Exploring abrupt climate change induced by comets and asteroids during human history

Love Notes: Boslough finally addresses LeCompte

Restored from the library fire 1/9/20

13 Responses

  1. The part that no one talks about here is that Sandia is in competition with Harvard for processing ATLAS data.

    It’s like I said before, B. is not very good. There is a difference between science and scheming, which some individuals do not understand, and others are unprepared for. IMO, the whole story of impact research since about 1980 is going top constitute one of the saddest and sorriest chapters in the history of science.

    It was the dating problems that led Firestone into this field, and while I differ with Firestone on the formation process, B. clearly does not even understand the raw data on local isotope variations, and this is particularly telling.

    Right now, I feel sorry for the ATLAS system designer who got caught up in this petty BS. But if he was a party to this mess, that would be even sorrier.

    One of the major results of the political machinations of the “comets don’t hit” school has been the disconnect between impact geologists and the rest of the impact community. IMO, what it will take to bring this BS to an end in this case is finding a major astrobleme from the HSIE. The research at Ilturralde needs to be continued.

    Another disconnect caused by this activities has been between the disconnect between the impact geologists and the archaeological community. Some of you here known my current thinking on some other possible structures.

  2. Sorry for the damned typos, I try to catch them, but my stroke damage is beyond my control:
    read “these activities” for “this activities” and “know” for “known”.

  3. EP Grondine,

    Successful fraud in one field of science leads to it in others.

    Since so much of academia is now caught up in scams of one sort or another — particularly in getting unsuspecting undergraduates into life-long student loan debt peonage — impact science is simply one of the crowd.

  4. Well, I think that LeCompte has put it out there very well that Boslough and Surovell are sloppy scientists. Let’s see if Boslough has a fact-based rebuttal. Pointing at ONE spherule – which LeCompte addressed, anyway – is pretty clear evidence of cherry picking on Boslough’s part. The loudspeaker is blaring out, “What about the other spherules – the ones you chose not to mention?!”

  5. Hi TT –

    I’ll disgree with you. In this case we know the behaviors of the irresponsible parties quite well.

    While science needs to be freely done without fear, in this case, without the threat of firing, this type of behavior will continue.

    Three decades is long enough.

  6. BTW, indentured servitude is nothing new. It is one of the reasons why our ancestors left Europe and came to “the new world.” Alas, though our Constitution makes provisions for this outrage, nobody is listening.

  7. But, as referenced earlier, it was quickly apparent to the original authors — and thank goodness others — what had happened. Surovell-Holliday had failed in several ways to follow the testing protocol provided by Firestone for follow-up researchers. LeCompte documents six serious “Deficiencies” of the Holliday-Surovell study.

  8. For some reason I had not read the paper here. I think (but am no sure) that the paper itself was not available when I last looked.

    I stopped after reading the Boslough portion and came to give this one input:

    Once again, as I’ve said before, on this subject Bslough is just a kibitzer. He doesn’t DO anything. He only comments with innuendos all over the place, that anyone who doesn’t agree with his POV has done work that isn’t complete or factual – without ever having done any of the work himself.

    That strongly suggests that his other collaborators are doing the actual kibitzing, and that Bos is just putting his name to it.

  9. Boslough:

    “Samples collected by others have failed to reproduce his [LeCompte’s] findings.”

    This is a sad, sad parsing of words. The Bos couldn’t say the truth, which he was well aware of:

    “Samples collected by SOME others have failed to reproduce his findings,”

    because that would mean he would have to address two issues
    1. The one that Lecompte had already addressed about Surovell’s failures
    2. The samples collected by FIVE others that DID confirm LeCompte’s and Firestone’s work.

    So all he could do was to hide behind his mendacious phrasing and hope the editors were too stupid to see through it.

    Of course, LeCompte ripped Boslough a new anal orifice AGAIN in addressing this failure by Boslough to be an honest scientist and debater, so I didn’t really need to write the above. But I did, anyway.

    Way to go, Malcolm. Keep fighting their bull with science. Sooner or later the honest scientists will start seeing the truth of the matter.

    And what is the truth of the matter? That the results have been consistently consistent with an impact, though not yet conclusive.

    If this was a courtroom, where forensic evidence is king, all of this would have been settled by now. But since it is science and part of the court is the public, where the issue is mediated by science editors who are not impartial, the arguments of opposing counsel continues to somehow weigh as much or more than forensic evidence in vast quantities. This displays how screwed up the science news media and the scientific process are – when the side with NO solid evidence and only lawyer’s tricks somehow keeps the issue from being concluded so that the science can move on to the next stage: The search for the crater.

    All they are doing is holding up scientific progress.

    With what? Lawyers tricks.

    For what? Who the heck knows.

    Get the heck out of the way, Bos. Go back to your cartoons and pretend science. And let the big boys do their work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe for Updates

Tax deductible donations to the Comet Research Group can be made here