PDA

View Full Version : XRFacts , Forums and Censorship



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Hambone
07-19-2010, 04:23 PM
Last year some predicted that the hyped discussion about XRF technology to authenticate German helmets was the precursor to the sale of XRF pie charts and COAs (certificates of authenticity) and that the XRF ray gun would be making the rounds at shows for that purpose. Some of us predicted last year that dealers would start popping up with these pie charts and COAs attached to their price tags. This has all come to be. I'm all for objective testing. I am not for the establishment of a few as the "authenticity gurus" slinging around "science" and "facts" in ad campaigns without transparency and a vetting of their processes. Science and facts stand on their own merit. IMHO, "because we say so" is not "science" nor is it "objective testing" and it isn't vetted.

To date, none of the significant questions have been answered. To date, helmet forums (i.e. WAF) has done nothing more than hype "XRFacts", lock threads, and censor and ban not only critics, but even those who dare ask the questions that remain unanswered. Walhalla has come closest to objective review, but one mod, "SStK" advertises for XRF, the other calls it out, then the thread is locked. I welcome objective testing that can stand the test of objective scrutiny and open, uncensored discussion. I do not welcome a cram down of XRF based upon "because we say so" and WAFmod censorship.

I invite the proponents of XRFacts and XRF testing to address these issues on an open, uncensored forum, such as here or Gunboards. Anyone can hype a position when the mods delete, censor, and ban those that disagree. Only through open discussion can the process gain acceptance by people that are capable of independent thought and intellect. I recommend a review of the Gunboards discussions as the only independent, uncensored, and objective review of the subject thus far, IMHO.

Links:

Gunboards discussions:
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?141399-Good-idea-bad-results-Helmet-testing

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?174026-Looking-for-some-feedback-on-XRFACTS-and-Authentication-Services

WAF thread (heavily censored and history revised):
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=448654&highlight=xrf

Walhalla (first part soft soap advertisement, second reality IMHO):
http://www.walhalla.se/topic/21915-xrf-observations-on-the-technology-and-the-certification/

EDIT 07-17-12 Threads deleted by "Vid" at Gunboards, now restored (thanks Vic):

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?218392-XRFacts-Moves-From-Helmet-Paint-To-Cloth

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?216480-XRF-update&highlight=xrfacts

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?141399-Good-idea-bad-results-Helmet-testing&highlight=xrfacts

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?186975-XRfacts-Dealer-Liars-and-Kool-Aid-Drinkers&highlight=xrfacts

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?187460-quot-New-to-Gunboards-quot-%21%21%21-The-XRFacts-forum&highlight=xrfacts

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?216480-XRF-update

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?141399-Good-idea-bad-results-Helmet-testing


Why does WAF censor XRFacts discussions? IMHO it is grossly inappropriate for a "moderator" to censor and ban to inflict his position on a forum. Forums are for open and free discussion so that all sides are presented. That is how good information is derived. See the screenshots below:

Hambone
07-20-2010, 04:59 PM
Article from The Royal Armouries:

From website: The Royal Armouries is home to the United Kingdom’s national collection of arms and armour, including artillery. As a museum we have a duty of care for these objects, to keep them, study them and increase our knowledge of them, so that this can be passed to future generations along with the objects themselves.

Link: http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-do/conservation/conservation-in-practice/xrf-analysis

XRF Analysis
The Royal Armouries has always emphasised the importance of non-destructive scientific investigation of its collection and chamberless X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis provides a means of finding the chemical composition of artefacts (or parts of artefacts) without removing samples. The instrument in the museum has provided a unique facility within a United Kingdom museum which has benefited the museum in many ways.

XRF Principles
X-rays are generated using an X-ray tube and focussed onto the surface to be analysed. At its simplest, the technique examines the signal given off by an object which has had X-rays directed at it. This signal shows which chemical elements are present, what quantity and in detail.

Practical considerations
The technique is capable of great accuracy with clean, flat, homogenous samples that can be compared with standards of similar, known, composition.

This is rarely the case when looking at historic or archaeological artefacts however, particularly where the surfaces of the object are analysed without sample removal or, where surface cleaning is unacceptable. Such surfaces will have undergone changes in composition due to corrosion and the original material may have been far from homogenous. The technique must be used with care and the resulting data must not be over-interpreted.

Without the limitation of a sample chamber, objects of any size can be investigated without the need for sample removal. Chamberless XRF does however have the disadvantage that it cannot detect light elements (below titanium in the periodic table), because the secondary X-rays from these elements are absorbed by the air in the gap between artefact and detector.

Hambone
07-20-2010, 05:23 PM
Also a good read from an engineer specializing in XRF testing, who knows its limitations:

"Not all hand held XRF instruments are capable of testing to CPSIA standards. They must be able to test for surface lead in paint down to at least 2 micrograms/cm2, not 90 ppm. XRF instruments CANNOT measure 90 ppm of lead in paint that is still attached to a substrate." (Emphasis by the author).
http://cpsia-central.ning.com/forum/topics/xrf-testingscreening

Hambone
04-02-2011, 11:01 AM
June 11, 2010 legal threat from XRF to silence discussion of XRFacts at Gunboards. It didn't work. I've redacted the "lawyer's" name and phone number. Does "science" try to strong arm and threaten its critics to shut them up?:

(name edited)

Set forth below are the two threads that need to be removed from your "Forum". As I mentioned to you in an earlier communication, I represent the company (XRFacts, LLC) and its principal owner. The language contained in these referenced threads is defamatory towards my client and the services offered by it. The apparent author, in my opinion, has recklessly (or perhaps intentionally) provided your Forum members with representations that are not factually accurate or truthful and constitute a tortious interference with the company's business. My client has never been in communication with, or received any communication from, "Hambone" and cannot understand why such bad faith representations would be made.
Please remove these threads immediately and post a retraction on place of these threads. In addition, it would be appreciated if you would post the name and contact information for XRFacts on your Forum in order to allow those persons interested to contact them directly for the purpose of providing references and accurate information regarding the technology and operating procedures of the company.
Thank you,
(name edited)
(phone number edited)

Hambone
04-02-2011, 11:02 AM
See this Gunboards thread:

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?216480-XRF-update

Gerard
04-02-2011, 11:12 AM
Wow, whoever sent a letter like that sounds like some legalistic lawyer from the Obummer admin, trying to tell us not to give the government or socialism a bad name, so that people won't get wise. What a wheelbarrow of crap. That's why people hate lawyers. If someone can't represent an arguement on merit, they hide behind a wall of "I'll sue you" threats. XRAY SPECS could have come out and answered on the forum and been done with it. I don't get this type of collecting/business tactics.

Hambone
04-07-2011, 08:44 PM
Yes, such a scary letter. :moon: Can't say that it had the desired effect though. In short, science doesn't hire lawyers to threaten critics to shut up, it responds to them and proves them wrong. And if it can't, it admits it and moves on leaving us all a bit more informed.

Gerard
04-07-2011, 10:08 PM
Yes, such a scary letter. :moon: Can't say that it had the desired effect though. In short, science doesn't hire lawyers to threaten critics to shut up, it responds to them and proves them wrong. And if it can't, it admits it and moves on leaving us all a bit more informed.

Could you repeat that to the global warming crowd? I don't think they got the message. :biggrin1:

jack944
04-07-2011, 10:25 PM
http://members.cox.net/hambonez/Wafberry%20Koolaid.jpg

Wafberry....Now that is funny..not bad for a lawyer....:laugh:

RyanE
04-07-2011, 10:27 PM
An appropriate response to such a letter. :biggrin1:

Hambone
04-09-2011, 06:21 AM
:biggrin1: I should have sent that in response Ryan.

Waiting for a response. Why have these folks apparently crawfished away from XRFacts?

Kelly Hicks, "XRFacts Founder", deleted XRF references on his site, leaving only this ref:
http://www.ss-steel-inc.com/ss_steel_authentications.htm

R.Wilson, of "Wilson History & Research Center", "XRFacts Founder", deleted XRF references on his site:
http://www.militaryheadgear.com/

Bill Shea/Ruptured Duck Militaria, deleted XRFacts references:
http://www.therupturedduck.com/WebPages/Steelhelmets/steelhlmt.htm

Hambone
04-09-2011, 02:12 PM
Gunboards moderator/dealers/acquaintances of Hicks have censored and deleted posts by tjg and locked the thread:
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?141399-Good-idea-bad-results-Helmet-testing/page7

tjg79
04-09-2011, 02:52 PM
Gunboards moderator/dealers/acquaintances of Hicks have censored and deleted posts by tjg and locked the thread:
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?141399-Good-idea-bad-results-Helmet-testing/page7

And, it appears they deleted the XRF Update thread.

tjg79
04-09-2011, 03:59 PM
And, now all the XRFacts threads are locked at gunboards.

No more XRF discussion or updates on gunboards.

I would have never thought gunboards would go this route.

Regards

Hambone
04-09-2011, 07:56 PM
Sadly there is an effort to thwart any further digging into what has occurred. Proclaiming this a matter of addressing XRF only, and not the people behind it and what is going on currently is unsound and unreasonable. Stopping inquiry based upon whose ox may be gored in the inquiry process interferes with the truth. If one, as a "founder" and presumptive financial beneficiary sends "open letters to the collecting community" pitching XRF and XRFacts, then one has an obligation to explain problems and their apparent disassociation from the process. That's what science would do and "science" was how this was sold.

Open discussion protects the collecting community by vetting such claims and showing future marketers of "science" that unlike WAF and now Gunboards, there will be open analysis and inquiry and critique of such claims. Tjg, I saw that a very instructive and relevant post of yours which showed the evidence of bias and contradictions was completely deleted. That's censorship and that is wrong. I'm sorry that happened.

tjg79
04-09-2011, 09:53 PM
Tjg, I saw that a very instructive and relevant post of yours which showed the evidence of bias and contradictions was completely deleted. That's censorship and that is wrong. I'm sorry that happened.

It was a feeble attempt to salvage credibility and expunge the contradictions. The ethically challenged deleted the post and then the entire XRF Update thread. All I did was list all Vid's quotes defending Hicks, an XRFacts principal, from the XRF Update thread and Vid's own website. It was a powerful contradiction of what he was indicating. There was no way for him to explain. He would have looked foolish. The post and thread had to go to big recycle bin in the sky.

Regards

Peter U
04-10-2011, 01:55 AM
I have no problem with exposing the people behind XRF-facts!
Doesn't matter if they are well respected, have written books,....etc.
Their set up was to manipulate the militaria collecting society, declaring what was original from helmet decals, camo paint to belt buckles and medals, of course everything the well respected collectors/dealers had in their collections or ever sold was all original; so they weren't dubious judges they also wanted to make some money with it along the way.



The militaria collecting society is a strange world.
If you are a well respected member of it, it seems to be OK to steal, cheat and lie, and if you get caught other less respected members will defend you and that is it.
If for example I would set up a system to sell fake certificates of authenticity on antiques and I would get caught, I would have to face a judge; but what is certain is that my reputation s ruined forever.
Now it seems that you do the same thing for WW2 helmets, there is no problem, you got caught this time, though luck and better luck next time!
Incredible!


What is the difference between the XRF-fact set up to scam naive collectors out of $250 to have their helmet zapped and those Nigerian scammers that promise people the heritage of their president?
That the first scam is set up by some well respected members in the world of 3R collecting and that the second is done by poor Africans?


P

Hambone
04-10-2011, 08:32 AM
I saw Tjg's posts before they were deleted/censored. His mistake was making excellent points and proving them up with the author's own words. The conduct showed absolute bias and attempts to end inquiry into a dealer's affiliation and conduct with XRF. There are events which IMHO indicate serious problems and confirm our criticisms and concerns with this whole "XRFacts" "provenance through science" hokus pokus.

Peter, as usual, spot on. 3R militaria is a "who" based hobby largely, hence the permissiveness and ethical voids. If the people peddling XRF hokus pokus knew that they would be scrutinzed and have to answer questions instead of having forums censor and ban critics for them my bet is they never would have embarked on the mission they did. Of course, if the same application of ethics and rules of conduct were applied to all uniformly, with the results as Peter noted in Belgium, the hobby would be alot more ethical. In short, people in it are more concerned with scoring trinkets than insisting upon ethics, which interestingly reflects Amerika's overall failings.

Hambone
06-23-2011, 08:16 AM
Interesting book review. Apparently Hicks is plugging XRF in his book. Inquiries about this would be deleted and censored at the Gunboards "German Militaria" forum and one must ask why. If XRFacts is the "savior of the hobby", then where is it now?

http://www.amazon.com/SS-Steel-Parade-Combat-Helmets-Germanys/dp/0912138963

3.0 out of 5 stars SS - Steel, May 22, 2011
By
Dave (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A2DMWIUUHNVAXK/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp) - See all my reviews (http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2DMWIUUHNVAXK/ref=cm_cr_dp_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview)



Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this? (http://www.k98kforum.com/gp/community-help/amazon-verified-purchase))
This review is from: SS-Steel: (Expanded Edition) Parade & Combat Helmets of Germany's Third Reich Elite (Hardcover) (http://www.amazon.com/SS-Steel-Expanded-Parade-Helmets-Germanys/dp/1932970185/ref=cm_cr_dp_orig_subj)
Interesting book on SS helmets, good photos, easy to read. The only downside is the chapter shamelessly plugging XRF [ X-ray fluorescence spectrometry] , as the "Holy Grail" for determining helmet originality, this pseudo scientific method has, with good reason IMHO, come under fire from many respected helmet collectors as nothing more than "flawed witch doctor science" . Other than that, the book is worth the money.

RyanE
06-23-2011, 06:20 PM
Interesting book review. Apparently Hicks is plugging XRF in his book. Inquiries about this would be deleted and censored at the Gunboards "German Militaria" forum and one must ask why. If XRFacts is the "savior of the hobby", then where is it now?

http://www.amazon.com/SS-Steel-Parade-Combat-Helmets-Germanys/dp/0912138963

3.0 out of 5 stars SS - Steel, May 22, 2011
By
Dave (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A2DMWIUUHNVAXK/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp) - See all my reviews (http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2DMWIUUHNVAXK/ref=cm_cr_dp_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview)



Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this? (http://www.k98kforum.com/gp/community-help/amazon-verified-purchase))
This review is from: SS-Steel: (Expanded Edition) Parade & Combat Helmets of Germany's Third Reich Elite (Hardcover) (http://www.amazon.com/SS-Steel-Expanded-Parade-Helmets-Germanys/dp/1932970185/ref=cm_cr_dp_orig_subj)
Interesting book on SS helmets, good photos, easy to read. The only downside is the chapter shamelessly plugging XRF [ X-ray fluorescence spectrometry] , as the "Holy Grail" for determining helmet originality, this pseudo scientific method has, with good reason IMHO, come under fire from many respected helmet collectors as nothing more than "flawed witch doctor science" . Other than that, the book is worth the money.

The chapter in question taken from an advertisement online. :facepalm::facepalm:

mrfarb
06-23-2011, 06:30 PM
What a big goof. Surely someone added that info to his book without his knowledge.

S/42
06-23-2011, 07:20 PM
There are LITERALLY tumbleweeds blowing around on the Gunboards German Militaria Forum - clear as day to any simpleton what was going on and happened there.

Hambone
06-24-2011, 02:31 AM
The chapter in question taken from an advertisement online. :facepalm::facepalm:

Ryan, that must be a joke. XRF "breeches the divide" of what? Carnival barking and reference material? So basically according to these people if Kelly Hicks says so it is true and beyond questioning by us unwashed masses? Sorry, but Mr. Hicks was setting up at shows and peddling helmets back in the day (1980s) and a table dealer just like the rest of us. He wasn't flying around the room on a magic carpet healing people then and I'm sure he isn't now. No one is above questioning, particularly as it relates to the sale of "science" by a view as the final word on authenticity.

tjg79
07-21-2011, 09:09 PM
It's a good example for showing that you shouldn't believe everything you read in a book; that you've got to take the author's qualifications into consideration for each topic he addresses.

This book would be a good high school science teaching tool to show students how pseudo-science creeps into our culture and corrodes scientific understanding with bogus scientific assertions authored by laypersons. It shows how someone considered a subject matter expert by some in one topic area crosses the line and becomes a subject matter baffoon in another related topic area.

They even included the foolish pie charts. ha! ha! ha!

Regards

Hambone
07-22-2011, 05:57 PM
I can't believe that went in his book as gospel, particularly given the "wobbly" nature of the "science". Another battle is being waged right now over the defense of the deletions and censorship of the Hicks' threads and posts at GB.

Tjg, seems like everything sure went quiet re XRF.

tjg79
07-22-2011, 09:25 PM
I can't believe that went in his book as gospel, particularly given the "wobbly" nature of the "science". Another battle is being waged right now over the defense of the deletions and censorship of the Hicks' threads and posts at GB.

Tjg, seems like everything sure went quiet re XRF.

It's incredulous that XRF chapter was included considering the current state of the operation to include the relationships between the principals or so as I've read before all the censorship. I surmise that there must be a long lead time from manuscript submission to publication. Perhaps it was submitted to the publisher during their peak credibility period just before the credibility crash. I haven't read any posts where some collectors still claim it the Holy Grail of the helmet collecting community in a considerable time. It certainly diminishes an otherwise nice helmet reference book.

I haven't seen any censorship battle over on GB. I don't visit there much due to the dealer mods and their biased censorship of opinions and observations that counter their own. They're too weak to defend their conduct in an open forum. It must be a stealth battle in PM mode. They're like cockroaches over there in that they don't like the bright light of facts

I was hoping someone had something interesting to report in the way of new developments in the XRFacts demise. I haven't read anything since I got censored over on GB and all the informative threads were locked. Your post on the helmet reference XRF chapter is just that much more interesting and amusing.

Regards

PS - Perhaps that book XRF chapter explains why Hicks didn't retract his endorsement of XRFacts six months ago. It would make him look even more foolish than his "open letter to the collecting community" if he had to retract a whole chapter in his new book just after it was released. Think about how that would affect book sales.

Regards to all

mjn
07-23-2011, 12:21 AM
I have not been following this debate very closely, but a few years ago I was invited to participate in a workshop on XRF technology at a museum here in the US. We had the opportunity to learn about the equipment from a scientist who holds 4 patents in XRF technology. The machine is capable of detecting the proportions of certain elements, but it is up to the user to properly analyze the information supplied. This requires a good amount of experience in order to fully understand and interpret the results.

Although XRF is useful in many ways, one thing is certain - the machine cannot tell you when the materials were applied. A helmet might have an original SS decal, but when was it added? (I see original unused decals floating around even today). An XRF might show the proper elemental readout for wartime era pigments, but what if someone used period manufactured paint to fake a camouflage design or unit insignia? With questions like this, its use as a means of determining authenticity of helmets is limited.

tjg79
07-23-2011, 04:47 PM
I have not been following this debate very closely, but a few years ago I was invited to participate in a workshop on XRF technology at a museum here in the US. We had the opportunity to learn about the equipment from a scientist who holds 4 patents in XRF technology. The machine is capable of detecting the proportions of certain elements, but it is up to the user to properly analyze the information supplied. This requires a good amount of experience in order to fully understand and interpret the results.

Although XRF is useful in many ways, one thing is certain - the machine cannot tell you when the materials were applied. A helmet might have an original SS decal, but when was it added? (I see original unused decals floating around even today). An XRF might show the proper elemental readout for wartime era pigments, but what if someone used period manufactured paint to fake a camouflage design or unit insignia? With questions like this, its use as a means of determining authenticity of helmets is limited.

Your points are valid. XRFacts claims they can obtain a scientific determination to date helmet paint and determine authenticity. That claim is bogus. All they can do is compare handheld XRF readings from what they think are good examples with suspect examples. There's no scientific determination; only a subjective call and you've got to be able to read tea leaves to be able to compare the "known" good examples to the suspect examples. The analysis is not independently verifiable and repeatable. Therefore, it's not a scientific determination as they claim. XRFacts can't support any of their claims. They should know that by now and they should acknowledge their failure. Instead, they continue with their scam charging $200 per helmet analysis. An experienced collector with a good eye and the assistance of magnification can detect bogus XRFacts COAs which indicates their analysis and determinations are flawed.

If you bought the helmet reference book with the XRF chapter, you should contact the author to see if he still stands by the claims in his book.

Regards

tjg79
07-23-2011, 05:01 PM
Mjn, you're correct, but IMHO there are fundamental problems involving the use of XRF for their claimed applications, database issues, and people issues.[/QUOTE]

What's the interesting info floating around in the background? Are there still people paying to have their helmets tazored by the ray gun? Are there any dealers still endorsing the XRF analysis by XRFacts? All I know is that their website is still up.

How much longer is GB going to support their dealer mod censors, Vid & Scott B? Can you post a thread about the helmet book with the XRF chapter without the thread being locked or deleted? Probably not. GB needs to fix is mod problems.

Regards

tjg79
07-23-2011, 07:06 PM
Museums use XRF to detect elements and alloys in metal artifacts. If a Bronze Age dagger purported to be 2500 years old contained elements or alloys that required smelting methods that didn't exist 2500 years ago, then there's a good chance that the dagger is not original, but would require further investigation and analysis to draw conclusions. Even if the dagger doesn't contain any suspect elements and alloys, that doesn't prove its original. It could still be a fake. XRF only provides limited information or clues that by itself usually isn't sufficient to draw conclusions.

XRFacts draws conclusions based on handheld XRF data of a helmet steel/paint/decal matrix. They can't explain the results and their conclusions are not based on the presence or absence of any particular element. They base their conclusions on the XRF signature which is a combination of the helmet steel, paint and decal. I don't know of any application that uses the XRF signature of a complex matrix to draw conclusions. XRF is used primarily to look for the elemental composition or the absence or presence of elements of interest. It works well for identifying lead based paint (LBP), because the underlying substrate, wood or drywall, doesn't normally contain lead. Metal substrates are a different matter and using XRF to identify LBP on metal is problematic. And, a handheld XRF gun is only a field screening method. Accurate elemental composition requires sample preparation and laboratory methods.

XRFacts likes to cite that XRF is used by museums, but what they don't want to admit is that it's used differently and in conjunction with other analysis and test methods.

tjg79
07-24-2011, 05:55 PM
Interesting book review. Apparently Hicks is plugging XRF in his book. Inquiries about this would be deleted and censored at the Gunboards "German Militaria" forum and one must ask why. If XRFacts is the "savior of the hobby", then where is it now?

http://www.amazon.com/SS-Steel-Parade-Combat-Helmets-Germanys/dp/0912138963

3.0 out of 5 stars SS - Steel, May 22, 2011
By
Dave (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A2DMWIUUHNVAXK/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp) - See all my reviews (http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2DMWIUUHNVAXK/ref=cm_cr_dp_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview)



Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this? (http://www.k98kforum.com/gp/community-help/amazon-verified-purchase))
This review is from: SS-Steel: (Expanded Edition) Parade & Combat Helmets of Germany's Third Reich Elite (Hardcover) (http://www.amazon.com/SS-Steel-Expanded-Parade-Helmets-Germanys/dp/1932970185/ref=cm_cr_dp_orig_subj)
Interesting book on SS helmets, good photos, easy to read. The only downside is the chapter shamelessly plugging XRF [ X-ray fluorescence spectrometry] , as the "Holy Grail" for determining helmet originality, this pseudo scientific method has, with good reason IMHO, come under fire from many respected helmet collectors as nothing more than "flawed witch doctor science" . Other than that, the book is worth the money.

I think you're correct. A post like this on GB's German Militaria Forum is considered offensive, a personal attack against the author, and likely to result in a deleted post/thread notwithstanding the valid points raised, because the dealer mods, Vid & Scott B, personally like the dealer/author/XRFacts principal, Kelly Hicks. GB used to be a collector/enthusiast go to forum for uncensored discussion and spirited debate. Considering what we understand about the current state of the XRFacts scam operations, I wonder if that XRF technology chapter will be included in future editions/printings. It would be interesting to hear from the author, Kelly Hicks, about that topic.

That Amazon.com reviewer, Dave, bought the book and from the language of his review appears to be fully aware of the flaws in the XRFacts test method and the validity of their COAs. It pays to be an informed consumer.

Regards

tjg79
07-25-2011, 02:09 PM
GB's dealer mod Vid deleted all the sticky XRF threads on the GB German Militaria Forum. I think he's not acting in collector's interest and from other sources, appears to be unbalanced. I hope that GB can resolve this matter and restore the useful reference information.

Regards

Dave Roberts
07-25-2011, 08:13 PM
I may not know the whole story here and all the happenings ,but I am Positive of one thing when ever there is something controversial happening you can bet dollars to Donuts that one name is usually associated with the discontent taking place , Do I really need to say the name , or do others think the same as I and agree also . Best Regards

S/42
07-26-2011, 04:57 PM
I am 40 trillion light years away and I know...

tjg79
07-27-2011, 03:27 PM
I may not know the whole story here and all the happenings ,but I am Positive of one thing when ever there is something controversial happening you can bet dollars to Donuts that one name is usually associated with the discontent taking place , Do I really need to say the name , or do others think the same as I and agree also . Best Regards

Give us a hint Dave.

Regards

Hambone
07-27-2011, 03:49 PM
I received this via email:

S/42
07-28-2011, 12:25 AM
All Hail Mr. 400! All Hail Mr. 400!

URAH!

tjg79
07-28-2011, 12:28 PM
Some excerts from a forensic science paint analysis article that give an indication of the types of chemical analysis techniques used to identify paint composition. Notice that they don't mention using a handheld XRF of paint on a steel substrate to help identify the chemical signature or fingerprint of the paint.

http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/paint-analysis


Paint is a complex mixture consisting of pigments, modifiers, extenders, and binders. The pigments give the paint its color. Blue and green pigments tend to be organic compounds, while reds, yellows, and whites are often inorganic compounds. The modifiers control the properties of the paint such as gloss, flexibility, toughness, and durability. An extender adds bulk and covering capacity and is usually inorganic in nature. Some substances, such as titanium oxide, which is white, may act as both a pigment and an extender. A binder is a natural or synthetic resin that helps stabilize the mixture and form a film when it is spread. Topcoat, primer, and undercoat all have different types of chemical composition. The sample may also have been exposed to dirt, rain, and other contaminants, which can complicate the analysis.


Because paint has both organic and inorganic components, a variety of different chemical analysis techniques may be used to find out its actual composition. Micro-spectrophotometry in its reflectance mode will help determine the nature of the pigments, while infra red spectrometry will determine its organic components. X-ray powder diffraction is useful for determining the identity of any microcrystalline components. Because paint in the form of a chip is solid, a specialized technique called pyrolysis gas chromatography might be used to determine its composition. Pyrolysis involves heating the sample until it turns into a vapor. This is then injected into a gas chromatograph that separates the components. These can be identified by molecular weight using mass spectrometry, which creates a chemical fingerprint that can be compared to reference samples.


If the paint is in the form of a flake, then information on the number of layers can be obtained by various microscopic techniques. The forensic investigator compares the sample to known paints or control samples, by whatever techniques are most appropriate, to see if they came from the same source.

Hambone
10-15-2011, 07:11 PM
As a result of the censorship to protect " XRFacts " , etc., from scrutiny, we lost some real jewels of commentary. Below are comments from WAF . Fortunately, Nutmeg's dream that we would all need our helmets tazed for a fee and a "Certificate of Authenticity" $200+ blessing by XRFacts has not come to be........ I'd be interested to see what WAF has to say about XRF these days .

jack944
10-15-2011, 09:19 PM
I saw Kelly today....didnt' ask him about all this.

basile
10-15-2011, 11:58 PM
Apparently this is the guy who wrote that stinging review.

http://ww2weaponsforum.com/showthread.php?5796-SS-Steel

Hambone
10-16-2011, 08:53 AM
"As important as sports memorabilia, where a certificate means everything, a certificate of authenticity provides a basis for the provenance and re-sale value of your helmet. Unlike the sports memorabilia collecting arena, there is currently no ongoing support from government, state or local anti-fraud or other enforcement agencies. Nor does an international body exist to protect collectors, with the possible exception of Interpol, whose primary focus is art. This leaves militaria collectors with limited options for recourse to recoup losses from dishonest dealers and helmet forgers.
Authentication by email: 20.00USD; Authentication in hand: 80.00 plus postage, includes COA; COA only: 60.00 USD"
http://www.ss-steel-inc.com/ss_steel_authentications.htm

Hambone
10-16-2011, 09:26 AM
The Olympus Innov-X ray gun they are (were) apparently using
http://www.olympus-ims.com/en/innovx-xrf-xrd/

Hambone
10-16-2011, 10:07 AM
XRFacts statements and claims:
http://xrfacts.com/?page_id=27

"Who Is XRFacts?
XRFacts, LLC is a Florida based corporation that was formed in late 2009 by Dave May, Kelly Hicks, Robby Wilson and Jim Muir with the goal of providing helmet collectors an unbiased and neutral, third party scientific method of determining authenticity of WWII era German helmets. All four principals have over a century of combined militaria collecting, research and publishing experience."

Could a "goal" also have been you guys installing yourselves as the "authenticity gurus" of helmets, making XRF testing necessary, and charging $200+ a pop for a helmet tazing and "Certificate of Authenticity"? A major problem is that at least one of these "founders" also actively sells high end SS helmets for hefty prices. Who "authenticates" those?

"Is XRFacts Testing transparent?
Yes, XRFacts provides open, transparent testing by showcasing case studies on our web site from third party collections that are part of creating the baseline database."

I guess there is the sales pitch definition of "transparent" and the real world scientific definition which is not what XRFacts is showing us. A private secret database of helmets? Whose helmets? What helmets? Where can people look at what you used as "baselines", i.e. all of them? People with a vested financial interest in the secret baseline are using their own helmets? Transparency is open and uncensored discussion as is taking place here; you won't see his discussion at WAF, where the dealers and XRFacts pundits run (and censor) the show. Why? Why do the "XRFacts Founders" (i.e., David May, "Maui") applaud such censorship and why do these proponents refuse to respond to the questions posed here, which they cannot censor? Why would XRFacts have its lawyer threaten Gunboards and demand removal of threads questioning XRF and demand that Gunboards post retractions and links to their website instead? Does that sound "transparent"? Does that sound like "science"?

"Has the XRFacts Testing method been independently certified?
The X-ray Fluorescence technology behind XRFacts has been independently certified, used and approved by hundreds of private organizations and government entities including HUD, OSHA, US Customs and Border Security, The EPA as well as all branches of the US Military. XRFacts, LLC has developed a Patent Pending Proprietary Methodology and Testing Sequence to capture the descriptive data and these X-ray Fluorescence testing results."

This is an example of deceptive and misleading BS, which is not science. The proper question is "has XRFacts Testing method been independently certified for XRFacts' applications?" The answer is a deafening no, and my opinion is that XRFacts will never get such an independent certification because they can't. That is, they are incorrectly and improperly using their XRF ray gun for things it was not designed to do and cannot do, and interpretting the pie charts and readouts for their own purposes, like a voodoo doctor or shaman reading chicken bones. XRF has been "independently certified" as being capable of identifying certain elements in junkyard metal and rocks, and under proper circumstances and conditions, lead in paint. It's never been independently certified to authenticate layers of paint on German helmets or SS decals. Of course, Kelly Hicks and the "founders" selling COA's claim it does (because they are charging hundreds of dollars for the service), but what are their qualifications to "independently certify" the results or applications?

Of course, these questions will never be answered and if you ask them at WAF you'll get censored first, then banned. Why? Does science hide from legitimate inquiry or seek it out and provide answers? Does a site and forum legitimately interested in the truth censor and ban to stop legitimate inquiry?

Hambone
10-16-2011, 12:32 PM
Does "science" have lawyers threaten critics to shut them up and demand that XRFacts links and ads be posted instead, or does "science" answer the questions and prove its claims? Does "science" censor and ridicule its critics or answer them and prove itself? So, then, is XRFacts really "Provenance Through Science" or BS?

http://xrfacts.com/ (http://xrfacts.com/)

tjg79
10-19-2011, 11:14 PM
Although XRFacts hasn't completely disappeared from the web, the good news is that it appears to be in the process of doing so. I haven't seen any new information pitching the scam or heard of anyone using or recommending the service. In fact, the only new information I've seen is negative comments such as the book review mentioned above. XRFacts appears to be dying a slow death as we predicted long ago. The principals appear to be behaving just as anyone would expect principals of an exposed scam operation to behave; they are not available for questions and are keeping a very low profile.

I think the thing that they, the carnival barkers on WAF, probably regret the most is that it was Hambone that raised the red flag probably before they spent the money on the new raygun; that's got to sting. And, the salt in the wound was their COAs exposed as bogus. Their only recourse is to ban, censor and delete his "I told you so" posts before they crawl back down into their holes and lick their wounds.

Hambone
10-19-2011, 11:36 PM
Tjg, your buddy Vid the German Militaria forum mod deleted all threads and posts, many of which predated his existence at Gunboards because those posts were showing up on Google and were not flattering for Hicks. The best information was your analysis based upon your experience with XRF and what it can and cannot do. None of that appeared anywhere else. No one can PM Vic because it says his "Mailbox is full". He told me he was going to restored those posts so we could copy them. A legitimate forum wouldn't censor and bury this, they'd discuss it and require explanations.

tjg79
10-19-2011, 11:54 PM
Tjg, your buddy Vid the German Militaria forum mod deleted all threads and posts, many of which predated his existence at Gunboards because those posts were showing up on Google and were not flattering for Hicks. The best information was your analysis based upon your experience with XRF and what it can and cannot do. None of that appeared anywhere else. No one can PM Vic because it says his "Mailbox is full". He told me he was going to restored those posts so we could copy them. A legitimate forum wouldn't censor and bury this, they'd discuss it and require explanations.

I think there is one XRF thread that wasn't deleted. It wasn't one of the sticky threads. I came across it a few days ago doing a Google search for any new information. I didn't check to see if it was a locked thread. If it's not locked, I was thinking of adding the book review to bring it back to the top of the forum to see how long it takes my buddies, Vid and Scott B, to delete it.

I agree with you about legitimate forums, but GB doesn't want to piss off the dealers who advertise. It's sad to see GB side with dealers over collectors. They should change their motto to "For Dealers at the Expense of Collectors." Now, we have to keep that in mind when we post on GB.

tjg79
10-20-2011, 12:13 AM
Patent Pending Application Number 61/329-329

The item to watch is the application above. I don't know the scope of what they applied for or if the patent examinors even verify the technical feasiblity of their application, but if their application is declined I would think they should decide to take their patient off life support.

If the application is for using a handheld XRF with your head up your ass, then I think it might get approved, because I don't think anyone has thought of that yet.

Regards

tjg79
10-20-2011, 01:04 AM
Let's see how long it takes for this to get deleted on GB. Can you detect any posts by flip floppers?

Regards

tjg79
10-20-2011, 01:24 AM
Then Hicks is their buddy, because they mention others in a less than flattering way.

Regards

tjg79
10-20-2011, 12:39 PM
This information shouldn't surprise anyone.

I called the USPTO to inquire about Patent Pending Application Number 61/329-329 which is referenced on the XRFacts website. The USPTO representative I spoke with indicated that it was for a medical catheter clamping device from another company. The 61/329-329 number is not related to XRFacts.

The USPTO rep indicated that this type of application is a provisional and expires after a year with results as if it never existed unless the applicant moves it forward in the system such as providing scientific information to justify a patent, the nonprovisional portion of the application. They can file the nonprovisional portion of the patent application after the twelve month time period, but they lose the provisional filing date as the start date for the patent. If the application has moved forward, it would be searchable after 18 months from the provisional application date. The USPTO indicated that the application number on the XRFacts website is most likely a transcription error and if the actual XRFacts application is over a year old, then it has expired and no longer exists.

I think it's over a year old and may be close to the 18 month date as well and, therefore expired and nonexistent. That shouldn't be of any surprise, because of the known bogus COAs that indicate a flaw in their handheld XRF application.

They, the XRFacts principals refused to explain or justify their scientific claims on the forums, but they can't do the same with the USPTO examiners and obtain their patent. I think the indications of the failed patent are also indications of a failed scam operation. We are awaiting final confirmation from the principals. If you see or hear from any of them, ask the question.

Generally, these types of applications are not public information and the USPTO rep checked the XRFacts website to confirm that they were advertising the application before he gave me any information.

Let's see if the principals of the scam operation known as XRFacts, LLC can explain.

Regards

Hambone
10-20-2011, 03:32 PM
IMHO, all of that is smoke and mirrors for the yokels' medicine show. They think "wow, a patent application, this is for real!" and "wow, science, a laser beam, a pie chart and COA, ooohh, ahhh, this is technical and for real!", etc. etc. I could apply for a patent for farting frogs and shoot my helmets with a cop's radar gun, but what does that prove?

tjg79
10-20-2011, 03:44 PM
IMHO, all of that is smoke and mirrors for the yokels' medicine show. They think "wow, a patent application, this is for real!" and "wow, science, a laser beam, a pie chart and COA, ooohh, ahhh, this is technical and for real!", etc. etc. I could apply for a patent for farting frogs and shoot my helmets with a cop's radar gun, but what does that prove?

It appeals to the uninformed masses and a lot of WAF forum members. Back in the eighties, they used the words "high tech" to sell stuff.

tjg79
10-29-2011, 12:25 AM
The proper way of handling this, if it was alleged to be the "savior of the collecting community", would have been to make the discussion thread a sticky and have the "founders" answer questions as we've posed here. The only responses we've seen have been insults, censorship, bannings, and legal threats to shut us up.

If it would have been handled that way, the money making scam operation would have fallen apart a lot sooner which was not in the interest of the XRFacts founders/scammers. Their claims of objective scientific authentication can be called pseudoscience with out fear of exaggeration.

They, XRFacts, never did explain the COAs that proved to be bogus which is behavior highly consistent with a scam operation. A reputable scientific organization would have halted operations and retracted their claims.


Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research; but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience




pseudoscience
n.
A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.

pseudoscientific
adj.
A discipline or approach that pretends to be or has a close resemblance to science.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Pseudoscience

tjg79
10-29-2011, 02:27 PM
Those are excellent questions. Perhaps Kelly Hicks learned something that he doesn't want to reveal from his experience as an XRFacts founder and pitchman that indicates to him that his XRF helmet authentication service is not worth the $200 cost.

As a helmet collector, "professional" helmet authenticator, Third Reich helmet author with XRF chapter in latest book (SS-Steel (Expanded Edition) published 26 July 2010), and XRFacts founder/pitchman with posted (http://xrfacts.com/?page_id=11) open letter to the collecting community, he should explain his understanding of XRF helmet testing and why he doesn't indicate its use for his authentication service advertised on his website.

Regards

tjg79
10-30-2011, 01:19 PM
Is anyone using the XRFacts service? Other than the website still up, I don't see any indications that they are still tazoring helmets. I think I recall a telephone number posted on their website that is no longer there; that's an indication of a decline. All indications of activity are old from 2010. Revelations from 2011, revealed on GB, are that there has been a falling out between the XRFacts principals with threats of litigation. It would be interesting to read more about that if true.

I think a timeline showing the rise and fall of XRFacts with key events from the beginning (WAF presentation), to the formation of the scam operation, to its peak sometime in 2010, to the COAs that proved to be bogus, to the hat museum and Hicks' website dropping XRFacts references, to the dealers that dropped the advertising, to the present, where no one admits they use or endorse the service would be interesting.

Kelly Hicks should come forward and give an explanation, because he is the face of this scam with his open letter to the collecting community and his July 2010 book that promotes the service. Does he still promote the service in 2011?

Regards

Hambone
10-30-2011, 02:21 PM
"A final thought relating to separating the wheat from the chaff: recently I was discussing with one of the XRFacts principals the vexing problem of detecting increasingly sophisticated counterfeit cloth items. He believes that it would be possible to use x-ray flourescence technology to differentiate original from reproduction cloth."
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4600928&highlight=xrfacts#post4600928

My bet if the past is any indication, call BS on that claim and ask for support for it and the post will get deleted and you'll get banned if you press for a response. Is this responsible conduct that helps the collecting community?

tjg79
10-30-2011, 03:08 PM
Proposing XRF analysis of Third Reich cloth items is a desperate attempt to find a way to pay for a $20k handheld xrf gun that lost its legs tazoring helmets. Unfortunately for the XRFacts investors, the results of cloth XRF analysis will prove to be the same for decal and paint on steel. It's well past the time that they, the XRFacts principals, should have consulted with someone knowledgeable of the physics and chemistry and competent in the chemical analysis of the artifacts of interest. XRFacts did not employ anyone qualified to perform such analysis and apparently didn't consult with an unbiased expert prior to the purchase of their test instrument and the launch of their operation. Relying on the expertise of XRF instrument sales professionals to establish a test protocol for profit can lead to some unpleasant surprises as XRFacts discovered.


Regards

Hambone
10-30-2011, 03:34 PM
Could it be that they consulted the people selling them the XRF tazer for their information? Did they buy one tjg? Here is an interesting new thread with info:
http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/steel-helmets-3-reich/xrfacts-109972/

tjg79
10-30-2011, 04:28 PM
Could it be that they consulted the people selling them the XRF tazer for their information? Did they buy one tjg? Here is an interesting new thread with info:
http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/steel-helmets-3-reich/xrfacts-109972/

Where else would a nonscientist layman interested in starting a for profit operation based on "science" that would have a monopoly on the market insured by a secret proprietary database get their information? They likely rented an instrument at first and then bought one once their greedy little minds became convinced they could make a healthy profit and control the market. They even applied for a patent to protect their concept from infringement.

That new thread is refreshing and an indication that the XRFacts scam operation is dead for now, but not completely gone yet. I was starting to think most helmet collectors were similar to the ones that display their intellect on WAF.


Regards

Hambone
10-31-2011, 12:00 AM
Where else would a nonscientist layman interested in starting a for profit operation based on "science" that would have a monopoly on the market insured by a secret proprietary database get their information? They likely rented an instrument at first and then bought one once their greedy little minds became convinced they could make a healthy profit and control the market. They even applied for a patent to protect their concept from infringement.

That new thread is refreshing and an indication that the XRFacts scam operation is dead for now, but not completely gone yet. I was starting to think most helmet collectors were similar to the ones that display their intellect on WAF.

Regards

Seems to be a logical explanation. If it is, now they have a $20k+ ray gun to use to ID metal at the scrap yard and lead paint on flat surfaces of old houses.

tjg79
10-31-2011, 12:40 AM
I think DougB on the forum link you posted can't see the forest for the trees. The problem with the XRFacts "service" was that they couldn't do what they claimed they could do. The operation didn't fail due to dealers or business plan. They, the XRFacts founders, didn't understand the science and the limitations of the instrument. Contrary to what they advertised, they never came close to an objective determination of anything. It was nothing more than a subjective interpretation by laypersons of instrument output and the odds of batting a thousand were against them from the beginning. For a pricey authentication service to issue bogus COAs, even if the science foundation was sound, would have been the kiss of death. In this case, where the science didn't support the application, it was a spectacular self immolation. So much so, that the XRFacts principals have gone into silence mode to pretend nothing ever happened. DougB needs to set aside his obvious biases and wake up and smell the coffee.

tjg79
10-31-2011, 12:52 AM
Seems to be a logical explanation. If it is, now they have a $20k+ ray gun to use to ID metal at the scrap yard and lead paint on flat surfaces of old houses.

Unfortunately, their ray gun doesn't meet the federal spec to ID lead paint. It uses an x-ray tube for a radiation source. Lead paint work requires a radioactive source to generate the x-rays.

Regards

Hambone
10-31-2011, 01:19 AM
Well said on the above. So, they still can use their helmet tazer to sort metal at the scrap yard? After training of course........

tjg79
10-31-2011, 01:45 PM
Based on what's been revealed on the web and what appears to be the current status of XRFacts operations, if I'd paid $200+ or whatever amount for the service, I'd demand a refund. A small claims court action should be enough incentive to shake the refund tree.

