Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Theseus
Heh, heh.....  another "straw man" you've knocked down. Do you think I was born yesterday (rhetorical).
The question I asked you was NOT what I could post that would prove I ran the tests. I specifically asked; "Can you describe the type and content of the data you would accept (from outside sources you did not observe) as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world?"
Quite obviously you didn't like that question; but in putting up your "straw man" you gave me my answer anyway. Thank you.  |
Wrong again. Here are your words:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Theseus
"It appears most evident that J_P is not really interested in any sort of evidence why Signal Lines (LRL related) DO NOT exist".
"I conducted several tests, back in the 80s, to determine that "signal lines" were an imaginary entitiy, invented strictly to fool the technically-challenged".
"Try to remember, the burden of proof is on those making the claims..."
"Even if I had the time to scan and post all of my data and test protocol details, it would not be convincing to J_P".
|
You are well aware from my previous posts that I am of the opinion signal lines don't exist, I just haven't been able to prove it. Therefore I cannot claim I have factual proof that they are imaginary. But you have posted that you ran tests that prove they are imaginary. You posted the burden of proof is on those making the claims.
What happened? Did you change your mind? Are you now exempt from the burden of proof? Your claim that you ran tests does not seem factual, simply because nobody has seen any evidence that you ran any tests. Now you pretend it takes too much time to post details of your proof unless you first know what I am interested to see? Whether you conducted tests or not does not depend on what I want, think believe or hope. The burden of proof is satisfied by showing the evidence of your tests.
It won't work to pretend I didn't specify the type and content. I posted the answer here:
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...&postcount=692
In case you forgot. The answer was:
"Sure. Any test that the owner of this forum would describe as a scientific test that proves signal lines are imaginary is satisfactory. As far as presentation, the protocol should be described, along with any controls that were used, a list of the data observed in the test results, and any other pertinent information you want to include. In short, any test report that would convince Carl-NC that you ran a test that proves signal lines are imaginary".
In addition to what I would accept, I also offered to be satisfied with a much easier test report that would simply satisfy me that you actually ran the alleged tests:
"But to satisfy me, it is easier. I will concede that you actually ran tests if you simply post the information, regardless of whether Carl-NC accepts it as scientific proof. My argument is you did not show evidence of testing, so if you show the details as described above, I would be happy to admit I was wrong".
I have answered all your questions, yet you still can't produce any evidence you conducted tests of signal lines.
Remember, I never asked you to convince me of anything except that you ran tests to determine signal lines are imaginary.
Real test results that prove signal lines are imaginary are a bonus that any skeptic including myself will be happy to have at their disposal, but not something I required.
I only asked to see details of evidence that you conducted tests.
I am becoming more convinced you did not perform any tests, and your claims of testing are fake. The only excuse you offered is you don't have time, and you will not be able to consider finding the time until after you know something about what kind of tests I like?
Are you serious?
There is no burden of proof for me or any one else to show that you performed tests.
In fact it is not possible for anyone to prove you conducted tests if you did not.
Only you could prove it, and it does not take more than a few minutes to type in the protocol and controls you used in these alleged tests.
It looks to me like another case similar to when hung stalled and made all kind of excuses why he could not show any test results.
...At least not until someone challenged him, and he found a way to produce test results afterward.
It is beginning to seem obvious you did not conduct testing of signal lines.
Here is my prediction:
You will not tell any details of your alleged testing to determine signal lines are imaginary.
Instead you will produce excuses, and raise hurdles that others must first pass before you will consider describing the details of your tests.
In the end you will never show test details.
Yet you will attempt to maintain you have conducted tests while failing to show any real evidence you conducted tests.
Best wishes,
J_P