Where is the “data” they collected with this meter, which isn’t listed as one of the measuring devices? The report I read had a volume which was apparently calculated from the rated output of one of the pumps; in any event, it was a round figure, which could not have come from instrumentation.
“Perhaps you should do more than just read the reports. You pathological skeptics seem to be channeling O.J. Simpson’s lawyer (Johnny Cochran).....”if it’s not on a list, it doesn’t exist”.”
By the way, just because I run a hose from a bib on the wall doesn’t mean that there’s no possibility of introducing foreign substances into the fluid coming from said bib. I can do that very easily with a bit of extra piping and some sheetrock, and you won’t know the difference unless you test the fluid.
You, Sir, are a hypocrite. I could probably dig up 25 posts you wrote saying over and over, “The only thing that matters is the data.” When we skeptics/seagulls/whatever read the reports and don’t find the data and call you on it, your response is, “you should do more than just read the reports?” Gimme a huge freakin’ break. You expect anyone to take you seriously when you can’t even maintain a consistent position?
The information about the flowmeter and how used was part of an interview, not a formal report. And no, I don't have a link.
"When we skeptics/seagulls/whatever read the reports and don’t find the data and call you on it, your response is, “you should do more than just read the reports?” Gimme a huge freakin’ break. You expect anyone to take you seriously when you can’t even maintain a consistent position?
Thanks for mis-stating my position (as usual). I have ALWAYS maintained that, because this isn't a formal scientific situation, you have to look at ALL the data, and that includes the videos and discussions involving the principles. The reports are where you should START. They are the MINIMUM. But you loons pretty much refuse to look at anything except what supports their "it's a SCAM!" meme.