OK Mr. Morgan:
1. Let's agree: credentials are incidental (I'v had plenty, but likely you do not have the clearances to verify.)
2. Ad hominum stuff is unscientific. Waste of time for serious people (although I can have as much fun as anybody throwing rocks).
3. While #18 and #19 are ok, a better choice might have been #20. In it I present exactly what "Bell's theorem" says does not exist. A MODEL of EPR-B experiments that shows exactly how the data points individually arise without nonlocal information.
Since the issue is on paper, so to speak, i.e., pertains to what kind of models exist, the solution must be on paper. I do not dispute experimnents or any of the data taken. Rather, I explain it without reference to or use of quantum or any other nonlocal information---just Malus' Law.
In the thread somewhere you jumped all over your friend Extrasense for failure to do a calculation. Well, without wishing to take up his cause, I submit that I provide such calcualtions, models, simulations for all the generic EPR/GHZ entanglement experiments. If you are still unimpressed, may I expect your responce in the form of a paper explicating my errors?
Being proud of your PhD, I presume you can contribute to the arXiv, if not PRL, where your paper would get some professional attention and give me an opportunity to digest it and respond without the falderrol of journal editorial disputes. [If you can't submit to the arXiv, you can send your paper directly to me. In addition to putting it on my web page, I'll colaborate to get it on the arXiv---if I can't deflate it, that is.]
BTW, I have been in LOTS of labs. Last 2 weeks ago, in fact. Been in even more computing facilitites---earned my spurs decades ago computing shuttle navigation for NASA, for example. Forget about intimidating me; focus on my "sound and fury" for its content. Re: my attitude and the scientific community, let me quote Einstein to you: "In order to be a faultless memeber of the flock, first you must be a sheep."
"Entanglement" (& nonlocality + projection hypothsis) puts QM in contradiction to SR. Thus, the views I espouse should be seen as the more solidly grounded, not those of (you-?) who champion QM mysticism, and therfore contradictions at the foundations of science! This stuff should have been seen as symptoms of error, not wonders for X-files!
---AFK
