Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[markdansie]

Hi Tk
It seems I am no longer loved. I recieved the following via Skype
I updated the article
http://revolution-green.com/rosemary-ainslie-the-end/



Hi Guys,


it seems that Mark Dansie has joined the battle against Ainslie and has stepped in to assist our Little TK as he falls against the ropes.  No surprise as they share the same employer.  And the same agenda.  And that agenda has nothing to do with the promotion of scientific discovery.  Far from it.  Mark unashamedly denies free energy claims across the board.  This includes Rossi's data that has been independently verified by acknowledged experts in the art.  And that refusal alone is more than enough to destroy his public credibility.  And - from a more personal perspective - his credibility for me was UTTERLY voided when he REFUSED to publish the fact that we'd withdrawn our RETRACTION of the claims in Paper 1 & 2.  So has Sterling.  One would expect a reporter - anyone who professes to comment on science - to, at its least - report on the facts. He/they no longer bother to keep up with the news - especially when that news defeats his/their agenda.  And NO-ONE can accuse him or them of impartiality.  Which under usual circumstances would be the ONLY quality to qualify someone for reporting on anything at all.   Mark recommends that TK shouldn't mention me so that this blog can be forgotten.  Our hit rate at the moment is in excess of 4000 per day and climbing.  IF this is the 'obscurity' he's recommending - then LONG may such obscurity last.


Here's this month's stats alone...


2014-01-01    0    0    0    317    4,260
2014-01-02    0    0    1    340    4,594
2014-01-03    0    5    0    327    4,767
2014-01-04    0    1    3    385    6,493
2014-01-05    0    6    3    400    4,779


So - a small personal message for our Mark Dansie.  Eat your heart out.  The 'obscurity' of our blog gives us a higher hit rate than the entire OU.com forum enjoys on a daily basis.  Who would have thought?  I'm of the opinion that they read here because - unlike you - they want to evaluate the other side of this 'story' that you and TK try to promote as 'truth'.  While the number who post here are slim - the 'hit rate' is nonetheless extraordinary.


Kindest regards
Rosie

[powercat]

Our hit rate at the moment is in excess of 4000 per day and climbing.

Rosemary that's a big claim, one can only assume it's like all your other claims, you have deliberately lied or at best you have made a measurement error, it's also possible that you are using a third party or some software (Spambot) to produce the figures falsely, you just can't help being deceitful.

[poynt99]

Most likely the high count is grossly inflated due to the barrage of spam-bots accessing the pages there. Look at their "users online" if you can; 90% are spam bots.

The funny thing is, both her and Chess seem to think that they actually have that many hits from real people.

[TinselKoala]

Once again, we see that Ainslie cannot refute any of the criticisms against her claims, so she resorts to more paranoid, false accusations and insults. She now has the data from the manufacturer that she wanted, about the 555 chip's date code.... so she simply forgets about it and will no longer address the issue. She now has seen the links to three of her old YT accounts, with videos that only she could or would post.... so what happened to her denials, her claims that she "never" posted anything to YT?  She has yet again been demonstrated to be a facile, yet transparent, liar.

The fact that she is now "unretracting" the manuscripts, with their Figure 3 and other impossible scopeshots intact, indicates more than ever that she is _falsifying_ data. She has forgotten totally that she and her "team" failed miserably to reproduce those data when they were being watched so they couldn't cheat (in fact she now claims, contrary to all sense, that she "did" reproduce them, when the record clearly shows that she -- or rather her team of "experts" -- failed miserably to do so, in public.). But later scopeshots were produced that do not share the problems in Figure 3: this can only mean that whatever caused the bad data, it was discovered and corrected for those later shots. This means that SOMEONE on the Ainslie team knew that the Figure 3 and similar shots were bad... but they made it into the manuscripts and were used to support the main claims anyway. This constitutes clear and egregious and conscious _fabrication_ of data. Now she wants to "unretract" this fabricated data and has announced her intention to claim several monetary prizes, but has submitted no new data, instead choosing to claim that the earlier data is valid, when it is clearly not ..... this then constitutes pseudoscientific fraud.

[markdansie]

Rosemary that's a big claim, one can only assume it's like all your other claims, you have deliberately lied or at best you have made a measurement error, it's also possible that you are using a third party or some software (Spambot) to produce the figures falsely, you just can't help being deceitful.

I think it is not deliberate it is just out of ignorance like her claims.
Kind Regards
Mark