jamesrage

You made the claim in order to imply that the US government does deliberately murder its own citizens. Why else bring it up governments murdering their own people in a 9-11 conspiracy if you did not imply that the US government does the same? So back up your claims.


It would be more counterproductive to let witnesses, so called experts and people uncovering evidence to live. What if these people were actually successful, something like this could actually cause them to loose power or even their heads. So it is moronic to claim the government has no problem murdering 3000 American citizens but for some lame ass reason can not find it in their hearts to kill witnesses,experts and people uncovering evidence.

__________________
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

_Markum_

My purpose for citing the historical fact that government murders its own citizens was to expose as illogical the preconception that the US government is absolutely unable to murder its own citizens, since this appeared to be an important feature of your reasoning. I advocate for open-mindedness, not for any particular position at the expense of others.


Again, you are simply misrepresenting the rationale I've delineated. Your own argument, above, is evidence supporting my assertion that it would be counterproductive to eradicate the voices of dissent. Witness the fact that the continuing existence of the dissenters is proof to you that what they say is wrong! If they started to disappear in droves, even you might start to wonder why, and whether what they'd been saying was true. Do you see how you've proved my point?

Don't believe for a moment that the US government has any problem "disappearing" or "accidenting" witnesses or experts of sufficient authoritativeness to pose a genuine threat to the agenda. But all you'd be able to put your finger on are suggestive coincidences. There is a set of skills and an art to such things, as I'm sure you realize if your reading of history has taken you beyond the usual high-school text books.

BmanMcfly

I cited a few examples of the government killing or maiming it's own citzens... including some examples of corporations that have killed citizens... except I cited them as google searches so that you could find it for yourself... I'm sick of people that ask for sources on every minute aspect of a claim that doesn't get read and then requires a second citation later on... so I gave you the search topics, where you'll see government funded murder of it's own citizens. So, not to be rude... but you can look at the information on your own terms, at least this way you won't be able to claim biased info.

__________________
Are you paying attention to the change?

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

Sorry Markum ... your linked Journal is a sham !!!

WHERE is the peer-reviewto back up those claims ... ???

__________________
Parva leves capiunt animas !!!

_Markum_

Oh, is it? You'll forgive me if I don't find your bald assertion persuasive. Absent an exposition of what constitutes "peer review" and an explanation of how the linked journal fails to satisfy such criteria, logic forbids lending credibility to your simple denial.

Besides, the politics of profit and personality has sufficiently shamed the peer-review process that I personally have little respect for it. Witness the "cold fusion" debacle. Even these many years later, and after respectable scientific development, the now well-documented phenomenon is hardly credited. Peer-review has shown itself to be little more than the stamp of political correctness.

What I find persuasive, each and every time, in general, is the fact that a group of credentialed scientists has bothered to put their names to a detailed report of findings. The agreement or disagreement of their peers is only interesting.

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

Sorry Markum ... but wasn't your esteemed scientist Jones ALSO involved in the "cold fusion debacle" !!!

Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion


However ... back on topic ...

Bentham is NOT an actual publication ... it is an on-line, open-access, PAY-TO-PUBLISH sham journal ... based in Pakistan.

REAL LEGITIMATE scientists wouldn't be seen dead in Bentham !!!

REAL LEGITIMATE peer-review is the process by which new information and theories can be examined and tested by OTHER scientists, technicians, engineers, experts and academics within the SAME fields.

(Political correctness ... drivel and you know it !!!)

For example ... a CARDIOVASCULAR expert proposing a new technique, theory or thesis will present it for peer-review in one of the RELEVANT medical Journals (such as "The Lancet" or the "BMJ") ...

TheLancet.com - Home Page

bmj.com:

That new theory will then be looked at by a panel of OTHER CARDIOVASCULAR EXPERTS ... people whom have KNOWLEDGE and EXPERTISE within the fields of dealing with cardiovascular diseases, etc.

