John, I'll be the first to apologize if I made a mistake. However, I've read that passage several times, and it directly implies that data was changed, as well as a date. Which in my book is about as low a blow you can direct to an engineer or a scientist.

My reading of GR's response indicated that he did not address the offending text, but merely was attempting to misdirect the discussion as he so often does, while doing nothing to repair the damage of the inference made in his post.

In fact, Mr. Roberts in a subsequent post went on to further the inference that data was changed in the following statement:

"As I understant this, you say I accused Nick and Sam of changing their test results so that they conflict with Nick's book. (the current results show 4oz/.250"/4oz being equivalent to 12oz/.250"/6oz).

You might have a point if the current results spoorted Nick's book, but ... "

John, I will apologize for the uncivility of my response....I could have chosen my words better to respond to Mr. Roberts, but I stand by my reading of his comments that he is accusing people of changing data, and he does not make anywhere near a compelling case that anything of the sort occurred.