View single post by Jeff
 Posted: Feb 21st, 2008 08:25 PM
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Jeff

 

Joined: Nov 7th, 2007
Location: Alabama USA
Posts: 127
Status: 
Offline
 One last comment, John, is about the scientific facts of the Spiricom Technical Manual (I hope you have read it).  I have to, again, insist the documentation (very long, and detailed) is true; even to the point that the researchers openly offered their doubts on various points of the work they were doing. 

Their documentation was not the work of a deceiver.  A deciever would not make such an effort, not to mention such a depth of knowledge, to compose such a work.

They even went so far as to suggest "what if"...  And they admitted, in the documentation, that they were quite uncertain about the results of the "what if".

This is the work of a good scientific approach to, really anything.

Research; documentation; laboratory testing; laboratory results; and documentation of the results makes for good science (research). 

This is the way things are; and certainly be done.

John, I offer these thoughts to keep ourselves (that means everyone researching) on the right track.

Regardless of your findings on the recordings, I still believe in the Spiricom documentation.  That work was not; could not; be the work of some person(s) that were attempting to deceive.

Respectfully,

Jeff