If those OTHER experts then AGREE with the new theory or findings ... then the ARTICLE will be PUBLISHED.

In other words, it is information REVIEWED by PEERS ... then PUBLISHED !!!

And if other people continue to AGREE with the theory or findings of the PUBLISHED ARTICLE ... it will be CITED in other Journals.

The MORE citations ... the MORE agreement !!!

Being CITED in other publication and Journals is, therefore, a GUARANTEE of veracity ... or more simplistically, a kind of voting system.

__________________
Parva leves capiunt animas !!!

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

HOWEVER ... NONE OF THE ABOVE IS WHAT WE SEE WITH JONES' BENTHAM PAPER ...

As mentioned before the the Open Chemical Physics Journal is NOT an actual publication ... it is an OPEN-ACCESS, ON-LINE, PAY-TO-PUBLISH one.

And its Chief Editor Professor Marie-Paule Pileni RESIGNED after the Jones/Harrit article.

Among her reasons was that the paper was published WITHOUT notifying her and that it deals on a topic UNRELATED to chemical physics or physical chemistry.

Stating ...

“I was in fact in doubt about them before, because I had on several occasions asked about information about the journal without having heard from them. It does not appear on the list of international journals, and that is a bad sign. Now I can see that it is because it is a bad journal”

There are no references to the Open Chemical Physics Journal in other articles. I have two colleagues who contributed to publishing an article which was not cited anyplace either. If no one reads it, it is a bad journal, and there is not use for it”

As stated before also the one thing that lends CREDIBILITY to any scientific paper is when either it or the Journal in which it appears is CITED in other scientific Journals ....

Open Chemical Physics Journal is NEVER cited in other scientific Journals !!!

Now, what people seem to be misunderstanding about scientific Journals is that they appear to believe that if something appears in a scientific journal ... EVEN an on-line open access one ... then it is an official "endorsement" by the wider scientific community.

Actually, it is NOT.

What an article ACTUALLY does is it puts the conclusions out there for OTHER members of the scientific community to read and attempt to either verify or disprove the conclusions presented in the article.

If other researchers can replicate the experiments and come to the same conclusions ... then the viewpoint of the original author can be considered accepted by the scientific community.

If other researcher CANNOT replicate the results ... then the paper and its conclusions are marginalized and eventually IGNORED.

Just because something "appears" in ONE scientific Journal does NOT mean that it it accepted as completely factual by scientists WORLD-WIDE.

So in REALITY it was NOT properly peer-reviewed OR endorsed ... it was another weak and purile attempt to APPEAL to a lay public whom have ZERO understanding of what REAL peer-review is about !!!

__________________
Parva leves capiunt animas !!!

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

Bentham ALSO suffered a SECOND blow to their credibility when it was revealed that they published a NONSENSE MADE-UP paper ... exposing their INCOMPETANT review-process and the following editor also then RESIGNED !!!

Editor quits after journal accepts bogus science article | Education | guardian.co.uk

Adventure in Open Access Publishing The Scholarly Kitchen

OA publisher accepts fake paper :The Scientist [10th June 2009]

This is one (huge) problem I have with the 9/11 Truth movement ... to them it doesn’t matter HOW many real scientific Journals detail how the Towers fell ... showing DETAILED documentation as how their conclusions were reached.

And to them it doesn’t matter if hundreds of thousands of Engineers and scientist WORLDWIDE disagree with what the 9/11 Truth movement thinks ...

