Peer Review Tyranny

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Mary Rose
I heard an anecdote about an archaeology professor - I don't remember the name or the university - who did research that led her to draw conclusions that were contrary to the mainstream, accepted view. I believe she ended up getting fired.

That anecdote I heard may have been in the area of astronomy, not archaeology.

All I remember is a person who was meticulously doing her job but because her conclusions didn't match dogma that was the end of it for her findings.

This is called "moving the goalposts". Of course it isn't surprising that you did that. You post a vague anecdote that could apply to a number of different situations and fields of study. So when someone highlights one and disproves this above claim, you can just as easily say, "well I wasn't talking about that incident." This disregards the fact that anecdotes and stories aren't proof of anything. If you believe this event is true, dig up the EXACT event you are talking about so we can discuss it. Otherwise it isn't worth addressing. To me it looks like you just made it up on the spot.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It doesn't make any difference what field of study it was.

I'm not going to post a link about it and we're not going to discuss it because I've told you everything I know.

If I run across the information again I will recognize it immediately and it will get posted.

Then, we can discuss it.

originally posted by: soundstyle
a reply to: interupt42

So even if TPTB control the process they (TPTB) must scientifically disprove why your claim doesn't hold water.

no, they must 'scientifically prove' their claims.

they are no different than any one else.



Presenting a claim within a scientific context by using NOTHING to validate their claim, is called BULL#!....no matter who says it.

??? I think that is what I said?

a reply to: interupt42

Don't worry... You did say that. You haven't list your mind. Not yet at least.

originally posted by: soundstyle
which is needed to allow the found FFA

What is meant by found free fall acceleration?

originally posted by: soundstyle
I am discussing science and 'peer review'...why are you distracting from those points?

Additionally, the drumbeat that you're getting from others is highly suspect.

Why would people find which sub-forum you're in so damned important?

Is the problem that people just can't handle the truth, so the pejorative "conspiracy theory" is needed to lend that suggestion of ridicule in order to shift everyone off-target and obfuscate the subject matter?

originally posted by: soundstyle
they refuse to release the 68,000+ data variables that tell the models what to do, how to behave.

Why would our National Institute of Standards and Technology do that?




Is it proprietary, or what??

a reply to: Mary Rose

Additionally, the drumbeat that you're getting from others is highly suspect.

I can't seem to be able to say that.....I get deleted for sneezing in the wrong forum.

Why would people find which sub-forum you're in so damned important?

because if it's put in the 9-11 forum, NO one pays any attention to it thanks to main-stream-media constant barrage of 9-11 questions = conspiracy nuts.


there is no science they can use to prove me wrong......so they need other ways to silence the messenger.

Is the problem that people just can't handle the truth

people do not want to know the truth if it means destroying the very image they hold so dear.


people like Peter need to discredit the messenger rather than focus on discrediting the science.

the science shows them the lairs they are.
the official claim pushed refuse peer review of their claim of new science occurring, the acceptable practice of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.

I'm glad you have made this thread. The peer review system is like communism - good on paper but completely unworkable in real life.

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

Superb analogy.

a reply to: Mary Rose

Why would our National Institute of Standards and Technology do that?

they didn't as a whole.....

but like any large organization, Gov. is no different. there are those there solely out for personal gain.

the ones in control can do anything....cause we let them.

Is it proprietary, or what??

absolutely not!

anyone can buy and use the LS-DYNA software.......it's the data variables that tell the collapse model software what to do, how to behave that is in question....all their 68,000+ data files are merely a digital representation of the structure, is not propriety, and demands release in order to peer review....they can make the building as strong or weak as they want to....and with no peer review, no one knows.


but we do know that mass accelerating equal to g. can do no work to assist in it's collapse.

IRL, a collapsing building uses it's own force in order to collapse....damage caused by falling debris furthering the collapse, if it has the necessary force to do so.

with a collapse constantly accelerating at the same rate as if one just jumped off an 8 story building....there is nothing below preventing that constant acceleration at that specific rate.

originally posted by: soundstyle

they didn't as a whole.....

but like any large organization, Gov. is no different. there are those there solely out for personal gain.

the ones in control can do anything....cause we let them.

And probably some doing what they think they have to to keep their job.

originally posted by: soundstyle
all their 68,000+ data files are merely a digital representation of the structure, is not propriety, and demands release in order to peer review....they can make the building as strong or weak as they want to....and with no peer review, no one knows.

What is their official story for the refusal to release?

originally posted by: soundstyle
IRL, a collapsing building uses it's own force in order to collapse....damage caused by falling debris furthering the collapse, if it has the necessary force to do so.

What does "IRL" stand for?

a reply to: Mary Rose

What is their official story for the refusal to release?

...the Director finds that the disclosure of the information might jeopardize public safety. On July 9 2009 the Director of NIST determined that release of the withheld information might' jeopardize public safety. Therefore, these records are being withheld.

a "public safety" issue.

seems to me that withholding this information would cause a public safety issue, that is IF their claims are true.....who's to say this wont ever happen again from isolated fire removing structure allowing a global unified free fall accelerated collapse of an entire building to occur.

What does "IRL" stand for?

sorry...'in real life'.

a reply to: soundstyle

Maybe their public safety. [Just kidding.]

originally posted by: soundstyle
seems to me that withholding this information would cause a public safety issue, that is IF their claims are true.....who's to say this wont ever happen again from isolated fire removing structure allowing a global unified free fall accelerated collapse of an entire building to occur.

Maybe the information alone could cause a collapse!!!! [Satire alert.]

and think.