Regards

tjg79
11-01-2011, 12:16 PM
That GB thread speaks volumes as to who the antagonists are. Vid has the mentality of a child who thinks that nobody else can see if the child covers his eyes with his hands. The more I read Vids posts, the more I wonder what the hell is this guy talking about.

As you pointed out, if all the substantial discussion critical of XRF is deleted, as was done on GB by Vid and Scott B, and only the XRF sales pitches and cheerleader posts remain, then that gives the impression that XRF is a viable authentication test. New people stumble across this effect all the time.

I've seen links on other sites to the deleted GB threads. Why were they deleted? Others have used the discussion to make their points on other forums and sites.

The only posts I've seen that cross the line are the ones by Vid and Scott B. They are WAF style mods on GB.

I'm surprised more don't post in support of keeping the information updated and current. There's still a lot we don't know.

bruce98k
11-03-2011, 07:19 PM
I was surprised to see old Mauser Bill in the fray and doing a damn fine job of it, especially digging into the deep technical aspects. Atta boy!

Hambone
11-03-2011, 11:10 PM
Regrettably he did a good job pointing out their problems and lack of support for the claims so they deleted his posts and banned him.

jack944
11-04-2011, 09:19 AM
I love reading the comments and saying that sounds like an intelligent argument and then seeing the poster..expelled....banned...suspended..taken off. Don't they realize when it is in zeros and ones (digital) on the internet...it is forever. As Donovan said "They might as well try and catch the wind". :biggrin1:

Hambone
11-05-2011, 02:07 PM
Deleted by "Vid" from his website:
http://www.thirdreicharts.com/engine/inspect.asp?Item=1055&Filter=Gallery
Item not available.GALLERY ITEM, INQUIRIES WELCOME!

Hambone
11-05-2011, 02:20 PM
From the "Wilson History and Research Center":

First, a "founder" of XRFacts is the "founder" of the Wilson History and Research Center" ("WHRC"). That is the "Wilson" in Wilson History and Research Center is the same one identified as a "founder" of XRFacts:

"Who Is XRFacts?
XRFacts, LLC is a Florida based corporation that was formed in late 2009 by Dave May, Kelly Hicks, Robby Wilson and Jim Muir with the goal of providing helmet collectors an unbiased and neutral, third party scientific method of determining authenticity of WWII era German helmets. All four principals have over a century of combined militaria collecting, research and publishing experience."
http://xrfacts.com/?page_id=27


Second, where is the report from this ray gun exhibition at the Show of Shows? What happened? A search of the WHRC shows that there are apparently no more articles or plugs of XRFacts. Why?

Again from the "Wilson History and Research Center":

"Finally, 2010 will be a watershed year for SS helmets. A new technology has arisen as a result of the near perfect SS helmet reproductions that are being made and sold as original and authentic. By employing the use of XRF (x-ray fluorescence) technology, which is a stable means of determining metal alloy and composition percentages through the use of x-rays, the collectors of SS steel helmets will be offered the opportunity to test and certify the authenticity of their collections. The product from this science is indisputable. We have had the pleasure of being a part of a demonstration, and while some of our most “prized” pieces didn’t stand up to the challenge, the ones that did are now authenticated for all time. This technology is going to be very important and WHRC endorses its use and endorses “XRFacts,” the company that offers the authentications. As proof of our commitment to this technology, we offer a treat for those of you attending the Show of Shows this year. We will be residing at the XRFacts table acompanied by a couple of our SS Helmets as will a few others. One of our pieces is the much discussed Heimwehr Danzig helmet, a relic which was the topic of several forums last summer. Having acquired this controversial piece,we are bringing it to the SOS for you to insepect yourself. During the SOS, we want you to tell us, is it real or is it an imposter? At the end of the show XRFacts will test it and announce the results during the last hour of the show. For those of you who won’t be there at the end, we will release the results on our web site as well as the XRFacts web site. Additionally, we will be testing the SS double decal M-40 which was formerly displayed at the Museum in Averanches, FranceWith this kind of technology, our collections and their value in history can only become more stable."

So how is XRFacts "neutral" in the testing when a founder of "XRFacts" is testing the helmets of the entity he founded?:

"Does XRFacts have a financial stake in the outcome of a test?
No, XRFacts is neutral and has no gain or loss vested in the results of a test. We are an unbiased third party service to the helmet collecting community."
http://xrfacts.com/?page_id=27

tjg79
11-05-2011, 05:20 PM
Vid acts very strange when the discussion turns to XRF and Kelly Hicks. Did you notice that he didn't have a good response when the pic of Hicks' XRF chapter was posted? Go back and read his posts. They are rants from a guy flailing against facts, logic and reason. What does "royally dead" mean? His posts appear to be from a guy on the verge of a public meltdown. Heck, it appears the melting has begun.

There's still a lot to be discovered about the rise and fall of the helmet testing XRF scam. I'd like to read comments from the XRFacts founders/principals as to when they realized they had a problem. The thing I find most interesting about the whole affair is the different reasons for the operation's failure people post on the various forums. They seem to want to avoid the obvious; that you can't date paint with an elemental sketch of painted steel. If it was that easy, it would have been done long ago.

tjg79
11-06-2011, 03:24 AM
It's reasonable to expect the principals to make excuses for their failure, but I'm surprised that there appears to be no information posted anywhere that quotes the owners'/founders'/principals' reasons for the sudden death of their "holy grail" to high-end helmet collectors. Some close associates of the operation offer reasons such as bad business model and helmet dealers as the causes, but those excuses avoid any acknowledgment of bogus scientific claims and imply that the science of XRF helmet analysis could rise again with new management. Hicks has the most to explain since he was the expert helmet collector, appraiser, author and official XRFacts pitchman with his "open letter to the collecting community" and de facto XRF analysis expert with his published scholarly reference book with chapter on the science of XRF paint analysis of TR helmets. They're likely very embarrassed and hoping that all memories of their failed enterprise fade away. Considering how they intended to screw all helmet collectors by adding a $200 cost to all helmets on the market, it's surprising that more collectors aren't expressing their outrage at the business model that intended to make an XRFacts COA a requirement to trade on the market.

Hambone
11-06-2011, 10:35 AM
Funny how this thing was hyped so much and now they've buried it. So the "founders" of this and dealers had XRFact bs and claims on their sites, selling helmets, and in Hicks' book, and now, poof, gone, without explanation other than third hand excuses? My opinion is that there is something folks don't want us to hear. All the more reason to keep this on the front burner until the entire truth comes out. :thumbsup:

tjg79
11-06-2011, 02:33 PM
All stories have an ending, but the XRFacts story has ended abruptly without explanation which isn't proper. Perhaps a moderator could invite Kelly Hicks to visit this forum and explain what happened to the XRFacts operation and explain what he presently thinks about XRF helmet paint analysis. He would be able to redeem his reputation and might even sell a few copies of his recent book.

Regards

tjg79
11-06-2011, 02:53 PM
What you indicate is likely true, but I would think a person of integrity would like to clear his name if he made a big mistake about his ability to identify high end fakes and tried to "tax" the TR helmet market with a $200 fee. After all, it's the only way to truly put this matter to rest and move forward. Otherwise, the scam is still hanging over their heads.

basile
11-06-2011, 04:25 PM
Mr Hicks must have felt very strongly about this service to include a chapter on it in his book "SS - Steel". Failure on his part to explain what happened and why he embraced the apparently flawed science behind XRF helmet paint analysis can, most assuredly, color his reputation, since what is printed in that book will be available for the collecting world, and general population, for years to come. IMHO, it was extremely foolish on his part to prematurely introduce and market, as fact, an unproven theory not backed by independent scientific study.

tjg79
11-06-2011, 04:48 PM
Mr Hicks must have felt very strongly about this service to include a chapter on it in his book "SS - Steel". Failure on his part to explain what happened and why he embraced the apparently flawed science behind XRF helmet paint analysis can, most assuredly, color his reputation, since what is printed in that book will be available for the collecting world, and general population, for years to come. IMHO, it was extremely foolish on his part to prematurely introduce and market, as fact, an unproven theory not backed by independent scientific study.

Good points basile. Anyone with a good understanding of high school chemistry should understand that elemental composition, which is all a handheld XRF instrument can provide with limitations, is only one small clue that by itself is insufficient for authentication purposes. For paint, you would need the constituent compounds to discriminate between wartime composition and post war modern materials. Even then, you couldn't declare something authentic, because if they used the same materials as wartime, you could only conclude that paint was consistent with wartime applied materials. As everyone should understand, that's not proof of originality. An experienced collector such as Kelly Hicks should have understood those simple limitations.

Hambone
11-06-2011, 04:57 PM
http://xrfacts.com/?page_id=11
An open letter to the collector community from Kelly Hicks1 (http://www.k98kforum.com/#kelly), author, collector and noted expert:

“XRFacts”… is a new authentication service I have helped to form, in partnership with a skilled technologist and a group of dedicated professionals from the Wilson History and Research Center, a Charitable Foundation dedicated to the authentication and preservation of historical artifacts from around the world.
I joined in this effort in order to come up with a solution which I believe will help cope with the ever-increasing quality and volume of counterfeit (fake) German helmets, which threaten to undermine the fun, passion and value we all enjoy as collectors.
Since I began offering an authentication service, I have observed that approximately 85% of the helmets sent to me for evaluation have been higher quality fakes. There are even fake Q pattern SS decals, Fake ET patterns, etc., and just by going with a visual evaluation is not going to be enough in the near future. Many of the collectors seeking my evaluations have also sought advice on getting their money back—sometimes thousands of dollars worth of loss. I ask myself what the effect of all these acts of fraud will have on the collecting community in general and the growth of new, upcoming collectors in particular. Without new collectors, there is no new energy; no place to rest our legacy. So this disturbing trend must come to a stop quickly and decisively.
XRFacts incorporates the application of X-ray Fluorescence technology in conjunction with my hands-on evaluations, bringing together empirical and traditional authentication methodologies. This combination will help deal with the fake threat in two ways:
Vastly improved authentications. The best fakes, including fake camouflage finishes in addition to fake decals and fake factory finishes, have an instantly discernable profile when scanned with XRF. When compared against the carefully assembled decal, paint, camo and steel database, the originality (or non-originality) of a piece becomes instantly obvious. In cases where antiquated materials are used, such as the Czech fakes produced in the early 1990s, traditional knowledge and expertise methods (always employed in every evaluation) are relied upon to complete the evaluation. In this manner, new cutting-edge fakes can be dealt with effectively.
A new provenance for collectors. A positive result of the reliability of this technology, coupled with the expansion of the secure database of known originals, is that a whole new baseline provenance is now possible for all original helmets. Using a tamper-proof certification document which can be linked to the “fingerprint” of the helmet in the database will eliminate the potential for fraudulent helmets and documentation to be passed along. This will be especially important when a collector wants to sell or trade a helmet in the future—whether to an advanced fellow collector or to a novice collector—the certification will be the proof of authenticity, and can be checked against the database for verification. Fakes will just not have this capacity for any kind of verification, and considering the value of the originals, will not be as much of a threat to our beloved hobby ever again.
Kelly Hicks, author of four authoritiative works on SS helmets, has collected German helmets and militaria for 45 years. His experience and historical research have combined to provide the collecting community insightful and valued reference materials, designed to enhance independent knowledge and confidence among all levels of collectors. Taking his research to new levels, Kelly has embarked on the exploration and implementation of emerging technologies in the pursuit of refined and scientific authentication methods. His fifth book, “SS Steel: Updated Edition” is currently underway, with an expected print date of 2010.

basile
11-06-2011, 05:56 PM
Proof that committing one's reputation to any unproven scheme can potentially ruin that reputation. The failure to openly answer why results in pure speculation [often unflattering speculation] unless, or until, a complete public explanation of the reasons behind the unwise decision is forthcoming. Everyone makes mistakes, the wise quickly admit the error and move on.

tjg79
11-07-2011, 11:21 AM
I think Phil McCrackin might have made Canadian Doug Buhler (pictured on left in photo), aka DougB on WRF & SSTk on WAF & GHW, uncomfortable by pointing out his relationship to XRFacts founder/pitchman Kelly Hicks. So, to remedy the uncomfortable situation, someone deleted the entire XRFacts thread on the War Relics Forum. Now, nobody knows Doug Buhler and Kelly Hicks are buddies that help each other; Kelly sells Doug's helmets and Doug helped Kelly build his XRFacts database of known good helmets.



22557

basile
11-07-2011, 12:26 PM
The whole theory should have been vetted by an unbiased scientific study, instead of being sold as unquestionable gospel in the first place.

Hambone
11-07-2011, 01:04 PM
The whole theory should have been vetted by an unbiased scientific study, instead of being sold as unquestionable gospel in the first place.

Many of us don't think it could have survived such a vetting. I had the opportunity to sit with my wife's uncle over the weekend while watching the game. He is a structural inspector and just spent about $40k on the best handheld XRF tazer there is. It's for IDing steel content in welds, not the composition of multiple layers of paint on a steel surface. He found the claims humorous.

The real lessons, insight, and story is in the post-mortem.

Hambone
11-07-2011, 04:00 PM
BTW, in the pic I believe that's Dave Shirlin. If so, he's one of the nicest and most upstanding guys (and dealers) around. I've known him for years and he's as good as they come and so are his offerings. As for Doug, he's a good guy too, just obviously irate over this continued inquiry. I've always wondered why we've never seen anyone try to explain/excuse/defend/discuss in an open and uncensored forum :thumbsup:

basile
11-07-2011, 05:37 PM
The possibility of cornering a market niche, and the prospect of making money, often taints otherwise objective reasoning.

tjg79
11-07-2011, 07:48 PM
BTW, in the pic I believe that's Dave Shirlin. If so, he's one of the nicest and most upstanding guys (and dealers) around. I've known him for years and he's as good as they come and so are his offerings. As for Doug, he's a good guy too, just obviously irate over this continued inquiry. I've always wondered why we've never seen anyone try to explain/excuse/defend/discuss in an open and uncensored forum :thumbsup:

You're correct about Dave Shirlin in the pic. I think Doug Buhler is on the level. He has expressed doubts about the XRFacts commercial operation and reliability of the service. Like most of the collectors skeptical of XRF helmet testing that don't understand the science, he's noted the failures, but may not fully understand why. Doug Buhler knows Kelly Hicks, does business with him, and they are obviously on friendly terms. That bias was reflected in his comments on the thread. It's fair to take the Buhler-Hicks relationship into account when evaluating Doug's comments. I also think, Kelly Hicks owes the collecting community an explanation of the XRFacts fiasco. Just as the other XRFacts principals also owe an explanation.

I know what information handheld XRF provides and have a good understanding of the science. I know what XRFacts thinks they see in the instrument output. But, I don't see how you go from elemental sketch of paint on steel to determining authenticity of Third Reich helmet paint. I know they can't give a scientifically sound explanation of their theory of outing fakes solely with XRF. There just isn't enough information to draw conclusions to the point that they can certify authenticity of any helmet tested.

basile
11-07-2011, 08:10 PM
Although lead based paints were banned in America in the 1970s, it should be common knowledge that it is used in other parts of the world today. How hard would it be to mimic the original paints / lacquers used on period helmets? How could you date paint? I guess using latex house paint would be a non starter.

Hambone
11-08-2011, 07:04 AM
Handheld XRF has limitations even for identifying lead paint, particularly on curved surfaces, paint over metal, and multiple paint layers. Sounds like a painted helmet to me.

Tjg, the problem is the hysterical anger at continued inquiry. Their position is "it's done and that's that, go away, pay no attention to the people behind the curtain." Of course, the original sales pitch was "it's science, we know more than you, you deserve to be insulted, censored, and threatened if you question us, pay no attention to the people behind the curtain."

The same people who fought disclosure on the front end are now more hysterically fighting disclosure on the back end. If full disclosure and objectivity on the front end would have killed this shamwow "science" on the front end, what will full disclosure and an objective post mortem on the back end tell us?

basile
11-08-2011, 12:31 PM
The sad truth is that without asking for the facts behind the claims, this flawed theory would have established itself as the "new standard" and become an entrenched dogma.
Failure to ask for it's bona fides would have resulted in a terrible disservice to collectors. ''Do not question, only believe" may be fine for a cult, but has no place outside those limited confines.

tjg79
11-08-2011, 01:12 PM
The XRFacts principals, Robert M. Wilson, Jr, Kelly Hicks, David May and Jim Muir, must feel some embarrassment for their rapid rise and fall. Why else would they go into silence mode and pretend it was nothing more than a bogus claim on a forum. Although Kelly Hicks and Robert Wilson have dropped their XRF pitching on their respective websites, the XRFacts website is still up. I wonder how many paid for this service. Are they entitled to a refund? Does Kelly Hicks still stand by his claims in his July 2010 book SS Steel with XRF helmet analysis chapter? I think Kelly Hicks and Robert Wilson, founder of the Wilson History and Research Center, should explain what happened. Usually, an organization such as a history and research center would publish something about a now discredited testing method they previously touted as a solution to high end fake helmets. Silence and a "no comment" attitude are not compatible with an institution such as a history and research center. Inquiring minds want to know what happened.

Hambone
11-08-2011, 01:13 PM
The sad truth is that without asking for the facts behind the claims, this flawed theory would have established itself as the "new standard" and become an entrenched dogma.
Failure to ask for it's bona fides would have resulted in a terrible disservice to collectors. ''Do not question, only believe" may be fine for a cult, but has no place outside those limited confines.

Exactly!, hence the continued shining of light on this thing.

basile
11-08-2011, 02:40 PM
The bottom line is this, either it works or it doesn't work. There is no middle ground. There is no room for equivocation. Either it is the result of empirical evidence that can be reproduced by unbiased 3rd. parties, or it is totally lacking in verifiable truth.

Among scientific researchers, empirical evidence (as distinct from empirical research) refers to objective evidence that appears the same regardless of the observer. For example, a thermometer will not display different temperatures for each individual who observes it.

tjg79
11-08-2011, 09:12 PM
The bottom line is this, either it works or it doesn't work. There is no middle ground. There is no room for equivocation. Either it is the result of empirical evidence that can be reproduced by unbiased 3rd. parties, or it is totally lacking in verifiable truth.

Among scientific researchers, empirical evidence (as distinct from empirical research) refers to objective evidence that appears the same regardless of the observer. For example, a thermometer will not display different temperatures for each individual who observes it.

There are a lot of equivocal statements on the XRFacts website FAQ page if not intentionally misleading or outright bogus. It's obviously the work of buffoons dallying in scientific pursuits they don't understand.


http://xrfacts.com/?page_id=27

How does XRFacts Testing work?
XRFacts uses a widely accepted, government approved, scientifically developed X-ray Fluorescence method of testing your helmet.

Really? I know the government has an approved XRF test method for testing for lead paint that specifies the type of handheld instrument acceptable among other things, but I didn't know they had a government approved XRF test method for testing helmet paint. I'd like to see it!

basile
11-08-2011, 10:19 PM
I guess the only proper term for their voodoo helmet scheme is "ludus perficitur" ("the game is finished").

tjg79
11-09-2011, 12:31 PM
What surprises me about the whole affair is that a good number of the few comments I've read lately tend to be sympathetic and make excuses for the perpetrators of this XRF scam: they had good intentions and they're good guys. These types of comments are characteristic of sheeple. If trying to control the authentication of an entire market for profit by a select few is indicative of good intentions, then whose interest are those good intentions intended for? Especially when they know that what they're advertising is a stretch of the truth and they know they can't deliver what they say they can deliver. When there was a problem, they concealed the facts and refused to explain. Are these the actions of good guys?

basile
11-09-2011, 01:15 PM
This reminds me of the "black light hussle" you see so often among dealers; where some clown waves his black light over a cloth item and solemnly declared a perfectly correct period item as fake. Never mind the fact that dyes that are fluorescent have been available for over 100 years. I've even seen them do it to metal objects!!!!!

tjg79
11-09-2011, 01:35 PM
This reminds me of the "black light hussle" you see so often among dealers; where some clown waves his black light over a cloth item and solemnly declared a perfectly correct period item as fake. Never mind the fact that dyes that are fluorescent have been available for over 100 years. I've even seen them do it to metal objects!!!!!

basile, the "hussle" works even better when the instrument is more mysterious, emits invisible x-rays and outputs scientific "energy" graphs and elemental composition from which to make pie charts that only the select few can interpret. The sheeple are awed by the medicine show and eagerly volunteer to gain status by having their helmets tazored, blessed and entered into the worldwide proprietary database.

tjg79
11-09-2011, 02:05 PM
From the XRFacts FAQ page:

http://xrfacts.com/?page_id=27

Does XRFacts Testing work on cloth and insignia?
XRFacts, LLC is working with other technologies and needed baseline data to address cloth, uniforms , insignia and other historical antiquities.

Perhaps the reason the XRFacts website is still active is because then intend to salvage their for profit scam operation by migrating to cloth and insignia. If so, it's a good marketing stragety to remain silent about the failure of the helmet paint and decal fiasco.

basile
11-09-2011, 07:56 PM
Perhaps the reason the XRFacts website is still active is because then intend to salvage their for profit scam operation by migrating to cloth and insignia. If so, it's a good marketing stragety to remain silent about the failure of the helmet paint and decal fiasco.

What in the world do they expect to discover using this technology on cloth items. How many uniforms / cloth uniform items were manufactured in a lead mine. The very premise is crazy.

tjg79
11-10-2011, 04:16 AM
Where have all the sheeple gone? One good thing about this thread is that it's keeping all the sheeple noise down to a minimum. Other than offering a few lame excuses on behalf of the XRFacts scam perpetrators, I haven't read many sheeple comments lately. That's an indication of a sheeple heard. Once their beloved XRF proponents go silent, the sheeple generally follow suit. It's what sheeple do. They'll remain pretty quite until someone starts thinking for them again.

