|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
15th December 2014, 09:47 AM | #121 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
My mistake, then. If he's volunteering, he can move at his own pace. But indeed if he were estimating completion by September then I think it's reasonable to ask why, in December, the samples haven't been farmed out for independent analysis. The moral argument shifts slightly -- the donors shouldn't have to wait too long for him to do his work to have their contributions made effectual for other, paid work.
|
15th December 2014, 10:13 AM | #122 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
If the truth movement had Jim Milletes work tattooed on their foreheads they would still deny the results. It will make no difference to the remaning truthers if Jim Millette publishes his results. Remember the NWO have paid him off.
People such as MM will always taunt you because they couldn't bare to be wrong, you only need to read his posts. When proven wrong he just disappears for a while hoping everyone will forget. There are many people in this world who do the same except on forums like this it's there for everyone to see. But who really cares about MM,s thoughts ? It's an Internet forum. Jim Millette has done his work, it's only people like Harritt who won't believe anything unless the work is published. It's just a shame for Harrit that he can't get his own work published anywhere other than Bentham. |
15th December 2014, 11:00 AM | #123 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
Oystein, I put MM on ignore years ago. It's really not worth responding to him IMO.
|
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon' |
|
15th December 2014, 11:04 AM | #124 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
Slightly OT but IIRC Jones et al. said they were going to carry on further testing, I think this was back in 2009.... they've been awfully quiet about it!
It all reminds one of that hesitation when walking towards the gallows... |
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon' |
|
15th December 2014, 01:40 PM | #125 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
15th December 2014, 04:23 PM | #126 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
|
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon' |
|
15th December 2014, 04:39 PM | #127 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
Especially considering they are the ones that would conclusively prove (as they claim) Millette had the wrong chips.
"Truthers" don't care, their heroes word is good enough. Pay no attention to the fact they want everyone else to jump through hoops. Wait, I think I got another quest they are not allowed to ask. |
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
21st December 2014, 02:19 PM | #128 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
Hey, Rick payed the bill...........
http://markbasile.org/ Still wondering what happened to the $1000 physics challenge proceeds. |
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
29th December 2014, 10:56 AM | #129 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
More wonderful chances at chain of custody fail:
Quote:
|
24th January 2015, 12:52 PM | #130 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
Just bumping to make sure this thread doesn't get lost.
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
24th January 2015, 03:55 PM | #131 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,557
|
|
24th January 2015, 04:18 PM | #132 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
I'm not sure I would be so hard on Mark. The sponsor of this "study" would be a better person to look at. Hell, they "lost"* $1000 (usd) of their own money.
Best guess...............Mark can't get them to pay for the study they collected for..... *there's no reason to believe the "physics challenge" money was ever there. |
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
25th January 2015, 10:13 AM | #133 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
It does seem to be taking rather a long time. Is it getting on for two years now ?
|
25th January 2015, 10:51 AM | #134 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
Two years? LOL
Here is a file with a proposal: http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/prop...11_09_2011.doc Apparently, this was published in September 2011 - 3 1/2 years ago. But it wasn't the original proposal. Basile had already received a quote from a lab: Date of Quote: 10/22/09 That's October 2009, right? So he has been at it for 5 1/2 years! Our friends JM Talboo and Ziggy Zugam started promoting this and the fundraiser in December 2012, just over 2 years ago, but I am fairly certain the fundraiser had been sitting there for many months already. |
25th January 2015, 10:58 AM | #135 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
25th January 2015, 02:46 PM | #136 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
25th January 2015, 02:49 PM | #137 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
7th March 2015, 06:55 PM | #138 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
Now that Ziggi is around, I wonder if he could ask his buddy Rick about what happened to $1000 that was supposed to be awarded after the "physics challenge". It seems to have disappeared. My bet is it was never there to begin with. I'd also bet there is no money for the "new study".
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
7th March 2015, 07:10 PM | #139 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
|
WOW, are you people trying to make this into a big story? Big scandal eh? Get a life. Griscom donated the $1000 to Rick and left it up to him to allocate the money. Rick was going to put it into Mark´s study but then decided to use it to help run his ANETA organization.
