The evidence comes in the form of an email exchange which went as follows:
Dear Sir or Madam:Now, this email may or may not be valid, but then again, that sort of uncertainty can be laid upon nearly anything posted to the message boards. So for now, we'll give the poster the benefit of the doubt.
The specifications for the new Boeing 787 call for the passengers and crew to
adjust the transparency of the windows electronically.
Does Jamco manufacture a variable tinting window product for aircraft
that Boeing could use?
Thank you for your attention.
XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
------------------------------------------
Dear Sir,
First of all, we are sorry for late response.
In regards to the your inquiry, JAMCO does not have such product, which can be used
on window, in our current product.
With best regards,
Tsutomu Tadokoro
Manager, Marketing & Sales
JAMCO Corporation, Aircraft Interiors Company
But then, what does this mean for REFR? Good question. To answer that, you have to go back to the chain of reasoning the promoters are using.
To listen to the promoters' own arguments, the case that SPD is the technology of choice is not based on any positive evidence directly implicating REFR or, their (only?) licensee in the aeronautical industry, Inspectech, but rather the lack of evidence implicating anything else. No, seriously. The primary argument leading to the conclusion that SPD is Boeing's technology of choice begins with the question, "what other commercially available technology could it possibly be?" This is followed by a flat dismissal of the numerous answers to that question, and eventually winds up with a conclusion that SPD is Boeing's choice by default.
In effect, because it cannot at this time be proven that the Boeing 787 windows are something else, REFR longs are supposed to assume that they will be SPD.
One might think that another multi-year low this morning might jolt a few of them out of the complacency of that line of "reasoning". One would be wrong.
