On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:18:42 +0100, Baron
wrote:

Having struggled to keep up and understand the very different points of
view, indeed very confusing at times, I'm going to come down on the
side of "Yes, Walt's data does support evidence of a Conjugate Match."

Hi OM,

Thanks. Clear answers to clear questions are rare.

So:
2½ "Walt's data does support evidence of a Conjugate Match"
and
½ "Walt's data does not support evidence of a Conjugate Match"

As for confusion - the split vote must be proxy for the "silent
majority." Or, that majority cannot risk exposure. Shame? The only
issue is either with the data or the expression "Conjugate Match."
None seem anxious to avoid discussion of the expression - in fact that
conversation runs like a party line.

On the other hand, challenge the data? The numbers were cribbed? The
test gear was in the "off" position during a test? No. The data
seems to make sense. Competing data for the same initial conditions?
Hark! The scientific method rises from slumber with interest.

Nope, nada, negatory, no way, not going there.

Scientific method returns to its narcoleptic state.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC