mino
Member
And that is precisely why "testing" a 'dry dado' "joint" is a PsyOp as described by one word. Because no one uses non-glued shallow dado for structure.
No one sane, that is. This PROVES the test is dishonest as we KNOW its authors could not have been objectively THAT stupid to not be aware of that fact. Were it a test by a high-school student, I may buy the "they were clueless" part. Not here. This was intentional.
---
If you worked in scientific research, you would be very familiar with the basic test of an experiment's validity:
"Is the property/characteristic measured relevant/related to the object/topic of my observations?If yes, did the property/characteristic I am measuring have /at least/ a discernible effect on the object/topic of my observations?"If the answer to the first question is "No", like here, then the measuring is of no use and is frowned upon by any scientist worth his title.
If first answer was "Yes", but second "No", then the result would be "non-measurable" but still the attempted measurement could have value in confirming that.
This "test" fails both those questions. They are knowingly 'testing' a "phantom" joint, making the measurement irrelevant. When they get a bogus answer, they dishonestly do not make the actual conclusion: The measurement being by then provably bogus. An honest action would be to have the test case thrown out at that point, even if they were that high-school 'clueless fella'.
---
The reason this question is so familiar is because fake, irrelevant, "research" is commonly done on purpose to have "something to publish" by mediocre scientists looking for bread on the table. Such "research" is the worst scourge of today's science.
---
Now, let's enter the commercially commissioned studies world:
Those rules are turned upside down when you do measure for marketing/propaganda purposes. For those you are specifically looking for such bogus measurements as they allow the ordering party to "shape" them by specifying starting conditions such that results will support the narrative needed.
The thing is, a measurement that is substantial/meritorial needs to be faked to manipulate. That is relatively easy to discern. The one which is irrelevant does not need to be directly faked, making for a 'sturdier' lie.
I wrote what needed to be said. Will withdraw at this point.
Last edited:
