The James Files' version. A look from across the ocean.

[Royell Storing]

      Now we got P-Nut Gallery material attempting to discredit SCIENCE. You LN's continue embarrassing yourselves

[John Mytton]

      Now we got P-Nut Gallery material attempting to discredit SCIENCE. You LN's continue embarrassing yourselves

attempting to discredit SCIENCE.

The study of any "SCIENCE" that is presented in a way that doesn't invite peer review is "unreliable" and "cannot be accepted"

Peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Even if you are unfamiliar with the topic or the scientists who authored a particular study, you can trust peer-reviewed work to meet certain standards of scientific quality. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. No scientist would want to base their own work on someone else’s unreliable study!
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/how-science-works/scrutinizing-science-peer-review/

Despite its rigid structure, the scientific method still depends on the most human capabilities: creativity, imagination, and intelligence; and without these, it cannot exist. Documentation of experiments is always flawed because everything cannot be recorded. One of the most significant problems with the scientific method is the lack of importance placed on observations that lie outside of the main hypothesis (related to lateral thinking). No matter how carefully you record what you observe, if these observations are not also submitted to the method, they cannot be accepted.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7965632/#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20most%20significant,(related%20to%20lateral%20thinking).

JohnM

[John Mytton]

    NOW You're a "peer"?  Get a grip Gomer!

For Knott Lab's work to be accepted as "SCIENCE", they need corroborating scientific consensus, but the way their work secretly hides any scientific methodology tells us that what is being presented as "SCIENCE" is all in the imagination in the mind of a child, your mind Royell!

JohnM

[Royell Storing]

For Knott Lab's work to be accepted as "SCIENCE", they need corroborating scientific consensus, but the way their work secretly hides any scientific methodology tells us that what is being presented as "SCIENCE" is all in the imagination in the mind of a child, your mind Royell!

JohnM

      Do you also think when Knott Lab Laser 360 SCIENCE tracks a bullet trajectory and their result is Admitted As Evidence in COURTS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY, that the submission needs "corroborating scientific consensus"?  Knott Lab Laser 360 SCIENCE has already passed through All the hoops. You're absolutely embarrassing yourself Gomer.

[John Mytton]

      Do you also think when Knott Lab Laser 360 SCIENCE tracks a bullet trajectory and their result is Admitted As Evidence in COURTS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY, that the submission needs "corroborating scientific consensus"?  Knott Lab Laser 360 SCIENCE has already passed through All the hoops. You're absolutely embarrassing yourself Gomer.

Hahahahahahaha!

Your very own words, destroy you.

What Knott Labs provides is merely "evidence" and by your very own definition this "evidence" is not and I repeat is not "SCIENTIFIC" proof and can be disputed by the opposition's superior 3D recreation, any other bright ideas?

Try harder next time! LOLOLOL!

Btw I don't know what a "Gomer" is and if it's an attempt at an ad hominem, you're about as successful at insulting me as everything else that spews from your mouth.

JohnM