Hambone
11-10-2011, 06:44 AM
Although here is a different wafhappened version from the "failed business model" excuse:
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=531224&highlight=xrf&page=3

tjg79
11-10-2011, 11:54 AM
Those posts about XRFacts show that the silence mode strategy is working. Very few sheeple know the truth about the reported demise of XRFacts, because open discussion is discouraged on most forums.

tjg79
11-10-2011, 03:38 PM
I don't think it's in forum members interest to censor or delete posts or threads that shed light on scammers or fakers in a hobby such as this. The discussion may cause some to be uncomfortable, but sometimes the truth hurts. Sharing information and outing hucksters is what the forums do best. Your previous posts show that there's a lot of misinformation out there about the XRF scam. It appears that the sheeple "in the know," have various reasons for the demise of XRFacts, but none indicates faulty application of science; it’s bad business plan, bad dealers, principals becoming ill, etc.... Obviously, deleting threads is only delaying the truth which will eventually come out.

basile
11-10-2011, 06:07 PM
Failure is ALWAYS an orphan.

gew98
11-10-2011, 06:29 PM
Good reading here !. Well since the WAF monkeys banned me sometime ago when I criticized their raygun religion BS. I say beat the dead dogs thoroughly !!!.

tjg79
11-10-2011, 06:47 PM
Good reading here !. Well since the WAF monkeys banned me sometime ago when I criticized their raygun religion BS. I say beat the dead dogs thoroughly !!!.

I remember that gew98. You did a great job posting the ASTM standard about XRF paint analysis.

Where are those WAF monkeys now? They obviously don't have a taste for humble pie.

Hambone
11-11-2011, 05:52 AM
I remember that gew98. You did a great job posting the ASTM standard about XRF paint analysis.

Where are those WAF monkeys now? They obviously don't have a taste for humble pie.

Yes he did, and for speaking the truth and presenting facts that did not jive with the shamwow xrfacts-waf cramdown of this "science" Gew., one of the most knowledgeable guys in Gew/K98s was censored, then banned. Wonderful people and the "saviors" of the hobby? Now the attempts to insult and censor away accountability.

basile
11-11-2011, 12:59 PM
"embarrassing and shameful" are much too kind a response to what appears to be a flagrant attempt to stifle legitimate concerns expressed by those who would be most impacted by this inherently flawed theory, foisted upon the collecting world as fool proof, in what seems a blatant attempt to enrich a few "experts" at the majorities expense.

tjg79
11-11-2011, 05:31 PM
Another indication that these XRFacts proponents are scientifically illiterate buffoons is clearly displayed on the WAF thread where gew98 posted the ASTM standard for XRF analysis of paint, clearly indicating XRF limitations, and several of the WAF monkeys responded, in particular maui (aka Dave May, XRFacts principal), with counter arguments that showed they ignored or disregarded the limitations of the method and were making conclusions based solely on faulty handheld XRF method data and analysis. They then went on to start a corporation, XRFacts, LLC, to sell this service for profit; a service that relied on faulty "science" and disregarded industry standards. Is it surprising that some XRFacts COAs turned out to be bogus? This XRFacts service was nothing more than non-qualified "analysts" practicing "science" without the benefit of higher level education in physics, chemistry and mathematics to fully understand what they were doing and what the instrument was reporting. The WAF thread is a good example of the need for adult supervision of WAF monkeys. Parents don't let your WAF monkeys try this at home.

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=299609&page=18

Dave Roberts
11-11-2011, 05:47 PM
If a Person does not agree with the Sip`n Whiskey they Drink is what all other should Drink
are you also then banned from WAF . I will not say what I would say to them !!!!!!!! :barf:
Best Regards

basile
11-12-2011, 12:38 AM
When a legitimate service is offered, that produces verifiable results, that withstand the rigors of critical examination, there will be no requirement to hype that service. There will be no need to silence doubters, it will sell itself, based solely on it's merits.

tjg79
11-12-2011, 02:02 AM
The XRFacts test method, which was intended to resolve the problem of high-end fakes with an objective scientific determination of authenticity that supposedly couldn’t be resolved by visual inspection, was proven unreliable by visual inspection. What does that indicate about the foolproof XRF analysis method of painted steel? By definition, it must not have been an objective scientific determination in the first place. But, it was advertised to be just that! In general, when you formulate a scientific theory, the duty of a scientist is to test the new theory to determine validity. If the theory fails testing, then the theory is invalid. The "scientific" theory that was the basis of the XRFacts operation was proven invalid in the market by bogus COAs. Hence, the whole operation collapsed. After all the XRF hype peddling the analysis, there's been no discussion on the part of the XRFacts principals about their failure; just silence. Are these the types of people you should trust? Shouldn't they be expected to explain what went wrong? Don't they owe the collecting community an answer after they tried to impose their XRF theory as a mandatory requirement to trade on Third Reich helmet market? Should they be trusted if the program is resurrected by retooling their theory or applying the theory to different types of militaria? Remember now that this wasn’t a research program; it was a corporation for profit with patent application to help ensure market monopoly.

tjg79
11-12-2011, 12:34 PM
There should be an XRFacts hall of shame with the founders on the highest pedestals. The middle height pedestals would have all the attack or kapo sheeple whose job was to maintain sheeple decorum. These are the sheeple that enabled the founders and censored and deleted forum posts. The lowest level pedestals would be for all the sheeple cheerleaders like nutmeg. Then finally, there would be a listing of all the sheeple in good standing who didn't criticize the voodoo science.

basile
11-12-2011, 08:17 PM
The real problem is foolish people looking for a panacea that substitutes for doing the hard work yourself to determine real from fake. This tendency enables others to invent dubious methods and sell them a "deus ex machina" system that doesn't work.

tjg79
11-13-2011, 01:54 AM
The XRFacts infallible helmet paint XRF test method is the "Bigfoot" or "Loch Ness Monster" of the lid hobby. Very few have seen it and there's no known evidence of its existence. Those that have seen it up close swear to its validity, but they aren’t professionally trained scientists.

Baloney Detection Kit video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJmRbSX8Rqo

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
2. Does the source make similar claims?
3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
4. Does this fit with the way the world works?
5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
6. Where does the preponderance of the evidence point?
7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

basile
11-13-2011, 05:58 PM
The sad truth is that the vast majority seek to be led, not to lead. They want to be told what to do, think and then actively embrace every "snake oil salesman" that comes along. Con artists and dictators have long understood this and taken advantage of it. "The Kult of the Helmet Expert" is just another chapter in the ongoing saga.

tjg79
11-13-2011, 06:31 PM
It was a clown show that appealed to clowns. I'm hoping some of the clown show stars show up here for questions and answers. I'd like to know what they were thinking. Are they willing to defend their honor and testing program or do they admit they were wrong? Their absence indicates the latter.

tjg79
11-13-2011, 07:32 PM
Wake up sheeple.

22968

basile
11-13-2011, 09:42 PM
For a great number of people going around with their head up some "experts" rectum is reassuring because it's warm, dark and smells just like home.

Hambone
11-14-2011, 09:10 AM
I suspect more than a few are playing sheeple so their trinket supply doesn't get cut off. Some of these vie to see who can be the biggest public sycophant and shill by mindlessly attacking those who don't agree with their minders. Uncensored and open forums stop alot of that.

basile
11-14-2011, 02:49 PM
I suspect more than a few are playing sheeple so their trinket supply doesn't get cut off. Some of these vie to see who can be the biggest public sycophant and shill by mindlessly attacking those who don't agree with their minders. Uncensored and open forums stop alot of that.

My sentiments exactly. Either claims are backed by verifiable facts or it's nothing more than a charade and a travesty foisted upon the unsuspecting and fools. Those who conspire to support the unsupportable are no better than those who perpetrate the fraud.

tjg79
11-15-2011, 02:41 AM
One other XRFacts excuse offered for the test method's failure was something about instrument calibration. I recall reading it somewhere, but can't find it now.

The reported XRFacts excuses are always something other than the fact that you can't authenticate German helmet paint with an elemental sketch of the painted steel composite.

Even disregarding all the limitations of the handheld/chamberless XRF instrument, the XRF elemental sketch doesn't provide the information to determine chemical compounds that comprise the paint layers. The compounds are the only "fingerprints" of the paint formulas. There may be chemical compounds that were developed after the 1940's whose presence would indicate, but not prove, post-war applied paint layers.

Without applying radiometric dating techniques, contrary to what XRFacts indicates on their silly website, there’s no way to date the paint layers other than say identifying a chemical compound that didn’t exist in wartime paint formulas. Handheld XRF information can't do that. Then, you could only indicate that known post-war chemical compounds used in post-war (modern) paint formulas are present. XRFacts tries to do just that with only elemental information. XRFacts doesn't know if the elements reported by the tazor are due to paint, steel, or wartime/post-war comtanimation.

Notwithstanding the buffoonish claim to be able to issue "Certificates of Authenticity" (COAs) based on the minimal and nonexistent information reported from a handheld XRF instrument, it's foolish to think that anyone other than the helmet manufacturer at the time of production can produce a foolproof COA.

Mitchell’s Mausers issues COAs, but they know their COAs are good, because they just remanufactured the rifle from recycled German made parts with new (re-stamped) serial numbers and finish. COAs issued by “experts” only appeal to the most unsophisticated segment of the collector population.

IMO, the closest thing to a legit COA would be original capture papers from the actual veteran who picked it up off the battlefield; everything else is undocumented.

tjg79
11-15-2011, 12:55 PM
XRFacts states that: "It is our statement that your helmet has gone through a visual inspection by accepted authorities in the helmet collecting field as well as widely accepted, universally used scientific testing by XRFacts technology." Kelly Hicks is their "accepted authority" and "established expert in the field of German helmets."

If the XRFacts COA was so foolproof, how did they get outed by bogus COAs showing up on the internet? Did Kelly Hicks inspect the helmets with the bogus COAs? If so, the bogus COAs indicate his authentication service is not worth the fee he charges. The helmet collecting market must be populated by a lot of sheeple; that's the only way I could explain all the buffoonery.

Hambone
11-15-2011, 01:08 PM
The helmet collecting market must be populated by a lot of sheeple; that's the only way I could explain all the buffoonery.

Bingo. The buffoonary has been made systemic, "normal", because of the censorship and forum misinformation that goes unchallenged.

tjg79
11-15-2011, 02:30 PM
There are only about a hundred elements that exist in nature. There are probably hundreds of millions of chemical compounds that are known and tens of millions used in industry. To claim that an elemental sketch gives a unique characteristic "fingerprint" is like saying you can identify someone by their initials alone. Handheld XRF is an approved technique (within limitations) to identify lead based paint, but it doesn't indicate the chemical compounds of lead. Typical compounds of lead include: lead, lead azide, lead bromate, lead chloride, lead dioxide, lead nitrate, lead oxide, tetraethyl lead, tetramethyl lead, etc... If you were looking specifically for lead chloride in paint, you could screen the paint sample for lead and if it indicated positive, you would then be required to use other chemical methods of analysis to determine if the lead indicated by XRF was in the form of lead chloride. The claim by XRFacts that they can detect "fingerprints" of legit and bogus helmet paint with XRF is a myth the sheeple enjoy hearing.

23136

tjg79
11-16-2011, 03:40 PM
http://ww2germanhelmets.com/Blog-8.html

From Dave's Desk (Blog) Issue #8 March 2010

In closing I wanted to mention an event at the show which has been quite the conversation topic on the various forums....the XRF Technology presentation. David May with XRF came by my table and gave a great demonstration of this cutting edge testing equipment. I was really impressed with this new technology. The Readers Digest version is, this XRF scan actually will give the elements or composition of the the paint and decals and allow us to compare with known authentic examples. David May along with the staff at the Wilson Historical Research Center, with the backing of Kelly Hicks are getting ready to launch a business that will provide a a service to authenticate helmets using good ol' hands on inspection coupled with the latest science for a deeper analysis of the properties of the helmet using the XRF technology. Finally science is catching up with the hobby and it will provide another safeguard to protect all of us from the fakes that circle the Globe. Next month, I am planning a full blog on the topic of the XRF technology. In the meantime, do check out the XRF technology at www.XRFacts.com. I wish each of you the best....hang in there as Spring is just around the corner!

Until next time, happy hunting!



http://ww2germanhelmets.com/Blog-9.html

From Dave's Desk (Blog) Issue #9 April 2010

Now, let's get to the topic at hand. Determining authenticity of helmets has been a major point of discussion over the last several years. With the ever growing industry of helmet faking, it pays to stay one step ahead of these clowns that produce the various fakes. When in Louisville at the SOS, I did have an opportunity to see the XRF technology in action, and it was quite impressed. It is a new service launched by David May, along with Kelly Hick (SS helmet authority), and the Wilson Historical Research Center. In essence, they are combining cutting edge scientific analysis (XRF) with hands on experience for a two fold process in determining authenticity. I believe the technology is most effective when combined with the good old fashioned ways of authenticating a helmet. When I receive a helmet the first thing that I do is smell it, inside and out. Original helmets do have a very similar smell and I know you fellows know what I mean. Then, my second step is to look at the helmet closely, inside and out. I always give special attention to the liners, as you expect certain types of liners to be in certain types of helmets. Then once all of that looks good, then I grab the loupe. If you are a serious helmet collector, the jewelers loupe is one of the most critical tools in assessing a helmet. If you don't own one, go buy one and get to know what original decals look like under a loupe. Most fake decals give themselves away under magnification within the first five seconds. I also look at various areas of the outside of the helmet with the loupe. Virtually all post war repaints that have been artificially aged will show abrasions that are not visible to the naked eye. The abrasions are always clearly visible under the loupe and are a huge red flag.

Now, normally at this point I am comfortable with a helmet. But if I wanted to take it further, this is where the XRF technology comes in. XRFacts based in Florida applies the above principles, then they go deeper into the analysis by determining the composition of the paint and the decals. They have established a base line of elements in WWII period decals from known correct examples essentially creating a control group. Many of the elements in the period decals are not used any longer in manufacturing as well are not available. The XRF technology raises the bar to a level that I believe that fakers will not be able to get over. The technology and manufacturing process for the fakers to fool the XRF would be very costly and would require major investments in technology and equipment. The process works the same way with paint. The elements of WWII Era paints are dramatically different than the components found in modern paints. We all know how tricky the camouflage helmets can be. Many of the camouflage helmets are selling for high prices.

Okay, what exactly is XRF. The acronym stands for X-Ray Fluorescence. The technology was developed and applied in other industries, and David May had the foresight to ask 'Why not apply this technology in German helmets'. And so the vision began coming to life. Here's an excerpt from the www.XRFacts.com website as they explain it better than I.


It’s elemental. X-Ray Fluorescence was developed to identify compounds that make up every day items. It is a key new technology used in archeological research to determine the composition of rare artifacts. Because obsolete or otherwise non-existent materials were used in the past to make things, their unique composition creates an individual signature or fingerprint that XRF can identify. So before you spend thousands of dollars on that mint M35, an XRFacts test will tell you if the paint was bought at the local hardware store last week or applied at the factory in WWII. The same goes for the decal. You see, each one of these components has their own unique “Energy Spectrum.” The paint, the decal, and even the helmet shell has its own unique energy spectrum that indicates its time period of origin. Through exhaustive research and testing, XRFacts knows what those unique energy spectrums should be. Fakers may scoff; others may claim they can perform this analysis, but they cannot.Just so you know, this is not a paid endorsement but I am offering this information as a service as I believe that this technology is yet another great tool in the ever growing battle against the fakes. Finally science is catching up with the hobby and it will provide another safeguard to protect all of us from the fakes that circle the Globe. Check out the XRF technology at www.XRFacts.com. I wish each of you the best during the Spring season.

Until next time, happy hunting!

Some XRF propaganda from 2010.

Is Dave Shirlin (WW2GermanHelmets.com) one of the dealers who has backed away from XRFacts? If so, he should update his blog with current status of XRFacts.


From the above quote of a quote:

X-Ray Fluorescence was developed to identify compounds that make up every day items.
XRF only identifies "elements." "Compounds" cannot be identified solely by XRF. A high school chemistry student should know the difference between an "element" and a "compound."

Additional buffoonery in the quote from the XRFacts website is indicated with underlined text.

basile
11-16-2011, 10:41 PM
With this whole sordid story of arrogance, ignorance and greed as reference, in the words my old chemistry teacher, "If you can't dazzle them with truth, boy, baffle them with bull sh*t".

tjg79
11-17-2011, 01:47 PM
What does Dave think of XRFacts' claims now? The problem with this insidious medicine show now is that most, if not all, of the pro-XRF carnival barking is still viewable on the net, whereas most of the forum posts/threads critical of the claims have been deleted. There's even the recently published Kelly Hicks SS helmet reference book with a chapter devoted to XRF analysis of paint and decals. The dealers pitching the service have gone silent on the subject and haven't posted any retractions of their endorsements. Their endorsements are still on the net: Regimentals, WW2GermanHelmets, etc... Sales sheeple types don't want to offend, because it's bad for business, but should post retractions if they now know that they were duped by their science ignorance, the smoke and mirrors of the bandwagon, and dazzling output of the magical ray-gun. Perhaps the dealers think the test method has merit, but poorly implemented by the XRFacts principals. It would be interesting to know what these guys really think now, after the bogus XRFacts COAs have come to light. Whatever the case, retractions are in order from reputable dealers due to the reported demise of the scam operation known as XRFacts. It was likely the bogus XRFacts COAs, not critical forum discussion that apparently halted the XRF testing bandwagon and brought all the fun to an end. The early forum discussion critical of the claims memorializes the “I told you so” that makes the sheeple uncomfortable now. There's very little understanding of the basic science and the scientific reasons why their claims were bogus. The critical forum discussion of the post-mortem should cause some wake-ups and realizations that they should have known this magic bullet for the fake problem was a buffoonish application of pseudoscience, by nonprofessionals from the beginning.

tjg79
11-17-2011, 03:20 PM
http://www.ww2germanhelmets.com/Blog-17.html

From Dave's Desk (Blog) Issue #17 May 2011

Good day fellows. Sorry it's been a while since my last blog but things have been crazy busy. I love doing the blog, but it takes a backseat to operational items. I recently picked up a new tool in the effort to continually stay ahead of the fakers. Magnification has always been my choice for determining authenticity. I never leave home without my jewelers loupe. But the loupe does have it's limitations with regard to power. The latest tool I picked up is a USB Microscope. This is magnification on steroids! The USB microscope that I picked up is a Veho VMS-004 Discovery Digital Microscope. This thing is amazing. The microscope simply plugs into your USB terminal of your computer, and it has a digital camera built in. The difference of fake versus real decals is incredible at high magnification. The only real drawback I have found is that the digital microscope works at 20X and 400X, and nothing in between. I haven't found this to be a major detriment. Even 20X is double my 10X jewelers loupe, and at 400X you are cooking with gas. SS decals at 400X present characteristics that cannot be duplicated. For those of you utilizing the Digital microscope technology, you know what I mean. I sincerely believe that the best method for determining authenticity of decals is using the USB microscope. This blows away the X-Ray Fluorescence technology that was introduced last year. The XRF technology leaves some holes. One serious weakness with XRF is that you cannot determine when a period decal was applied. A postwar applied Pocher SS decal will exhibit the same elements & properties as a period decal Pocher. High magnification allows you to examine characteristics of a truly aged decal. I have found the USB microscope extremely helpful in examining camouflaged paint. Period camo paints often exhibit microscope checking (age cracks) invisible to the naked eye, and somewhat visible under a loupe. The USB microscope also comes in handy with insignia etc, and about anything that you need to examine fine details. I encourage you guys to make the investment and train yourself on what to look for. The real key is spending time with it and learning to interpret what you are seeing. They are not expensive. I picked up one for around $79 on Amazon.com. This could be the best $79 you ever spend in the hobby!

To Dave's credit, he now appears to realize some of the fallacy of the XRFacts' claims, but doesn't appear to be aware of their current status or the pseudoscience aspects of the test method.

basile
11-17-2011, 06:05 PM
The problem is that barring a complete and genuine ''mea culpa" or a more preferable "mea maxima culpa" on the part of those who who put this thing together, and then marketed it as "The Answer", there remains a lingering stench of impropriety in the air.

tjg79
11-17-2011, 06:22 PM
From what's been reported, the operation is kaput, but may have a pulse. The website is still up and they may be tazoring on a limited basis. None of the principals nor any of the dealers have publicly issued a retraction of their claims or endorsements. The real threat is that they may try to retool and resurrect the operation to the joy of the sheeple. It's possible they could do that, because there is now limited criticism on the web and the reasons offered for the "interruption of service" are mostly administrative: bad business model, dealer, calibration, etc...

This is one of the very few threads that tries to explain the fallacy of the claims so that the sheeple have a chance to understand why it's a scam.

tjg79
11-19-2011, 04:56 AM
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=416906

Mike I was in the first group and while I was fortunate to have a personal demonstration in September when David flew up, and got an upgraded laymans term of the technology, XRFacts had a representative from the company that manufacturs the XRF guns on hand that gave a brief presentation of the capabilities behind the technology and how it really works. That was critical in my viewpoint. As Erik has said, the certificates are in such a way as they cannot be duplicated. And if someone is issuing fake certificates claiming to use XRF technology that is handled quite simply by asking the serial number of thier XRF gun as these do not grow on trees, and by asking the extent of the representative database.

What this does is build left and right boundaries to which a real decal with its variations will fall into. A fake doesnt even come close.
__________________
SSTk

Ray-gun sales guys will go out of their way to sell a $20+ instrument! They even participated in one of the tazor magic shows at SOS. That's the type of salesman that consistantly makes his monthly sales quota. As I indicated before, since it's apparent nobody on the XRFacts team has the educational/professional background to do chemical analysis and testing, it's likely their only XRF analysis consultant was a manufacturer's sales rep. I'm sure that was some objective advice. Is that not an indication of a fly-by-night operation?

basile
11-19-2011, 12:53 PM
Salesman = con man = screw job

tjg79
11-19-2011, 01:34 PM
Salesman = con man = screw job

The salesmen's job is to close the sale. He accomplishes his mission by establishing rapport and supplying just enough information to overcome objections and keep the sheeple's interest. If he oversells or undersells, he loses the sale. He's got to be able to "read" his target and fine tune his pitch to make the close.


