messed on the title for it there also (grin):
http://indexterity.blogspot.com/2010/09/posted-stuff-from-10th-so-far-with-this.html

hint: i mean to defend Callahan here from the times Dan Winter doesn’t do him justice .. which luckily is not the case here. Well done.

Most people can find faults or flaws in anyone, but I am interested in the truth and what benefits to others someone has to offer. Dan Winter’s interview gave me insights into some of the issues my Research and Development Company is working on. For this I am grateful to Mr. Winter and Kim Greenhouse. I appreciate the fact that Winter made comments about Einstein’s work which could have been stated with greater diplomacy. But I truly doubt if anyone would think any less of Einstein’s great body of work just because he wasn’t right all the time!

I was top of my class in my USC physics classes, but my high school physics classes(El Camino Real in Woodland Hills,Ca) were actually more difficult. From this perspective I believe that “high school physics level statements” are too complex for most people and that Mr. Winter is a bit difficult to understand without a thorough understanding of physics and math. I believe that Winter’s web site references with regards to the subjects he had barely enough time to cover would convince most people he knows his science. I found Winter’s interview to be very rewarding and it provided me with information to do further advanced research.

If you want something which is more digestible to the “lay person”, you may want to check out the many interviews and videos of David Sereda or Nassim Haramein.

However, with reference to a few top scientists I know, I have learned that their scientific veracity is not necessarily connected to their personality traits, casual comments and quirks. For example, you may find Sereda’s conversation with his dog in one of his videos to completely discredit him as to his scientific knowledge – just as you seemed to find Mr. Winter intolerable because of his comments about Einstein.

Is your definition of a “Real Scientist” only including people who never make unpopular statements or “childishly stupid” comments? If so, I know some so-called top scientists in their field who would lose their credibility. For instance, remember that MIT department head who made those cruel and personal attacks on National TV about by Martin Fleischmann, then one of the world’s leading chemists, and Stanley Pons. After his crude statements, this most respected MIT scientist maintained his own prestige in the scientific world. It is easy to make the error in critical thinking to generalize the validity of a person’s work based on your dislike of a person’s particulate attribute, action or statement. For instance, some might discount what you have said simply because you used the term, “bulls..t.” and “crap” in your posts.
Ionpropulsion

Unless you are paid to make these comments in a lame attempt to discredit Dan Winter’s fine work, you might want to upgrade your education in science. For instance, you may want to study constructive versus destructive interference frequencies. Once you learn a little about basic scientific principles, you may get more out of this interview with Dan Winter.

As an admirer of Einstein, I recognize that no one is perfect and I am aware that some of his theories are not sacred truths. For instance, search for Dr. Thomas Van Flandern’s comments on Einstein’s theory about gravity. Einstein’s gravitation model is as well accepted by people today as was the “bleeding” medical treatment a few hundred years ago! Truth is not necessarily popular.

In the future, if you make further comments, it would be helpful to all if you made clear and factual praise or criticism instead of simply screaming out unsupported mockery.
Ionpropulsion

Tom Campbell

The Monroe Institute Lecture:

http://vimeo.com/11005286

The Hawaii Seminar:

http://il.youtube.com/results?search_query=Thomas+Campbell+-+The+Hawaii+Seminar&aq=f