No, what I take exception to is the first paragraph of Mr. Lentini’s comment, in which he suggests that Martin’s “experiment” proves some point. I should have said that. Oh, wait. I did.

No good comes from trying to grind an already sharp ax.

I think you are missing Mr. Lentini’s points. What he is saying here is what he and other arson experts have been saying for quite some time now. One cannot tell anything about so-called pour patterns by visual inspection because flashover can produce something that looks as if accelerant were used. I think Mr. Lentini knows independently that black swans exist, and so is correcting Mr. Martin, who thinks that they do not.

That lighter fluid and carpet creates those patterns proves only that lighter fluid and carpet in fires in the open create those patterns.

Your saying that it proves that other things burning inside a compartment make the same patterns is just as unscientific as Martin’s implying that it proves that only lighter fluid creates such patterns. Maybe more so. Martin sees a white swan, and concludes that all swans are white. You see a white swan as proof that black swans exist.

While it is true that you can make a pattern with an indictable liquid in the open, you can make that same pattern without an indictable liquid inside a compartment. Patterns produced during full room involvement can look exactly like patterns produced by an indictable liquid, and care must be taken in their interpretation. In fact, if the laboratory report comes back negative, the pattern should be attributed to the radiation that accompanies full room involvement.