification which renders you fit for this assignment .
So just re iterate – what is your actuall problem with reading web published data – its not the validity – you are just throwing random
obstacles in the track to justify the fact that you do not want to look at it .
In... the... REAL... WORLD. …………………… Not... on... some... 'web site'.
What is you honest
objection to the web ?
Gives concise and detailed experimental data , and has been downloaded and reviewed by scientists around the world – and none have questioned its
If you are so convinced that your objections to this projects validity are correct – why have you not published your “damming critique “ < sic >
in a legitimate astronomy journal or professional venue ???
Despite the fresh claim that you have a “ team “ now – you have done nothing to show that you have any qualification to rationally analyse the
data presented , or be accepted as legitimate observes at a scientific institute
Research laboratories are not venues for public spectacle – so stop demanding that you have an automatic right to view such inner workings , just
because you want to .
The real world dos not work that way --
I'm sorry if you can't seem to understand that difference... The premise of a SHOW ME strategem.
I understand only to well , your “ show me premise “ is the bluster of a dishonest charlatan who refuses to look at perfectly valid data
And arrogantly concludes that he , and he alone is worthy , and capable of determining the validity of an experiment – and that he must do this in
Which also begs a further question...
Why the animosity?
Why ? your willfull ignorance , trollish attitude , unbelievable arrogance and plain refusal to honestly approach the issue .
One other tiny little point... Among other things, my team will do it's own system integrity tests...
Hmmm , you have a “ team “ , what are the qualifications of your “ team “ – you have refused to divulge yours . so how about them – are
they anonymous armchair experts – as you seem to be ?
Who are they , if we are going to peruse this further – we need to know the caliber of the “ team “ we may be dealing with . call it a “ show
me strategy “
So who are they , names , occupations , relevant qualifications . ??
So don't you worry your little self about that... And other little things like research facilities having 'names, locations, directors,
Some of us might be a little more equipped to deal with those little facts...
If you were “ equipped “ to deal with this situation, in any way shape or form – you would not need us would you ???
The bottom line is if you wanted
to personally check on these experiments , you would have done so already – or atleast laid the groundwork
for your attempt .
The fact that you are here , on an web forum demanding “answers “ while simultaneously claiming that web published data does not meet your
criteria for validity speaks volumes .
PS – SHP is waiting the text of the questions you wish to be forwarded to the McDonald facility .