Let me quote the specific text from Cude that I discussed: "You're just repeating your arguments and ignoring the responses I've already given to them. Obviously I have no proof. How could I? True believers insist on an explanation of how deception might explain the alleged observations, but do not hold themselves to the same standard to give an explanation for how nuclear reactions could be initiated in those circumstances, or how they could produce that much heat without radiation, or how NiH could produce 100 times the power density of nuclear fuel without melting, regardless of what produces the energy. That doesn't stop you from believing it happens though."
Let's go over this one more time: "True believers insist on an explanation of how deception might explain the alleged observations . . ." Yes, because any method of deception MUST fit in with textbook physics and a SPICE simulation. If you cannot simulate it, it is not "deception." It is a genuine inexplicable anomaly. Also, you have to define this method in a way that can be falsified, just as McKubre has to define his calorimetry. ". . . .but do not hold themselves to the same standard to give an explanation for how nuclear reactions could be initiated in those circumstances, or how they could produce that much heat without radiation . . ." YES, again, because these are genuine anomalies. That has been proved by replicated, high-sigma experiments. Such anomalies are essential to progress in science. Without them, there would be no new discoveries. You do not need to show *WHY* there is heat without radiation, you only have to show *THAT* there is 10,000 times more heat than any chemical reaction can produce, no chemical changes, and commensurate helium. McKubre has done that. His job is finished. He is an experimentalist. The theoreticians must now take over and explain his results. They are never allowed to dismiss them. Cude has made a huge mistake here. He does not understand the scientific method. This is vitally important, and fundamental. - Jed
