Honesty makes a perfectly good point that complete lab reports from the French and Russians should be available for review.* The rationality of his response unfortunately ends there.
Raising the specter that the French and Russian scientists announced negative results because they were threatened by Israel is rather odd, coming from someone who earlier in this thread sneered at what he claimed were bizarre conspiracy theories about possible manipulation of evidence, and who piously declared how scrupulous he’d been in not citing Israel as the foul player in this affair.
Oops.
I am also mystified at just how Honesty knows that both the French and Russian investigators were desperate to label Arafat’s death as being from natural causes, while the Swiss group was a model of objectivity and probity.
At the very least, this latest announcement might hint that it was a trifle premature to declare unequivocally that Arafat was poisoned by polonium and that doubters are akin to climate change deniers.
*Not finding evidence of something is not necessarily “a novel discovery” that must go through formal scientific peer review in order to be accepted. For instance, there is no peer review process for forensic lab tests, which is basically what’s involved here. Medical examiners issue reports every day for which reviews by fellow medical examiners are not mandated.
One can challenge test protocols or impute that tests were not carried out properly, but that requires something called “evidence”. It’s a bit much to attempt to poison the well beforehand.
Yes, Honesty starts off with a somewhat valid point. The current news of the French report is limited to what sources say it says. Al Jazeera quotes various sources stating that the French report found similar amounts of polonium as the Swiss team but reach very different conclusions. They conclude it is an externally caused artifact and have ruled out murder by polonium. According to Al Jazeera the full report is part of the (alleged) murder investigation and thus cannot be released to the public.
It would be nice to read, from the original source, what their reasoning is. It was the ability to read the Swiss report that allowed me to conclude it was a crock that contradicted itself. I think we can however trust that the French conclusion is what the sources state it is; it’s the why they reached that conclusion that is unclear. Calling the report “non-existant” is a desperate argument. As is Suha Arafat’s lawyer, stating: "the only show in town is that of the Swiss.” Alleging that everyone but the Swiss have been threatened into a conspiricy to hide the truth by Israel or other unnamed powers is … funny.
We do not need to assume the Swiss scientists are fraudulent. We do reasonably merely note that their conclusion is not agreed with by any other of the teams of forensic scientists with access to the materials. It had in isolation read as the work of a conclusion looking for data. Two other teams both concluding other than the Swiss team did is extremely (not “moderately”) strong support of that impression.
I agree that it’s a low hanging fruit but didn’t people in this thread claim that Swiss scientists may have tampered with the items? I don’t see it outside the realm of possibility, especially if we’re still considering the cigarette smoke, natural causes, or HIV as a cause of Arafat’s death.
[QUOTE=Dissonance]
Yes, what evidence is there that this isn’t all just a Zionist conspiracy to conceal the truth? Until someone proves otherwise, it must be assumed that ZOG and the Jew bankers threatened the French and the Russians to come up with a negative result.
[/quote]
I agree, there is no evidence to suggest that this occurred. Though to be fair - and I hope you’ll agree - that the French or Russians have not provided (other than non-productive press releases) a shred of evidence to their assertion that Yasser Arafat’s belongings were not contaminated with polonium.
Jackmannii, I put the following in italics as if it were in flashing, neon lights: The Swiss model would be a better model of “objectivity” because they got a peer-review on their data and their final report were signed off by multiple experts in the field; in contrast, the French and Russians have not released any (none, zilch, zip, kein) data.
This is absolutely incorrect. “Not finding evidence” for polonium poisoning has to equate to no detectable levels of polonium in Yasser Arafat’s belongings or data that’s contrary to that presented by the Swiss. For example, we do not know the the methodology and instrumentation used during the supposed French and Russian study; it could be that the Swiss are using sensitive and state-of-the-art devices to measure radioactivity compared to the other labs (or maybe the reverse is true). We just don’t know, which is why it is mind-boggling to me why these labs have not released their data.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
We do reasonably merely note that their conclusion is not agreed with by any other of the teams of forensic scientists with access to the materials. It had in isolation read as the work of a conclusion looking for data. Two other teams both concluding other than the Swiss team did is extremely (not “moderately”) strong support of that impression.
