The only "glaring hole" I've noticed is Robert's dislike of the explanation they offer.
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 10:37:09 -0600, Joe Niederberger <email@example.com> wrote:
> R Hansen says: >> They take data that is very simply explained, ignore the simple >> explanation entirely, and craft a more complicated explanation and then >> ignore all of the glaring holes that arise from the complicated >> explanation. But most of us know that these are not "scientific" papers. > > I get it -- your simplistic explanations appeal to you. You find them > quite convincing. I understand. For others, your explanations "are not > even wrong" to quote Pauli. > > Cheers, > Joe N >