RogerDodger
I shall maintain this running list, and solicit additional questions from other posters. If and when RogerDodger answers a question honestly, I will move that question to the "Answered / Corrected" category, but not before. Each RogerDodger evasive, red herring post will be met with this list until he quits this artful dodger routine.
Unanswered - General
1. (Regarding the Coghill challenge inciting infanticide) Do you believe the infant will die if put to this test or do you believe the infant would be safe?
R1 (response to question 1):
I do not know the full answer to this question because each infant is different and the E-field level will probably vary over time also. This is honestly what I would expect to happen after about eight hours of exposure: I expect the infant will begin to show all the initial signs of SIDS, e.g. pallor, anoxia or hypoxia, or temporary cessation of breathing, overt signs of distress, effort to evade the field, and other signs of "near miss SIDS" reported in the SIDS literature (Jean Golding et al's book on Sudden Infant Death, Open Books, 1985, Chapter three gives a good description of these symptoms as well as chap 15).
I expect the mother will be unable to prevent herself picking up the infant and removing it from the field at this point. About an houir after the infant enjoys the protection of the mother's endogenous field it will recover fully. I will at this point consider the "experiment" over, and that I have proved my prediction. However, should the mother or others decide to re-place the infant in the field, the infant would be in grave danger and I myself would remove it forcibly if necessary, for its own protection. If anyone prevented me from this and the infant was allowed to stay in the field, it woukld probably die within a few days, first having exhibited snuffles, cold-like symptoms and evident signs of trying to evade the feild. It would try to wriggle doan the cot for example, and may get jammed up against the cvot rails at the furthest point of the field strength. I doubt this will ever happen since before any of this I would explain the scientific background to the parents, and I veru much doubt they would wish to cointinue the experiment. As I have said this is simply conjecture ansd speculation, since no one has ever come forward to try.
"The mother's endogenous field"? I asked for truthful answers, sir, not more delusion. You think you are off the hook because you will prevent the infant from enduring the entire test? How so, since you also claim such exposure causes childhood leukemia. How will you remove this harm, sir? Do you sell magic wands that suck up the harm after the fact?
2. (Regarding the Coghill challenge inciting infantiicde) If you believe the infant will die, why are you offering this morally repugnant challenge?
I am issuing this challenge because it is morally repugnant to me that the establishment are fully aware of this problem and have refused to admit it for commercial reasons. By its issue I hope not to actually carry it out but to elicit a response from the NRPB , including an explanation about the secret tests they have carried out at Bristol, never reported, on 32 infants by Dr Fleming there in or around 1990.
An interesting moral equation. It is OK for you to put infants at risk because others have already died and this has been covered up. Can you say bullsh!t?
3. (Regarding the Coghill challenge inciting infanticide) If you don't beleive the infant will die, why are you fraudulently claiming great harm from the power lines?
I believe the infant will die if left in the field for 30 days. I also believe that the electric fields would have been responsible for the sudden unexpected death of a perfectly healthy infant.
Yes, this has been clear. And this has been clearly dodged by you for page after page of this thread. In your answer to 1, however, you speak about warning signs for SIDS. Here you speak of no warning signs for SIDS.
3a. Who is the insurer for this challenge, then, sir, as you have clearly outlined a scenario in which the infant suddenly and unexpectedly would die? Surely you have an insurer for the lawsuit which will follow?
Unanswered - Factual Errors
5. Was not your case "ejected from court," as the BBC put it?
No. The case was heard in its entirety over a two day period.
Two whole days? Wow. The BBC says it was ejected after two days of expert testimony. You didn't even get to examinations of culpability, sir, the magistrates heard enough after simply listening to your pseudoscience. They saw right through it, sir. You keep trying to deflect the facts, but they heard the experts, they yawned and stopped the trial.
6. Did you not claim to the media that you spent over 20,000 pounds bringing the case to trial?
No. In response to a question from a BBC reporter after the case I claimed that the case had probaly cost around £20,000. He/she never asked me if I would have to pay these costs myself, so I had no opportunity of explaining then that the costs were not for my settlement. AT the time I recall that I felt that this question was somewhat irrelevant and trivial compared with the far more important issue of cellphone safety, both then and now.
Read the quote from him/her, the reporter whose gender you can't even remember. The reporter says "personal costs". This has nothing to do with the settlement, sir.
7. Did the court not order your side to pay the defendant's costs, as reported in the media?
To be honest, I cannot remember, but it will presumably be in the court record. All I can say is that I personally paid no costs, and so far as I am aware the NRPB tendered none, nor did anyone else for that matter. Again I never thought this was of any importance compared with the issue of mobile phone safety.
So, the track record so far is you first made us aware of this highly significant case as if you had won it, then we found out otherwise, and now the significance fades in your mind. You can't remember the gender of the reporter. You can't remember the essential outcome of the trial. You keep equivocating on your personal outlays versus your side's outlays. You keep trying to confound the issue of your pre-trial costs and your post-trial settlements.
Very significant case that you're personally responsible for and the details of which fade rapidly under scrutiny.
Unanswered - Scientific Gaffes
4. Do you acknowledge that radio waves continue to self-propogate long after the transmitter's power plug is pulled?
I acknowledge that radio waves will continue to propagate through space at around the speed of light after the transmitter's power is collapsed, but these propagations will attenuate greatly, and not be long in detectable duration. If it were correct that they continue indefinitely as has been suggested so as to reach e.g. ACentauri some light years later, then all radio signals emitted on this planet since the first one would still be there and detectable, which they are not, so far as i know. But I don't beleive in ghosts, which I suppose is how these signals might be described, since I have no real evidence of the phenomenon.
I must add that I never disagreed with this view, i merely said that IMHO Moulder did not explain it very well, because I felt that people might construe his remarks as suggesting that they would still hear such signals later.
Need I quote to you ONCE AGAIN what you actually said, sir?
9. Do you not know bacteria are not animals?
Yes. Aerobic bacteria respire and have independent movement, as do animals, so might satisfy certain definitions of animal, but generally bacteria are not classified to the animal kingdom
More biology expertise here? Some plants, too, sir, does that movement justify calling them animals?
11. Please respond to this logical consequence of your claims about cancer: "With a finite amount of carcinogen available, if cancer was caused by chemical interaction, then your carcinogen would run out and hey presto no more cancerous cells?"
12. If your claim about carcinogens were correct, then why isn't your solution to your supposed power-line-cancers simply to move away? Why will that not cure the cancer?
13. What evidence do you have that "radio waves cause [AIDS] to happen... and the viruses are somehow transmitting itself through the sexual activity," as you've been quoted as saying?
14. What is your evidence that"[t]he frequencies mobile phones use [are] exactly identical to the frequencies with which human skull vibrates," as you've been quoted as saying?
Answered / Corrected
8. Do you not know worms are animals? (Acknowledged.)
10. Do you not know humans are mammals? (Acknowledged)
