|
Post by tofu on Aug 15, 2007 14:09:34 GMT -4
forked this thread to keep the lurker thread on-topic. Has anyone managed to find a curriculum vitae for Dr. David Groves? I don't mean to criticize the guy. I'm just curious to know what his PhD is in, where it's from, and (especially) what articles he's published and where his articles are referenced. edit to fix a spelling mistake. I originally typed "lurker threa t" but I meant "lurker thread"
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 15, 2007 16:41:12 GMT -4
forked this thread to keep the lurker threat on-topic. Has anyone managed to find a curriculum vitae for Dr. David Groves? I don't mean to criticize the guy. I'm just curious to know what his PhD is in, where it's from, and (especially) what articles he's published and where his articles are referenced. In one word... No. Jay has tried and can't even find out who he is or if he even exists. None of the Dr David Groves he has contacted has admitted to being Percy's one.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 15, 2007 16:44:18 GMT -4
In some of Aulis' earlier literature they gave Groves' affiliation to some company. John Witts (the Briton who introduced me to David Percy's work) investigated the company and found some record of it that mentioned Groves, but Witts says the company was defunct. It was an image-processing company, and lended some credence to Groves having some degree of expertise in photogrammetric reconstruction. It's not as if we can simply dismiss him entirely.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Aug 15, 2007 17:52:09 GMT -4
ok well, who is the narrator, sitting behind the desk? The video almost looks like some kind of journalistic investigative report.
|
|
|
Post by VALIS on Aug 15, 2007 19:28:11 GMT -4
oops, sorry if I derailed the other thread I know google is not the last word for this kind of search (well, for any kind) but I found this link for a paper about holographic techniques to analyze photographs, written by a certain D Groves in Liverpool in 1980 edit: the link doesn't work (sorry I'm not used to the interface yet), so the url is www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3735/13/7/012
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Aug 16, 2007 10:16:22 GMT -4
I can't find a record of the company listed at Compaines House.
Neither can I find any information for Quantech Image Processing. I have found 2 addresses and phone numbers for Quantec Image Processing though.
QUANTEC IMAGE PROCESSING LTD 184 TOWER STREET BRUNSWICK BUSINESS PARK LIVERPOOL L3 4BJ 0151-7085400
Quantec Image Processing Holden House Holden Road Leigh Lancashire WN7 1EX Tel: 01942 260063
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 16, 2007 12:04:38 GMT -4
David Groves as introduced in Percy and Bennett's book Dark Moon, pages 31 and 32:
...Quantec Image Processing in the UK carried out a series of laboratory tests on a number of NASA photographs from 'Apollo 11'. David Groves PhD who founded Quantec is more than adequately qualified to undertake such a project. He has a BSc (Hons) Class 1 in Applied Physics and his PhD was in Holographic Computer Measurement. He is also a Chartered Physicist and a Member of the Institute of Physics.
Aulis's video production "What Happened on the Moon" also says that Groves is based in Lancashire, so the address above is probably the right one.
I'm on S-L-O-W dialup, so can't view videos on the internet, but the narrator in "What Happened on the Moon" is Ronnie Stronge, who is apparently an actor.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 16, 2007 12:27:09 GMT -4
Any U.K. readers care to make a non-international phone call and ask?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Aug 17, 2007 21:42:20 GMT -4
That would be fun. I was referred to the work of "Dr Groves" on YouTube by someone, being accused of telling off a guy with a PhD. Ironically, he bashes Dr. Plait. Funny then how one can easily contact Dr. Plait, but not Dr. Groves.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 17, 2007 21:49:35 GMT -4
I'll happily tell off any PhD who's wrong. I've done it many times, having attended dozens of dissertation defenses in technical and engineering subjects. If Groves' paper had been in one of them, I guarantee there would have been lots of questions.
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on Aug 18, 2007 4:55:02 GMT -4
That's the thing, isn't it? The ultimate feather in your cap is catching "a master" in error, especially if it was something he wouldn't have thought of himself. To contrast conspiracism, it's because what matters the most is getting it right, not who manages it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 18, 2007 13:11:41 GMT -4
It's not even necessarily about getting it right. It's getting the process right, and seeing what answer it leads to. In Groves' case, had it been a dissertation, I would have pointed out that his accuracy is overstated and its controls obfuscated. As a matter of fact we know there was a sort of light source about where he predicts: Armstrong's shoulder. So despite his misleading method, Groves arrives at an answer that we need not discard entirely. But because the paper is meant to be a blustery show of rigor, it overstates the case. Groves admits up front that there are limitations to the method he is constrainted to use, promising to correct for them, but one has to read very carefully and know something of the science to see where the correction falls short. It's similar to a defense of a dissertation I attended where the candidate was claiming to have solved a general form of the collision problem between parametric surfaces. He had categorized the collisions into six classes and given a solution for each class -- not really solving the general case, of course, but providing a set of solutions that claimed to be a proper partition of the general case. While he successfully defended each categorical solution, which occupied the bulk of the defense, he was not able to field all the questions I asked about his classifications. After he softened the language, we voted to pass him. In all fairness it took us about six months subsequently to come up with concrete cases from practice that didn't fit into is six-type model. But the point is that sometimes the flaws don't lie where you think they do. The candidate had simply skimped on his justification for the approach during his understandable excitement to divide and conquer. Here I discuss Groves' experiment with radiation and film. www.clavius.org/envradfilm.htmlNow some of that criticism applies only if Groves knew how David Percy planned to use his study. If not, then at best you have an irrelevant experiment without too many errors. But the rest of the criticism is valid no matter what. He handwaves around his measurement methods and uses the wrong units. This indicates he's a novice at dealing with radiation, not the expert in that area he purports to be. Similarly, his baking of photographic film in an oven is completely inapplicable to the thermal conditions of film in space. And if Groves knew how Percy intended to use his study, then his behavior is entirely inexcusable. It doesn't take any expertise to bake film, but it does take expertise to know whether that corresponds qualitatively to some other thermal environment. Having taught them and sat in academic judgment on their expertise, I am simply not intimidated by a PhD holder or candidate to the point of considering them above significant error. And unfortunately I believe that's exactly what David Percy and his followers want to happen. They want you to see all those equations and dry technical language in Groves' papers (or simply hear in the video that he's a PhD) and conclude that the problem has been studied by an expert, ruled in favor of the hoax, and that the case is closed. And how dare anyone question a PhD! It's ironic. Conspiracists don't really challenge whether I have expertise in these claims. They acknowledge that I'm sufficiently trained and experienced, but they doubt my sincerity. They say I'm a "disinformation agent" and my web site is "obviously" a slick damage-control tool. It doesn't occur to them to consider that I simply know what I'm talking about. Then when David Groves is challenged, they switch to relying solely upon his credentials with no thought given to whether he demonstrates proper expertise and is free from any bias.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 18, 2007 13:47:34 GMT -4
I just can't see svector using the word obfuscated.(or here him in hiis computer voice), if only because he knows the an HB wouldn't understand it.
I had to look it up too!
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Aug 18, 2007 15:32:41 GMT -4
Eschew obfuscation.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Aug 18, 2007 22:58:36 GMT -4
|
|