Originally Posted By: 2-piper
You have as of yet failed to state even one reason, obivious or otherwise,



That would be because larry can’t give you any facts or reasons. He blindly quotes Thomas and gets defensive whenever anyone questions him. for him to accuse someone else of unflinching devotion to a writer is the apogee of conceit. I adhere very closely to what Burrard wrote because it all holds up under scrutiny and everything adds up.

I don’t doubt Thomas performed some test and I don’t doubt he achieved the results he claimed. The problem is without documentation they’re trash. Here’s the problem: step one of the scientific process is “formulate an hypothesis”. Every subsequent step is specifically designed to prove said hypothesis. I’ve spent enough decades in a research world to have seen what people do when data doesn’t match their pre-conceived notions: they come up with a reason to discount that data. Gough Thomas performed some test which proved his preconceived notion was right because the test was arranged to accomplish that end.

Any idiot can stand up and say “tests have shown blahblah ….” unless a comment like that is accompanied by documentation of every particular, every facet, and preferably the raw data as well, of the test, any conclusions drawn are plain and simply garbage.

Don’t believe it? try selling a $75 million fighter to USGOV and saying “tests have shown it meets your criteria. Trust us.” I guarantee you they won’t. they will want back up.

Roger