Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

Mark is not a scientist, nor is James Randi. Yet their work is solid, resilient - and completely open to criticism from all quarters. In fact - critique is welcomed.

So tell us what you REALLY mean: Exactly where do you find fault with Roberts's work? Something specific would be nice.
 
A W Smith said:
And what scientific paper would that be?
Click to expand...


Oh, I see we are claiming an exemption due to the lack of scientific nature in Mark Roberts' work.

Aside from the obvious effort to deflect my question there is a real interest in accuracy which peer review or editing of any published item is intended to do.

So who reviews his published work on the events of 911?
 
realcddeal said:
Oh, I see we are claiming an exemption due to the lack of scientific nature in Mark Roberts' work.

Aside from the obvious effort to deflect my question there is a real interest in accuracy which peer review or editing of any published item is intended to do.

So who reviews his published work on the events of 911?
Click to expand...
What journal was he published in? Do tell, I might be interested in reading what he published.
 
i dont understand. mark's work is open to critique. why hasn't anyone done so? he's asked for people to point out any mistakes he has made, and critique his work; yet silences from the trutherdom.

hm.


mark has never stated that he is a scientist or engineer; all he did was compile all the AVAILABLE information, taken statements from those sources and put them into his papers. If anything, the SOURCES are the ones that should be critiqued for their reporting

why hasn't anyone in trutherdom done so?


hmm
 
Roberts isn't claiming to be peer reviewed.

Roberts' paper doesn't claim to be a scientific study of the WTC collapses.

Jones' paper, for example, DOES. I can ask the same question of Jones' paper and have it be much more important: why isn't IT peer reviewed?

SO, one must define 'peer'. Jones' paper, for example, has not been submitted to HIS peers to officially comment on it in an official capacity.

Exactly who are Roberts' peers?
 
ConspiRaider said:
Mark is not a scientist, nor is James Randi. Yet their work is solid, resilient - and completely open to criticism from all quarters. In fact - critique is welcomed.

So tell us what you REALLY mean: Exactly where do you find fault with Roberts' work? Something specific would be nice.
Click to expand...

I am only trying to show the hypocrytical nature of some on this forum and you are complying with my request. Apparently there is a glass house here.

I offered to debate Mark with written letters and he refused saying he would not do it on the Journal of 911 Studies. Although I said it could be in any written venue other than a quick moving forum, he still refused and actually had the audacity to say I backed down from him. His excuse was that the Journal of 911 Studies wasn't a Journal. Quite a comment from someone who isn't a science person. Those letters would have been open to criticism from all quarters.

I am sensing a double standard here.
 
realcddeal said:
Oh, I see we are claiming an exemption due to the lack of scientific nature in Mark Roberts' work.

Aside from the obvious effort to deflect my question there is a real interest in accuracy which peer review or editing of any published item is intended to do.

So who reviews his published work on the events of 911?
Click to expand...
Sheez. Fine, you dragged it out of me.

The New York Tour Guide Methodology and Analytical Assessment Committee Concerning the Usurpation of Gravitational Flux Factorization Regarding Manmade Structural Integrity and Geophysical Stability With Parametric Occurrences During Rush Hour.

Somewhere in there is an acronym, if you can fish one out.
 
Mark doesn't do "work". He finds the results of others' work and reports them. Unlike some folks who think spending a lot of time on the web looking at other peoples' stuff makes them "researchers", Mark knows all he's doing is repeating the facts as he finds them.
 
realcddeal said:
I am only trying to show the hypocrytical nature of some on this forum and you are complying with my request. Apparently there is a glass house here.

I offered to debate Mark with written letters and he refused saying he would not do it on the Journal of 911 Studies. Although I said it could be in any written venue other than a quick moving forum, he still refused and actually had the audacity to say I backed down from him. His excuse was that the Journal of 911 Studies wasn't a Journal. Quite a comment from someone who isn't a science person. Those letters would have been open to criticism from all quarters.

I am sensing a double standard here.
Click to expand...
You going to answer my question or are you going to run from it?
Enigma said:
What journal was he published in? Do tell, I might be interested in reading what he published.
Click to expand...
 
realcddeal said:
I am only trying to show the hypocrytical nature of some on this forum and you are complying with my request. Apparently there is a glass house here.

I offered to debate Mark with written letters and he refused saying he would not do it on the Journal of 911 Studies. Although I said it could be in any written venue other than a quick moving forum, he still refused and actually had the audacity to say I backed down from him. His excuse was that the Journal of 911 Studies wasn't a Journal. Quite a comment from someone who isn't a science person. Those letters would have been open to criticism from all quarters.

I am sensing a double standard here.
Click to expand...

When will you submit your paper for an independent review?

Pot? meet kettle.
 
~enigma~ said:
You going to answer my question or are you going to run from it?
Click to expand...


Who made the rule that review only needs to take place if something is published in a Journal?

One would assume that one who consistently takes jabs at others for what they claim is a lack of peer review would have their published work reviewed.

Mark Roberts has several articles published on the Internet.
 
So when Gravy compiles a list of firefighter quotes, or examines the changes Mr Rodriguez's account of 9/11, what?
You want scientists to review his paper?

Whatever the reason for?
 
realcddeal said:
Who made the rule that review only needs to take place if something is published in a Journal?

One would assume that one who consistently takes jabs at others for what they claim is a lack of peer review would have their published work reviewed.

Mark Roberts has several articles published on the Internet.
Click to expand...

How would you propose a formal peer review takes place? As the majority of Gravy's work is sourcing and organising statements it doesn't seem that we can quickly identify any experts in this particular field.

realcddeal said:
I did.
Click to expand...
Perhaps our opinions of independent differ. Pray tell, where did you submit your paper?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom