From the site
Quote:
|
"The readers should start out by noting that there is nothing that I have to prove or disprove. There is no calculation I need to make. There is no experiment I need to do. There are no references I need to cite. There are no authorities I need to quote. There rests no burden of proof on me whatsoever. There are no credentials I have to present. Something bad went down that is in evidence and that was hidden from you, and I only need to expose it. That is all."
|
...and yes, eyes bleeding.
OK, after skimming, it seems that aguest has a problem with the physical method of gathering the measurements. He/she has researched the instrument called a "Winston Cone" which was used on COBE, and finds that it cannot gather data effectively enough (precisely enough?) for the results to be considered valid (CMBR confirmed). Perhaps I have misrepresented aguest, I didn't read all that closely (the reading gets easier once you are past the godawful colored print), but didn't COBE just confirm earth based findings? and then didn't WMAP get even better results, further confirming the CMBR?
Hmmm.