03-04-2010, 06:27 PM
Asked and answered. Sometimes having poor vision can be beneficial.
David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., for example, suffers from acute myopia,
which actually benefitted him in conducting his optical density studies
of the autopsy X-rays in the National Archives. In case you are not
familiar with his work, I have just interviewed him for two YouTube
segments, which are archived along with discussion of some of his
most recent presentations at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. That
you are persisting with this offers convincing evidence that you are
simply insincere and are merely clogging the thread with questions
that have already been addressed. If you want to check her results,
then conduct the same photographic studies and verify or falsify them
for yourself. That should not be too difficult for a man of your talents.
[quote name='Duncan MacRae' post='188653' date='Apr 3 2010, 05:59 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188649' date='Apr 3 2010, 05:12 PM']
The question is not to become Judyth but to replicate the measurement
of the photographs to see if you arrive at the same results. It's called
"data". No one has to have her problems with visual acuity to do this,
and that you would even imply as much is beyond ridiculous. You are
either massively ignorant of the objectivity of scientific inquiries, which
is based upon the inter-subjective capacity for replication to verify or to
falsify data or you are playing the kind of games we expect from XXXXX
I really don't think anyone here has any doubt as to what you are about.
[quote name='Duncan MacRae' post='188647' date='Apr 3 2010, 03:59 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188643' date='Apr 3 2010, 04:28 PM']
Observation and measurement are basic to scientific inquiries, Duncan.
Judyth is reporting the results of her studies. If you want to replicate
them to verify or falsify them, they you should do that, precisely as in
the case of any other scientific inquiry. You can redo the experiments
of Galileo and review the calculations of Newton, if you like, or perhaps
you can print out photos and see if you obtain the same results Judyth
is reporting. I would think you are smart enough to have figured that
out. But of course that is not really the point of your posts, is it? And,
since she is getting new glasses, it's a good thing you are doing this
now, since your posts will be even more pointless in the future. I am
sure that everyone who has been following this thread appreciates it.
[quote name='Duncan MacRae' post='188632' date='Apr 3 2010, 01:33 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188630' date='Apr 3 2010, 02:02 PM']
JUDYTH REPLIES TO DUNCAN MACRAE ON HER PHOTO STUDIES
The comment about how I can analyze these photos with my bad eyesight:
I print them out and measure them with a tape measure. I can see very well
at about an inch from a page.
JVB[/quote]
This leads to the obvious question.
If you can't see the letters of a keyboard properly from an inch or any further distance away, leaving Jim Fetzer to correct your mistakes and finish sentences,
then how can you read a tape measure with any guaranteed degree of accuracy, and how can anyone, including Jim, know your measurements are correct?
[/quote]
[/quote]
And what is your angle on the point of my posts, Jim?
I ask straight no nonsense questions, and expect straight no nonsense answers.
The point of my posts were, and still are, to try to get some straight no nonsense answers to questions that in my opinion needed to be asked, in view of her vision disability.
They have not been answered to a satisfactory degree.
Suggesting that I replicate her results is a sidetracking strategy, any replication of her studies being pointless and unfruitful, given that I do not have her vision disability. Newton couldn't replicate her studies and the disability conditions under which they were studied, and neither could Galileo.
I am sure that everyone reading this will understand my concerns, and understand that my points, far from being pointless, need to be answered...Now.
[/quote]
edited for offensive language.
[/quote]
The problem is not the the data, it is about how she acheived her results with her visual impairment.
You of course know this, you're not that stupid, and neither are the members here who will be noticing your avoidance at giving satisfactory answers on Judyth's behalf.
Judyth puts her face to within an inch of a print out and then makes measurements from that distance with a measuring tape without obscuring the data.
Wasn't April fools day 2 days ago?
[/quote]
David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., for example, suffers from acute myopia,
which actually benefitted him in conducting his optical density studies
of the autopsy X-rays in the National Archives. In case you are not
familiar with his work, I have just interviewed him for two YouTube
segments, which are archived along with discussion of some of his
most recent presentations at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. That
you are persisting with this offers convincing evidence that you are
simply insincere and are merely clogging the thread with questions
that have already been addressed. If you want to check her results,
then conduct the same photographic studies and verify or falsify them
for yourself. That should not be too difficult for a man of your talents.
[quote name='Duncan MacRae' post='188653' date='Apr 3 2010, 05:59 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188649' date='Apr 3 2010, 05:12 PM']
The question is not to become Judyth but to replicate the measurement
of the photographs to see if you arrive at the same results. It's called
"data". No one has to have her problems with visual acuity to do this,
and that you would even imply as much is beyond ridiculous. You are
either massively ignorant of the objectivity of scientific inquiries, which
is based upon the inter-subjective capacity for replication to verify or to
falsify data or you are playing the kind of games we expect from XXXXX
I really don't think anyone here has any doubt as to what you are about.
[quote name='Duncan MacRae' post='188647' date='Apr 3 2010, 03:59 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188643' date='Apr 3 2010, 04:28 PM']
Observation and measurement are basic to scientific inquiries, Duncan.
Judyth is reporting the results of her studies. If you want to replicate
them to verify or falsify them, they you should do that, precisely as in
the case of any other scientific inquiry. You can redo the experiments
of Galileo and review the calculations of Newton, if you like, or perhaps
you can print out photos and see if you obtain the same results Judyth
is reporting. I would think you are smart enough to have figured that
out. But of course that is not really the point of your posts, is it? And,
since she is getting new glasses, it's a good thing you are doing this
now, since your posts will be even more pointless in the future. I am
sure that everyone who has been following this thread appreciates it.
[quote name='Duncan MacRae' post='188632' date='Apr 3 2010, 01:33 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188630' date='Apr 3 2010, 02:02 PM']
JUDYTH REPLIES TO DUNCAN MACRAE ON HER PHOTO STUDIES
The comment about how I can analyze these photos with my bad eyesight:
I print them out and measure them with a tape measure. I can see very well
at about an inch from a page.
JVB[/quote]
This leads to the obvious question.
If you can't see the letters of a keyboard properly from an inch or any further distance away, leaving Jim Fetzer to correct your mistakes and finish sentences,
then how can you read a tape measure with any guaranteed degree of accuracy, and how can anyone, including Jim, know your measurements are correct?
[/quote]
[/quote]
And what is your angle on the point of my posts, Jim?
I ask straight no nonsense questions, and expect straight no nonsense answers.
The point of my posts were, and still are, to try to get some straight no nonsense answers to questions that in my opinion needed to be asked, in view of her vision disability.
They have not been answered to a satisfactory degree.
Suggesting that I replicate her results is a sidetracking strategy, any replication of her studies being pointless and unfruitful, given that I do not have her vision disability. Newton couldn't replicate her studies and the disability conditions under which they were studied, and neither could Galileo.
I am sure that everyone reading this will understand my concerns, and understand that my points, far from being pointless, need to be answered...Now.
[/quote]
edited for offensive language.
[/quote]
The problem is not the the data, it is about how she acheived her results with her visual impairment.
You of course know this, you're not that stupid, and neither are the members here who will be noticing your avoidance at giving satisfactory answers on Judyth's behalf.
Judyth puts her face to within an inch of a print out and then makes measurements from that distance with a measuring tape without obscuring the data.
Wasn't April fools day 2 days ago?
[/quote]