God, you're an idiot. I REALLY don't have the time to explain all the many ways that you're a presumptious idiot Bongoman, and how much of your view of the world is simply a false reflection of your ignorance (including how you think you can read my mind and know me by the ignorant prejudices you have about me). The first problem with your ignorant mini-rant, is that civil rights, humane treatment of animals, quantum physics did not get their first "push" around the time that Belt was discovering this phenomenon known as "Beltism". The Civil rights act was written in 1964. Animal rights go back to 1635, fool. Quantum physics started in 1838 with the discovery of the cathode ray by Michael Faraday. Beltism started somewhere around 1984, so in no way shape or form does his "timetable parallel those 'trends' " as you call them. The examples you listed in your foolish strawman argument all have one thing in common: they do not ask people to consider the existence of new scientific laws that we all must live under. Principles not yet explored or scientifically validated; and which can only be guessed at. Nor do they require good listening skills (or other sensory skills) to understand the concepts of civil or animal rights, or quantum mechanics.
Ever heard of Thomas Harriot, fool? Didn't think so. He charted the moon's craters before Gallileo did. He never got around to publishing his papers, because of the backlash that he knew would be created if he proposed this kind of controversial theory. A scientific backlash then could mean you having your head chopped off. After considerable acceptance in the press over his revolutionary discoveries, Belt also received a kind of backlash from the hifi press, as the audio industry threatened to pull ads out of the hifi publications if they continued to favour his products. Ads are the backbone of their existence. So you see, there were always knee-jerking fools who react with an angry backlash to scientific discoveries too advanced for their time. You have a long list of ancestors to have done so. The blind studies a medical establishment had done, which I mentioned, weren't finished and published. That's why I can't produce any reference article for them. They never saw the light of day because the chief medical officer was afraid of being associated with anything that appeared to be "quackery", and this harming any chance of grants the hospital might receive. Despite the results of the test saying otherwise, and having the potential to help many hearing-aid wearers.
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, despite all his research that HAS been duplicated by others, is "enjoying" the same kind of sick, ignorant backlash in the scientific community, that Belt received in the audio community. Because of people like you, who are so convinced it's all BS, you won't even take the time and patience required to properly explore and understand this phenomenon. You've so thoroughly convinced yourselves that it's quackery of the utmost order, that you're not even capable of succeeding in any Belt-related experiments, because of your reverse expectation bias (related to a "nocebo"). Presuming you had adequate listening skills to begin with, the only chance narrow-minded goons like you might have of hearing the changes this phenomenon can bring about, is if you didn't know what you were being tested on (this is why I almost never tell people what I'm testing during my Belt tests, and most times, they hear the differences).
If you weren't such an idiot as you are, and knew the first thing about science, you'd have realized that "placebos", your argument for what the Belt products are, do not last for 25 years over thousands of trials by thousands of people. Nor do audio companies who sell products that don't do anything, last for 25 years in the business. And if you think it's a simple easy matter, both economically and politically, for an audio engineer in Leeds to get peer-reviewed on a phenomenon that affects only the senses and can't be measured in any objective manner (through no fault of his own), especially when he isn't a member of the scientific community let alone the AES, shows what an ignorant puss you are when it comes to the politics of scientific community. Mind you, all of your other comments on this board shows how ignorant you are in general, so I'm not suggesting your obnoxious ignorance is only limited to the politics of the scientific community. The fact that you spilled thousands of hostile words over this issue but were afraid to take a 1-minute experiment, for fear of looking like the fool you already look like, pretty much says it all.
BTW, I don't know what "tl;dr" means that people are responding with. Nor do I wish to join this cult you people belong to, in order to find out - not the least of which is because I don't care to know what your secret handshake gibberish means. So if all anyone is going to do is quote the entire length of my meaningful and coherent message just to write "tl;dr", or some equally stupid and meaningless response, please refrain from behaving like stupid trolls. I realize the message is too long for people here to read, because y'all are just not used to "reading". Or any intellectual pursuit greater than "Grand Theft Auto" on your Playstations, as it appears. If you have nothing intelligent to say in the end, then don't make me scroll through your stupidity, and just go pluck on your bass or get drunk, whatever you're good at.
Avoid anything to do with the vagaries and complexities of "science" and you'll all be A-ok, I'm sure.
I did briefly consider picking apart this post to point out some things which I thought were incorrect/contradictory/destroy your argument, but I couldn't be bothered. Too busy playing "Grand Theft Auto" on my "Playstation".
Instead, let me say this - you must have realised by now that no one believes what you are saying about all of this stuff. So why are you still hanging around? If you're just going to rant and insult the population of this forum then what is the point in you being here? It's not our fault that we haven't been sucked in by this non-factual, non-measurable, non-explainable phenomenon that you are peddling.
It seems to me that you have realised that no one here is going to be convinced by your 'science'.
