Third Party Press

XRFacts , Forums and Censorship

Hambone

Community Organizer
Staff member
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/showthr...edback-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/showthr...-bad-results-Helmet-testing&highlight=xrfacts

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthr...Liars-and-Kool-Aid-Drinkers&highlight=xrfacts

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthr...-quot-!!!-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:
 

Attachments

  • XRF%20WAF%20forum%20sponsor%20(2).JPG
    XRF%20WAF%20forum%20sponsor%20(2).JPG
    72.8 KB · Views: 132
  • XRF%20posts%20deleted%20thread.jpg
    XRF%20posts%20deleted%20thread.jpg
    152.9 KB · Views: 96
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
Wafberry

Wafberry%20Koolaid.jpg

Wafberry....Now that is funny..not bad for a lawyer....:laugh:
 
An appropriate response to such a letter. :biggrin1:
 

Attachments

  • cleveland.png
    cleveland.png
    108.2 KB · Views: 148
: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
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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 - See all my reviews



Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: SS-Steel: (Expanded Edition) Parade & Combat Helmets of Germany's Third Reich Elite (Hardcover)
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.
 
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 - See all my reviews



Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: SS-Steel: (Expanded Edition) Parade & Combat Helmets of Germany's Third Reich Elite (Hardcover)
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:
 

Attachments

  • bp060f.jpg
    bp060f.jpg
    141.8 KB · Views: 56
Last edited:

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top