Stephen Jones being investigated by BYU

[Comfortably Numb]

Stephen Jones has been placed on paid leave and is being investigated by Brigham Young University for his involvement in the '9/11 Truth Movement.'<br><br>From the article:<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>"BYU remains concerned that Dr. Jones' work on this topic has not been published in appropriate scientific venues," the university statement said.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645199800,00.html">www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645199800,00.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Jones, also known for his cold fusion research<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Huh? <p></p><i></i>

[km artlu]

Of course he's not been published in appropriate scientific journals -- self-interest drives the tenured whores who keep the gates. Their own security, comfort, prestige and mortgage payments ensure that heretical thoughts can not take root.<br><br>How conveniently circular: the information, and its bearer, are bogus because not published in peer-reviewed journals; not published therein because threatening to the careers of those controlling publication.<br><br>In the last week or so, two issues linked to this board have begun to present themselves to me as paramount to all of our present moments: the unexpected rate of changes to the Greenland icepack and the Amazon rainforest. The heart and lungs, loosely stated, of at least the northern hemisphere.<br><br>Well credentialed scientists have begun to express considerable alarm about the current rate of change, which does not conform to their own previous models. Another example is the Siberian methane release.<br><br>None of this is receiving media exposure commensurate with its calamitous import, to my knowledge. When it does show up, in the likes of the New York Times or The Washington Post, there's nothing to indicate that the article deserves any greater emphasis than the trials of Jessica Simpson's love life.<br><br>Am I missing something here? Could this data be some sort of immobilizing bait placed strategically in those regions of the infosphere designed to have maximum impact on the parapolitically inclined?<br><br>The lack of emphasis provokes in me profound cognitive dissonance. "The sky is falling. In other news..." <p></p><i></i>

[nomo]

Ya know, that's what makes him so <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>expertly qualified</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> on topics like controlled demolition. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

This just sickens me. The mewling cowardice of our intellectuals and our institutions of "higher learning". Speaking of Nazis( as Buschco did tues) this is so like the intellectuals in Germany who just caved rather than speak out against the fascists. Someone with a grain of courage and honesty?? Uh-oh...throw him out before our precious grants run out. Well I have news for them...When Bushco finishes off his "job" there won't be a dime for their "grants" or their "jobs" or even their persistant and unceasing asskissing. <p></p><i></i>

[911 Eye Witness]

Ahhh yes, the old cold fusion canard.<br><br>Jones' research actually debunked those fellows that said they had done "it". <br>It being cold fusion. <br><br>But then taking something out of context is smear tactic #1...<br>taught in grade school even.<br><br>haven't we been over this before? <p></p><i></i>

[isachar]

The long knives are out. They must bring him down and will spare nothing in the effort to do so.<br><br>Notice the cowards at BYU don't actually cite any evidence showing how/where his analysis is wrong.<br><br>After all, that would be 'academic' wouldn't it? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=isachar>isachar</A> at: 9/8/06 4:40 pm<br></i>

[LoganSquare]

<br>Rebuttal to Jones "Produced by an arm of the State Department known as a &#8220;counter-misinformation team,&#8221; the report is dated Aug. 28 and appears as a special feature on the department&#8217;s Web site, at <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html.">usinfo.state.gov/media/mi...tion.html.</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>counter-misinformation--that's rich.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

Wait, he was a cold fusion <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>debunker</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->?<br>Funny how the article doesn't mention that.<br>Goddamned it I hate the media. <p></p><i></i>

[5E6A]

<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://repo-nt.tcc.virginia.edu/book/chap3/chapter3sec1.html">"Stephen Jones, at rival Brigham Young University, had also conducted experiments that demonstrated cold fusion."</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>His cold fusion did show that nuclear reactions could take place at room temperature, however he was never able to produce excess heat, or an indication that it was a net energy producer. So, was he a debunker? Ennnhhhh. More like an academic who published his findings that did not support the claim of an energy producing cold fusion process. <p></p><i></i>

[Et in Arcadia ego]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Goddamned it I hate the media.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>We must effectively learn to not react to it personally any more if we're ever going to get past it. You can't hate something you don't care about, right? It's just an inconveniance encountered on the path, like a nest of fire ants one learns to step around before they're four years old.<br><br>[*end sage mode: I hate them, too, lol..*] <p>____________________<br>Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.</p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Pons and Fleischmann weren't the only researchers to discover cold fusion. Stephen Jones, at rival Brigham Young University, had also conducted experiments that demonstrated cold fusion. Jones found out about Pons and Fleischmann's work when he was asked to referee one of their grant proposals. Initially, both research teams agreed to submit simultaneous papers to Nature. Jones was also about to present his results at a scientific conference, and Pons and Fleischmann felt sure he would be given priority as the discoverer if they did not pre-empt him. Furthermore, they felt that Jones had stolen their idea. Therefore, Pons and Fleischmann decided to announce their discovery at a press conference, rather than in a refereed journal. <br><br>These disagreements about priority and credit were intensified by the fact that cold fusion was more than a scientific discovery--it was also an invention that could make the researchers and the universities they worked for wealthy. There were important differences between Jones and Pons and Fleischmann's work that made the former less likely to be an invention than the latter. Jones had detected neutron levels slightly above the background with his cell, suggesting that fusion might be causing the neutron emissions, but at a level too low to be a significant source of power. Indeed, he detected no rise in temperature. Pons and Fleischmann, on the other hand, had detected a significant rise in temperature, but not the concomitant excess of neutrons one would have expected. Nuclear physicists who saw pictures of Pons and Fleischmann standing next to their palladium cell while it was operating said they should have been killed by the radiation. As one scientist noted after seeing a Cable Network News report, "the man explaining the experiment to the reporters was apparently touching the glass bulb containing the active elements and yet none of his bodily parts fell off" (Close, 1991, p. 163).<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>I still can't tell what to think about Jones in this situation. <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

And here's why someone got to the BYU honchos and made them flinch now. The evidence is about to get a huge jump in publicity now that the world is turning towards Prof. Steven Jones and thermate-<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>A modified version of <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Jones' paper was scheduled to be published this week in the online Journal of 9/11 Studies</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. Jones is a co-editor of the journal.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>But don't worry. He did his homework and got it backed up-<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Jones told the Deseret Morning News on Wednesday that <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>his paper had gone through an unusual third round of peer review</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> in what is now an apparently unsuccessful effort to quell concerns on campus.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>But someone in the US government must've *ahem* spooked his bosses since they are claiming transparent crap like this-<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Jenkins said BYU's reputation was a consideration, too.<br> "It is a concern when faculty bring the university name into <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>their own personal matters of concern,</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->" she said.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>As if 9/11 wasn't the concern of everone on this planet. Hmph.<br><br>This is just pre-emptive discrediting that will have little effect.<br><br>Especially now that the uproar over the Disney (CIA) 9/11 mock-you-drama has ABC ready to pull it.<br><br>But they won't. They're running it without commercials except for a twenty minute break in the middle for W to lie to us.<br><br>How blatant an attempt at re-programming the nation is THAT? <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

Pretty blatant, Hugh.<br>It's becoming a Hugh world, and we're just living in it. <p></p><i></i>