Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to redlightrobot's blog Subscribe


Special Features


In recent decades the scientific consensus has been that the moon formed billions of years ago from debris cast off when a Mars-sized object dealt Earth a glancing blow.
and that folks is just a wild assed guess,
#9 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-03-04 06:12 PM

I distrust all cosmological data on it's face.

An example:

"NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing.

Since then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, who oversaw television processing at the ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11 mission, has been looking for them.

The good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed - magnetically erased - and re-used to save money.

"The goal was live TV," Nafzger told a news conference."

Another example:

A lie under his arm?

A closeup.

That is the same crater NASA detonated a nuclear bomb in 2009.

I presume it could appear that two assailants easily abduct Adam at his mothers home, load his weapons into the trunk then proceed to the school in his mothers car. She drove a different vehicle that day? Both men were seen, appear military, act military and undoubtedly are trained operatives.

Both were scouting the school - that is where they were both seen. They are dressed to play and fled pursuit until physical capture was necessary - that is perhaps a most telling aspect of their training, but we don't know what their interrogation was like, let alone who they are or even names. We know nothing from authorities.

They appear dangerous so why place one in the front of the police cruiser? They usually frown on allowing others behind the wheel too. That seems strange and incredible unless this person had some form of security clearance that the police recognize, undoubtedly Federal and he didn't want to sit in back, like an egocentric ----.

Was this crucial information deliberately omitted?

From another perspective the killings could have been set up with two gunmen, two pistols each whom shot the children, dropping the guns as they unloaded, maybe shooting his mother first. Those rooms had no survivors. The other children didn't see the shooting at all, they only recall seeing two policemen directing them outside. I really don't want to parse the child interviews. There is a vast weirdness within the medical examiner performance, and his emphasis on the photography is perhaps most creepy. He could also be lying about the weapon used - because the mothers rifle was left in the trunk. Adam shot himself with a rifle? Who's?

It just seems like the police are the prime suspect. But why the chase? Why? We only a few police involved in the murders, the rest are patsy?

This might also explain why they are weaponizing police in every state - to use them.

This event like many are false flags. We are under siege from terrorists. Very, very embedded ones.

They should use the image of the sheriff pulling the "killing weapon" unused from the trunk of Lanza's car. The gun story changes multiple times. Unbelievable!
Maybe Photoshop it over a bail of hay, that seems appropriate.
What about that goofball forensics team? That aptly named medical examiner Wayne Carver seemed so stable and yet glee-filled in the midst of such incredible horror. What a man.
Maybe they needed a cadaver dog like the one used in Shanksville.
The parents - there are sooo many videos of the strange behaviors of these people, such as Robbie Parker.


In a joint statement to Retraction Watch today, Markey and Elson questioned Ohio State's findings:

Throughout the investigation and retraction process, our goals have always been to correct the scientific record. We are deeply saddened to hear that this might lead to the end of a fellow scientist's career.

There were two authors on the problematic "Boom, Headshot!" study. That the female, junior researcher is found culpable for those problems while the male, senior researcher is not, seems questionable. During the investigation pertaining to the article in question, we discovered two different data files on the senior author's computer between which the codes for variables were altered. These alterations occurred in a manner which supported the original study's hypotheses. Additionally, the authors of the original study were unable to provide the raw data in order to confirm which data file was correct.

Ultimately, we will never know exactly what error produced the discrepancies between these files. However, we believe that all researchers involved in a particular project are responsible for the outcome of the said project. This is especially true in cases when a senior author is the mentor of a junior researcher. We are pleased that the outcome of this investigation has been to retract a manuscript containing potentially erroneous findings, but are disheartened by the decision, by all parties involved, to lay the blame for these errors at the feet of a single member of a multi-person research team.

Whitaker, now an assistant professor of communication at the University of Arizona, has not responded to a request for comment.

Jake Harwood, the chair of Arizona's communication department, told Retraction Watch yesterday that the university is aware of the situation, and of the retraction earlier this year. Asked whether revocation of Whitaker's PhD would affect her employment at the university, he said he could not comment on personnel issues.

It is unclear how often PhDs are revoked, but it seems rare. In one case we've been covering, the University of Texas, Austin, has been blocked -- at least for now -- from taking away the PhD of a chemist who the university said falsified data.

Update, 1400 UTC, 8/28/17: Bushman provided us with a copy of the letter in which OSU said he had been exonerated of misconduct. Read it here.

The result of the vote:
Here's the article on the retraction and PhD revocation.

USAToday's investigation is unrealistic - the weapons and methods are directly related to game-enthusiasts. It is a combination of the two factors - putting a brain into a susceptible, suggestible state via anti-psychotic drugs in combination with callous murder games seems like a really obvious method of programming. So obvious that there is a co-relation with gun-use, even virtual, and gun violence with these young men. They are drugged and programmed, even without pretext of a violent nature - there are many, many instances where people behave opposite their survival instinct and perform unnatural behaviors due to "anti-psychotic medications".

Patrick Markey's co-author had their PHD revoked in 2017 over their publishing false data on game violence.

Jodi Whitaker, via University of Arizona

[This post, which at 1200 UTC 8/25/17 originally reported on the then-upcoming vote, has been updated at 1800 UTC 8/25/17 to include the results of the vote.]

A researcher who co-authored a paper about video games that was retracted earlier this year has had her PhD from The Ohio State University revoked.

As WOSU reported this afternoon, the vote today of the university's Board of Trustees was unanimous. The scheduled vote on whether to revoke Jodi Whitaker's degree was first reported yesterday by The Columbus Dispatch.

While a graduate student at Ohio State, Whitaker was co-author of a paper that claimed to find that first-person shooter video games improved marksmanship. As we've reported, the paper, published online in 2012, was retracted earlier this year, two years after a university committee was alerted to irregularities in the data by two outside researchers.

The controversy over the paper became heated at times. Whitaker's PhD supervisor, Brad Bushman, was cleared by Ohio State of misconduct, but claimed at one point that the paper's critics -- Patrick Markey, a psychology professor at Villanova University and Malte Elson, a behavioral psychology postdoc at Ruhr University Bochum in Germany -- were engaging in a smear campaign. But Bushman agreed to the retraction. (He also agreed to the retraction of another paper not co-authored by Whitaker earlier this year following questions by Joe Hilgard, a postdoc at the University of Pennsylvania.)

The Dispatch explains Ohio State's process for revoking a degree:

Typically, a university committee investigates allegations of academic misconduct. That committee can then recommend to the executive vice president and provost that a degree be revoked, and if the provost concurs, the recommendation goes to the board of trustees.

OSU spokespeople told the Dispatch and Retraction Watch yesterday:

Student education records, including records related to academic misconduct and information about the misconduct that could lead to the identification of individual students, are protected under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and cannot be shared by the university.

Brad Bushman is a professor of communication in good standing at Ohio State. In the case of the retracted 2014 study ("Boom, Headshot!": Effect of Video Game Play and Controller Type on Firing Aim and Accuracy. Communication Research, Vol 41(7):879-891) the university determined that there was no evidence that Bushman participated in, or was aware of, inappropriate data manipulation. Therefore, the university found that the allegations brought against Bushman did not have sufficient substance to warrant an investigation and they were dismissed.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable