posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:01 AM
a reply to: Sremmos80
You may be agreeing, but you are also excusing.
You do realize that any scientific report of consequence is published? It would be extremely simple to check for plagiarism, but it was not done.
There was zero oversight, and zero validation on the reports from this University. Why in the world would you think there is validation on other
reports? If no one is running a simple check against previously published data, do you think they are verifying the validity of the research, which is
Maybe the reports are accurate. But we don't know that. The stolen reports could have been faked. The University could have easy just provided faked
reports. If their reports could have been faked so easily, how exactly does that not call into question other reports from other sources?
You are showing blind acceptance based on nothing but blind trust... no validation, no verification, no peer review, no repeatability... just numbers
submitted. The reports could have said the sky was green... it would have been accepted, and you would believe it.
I have not claimed the reports contained false data, but your own arguments excusing intellectual dishonesty are the best argument I can imagine that
data may be false. After all, if we accept blindly, how do we know?