@Tony
This is kind of interesting "We’ve seen a number of tests and we’ve had a lot of people looking at tests.".
Does not really correlate with the "blame the swedes" narrative used today, does it?
Well it does, for an at the time naive IH. Not as naive, obviously, as the centre of opinion at ECW, but still not aware of how in Rossi's hands, using multiple different mechanisms, large false positives can reliably be generated in Rossi-controlled tests. Neither seeing the tests, nor other people looking at them helps, as those who have watched this from the start (like me) realise. You need skeptics looking to see these errors because if you buy the "Rossi is very clever, and honest enough not to falsify tests" you tend to believe his test setups when the errors in them are not immediately detected by apparently qualified observers. This happened time and time again. And the evidence from the Swedes appeared independent and from decent scientists. it was very credible.
You might parse the above paragraph to mean i'm saying Rossi consciously falsifies tests; that would be incorrect. I'm merely saying that his tests have all had unchecked error mechanisms that could account for the results (the Ferrara tests are the nearest to ones where the actual likely error mechanism cannot be determined from close analysis of public data). Of course Rossi is not the one to do checking: his famous comment that control experiments are unnecessary says it all.
So, Darden was naive then. Is not so now. You can sort of tell when things changed from the "we will be very cautious" PR during the 1 year test.