Fantasy Movement Suffers Knockdown

pomeroo · 30th May 2007, 04:26 PM

Our good friends James and Pat at SLC posted a small item that merely destroys the underpinnings of much pseudo-science peddled by charlatans like Steven Jones. Please see, "Source of the Glow Revealed."

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

T.A.M. · 30th May 2007, 04:49 PM

yes the infamous "molten metal" claimed, is, in fact, a big flashlight...

TAM

The Demon's Head · 30th May 2007, 05:14 PM

The theorists either didn't examine the evidence properly or just neglected it to posit a theory in it's place so that it would help their case.

Gravy · 30th May 2007, 05:35 PM

I think they're confusing two photos there. The upper one on that page shows ironworkers (they have distinctive helmets), apparently using a torch. The source caption mentions that cleanup was underway.

The lower photo is similar to the photo in Jones' paper that he claimed was firefighters apparently peering into the molten core, but which was simply a rescue or recovery scene lit by artificial light, and which had had its color altered. The "Jones" photo is on display with its original color at Ground Zero, and is in the collection "New York: A Democracy of Photographs." You can see it here, under "Photo follies." In his book "Aftermath," Joel Meyerowitz has a photo that may be of the same rescue/recovery effort as in Jones' paper.

I've never seen anyone but Jones misrepresent those photos, and he's aware of the problem, so I don't think this is much of a knockdown this is to the movement.

pomeroo · 30th May 2007, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gravy

I think they're confusing two photos there. The upper one on that page shows ironworkers (they have distinctive helmets), apparently using a torch. The source caption mentions that cleanup was underway.

The lower photo is similar to the photo in Jones' paper that he claimed was firefighters apparently peering into the molten core, but which was simply a rescue or recovery scene lit by artificial light, and which had had its color altered. The "Jones" photo is on display with its original color at Ground Zero, and is in the collection "New York: A Democracy of Photographs." You can see it here, under "Photo follies." In his book "Aftermath," Joel Meyerowitz has a photo that may be of the same rescue/recovery effort as in Jones' paper.

I've never seen anyone but Jones misrepresent those photos, and he's aware of the problem, so I don't think this is much of a knockdown this is to the movement.

Mark, when you write that Jones is aware of the problem, has he made any corrections in his work? Does he continue to misrepresent the photo? A loon on Smasher's blog posted a photo of a forklift carrying some glowing substance, claiming that it was, of course, molten steel. He was typically oblivious to what molten steel would have done to the forklift.

Gravy · 30th May 2007, 06:27 PM

JamesB made him aware of it. He was annoyed that James and I hadn't notified him about these errors, despite the fact that his paper had

1) supposedly been through three rounds of "peer review" and

2) he hadn't responded to previous emails

3) the suggestion that firemen kept their bare faces two feet from an area that's purportedly as hot as a blast furnace, is insane

I assume that these photos won't make the cut in "Why Indeed v.4.0"

Brainster · 30th May 2007, 06:58 PM

Thanks for the correction, Gravy; I knew there was another photo that had been used but Jones does appear to have removed that.

CHF · 30th May 2007, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

He was annoyed that James and I hadn't notified him about these errors, despite the fact that his paper had

1) supposedly been through three rounds of "peer review"

Is it known who peer-reviewed Jones' crap paper?

Does he claim they were at all qualified to do so?

Zep · 30th May 2007, 07:37 PM

That would be "pier reviewed", perhaps. That is, a boozy lunch at an outdoor seafood restaurant, perhaps??

Gravy · 30th May 2007, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by CHF

Is it known who peer-reviewed Jones' crap paper?

Does he claim they were at all qualified to do so?

It's hard to imagine that the peer reviewers could have missed anything, since the reviews were supervised by that paragon of honesty and scientific integrity, Kevin Ryan. The fact that he's Jones' buddy and that the Journal of 9/11 Stundies is run by Jones has no bearing on the outcome of the review, I'm sure.

To give you a serious answer, no, I don't think it's been made public who reviewed the paper each of the three times. To claim that the papers in the Journal are peer reviewed, which Jones constantly does, is to claim that the reviewers are qualified. That's part of the definition of peer review.

Man, these frauds sicken me.

Undesired Walrus · 30th May 2007, 08:06 PM

Pomeroo, why do you consistently say "fantasists"? As factually accurate as it may be, it isn't all that productive.

Of course, IMHO.

pomeroo · 30th May 2007, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Pomeroo, why do you consistently say "fantasists"? As factually accurate as it may be, it isn't all that productive.

Of course, IMHO.

When I'm striving for precision, I call them "conspiracy liars." I think "fantasists" fits the bill nicely and is as neutral as I care to be. Strictly speaking, the tinfoil-hat brigade's notion of a conspiracy of thousands is mathematically impossible and, therefore, a fantasy. I'd choke before I referred to frauds, charlatans, and scoundrels as the "Truth" movement.

Brainster · 31st May 2007, 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by pomeroo

When I'm striving for precision, I call them "conspiracy liars." I think "fantasists" fits the bill nicely and is as neutral as I care to be. Strictly speaking, the tinfoil-hat brigade's notion of a conspiracy of thousands is mathematically impossible and, therefore, a fantasy. I'd choke before I referred to frauds, charlatans, and scoundrels as the "Truth" movement.

Yes, this is a key point. Even though as a writer I want to vary the reference point, it just kills me to say "Truthers" or "Truth". Words mean things and we cannot give them a high ground by default.

gumboot · 31st May 2007, 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by Zep

That would be "pier reviewed", perhaps. That is, a boozy lunch at an outdoor seafood restaurant, perhaps??

Maybe it means it was reviewed by a pear.

-Gumboot

H'ethetheth · 31st May 2007, 01:49 AM

Or perhaps from someones rectum, a review mysteriously appeered.

stilicho · 31st May 2007, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by Gravy

It's hard to imagine that the peer reviewers could have missed anything, since the reviews were supervised by that paragon of honesty and scientific integrity, Kevin Ryan....That's part of the definition of peer review.

Man, these frauds sicken me.

As I've said before on other forums, it becomes very obvious who has and who hasn't ever defended a Master's thesis. I start to wonder how these guys who actually have credentials (however unrelated) managed to obtain them in the first place. Maybe they cracked up after they graduated or seethed all the way through at being challenged and then resolved to prove to the world how abusive they could be of the whole academic process.

As a side note, I was on a different board when the Kevin Ryan email became public and found his name and email for the brief interval between his announcement and termination. I could well imagine that UL's Exchange Server overloaded that day.

ref · 31st May 2007, 02:37 AM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Maybe it means it was reviewed by a pear.

-Gumboot

My favourite is the beer review.

rcronk · 14th June 2007, 04:03 PM

My interactions via email and face to face with Steven E. Jones are here in four parts: http://ldspatriot.wordpress.com/2006...-jones-and-me/

I'm not a peer of his (I'm just a lowly software engineer) but I did review his paper and gave him evidence and testimony that he ignored repeatedly (read all four parts from above).

I also might have run into one of his peer reviewers on a forum - if the guy I ran into is a peer reviewer, then I no longer trust the peer review process as it would be the blind reviewing the blind - blinded by hatred that is. If I find that he did in fact peer review his paper, I'll publish his name here along with a link to his blind personal attacks on me during our 9/11 debate online.

T.A.M. · 14th June 2007, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by rcronk

My interactions via email and face to face with Steven E. Jones are here in four parts: http://ldspatriot.wordpress.com/2006...-jones-and-me/

I'm not a peer of his (I'm just a lowly software engineer) but I did review his paper and gave him evidence and testimony that he ignored repeatedly (read all four parts from above).

I also might have run into one of his peer reviewers on a forum - if the guy I ran into is a peer reviewer, then I no longer trust the peer review process as it would be the blind reviewing the blind - blinded by hatred that is. If I find that he did in fact peer review his paper, I'll publish his name here along with a link to his blind personal attacks on me during our 9/11 debate online.

Trust me, you can have faith in a LEGITIMATE Peer Review process. That Sham of a journal, has a Sham of a peer review process, except in one sense...

They do have CT loony toons submitting papers that are likely reviewed by other CT loony toons, so in that way the papers are "Peer Reviewed".

TAM

rcronk · 15th June 2007, 11:26 AM

lol - You're absolutely right!

Apollo20 · 15th June 2007, 06:00 PM

The essence of any legitimate peer review process is that the reviewers be selected by a third party and be "anonymous".

ConspiRaider · 15th June 2007, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by rcronk

I'm not a peer of his (I'm just a lowly software engineer) but I did review his paper and gave him evidence and testimony that he ignored repeatedly (read all four parts from above).

Hey RC -

I'm a software engineer myself, but not lowly. And neither are you. The reason why Jones is no peer of yours is that he does not have the mental capacity to design, code, test and sell programs that can solve a multitude of challenges. What he sells is something else entirely.

gumboot · 15th June 2007, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by ref

My favourite is the beer review.

The problem is you get caught out the following morning when you realise that "assignment" you beer reviewed isn't quite as outstanding as you first thought. This second review is known as the "clear review".

-Gumboot

30th May 2007, 04:26 PM	#1
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,081	Fantasy Movement Suffers Knockdown Our good friends James and Pat at SLC posted a small item that merely destroys the underpinnings of much pseudo-science peddled by charlatans like Steven Jones. Please see, "Source of the Glow Revealed." http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,081

30th May 2007, 05:14 PM	#3
The Demon's Head Crime cannot be tolerated Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,416	The theorists either didn't examine the evidence properly or just neglected it to posit a theory in it's place so that it would help their case.
	__________________ Last edited by The Demon's Head; 30th May 2007 at 05:19 PM.

