• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?

BasqueArch said:
In science publishing a paper and not releasing also contradicting experimental results is considered fraudulent, unethical. That's what those people did in the original thermite paper. ...
Click to expand...

Huh? I so disagree with that claim!!

They put a lot of contradicting data in the paper! :D
 
Oystein said:
Huh? I so disagree with that claim!!

They put a lot of contradicting data in the paper! :D
Click to expand...
:D
What I remember from the discussions was that their data (the ones they published) varied in quality but not contradictory, their methodology sucked, the conclusions were self serving confirmation bias with unsupported opinions. What they did was to conduct tests, FTIR and others that they promised to release but did not, that Millette used to prove paint; this is scientific fraud. They lied to themselves first.

Did you notice that when they described the gray layer -a homogenous plate of iron with a little carbon they didn't know what it was and concluded it needed further study to determine its purpose in thermite!
"In addition, the gray-layer material demands further study. What is its purpose? Sometimes the gray material appears in multiple layers, as seen in Fig.(32)."
It was easy for Millette to identify steel.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Huh? I so disagree with that claim!!

They put a lot of contradicting data in the paper! :D
Click to expand...
More seriously, though, BasqueArch has a point. Harrit said that the resistivity test was done on a random sample of chips, yet they published the results for only one of them without reference to the other results. I hope Basile does a better job. As Feynman put it:

For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.
​
http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html
 
pgimeno said:
I can't help comparing the silence and secrecy of Basile with the full transparency that Chris Mohr always had with the donors (and everyone else), when he hired Millette.

Makes one wonder if Basile has something to hide.
Click to expand...

A thousand somethings.
 
The first stories that I can find of Basile's nanothermite project are from late 2010. So that's over 4 1/2 years now for something that would take only days to do and could be financed with a credit card.
 
Redwood said:
The first stories that I can find of Basile's nanothermite project are from late 2010. So that's over 4 1/2 years now for something that would take only days to do and could be financed with a credit card.
Click to expand...
Basile seems like a nice guy and means well. But in science meaning well is not enough you have to be right. He has been duped, and a duper, a sucker and responsible for persuading other suckers of his false claims.

He now has to ask himself - should (1) I admit to my conspiracist buddies I and you have been wrong all along or (2) should I say nothing and hope it will all go away and I can live with myself without being called to accounts and expose myself to peer and debunker public humiliation. My most important goal is to be happy with myself- (3) what's the most believable reason I can come up with to quietly bow out of this whole fiasco. Of course I'm honest and meant well, I will return all the unspent monies.
I believe (3).
 
I don't get this.

"Meaning well" implies "going to do honest science and intend to publish the results, no matter what they are".

Why should it be a problem for Basile to just do exactly what he proposed to do? Send red-gray chips to labs along with the money? Relieves him of the burden to be the one who produced the damning results. He does not depend professionally or personally on Harrit or Jones, does he? He's attached enough disclaimers to his statements in the past to be able to save face.
 
I think it's at least possible that there is a study underway now. I had the same problem when I tried to work with Kevin Ryan on the red-grey chips years ago. No trust. They fear that one of us will somehow sabotage the study so they are keeping it from us. Then there will be a final report for everyone to see.
But the longer this drags on, the less credible this benign hypothesis seems.
Time will tell I suppose.
 
Agreed, Chris, and I have always stressed that I ultimately trust in Basile's character, but time really is not on his side here. He made a promise to do monthly accounting once funds begin to get spent. Here is a complete enumeration of the possibilities:

a) Funds have not yet begun to get spent (i.e. no study at professional labs underway)
b) Mark broke his promise
c) Mark is dead

None of these possibilities bodes well for him.
 
Oystein,
(d) Mark has a new girlfriend, which would hopefully bode well for him!
 
(e) Mark has separated out the samples (about a year ago) but, can't get a check out of Rick to send them for analysis.

Mark has seen the light and knows where the money has gone.
 
I lost interest years ago actually following "truther" sites. Has any of these sites (I'm not even sure there are any left) questioned what happened to this study?

Just as a side. What "truther" forums are left?
 
DGM said:
I lost interest years ago actually following "truther" sites. Has any of these sites (I'm not even sure there are any left) questioned what happened to this study?

Just as a side. What "truther" forums are left?
Click to expand...

LCF and the UK 9/11 forum are dead as dodos.
 
chrismohr said:
Oystein,
(d) Mark has a new girlfriend, which would hopefully bode well for him!
Click to expand...

This would fall under "b) Mark broke his promise" ;)

DGM said:
(e) Mark has separated out the samples (about a year ago) but, can't get a check out of Rick to send them for analysis.

Mark has seen the light and knows where the money has gone.
Click to expand...
This might fall under "a) Funds have not yet begun to get spent (i.e. no study at professional labs underway)", unless the point is that the funds have been "spent" on something else.
 
DGM said:
I lost interest years ago actually following "truther" sites. Has any of these sites (I'm not even sure there are any left) questioned what happened to this study?

Just as a side. What "truther" forums are left?
Click to expand...

911Blogger still has some life. Most of the posts there are either ae911truth news items, or concerned with politics, whether directly related to 9/11 or not. Plus Jon Gold promoting his... oh I never checked what he has - a video blog or something. Plus Corbett report announcements.
Very little technical arguments, nothing on thermite or explosives in a few months.

I have a lazy eye on a couple of facebook groups (those that haven't banned me already). But mostly on their numbers, not their content.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
This might fall under "a) Funds have not yet begun to get spent (i.e. no study at professional labs underway)", unless the point is that the funds have been "spent" on something else.
Click to expand...

This is the point. Where is there any accounting of funds at all? We know there is a $1000 award for a "debate" that never happened awarded by a person, to a person that controls the study.

If there were actually "truthers" they should be asking Rich, Show us the money! ;)
 
DGM said:
This is the point. Where is there any accounting of funds at all? We know there is a $1000 award for a "debate" that never happened awarded by a person, to a person that controls the study.

If there were actually "truthers" they should be asking Rich, Show us the money! ;)
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that some of the donations went directly to Mark Basile's personal PayPal account, and another part was collected by Rick Shaddock. Rick claims that Mark has access to all of the funds.
 
Oystein said:
It is my understanding that some of the donations went directly to Mark Basile's personal PayPal account, and another part was collected by Rick Shaddock. Rick claims that Mark has access to all of the funds.
Click to expand...

I'm seeing claims............just asking questions....;)

Funny how not a single "truther" is looking for full transparency. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom