All of which is, in some sense a restatement of the misgivings many have expressed here.
I find it difficult when all the scientific minds I know can't figure out what they are really saying, and say something along those lines. My brother got back to me saying that the optics guy he ran it past at his lab (Max Planck - hardly a second rate bunch) just said it wasn't worth his time.
So, we are between a couple of rocks. The one scientist I know of who seems to support it, (outside of the company) is ahahaa who has posted on this thread. And while he seems a nice guy, he can't really do much except restate what they have in their patent and talk about what he doesn't understand.
It was this perception that aroused my deepest suspicions in the first place. And while it seems that they have something going on with UC SD and they have people at that facility that have a positive view of what they are doing, and like them, one is still left in the end (at this point) with a kind of vague bundle of loose ends.
Who knows - it could still be a con, albeit of a very advanced type. I am not saying that it is, but stranger things have happened. And as someone said elsewhere, it is doubtful that any jury could be convinced that there was not legitimate intent.
Things that remain *this* muddy after pretty detailed investigation by knowledgeable people - well ...
What would be interesting is to see what kind of clarification and rebuttal the Silkroad folks would give, and how it would work out. Just because someone is a professor or a highly experienced expert in an area doesn't mean they can't miss something.
I have had the experience of having a paper responded to that I had written, and it was clear that the reviewer just didn't get it. We were able to clarify things. But it took some work. Anything new tends to be difficult to follow for minds in old grooves.
So - the jury is out. It really does seem to be that for an analysis that has more meaning it will take getting the principals together in a room to hash it all out.
Anything short of that is likely to be just more shilly-shally if you ask me. |