30th May 2007, 05:35 PM	#4
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,072	I think they're confusing two photos there. The upper one on that page shows ironworkers (they have distinctive helmets), apparently using a torch. The source caption mentions that cleanup was underway. The lower photo is similar to the photo in Jones' paper that he claimed was firefighters apparently peering into the molten core, but which was simply a rescue or recovery scene lit by artificial light, and which had had its color altered. The "Jones" photo is on display with its original color at Ground Zero, and is in the collection "New York: A Democracy of Photographs." You can see it here, under "Photo follies." In his book "Aftermath," Joel Meyerowitz has a photo that may be of the same rescue/recovery effort as in Jones' paper. I've never seen anyone but Jones misrepresent those photos, and he's aware of the problem, so I don't think this is much of a knockdown this is to the movement.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

30th May 2007, 05:58 PM	#5
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,081	Quote: Originally Posted by Gravy I think they're confusing two photos there. The upper one on that page shows ironworkers (they have distinctive helmets), apparently using a torch. The source caption mentions that cleanup was underway. The lower photo is similar to the photo in Jones' paper that he claimed was firefighters apparently peering into the molten core, but which was simply a rescue or recovery scene lit by artificial light, and which had had its color altered. The "Jones" photo is on display with its original color at Ground Zero, and is in the collection "New York: A Democracy of Photographs." You can see it here, under "Photo follies." In his book "Aftermath," Joel Meyerowitz has a photo that may be of the same rescue/recovery effort as in Jones' paper. I've never seen anyone but Jones misrepresent those photos, and he's aware of the problem, so I don't think this is much of a knockdown this is to the movement. Mark, when you write that Jones is aware of the problem, has he made any corrections in his work? Does he continue to misrepresent the photo? A loon on Smasher's blog posted a photo of a forklift carrying some glowing substance, claiming that it was, of course, molten steel. He was typically oblivious to what molten steel would have done to the forklift.
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,081

30th May 2007, 06:27 PM	#6
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,072	JamesB made him aware of it. He was annoyed that James and I hadn't notified him about these errors, despite the fact that his paper had 1) supposedly been through three rounds of "peer review" and 2) he hadn't responded to previous emails 3) the suggestion that firemen kept their bare faces two feet from an area that's purportedly as hot as a blast furnace, is insane I assume that these photos won't make the cut in "Why Indeed v.4.0"
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

30th May 2007, 04:49 PM	#2
T.A.M. Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,795	yes the infamous "molten metal" claimed, is, in fact, a big flashlight... TAM

30th May 2007, 06:58 PM	#7
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 17,188	Thanks for the correction, Gravy; I knew there was another photo that had been used but Jones does appear to have removed that.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

30th May 2007, 07:32 PM	#8
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3,871	Originally Posted by Gravy He was annoyed that James and I hadn't notified him about these errors, despite the fact that his paper had 1) supposedly been through three rounds of "peer review" Is it known who peer-reviewed Jones' crap paper? Does he claim they were at all qualified to do so?
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3,871

30th May 2007, 07:37 PM	#9
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,699	That would be "pier reviewed", perhaps. That is, a boozy lunch at an outdoor seafood restaurant, perhaps??
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,699

30th May 2007, 07:42 PM	#10
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,072	Originally Posted by CHF Is it known who peer-reviewed Jones' crap paper? Does he claim they were at all qualified to do so? It's hard to imagine that the peer reviewers could have missed anything, since the reviews were supervised by that paragon of honesty and scientific integrity, Kevin Ryan. The fact that he's Jones' buddy and that the Journal of 9/11 Stundies is run by Jones has no bearing on the outcome of the review, I'm sure. To give you a serious answer, no, I don't think it's been made public who reviewed the paper each of the three times. To claim that the papers in the Journal are peer reviewed, which Jones constantly does, is to claim that the reviewers are qualified. That's part of the definition of peer review. Man, these frauds sicken me.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

30th May 2007, 08:06 PM	#11
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 11,690	Pomeroo, why do you consistently say "fantasists"? As factually accurate as it may be, it isn't all that productive. Of course, IMHO.

