I just explained what makes your claims psuedo-science, but you obviously didn't get it. No surprise. I apologized to the board for wasting space not insulting you. If a psuedo-scientist is insulted by being called one then tough. You proved my point by failing to admit there is no supportive link between your previous silly claim and the real research sited by Robert. You proved it again by not addressing why I thought your claim was silly. You proved it yet again by resorting to typical psuedoscience evasion and diversion debate tactics.

I've given my credentials to you at least 3 or four times and to others on the board. Your memory is obviously as faulty as your ability to distinguish between science and psuedoscience. While I think my credentials are far more impressive than yours I don't think they really matter here. Anyone can make grandiose claims on BBS or internet pages. The credibility of anyone's claims should be based on their ability to provide references from reliable sources and logical arguments. Your record on references is spotty ranging from crackpots to groundbreaking research. Your arguments are seldom even close to logical. Changing subjects, refusing to answer tough questions, focusing on credential claims and personal issues are all classic warning signs on Sagan's psuedo-science baloney detector.

My link to Sagan's kit has gone dead, but this is also good

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D743A-CC5C-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21&catID=2

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000ADC77-B274-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21&catID=2

I'm a working engineer whose work is considered company property. I am not a professor or author who depends on publishing for a living. It is quite safe to say however that I have never made claims that have received as sound a scientific thumping as Hoyle. Yours don't even rate scientific rebuttal since none of your psudo-science has been published in a journal. Hoyle's flu from space claims were not published in any medical journal because anyone with training even vaguely related to the medical field (like me) could easily see they were bunk. His anti-big bang stance has been rejected for decades and probably gets published mainly because he is the best known antagonist. Few other astronomers agree with him. Making a career out of being wrong is not proof of technical prowess. Only a psudo-scientist would think it is with their main stream scientist conspiracy frame of mind which you have also amply demonstrated.

I'm getting off your psuedo-science merry-goround now. If you want to discuss a technical issue I might respond. Your personal issues tactics will not be responded to further.

Regards.
Mark