View Single Post
Old 7th April 2009, 06:09 PM   #783
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I looked a few pages back and haven't seen this posted yet. If I missed it, I apologize.

Here is Dr. Jones' most recent blog posting. I do believe he is reading this forum closely, as he addresses many of the objections that have been posted thus far.

I especially appreciate his description of the peer review, as well as what specifically must be done to make legitimate objections to the paper's findings.

http://911blogger.com/node/19780#comment
Yes, he makes an interesting point...

Quote:
So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "
Sorry, I don't have 800 bucks to spend on a "pay to play" journal. However, that does not excuse the fact that Dr. Jones did NOT present enough control samples in his work. Until someone comes up with a control sample of thermite spectra that I requested 20 pages ago, then I have to go with the paint chips hypothesis and charge that Dr. Jones did not follow scientific protocol. Perhaps that is why he had to go "pay to play" and was unable to get a reputable scientific journal to run it.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top