Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Theseus
"....just let me know, so I format my data accordingly".
|
You have your answer regardless of whether you choose to ignore the details I gave.
Here are the details you omitted from my post that verbalized the actual type and content of the data I would accept:
...format the data in any type or content you want provided Carl-NC can read it and identify it as a scientific test you ran that proves signal lines are imaginary.
...describe the protocol and any controls you used for the tests.
...include the test result data you observed.
...include any additional information that you consider pertinent.
What more information is necessary when you have been told that you can format the data any way you want?
Are you afraid Carl-NC will not be convinced you performed a scientific test that proves signal lines are imaginary?
If you really believe you no longer have the burdon of proof for your claim unless I specify a specific type and content, then I choose the type and content that you used in your alleged tests in the 80s to determine signal lines are imaginary.
Of course I cannot guess the exact type and content you used in your alleged tests, as there are unlimited types and content for tests. Any excuse that I didn't name the type and content you used won't work, because you never told what type or content appears in the alleged tests. The only smoke screen I see is the fact you can produce no information to substantiate that you conducted tests that prove signal lines are imaginary.
You can produce no information of type or content, no protocol, no controls, and no data.
It looks like you got nothing.
Did you actually perform any tests?
It seems obvious you did no testing of signal lines.
Did you also make up the story about testing LRLs?
Why should anyone believe you ever did testing, or that you really know any factual information about LRLs?
Isn't it true that everything you have to say about LRLs is selected secondhand information that you collected from others?
You have demonstrated that you are as credible as Dr. Hung when you copied his same excuses for why you can't substantiate your claims.
By the way, I don't feel compelled to pay attention to your request for a status report. You can scroll up and read the information about current testing status in my recent posts, and peruse some photos of actual signals I measured. Or you can scroll back farther to where you already decided the testing of the Examiner is permanently closed:
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...&postcount=509
If you feel you are entited to have details of on-going testing forwarded to you, maybe you can explain on what basis you have earned this entitlement.
Best wishes,
J_P