It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
posted by CameronFox
You should have stopped right there. The rest of you post is filled with typical truther paranoia, assumptions, and accusations.
posted by ipsedixit
Continuing in the same vein.
Maybe other people on the editorial board realized that they had been dealing with a lunkhead in Pileni all along and decided that her participation in the process wasn't really helping matters anyway.
All's well that ends well. Jones' paper got published and the journal was rid of Pileni.
Thankyou for bringing good news to our attention Cameron.
You should have stopped right there. The rest of you post is filled with typical truther paranoia, assumptions, and accusations.
Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Cam I gotta say that i also am searching to understand what the point of this article is.
Originally posted by CameronFox
Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Cam I gotta say that i also am searching to understand what the point of this article is.
The paper is hailed as "PEER REVIEWED."
That is the issue here. We do NOT know who reviewed it. The editor was NOT contacted PRIOR to having it sent out. This goes against proper procedure.
Am I qualified to say the paper is trash? Nope. I am not saying it is. I'm also not saying it ISNT paint primer.
The Bretham VANITY Journal is just that. PAY TO PUBLISH. If it doesn't get published, the journal does not get paid. Another reason why the paper was sent back not once, not twice, but three times with errors.
You guys can babble all you want and tell me I'm trying to discredit Jones & his paper. I am clearly discrediting the media that published his article.
Source: Bentham Open Journal
REVIEWING AND PROMPTNESS OF PUBLICATION: All manuscripts submitted for publication will be immediately subjected to peer-reviewing, usually in consultation with the members of the Editorial Advisory Board and a number of external referees.
"Free open access to information is vital to scientific and socio-economic progress." H. W. Kroto (Nobel Laureate)
"Bentham’s open access journals offer a creative avenue towards the goal of rapid publication and dissemination of relevant science results." Richard R. Ernst (Nobel Laureate)
"The advantage of the Open Journal series is that it is just that: open, and accessible to anyone with a PC at no charge I appeal to scholars across the disciplines to consider the Open Journal series as a forum for their work." J.C. Jones (University of Aberdeen, Scotland)
"Open access journals represent a major break-through in publishing. They provide easy access to the latest research on a wide variety of issues. Relevant and timely articles are made available in a fraction of the time taken by more conventional publishers. Articles are of uniformly high quality and written by the world's leading authorities."
Robert Looney
(Naval Postgraduate School, USA)
"There are many scientists who can not afford the rather expensive subscriptions to scientific journals. Open access journals offer a good alternative for free access to good quality scientific information."
Fidel Toldrá
(Instituto de Agroquimica y Tecnologia de Alimentos, Spain)
posted by Swing Dangler
Keep in mind, Cameron, because of your description of Bentham as a 'vanity' journal you as a non-expert are stating all of the following articles at this site are now meaningless:
www.bentham.org...
I'm sure every author would disagree with you.
They are using science and you are using a political viewpoint. Those two don't mix very well at all, do they?
Thanks for playing, your point fails.
The paper is hailed as "PEER REVIEWED."
That is the issue here. We do NOT know who reviewed it. The editor was NOT contacted PRIOR to having it sent out. This goes against proper procedure.
Am I qualified to say the paper is trash? Nope. I am not saying it is. I'm also not saying it ISNT paint primer.
The Bretham VANITY Journal is just that. PAY TO PUBLISH. If it doesn't get published, the journal does not get paid. Another reason why the paper was sent back not once, not twice, but three times with errors.
You guys can babble all you want and tell me I'm trying to discredit Jones & his paper. I am clearly discrediting the media that published his article.
Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Your in error of course by stating that the Journal does get paid if they don't publish a paper. In fact, you or an individual can sign up to become a member and pay a membership fee. Bentham's Membership Fees Not Publishing Fees Members get a discount to publishing fees. Sorry your argument fails again.
Membership fee and discount structure:
Individual Membership Fee (US$) Discount (off publication fees)
$ 1600 5%
$ 2400 10%
$ 3200 15%
$ 4000 20%
$ 4800 25%
Cameron, can you cite a source showing that the Chief Editor of Benthem Open MUST be consulted and MUST read a paper before being published?
Well:
Online Manuscript Submission:
To facilitate speedy and cost-effective submission of abstracts and manuscripts, an online submission and tracking service via Internet is being offered. Once the Editor-in-Chief of the journal has accepted your abstract, we would prefer that you submit your full manuscript online via our online submission service available at www.bentham-mps.org
www.bentham.org...
Can you cite Bentham's proper procedure you claim was not followed?
WAIT! Let me do it for you:
...notice usually, NOT ALWAYS! LOL.
Now run on back to JREF and tell all the Randi's kids you guys got it wrong again.
The editor didn't resign because of 'bad protocol' she resigned because she felt 'stabbed in the back'. And most importantly, the science still stands.
"Vanity" Journal? No such thing exists. But lets see what qualified experts think about Bentham:
A vanity press or vanity publisher is a publishing house that publishes books at the author's expense.
A vanity press will generally agree to print and bind any author's work if the author is willing to pay for the service; these fees typically form a vanity press's profits.
Keep in mind, Cameron, because of your description of Bentham as a 'vanity' journal
you as a non-expert are stating all of the following articles at this site are now meaningless:
www.bentham.org...
Thanks for playing, your point fails.
Originally posted by CameronFox
Originally posted by TheLoony
If she is the editor-in-chief, shouldn't she know what is going to be printed in her magazine? Isn't that her job?
Yes, the reason why she quit. The staff did it behind her back. The staff failed to follow proper procedure.
Knock off putting words in my mouth. This is what you do, I understand. I did not once say ANY articles were meaningless. I CLEARLY stated MANY times that the process they use is not typical for reviewed articles.
Originally posted by impressme
Again, cam this article is “NOT” about Jones paper being peer reviewed. It is about Marie-Paule Pileni being betrayed by her own people who help Jones get his journal published in her journal. What is it you do not understand? This article “does not” discredit Jones paper, however in your desperate attempts to smear Professor Jones and his scientific journal, it show what your agenda is doesn’t it.
Am I qualified to say the paper is trash? Nope. I am not saying it is. I'm also not saying it ISNT paint primer.
Cam, no one in the scientific world has even made such ridiculous statement “only you camron”. You can HOPE Steven Jones paper is trash so you can go on pushing the OS in the pancake collapse conspiracy. Again, cam, this article is NOT about “paint primer,” nice try though.
This means that there is very little doubt remaining as to what these platelets are. In light of this evidence it is safe to say that these platelets consist of Kaolinite, which does not contain any "elemental aluminum". The SEM examination in Jones' paper does not show any other particle type (other than the rhomboidal Fe2O3) and no other data in the EDS spectra for samples a-d indicate it's presence.
Therefore these samples CANNOT be thermite.
Care to show those errors camronfox? Was the errors of misspelling?
No one is BABBLING camromfox, the FACT is you are trying to discredit Jones & his paper. One only needs to read your posts to see that. Jones paper punches another hole in the OS lie that you have been supporting. Another move by the spin-doctors, trying desperately to disprove Professor Steven Jones and it is NOT working.
Originally posted by impressme
Camron, we all know they didn’t follow the typical process for publishing Professor Jones’ journal,
however that does not discredit Jones journal.
The only thing we should be discussing is how upset Marie-Paule Pileni is after being betrayed by her coworkers.
Keep in mind, Cameron, because of your description of Bentham as a 'vanity' journal you as a non-expert are stating all of the following articles at this site are now meaningless: www.bentham.org... I'm sure every author would disagree with you.
The few scientists I know of that have read the paper that was published say it is trash.
source
There is a thread where scientists and engineers are talking about it:
here
and here
Care to show those errors camronfox? Was the errors of misspelling?
The journal did not release the information that I am aware of. Sorry.
I am discrediting the process from Bentham.
You are babbling. You are starting to sound like a broken record. You repeat the same thing over and over.
If I wanted to discredit his work, I would go to the thread where it is being discussed.
Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Cameron, can you cite a source showing that the Chief Editor of Benthem Open MUST be consulted and MUST read a paper before being published?
Can you cite Bentham's proper procedure you claim was not followed?
WAIT! Let me do it for you:
Source: Bentham Open Journal
REVIEWING AND PROMPTNESS OF PUBLICATION: All manuscripts submitted for publication will be immediately subjected to peer-reviewing, usually in consultation with the members of the Editorial Advisory Board and a number of external referees.
...notice usually, NOT ALWAYS! LOL.
Online Manuscript Submission:
To facilitate speedy and cost-effective submission of abstracts and manuscripts, an online submission and tracking service via Internet is being offered. Once the Editor-in-Chief of the journal has accepted your abstract, we would prefer that you submit your full manuscript online via our online submission service available at www.bentham-mps.org
Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by CameronFox
The few scientists I know of that have read the paper that was published say it is trash.
You mean these scientists
posted by CameronFox
source
There is a thread where scientists and engineers are talking about it:
here
and here
Originally posted by SPreston
All of CameronFox's sources of scientists are from the James Randi Foundation of Magicians and Illusionists?
Is this a joke?
From the weeping well of government loyalists and 9-11 apologists?
This is hilarious.
Originally posted by impressme
Really camron, these people are only spouting their “opinions” and they fail to use real science, and these people have not submitted a peer review report of science to disprove Jones’ report.
I am discrediting the process from Bentham.
Yes camron, I have to repeat my self over and over because, you are having a hard time understanding the original article that you posted.
Then I suggest you do that, and try to stay on topic.
I am not happy how these people went about publishing Jones’ report and yes, I think it was underhanded to say the lease.