I hear you buddy. I appreciate your reply, tbh. I don't think your findings totally debunk the anomalies. I think they are the first test they are put to, though.
I genuinely can't thank you enough for the inter group peer review, honestly. That is invaluable.
Would you agree that there is still some anomalies worth noting from the raw data, at least? Or do you think there's too many questionable variables?
Sorry. These questions are coming from a dumbass. Lol
I hear you buddy. I appreciate your reply, tbh. I don't think your findings totally debunk the anomalies. I think they are the first test they are put to, though.
I genuinely can't thank you enough for the inter group peer review, honestly. That is invaluable.
Would you agree that there is still some anomalies worth noting from the raw data, at least? Or do you think there's too many questionable variables?
Sorry. These questions are coming from a dumbass. Lol
So glad I found this comment. It sucks that everyone is calling you names when you bring up what appears to be a valid point.
Is there no way we can get more accurate data?
Edit: I think I meant precise, not accurate.