> > You'd have done better to read the full report rather than select the
part
> > that suited your argument. It can be found on
> > http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/grier/fins-in-depth-2002.html, and if
> you
> > bother to read it, you'll encounter the following disclaimer:
>
> I read the entire report.

Then perhaps you can give me a quick summary of what it REALLY had to say
about Jet Fins ?

> You might note that I acknowledged that the cave
> divers were right very early in this discussion.  The Jet Fins and all of
> the look alikes, are, in fact, well suited to the diving they do.  I don't
> believe I've said and I know I have not intentionallly claimed otherwise.

Not that the report above said anything about this issue at all, of course.

> > Also, the SAME gentleman published the following article on Rodale's
> website
> > in August 2003:
> >
> > http://dive.scubadiving.com/members/gearreviews.php?s=534
>
> I thought all the magazine articles had been dismissed previously.

Not by me they haven't. And you were the one asking for a test where the Jet
Fins scored in the top 10. And the above was not a magazine article, but a
private review posted on Rodale's forum. By your very own pet scientist du
jour, just to make the irony complete. And his conclusion was ""ALL of these
fins, the XTs, Jets, and Turtles did very well. The tech/(etc.) divers were
right! The Jets and Turtles are excellent!". They weren't tested in a tech
environment, but in several tests, the Jets scored in the top.

>  If I get
> to use them to support my position, then you may as well surrender now.

Not at all. Lots of products are not included in magazine tests for one
reason or the other. That does not mean that they are not excellent, indeed
perhaps in the top 10. There are lots of cameras, for example, that have few
or no equals today, but they are not tested in the magazines anymore,
because they have been on the market for 20 years. I believe Strike already
explained that.

> I've never read a test where traditional Jet Fins won . . . ever.

Neither have I, but that is probably because I have never read a fin test at
all. Then again, the challenge you issued only specified top 10, not a win.

> > Latly, several links I found taunt with a report recently put out by the
> > Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine Journal. The report, prepared by the
> > Univerity of Buffalo's Center for Research and Education in Special
> > Environments, and alleged to have been sponsored by the Navy, and is
> > claimed
> > to rank Jets at the top of the class in many categories. Sadly, I have
not
> > been able to find the report (for free, that is) anywhere.
>
> Is claimed to or actually does?  You guys didn't let me get away with
"I've
> seen it" without a reference.  What's good for the goose is good for the
> gander.

Firstly, I don't recall having made any posts in this thread before the one
last night, so I'll thank you to not include me in your grievances against
previous participants in the debate. Secondly, at the very least I was able
to provide an actual study title and all the pertinent information for
anyone interested in obtaining it. When/if I get it, so will you. Perhaps
Strike or Viv will have better luck, with their Navy and SPUMS contacts.

>  You, and I, are
> living proof that the Jet Fins are not best for all divers.

How is that ? I've never tried a pair of Jet Fins. They may well be the best
for me, I just don't intend to try them, because I'm happy with what I've
got. I've already stated that the find that make you happy are the ones for
you, so I agree that Jet Fins are not for everybody. But don't parade me as
an example, thanks.

> > But I also believe that if you set out to fight a war of words on
> scientific
> > merits, then it behooves you to not simply present as "evidence" the
first
> > website, or part thereof, that supports your preconceived notions!
>
> If you recall, I made general statements and indicated that they were the
> results of many tests I'd read over many years.  It was not I that
insisted
> on a representative example, but it was me that provided it.

Provided what exactly ? All  I saw was a a table in a study that mentions
the Jets exactly twice: Once in the list of fins in the test, and once in
the one table that the author himself admits is not representative of real
diving performance. But a table that you, nevertheless, chose to introduce
as "the information that everyone has been asking for"!

Bjorn