[/Quote]
The conclusions of the Swiss scientists have yet to be refuted by data from either the French or Russian labs. Not one single graph, table, data point, or reference number. You and **Jackmannii **are doing an impossible task of trying to tie down the wind with a rope because there is no evidence of what the Russians and French are saying. And as a former scientist, I can’t even imagine performing an experiment, doing the data analysis, and releasing the conclusion of that experiment without the accompanying data; it’s so bizarre, so out-of-the-ordinary, I don’t really know what to think of it.
It’ll be interesting to see if inspired by Honesty’s demands that we prove that the French and Russian scientists weren’t “pressured by the Israelis” if in one of the various threads in which it’s posited that blacks are intellectually inferior that some people don’t demand that we don’t produce evidence that studies disproving this weren’t a result of “pressure from the NAACP” or “Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton”.
Still wondering how a lab assay (for polonium residue, heavy metals, cannabinoids, whatever) has morphed into an “experiment” requiring peer review.
And rather than just having colleagues review a manuscript, actually getting multiple teams to perform tests on the same material that result in different conclusions strikes me as a much more rigorous form of peer review.
Props to Honesty though for switching to italics. The monster fonts were hard on the eyes.
I would certainly be interested in reading the French and Russian results. I assume that it will be a while before we see the French results, as that is part of an ongoing criminal investigation.
Right now, though, it is certainly looking as if the murder by polonium hypothesis is undermined. It was never very strong to begin with.
Yes, I have access to the Swiss report which allows critical analysis of it. It does not hold up well. Once again, how do you put together the claim that there was huge amount of polonium in Arafat’s bones with the fact that his bone marrow showed no suppression? That we know little enough about polonium that we can make up anything we want and claim that it is possible and that once we claim something is not impossible it is also “moderately” likely to be true? Critical analysis of the Swiss report revealed it to be … lacking in intellectual rigor.
Arafat’s death is not the search for Higg’s Boson; it is a foresnsic investigation as part of an allegation of murder. The standard for such investigations does not include release of findings in published journals. Details are released at trials if there is enough evidence to proceed to one otherwise they generally are not.
If you choose to claim that Al Jazeera is making up the Russian report they say they had reviewed, and that Suha Arafat and her lawyer, who according to Al Jazeera were presented with the French report, are lying when they claim the French report concluded that Arafat was not murdered (and thus that the Swiss report is “the only one in town”) you are free to do so.
I do not recall anyone accusing the Swiss of tampering with the evidence. There has been a long lack of standard chain of evidence leaving open the possibility that someone along the way could have tampered with the evidence; I have gone on record stating that someone tampering with the evidence along the way is not impossible but not likely especially given the claimed findings in the bones. I also stated that the most likely explanation of the Swiss report producing a result and a conclusion that was so incompatable with the clinical findings was honest error and/or cognitive bias on their part. Not tampering by anyone, let alone the Swiss.
You are a former scientist? And you jumped from one study claiming that something is “moderately probable” to “The dude was flat-out poisoned”? Your critical thinking went so far as to scoff incredulously that anyone does not accept unquestioningly a conclusion published in a peer reviewed journal like Lancet … it’s not like they ever published crap and falsified studies (cough … Wakefield MMR autism … cough) … one study claiming something is, in the opinion of the authors, “moderately probable”, is “flat-out” proof to you? I can see why you gave science up!
If you agree, then where in the name of god did you pull the idea that Israel threatened French and Russian scientists to produce negative results come from? I find it hard to believe that you are an actual former scientist (unless there is a reason for it being ‘former’), yet consider it valid to demand evidence be produced to prove that these conclusions weren’t reached because Israel threatened the scientists. This is a basic negative proof fallacy. The burden is on you to provide proof of such a wild accusation before concluding any such thing occurred. Even better, provide the tiniest shred of evidence to support such an idea before demanding evidence that it didn’t occur. Or do the Jews have Al Jazeera, Suha Arafat and her lawyer in their pocket as well? How deep does the conspiracy go?
Honesty accepts as revealed truth that Israel is the only actor who had any motivation to kill Arafat, that Arafat was murdered rather died of complications of a severe enterocolitis, and that polonium was Israel’s method of choice to rather than their usual blunter bomb or bullet appraoch. Anything that avoids having those truths threatened is preferred to consideration that the revealed truth is false.
