Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?

Over 2 years and still nothing. I wonder if this now constitutes fraud. Basile has taken money but delivered nothing. Shouldn't he be looking to return the cash to the people who sent it in the first place?

It also shows you how little truthers actually care about getting independent analysis done. They scream blue murder about debunkers not doing experiments, but when one of their own obtains enough money to get this done, yet refuses to do so, they are oddly quiet even when they have lost money.

It's about time a truther asked Basile for their money back. Anyone know what the legal situation regarding fraud is?
 
Sunstealer said:
Anyone know what the legal situation regarding fraud is?
Click to expand...
I cannot be specific BUT fraud requires a deliberate intent to secure an unlawful gain. i.e. possession of the money. I doubt it could be shown that the original intent was to obtain the money and not perform the analysis. What we see is extended delay but no expression of concern about the delay from the parties involved and no call from the donors for return of the money .

Although most jurisdictions recognise both criminal fraud and civil fraud I don't see any DA or DPP taking criminal action in this scenario.

So all we seem to have at this stage is a failure to meet a contractual obligation. Within what seems to have been an implied time frame. (I'm running on memory - we may have more details but I haven't checked.)

Whether fraud or none completion of contract the remedies lie in tort in the civil jurisdiction - and the parties with standing to take action are the persons who provided the funds. AKA the ball is in their court.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Truthers, don't understand Newtonian physics well enough to play ball.

They are like permanent bench warmers, because action might end in defeat.:D
Click to expand...

Both well put! :thumbsup:


I agree with ozeco that it would be difficult to prove the intention part of fraud. There was, to my knowledge, never a specific time frame or due date that Basile committed himself to. Suggestion about how long things might take, hopes and expectations, but always with the caveat implied that you can never know what problems you might run into.

I am not even sure that Basile is under a contractual obligation.

We do not really know the donors.
  • Rick Shaddock apparently is a donor. A few hundreds of dollars, I guess
  • David Griscom donated the money Rick gave him for "winning" one of the past uncontested "physics challenges", iirc - I forgot the amount, coukd have been as much as $1000
  • Rick has mentioned to me the name of the biggest donor ($1500 or something like that), but I'd have to check if that is in the public domain, or from private communication.
Those three amount to around $3000, if my recollection isn't blown up. Much of the rest probably an assortment of smaller donors.
If they don't pursue Basile legally, no one will.

But it's an asset.
I have a feeling that a slowly growing number of influential truthers has already started scaling back the emphasize of the "nanothermite evidence" amongst their weaponry, as it seems to be dawning on them that it is much less solid than they used to believe.
 
Oystein said:
Both well put! :thumbsup:


I agree with ozeco that it would be difficult to prove the intention part of fraud. There was, to my knowledge, never a specific time frame or due date that Basile committed himself to. Suggestion about how long things might take, hopes and expectations, but always with the caveat implied that you can never know what problems you might run into.

I am not even sure that Basile is under a contractual obligation.
Click to expand...
The common law elements of contract seem to be present. - offer, acceptance and some valuable consideration which makes it binding.

That assumes two things:
1) The "deal" was direct between the donors and Basile - no intervening "agent"; AND
2) The proof of contract has not been altered by statute in whatever jurisdiction the action would be taken. (Probably Basile's home state.)
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
The common law elements of contract seem to be present. - offer, acceptance and some valuable consideration which makes it binding.

That assumes two things:
1) The "deal" was direct between the donors and Basile - no intervening "agent"; AND
2) The proof of contract has not been altered by statute in whatever jurisdiction the action would be taken. (Probably Basile's home state.)
Click to expand...

I am not exactly sure what the content of the offer was, whether the donors conclusively accepted the content of that offer by donating, and whether the consideration meets the requirements of a common law contract:
"In common law it is a prerequisite that both parties offer consideration before a contract can be thought of as binding."[WP]
What happened here is Basile announcing publicly - but through a website administeed by Shaddock, and blogs by others (JM Talboo etc), that he would hire external labs and have them do certain tests specifically listed once he has $5000. Now people, some of them probably anonymous, donated money. Basile did not promise them a legal benefit. Is a donation not a kind of gift?

We are here looking at a crowdfunding initiative, with Rick Shaddock being the moderator (although I heard that some of the money went directly to an account in Basile's possession, Basile did not himself communicate this, afaik). Unfortunately, WP does not discuss the contractual topology of crowdfunding:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdfunding
 
Oystein said:
I am not exactly sure what the content of the offer was, whether the donors conclusively accepted the content of that offer by donating, and whether the consideration meets the requirements of a common law contract:
"In common law it is a prerequisite that both parties offer consideration before a contract can be thought of as binding."[WP]
Click to expand...
Yes - provide a service for a fee.

