[Moonman62]

I gave you an example of a believable experiment (which also negates your claim that I bash everything). It sounds to me like, other than that, you don't have a single experiment you can defend.

If you don't know what quality is by now, and Lord knows I've tried to teach you, then I can't help further if you won't try.

BTW, it doesn't help that Edmund Storms has endorsed the Rossi and Blacklight scams. No wonder you lack confidence.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I gave you an example of a believable experiment (which also negates your claim that I bash everything). It sounds to me like, other than that, you don't have a single experiment you can defend."

I assume you're referring to the Fralick NASA 1989 experiment. What about that experiment was it that you thought elevated it into "acceptability"?? It certainly can't be "peer review", as the only "peer review" it received was from his NASA superiors.

Why is Fralick's evidence convincing, and Miley's very similar (in both process and results), not convincing.

"If you don't know what quality is by now, and Lord knows I've tried to teach you, then I can't help further if you won't try.

I know what "quality" is. I do it every day and design instruments to implement it. What I'm trying to figure out is what "quality" means to YOU.

"BTW, it doesn't help that Edmund Storms has endorsed the Rossi and Blacklight scams. No wonder you lack confidence.

Hmmmm....if he has endorsed it, I'll have to give Blacklight another look. Not needed for Rossi, as I am already familiar with that.