I read with interest V{\'a}clav Z{\'a}veský{'}s article (Elemente d. N. 77, 2002) on the verifi cation of Lili Kolisko{'}s experiments concerning metal salt solutions and planets. His conclusion: he couldn{'}t repeat the experiments, therefore there is no visible relation between the planets and these salt solutions. Further he says: why do this research, the influence of the cosmos on the living world is evident for everyone to see, most visibly in the plant world. Nobody can dispute this last observation. However, that is different from what Kolisko (and others) wanted to demonstrate.
This case has the same flavour as the research done by Spie{\ss} on Maria Thun{'}s work. Here also a negative result and a lot of interesting information in the process.
There is nothing against work being repeated by others, to try to verify previous results. It is a common practice amongst mainstream scientists which sometimes leads to success, sometimes shows up fraudulent work.
Kolisko and Fyfe have done these experiments for many years and have, as far as I{'}m aware, come up with changes in the images during particular planetary configu rations, which are consistent in that there is a lack of detail in the images. There are, I think, only two possibilities: either these results are valid or both researchers were highly skilled fraudsters. [...]
{\&}nbsp;
I read with interest V{\'a}clav Z{\'a}veský{'}s article (Elemente d. N. 77, 2002) on the verifi cation of Lili Kolisko{'}s experiments concerning metal salt solutions and planets. His conclusion: he couldn{'}t repeat the experiments, therefore there is no visible relation between the planets and these salt solutions. Further he says: why do this research, the influence of the cosmos on the living world is evident for everyone to see, most visibly in the plant world. Nobody can dispute this last observation. However, that is different from what Kolisko (and others) wanted to demonstrate.
This case has the same flavour as the research done by Spie{\ss} on Maria Thun{'}s work. Here also a negative result and a lot of interesting information in the process.
There is nothing against work being repeated by others, to try to verify previous results. It is a common practice amongst mainstream scientists which sometimes leads to success, sometimes shows up fraudulent work.
Kolisko and Fyfe have done these experiments for many years and have, as far as I{'}m aware, come up with changes in the images during particular planetary configu rations, which are consistent in that there is a lack of detail in the images. There are, I think, only two possibilities: either these results are valid or both researchers were highly skilled fraudsters. [...]
{\&}nbsp;