That is what I was trying to say but didnt find the right words. You are focusing on the claims and not the product. My guess is that you can't argue about the product so you have to attack what you can.
I have to admit to being a little stumped here. I don't understand the distinction you're drawing. They're making claims about how the product is performing. Either it performs to those claims or it doesn't, and my issue is that they haven't shown it performing to those claims yet.
I will be doing my best to test these on our big wagon because honestly, I doubt the claims, but rather than sitting behind a computer and bashing her claims, I will be doing something. If they show improvement, great. If not, then I can say that they didn't work on our wagon in real world testing.
I applaud your experiment, you seem to be interested in gathering statistically significant data. I look forward to seeing the results of your experiment, which I would find more compelling than any of the data that AeroHance has so far provided.
That said, as the one making the claim it's incumbent upon AeroHance to back up their claims. That's what I have continually pressed for.
It is called "ad hominen," arguments which attack the character of the person or source. It is a fallacy and says little or nothing toward the validity of the claims.
If you can show where I have attacked you instead of focusing on the issue of the validity of your claims I will immediately apologize and then stop posting. I have been focusing on the issue of whether or not your claims are founded in reality. With all due respect, I find them very hard to believe. I'm trying to find any claim of gas pods working that does not originate with you, and so far I have not had much luck.
Who the individual drivers are is a matter of privacy. As a policy, we do not disclose who they are, and remove identifying matter from pictures provided, eg., cover or remove license plate numbers from pictures. Although Test Team Members can opt to be disclosed, nearly all participants have chosen to allow data to be shared, but ask to remain anonymous.
No one has suggested your test team members should be exposed to public scrutiny. However, there are firms that specialize in being disinterested 3rd parties who will collect data like and attest to its authenticity. As long as you are collecting this data yourself you expose yourself to the criticism I and others raise about it.
Skully, Mohawk69, your only attack, and it is an attack in tone and subject, is that what we write cannot be trusted because of who I am. Well, bias is disclosed, and readers are intelligent and can temper their opinion in light of that.
I apologize if you feel that I'm attacking you. That is not my intent. However, you are making claims we do not believe. We are asking for proof but you keep telling us, "trust us, this guy we know says it checks out." If I don't believe your claim in the first place, how am I supposed to trust someone whose word you are conveying, and whose identity you won't disclose?
If you publish the full and complete report from an independent 3rd party we can read that report and decide for ourselves. We'll have the name of the firm so we can look at the firm to see if it's reputable. We'll be able to look at what they say about your product and whether or not the claims are reproducible. We can do all of that without ever contacting that firm. Additionally, if someone were to contact that firm about your report it probably wouldn't go any farther than "yes, we wrote that report and stand behind it." That's a very far cry from the "endless questions" you're characterizing it as.