Oystein said:
What happened here is Basile announcing publicly - but through a website administeed by Shaddock, and blogs by others (JM Talboo etc), that he would hire external labs and have them do certain tests specifically listed once he has $5000. Now people, some of them probably anonymous, donated money. Basile did not promise them a legal benefit.
Click to expand...
That is what I hinted at by "direct" and "agent". AKA who was the "deal" with/between.
Oystein said:
Is a donation not a kind of gift?
Click to expand...
Could be - the status is detail specific.
Oystein said:
We are here looking at a crowdfunding initiative, with Rick Shaddock being the moderator (although I heard that some of the money went directly to an account in Basile's possession, Basile did not himself communicate this, afaik). Unfortunately, WP does not discuss the contractual topology of crowdfunding:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdfunding
Click to expand...
My point about statute in the relevant jurisdiction. I didn't even refer to my law books which are all AU except a couple on US constitutional law .
 
No need to dive deeper here, I think.
My remark "I am not even sure that Basile is under a contractual obligation" remains standing, but I note your comments, appreciating the fact that you have some formal training plus lifelong exposure to a common law jurisdiction, both of which I lack.
Can we agree on "Basile is probably under a contractual obligation to eventually deliver the lab tests, but there's a chance that, owing to details of the case or the legal specifics in his jurisdiction (New Hampshire, iirc), he may be not"? And anyway, this won't be tested in a court unless any donors take it to court, which is unlikely to happen. Something about eyes and crows...
 
Oystein said:
No need to dive deeper here, I think.
Click to expand...
True - we have exhausted speculating on near zero evidence. ;)
Oystein said:
My remark "I am not even sure that Basile is under a contractual obligation" remains standing, but I note your comments, appreciating the fact that you have some formal training plus lifelong exposure to a common law jurisdiction, both of which I lack.
Can we agree on "Basile is probably under a contractual obligation to eventually deliver the lab tests, but there's a chance that, owing to details of the case or the legal specifics in his jurisdiction (New Hampshire, iirc), he may be not"? And anyway, this won't be tested in a court unless any donors take it to court, which is unlikely to happen. Something about eyes and crows...
Click to expand...
Near enough. :thumbsup:

(I would leave the "probably" as "could be" until we are sure that Basile himself made the deals. )
 
Last edited:
To throw a little conspiracy into this thread. When was the last or the first time Mark actually posted or confirmed his involvement in this project? I'm talking about actual communication. I've seen lots of post from people saying they talked to him but when was his last confirmed statement?

Ziggy took over as his spokesperson over a year ago no one knows how he got appointed to that position.

Odd how the people that paid the money don't wonder about these things. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
To throw a little conspiracy into this thread. When was the last or the first time Mark actually posted or confirmed his involvement in this project? I'm talking about actual communication. I've seen lots of post from people saying they talked to him but when was his last confirmed statement?

Ziggy took over as his spokesperson over a year ago no one knows how he got appointed to that position.

Odd how the people that paid the money don't wonder about these things. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

How would it be odd, they are truthers, they give to Gage and Cole, the quality of truthers has fallen every month, now we are down to the rotten pits at the bottom of the barrel.
 
DGM said:
Bump.


Just to keep it on the first page. I'm sure at this point "truthers" just want to forget about this fail.
Click to expand...

I'm sure FalseFlag and Criteria will share all the details with us, after all their time is limited and I'm sure this is a top priority as they fight for a new investigation.

We should be getting an update any day now. ;)
 
ProBonoShill said:
I'm sure FalseFlag and Criteria will share all the details with us, after all their time is limited and I'm sure this is a top priority as they fight for a new investigation.

We should be getting an update any day now. ;)
Click to expand...
FF persists in denying "Due Process" and "Rule of Law" - so there is no way he can support a new investigation - either by his rules which self destruct OR by "OUR" rules which he denies.

He's caught - hoist by his own petard - either way. Is that "Catch 22?" If so he put himself into it.
 
ozeco41 said:
FF persists in denying "Due Process" and "Rule of Law" - so there is no way he can support a new investigation - either by his rules which self destruct OR by "OUR" rules which he denies.

He's caught - hoist by his own petard - either way. Is that "Catch 22?" If so he put himself into it.
Click to expand...

It's more "Argument Clinic".
 
Oystein said:
It's more "Argument Clinic".
Click to expand...

clap.gif
clap.gif


Good one. With the rapidly declining quantity and quality of 9/11 debate - maybe Monty Python is a clue to my next hobby. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom