Posted: Nov 13, 2010 12:06 am
For uke2se
My memory works but slowly. Old age?
Remember this comment and my response:
It was in the thread titled "Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world" which was started by another member because I had drawn attention to the misuse of the work of Bazant et al. Bazant collaborated in various papers but the main one of interest is the Bazant & Zhou paper of 2001. One of my later comments is at: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=184076&page=16
My challenges to Tony Szamboti and his evasions are earlier in the thread. Some at page 10. The rest easy to find. If anyone needs a more detailed explanation of what is wrong with "Missing Jolt" I could oblige. But the key points are included in my recent posts. The main "killer" issue is that Szamboti falsely assumes a "post demolition" starting point for his logic then circles to prove that starting point "true". So no big surprise. GIGO!
Edit: Corrected for clarity.
My memory works but slowly. Old age?
Remember this comment and my response:econ41 wrote:uke2se wrote:This is the JREF thread on Tony Szamboti's "Missing Jolt" paper. I'm fairly sure econ participated in it. Szamboti certainly did, and his paper got a thorough trashing....
(My emphasis added.)
Not quite. I came late to the JREF discussions. I have confronted Tony Szamboti several times showing the flaws in his "Missing Jolt" paper. But it was not in the main "Missing Jolt" thread.....
It was in the thread titled "Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world" which was started by another member because I had drawn attention to the misuse of the work of Bazant et al. Bazant collaborated in various papers but the main one of interest is the Bazant & Zhou paper of 2001. One of my later comments is at: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=184076&page=16
My challenges to Tony Szamboti and his evasions are earlier in the thread. Some at page 10. The rest easy to find. If anyone needs a more detailed explanation of what is wrong with "Missing Jolt" I could oblige. But the key points are included in my recent posts. The main "killer" issue is that Szamboti falsely assumes a "post demolition" starting point for his logic then circles to prove that starting point "true". So no big surprise. GIGO!
Edit: Corrected for clarity.