Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> JR. You are certain it is the truth that Kullander is senile? > > > > That is not what I said. I am certain that he claimed the Rossi reaction > was nuclear because an extraordinary amount of copper was found. > Here is what you said: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45708.html "I find it closer to delusional than conclusive. These two Swedes are acting more like cheer-leaders than top scientists. Kullander is emeritus and could be approaching senility, as far as a few of his comments are concerned." Where did you get the information that he "may be approaching senility"? Have you consulted with his doctor? I am certain he said the copper tested out isotopically as the natural > ratio. I am certain that this means that the copper CANNOT be the result of > a nuclear process. > I am sure E&K appreciate that as much as you do, but if it turns out the copper has natural isotopes and yet it is a transmutation product . . . that will be a fact, and you will be wrong. Science is based on experiments, not theory. In any case we are still a long way from determining that. For now, it seems likely to me that the copper is contamination. How it got there I cannot imagine. There seems to be no satisfactory explanation for it. E&K are looking for an explanation. I do not consider that a sign of senility or being completely, foolishly wrong. > ERGO - Kullander is completely wrong, foolishly wrong - for a scientist of > his caliber, although that certainly does not mean that he is senile. > If it certainly does not mean that, then WHY DID YOU SAY IT MEANS THAT?!? If you have now changed your mind, I suggest you retract your first message. - Jed
