The JREF forum has attempted to discredit the iron-sphere evidence with various forms of misinformation (see examples here, here, here and here), but Rev. Mohr has finally decided that enough is enough. On the 26. of April, 2014, Rev. Mohr stated on the JREF forum:
"...After all, Rich Lee's report did talk about "iron rich", and one of Millette's reports showed "high iron content" in the dust. Having talked to Millette last year about this, he does believe that the iron-rich spheres are indeed iron-rich and wants to study this further (an interest he reasserted just a couople weeks ago). I don't think it's a stretch to accept the iron-richness of the spheres Harrit/Jones report on, because the EDX spectra show it (like Fig 21). The main question is, since these have been formed from burning these chips, how do we explain their presence? Since Ivan and Dave's demonstrations have failed to impress Ziggi et al, what WOULD impress tham?" http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=9972774&postcount=140There are some major revelations here: Chris Mohr acknowledges Dr. Harrit´s reported iron-rich spheres and reveals that Dr. Millette agrees that the spheres are in fact rich in iron (not iron-oxides). The significance of the elemental iron in the spheres has eluded the so-called "debunkers" for years, but this is the trademark of the thermite reaction. The DSC ignition of the red/gray chips at 430C starts a reaction that heats the iron-oxide grains beyond the 1400C melting-point, to form the spheres, and more importantly it also reduces the grains to elemental iron at the same time. Specialized high-temperature furnaces can also produce spheres, but these furnaces leave iron-oxides because they rely on conventional combustion.
The biggest break-through is that Rev. Mohr now agrees that "the main question" to address, is to explain the formation of the iron-rich spheres. Chris Mohr does complain that we have not accepted forum chit-chat and dubious YouTube videos as debunking evidence, but the type of evidence needed to make us reconsider our stance has never been a mystery: We need to see a reviewed paper that addresses the iron rich spheres and challenges Dr. Harrit´s conclusion. Harrit´s paper made this clear from day one with a statement on page 28:
"To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance such as paint could match the characteristics we have described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration using a sample of the proposed material, including SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses."
I and Mr. Talboo also made this very clear in our fundraising essay for Mark Basile´s upcoming nano-thermite study:
...repeating a paraphrased version of Dr. Jones´s public 2009 challenge to "debunkers": "We cannot seriously consider the paint hypothesis until someone performs these seemingly easy tests and publishes the results" - and still we wait.Related article: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/05/nmsrs-dave-thomas-concedes-errors-iron.html