Reply With Quote
Was the blog peer reviewed?Cant trust it at all.
gulli.com: Did anybody who is not involved in the Truther movement double-check your studies? Like independent blasters or producers of Nano Thermite?
Dr. Niels Harrit: The paper was peer-reviewed as it is routinely done with scientific publications.
gulli.com: Who did this peer-reviews? Can you explain at least which kind of people it has been? Officials from your university?
Dr. Niels Harrit: The referees are anonymous. They are not officials from my university. No one at my university knows more about this than I do. The University is not responsible for the research. Only the authors are.
Was the blog peer reviewed?
Can you show me any peers who have since published papers critical of this paper in a scientific journal?
Stephen Jones seems to be saying the paper was refereed, and that it is up to peers to show him to be a fraud.
LOL...
True. They just can't stand the truth and logic.
Sure. I can just say they are anonymous. Seems to meet your criteria.
Asked and answered in other threads. One probable reason for this is the mixing of iron oxide (rust) and particulate aluminum (airplane) mixing together. That basic therite Those two materials.
then show the article at least. but wait, there is none.
As for the anonymous peers, lets pin down whether or not that is an accepted practice or not before we carry on.
Maybe it's to laughable to spend time on...
Yet they don't give a breakdown of the other materials, proving they are full of .
http://www.unf.edu/library/guides/refereedarticle.htmlWHAT IS A REFEREED/PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE
With some exceptions a refereed article is one that is blind reviewed and has two external reviewers. The blind review requirement and the use of external reviewers are consistent with the research criteria of objectivity and of knowledge.
The use of a blind review process means that the author of the manuscript is not made known to the reviewers. With the large number of reviewers and journals, it is also likely that the name of the reviewers for a particular manuscript is not made known to the author. Thus, creating a double blind review process. Since the author and reviewers are frequently unknown, the manuscript is judged on its merits rather than on the reputation of the author and/or the author's influence on the reviewers.
The use of two (2) reviewers permits specialists familiar with research similar to that presented in the paper to judge whether the paper makes a contribution to the advancement of knowledge. When two reviewers are used it provides a broader perspective for evaluating the research. This perspective is further widened by the discussion between the editor and reviewers in seeking to reconcile these perspectives.
In contrast to these criteria, some journals that have attained a reputation for quality do not use either a blind review process or external reviewers. The most notable is Harvard Business Review that uses an editorial review process. Its reputation for quality results from its readership whose continual subscription attests to its quality.
In addition to these criteria, some researchers include the journal's acceptance rate in their definition of a refereed journal. However, the method of calculating acceptance rates varies among journals. Some journals use all manuscripts received as a base for computing this rate. Other journals allow the editor to choose which papers are sent to reviewers and calculate the acceptance rate on those that are reviewed that is less than the total manuscripts received. Also, many editors do not maintain accurate records on this data and provide only a rough estimate.
Furthermore, the number of people associated with a particular area of specialization influences the acceptance rate. If only a few people can write papers in an area, it tends to increase the journal's acceptance rate.
Although the type of review process and use of external reviewers is one possible definition of a refereed article, it is not the only criteria. Judging the usefulness of a journal to the advancement of knowledge requires the reader to be familiar with many journals in their specialization and make their own evaluation.
looks like an accepted practice at first blush.
What's the likelihood the reviewers, being familiar with the topic, lean toward the conspiracy too?
times up for today. TB if you are interested I will pick this up later. just know I have no horse in this race.
I'd say the four citizens that brought in the samples conspired to start a conspiracy theory.
All I am asking to is an A to Z narrative using all the conspiracy theories you espouse.
No one has done so.
And they never will.
Because they know they are full of .
Uh, picture two is 100% not thermite cutting steel.PS:
Thermite cutting steel looks like...
You ruined your "cred."
didnt say it was. I said thats what it looks like. Which it does. I stand redeemed.
so a cop has to know exactly how a crime was committed, from a all the way to z, to say there was actually a crime?
Horse chump. You know better.
It looks like steel getting cut by not thermite.
Because that's what it is.
You are claiming things look like thermite reactions when they can easily be explained as other, much more likely things as clearly shown in picture two.
A DA has to prove a theory of how a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt.
I reasonably doubt the out of this stupid superdupernanonachothermite theory.
We aren't trying to lock anybody up here chump. We dont have to know a to z in order to warrant a new investigation.
HHUUUUGGGGEEEEE difference.
And you know this....
Point is, there is no proof of a conspiracy. It's just a hypothesis, and a poor one at that, because none of the evidence is good.
Parker....
It's exceptionally bad on your part when Chump and I agree against you!
the fact that gellato isnt ice cream doesnt mean I cant say it looks like ice cream. The fact that stale sprite isnt water doesnt prevent me from saying it looks like water. I can say that and be right. I am trying to educate the reader here. gmab.
As for the stupidity of the theory, you seem to be scared less of the theory, cuz you refuse to check it out in any depth.
you just keep reciting the same bull about paint, which the paper disputes on page 1. And that dude is a published scientist. and you are not.
I suppose you believe Al Gore invented the internet also.
you arent up on the science at issue. Talk about nano thermite or your just blowing hot wind.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
