Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think we should not lose site of the fact that Parkhomov seems to want > to make amends. Offering to send the unedited Excel file was the right > thing to do. A charlatan or quack would have initiated evasive maneuvers. > My understanding is that he ignored the issue for a while. He did not respond to questions about this. > I certainly don’t get the impression Parkhomov attempted to dodge the > confrontation once the duplicated artifacts were brought to his attention. > Nor do I get the impression Parkhomov was at any time deliberately trying > to manipulate the outcome of his results. > It does not seem to be a manipulation. It does not enhance his case. But we would have to see the missing data to know for sure. He has pen recorder data. he should publish it. I would suggest normalizing it and putting it on top of the computer data in a single graph. Honestly, the fact that it does not enhance his case makes it all the more inexplicable! > The whole affair strikes me as an innocent action. Stupid, but an innocent > action nevertheless. > It goes beyond stupid, to me. It is batty. Irrational. Maybe standards for scientists are different in Russia. I doubt that. But it seems unthinkable for a scientist in U.S., Europe or Japan to do this. This is one of those things *you never do*. "Innocent" seems like the wrong word. Naive? Jejune? Out of it? Batty, as I said. If an elderly scientist friend of mine did this, I would worry that he is becoming senile, or an alcoholic. The way he mentions it in a casual, almost flippant way also strikes me as weird. If I were in the room with a researcher or programmer who said something like that, I would be speechless. If a programmer working for me did something like this, I would probably fire him. At least, I would want to know if he was taking antidepressants or something like that. Imagine a programmer saying: "Oh, by the way, the module we just uploaded to the cloud produces a serious, known error. I figured it doesn't matter." In contrast, Gamberale's revelations about Defkalion did not leave me speechless. A long time ago I marked those people as crooks. I am not certain they are, and I am not a police investigator, but it seems likely to me. Parkhomov diddling with his data is different because there does not seem to be any motivation. It does not make him more credible. It is never a problem to publish a data set with holes in it. You just say: "data is missing because the computer failed from time to time." He was covering up something that did not need covering up. - Jed