30th May 2007, 08:10 PM	#12
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,081	Quote: Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus Pomeroo, why do you consistently say "fantasists"? As factually accurate as it may be, it isn't all that productive. Of course, IMHO. When I'm striving for precision, I call them "conspiracy liars." I think "fantasists" fits the bill nicely and is as neutral as I care to be. Strictly speaking, the tinfoil-hat brigade's notion of a conspiracy of thousands is mathematically impossible and, therefore, a fantasy. I'd choke before I referred to frauds, charlatans, and scoundrels as the "Truth" movement.
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,081

31st May 2007, 12:34 AM	#13
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 17,188	Originally Posted by pomeroo When I'm striving for precision, I call them "conspiracy liars." I think "fantasists" fits the bill nicely and is as neutral as I care to be. Strictly speaking, the tinfoil-hat brigade's notion of a conspiracy of thousands is mathematically impossible and, therefore, a fantasy. I'd choke before I referred to frauds, charlatans, and scoundrels as the "Truth" movement. Yes, this is a key point. Even though as a writer I want to vary the reference point, it just kills me to say "Truthers" or "Truth". Words mean things and we cannot give them a high ground by default.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

31st May 2007, 12:49 AM	#14
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327	Originally Posted by Zep That would be "pier reviewed", perhaps. That is, a boozy lunch at an outdoor seafood restaurant, perhaps?? Maybe it means it was reviewed by a pear. -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

31st May 2007, 01:49 AM	#15
H'ethetheth fishy rocket scientist Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: among the machines Posts: 2,682	Or perhaps from someones rectum, a review mysteriously appeered.

31st May 2007, 02:08 AM	#16
stilicho Trurl's Electronic Bard Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 4,757	Originally Posted by Gravy It's hard to imagine that the peer reviewers could have missed anything, since the reviews were supervised by that paragon of honesty and scientific integrity, Kevin Ryan....That's part of the definition of peer review. Man, these frauds sicken me. As I've said before on other forums, it becomes very obvious who has and who hasn't ever defended a Master's thesis. I start to wonder how these guys who actually have credentials (however unrelated) managed to obtain them in the first place. Maybe they cracked up after they graduated or seethed all the way through at being challenged and then resolved to prove to the world how abusive they could be of the whole academic process. As a side note, I was on a different board when the Kevin Ryan email became public and found his name and email for the brief interval between his announcement and termination. I could well imagine that UL's Exchange Server overloaded that day.

31st May 2007, 02:37 AM	#17
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,685	Originally Posted by gumboot Maybe it means it was reviewed by a pear. -Gumboot My favourite is the beer review.
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,685	__________________ 9/11 Guide homepage Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

14th June 2007, 04:03 PM	#18
rcronk Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 728	My interactions via email and face to face with Steven E. Jones are here in four parts: http://ldspatriot.wordpress.com/2006...-jones-and-me/ I'm not a peer of his (I'm just a lowly software engineer) but I did review his paper and gave him evidence and testimony that he ignored repeatedly (read all four parts from above). I also might have run into one of his peer reviewers on a forum - if the guy I ran into is a peer reviewer, then I no longer trust the peer review process as it would be the blind reviewing the blind - blinded by hatred that is. If I find that he did in fact peer review his paper, I'll publish his name here along with a link to his blind personal attacks on me during our 9/11 debate online.
rcronk Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 728

14th June 2007, 04:08 PM	#19
T.A.M. Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,795	Originally Posted by rcronk My interactions via email and face to face with Steven E. Jones are here in four parts: http://ldspatriot.wordpress.com/2006...-jones-and-me/ I'm not a peer of his (I'm just a lowly software engineer) but I did review his paper and gave him evidence and testimony that he ignored repeatedly (read all four parts from above). I also might have run into one of his peer reviewers on a forum - if the guy I ran into is a peer reviewer, then I no longer trust the peer review process as it would be the blind reviewing the blind - blinded by hatred that is. If I find that he did in fact peer review his paper, I'll publish his name here along with a link to his blind personal attacks on me during our 9/11 debate online. Trust me, you can have faith in a LEGITIMATE Peer Review process. That Sham of a journal, has a Sham of a peer review process, except in one sense... They do have CT loony toons submitting papers that are likely reviewed by other CT loony toons, so in that way the papers are "Peer Reviewed". TAM

15th June 2007, 11:26 AM	#20
rcronk Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 728	lol - You're absolutely right!
rcronk Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 728

15th June 2007, 06:00 PM	#21
Apollo20 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,425	The essence of any legitimate peer review process is that the reviewers be selected by a third party and be "anonymous".
Apollo20 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,425

15th June 2007, 06:15 PM	#22
ConspiRaider Writer of Nothingnesses Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 11,156	Originally Posted by rcronk I'm not a peer of his (I'm just a lowly software engineer) but I did review his paper and gave him evidence and testimony that he ignored repeatedly (read all four parts from above). Hey RC - I'm a software engineer myself, but not lowly. And neither are you. The reason why Jones is no peer of yours is that he does not have the mental capacity to design, code, test and sell programs that can solve a multitude of challenges. What he sells is something else entirely.

15th June 2007, 10:03 PM	#23
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327	Originally Posted by ref My favourite is the beer review. The problem is you get caught out the following morning when you realise that "assignment" you beer reviewed isn't quite as outstanding as you first thought. This second review is known as the "clear review". -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.