Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
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
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.
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. |
I would expect that someone outside of his research team would have reviewed the lab reports. For example a chemical company tells be that a chemical is compatible with a material. I say, can you please send me the lab report so I can review the findings. Then the company sends me the lab report.
I actually didn’t know that the lab reports wouldn’t be publicly available. I would have assumed that in his books he would have them as appendices. I’m trying to actually understand why you find Leir credible? Am I reading a good summary of his work? Because I read that paper and if what he claims he has found is true it should be easily repeatable by others. And therefore in the absence of an effort to have the work repeated the work is not credible.
For example the two items below should be easily verifiable without sample destruction.
6. The emission of radio waves which are deep space frequencies in the FM band.
7. Electromagnetic fields in ex- cess of ten milligauss.
What do you find compelling about Leir and on what grounds do you put trust in it?