Talk:Is Cigar Plume Mold? (Executive Summary): Difference between revisions

From WikiCigar
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
(→‎From Dogan Biyikli: new section)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:


I maintain that all cigars have some trace of mold, and plume exists, but is totally independent of mold. This would explain why mold is found in all plume samples. [[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 10:41, 13 January 2023 (EST)
I maintain that all cigars have some trace of mold, and plume exists, but is totally independent of mold. This would explain why mold is found in all plume samples. [[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 10:41, 13 January 2023 (EST)
== What does John McTavish think? ==
It's always mold. I'm open to the possibility of plume, but there'd have to be any sort of evidence other than anecdotes. [[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 10:49, 13 January 2023 (EST)
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan [[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 10:50, 13 January 2023 (EST)
== What does Dogan Biyikli think? ==
I have checked again, googled images for “cigar plume” and couldn’t see a photo that wasn’t clearly mould. If “plume” really exists, is it so difficult to take a photo under microscope, showing crystals that were claimed to exist and put an end to the discussion?
== From Josh Cannon ==
So, this guy did it. I am not going to take it at full scientific value (because I know nothing about the guy or the methods or if the pictures are even real), but if it is accurate, it argues for plume.
[https://www.cigarforums.net/threads/microscopy-of-plume-mold.12390/page-2https://www.cigarforums.net/.../microscopy-of.../page-2 https://www.cigarforums.net/.../microscopy-of.../page-2]
== From Dogan Biyikli ==
Josh, thanks for the info and the link, I wasn’t aware of this particular discussion thread.
I have checked the photos and although I am not an expert on crystals, I don’t clearly see anything that I can easily describe as crystals there. If the photos had tiny shiny particles on tobacco, that would have been much more convincing, worth to take more seriously as some sort of potential evidence. It seems to be far away from that. We have plenty of photos of Tasmanian Tiger that went extinct in 1936, it sounds a little awkward to me that we wouldn’t have some other photos of this mysterious “plume” that many people claim to be true. Especially in this age of technology where almost anyone can just take a 10mp photo with their phone and then zoom in.

Latest revision as of 14:17, 13 January 2023

What does Craig Vanderslice think?

I maintain that all cigars have some trace of mold, and plume exists, but is totally independent of mold. This would explain why mold is found in all plume samples. Admin (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2023 (EST)

What does John McTavish think?

It's always mold. I'm open to the possibility of plume, but there'd have to be any sort of evidence other than anecdotes. Admin (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2023 (EST)

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan Admin (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2023 (EST)

What does Dogan Biyikli think?

I have checked again, googled images for “cigar plume” and couldn’t see a photo that wasn’t clearly mould. If “plume” really exists, is it so difficult to take a photo under microscope, showing crystals that were claimed to exist and put an end to the discussion?

From Josh Cannon

So, this guy did it. I am not going to take it at full scientific value (because I know nothing about the guy or the methods or if the pictures are even real), but if it is accurate, it argues for plume. https://www.cigarforums.net/.../microscopy-of.../page-2

From Dogan Biyikli

Josh, thanks for the info and the link, I wasn’t aware of this particular discussion thread. I have checked the photos and although I am not an expert on crystals, I don’t clearly see anything that I can easily describe as crystals there. If the photos had tiny shiny particles on tobacco, that would have been much more convincing, worth to take more seriously as some sort of potential evidence. It seems to be far away from that. We have plenty of photos of Tasmanian Tiger that went extinct in 1936, it sounds a little awkward to me that we wouldn’t have some other photos of this mysterious “plume” that many people claim to be true. Especially in this age of technology where almost anyone can just take a 10mp photo with their phone and then zoom in.