RandallB said:
...Rade unless someone can define “Which Way” rather than just “Which Slit” with something other than the HUP I’m not chipping in for the plane ride.
You see all he did was exchange one uncertainty with a new one, in a very “Complementarity” way per Niels Bohr. Just a little magic miss-direction by taking your attention off of “Which Way” and putting it onto “Which Slit” only in this case it seems the magician is the one most fooled by the trick.
Fair enough. I shall email Dr. Afshar with your comment and report back if I get an answer.
One question of something that concerns me about your post--why is such an obvious falsification of his experiment, that is so clear to you, not so clear to the professional physicists that peer reviewed his publication ? Seems to me (if I am to take your argument seriously) that not only the magician Afshar was the fool, but the entire editorial board of the journal must then be fools--that is, if your argument holds. But you see, I find this hard to agree with when I look at who is on the editorial board--as I post below. Also, do you really believe the editor of the journal at the time of the Afshar paper, Dr. Gerard ’t Hooft, Utrecht University, The Netherlands (1999 Nobel in Physics) did not consider your comment above ? If what you claim is so obviously true, I do not see how this paper would have been sent to a group of peer physicists to review, let alone be published.
Please understand, I am NOT trying to be rude or insulting--I only seek the facts about this experiment, I have no idea for which fools the QM bell tolls. Final question, have you addressed your concerns to Dr. 't Hooft ?
==========================================
Foundations of Physics
An International Journal Devoted to the Conceptual Bases and Fundamental Theories of Modern Physics
Chief Editor: G. 't Hooft
ISSN: 0015-9018 (print version)
ISSN: 1572-9516 (electronic version)
Journal no. 10701
Springer US
Online version available
Online First articles available
Editorial|Description|Editorial Board
Editorial Board
Chief Editor:
Gerard ’t Hooft, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Associate Editors:
Paul Busch, University of York, UK;
Dennis Dieks, Utrecht University, The Netherlands;
Erik Verlinde, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
Editorial Board:
Jeffrey Bub, University of Maryland, MD, U.S.A;;
Arthur Fine, University of Washington, Seattle, U.S.A;
Bas van Fraassen, Princeton University, NJ, U.S.A.;
Robert Geroch, University of Chicago, IL, U.S.A.;
GianCarlo Ghirardi, University of Trieste, Italy;
Sheldon Goldstein, Rutgers University, NJ, U.S.A.;
Daniel Greenberger, The City College of CUNY, NY, U.S.A.;
Alan Kostelecky, Indiana University, IN, U.S.A
Tim Maudlin, Rutgers University, Bloomington, U.S.A.;
D. Carlo Rovelli, Centre de Physique Theorique de Luminy, Marseilles, France;
Abner Shimony, Boston University, MA, U.S.A.;
Lee Smolin, Perimeter Institute, Canada;
C. Anton Zeilinger, University of Vienna, Austria;
Wojciech H. Zurek, Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM, U.S
But we read below from recent 2007 experiment that Einstein was correct--we do "know" what happens to electron between slit and screen, e.g., QM really is incomplete as now confirmed by experiment: 
