Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
OK, so I asked if their were any peer reviewed articles referencing the physical evidence you say exists. You said "Yes, there are." All I asked would be to see one that you find convincing. And then you dodge and toss generalities out. Why is it so hard for you to point me to the one paper YOU find provides convincing evidence? Does it not exist? Like, come on. You say you like reasonable debate, so present it. Otherwise all of us can only conclude the peer reviewed evidence doesn't actually exist.
|
It isn't quite as easy as you make it seem. Most journals are behind paywalls or your institution must have a subscription to the journal in question. Intellectual property protection is still a thing in academic circles, so it is hard to find certain content in publicly accessible form. Do you have a PsychNet account perchance? Access through Ebscohost? There are plenty of articles, you just need access to the journals.
Here's one from Taylor and Francis that I hope is public and speaks to some of Mack's works.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...nalCode=hpli20
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Do you have links to the lab reports from los alamos and U of T that Lier refers to that verify his claims about the implants?
|
This is a dumb question. No, I don't, and you know I don't because that information is private. They aren't available and are not part of published papers. Holistic lab reports are not part of published papers.
Quote:
Leir’s claims should be easily verifiable and publishable in reputable journals. He has/had materials that could be tested by third parties to verify his claims.
He makes 16 claims about the properties of the implants. In his other works is there the lab reports and did he allow the samples to be independently tested by other groups?
|
He does not include complete lab reports, just the generalizations from those reports. This is common practice, but you know that already. He claimed to have had the samples tested by multiple labs and has the reports to support those claims. None of the labs refute their involvement. I don't know why he would allow the samples to be independently tested by other groups when he had them tested by multiple labs? The risk of having finite evidence disappear or destroyed is too much of a concern, so you rarely see this happen. Independent examination and report reviews are consistent, but release of extremely rare artifacts for testing which could destroy the sample does not happen very often. It's why certified and trusted laboratories are used to examine and test such evidence.