There would be no way to falsify Honesty’s belief. Reports of the Russian and French findings are not enough. If they did exist (which he will not accept) then they must be due to pressure from the international Zionist conspiricy (or those who collaborate with them). His tooth is no longer under his pillow and a dollar coin is now there; others will need to prove that the tooth fairy does not exist and his parents telling him they did it will not suffice because they could be being forced to say that.
I’ve addressed this so many times that I’m going to borrow a line from House of Cards and reply, “You might very well think that but I couldn’t possibly comment”.
DSeid, my beliefs are very falsifiable, all I ask is for the data - any data - from the French or the Russians. Once the available proof reaches this extraordinarily low threshold, I will review it, but I won’t be swayed by unhelpful and unproductive press releases without the accompanying data.
Nah, I have (temporarily) gave up science because I get more money by teaching than I do by doing it. If someone gave you a choice between getting paid $60,000 to teach (with breaks and vacations) or working in a laboratory (with no very little breaks and no vacation) for $30,000, which would you choose?
Yet you will conclude Israel threatened the scientists to doctor their results without the slightest shred of evidence; odd, that. Talk about extraordinarily low thresholds.
You’re attempting to misrepresent my position, please re-read the passage:
[QUOTE=Honesty]
For argument’s sake, let’s assume that Yasser Arafat died of natural causes as outlined by the non-existent report by the French. What evidence is there that the scientists were not threatened by Israel or any other country to come up with a negative result? The French (and Russians) are so hungry to say that he died of natural causes, they’ve neglected to put out the corresponding data. Also, do we assume that the Swiss scientists are fraudulent?
[/QUOTE]
Did you not see that I prefaced my statement with “for argument’s sake”? I was taking the devil’s advocateposition. It’s a shame that I have to spell it out.
Though you can’t see it, I am the one of the few posters here that have highlighted real data. You and the clown-car peanut gallery have not; in fact, the only thing you can bring are a sheaf of press releases with no data. So, with all due respect, if anyone is JAQing off, it is, you.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Evidence that they were not threatened?
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
“You might very well think that but, of course, I couldn’t possibly comment.”
Who, exactly, do you think you are fooling?:rolleyes:
Did you not notice that you ended that statement with a period, and then asked for evidence that the dread Israelis hadn’t threatened the scientists? What sense would it possibly make for Israel to threaten the scientists to come up with a negative result if he had died of natural causes? The Israelis are just so villainous that they routinely threaten scientists from foreign countries to present truthful findings or they’ll kill them and their families? I mean, for argument’s sake you’ve decided he died of natural causes, right? You’re misrepresenting your own position. What’s a shame is it’s pretty obvious you’re making this shit up on the fly.
We could hardly miss it, what with the italicizing and Monster Fonts.
What is equally hard to miss is the voluminous science and forensic conclusions you continue to ignore or exaggerate, when they interfere with your “inescapable” conclusion that the “dude was flat-out poisoned”. :rolleyes:
I am glad I could be of service; whenever you have data to present, feel free to resurrect the thread.
[QUOTE=Dissonance]
What’s a shame is it’s pretty obvious you’re making this shit up on the fly.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Dissonance]
Who, exactly, do you think you are fooling?
[/QUOTE]
Well, Dissonance, what you (and others) are doing, I think, is attempting to denigrate me as the poster because you have nothing else to lean on nor do you have any empirical data to back up your conclusions that Arafat’s belongings were not contaminated with polonium. None. Zilch. Nada. You - despite any objections to the contrary - are using blind faith to legitimize your position. You see, I don’t have to knock on your screen name, your join date, your use of italics, your use of fonts, or misconstrue your viewpoint as a means to degrade your position. In fact, I urge you to start a pit thread where you may let out your pent-up two minutes of hate against me. My position is the actual data and my interpretation of that data; nothing more, nothing less.
If you (or others) think I’m some lying or being devious, then you’re more than welcome to ignore my post or * alert the moderators to my alleged deceit and purported maliciousness. In fact, I think I’ve been nothing but patient and forthright during this discussion. Moving forward, however, unless you have any substantive data to provide (and I wager you don’t) or actual intelligible critiques of the Swiss study (and I wager you have none), this’ll likely be the last post by you that I’ll be responding to (same goes to Jackmannii).
Honesty
P.S. Grades have been posted in the spoiler box below (as a desperate ploy to get the thread on track).
DSeid gets a C- for at least critiquing the Swiss study; the rest of you get Fs as you didn’t even try.