BTW, where is the thread about updates on Millette´s study? Oh sorry, that was cancelled. Seems like he does not want to have anything to do with you lot these days, just like JREF. |
7th March 2015, 07:34 PM | #140 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Millette found no thermite, guess 911 truth has problems with reality. Not a surprise, Jones made up the lie of thermite based on sparks coming out of the WTC towers. He waved his hands and said thermite, and the faith based followers believe, and then some failed 911 truth nuts (jones, harrit, etal) faked a conclusion where the dust did not match the energy of thermite, or a DSC; why did they do a DSC, it makes them appear incompetent; darn they are; can you explain? No. That is why 911 truth is easy to debunk, they offer no rational work, no evidence, and no truth.
So far not a single piece of iron from thermite has shown up from the WTC on 911. darn, you have a fantasy, with no evidence. What is next. Why does it take so long for 911 truth to do stuff on what would be the biggest story in history if it was not some insane BS Jones made up four years after 911. Why do you lie about Millette´s study? When will you start with the passports, Flt 77, Flt 93; was thermite used on 77 and 93? lol, 13 years of fantasy, and where is Jones We have claims which would be the biggest story since Watergate, and Jones is off doing BS with "over unity circuits", why have you failed to follow Jones on his new folly? Jones leaves you with his fantasy, a big lie in vanity paper, and all you can do is make personal attacks on Millette because he did not find thermite in dust, the same as Jones and Harrit; yet Jones and Harrit make a false conclusion. Why has the Jones paper failed to make an impact? Mark has updated his study, he is taking time to be right; right on a fantasy made up by old men. cool - did he spend the money on something else? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...12webHiRes.pdf Why do you lie? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...12webHiRes.pdf looks like you lie, why do you lie about things? What is your theory? Why did you fall for the thermite scam? The Jones paper clearly does not prove it was thermite - why can't you see that? The big killer is the energy in the dust, it does not match thermite; the paper makes up BS and 911 truth faith based followers believe. Do any 911 truth followers take chemistry? What is sad for 911 truth; you don't need chemistry to see the paper is nonsense; reading comprehension is good enough. |
7th March 2015, 07:59 PM | #141 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
|
7th March 2015, 08:14 PM | #142 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
7th March 2015, 08:49 PM | #143 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
|
7th March 2015, 08:53 PM | #144 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
|
I find it incomprehensible that people calling themselves scientists would not know that proper scientific testing of an hypothesis must include tests that could potentially disprove that hypothesis. In fact, those would be the most important tests -- at least for anyone making a serious and honest effort. i won't speculate why the Harrit group completely avoided any such tests, because it really doesn't matter. I won't speculate why, in all the years since, they have not rectified that fatal shortcoming in their study by doing such tests, because it really doesn't matter.
Basile's project to attempt to duplicate the Harrit tests is a complete waste of time and money, because a conclusion of thermite simply doesn't follow from Harrit's results, even if taken at face value and even if those results are duplicated. Millette tested for elemental aluminum and found none, which means no thermitic reaction was possible. How much would it cost Basile to duplicate that test? If none is found, then no further tests are necessary. Instead of anything remotely resembling a competent and honest effort to determine if the chips are thermitic, we get the perfectly idiotic assertion that only thermite can produce iron-rich microspheres, defended by people like Ziggi who think they can glibly fast-talk their way around what is painfully obvious. |
7th March 2015, 09:42 PM | #145 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
I emailed Rick Shaddock on January 29, 2015:
Originally Posted by me
No response so far. I just emailed Rick again, asking if he got a reply from Mark. |
8th March 2015, 04:14 AM | #146 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
Why would anyone think there is a scandal ? It's not the first time the truth movement raised money and have not produced, I would say it's standard Truther procedure.
Perhaps you could update us? Or shall we just leave it looking like Mark Basile has the money and is doing nothing? As for a Millette follow up thread, I believe Chris was asking for a follow up and Jim Millette has not done so, but then why would he want to drag his name over conspiracy sites like DTD and 911 conspiracy forums such as this. |
8th March 2015, 04:27 AM | #147 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
You have got some brass neck to accuse others of not following up. Here is a direct quote from the Harrit et al paper:
Quote:
6 years later and those FTIR results have never been published. FTIR is one of the most important procedures possible in this case to positively identify the material. FTIR will tell you what the carbon matrix is and will tell you whether kaolin is present (epoxy and yes present -see Millett). It is infinitely more important than DSC, ignition tests, MEK soaking, resistance testing which all made it into the paper. There is a reason why FTIR data was never included and has never been published. It will categorically show that the red material is paint without any doubt. So why don't you get on the case and push for that FTIR data to be published in full or are you happy with your double-standards? |
8th March 2015, 06:46 AM | #148 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
|
|
8th March 2015, 10:17 AM | #149 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
|
Welcome back Sunstealer! For the 2009 thermitic paper, Kevin Ryan did FTIR work on the chips and Jeffrey Farrer did a TEM analysis. Neither results appeared in the final paper, though some of the TEM data has been released (and I think maybe even some FTIR data, does anyone have more info on either?). I'm trying to remember if there has ever been a public explanation as to why these results have not been released. I recall MM at one point saying it is not necessary to release all data for a published paper (word count restrictions and all that). And of course, Steven Jones is on to other projects. Sunstealer, can you give your opinion on the potential value of the unpublished TEM data?
