Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

This is just too easy. The idiot madwoman insists on stuffing her feet further down her throat, and continues to provide me with more material to illustrate how mendacious, evil, and probably even drunk the withered old crone actually is.  She cannot provide ANY EVIDENCE for her absurd claims and so she resorts to the kind of .... lunacy she exhibits so well.

Can you imagine the reaction of any professional scientist or journal editor when he is presented with the sum total of the damning material I have on Rosemary Ainslie? Especially if I put THIS on the top of the stack.

What an idiot she is! Doesn't she have any keepers to hold her back and prevent her from harming herself further? Perhaps it's time for another registered letter to her lawyers.

Anyway, here's something she can contemplate while she's trying to work up some real arguments and refutations of ANY of the points we've made here about her alleged "work" and her bogus "thesis" and her mendacious, fabricated "papers".

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie cannot explain, nor can she even duplicate, the scopeshot included in her mendacious daft manuscripts as "Paper1 Figure3".

There is no way this scopeshot can be produced with her claimed schematic, operating conditions and INTACT MOSFETS.
She has promised OVER AND OVER to produce an explanation that accounts for these features, even promising that test to be video recorded and presented MONTHS AGO.

But the lying mendacious ignorant arrogant wench cannot produce any evidence for her ridiculous claims and she absolutely cannot reproduce this scopeshot with intact mosfets and the schematic presented as "correct".

The inclusion of this scopeshot, and the claims made from it, in the Ainslie "papers", completely and utterly invalidate them and the conclusions and claims contained within them. She has promised to address this issue but CANNOT provide any evidence. And she certainly can't reproduce this scopeshot.... with all mosfets intact and installed as shown on the claimed schematic.

This is a separate issue from another one which also COMPLETELY invalidates all of Ainslie's reported current data, and that is the location of the Black lead from the Function Generator. She has lied about its placement in the "correct" circuit diagram she has mendaciously posted. In the two images below the analysis of the Figure 3 scopeshot, it can clearly be seen that the BLACK Lead from the FG, labelled " - " on the schematic, is attached directly to the common circuit ground point along with all the scope probe references. This is an improper location and she did NOT know that it was, until well after the video was analyzed.... and only then did the schematics appear with the FG lead in the more correct location on the transistor side of the CVR. This little bit of "insignificant" (to Ainslie) mendacity completely invalidates the current data.

[TinselKoala]

For Ainslie to be able to assert that the Black FG lead was positioned as claimed in the daft manuscripts, she has to explain why and how
1) the single mosfet version was always tested AS SHOWN, with the FG lead in the mistaken, wrong position;
2) the "mistake" was somehow corrected for the "experimental" trials reported in the manucripts;
3) the mistake was then made AGAIN when the 5 mosfet version in the demo was shown and explained with the FG lead in the wrong position;
4) the mistake was somehow corrected AGAIN when the schematics came out, AFTER the video was analyzed.

In short, examination of the FACTS and the TIMELINE reveal a totally implausible sequence of events must have happened if Ainslie's account is true. It is much simpler, and much more in keeping with Ainslie's lack of character and her rampant disregard for Truth, to believe that all the reported trials in the manuscripts were conducted just as all the rest of the trials were: with the FG Black lead misplaced, and that the corrected schematics, prepared much later,  showing it in the correct place are simply more Ains-lies.

[TinselKoala]

More spam?

We already know that you are using your honeytrap forum to harvest IP addresses of anyone who clicks thru your links, you lying sock puppet.

YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE FOR YOUR MENDACIOUS ASSERTIONS. So you choose instead to continue with this insane "Little" and "pickle" stuff. WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU?

Every time I present the INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF that Ainslie and her "papers" are full of lies..... she and her sock puppet begin a campaign of bloviation, insult and more mendacity in an attempt to bury the evidence which incriminates her in this egregious act of pseudoscientific fakery and fraud that she calls a "thesis" and "papers". Do not forget that this lying and arrogant old woman has attempted to claim THREE different monetary awards based on her mendacious reports of her so-called "experiments" which were no such thing.

Who is Bryan, or Brian Little, and why is ROSEMARY AINSLIE libelling him so much? Why can she not produce a SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE supporting her claim that I am he, or he is me? Because there is none, that is why. She cannot support her lies with facts or outside references or demonstrations. She is completely clueless, even, of just how much is revealed by analysing that single scopeshot from her daft manuscript that I've reproduced above.

Go ahead, sock puppet YouSaidNonsense, continue posting links to Ainslie's insane rants, bad "doggeral" (sic) and idiotic insults. Any that I missed will of course be included in my comprehensive database of Ains-lies.

[TinselKoala]

@TK
Have you seen this?

Yes, I have. And I've seen a lot more that you cannot even fathom.

"Guys

Our darling little 'ickle Pickle' - that charming little troll - who also answers to the name of 'chiken licken' - and Bryan little -

That is at least three lies in half a sentence. She cannot provide ANY SUPPORT for her assertion that I have ever "answered" to any of those names or appellations.

and even TK - has written a rather desperate appeal to MARK DANSIE to IGNORE my request that he investigate our claim

Again, a lie, or several. I have not asked anyone anything in "desperation" and I didn't appeal to Dansie to IGNORE her request, I simply provided him with some TRUE background information that he would not be getting from the lying mendacious claimant ROSEMARY AINSLIE, and offered him a lot more if he was still interested after considering her blunders, outright lies and complete mathematical incompetence.

- and that he simply rely on 'ickle Pickle's representations.

Another lie. You will note that I constantly referred to AINSLIE's OWN WORDS, and I even gave a link to a compilation of AINSLIE's OWN DATA.... the only such link available anywhere, since she has tried to erase the record and cover up the revealing data, and has not and never will make the raw spreadsheet data available for inspection. The evidence speaks for itself, when it's all gathered together and collated...again, something which Ainslie has never done, never will do, and resists with tooth and nail and terrible poetry.... because it reveals the TRUTH about her and her claims.

Sweet little man.  His stature is PERFECTLY reflected in his diminutive and general spitefulness of spirit.  But I appreciate his dilemma.  If Mark were to endorse our findings - then 'ickle Pickle' will be shown up for the troll that he is.  God forbid.

Kindest regards
Rosie

And may I add - it seems that our little Little is also not able to answer the question in my post 'above'.  lol.  Who would have thought?"

THIS refers to this link
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=post;quote=3778;topic=3.70;last_msg=3780

The rest is unworthy of comment....except for this: when Ainslie SUCCESSFULLY PUBLISHES any report whatsoever in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, I will be happy to PUBLISH MY COMPLETE REBUTTAL and make her look fully as stupid as she is, right in front of everybody. Until then... until never, that is.... .she can claim whatever she likes, but if it's not the Truth.... then she lies, and I have proven it over and over again, and she has never, not a SINGLE TIME, been able to refute my proofs, assertions, demonstrations, explanations or analyses.