From: Linda Rosa ([email protected])
Date: Fri Sep 10 1999 - 08:29:17 MST
>Do you have any objection to providing me with a copy? I'd be happy to
>compare the text of that document to the text of the various articles and
>report on my findings.
Again, Sampson has the documentation. Remember, we are claiming scientific
plagiarism; we are not claiming that Scheiber plagiarized exact wordings
(though there is certainly evidence of that), but Sarner's research and
analysis.
>The report referred to in the Scheiber and Selby article is
> http://www.parascope.com/articles/1196/finalrpt.htm
>Your description implies that there is another, longer report that is the
>real "final report." Where might I locate that, or any information about
>it?
I haven't done a word by word comparison, but the document you refer to
above does, indeed, appear to be the same 2.5-page document I am familiar
with and was reviewed by Selby and Scheiber (SI, May/June 1997). At
parascope.com, it is correctly entitled as "Final PROGRESS Report" [empasis
mine], vs. Scheiber's reference to it in SI as the "final report", where he
attacked for it many inadequacies, etc. The actual final report is 24
pages long, and it is my understanding that it wasn't available via FOIA
for several months after the SI article was published. Copies of both
documents are available from the DOD.
The final report was rather striking, to me at least, because all of the
researchers' names had been blackened out except for Turner's, the reason
given being that release of those names "could reasonably be expected to
constitute a clearly unwarrented invasion of the personal privacy of
individuals."
-- Linda Rosa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was the salesman clueless?
Productopia has the answers.
http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/555
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/beliefs
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 12:49:47 MST