Some Comments on the Five-Year Survey

Our survey, based upon not only upon Google Scholar but upon the more up-market Scopus (sorry, it is behind a pay-wall), shows that ECE has been completely ignored, citation-wise, by the academic world ever since 2003; apart from the informed criticism of expert mathematicians. The only references to all three hundred source papers have been made by Ron and his gang (99%), by a few naive authors who probably added them to a literature survey without checking, by a few critics and by independent loony-tunes.  Nobody sane contacts Ron directly; he would be unable to resist telling everybody about it. Nobody writes favorable reviews of anything to do with him; apart from his lap-dog, Penderghastly. All that Ron has to offer is the supposed interest of unknown visitors. He does not know who they are, and cannot know their motives. It is therefore the height of intellectual dishonesty to use them as ‘evidence’. It is rather akin to an old-time dishonest politician claiming the votes of those residing in the local graveyard. Ron’s crackpot theory has been used to explain perpetual-motion, antigravity, the ludicrous concept of 3-dimensional orbits and, currently, those rubbish laser demonstrations. We believe that questions should be asked in Congress and Parliament about the  defamatory remarks that Ron makes about CERN and about famous scientists. Similarly, informed critics who are deemed ‘trolls’ by notorious pseudoscientists should be encouraged to re-double their efforts and perhaps bring private prosecutions against those who illegally promote quack cancer ‘cures’ or who advertise the activities of investment fraudsters such as Searl. Claiming that death threats have been made, when they have in fact not been made, is a clear case of defamation and Ron should be brought to book for that alone. A  pseudoscientist is a criminal, in that he may well lead innocent lay investors to waste money on impossible projects. Real scientists are only human, and they have a right to be annoyed by the misleading antics of loud-mouthed cranks. There may well be thoughts “reeking with malice”, as even the incompetent journal-editor, van der Merwe, noted. Ron is the dark antithesis of the light of real science and he has perverted scientific principles for far too long. We have no faith in the accuracy of wikipedia, but even that source can spot bad apples who have been ignored by the professions and the best researchers in the world. If it really intended to destroy the career of targeted thinkers, then Ron is safe: his thoughts are demented and he has no career. George Orwell? Hmm, who was it who suppressed a petition that he did not like? Take a bow, Ron.  A large percentage of Ron’s visitors are supposedly from the U. S. and the best universities in the world. What a pity that he cannot name a single individual. “My own Cornell is currently number four in the world rankings”, he says. In what sense is it ‘his’ Cornell? One is traditionally allowed to say that only if one graduated from there. “I am sometime JRF of Wolfson College, Oxford”. There he goes again; turning a glorified visit into a lifetime under the ‘dreaming spires’. More intellectual dishonesty. AIAS is the most ridiculous pack of nutters, second only to “The Association of Distinguished American Scientists’, run by Ron’s friend ‘Dr’ Thomas Bearden, and has zero impact. Meaningless and unaccountable ‘hits’ have been misrepresented as a ‘new and rigorously objective system of measuring this impact with great precision’ because  the citation system reveals the truth. Ron is not a Nobel Laureate because the rule is that they must not push pseudoscience until after getting the prize (look at the cases of Pauling and Szent-Gyorgyi). He claims to have been nominated several times: all crackpots say that. We regard the misappropriated Civil List Pension to be the only reason for mentioning Ron at all, and we are confident that Parliament and the Head of State will eventually be shamed – by public outcry – into removing it. It is certainly unusual for someone to be a shame to two countries at once. It is lucky for Ron that the great and good have no taste for science, otherwise he would be immediately outed. Langmuir, and more recently Baez, have described Ron’s brand of lunacy as “pathological science”. “I will be nominated this year again for a Milner Prize”. Yes, Ron, in exactly the same way that you were nominated last year: not. Francis Bacon showed how to perform meaningful experiments and to link cause and effect properly. Ron falls at every hurdle..


2 Responses to “Some Comments on the Five-Year Survey”

  1. Boda Says:

    Well said Crackpotwatch.

  2. Steve David Urich Says:

    That is an outstanding essay! And borrowing Mona Lisa Vito’s utterance from the movie My Cousin Vinny: “dead on balls accurate”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: