Listen...ask Dan Rather whether even large organizations such as the one he used to work for "go over" articles or not. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don;t. Other times they print or air it regardless of its authenticity.



No Lasd02, you won;t be back here eating humble pie. Look, you started a great thread, I think. You made some good points. The point here though, is that Doc Gordon says the heat loss through the head thing is a myth. It ain't. You will wear a hat in the winter as I'm confident you do now, so there is no need to say you'll "start" wearing one (or two) "if" you're proven wrong. Lasd02, the thing is, your sources don;t need to be discredited. You don;t need t be proven wrong! Your sources NEED to discredit empirical evidence. I ask again....how did Doc Gordon, et al< debunk the "myth"?

Say a man writes in the Scientific American that the earth is actually shaped like a triangle. Nobody needs to prove him wrong.... he's already known to be wrong! "He" is the one who has to prove his theory and, thusly, prove wrong what is already known. Is this still not making sense? I'm asking sincerely here, because I think maybe I'm not being clear.