Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?

jaydeehess said:
Really?

24th November 2015, 05:42 PM


That "update" from Ziggi, was over a year ago.

Shall we check back again in another year, or just check in every second year?
Click to expand...
Well, "a few months" is a subjective concept. For some people, "more than 60 months" may still be "a few".
 
pgimeno said:
Well, "a few months" is a subjective concept. For some people, "more than 60 months" may still be "a few".
Click to expand...

True. A local marine sales company was advertising boats and their credit offerings.
You could get a decent fishing boat for "only" X per month. Looked good except the fine print noted the term was 120 months.
 
Criteria said:
4. Mark Basile "continues to work on his red/gray chip study in his spare time and he will contact us as soon as he is ready to write up some results - which he hopes to do in a few months time".
Click to expand...

You are forgetting the deal: People have sent him $5000 so he would NOT do the work himself. The deal was, he would separate candidate red-gray chips and send them to an independent lab!

Please acknowledge
a) That $5000 were solicited on the premise that it be spent on independent labs
b) That Ziggi doesn't mentioned independent labs any longer.

Please explain how b) squares with a)!
 
Well, doing some amateur tests by himself would allow him to keep the money... just an idea.
 
March 2014
rogers619 said:
Any news on the research project that Mark Basile has put together?

According to ANETA.org, they reached their goal in January and that the study is in progress.

Also, what lab did they decide was the best for this study?
Click to expand...

jaydeehess said:
24th November 2015, 05:42 PM
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
..........
As far as the study goes, nothing much has changed. Mr. Basile is still working on the study and he will give us an update when he is ready. The only possible change is that he will most likely give the next update when he is done with this round of testing and has some concrete results, instead of providing miniature updates at some specified intervals as had originally been planned.

Watch for news at 911debunkers.blogspot.com/
Click to expand...

That "update" from Ziggi, was over a year ago.

Shall we check back again in another year, or just check in every second year?
Click to expand...

In a post moved to AAH for other reasons, Ziggi stated
The original plan was and remains to have independent testing confirming Basile results, and it laid out proposals for tests that Basile had not yet performed. We did not think it would take him 3 years of new tests, but it has, and he continues working on it.
Click to expand...
I suppose we could consider that an update on the Basile report.

At some point between originally stating the intention to produce an independent report, and the present (January 2017), Basile noticed it would take as long as it has. We can narrow it down a bit more since Ziggi did not mention this in 2014 or 2015, that the difficulties were not noticed until sometime in 2016 or very early in 2017.

OR, maybe it was noticed but not stated until this month.

If there is a third choice I will stand corrected.
On the assumption that this is a proper dichotomy they beg further questions.
If no one realized it would take at least three years then an explanation as to why this does not indicate incompetance is required.
AND
If it was understood at an earlier than the past year but not voiced, then it begs the question as to why it wasn't.

Surely Ziggi will be addressing this soon (my word so let me define "soon". "Within the next two weeks" seems to me a very generous definition of soon in this case)
 
Last edited:
In April 2014 Basile claimed test were already being done by "independent lab technicians".

No update on what tests or results. No progress at all reported since then.
 
benthamitemetric said:
You can find it on MarkBasile.org if you click through the "Please Help Donate" link that is highlighted in green.
Click to expand...
You are correct. It's under a caption, "Progress so far form Mark".

Money has been raise an tests have begun by independent lab technicians.
Click to expand...
The typo quoted in post #7 is still there.

The date is not indicated but the date of the post in this thread backs the April date.
 
Last edited:
The April post also shows the first departure from the original study plan. A departure that did not go unnoticed on this site. (see post #8)
 
Has there ever been a public accounting of the moneys raised? It occurs to me that the "project" may have oversubscribed a la The Producers. They may have collected many times more that $5,000. There are more than enough little old ladies suckers in the world.

 
In a post that was moved to AAH from another thread, where it was off-topic, Ziggi (who was just suspended for a week) made the following claim:
Ziggi said:
Chris Mohr and Oystein and others here raised funds for their own Millette dust study and promised to deliver a published reviewed paper almost 5 years ago that never happened!
Click to expand...
I ask Ziggi, upon his return, to provide a citation to back this up.
I certainly never promised a "published reviewed paper", for I never was in direct contact with Millette and had no control over this.

To the best of my recollection, Chris Mohr never "promised" a reviewed paper, only a lab report. He did relay the information that Millette wanted to publish a paper on WTC dust, but that was not part of the deal and not promised when soliciting the funds.

(I know of course that Ziggi, being mortally afraid to touch any of my questions, knowing each honest and straight answer would once more reveal as a fraud, will not reply. I'll score his non-reply as tacitly admitting that, once again, he boldly lied to us)
 
Ziggi said:
”You do know that Chris Mohr and Oystein and others here raised funds for their own Millette dust study and promised to deliver a published reviewed paper almost 5 years ago that never happened!”
Click to expand...
Oystein said:
”To the best of my recollection, Chris Mohr never "promised" a reviewed paper, only a lab report. He did relay the information that Millette wanted to publish a paper on WTC dust, but that was not part of the deal and not promised when soliciting the funds.”
Click to expand...

On the 4th of January, 2012, Chris Mohr posted an email quote from his correspondence with Dr. Millette:

chrismohr said:
Hi all,

I'll let you know early next week how much money we've raised; unknown sums are now going through the Postal system and PayPals internationally.

Here's the Major Good News. When Jim Millette wrote me that email assuring me of his competence and integrity, he added a phrase that shows he plans on going far beyond what we are contracting him for. It also helps me understand his motivation for doing thousands of dollars worth of tests for $1000. I didn't include this at first because I would not hold him to his stated intention, but on second thought I think everyone deserves to know what I edited out when I first quoted him in an earlier post:

"Because we have not focused on this particular question in the past analyses, we are proceeding with a careful, forensic scientific study focused on the red-gray chips in a number of WTC dust samples. When I present the data, it will be in front of critical members of the forensic science community and when I publish, it will be in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I am an independent researcher without an interest in how the research results come out."

The boldfacing is mine.

So, depending on whose side you're on, this will be either the first or the second ever peer-reviewed study of the WTC dust which focuses on the question of active thermitic material. Boys and girls, if this happens, it will be by far the most serious scientific study of this question since the Bentham paper first came out. Yes, I'm very excited, and am crossing my fingers in the hopes that enough money will come in because this I really want to see!
Click to expand...

It certainly appears that Chris Mohr interpreted Dr. Millette’s words as a promise of more than a “lab report”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom