Third Party Press

XRFacts , Forums and Censorship

"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

 

Attachments

  • Nutmeg%20WAF%20SOS%20post%2063.jpg
    Nutmeg%20WAF%20SOS%20post%2063.jpg
    157.3 KB · Views: 17
  • XRF%2520WAF%2520forum%2520sponsor%2520(2).JPG
    XRF%2520WAF%2520forum%2520sponsor%2520(2).JPG
    72.8 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:
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?
 
Last edited:
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/
 
Terminally Ill?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Pending Patent?

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 a$$, then I think it might get approved, because I don't think anyone has thought of that yet.

Regards
 
Flip-Floppers

Let's see how long it takes for this to get deleted on GB. Can you detect any posts by flip floppers?

Regards
 

Attachments

  • 186975-XRfacts-Deale.pdf
    212.2 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
Then Hicks is their buddy, because they mention others in a less than flattering way.

Regards
 
Pending Patent? - Probably NOT

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
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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
 
Last edited:
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
 
"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?
 

Attachments

  • WAFmod XRF shilling.jpg
    WAFmod XRF shilling.jpg
    234.8 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
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


 

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top