If just ONE group ... consisting of a total of nine (sciency) people tells them what they want to hear and those nine people write an article that appears in a self-proclaimed “scientific journal”, then they will go with the MINORITY and discount what thousands of other experts say on the subject.

~~~~~~~~~~

Markum ... it is now dinner time here in Scotland ... but rest assured I shall be back tomorrow with a detailed analysis of WHY Jones' peers and their review is NOT up to standard.

Ultimately it is because they were commenting TOTALLY OUTWITH their spheres of expertise !!!

Toddle-pip ...

__________________
Parva leves capiunt animas !!!

_Markum_

I have no particular "esteem" for scientist Jones; and I don't see how I've given the contrary impression. His involvement, according to the article you linked, appears to have been more as a detractor than as a proponent of cold fusion, so I don't get your point. Are you suggesting that his "involvement" in more than one controversy somehow disqualifies his work from serious consideration? I would disagree.


I suspect that by "actual publication" you mean "ink and paper publication". I don't attribute much weight to that distinction. "Ink and paper" publishing is inherently considerably more expensive than the online variety, for obvious reasons having nothing to do with the content of the publication. And because advertising revenue required even for online publishing can be scarce, I don't see the "pay-to-publish" criticism as especially relevant (you didn't specify how MUCH was the pay). You also imply that the "ink and paper" publication's access is "closed" in some way. Could you amplify on that point and its significance? You also suggest that Pakistan is somehow an unsuitable base for a credible peer-reviewed scientific journal. Why would that be? So I still see nothing to warrant the "sham" adjective.


And, therefore, a scientist seen in Bentham is not "real legitimate", right? I don't know if your conclusion is true or not; but it IS invalid, since your earlier-stated premises are not true.


I'm familiar with the purported purpose of peer-review. The determination of the "sameness" of fields can be more or less arbitrary, given the overlap of disciplines.


Hardly!! The influence of prevailing norms, consensus, and preconceptions is a fact of history and common sense. I attribute great weight to such considerations.


Viola! Reality by consensus! This IS the essential character of "political correctness", is it not? Don't get me wrong; I am not opposed to the process of peer review that you've described. It is a standard of communication among scientists that introduces a certain rigor that enhances scientific effort and the general standing of the scientific community. And I have no doubt that individually scientists are altruistic, dedicated, and conscientious.

However, we are all born with a certain political consciousness; we are swayed by the opinions of people we respect and care for--often to a degree we are unaware of. The practice of "pure science" by the self-driven researcher is the popular conception of the "scientist". But as the costs for such research have risen with the increasing complexity of science, so has the need for funding and a management hierarchy. Enter politics.

Just as advertisers influence content, so do those who provide research and development funds influence scientific results. The data falsification scandals of recent decades serve to illustrate the new reality: scientific data can be bought and paid for. And those complicit in such corruption use secrecy, exclusivity, and disinformation to protect their interests. This is politics, especially the politics of business. It is only the lone-wolf, low-budget scientist who can hope to be immune--at least until he needs a patent to protect his work. I'm sorry, but this is the way the world works.


Well, my confidence in voting systems went out the window with the advent of Diebold.

_Markum_

Now, let me get this straight: The editor of the Open Chemical Physics Journal because her publication (the Open Chemical Physics Journal) published
a paper without notifying her! Sounds like an organizational problem at the journal. And because the paper did not deal with chemistry? Maybe my idea of dealing with chemistry is very much less specialized than hers, but there was a good bit of chemical analysis presented in the paper.

The quotation you provided, ostensibly of her words, has her saying she asked for information about the journal (Open Chemical Physics Journal?), and finally calling it a bad journal because nobody reads it. Seems an odd way to speak of one's own publication. I must have missed something, eh?

Regardless, isn't it reasonable to expect a new publication to suffer a dearth of readership initially. And if low readership is a reason not to read it, how would a new journal get started?

Further, official reasons for resignation needn't be true reasons.


This last statement simply does not follow from the preceding statements! It seems to me that getting the paper published was step one. Next, the larger scientific community would examine it, attempt to reproduce it, and then report on its findings. In this latter step would come the peer-review and endorsement (or not, as the case may be). Has enough time transpired from the time of publication for this latter step to be completed? I haven't seen anything to suggest a "yes" in answer to this question. Characterizing the paper (or its publication?) as "another weak and purile attempt to appeal" betrays a political bias unrelated to the merits of the paper. I was beginning to expect better than that from you.