View Single Post
Old 24th November 2015, 04:16 PM   #87
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I implied error - the erratum statements show error. The clue is in the name.
Sorry, I took "forced" to mean they did not do this willingly.


Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
The column 79 connection is exactly where NIST focused. Moreso in the tech briefing than the report, granted.
Exactly.They did not attibute the failure to that one connection in isolation.


Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Which one?
There is no "one". This is where you go wrong.

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
And there you go again telling people to stop.
Yes, stop looking at a complex problem in the eyes of only one aspect.


Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
So you reckon NIST modeled the connection correctly. You're entitled to that opinion, but it remains just that - your barely asserted opinion.
They modeled it the way they saw fit and published their reasoning. It maters very little to me in the broad scheme because I've not seen anyone present a better hypothesis.

Do you guys plan to some day or are you happy trying to show some aspect of the NIST wrong?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 24th November 2015 at 04:18 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top