[Clascomment] Comment on 'Comment on the narrow baryon peak reported by Amaryan et al.' by Volker Burkert et al.

[Victor Mokeev]

  Dear Colleagues,

 I would be disagree with the attitude presented in the comment by M.Osipenko.

This CLAS Collaboration paper is a very particular. We do not present new
scientific results here. Instead, we just showed that the data uncertainties do
not allow us to make sound conclusion on the structure appearance, reported in
the paper by Moskov and others. I can not see any sense to present the proof of
the structure non-existence, working INSIDE the data uncertainties.

Furthermore, whatever situation with this hypothetical signal is, this signal is
certainly NOT interpretable. The statistical limitations (at least) makes it
impossible to distinguish between hypothetical structure origins as physical
particle, or kinematical reflection, or dynamical pole, or unitarity cut
manifestation (see the EBAC papers for details), or cusp, or... allow me to stop
here.

I don't think we need to spend many years working inside the data uncertainties.

>From the other hand, we need to demonstrate for international expert community
and for the funding agencies, that we are healthy collaboration, and we are
capable to come to coherent conclusion in our internal reviews of our results.
This CLAS paper and
in particular the 'CLAS Internal Reviews' part well serve for these purposes.

 Best Regards,
                               Victor