Mr. Randi I have spotted the logical trap in your exercise.
An "exercise to demonstrate that it is not possible to sort out pseudoscientific gibberish from purposely invented gibberish."
As I doubt that the makers of the device in question have actually conducted any sort of study of anything even remotely related to:
(a) the basis for the machines (supposed) operation, or
(b) whether it actually does anything or not
I believe the purveyors of the machine made up their text.
So we are asked to separate purposely invented gibberish from other purposely invented gibberish.
I think both authors knew what they were writing was nonsense, and the only difference is Mr. Randi has admitted it.
An "exercise to demonstrate that it is not possible to sort out pseudoscientific gibberish from purposely invented gibberish."
As I doubt that the makers of the device in question have actually conducted any sort of study of anything even remotely related to:
(a) the basis for the machines (supposed) operation, or
(b) whether it actually does anything or not
I believe the purveyors of the machine made up their text.
So we are asked to separate purposely invented gibberish from other purposely invented gibberish.
I think both authors knew what they were writing was nonsense, and the only difference is Mr. Randi has admitted it.