Again, thank you for participating in this discussion.

>I fear those of you who have responded have me at a disadvantage. What
> 'egregious' errors were made in my paper?

My comment was:
"I have no idea if he is right or wrong in his conclusions, and if he is co-operating
"sufficiently with those wishing to critique his results, but from what I have heard,
"a number of fairly egregious errors have made in rushing critiques to press."

The statement was a general one and does not specify your critique.  There
are others and also some badly-researched media articles, some of which resulted
in smears, harassment and even death threats to Dr. Bromenshenk and his family.  

You and Dr. Bromenshenk are in a far better position to assess the accuracy and
completeness of your analysis and criticism than I, and I hope you have been
communicating up to the release of your comments and that you continue to
communicate.

I don't know what I don't know, and am not going to try to guess.
What I know of this is all hearsay, so I am not going to attempt to say more than
is prudent, or finger any one person, but merely indicate what I have heard from
sources I consider reliable about the general reaction to his publication.

>As for DARPA's in-house analysis system and general access to that new
>technology, I am not sure of the current status there but that is in any case a red
>herring.

That is not how I understand it.  I don't know all the details of what DARPA has
and does not have, since much of it is classified.  Maybe you do?  I understand
that considerable delay in publication was due to the need to de-classify some of
the material and, last I heard, some aspects may still be classified.  Maybe I am
entirely misinformed?

> The issue that is central to this whole discussion revolves around the initial
>level of data interpretation, which within DARPA's system is performed by an
>algorithm called SEQUEST (as I understand from various DARPA documents)
>and that algorithm/software is available to all from a commercial source not
>affiliated with DoD.

That is not exactly what I heard, and with technology, things change overnight
without necessarily informing everyone.

I wonder how closely critics have consulted Dr. Bromenshenk to ensure that they
actually have the correct, relevant, and complete data from which to attempt
verification of his conclusions and how co-operative Dr. Bromenshenk has been.
I have never found him unwilling to discourse at length about the minute details
of his work, excepting only details which happen to be classified at the time or
proprietary.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm