Third Party Press

XRFacts , Forums and Censorship

What a big goof. Surely someone added that info to his book without his knowledge.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
XRFraud

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
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
SS-Steel: (Expanded Edition) Parade & Combat Helmets of Germany's Third Reich Elite

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.

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
 
Last edited:
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
 
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
 
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
 
Last edited:
Paint Analysis

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.
 
Last edited:
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 .
 

Attachments

  • Nutmeg WAF SOS post 8.jpg
    Nutmeg WAF SOS post 8.jpg
    126.9 KB · Views: 20
  • Nutmeg WAF SOS post 63.jpg
    Nutmeg WAF SOS post 63.jpg
    157.3 KB · Views: 26
Last edited:

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top