|
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com |
|
8th March 2015, 10:21 AM | #150 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
|
As for delays on Millete vs Basile vs Jones/Harrit et al, I'm frustrated that EVERYTHING takes so long... on both sides! I have a videotape all recorded and ready to produce about all this, and I haven't had time to teach myself a video editing program. Again, if anyone wants to volunteer to help with editing this, I'm guessing it would take ten hours or so. I have everything ready to go.
|
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com |
|
8th March 2015, 11:23 AM | #151 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
"some of the TEM data has been released" - really? I don't recall having seen any data. I only remember having read a comment or two by Steven Jones with some qualitative statements (I think he mentioned the presence of strontium and chromium in some chips, as well as lead). If you know where any TEM-data by Farrer can be found, link please!
I am not aware that any of Ryan's FTIR data has been release with the exception of one chart next to an FTIR-chart from some other, Fluorine-bearing material (Viton A): https://ultruth.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/ftir911.jpg This is shown in this post on his blog, with no real explanation:
Originally Posted by Kevin Ryan
Kevin Ryan continues the quote above:
Originally Posted by Kevin Ryan
I have seen the 12-page peer-review by David Griscom - 3 years ago almost. I have not seen the draft by Harrit et al that Griscom reviewed, so some of his comments are difficult to understand (for example, when he makes comments on images that didn't make into the final paper), but it seems clear from the review, as well as from comments later made by the authors, that many figures and also some swaths of text were excised. I do not recall any comments on FTIR work that later would have fallen victim to the cuts, but I can't be 100% sure that there weren't any - with memory being a bitch and all. So IF the FTIR data was left out for the sake of brevity, that decision was made by the authors and wasn't a result of the peer-review. |
8th March 2015, 12:47 PM | #152 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
|
Kevin Ryan has FTIR data that is just "as published" as Millette´s FTIR data, and he was showing some of it in public as far back as 2009. There was a lot of ranting on this forum about Harrit et al "hiding" this data back then, when Ryan was touring the country showing it at lectures. Very funny and very typical for the forum. Seems like Sunstealer still can´t find it.
Quote:
It is one thing to rant on the forum and another to publish scientific papers formally under your real name, and at some point you will have to realize that. |
8th March 2015, 12:59 PM | #153 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
8th March 2015, 01:03 PM | #154 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
Oops, I think Ziggi has forgotten he has an audiance who can reply.
|
8th March 2015, 01:41 PM | #155 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
8th March 2015, 01:42 PM | #156 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
8th March 2015, 01:56 PM | #157 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
8th March 2015, 04:17 PM | #158 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
Ivan had some images and commented on them here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...75#post9451375 and here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...60#post9455960 I reposted the images with his permission, for everyone to have access, here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...43#post9458443 |
8th March 2015, 06:18 PM | #159 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
|
Oystein, I may be mistaken in my memory. Pgimeno showed us what Ivan was able to pull off a screen shot, which may be all there is. There have been comments by Jones, Ryan and Harrit, but perhaps that's all I've actually seen.
Sunstealer, if you're still around, can you tell me what the TEM data might show us if it were released by the Harrit/Jones/Ryan/Farrer team? Alternatively, Oystein perhaps you can help... ideally something quoting someone like Sunstealer or at least your understanding of what light TEM data can shed on this. I am reading Ziggi's taunts and insults but have no response at this time. His assumptions about Millette are a good example of how people on both sides of this debate can go ad hominem and assume the worst of people without knowing what they are talking about. This is why I also gave up on MM. |
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com |
|
8th March 2015, 06:46 PM | #160 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
Also, it's one thing to legitimately publish research, and it's another to conduct a "study" with people who already have the conclusion they want, have it peer reviewed by at least 1 person who already agrees with your conclusion (Not to mention collaborated with them while that person was supposed to be an anonymous unbiased reviewer), and get published in a fake journal.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|