The "Mystery" of Closing Sales-Revealed!
The truth is there is no "mystery" or "secret" to closing more sales...just time-proven methods for doing it.

And you'll learn the ones that get the MOST RESULTS in this program.
•The Hot Button Close
•The Bear Trap Close
•The Just Suppose Close
•The Alternative Close
•And much, much more!

It Sounds Too Good To Be True...
But it isn't.


I wonder if they ever bought one or they were just renting it and playing with it.

I think it's very likely they bought the ray-gun. I don't see how you can have a business operation based on XRF testing (and named XRFacts) and not have possession of a ray-gun full time. Rental costs exceed purchase cost after a certain point in time and instrument availability is critical for fast turnaround of tested helmets.

basile
11-19-2011, 03:20 PM
"Rental costs exceed purchase cost after a certain point in time and instrument availability is critical for fast turnaround of tested helmets."

That's a great sales pitch :biggrin1:

tjg79
11-19-2011, 06:04 PM
It is! And, if I was the instrument salesman, I'd ensure that I didn't undersell this fantastic instrument by failing to point out all of its features and how indispensible ownership would be to XRFacts. However, I'd be very cautious not to oversell by providing more information than necessary to close the sale; such as the weaknesses of their intended pseudoscience application. How they, XRFacts, interpret the data is their business. Whether or not they understand the methods and limitations of analytical chemistry is irrelevant to the sale; all they need to know is how to point the gun, pull the trigger and read the output.

basile
11-19-2011, 07:16 PM
"all they need to know is how to point the gun, pull the trigger and read the output." And money falls out of the sky, like manna from heaven. :hail:

tjg79
11-19-2011, 07:39 PM
It would be very interesting if an XRFacts COA was ever challenged in court. Who would be XRFacts' expert witness to explain the theory of fake helmet paint, the validity of the XRF application, the integrity of the data (worldwide proprietary database of known good helmets selected by XRFacts principals), the data statistical analysis with confidence interval, and the "scientific" conclusions? Perhaps Kelly Hicks, because he's an "noted expert" with published article (chapter in SS Steel book) on XRF analysis.

Although, a case like that would likely never see the inside of a courtroom. Any competent defense team, attorney with real subject matter expert, would likely seek to quickly settle any claims, before discovery, about the reliability of an XRFacts COA vice have it tested in court.

maui
11-20-2011, 01:23 PM
Hello hambone, I will be happy to take your questions Craig of you behave like a gentlemen. If you resort to being offensive, vulgar, or name calling, I will not participate. Sound fair ?

David

tjg79
11-20-2011, 02:59 PM
Hello maui,

Is XRFacts still in operation? And, do you stand by all your claims on the XRFacts website?

Regards

maui
11-20-2011, 03:08 PM
Hello maui,

Is XRFacts still in operation? And, do you stand by all your claims on the XRFacts website?

Regards

yes, XRFacts is an active LLC, not doing any authentications for customers. Continuous Research and Development work always is in process. Yes, everything on the website is accurate, go the case study link, review and then we can discuss http://xrfacts.com/?page_id=39 .

tjg79
11-20-2011, 03:33 PM
yes, XRFacts is an active LLC, not doing any authentications for customers. Continuous Research and Development work always is in process. Yes, everything on the website is accurate, go the case study link, review and then we can discuss http://xrfacts.com/?page_id=39 .

Why did XRFacts stop doing authentications for customers?

I have a lot of questions about your claims and the reliability of your testing. Did any of the helmets you've tested and certified "authentic" later be found to be "non-authentic" or fake?

Your case study link doesn't appear to provide complete information and full explanation of the instrument output. I presume that the peaks on the graphs correspond to an elemental sketch of a handheld XRF scan. Is that correct?

I'm glad you showed up.

Regards

maui
11-20-2011, 03:55 PM
Why did XRFacts stop doing authentications for customers?

I have a lot of questions about your claims and the reliability of your testing. Did any of the helmets you've tested and certified "authentic" later be found to be "non-authentic" or fake?

Your case study link doesn't appear to provide complete information and full explanation of the instrument output. I presume that the peaks on the graphs correspond to an elemental sketch of a handheld XRF scan. Is that correct?

I'm glad you showed up.

Regards

yes, the case study is one of many examples of consistency during testing of multiple layers of paint, decals and steel shell. This shows what is possible with XRF and determining elemental composition. Anyone can rent the right XRF gun and conduct their own analysis, have you considered conducting some of your own testing.

This type of data was used to build the world's largest german helmet database along with other input sources from other technology

tjg79
11-20-2011, 04:20 PM
yes, the case study is one of many examples of consistency during testing of multiple layers of paint, decals and steel shell. This shows what is possible with XRF and determining elemental composition. Anyone can rent the right XRF gun and conduct their own analysis, have you considered conducting some of your own testing.

This type of data was used to build the world's largest german helmet database along with other input sources from other technology

You didn't answer all my questions. Please do. Your response is more sales pitch than professional level technical discussion. Let's have a serious discussion of the capabilities of your organization and an examination of your claims.

The case study page indicates, referring to two graphs presented, "Energy Spectrum identical match 5 layers - 2 helmets in different collections." Yet, the graphs are clearly not identical, but similar. Additionally, you list the 5 layers. Can you assign the particular elements to particular layers of the sample? How do you explain the differences in the two graphs depicted?

What are the other input sources from other technology? Do you use any other scientific instruments other than handheld XRF?

I've done analytical chemistry testing and analysis using XRF, as well as the full spectrum of other instruments, in the past that's why I find your claims interesting.

Regards

basile
11-21-2011, 05:22 PM
yes, the case study is one of many examples of consistency during testing of multiple layers of paint, decals and steel shell. This shows what is possible with XRF and determining elemental composition. Anyone can rent the right XRF gun and conduct their own analysis, have you considered conducting some of your own testing.

This type of data was used to build the world's largest german helmet database along with other input sources from other technology

Not much "meat" in this reply. Indeed, this reads more like a sales pitch to me. It would seem that rather than issuing a challenge to go out and do it yourself, a less condescending explanation would be much more constructive and resolve the controversy.

Hambone
11-21-2011, 06:09 PM
Hello hambone, I will be happy to take your questions Craig of you behave like a gentlemen. If you resort to being offensive, vulgar, or name calling, I will not participate. Sound fair ?

David

David,
I would like for you to post a link or post any "offensive, vulgar, or name calling" here so I can see what you are talking about. Not your accusations, but the actual posts and quotes.

Welcome, and we look forward to your explanations, answers, and responses.

Regards,
Hambone

Hambone
11-21-2011, 06:18 PM
Not much "meat" in this reply. Indeed, this reads more like a sales pitch to me. It would seem that rather than issuing a challenge to go out and do it yourself, a less condescending explanation would be much more constructive and resolve the controversy.

Let us be welcoming and hope that he can respond. If he cannot or refuses, that is a deafening response.

basile
11-21-2011, 06:40 PM
As I see it, all that is being asked for is a display of unbiased, valid scientific proof of a theory, that some have called into question. That would seem a most reasonable request by reasonable men. This does not appear to a "witch hunt, nor do those involved, in asking for particulars, seem to have an axe to grind. Would it not be more prudent to sell the service based on indisputable, verifiable facts, published in a public forum and subjected to educated critique by those most impacted by it?

Hambone
11-21-2011, 07:29 PM
David May, Kelly Hicks, Robert Wilson, etc., all are welcome to come here and express their positions, free from censorship and banning, which is more right and courtesy than any critics of XRFacts' claims have ever been afforded. There is only one reason why someone would not take such an open, free, and fair opportunity to discuss the issues.

basile
11-21-2011, 09:17 PM
David May, Kelly Hicks, Robert Wilson, etc., all are welcome to come here and express their positions, free from censorship and banning, which is more right and courtesy than any critics of XRFacts' claims have ever been afforded. There is only one reason why someone would not take such an open, free, and fair opportunity to discuss the issues.

What an absolutely excellent chance for these gentlemen to establish their product / service as a bonafide tool, that serves the collecting community, while dispelling any and all questions. It's efficacy would be beyond reasonable doubt.

Hambone
11-21-2011, 11:11 PM
What I don't understand is why The "Wilson History and Research Center" seems to have deleted all reference to XRF and XRFacts and why Bill Shea/Ruptured Duck have deleted and removed "XRFacts" from its site as well. Kelly Hicks' site seems to have eliminated reference to it as well. I thought these guys were "Founders"? What's up with that?

basile
11-21-2011, 11:55 PM
What I don't understand is why The "Wilson History and Research Center" seems to have deleted all reference to XRF and XRFacts and why Bill Shea/Ruptured Duck have deleted and removed "XRFacts" from its site as well. Kelly Hicks' site seems to have eliminated reference to it as well. I thought these guys were "Founders"? What's up with that?


You can not have been more upright and fair to these people. The ball clearly rests in their court. I know how I would react, if my procedures and outcomes were questioned and I could prove them as independently verifiable fact.

Hambone
11-22-2011, 08:24 AM
You can not have been more upright and fair to these people. The ball clearly rests in their court. I know how I would react, if my procedures and outcomes were questioned and I could prove them as independently verifiable fact.

Thanks Basile. I've allowed them far more than they've allowed their critics: Free and open opportunities to explain and justify, without threat, censorship, or banning. If you go to any of these helmet forums right now and openly inquire about XRFacts and what happened, raising issues of the problems, background, etc., you will be insulted, your posts censored, and if you keep it up, you'll be banned. Is this proper hobby "stewardship" and intellectual honesty? I think it scary. I think it shows that a few well placed people with moderator/site complicity can hijack a hobby knowledge base and information. It can't happen here because everyone has a right to challenge and we don't censor ideas. The best and most supported theories prevail, not the ones which have the support of a censor.

IMHO, it is bizarre and highly suspect, practically nefarious, that some people can jump up and claim to have the "Savior of the Hobby" (for a fee), try to make it mandatory (for a fee), try to install themselves as the gurus of authenticity and keepers of the Helmet Tazer Savior (for a fee), then aggressively attempt to manipulate discussion and silence questions and criticism of their claims through the use of forum toadies and a lawyer. Just as scary is that any attempts at a post mortem, to understand, are equally abused and censored. Is this manipulated so that the disciples of the helmet tazer can regroup for a "second coming" and resurrection? IMHO, all of this flies in the face of propriety, logic, and of course, science.

Peter U
11-22-2011, 09:55 AM
Hello hambone, I will be happy to take your questions Craig of you behave like a gentlemen. If you resort to being offensive, vulgar, or name calling, I will not participate. Sound fair ?

David

Hello & welcome David

No need to be afraid of anything like that here.
I'am a bit busy off-line but I keep an eye on this thread.


Cheers,
Peter

tjg79
11-22-2011, 08:00 PM
Hello hambone, I will be happy to take your questions Craig of you behave like a gentlemen. If you resort to being offensive, vulgar, or name calling, I will not participate. Sound fair ?

David

Apparently, maui (David May) lacks the courage of his convictions. I hope he's not timid about answering questions about his capabilities and claims. He said he would, but then vanished. I don't think any of the questions I asked were offensive or vulgar.

Regards

Hambone
11-22-2011, 08:56 PM
I've asked David May to point out my "vulgar" posts and replicate them here. He can't because none exist. That's a standard tactic that works at WAF and GHW where posts are deleted and all that is left is "Maui's" self serving characterizations of them. That won't work here where he is required to actually support his claims and accusations. I believe that is another reason why neither "Maui" nor other supporters venture onto an open forum to support their advertising claims ("science"). Can "Maui" the XRFacts Founder and Pitchman will support his claims and answer legitimate questions here on an open, legitimate, and objective forum? The silence is deafening........:facepalm:

basile
11-23-2011, 12:13 AM
I must admit to being somewhat puzzled by the lack of meaningful response to very polite but pointed questioning. One would have fully expected a supporter to come equipped to discuss all aspects of the service in a detailed, diligent, and open manner. Perhaps he is gathering facts to support the claims made, and requires additional time to review his notes.

tjg79
11-23-2011, 03:11 AM
I must admit to being somewhat puzzled by the lack of meaningful response to very polite but pointed questioning. One would have fully expected a supporter to come equipped to discuss all aspects of the service in a detailed, diligent, and open manner. Perhaps he is gathering facts to support the claims made, and requires additional time to review his notes.

That's a very good point basile. One would think that being involved in the technology field for probably over 25 years, being an XRFacts founder with at least two years experience zapping helmets, and a veteran to boot, David May would have been well prepared to display some leadership, answer tough questions about his claims and explain reported failures of the test methodology. Why did he show up and indicate he was willing to answer questions about XRF helmet testing, if he was only going to selectively answer a few questions and bolt? From a public relations perspective, that's not a successfully "press conference." I fear he may have done his testing/authentication service more harm than good.



From the XRFacts Website FAQ Page

Dave May– Dave is a United States Marine Corps Veteran, a militaria collector for 20 years and involved in the technology field for 25 years.

basile
11-24-2011, 01:40 AM
That's a very good point basile. One would think that being involved in the technology field for probably over 25 years, being an XRFacts founder with at least two years experience zapping helmets, and a veteran to boot, David May would have been well prepared to display some leadership, answer tough questions about his claims and explain reported failures of the test methodology. Why did he show up and indicate he was willing to answer questions about XRF helmet testing, if he was only going to selectively answer a few questions and bolt? From a public relations perspective, that's not a successfully "press conference." I fear he may have done his testing/authentication service more harm than good.


Point well taken,it would seem this was an ill thought out idea to come here with the idea that his views would be taken as "gospel" without providing well grounded, reasonable and researched data to explain away valid doubt.

Hambone
11-26-2011, 11:38 AM
What is telling to me is how XRFacts handled criticism and questions. Instead of discussing and responding, winning over doubters and proving their claims they hide the ball, attack, threaten, encourage censorship and banning. Either climb aboard the bandwagon and praise them or you're "vulgar" and a "troublemaker". Look at our pie charts, it is so because we say it is, etc. etc. That's not "science".

They have a great opportunity here to support their claims and representations in an open, fair, level, toady-free forum, free from censorship, "vulgarity", etc. and have always been afraid to do so. Why? If they can show me I'll support the process. But not being frog marching imbeciles, we actually require more than a medicine show. How is asking for more than medicine shows and conclusory directives in support of claims of "science" inappropriate? I think that a baseline requirement for XRFacts' claims.

So, David May, you're "regrouping" XRFacts to come at us again? Why not do it right, the way of science? If your claims and methods have merit you should be able to show them so right here, and we welcome you and provide you an open stage upon which to do this. However, your driveby insults and infomercial soundbites won't cut it here. And the silence is not only deafening, but speaks volumes.....

basile
11-26-2011, 12:49 PM
Silence is NOT golden, now is the time, and this is the place, to set the record straight and dispel doubts, provided, of course, one can prove one's case. Truth vindicates itself by presenting facts that are irrefutable.

Hambone
11-26-2011, 03:46 PM
Science seeks out the opportunities to prove itself and win over its critics. Infomercials and medicine shows have editing, fake testimonials and gimps and pre-selected audiences to clap and hoot approval on cue.

basile
11-26-2011, 11:30 PM
Indeed, without peer revue and critique, it isn't science, but smoke and mirrors. Faith based decisions are only valid in a religious context.

basile
12-06-2011, 01:11 AM
What, 8 days with no response from the "purveyors of absolute truth" ?

tjg79
12-06-2011, 08:36 AM
What would a traveling medicine show likely do if they rolled into town, setup their props, began pitching their scam, and realized that the locals weren't impressed with smoke and mirrors and were better informed than the sheeple at the previous venue? They'd immediately bolt town before anyone could get their tag number. What did David May do after he showed up, flashed his energy graphs of painted steel and was asked a few questions about known bogus XRFacts' COAs and his understanding of the basic science?

Is that not an indication of a scam operation?

basile
12-06-2011, 02:26 PM
Perhaps they think that ignoring valid questions will cause the issues to die, or they believe they can marginalize the doubters and critical thinkers to the point that it becomes irrelevant. From all appearances ignorance IS more powerful than knowledge in this instance.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it......."

Joseph Goebbels

basile
12-07-2011, 08:00 PM
I simply do not understand the deafening silence. If there is independently verifiable proof to the claims, why NOT share that irrefutable truth with others?

tjg79
12-30-2011, 02:46 PM
The pro-XRFacts propagandists have fallen silent. They don't appear to be equipped to dispute our counterclaims of their capabilities. Their conduct and behavior, XRFacts, LLC, are that of known scammers. Presently, they're in retool mode and will emerge as a new and improved version of themselves offering foolproof services. Is anyone foolish enough to engage their services in the future?

Regards

basile
12-30-2011, 03:25 PM
It's hard to understand what the silence can mean other than a collective determined policy, by those involved in this debacle, of not communicating with those who dare to ask for proof. A sad, bad situation for anyone involved in this failed venture to be in, and it could have been averted completely, if the practice had been properly vetted and subjected to an unbiased critical review.

Hambone
12-30-2011, 03:40 PM
It would have been easy to simply respond meaningfully to criticisms if the "science" supported the response. "Science" doesn't censor and ban its critics and threaten them with lawyers, it proves itself.

maui
05-30-2012, 09:08 PM
Hambone, it has been awhile, have you conducted any testing to disprove XRF validity ? or have you disappeared ?

basile
05-30-2012, 09:18 PM
Hambone, it has been awhile, have you conducted any testing to disprove XRF validity ? or have you disappeared ?

It wasn't his job or anyone else to prove or disprove anything. It WAS and IS the job of those those selling this be all, end all helmet "black majik" to respond with sound and verifiable facts.

maui
05-30-2012, 09:37 PM
I have provided you facts with the FHH example cited above and I will provide another very complex multi level ss decal paint combination . Do you have the abillity to understand that XRF can match decal / paint combinations ?

This is not to make money, this is to state that the code has been cracked.

As an example , did you know the exact elemental composition of an SS Pocher decal is known and on and on

You can do it yourself basile, this means that the composition of decals and paint have a fingerprint.

Yes, there are other tools XRD, FTIR, etc to use to obtain additional non-elemental data..paint fillers like calcium carbonate..etc

Hambone
05-30-2012, 10:35 PM
I have provided you facts with the FHH example cited above and I will provide another very complex multi level ss decal paint combination . Do you have the abillity to understand that XRF can match decal / paint combinations ?

This is not to make money, this is to state that the code has been cracked.

As an example , did you know the exact elemental composition of an SS Pocher decal is known and on and on

You can do it yourself basile, this means that the composition of decals and paint have a fingerprint.

Yes, there are other tools XRD, FTIR, etc to use to obtain additional non-elemental data..paint fillers like calcium carbonate..etc

Lots of big words and conclusory remarks in an incoherent post. How many dealers have dumped XRF reference and hype? Bill Shea dumped reference to XRF Facts and your "COAs". Kelly Hicks did (founder) and doesn't seem to pitch for you anymore. When I go to your other "founder's" website, the "Wilson History & Research Center" http://www.militaryheadgear.com/ and search for XRF all reference to XRF Facts is now deleted. Why? If your claims were true, what happened to your "founders" and the support for you?

maui
05-30-2012, 10:51 PM
how is your research progressing hambone ? nothing at all to share with the world ? I have shared my work and openly challenge you to refute it, you can't provide anything. You lost the case and it drives you crazy.

Let's see your data hambone, can you provide anything at all ?

The answer is no, you can't and will never provide any data. It has been 3 or 4 years , what have you done ?

Hambone
05-30-2012, 11:21 PM
how is your research progressing hambone ? nothing at all to share with the world ? I have shared my work and openly challenge you to refute it, you can't provide anything , you lost the case and it drives you crazy.

Let's see your data hambone, can you provide anything ?

The answer is no, you can't and will not provide any data.

I hope you rented that ray gun and didn't buy it. :laugh: Research? We simply intelligently and objectively called attention to the fallacies of your claims and the wheels feel right off your medicine show wagon. Anyway, based upon what I've seen with your XRF shenanigans I don't think you know what real "research" is so you wouldn't recognize it if you saw it. David, why did "Wilson History & Research Center" dump all XRF reference on his site? Did Kelly Hicks distance himself from you? Weren't these people "founders" with you? Why did Bill Shea delete all XRF Facts reference on his site? Why have other dealers dumped XRF reference?

maui
05-30-2012, 11:38 PM
no need to be confused hambone, XRFacts was and is a research initiative, nothing more and because the database has been built , the service is no longer provided.

You can continue in your sad, pathetic, vulgar behavior mocking everything and that is fine.

Rest assured the facts are that XRF technology is available to anyone to buy or rent if they are interested in understanding elemental composition. SS Steel from Kelly Hicks has a great write up on XRf technology and how it can help collectors understand the composition of German helmets.

basile
05-31-2012, 12:23 AM
no need to be confused hambone, XRFacts was and is a research initiative, nothing more and because the database has been built , the service is no longer provided.

You can continue in your sad, pathetic, vulgar behavior mocking everything and that is fine.

Rest assured the facts are that XRF technology is available to anyone to buy or rent if they are interested in understanding elemental composition. SS Steel from Kelly Hicks has a great write up on XRf technology and how it can help collectors understand the composition of German helmets.

Great review on Amazon site reference that book. I suggest you read it.

Quote: Interesting book on SS helmets, good photos, easy to read. The only downside is the chapter shamelessly plugging XRF [ X-ray fluorescence spectrometry] , as the "Holy Grail" for determining helmet originality, this pseudo scientific method has, with good reason IMHO, come under fire from many respected helmet collectors as nothing more than "flawed witch doctor science" . Other than that, the book is worth the money.

Hambone
05-31-2012, 12:27 AM
no need to be confused hambone, XRFacts was and is a research initiative, nothing more and because the database has been built , the service is no longer provided.

You can continue in your sad, pathetic, vulgar behavior mocking everything and that is fine.

Rest assured the facts are that XRF technology is available to anyone to buy or rent if they are interested in understanding elemental composition. SS Steel from Kelly Hicks has a great write up on XRf technology and how it can help collectors understand the composition of German helmets.

Sorry, the history and facts of what you attempted to do was and is there for all to see. Your blathering won't change facts any more than you misusing the word "science" legitimizes your helmet tazer. IMHO you attempted to cram your junk "science" down on the hobby, making XRF testing some form of mandatory thing for dealers and collectors alike, making you and your krewe the final word on helmets (for a fee). Thankfully you failed. The purpose for your XRFacts website was peddling $250 (which price dropped like the price of ice cubes for Eskimos) "Certificates of Authenticity" and silly pie charts. It was a shameless commercial venture intended to make money. Again, thankfully for the hobby, you failed. The dealers you previously enlisted to shill for your expensive "service" have since dumped reference to your "provenance through science" antics. I think it's pretty funny you would reference Kelly Hicks' book. My guess is that he regrets putting that in his book because now he is stuck with it in there. You can't unpublish a book. People can, however, delete you from their websites which they have done. Why Dave? Why would your "founders" delete reference to your helmet tazer "science" if it was so wonderful?

jack944
05-31-2012, 11:17 AM
no need to be confused hambone, XRFacts was and is a research initiative, nothing more and because the database has been built , the service is no longer provided.

You can continue in your sad, pathetic, vulgar behavior mocking everything and that is fine.

Rest assured the facts are that XRF technology is available to anyone to buy or rent if they are interested in understanding elemental composition. SS Steel from Kelly Hicks has a great write up on XRf technology and how it can help collectors understand the composition of German helmets.

David I dont' know you but I would give you some advice that my father once gave me..."Don't debate with a person trained to debate(lawyer)" and one who by all objective observations is far more intelligent. To say this was a research initiative nothing more...is straining all credulity. If there truly are merits to this system let's openly examine the process using scientific methods hypothesis/Proof. Refine/ Proof.

Peter U
05-31-2012, 01:58 PM
Hello Maui and welcome,

Another question from me, how far are you with your research on this one?
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=355668



Regards,
Peter

basile
05-31-2012, 04:20 PM
I thought this DEAD horse had run it's course. It is painfully obvious that facing facts is difficult for some, but impugning the integrity of honest men, who question dubious claims, that seek to validate unreliable methodology, that also involve a money making scheme, that enriches those touting that same questionable methodology, is just stupid.

maui
05-31-2012, 05:32 PM
hambone,


Here is the parable. If you were buying 10K of gold , do you think it would be of value to have an XRF analysis telling you it is indeed Au or have a glutton tell you it looks "glittery like gold under a microscope ? "

A decent SS Double Decal helmet is 10 - 15K


You can do your own test...that is the point. XRF is just a tool. Remember , I do not care if you use it or not, you can't seem to comprehend this.

Hambone
05-31-2012, 07:07 PM
hambone,


Here is the parable. If you were buying 10K of gold , do you think it would be of value to have an XRF analysis telling you it is indeed Au or have a glutton tell you it looks "glittery like gold under a microscope ? "

A decent SS Double Decal helmet is 10 - 15K


You can do your own test...that is the point. XRF is just a tool. Remember , I do not care if you use it or not, you can't seem to comprehend this.

If I was buying gold I wouldn't need you charging me $250 to produce a dubious pie chart and "certificate of authenticity" because you say so. Although, I admit that XRF ray guns can distinguish gold from lead or aluminum and that is one scientifically proven and accepted scrapyard use for handheld XRF. I think that if you were honest you would apologize and admit you were wrong about XRF, its applications, and your claims.

While you don't care whether I use XRF or not (I also don't employ voodoo doctors or numerologists), you were certainly trying to cram it down on the hobby and fine us $250+ per mandatory pie chart reading and gold sealed COA pooted out of your helmet tazer masheen. Your website and the facts are quite a bit more revealing than your current blathering attempts to reinvent history and put lipstick on a deceased pig.

David/Maui, why did Wilson History & Research purge all mention of you and XRF from its site? Why did Hicks do the same at his site? Why did Bill Shea and other dealers? Seems to me that successful "science" picks up adherents, it doesn't have them bailing out and distancing themselves from it.

basile
05-31-2012, 10:52 PM
If I was buying gold I wouldn't need you charging me $250 to produce a dubious pie chart and "certificate of authenticity" because you say so. Although, I admit that XRF ray guns can distinguish gold from lead or aluminum and that is one scientifically proven and accepted scrapyard use for handheld XRF. I think that if you were honest you would apologize and admit you were wrong about XRF, its applications, and your claims...........

David/Maui, why did Wilson History & Research purge all mention of you and XRF from its site? Why did Hicks do the same at his site? Why did Bill Shea and other dealers? Seems to me that successful "science" picks up adherents, it doesn't have them bailing out and distancing themselves from it.


Failure is always an orphan

Peter U
06-01-2012, 12:47 AM
Hello maui/David,

It is pretty obvious that a XRF tazer isn't the tool to detect fake camo paint, or to test helmets or any other piece of WW2 period militaria, it is a tool used in scrap yards to tell high quality scrap from low quality scrap last summer I worked together with a fellow who operated one to do this.


There are labs that test paint to identify fake art work, in Brussels there is one, I know for a fact that they do various tests on modern art from the 1930's & 40's so they will also be able to do this on for example a tri colour camo helmet.
They don't do one test, they do a whole series of tests and then write a detailed report about the object, this report is regarded as evidence in Belgian courts.
Doesn't this all sound different then a XRF certificate with a simple pie chart?
....
It does to me and many other collectors.
Btw who was the by the courts reckognized expert you used?
That is how testing works, it is done by independent people that have the necessary qualification to do the test and from which the detailed written report can be used as evidence in court, it doesn't matter if we are talking about artwork or the testing of an elevator, welds or the thickness of pipes in the chemical industry.



Cheers,
Peter

Peter U
06-01-2012, 12:53 AM
Maui/David,

http://www.brussels-art-labo.com/english/accueil.html


Contact them and see for yourself the difference between professionals and stupid amateurs.




P

Peter U
06-01-2012, 12:56 AM
An example of real references, for example reckognized by the Brussels court.

Références du Brussels Art LaboratoryA. GeneralitiesThe customers of the Brussels Art Laboratory include private collectors, antique dealers, antique fairs (cf. vetting committee), auction-rooms, museums and the Belgian customs, courts and criminal investigation department

B. Associations


- Member of the Belgian Chamber of Experts in Works of Art since 1982
- Member of the Belgian Chamber of Experts in Charge of Legal Missions and Arbitrations since 1986
- Life Member of the Siam Society Under Royal Patronage since 1976
- Administrator of the Belgian Institute for Chinese High Studies since 2001

C. Courts of justice- Agreed by the Brussels Magistrate's court

D. Press articles

- BLOCKMANS Isabelle et NOBELS, Claude, L’expert en oeuvres d’art, c’est celui qui doit le moins se tromper !, Patrimoine Exception
- TOURNIER, Marie-Pierre, Expertises : la science de l’art !, Le Vif, 11 avril 1985
- VEYRAT, Pierre, Déjouer les pièges de l’art, Mediconomie, 30 mai 1986
- Visite chinoise au Cinquantenaire, Les autorités artistiques de ce pays préparent avec nos responsables une première grande vente publique d’antiquités, La Lanterne, 31 août 1992
- GILSOUL, Guy, Un Belge contre les faussaires, Le Vif/L’Express, 25 septembre 1992
- Kunstexpert, Boven alle verdenking, Trends, 15 oktober 1992
- Inauthenticité garantie, Expert international en oeuvres d’art, Patrick Laycock distille sa science de l’authentique aux quatre coins du monde, Tendances, 5 novembre 1992
- GILSOUL, Troisième Samedi Culturel avec Patrick Laycock : „Patrimoine : vrai ou faux ?“ – Samedi 5 juin 93, Le Vif/L’Express, 14 mai 1993
- McFADDEN, Sarah, Turning the heat on forgers, The Bulletin, February, 1, 1996
- van STEENBERGHE, Baudouin, La Datation et l’Authentification de l’Oeuvre d’Art, Le Guide des Connaisseurs, 25 mars 1996
- COLIN, Valérie, A la lumière des ans, Le Vif/L’Express, 24 mai 1996
van STEENBERGHE, Baudouin, L'Authentification et la Datation de l'Oeuvre d'Art, Le Guide Pratique des Antiquités en Belgique, Les Editions de l'Octogone, Bruxelles, 1998
- NIVELLES-POSSCHIER, Viviane, Labo pour oeuvres d’art, Notre temps, juin 1999
van STEENBERGHE, Baudouin, L'expert en oeuvres d'art, c'est celui qui doit le moins se tromper!, Exception (Supplément de l'Echo), Bruxelles, 3 novembre 2001
- POK, Marie, Méthodes de datation : la voix de la science, Arts Antiques Auctions, février 2002

Hambone
06-01-2012, 03:54 AM
(Well said Basile!)

Perhaps the best source of information on "XRF Facts" claims is their own FAQs:
http://xrfacts.com/?page_id=27

Peter, some excerpts on qualifications and "what am I getting for my money" (I thought this was about "research"?). Also, if Kelly Hicks is no longer on board, and Robby Wilson purged all reference to XRF Facts on his "Wilson History & Research Center" website, who is left and why the abandonment of such a wonderful "tool"? Dave May / Maui can you respond?:

"Who Is XRFacts?
XRFacts, LLC is a Florida based corporation that was formed in late 2009 by Dave May, Kelly Hicks, Robby Wilson and Jim Muir with the goal of providing helmet collectors an unbiased and neutral, third party scientific method of determining authenticity of WWII era German helmets. All four principals have over a century of combined militaria collecting, research and publishing experience."

"What am I getting for my money?
Combined scientific testing and expert analysis. The Patent Pending service XRFacts offers is the unbiased, independent scientific testing of your helmet as well as inspection by Kelly Hicks, a world renowned industry expert and author. X-ray Fluorescence tests for the existence of elements and it is through this testing we are able to determine what elements are present and sometimes more importantly, what elements are not present in your helmet shell, paint and decals. Once this testing has been completed, the helmet is then inspected by our experts and an all important XRFacts Certification is issued. This document acts as a “Registration” of your unique, individual helmet and should be kept in a safe place along with other important documents."

"Does XRFacts Testing work on cloth and insignia?
XRFacts, LLC is working with other technologies and needed baseline data to address cloth, uniforms , insignia and other historical antiquities."

Hambone
06-01-2012, 04:11 AM
no need to be confused hambone, XRFacts was and is a research initiative, nothing more and because the database has been built , the service is no longer provided.

You can continue in your sad, pathetic, vulgar behavior mocking everything and that is fine.


Well, you better go change your website because if you have any partners left (Hicks and Wilson seem to have exited the XRF medicine show stage) they didn't get your memo:

"I have several helmets I want to test; will XRFacts give “volume” discounts?
Yes. XRFacts does offer volume discounts and suggests you take advantage of these as well as the additional savings in shipping costs by mailing several helmets at once to be tested. Our pricing structure is as follows:
1st helmet: $199. plus the cost of return, insured postage
2 – 5 helmets: $179. each plus the cost of return, insured postage
6 or more helmets: $149. each plus the cost of return, insured postage
In order to take advantage of the volume discount, your helmets need to be received in one shipment."
http://xrfacts.com/?page_id=27

If this was truly a "research project" it would be transparent, objective, inclusive, and you would welcome debate and objective discussion (It isn't and you don't). Also, do true "research projects" offer "volume discounts"? Science has little tolerance for carnival barking buffoons.

Hambone
06-01-2012, 01:34 PM
David / "Maui" , it's important to note that as silly and insulting as you are, you are not censored and are allowed to freely attempt to support your claims. This is not so at WAF or GHW, which censors and deletes posts on this topic to protect the people involved from criticism and scrutiny. However, the freedom and transparency here is also why no one comes to try to "support" the XRF Facts claims.

maui
06-01-2012, 02:52 PM
hambone, why are you so obsessed with my research on xrf and german helmets ?

You have probably started 10 threads on multiple forums over a period of 3-4 years. If you do not feel xrf is valid, why do you continue to debate it ?

You have completely missed the point of what xrf is all about... you refuse to accept documentation and shirk like the spineless coward that you are and scurry off like a rat when confronted with irrefutable proof.

Let's hear your comments on the FHH example posted where mutiple layers of decals and paint were matched. http://xrfacts.com/?page_id=39 Do you understand what that example showcases ?

What don't you understand about xrf and why don't you go rent an xrf gun to prove me wrong ? what are you so afraid of ?

Peter U
06-01-2012, 04:20 PM
hambone, why are you so obsessed with my research on xrf and german helmets ?

You have probably started 10 threads on multiple forums over a period of 3-4 years. If you do not feel xrf is valid, why do you continue to debate it ?

You have completely missed the point of what xrf is all about... you refuse to accept documentation and shirk like the spineless coward that you are and scurry off like a rat when confronted with irrefutable proof.

Let's hear your comments on the FHH example posted where mutiple layers of decals and paint were matched. http://xrfacts.com/?page_id=39 Do you understand what that example showcases ?

What don't you understand about xrf and why don't you go rent an xrf gun to prove me wrong ? what are you so afraid of ?



I'll answer to maui if you don't mind.
The whole XRF gun stunt is just a swindle to take money from militaria collectors, first an XRF gun isn't the right tool for the job, secondly you don't have the knowledge or the capability to seriously and indepently write a decent raport on authenticity.
You are not an expert, you are just a silly amateur that has bought or rented a XRF hand held device and is using it on everything like a fool and then draws silly conclusions.


P

Hambone
06-01-2012, 04:48 PM
hambone, why are you so obsessed with my research on xrf and german helmets ?

You have probably started 10 threads on multiple forums over a period of 3-4 years. If you do not feel xrf is valid, why do you continue to debate it ?

You have completely missed the point of what xrf is all about... you refuse to accept documentation and shirk like the spineless coward that you are and scurry off like a rat when confronted with irrefutable proof.

Let's hear your comments on the FHH example posted where mutiple layers of decals and paint were matched. http://xrfacts.com/?page_id=39 Do you understand what that example showcases ?

What don't you understand about xrf and why don't you go rent an xrf gun to prove me wrong ? what are you so afraid of ?

IMHO: You tried to install yourself as the last word on helmet authentication and saw a way to make money. You enlisted other people, who have since apparently abandoned your pseudo science medicine show, to give you credibility and stature. Being an arrogant nitwit you can't comprehend that you've never showed or proven up your claims. You're angry because people here won't agree with you because you demand it. That's why you failed. You make conclusory statements and claims, and post colorful pie charts, yet there is no objective science or proof to back it up. You point to your website and proclaim it "proof" and "science". It isn't; you and your website are infomercial sales pitches and you lack the qualifications to do what you claim. You resort to screeching and insults in lieu of authoritative response and proof. Shamwow.

IMHO: This matter, and the antics and chicanery of people like you, are important to expose and discuss, openly, intelligently, objectively, and transparently (which has been done nowhere else). Because, it is people like you who can destroy the legitimacy of a hobby. With the help of censors, such as at WAF, you almost pulled it off. WAF does this alot to protect key people from legitimate scrutiny, and butchers the truth in the process. If you were truly interested in research and "science" you would welcome the questions and debate. But you don't, you applaud censorship and banning of your critics and screech insults. Why is it important to shine the light on people like you and your antics? This is why:

"Does XRFacts Testing work on cloth and insignia?
XRFacts, LLC is working with other technologies and needed baseline data to address cloth, uniforms , insignia and other historical antiquities."
http://xrfacts.com/?page_id=27

You still haven't answered these questions:
1) Why did Hicks (a founder) dump you?
2) Why did Wilson History and Research Center (a founder) purge all "XRF" and "XRF Facts" reference from his site?
3) Why did Bill Shea delete all reference and endorsements of you?

maui
06-01-2012, 04:58 PM
I see you get upset when you are called out. You can't seem to understand that XRfacts was created not to make money but to decipher the composition of german helmets including decals and paint. This has been accomplished.

When are you going to post something of merit instead of your typical bs ? why won't you comment on the fhh helmet ? too complex ?

Hambone
06-01-2012, 05:10 PM
I see you get upset when you are called out. You can't seem to understand that XRfacts was created not to make money but to decipher the composition of german helmets including decals and paint. This has been accomplished.

When are you going to post something of merit instead of your typical bs ? why won't you comment on the fhh helmet ? too complex ?

Heck, far from upset, I'm entertained and happy you're here. In your mind you're goal has been accomplished, just as in your mind you've proven all of your claims. Rational minds disagree. Are you saying that Hicks and the Wilson of the Wilson History & Research Center, your fellow "Founders", and Bill Shea, all purged all reference to you at their sites because you were so successful?

As for your claim that "XRFacts" was not created to make money, well, your entire site is an infomercial for peddling COAs and pie charts. In spite of reality, reality we can all see, you're now using Pinnochio logic to mitigate your epic fail. That is, you believe if you listen to your buddy the talking cricket, and if you say it enough and wish hard enough you'll turn from a wooden puppet into a real boy and your lid tazer works. Here you are trying to convince us not to believe our lying eyes and brain stems, but your ex post facto excuse gibberish.

"I have several helmets I want to test; will XRFacts give “volume” discounts?
Yes. XRFacts does offer volume discounts and suggests you take advantage of these as well as the additional savings in shipping costs by mailing several helmets at once to be tested. Our pricing structure is as follows:
1st helmet: $199. plus the cost of return, insured postage
2 – 5 helmets: $179. each plus the cost of return, insured postage
6 or more helmets: $149. each plus the cost of return, insured postage
In order to take advantage of the volume discount, your helmets need to be received in one shipment."
http://xrfacts.com/?page_id=27

maui
06-01-2012, 05:17 PM
hambone, everyone wants to hear your comments on the FHH helmet decal/paint match, not your bs . Hello hambone


remember how I stated you scurry like a rat when the heat is on , now the world can see it

Hambone
06-01-2012, 06:22 PM
I see you get upset when you are called out. You can't seem to understand that XRfacts was created not to make money but to decipher the composition of german helmets including decals and paint. This has been accomplished.

When are you going to post something of merit instead of your typical bs ? why won't you comment on the fhh helmet ? too complex ?

You have been probably been able to identify certain elements in decals and paint on helmets, and more significantly, elements in the subsurface steel and other contaminates. In the world of handheld XRF that's called "substrata contamination" and why XRF is not suitable for your claimed uses. Your claim that this means that you can authenticate painted helmets is unsupported and ridiculous in light of the known weaknesses in handheld XRF on painted surfaces. Further, even if you could do this, without risk of substrata contamination, your next problem is your "database" and the contamination and corruption of that. You've already had some epic fails "authenticating" fake helmets. This has been discussed on other sites.

Your other problems include bias and corruption of results caused by bad data (garbage in, garbage out), complete lack of objectivity (you guys were authenticating your own helmets as the "database"), complete lack of transparency, and complete lack of objective oversight of your methods. I've not seen anyone with any real qualifications use and interpret XRF helmet tazing. Additionally, you are advocating a service which you are selling, more bias.

At the end of the day, if your pseudo-science claims had merit they would be embraced and not dumped by your Co-"Founders". Why'd they dump you? "Science" would explain that. After the Wright brothers flew their plane folks didn't dump the idea of airplanes.

maui
06-01-2012, 07:23 PM
swallow your pride hambone , you should hang your head in shame for your juvenile behavior

nobody dumped anybody, Robby is fighting a valiant battle against cancer and is a dear friend that I am visiting soon. How dare you attack a cancer victim for your own perverse agenda. It is clear you will stop at nothing and is repulsive. Kelly Hicks has endorsed XRF because it is the truth, You are the one most likely who threw out the BS comment to attack him. Of course Bill Shea does not have it on his website, we are not offering the service.

Hambone
06-01-2012, 07:28 PM
hambone, everyone wants to hear your comments on the FHH helmet decal/paint match, not your bs . Hello hambone


remember how I stated you scurry like a rat when the heat is on , now the world can see it

Garbage in, garbage out Mr. Shamwow. You have a colorful chart with graphs on it and conclusory claims about what you think, but nothing describing what it really is, other than your sales pitch. Do you know if your ray gun is reading the substrata steel on both helmets, the primer, the decal, the lacquer or what? Obviously, two painted German steel helmets shot with an XRF gun at the exact same angles and distance, without any contamination, are going to yield very similar graphs, unless one helmet is aluminum and one is steel. There are similarities in the graphs, on the major elements (the key being elements), but there are also glaring differences. XRF is designed to ID elements, not compounds. That's why handheld XRF is used to differentiate metals at scrapyards, and lead in paint.

Your quote (my highlights) :
"This essentially means that not only were the underlying war period factory-issue components of the helmets the same, but importantly, the paint mixture for the SA-Brown outer finish, as well as the Feldherrnhalle decals themselves are nearly identical. It is this type of comparative analysis that XRFacts is able to bring to the market." http://xrfacts.com/?page_id=39

How do you know what that gun is reading? How is one case study determinative of the legitimacy of your method? What do your "beams" mean? What elements are represented? What do the colors mean? Why are the graphs different? What is similar? What elements are represented by the similarities? What elements are represented by the differences? What are the "5 strata"? What do the "graphs" look like of other painted helmets compared to these? How many times did you perform this helmet tazing study? What XRF tazer did you use? What does "Beam 1" mean? What does "Beam 2" mean? How many beams did you shoot? What is the relevance of "Beam 1" to "Beam 2". How many blind studies did you perform? How many comparative studies did you perform? Etc. etc. etc.

A person would have to be naive to the point of being a certified imbecile to look at that "Case Study" and believe that it proves your XRF claims. Your one page photographic "study" doesn't "speak a thousand words" it asks a thousand questions. This isn't scientific analysis, it's a sales pitch geared to revving up suckers and nitwits into sending you money to taze their helmets and bless them (volume discounts apply).

maui
06-01-2012, 07:39 PM
hambone , I really did not expect you to understand the comparison, this is just one of many

swallow your pride hambone , you should hang your head in shame for your juvenile behavior

nobody dumped anybody, Robby is fighting a valiant battle against cancer and is a dear friend that I am visiting soon. How dare you attack a cancer victim for your own perverse agenda. It is clear you will stop at nothing and is repulsive. Kelly Hicks has endorsed XRF because it is the truth, You are the one most likely who threw out the BS comment to attack him. Of course Bill Shea does not have it on his website, we are not offering the service.

Hambone
06-01-2012, 07:40 PM
swallow your pride hambone , you should hang your head in shame for your juvenile behavior

nobody dumped anybody, Robby is fighting a valiant battle against cancer and is a dear friend that I am visiting soon. How dare you attack a cancer victim for your own perverse agenda. It is clear you will stop at nothing and is repulsive. Kelly Hicks has endorsed XRF because it is the truth, You are the one most likely who threw out the BS comment to attack him. Of course Bill Shea does not have it on his website, we are not offering the service.

You sound pretty hysterical; lots of drama and insults to avoid answering legitimate questions. If "Robby" is Wilson Historical Research Center then all reference to XRF and XRF Facts were deleted from his site and he is no longer listed as an XRF Facts "Founder". My question to you was why? What does his health have to do with deleting all reference to your company? He didn't delete anything else and his site is regularly updated: http://www.militaryheadgear.com/

So, Mr. Angry Squirrel, why did you get dumped and erased from his site? If anyone is repugnant it's you raising a private health condition completely irrelevant to this inquiry as a dodge and attack. Bill Shea dumped all reference to you, and why doesn't Hicks (another one of your "Founders" who apparently dumped you) use XRF Facts as part of his "authentication service"?

Here's a graph for you which is more vetted than yours:

maui
06-01-2012, 08:18 PM
hambone, let me make this as clear for you as possible and then you will not be hearing from me as I will not be wasting any more precious time with you.

The code has been cracked on the composition of german helmet decals and paint... this is complete and the patent has been applied for and protected. The database has been built with a large sample. I don't care if you understand this or not, it does not matter. I have a humble collection and I am happy with it. I am focused on fishing for Tarpon/ Black and Blue marlin right now.

take care and best of luck


David

Hambone
06-01-2012, 08:51 PM
hambone, let me make this as clear for you as possible and then you will not be hearing from me as I will not be wasting any more precious time with you.

The code has been cracked on the composition of german helmet decals and paint... this is complete and the patent has been applied for and protected. The database has been built with a large sample. I don't care if you understand this or not, it does not matter. I have a humble collection and I am happy with it. I am focused on fishing for Tarpon/ Black and Blue marlin right now.

take care and best of luck


David

Again, you dodge all questions and requests for substantiation. As above, you continually make claims and don't support them with anything other than because you say so. That's not "science", that's a sales pitch, among other things. Your problem is that you expect everyone to look at that graph, with no other substantiation and no explanation of anything, what anything means or how it was produced, other than your self serving sales pitch conclusions that it means these two helmets are original, and buy it. Intelligent people won't, and they haven't. You then insult and censor those who correctly question your claims and ask you to back it up. Your site shows this and you proved it here.

Anyone can apply for a patent. If you have a patent, provide the patent number or application number. My understanding is there were some serious problems with your claims, the databases, and people involved. Care to comment on that?

maui
06-01-2012, 09:06 PM
yes, reference the post " Gold and the Glutton " that will answer your question. Do you understand ?

Gold and the Glutton
hambone,


Here is the parable. If you were buying 10K of gold , do you think it would be of value to have an XRF analysis telling you it is indeed Au or have a glutton tell you it looks "glittery like gold under a microscope ? "

A decent SS Double Decal helmet is 10 - 15K


You can do your own test...that is the point. XRF is just a tool. Remember , I do not care if you use it or not, you can't seem to comprehend this.

Peter U
06-02-2012, 01:18 AM
I to don't care if you used it or not to, enjoy yourself with your little raygun mate, zap everything in your collection 25 times, for what I care you can do bullet impact tests on your helmets but what I do care about is that you try to swindle collectors in making them believe you are an expert in independent testing of antiques, something which you are obviously not.
Your website didn't offer a free service it was a business, you tried to make money out of it and you failed.
Do you blaim Hambone for your business failure?
This is a lot of credit to him, your business in the first place failed because your technique didn't work and Hambone and I also (on forums in languages you don't understand) just pointed people to the fact that your XRF technique to test 3R helmets was bullshit.

Further you tried to reinvent the wheel, scientific testing and dating of antiques, with the aid of different types of X-rays for example isn't something you invented, serious labs have been doing this fo a while now.
The big difference between these labs and you is that their technique works.



How about that SS decal helmet and what you think matching file, ready to debat that again with me?


P

tjg79
06-02-2012, 05:19 AM
Wow, I'm surprised maui came back. It's not every day we get to read the fresh posts of a known scammer.

maui, your understanding of science and chemistry is that of a low performing high school student. Your own posts memorialize your buffoonery and amateur status. Did you ever explain the known XRF failures and bogus COAs? Have you ever had anyone known to be proficient in analytical chemistry methods and analysis review your "research?" Does your work pass any independent quality review? If so, have you made that information available to the public? Have any of your customers demanded a refund for flawed analysis and "expert" opinion? Why have your fellow "founders" appeared to back away from XRFacts claims? Do you have any academic qualifications that indicate you are competent to offer professional services? Have you ever worked in a lab before? Do you know what an adequate laboratory analysis report looks like? Can you explain the science and the reason for the bogus COAs that have been identified?

Did you stop the XRF helmet analysis sales because information available on the internet showed XRFacts failed to perform as advertised? Did uncensored forum threads critical of XRFacts claims kill your business model? Do you think anyone would pay $250 for a subjective opinion on helmet paint originality when so many COAs have been shown to be bogus? How do you explain the XRF failures?

Hambone
06-02-2012, 08:38 PM
yes, reference the post " Gold and the Glutton " that will answer your question. Do you understand ?

Gold and the Glutton
hambone,


Here is the parable. If you were buying 10K of gold , do you think it would be of value to have an XRF analysis telling you it is indeed Au or have a glutton tell you it looks "glittery like gold under a microscope ? "

A decent SS Double Decal helmet is 10 - 15K


You can do your own test...that is the point. XRF is just a tool. Remember , I do not care if you use it or not, you can't seem to comprehend this.

What you can't seem to comprehend is that there are people actually asking you to support your infomercial claims. Or, you are engaging in intellectual dishonesting and pretending you can't comprehend because you know you can't respond legitimately. Without legitimate response you are carnival barking, not engaging in "science".

Indeed, the entirety of your responses to direct, legitimate questions in this 25 page thread (and for the last several years) consist of the following:
1) Personal insults and misdirection;
2) "it is true because I say so"; and
3) you can't prove my infomercial pie chart untrue.

You are right about No 3); there is nothing of substance in that infomercial pie chart to address. You could convince waftards and maybe a class of 5th graders that it means something, but moderately educated and sane adults immediately notice that your "FH Helmet Case Study" is ridiculous and meaningless because it isn't explained, cited, supported, or vetted. I think you don't do this because you can't, or if you did it would show the extent of the fallacies in which you are engaged. In short, your infomercial claims are appropriate for children and morons. Your attempts at cashing in on your claims flopped because there aren't enough children and morons with $250 (not counting volume discounts) to waste on a meaningless helmet tazing and voodoo pie chart reading. Might as well pay a voodoo doctor $20 to throw chicken bones on a helmet and proclaim it original.

IMHO, (and it's one with about 15 years and dealing with many high paid experts), thus far your claims and "provenance through science" would get shredded in litigation. A mediocre attorney would disassemble you and your claims in about 30 minutes. In these years of your sales pitches you've never once, not once, supported your claims adequately, as required by true science. True science convinces the skeptical, it doesn't censor them and engage in personal insults.

tjg79
06-02-2012, 11:32 PM
maui always avoids answering questions about the documented failures of his handheld XRF application. That is the root cause of XRFacts' failure as a business operation offering authentication services. It's unreliable and most people won't pay $250 for an authentication that has proved to be bogus and unreliable. Once the bogus COAs were outed, the rats (dealers & other XRF founders) started jumping off the XRF boat. It's unreliable because maui doesn't understand the science and doesn't have a valid theory of fake TR helmet paint that's amendable to handheld XRF analysis. He relies soley on the results of an instrument designed for field screening and can't explain anomalies. He selectively cites one data point, but fails to address all the other data points which contain failures or are too ambiguous for interpretation. His XRF application over simplifies the chemistry of helmet paint coatings and he claims to be able to make objective determinations based on subjective interpretation of the limited information produced from a single handheld instrument. How do you get to an objective determination based on subjective interpretation? No certified laboratory offering testing and analysis services would stay in business very long based on that kind of “science.” maui is a buffoon espousing pseudoscience and it’s obvious to most people reading these posts that he’s the least knowledgeable person in the room. It’s interesting that he appears to blame Hambone for his helmet authentication business failure and only shows up on this forum to confront his nemesis. He probably thinks that if there was no Hambone, XRFacts would be flourishing.

Hambone
06-03-2012, 01:27 PM
hambone, let me make this as clear for you as possible and then you will not be hearing from me as I will not be wasting any more precious time with you.

The code has been cracked on the composition of german helmet decals and paint... this is complete and the patent has been applied for and protected. The database has been built with a large sample. I don't care if you understand this or not, it does not matter. I have a humble collection and I am happy with it. I am focused on fishing for Tarpon/ Black and Blue marlin right now.

take care and best of luck


David

David,
When we do a patent search, the application number you provide on your site, "Patent Pending Application Number 61/329-329" ( http://xrfacts.com/ see bottom of page) reveals a patent application for a catheter (see below). What is the status of your "patent" application? Where is it? Is this BS? You cracked the catheter "code"? You're tazing catheters now? Post a link, post the contents of your alleged patent application.

tjg79
06-03-2012, 03:12 PM
XRFacts' provisional patent application probably expired. Provisional applications are only good for a year unless the applicant takes action to move the application forward. It doesn't take much to file a provisional patent application. Since many XRFacts COAs have proved to be bogus and therefore proved that their claimed objective scientific determination of authenticity was a fraud, the patent application likely expired. I wonder what they tried to patent. If they tried to patent a German helmet database of handheld XRF output, I doubt that has much value. They've always had that catheter patent application number posted on their website. The only consistent fact about XRFacts is that most of their claims prove bogus. Also, they like to make claims, but don't like to answer questions about their claims.

Winchester Cowboy
06-03-2012, 03:38 PM
XRF is approved and endorsed by Mr. Sham-WoW!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v510/1212cu/YepYepWTF.gif

Hambone
06-03-2012, 05:39 PM
She's hot WC.

So, David/Maui, you post a patent number for someone else's catheter design on your site and claim here that the "code has been cracked on the composition of german helmet decals and paint... this is complete and the patent has been applied for and protected." So far this looks like you don't have anything "protected", patented, or even applied for when we investigate. I searched the USPTO and can't find anything to support your claims. Perhaps in your mind you have a "patent. In real life the USPTO does that.

I believe that you fail to comprehend that there are people who actually do expect you to support the claims that you make. So, please do so.

tjg79
06-03-2012, 06:29 PM
I wonder what David May (XRFacts founder), "maui" on the forums, is trying to accomplish. He shows up after nearly six months in hiding and does another round of drive by postings of gibberish about parables and code cracking that serves no purpose other than highlight his failure and bogus claims. Perhaps he's been brooding for the past six months and decided to take action and confront his nemesis once again. The results are always the same; he makes more unsupported claims and is confronted with questions he chooses not to answer. What's maui's objective? Is he trying to rehabilitate the reputation of XRFacts and the founders? He's not doing a very good job. What a foolish guy.

Hambone
06-04-2012, 01:08 PM
hambone , I really did not expect you to understand the comparison, this is just one of many

swallow your pride hambone , you should hang your head in shame for your juvenile behavior

nobody dumped anybody, Robby is fighting a valiant battle against cancer and is a dear friend that I am visiting soon. How dare you attack a cancer victim for your own perverse agenda. It is clear you will stop at nothing and is repulsive. Kelly Hicks has endorsed XRF because it is the truth, You are the one most likely who threw out the BS comment to attack him. Of course Bill Shea does not have it on his website, we are not offering the service.


Because you changed it, I wanted to save this ad hominem nonresponse. The observable facts are these, and legitimate questions follow them which we hope you will answer. There is no "right or wrong" response if the response is verifiable truth:

1) Kelly Hicks no longer pitches for XRF on his website and it appears that he doesn't use XRF in providing authentication services although he was stated to be a "Founder". Why and what his is relationship and status with XRF Facts?

2) Wilson History and Research Center appears to have deleted many references and information about you and he was a "Founder". Why and what is his/WHRC relationship to and status with XRF Facts?

3) Bill Shea has deleted all reference to your services for his helmet sales. Why and what his is relationship and status with XRF Facts?

4) You claim that the "code has been cracked on the composition of german helmet decals and paint... this is complete and the patent has been applied for and protected" yet the patent app. number you provide is for someone else's catheter design and I've found no record of you with the USPTO. Do you have a patent application pending with the USPTO, what is the reference / provide a copy, and what is the status?

This is a factual discussion concerning what you deem to be a research project. This should not have to be an argument nor should you need to attack people personally. Please refrain from exploiting and manipulating the medical conditions of others to personally insult and attack. Look forward to substantive responses.

tjg79
06-04-2012, 03:39 PM
Good questions that should be easy to answer.

However, maui hasn't answered any questions yet. He just makes claims and runs off.

There is no record of any patent application for XRFacts at the USPTO.

I don't think maui is a truthful individual.

Anyone doing research on XRF helmet testing or doing research on XRFacts should be able to find this thread and see for themselves that XRFacts is not a reputable operation.

Who would pay $250 for an unreliable helmet assessment?

Hambone
06-04-2012, 04:44 PM
IMHO, we don't get straight answers on much of anything, just irrelevant insults, drama, and demands that we "prove" some graph with no real information, citation, substantion, etc., incorrect. This is quite bizarre to me. The easiest claim of all to prove true is his claim of patent application and protection. Why isn't he proving this claim up? :facepalm:

tjg79
06-04-2012, 07:28 PM
You'll never get a straight answer when there's something to hide.

Too bad they can't hide all the XRFacts COA failures. If it was an objective scientific determination of authenticity as advertised, then how do they explain the bogus COAs? That's the first indication that their theory is bogus. In general, a scientific theory is valid until it's proven or shown to be false. The XRFacts theory of TR helmet paint elemental analysis yielding a characteristic "fingerprint" was proved false. They can't distinguish when original materials were applied. They claim that they can date the paint; they can't and everyone knows it. In science, you can't just cherry pick your examples and ignore the ones that contradict your theory. That's pseudoscience practiced by buffoons. maui only wants to talk about one example graph that looks similar. Yet, he claims his method is valid for all examples. This is not the first time someone has proposed an application for handheld XRF that was later proved to be invalid. The Chinese drywall test is another example of a failed handheld XRF application. The difference between XRF helmet testing and XRF drywall testing is that the proponents of XRF drywall testing aren't brooding over their failures.

maui lacks integrity and won't admit he failed. His money making XRF helmet testing business flopped and is now a "research" operation. He needs to mop up the mess and move on.

tjg79
06-04-2012, 09:58 PM
Maui/David,

http://www.brussels-art-labo.com/english/accueil.html


Contact them and see for yourself the difference between professionals and stupid amateurs.




P

Excellent post Peter!

Anyone can see for themselves and compare and contrast a legit lab offering scientific authentication services to a buffoon lab offering pseudoscientific authentication services. Do you think the legit lab has a propriatary database (patent pending) of test results to which they compare all their current testing? Yea, that's how they do it! Does XRFacts even employ anyone qualified to make a scientific assessment? maui claims to be an ex-marine that knows technology. Wow! I think not and the bogus XRFacts COAs indicate so. An XRFacts lab report is just a print of the instrument output compiled into a pie chart which they don't understand. They think it's a "fingerprint."

maui, be honest, do you see why some people question your ability?

Hambone
06-05-2012, 07:20 AM
Do you think the legit lab has a propriatary database (patent pending) of test results to which they compare all their current testing?

David / Maui represented that they have patents applied for which protect their secret "cracked code", but the USPTO where patents are applied for and protected doesn't seem to agree. IMHO, the major disjoint is what he represents vs. facts and he believes that if he says so then it is true. How dare we question his claims. :hail:

tjg79
06-05-2012, 09:48 AM
When I attempted to check out the patent number posted on the XRFacts website back when this topic first came up, I thought that someone must have mistyped the patent application number, because the number on the website is for a catheter from another company. I thought that it must be off by a digit. The form of the patent number indicates it's a provisional patent application which is only valid for a year. If the applicant doesn't move the application forward within a year, the provisional expires and there is no patent protection.

There is no record at the USPTO that I can find that indicates XRFacts has attempted to move a provisional patent application forward in the system. Yet, maui indicates that their database of "cracked code," German TR helmet paint handheld XRF analysis output, is patent protected. How can that be? There's no record of an XRFacts patent application. Is it possible that maui is just making this up? Is maui trying to frustrate his nemesis by throwing out BS to see if he stumbles?

Now I'm starting to wonder if there ever was a provisional patent application filed by XRFacts in the first place. Perhaps it was a fantasy to make XRFacts appear "professional." Perhaps maui thought that no one would ever check his claim of "patent pending" status. Perhaps they filed the provisional patent application and let it expire without moving the application forward in the system. Perhaps the bogus XRFacts COAs coupled with dealers and founders jumping off the XRF boat, killed the patent effort. It makes sense to let a provisional patent application expire if your "scientific" method is proved to be bogus and your sales don't generate enough revenue to pay for the x-ray gun. Why spend the effort and expense for a patent if the wheels fell off the bandwagon early on in the operation? If I was maui and bogus XRFacts COAs started to be discussed on the web, and at least two other XRFacts founders (Wilson & Hicks) deleted XRF references from their websites, I think I would pull the plug on XRF analysis sales, call the database complete, transform my sales operation into a research operation, and pretend it was just a research operation all along. Then I would go to the collectors' forums and confront the troublemakers that killed my cash cow and dreams of controlling the TR helmet market. If I was maui and didn't understand paint chemistry, that's what I would do. What else could he do? He can't admit that he was wrong; that would make him look foolish.

Hambone
06-05-2012, 10:13 AM
Unless you are a small child or a clinically diagnosed imbecile, even a cursory review of the XRFacts website shows it to be an infomercial, not "research". My research of the USPTO databases did not show XRFacts or XRF and helmet analysis to be present, thus it would appear to me that David's / Maui's claim here to the contrary is a misrepresentation.

tjg79
06-05-2012, 05:28 PM
I think maui is digging a bigger hole. The XRFacts website is one big infomercial for the sole purpose of sales. The patent effort was an attempt to control the market and eliminate potential competition. The research phase was completed before the active sales phase and indicated that there was potential profit in a sales operation if the competition could be controlled. The arrangements with dealers was to lock up the market and make XRFacts the sole source of XRF helmet testing, because only XRFacts had the proprietary patent pending database of "cracked code" (developed in the research phase) necessary to interpret XRF instrument output in the sales operation phase. The dealers would also fabricate the need for an XRFacts COA for a helmet sold through a dealer. It was a diabolical plan for control and domination of the TR helmet market. Helmet collectors would be forced to pay a "tax" to XRFacts to sell from their collection, because nobody would pay big bucks for a helmet without an XRFacts COA. The XRFacts bandwagon was just beginning to role when the wheels fell off due to a few bogus COAs outed on the internet. Then the whole operation collapsed and most started jumping off the boat. It appears that maui is the sole believer in XRF helmet testing and he continues to fight the forces that sunk the good ship XRFacts. But, maui rationalizes now that the whole affair was only for “research” to develop a “cracked code” database that only he can enjoy and share if he likes you.

Hambone
06-05-2012, 06:15 PM
I share your opinion tjg. I will opine further: XRFacts, particularly David/Maui, applauded the censorship and banning of those who questioned and criticized, engaged in the typical drive-by insults we see here. Worse, XRFacts had its "lawyer" threatening Gunboards to delete critical and questioning posts and threads, demanding
"retractions", and then (incredibly), that links to XRFacts infomercial site be posted in place of legitimate discussion.

Thus, these people and their heavy handed shamwow cramdown strategy get no pass from me, though, IMHO, the helmet sites have censored, deleted, banned, and swept this mess under rugs due to the people involved. True researchers and "scientists" do not conduct themselves in this fashion. And if no other site is going to stand up and require an explanation, if this (or similar) is attempted again, at least it will be openly discussed here.

tjg79
06-05-2012, 06:33 PM
We've only described some of the highlights of the XRFacts fiasco. There's also the flawed science or what they call science. If a kid picks up a multimeter and measures the resistance of a wire, is that scientific testing? If a buffoon picks up a handheld XRF instrument and measures the elemental composition of a piece of scrap metal in a junkyard, could he be considered a scientist? If that buffoon creates a database of scrap metal, is that something he should patent? The whole affair is entertaining for people who like to watch fools practice their trade.

tjg79
06-05-2012, 08:47 PM
To say this was a research initiative nothing more...is straining all credulity. If there truly are merits to this system let's openly examine the process using scientific methods hypothesis/Proof. Refine/ Proof.

That’s an excellent point jack and that scientific method is the missing link in the entire chain of events that resulted in the rise and fall of XRFacts. Where has maui ever proposed a theory that was tested for validity? He's only presented graphs and pie charts that he claims are "fingerprints" of fake and real all based on subjective interpretation. Is that science? Where is the independent confirmation? How does maui explain the bogus COAs? If the COA is issued based on a scientific objective determination of authenticity (as advertised on the XRFacts’ website) what went wrong with the bogus COAs? maui prefers not to discuss the failures. It's unpleasant and forces a confrontation with the possibility that his "discovery" and proprietary database of "cracked code" is useless. All that work for nothing!

maui, when you read this, please respond if you disagree and explain where we've got it wrong.

Peter U
06-06-2012, 12:44 PM
Excellent post Peter!

Anyone can see for themselves and compare and contrast a legit lab offering scientific authentication services to a buffoon lab offering pseudoscientific authentication services. Do you think the legit lab has a propriatary database (patent pending) of test results to which they compare all their current testing? Yea, that's how they do it! Does XRFacts even employ anyone qualified to make a scientific assessment? maui claims to be an ex-marine that knows technology. Wow! I think not and the bogus XRFacts COAs indicate so. An XRFacts lab report is just a print of the instrument output compiled into a pie chart which they don't understand. They think it's a "fingerprint."

maui, be honest, do you see why some people question your ability?


Thanks Tjg,

There is no need to reinvent the wheel again it is already been done.
I have seen that lab in action together with the art department of the Brussels university, the things they can detect is incredible; one example was that they found modern paint on a so called Russian painting from the 1940's, if they can do that they surely can detect a fake camo helmets.
I don't have an idea what they would ask for such a test though, so I can't answer if it is cost effective


P

tjg79
06-06-2012, 05:27 PM
How long before David "maui" May returns? I think it will be a while. I'm sure he doesn't want to be confronted with the patent issue. It may be that there's nothing to patent. Every patent application doesn't result in a patent award from the USPTO. The applicant has to produce evidence that he's entitled to a patent award. That may not be possible considering what we now know about XRFacts and their test method.

If anything is clear at this point in time, it's that David "maui" May, XRFacts co-founder, refuses to answer questions about his failed business operation and bogus scientific claims. I think anyone who paid for this "service" is entitled to a full refund, because the claims made on the XRFacts website are known to be bogus. None of the XRFacts founders have come forward and defended their claims. They just remain silent in the hope that the whole fiasco fades into the past.

Hambone
06-06-2012, 06:17 PM
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
- George Santayana

Or, in this case, watch it get resurrected as the "savior of insignia/uniform collectors". I've watched this with regret, as one watches a continuing multi-car crash on an iced avenue. I was one of the first proponents on WAF to advocate scientific, objective testing for camo helmets and got hooted at by the same waftards who proclaimed XRFacts to be the "savior of the hobby". There are means of objective testing, but they must be performed competently, transparently, by objective people disinterested in the test results.

tjg79
06-06-2012, 07:10 PM
There are labs that employ scientific methods of analysis to include XRF spectrometry and can answer questions pertaining to artifact authenticity. There is nothing new about XRF. But, as Peter pointed out, they use a variety of test methods to build a case to support their conclusions, are staffed with educated professionals recognized as experts in their field and don't make claims that aren't supported by proven test results and observations. Their work is transparent and can be fully explained. There's no mystery to competent lab analysis. The problem with TR helmet testing is that it doesn't appear that collectors are willing to pay the fee for legit lab work.

XRFacts attempted to make conclusions based on insufficient information and questionable methods. Their website indicates such. It was just a matter of time before the law of probability exposed the charade. The fact that XRfacts collapsed wasn’t a surprise, because the method they employed can’t produce the information to support their determinations. I think the XRFacts cofounders realized this early on and added the helmet “expert” opinion to supplement the lab analysis. What does that tell you about their foolproof XRF analysis? Why did they need a helmet “expert” if their scientific objective analysis was so good and reliable? They knew their determinations were ambiguous, because they had difficulty with the subjective interpretation of the instrument output. Also, their conclusions were based on circular reasoning; they merely compared questionable helmets to “known” good helmets. How do they know their “known” good helmets are legit? Subjective opinion is their basis for their objective scientific determination of authenticity. How can you get to an objective scientific determination of authenticity, as advertised, based on a subjective interpretation of instrument output and helmet “expert” opinion? The XRFacts COA was a farce as was shown. QED

Hambone
06-07-2012, 11:06 AM
Tjg, that sums it up nicely IMHO. I've not seen them state anything which merited a QED ;)

This is some interesting censored stuff:

http://wehrmacht-awards.com/FORUMS/showthread.php?t=299609

"This may be the only "acceptable" COA of the futurehttp://www.k98kforum.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif "
- Paul G.

"I personally think this is some extremely powerful information and will impact artifact authentication . Thank you" - Maui

"Bring your machine to the next SOS/Max. You'll make a killing."
- Stephan Wahl

"Stephan, I do not intend to sell this technology because I do not own it or have any interest in selling it, I simply found a way to use it for a small fee and am sharing information." - Maui

"Nice to see Perry. Most of my helmet collection was tested a couple months ago when I rented a gun and DMC came for a visit, as was the Schalburg Korps helmet, which tested 100% for period paint, as I knew it would, and is published in Ludwig Baer's book." - Doug B.
(Disinterested objective Moderator?)

tjg79
06-07-2012, 04:40 PM
Tjg, that sums it up nicely IMHO. I've not seen them state anything which merited a QED ;)



I don't know of any lab or institution testing artifacts, art, etc..., other than XRFacts, that would claim QED based only on handheld XRF instrument test results. David "maui" May, XRFacts cofounder, acts as if he's discovered some revolutionary new technology that provides information never before known. Not only that, he declares handheld XRF analysis of painted steel yields a "fingerprint" that that can be used to sort legit from fake.

David "maui" May makes a lot of questionable claims.

1. XRFacts can determine when paint was applied.

2. XRFacts proprietary worldwide helmet database, "cracked code," is patent protected.

3. XRFacts was only a research project.

4. XRFacts offers "Provenance Through Science."

5. "Think of the guaranteed value your helmet will hereafter command on the open market, as compared with others that have not gone through XRFacts testing and registration; and never again buy a helmet from a vendor who does not provide you with an Original XRFacts Certificate of Authenticity."

6. "Fakers may scoff; others may claim they can perform this analysis, but they cannot. Years of access to, and XRF testing of original collections gives XRFacts the authentication edge. Protect your investment now!"

7. "XRFacts provides the collector, whether advanced or novice, an invaluable, unbiased service and peace of mind regarding the authenticity of their helmet. This Patent Pending service is the only scientifically proven, commercially available method of determining the originality of a helmet. Until XRFacts, all opinions in regards to the authenticity of a helmet were subjective. Now, we can provide “Provenance Through Science”."

8. Etc....

Hambone
06-07-2012, 05:15 PM
5. "Think of the guaranteed value your helmet will hereafter command on the open market, as compared with others that have not gone through XRFacts testing and registration; and never again buy a helmet from a vendor who does not provide you with an Original XRFacts Certificate of Authenticity."

6. "Fakers may scoff; others may claim they can perform this analysis, but they cannot. Years of access to, and XRF testing of original collections gives XRFacts the authentication edge. Protect your investment now!"

Uh, the above is "research" oriented or shamwow? Such guano is why it was so imperative that such an infomercial be addressed, but objectively. So, XRFacts and David / Maui sought to be positioned as THE last word (for a fee) if you want to buy or sell a helmet? And those who "scoff" are fakers? IMHO, I don't know what is more disturbing, the claims of that website or the bias and/or incompetence of those who unquestionably supported those claims. I guess the Nigerian 419 scams are still around for a reason......suckers being born every minute and all......

tjg79
06-07-2012, 05:21 PM
Hello maui,

Is XRFacts still in operation? And, do you stand by all your claims on the XRFacts website?

Regards


yes, XRFacts is an active LLC, not doing any authentications for customers. Continuous Research and Development work always is in process. Yes, everything on the website is accurate, go the case study link, review and then we can discuss http://xrfacts.com/?page_id=39 .

David "maui" May stands by everything posted on the XRFacts infomercial.

Is that buffoonery or what?

Definition of buffoonery: (Insert picture of maui here)

tjg79
06-07-2012, 07:16 PM
One of the most significant clues that none of the XRFacts founders have a science or engineering background is their total lack of concern about bogus, inaccurate or misleading statements on the XRFacts website. Another is what they admit on the website:


Who Is XRFacts?
XRFacts, LLC is a Florida based corporation that was formed in late 2009 by Dave May, Kelly Hicks, Robby Wilson and Jim Muir with the goal of providing helmet collectors an unbiased and neutral, third party scientific method of determining authenticity of WWII era German helmets. All four principals have over a century of combined militaria collecting, research and publishing experience.

Why would anyone pay this krewe for a scientific testing service?

Hambone
06-07-2012, 07:19 PM
He asked that we review that page, "then we can discuss". We reviewed the page, asked questions and then David / Maui broke like the wind, and did not discuss as he said. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7V406XfAaI

Then again, inter alia, he also said he had a patent application protecting the "cracked code" which the USPTO doesn't show and the patent application number he cites is for a catheter clamp.....:facepalm: At least he's consistent.

tjg79
06-07-2012, 10:01 PM
He asked that we review that page, "then we can discuss". We reviewed the page, asked questions and then David / Maui broke like the wind, and did not discuss as he said.

Any hint of a question about the legitimacy of his claims serves as a David "maui" May repellent. He's scurries away faster than a cockroach with the lights on. But then, he comes back for some reason. It must be that he forgets we like to ask questions about his claims. Then, he dodges questions like a cockroach avoids being squashed while hurling parables and gibberish of "cracked code" before he scurries off again.

If you're thinking about paying for XRF helmet analysis from XRFacts, do an internet search, read the critical forum threads, ask questions about bogus XRFacts COAs, check out the facts, note the peculiar behavior of the cofounders and think again.

tjg79
06-08-2012, 04:16 AM
Research or Profit?

There’s been some confusion about whether or not XRFacts was created for the purposes of research or profit.

David “maui” May has recently indicated that XRFacts was created for the purposes of research and that the sales operation only existed to fill out the database of “cracked code.”


no need to be confused hambone, XRFacts was and is a research initiative, nothing more and because the database has been built , the service is no longer provided.


This is not to make money, this is to state that the code has been cracked.


You can't seem to understand that XRfacts was created not to make money but to decipher the composition of german helmets including decals and paint. This has been accomplished.

The quotes above seem to explain, from David “maui” May’s current perspective the reason why XRFacts has halted sales of XRFacts COAs. Apparently, it has nothing to do with some XRFacts COAs being outed as bogus and helmet dealers dumping the service as well as some founders deleting references to XRF helmet analysis from their websites. That apparently, was just a coincidence.

It’s interesting that David “maui” May indicates XRFacts is focused on research. If that were true, you would think he would be interested in discussing the theory of legit vs fake helmet paint and would welcome all points of view to further his investigation as research implies pursuit of truth. Yet, David “maui” May avoids all serious discussion of XRF paint analysis.

I think that before David “maui” May can pursue serious research, he needs to brush up on his understanding of matter. The following quote illustrates my point.


Yes, there are other tools XRD, FTIR, etc to use to obtain additional non-elemental data..paint fillers like calcium carbonate..etc

From the above quote, David “maui” May indicates “paint fillers” such as calcium carbonate are “non-elemental” data. It appears that he fails to realize that calcium carbonate would appear as elemental calcium, and elemental carbon and elemental oxygen if his instrument was capable of detecting these elements. Also, I’m not aware of any non-elemental matter in paint. All of the ingredients of paint, to include the solvents are composed of elements in the form of molecules. The molecules are the components of paint and the elements are the components of molecules. The molecules and their relative percentages comprise the paint formula. The formula of wartime helmet paint is likely different from the formula of some paint used to produce fakes. And, modern paint formulas likely contain modern synthetic materials not available wartime. These modern synthetic materials are composed of molecules that may not be identifiable by elemental analysis alone, because they may only contain elements found in wartime paint. Therefore, other methods of analysis must be employed to identify the molecular components of the paint. Elemental analysis doesn't provide enough information to duplicate a paint formula, because it doesn't identify the molecules of the paint formula.

Also, it appears David “maui” May fails to realize that paint fillers and binders are the likely indications of postwar paint formulas due to advances in paint chemistry and formulation. He seems to be missing the big opportunity to make a scientific discovery and earn a science award.

However, when one reviews the XRFacts website, you get the feeling you're reading an infomercial attempting to sell XRFacts COAs.

Other than the recent comments by David "maui" May, I was under the impression that XRFacts was sales operation that was attempting to stifle competition with patent protection and exclusive arrangements with TR helmet dealers.

I hope that David "maui" May returns to clear this matter up and set the record straight.

Hambone
06-08-2012, 07:44 AM
As previously noted, none of that makes logical sense. In fact, it's bizarro logic. Successful services and inventions are researched, perfected, then placed on the market to recoup the R&D and then make a profit. Is Maui saying that XRFacts sold incomplete and/or defective services for $250 per pie chart reading and COA to get the money to do research so they could stop making money? :facepalm:

tjg79
06-08-2012, 06:41 PM
I think David "maui" May is trying to make lemonade out of one big lemon. He tried to distribute Kool-Aid, but there aren't many XRFacts Kool-Aid drinkers anymore. I don't think the lemonade will sell any better.

maui
06-09-2012, 10:11 AM
Tarpon fishing was great...got to love the Florida Keys

of course, calcium carbonate can be picked up by FTIR and is an example of identifying postwar paint as it is commonly used as "filler". I am going to post one other example of an SS helmet multi decal/paint elemental match.

So let me make sure I understand you correctly hambone and your sidekick stooge tjg79, do you believe it is not possible to match elemental composition of complex mullti decal and paint helmet configurations ? Now remember I showed you the FHH example and I have asked you to rent an xrf gun to prove me wrong.

what are you afraid of ? Why have you not rented a gun ? Do you think decals and paint have random elements that cannot be measured ?

Here is another challenge issued to hamone and his stooge, can you tell me what elements are always in an SS pocher decal ? How does that compare to the best fake SS Pocher decal available ? Let's hear it

Here is a clue , rent an XRF gun and study the data

mrfarb
06-09-2012, 10:30 AM
As a somewhat disinterested 3rd party (I don't have a bunch of helmets to research or authenticate) I want to make a point about your post maui.

I believe the normal course of action is for you to prove your findings. If you come from the position "prove that I'm wrong" you have lost the battle. I don't believe Albert Einstein came back after the theory of relativity and said "prove that I'm wrong", rather he actually proved his case with fancy math and stuff.

tjg79
06-09-2012, 10:43 AM
David,

Why don't you explain the bogus XRFacts COAs and what went wrong with the XRF analysis of those helmets? Apparently, it's not possible to identify all fakes with your methods of analysis. If that's the case, what do you have to offer? Are the bogus COAs the cause of the total collapse of XRFacts sales opertion? Did the bogus COAs cause your fellow founders Hicks and Wilson to remove XRF sales pitches from their websites? Why don't they defend the claims on the XRFacts website?

Science is about explaining the failures and revising or discarding your theory.

Also, what's the story with your alleged patent application? Why do you list the provisional application number for a catheter on your XRFacts website? Can you prove you've applied for a patent? I don't think you can get a patent for zapping helmets with an XRF tazor.

What are you trying to patent? Could it be your database of "cracked code?" How useful could that be?

Your FHH example is meaningless. Do you really call that a case study that proves anything? What's your theory and what's the proof? How do the bogus COAs affect your theory?

We don't need to rent a tazor to evaluate your alleged scientific theory. Do you have a theory? I hope you're not just looking for similar XRF output and calling that scientific analysis.

Try to answer some questions before you break like the wind.

tjg79
06-09-2012, 10:56 AM
As a somewhat disinterested 3rd party (I don't have a bunch of helmets to research or authenticate) I want to make a point about your post maui.

I believe the normal course of action is for you to prove your findings. If you come from the position "prove that I'm wrong" you have lost the battle. I don't believe Albert Einstein came back after the theory of relativity and said "prove that I'm wrong", rather he actually proved his case with fancy math and stuff.

Farb,

You are correct. We don't need to prove his theory wrong; it's already been proved flawed by the bogus XRFacts COAs that caused the entire sales operation to collapse and helmet dealers to drop the endorsements and service. What more effective proof could we possibly offer?

David is practicing selective memory and revisionist history. He needs an intervention to help him back into the world of rational behavior and reality. He appears to be unaware that most of his claims are unsupported and bogus.

Regards

maui
06-09-2012, 11:07 AM
tjg79, well then why will you not answer my question instead of being the hambone puppet and hiding behind him ?


Do you believe it is possible to identify the elemental composition of german decals and paint ? Do you think that perhaps technology exists they can measure it ?

What technology would you use ?

Are you really that clueless about modern technology ?

tjg79
06-09-2012, 11:23 AM
tjg79, well then why will you not answer my question instead of being the hambone puppet and hiding behind him ?


Do you believe it is possible to identify the elemental compositon of german decals and paint ? Do you think that perhaps technology exists they can measure it ?

What technology would you use ?

Are you really that clueless about modern technology ?

David,

It's not only possible to identify the elemental composition of any matter of interest, it's also possible to identify the molecular composition or compounds of any matter of interest which is more useful, because the chemical compounds actually identify the substance chemical formula. Elemental analysis doesn't identify the chemical formula and handheld XRF only yields an elemental sketch of the matter of interest. You need more than an elemental sketch to reliably identify fake from legit. Handheld XRF is an excellent screening tool to be used to identify what requires further investigation.

I think using a handheld XRF is pretty common, but I don't see where handheld XRF output replaces an entire lab with qualified investigators to answer questions of authenticity. Especially where the objects of interest have various wartime coatings, recoatings, refurbishment, etc..., and you're trying to distinguish between original wartime coatings and postwar efforts to fake.

Why don't you try to answer our questions? You are the one that needs to support your claims. Why don't you explain your claims on the XRFacts website? I don't think you can support your claims and I don't think your XRFacts test/analysis procedure is reliable as proved by the bogus COAs.

How do you explain the bogus COAs?

maui
06-09-2012, 11:51 AM
tjp79 oh good, you suddenly flipflop and admit I am right. Let's see your lab results ?

There are no bogus COAs, there were COAs issued with incorrect descriptions and pictures but that was just part of early demand and an administrative infrastructure not able to meet the logistics of it and easily corrected.

How easy for you to take cheap shots when you have provided absolutely nothing. You have had years and provide nothing but the same old hambone bs and the small group of stooges easily manipulated

The FHH example is provided as an example , why don't you prove me wrong , can you comprehend what it means ? You can go get two FHH helmets and take them to your lab, Why have you not done this ?

The reality is the objective was to crack the code and that has been completed years ago. german helmets are less than 1% of my life and I have other interests.

hambone, what I really enjoy is the fact that you are so obsessed with my work with XRF, you have written probably 10 threads, spent 4 years of your life, been kicked off several forums and have not provided one piece of evidence that refutes the findings. While I am fishing in the keys, you are insane with XRF and hang on every post I make, eager to try to be part of it. You should hang your head in shame for your pathetic childish behavior.

So I challenge you once again, tell me what is the composition of an SS Pocher decal ? Why don't you go to your lab and figure it out. I will give you one full month , How is that ? You have had years but you produce nothing

You never will produce any data. You are not capable of it

tjg79
06-09-2012, 12:10 PM
tjp79 oh good, you suddenly flipflop and admit I am right. Let's see your lab results ?

There are no bogus COAs, ther were COAs issued with incorrect descriptions and pictures but that was just part of early demand and an administrative infrastructure not able to meet the logistics of it and easily corrected.

How easy for you to take cheap shots when you have provided absolutely nothing. You have had years and provide nothing but the same old hambone bs and the small group of stooges easily manipulated

The FHH example is provided as an example , why don't you prove me wrong , can you comprehend what it means ? You can go get two FHH helmets and take them to your lab, Why have you not done this ?

The reality is the objective was to crack the code and that has been completed years ago. german helmets are less than 1% of my life and I have other interests.

hambone, what I really enjoy is the fact that you are so obsessed with my work with XRF, you have written probably 10 threads, spent 4 years of your life, been kicked off several forums and have not provided one piece of evidence that refutes the findings. While I am fishing in the keys, you are insane with XRF and hang on every post I make, eager to try to be part of it. You should hang your head in shame for your pathetic childish behavior.

So I challenge you once again, tell me what is the composition of an SS Pocher decal ? Why don't you go to your lab and figure it out. I will give you one full month , How is that ? You have had years but you produce nothing

You never will produce any data. You are not capable of it


David,

I never flip flopped on my position that your methods are not reliable and that you make claims you can't support. What's your big discovery? Any competent analytical chemistry lab can identify the chemical formula and contamination of a paint coating. What's so novel about that? I don't know of any lab that would rely solely on a handheld XRF field instrument to identify the chemical composition of a paint coating or identify contamination included with the paint coating. That's what labs do! XRFacts is not a qualified lab and doesn't have the capability of the least equipped lab that I'm aware of.

You have failed to answer any of our questions about your unsupported and bogus claims.

You have failed to prove that you have a valid/active patent application. I don't think you do.

I don't think you've cracked the code of original TR helmet paint chemical formula. And, if you don't have that information, how can you reliably identify legit from fake? The fact is that you can't. Your XRFacts COAs have been shown to be unreliable. That's why your COA sales operation collapsed and helmet dealers have dropped your service like a bad burrito.

Your claims that you stopped selling COAs, because you've cracked the code sounds like someone smoking crack. That doesn't even make sense. Why did Kelly Hicks delete references to XRF helmet testing from his website? Why does Robby Wilson opine about high priced fakes that couldn't be identified by XRF?

Your credibility is in the tank. Everyone who reads this thread knows you aren't answering any questions and what you claim defies reality. Everyone knows XRFacts is belly up, due to bogus COAs. It's been discussed on numerous helmet collecting forums.

Why do you think you can come here and act like nobody knows what's going on? Admit you failed and your sales operation is dead due to bogus claims.

Try to answer a few questions before you break like the wind.

maui
06-09-2012, 12:40 PM
There is a chapter in SS Steel on XRF testing on german helmets that will explain the process to clear up your confusion. My recommendation is to read that as a start and then perhaps purchase your first german helmet. Maybe this mysterious lab you have at your disposal can produce some data that you would like to share also.

Here is my challenge to you , Can you provide me the composition of an SS Pocher decal ?

Do you accept the challenge or will you spew out your typical nonsense babbling ?

This is a simple yes or no answer