"Day Brown" <daybrown@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4889898d$0$5985$ec3e2dad@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Patrick Keenan wrote:
>> "VTR" <vexjorge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:d8GdnR-kaYP8GxXVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> 9-11 Truth Movement: Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering
>>> Journal
>>>
>>>
>>> With publication in an established civil engineering journal,
>>
>> Which is all of 2-years old... there are two issues. Yeah, that's
>> certainly established.
> This is the Internet Patrick, and academia is kinda behind the curve.
> That they are starting to catch up in the last two years is high time.
>
> Be that as it may, since I'm not an architect or mechanical engineer, I
> looked at some articles where I have some expertise. Like a degree in
> psych and experience with autistic kids in clinical settings.
>
> The Swedish study they published is thoroughly professional. There is
even
> some daring in performing an analysis of twins, because the conventional
> lack of wisdom was so long that autism was a behavioral problem
unrelated
> to genetic endowment or lack thereof.
>
> And since I was born on a farm, have raised cattle, and now live in the
> country again, I looked at the agricultural studies. Again, it did not
at
> all, as implied in this thread, look like a vanity press. There was even
a
> bit of challenge you mite not see in the standard "professional" ag
> journals in the disappointing results they got from zeolite, which has
> been hyped by commercial interests to control e. coli.
>
> Then too, since I've lived so much of my life in rural areas where the
AC
> power is unreliable, I paid attention to the raps on power supplies and
in
> this case, a stable oscillator, which is necessary for a DC inverter to
> operate properly to pick up the load when the power goes out. Again, it
> dont look like vanity press dude.
>
> You wanna try again with some specific points in which you think, if
that
> is what you are capable of doing besides ad hominum, where the
standards
> of scientific rigor was not adequate?
If you actually read my post instead of just rejecting it once I pointed
out
that two years and two issues is not remotely "established" compared to
genuinely established journals, you would know that I did exactly that.
The authors deliberately exclude facts that are not favourable to their
position. That doesn't remotely meet the standards of scientific rigour.
Hope this helps.
-pk
> The innumerable responses you and your fellow debunkers present which
are
> no more than ad hominum, sup****ts the logical condition that those who
are
> still searching for reasonable scientific analysis- have good cause to
be
> doing so.
|
