sounded like conspiracy theory.
As for cold fusion -
Criticism of cold fusion claims generally take one of two forms: either
pointing out the theoretical implausibility that fusion reactions have
occurred in electrolysis setups or criticizing the excess heat
measurements as being spurious, erroneous, or due to poor methodology or
controls. There are a couple of reasons why known fusion reactions are
an unlikely explanation for the excess heat and associated cold fusion
claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
------ Original Message ------
From: "Jed Rothwell" <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: "Vortex" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 01:26
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone
ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com
<mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:
Please provide proof.
You don't need me to do that. There are many authoritative sources on
line, at places like the FBI and the Senate Committee. If you don't
believe them, you will not believe anything else that I provide.
The difference between a conspiracy theory and a fact is easy to spot.
Take the 9/11 destruction of the Twin Towers. You can find thousands of
pages of authoritative analyses from places like NIST, FEMA and various
universities. These explain every detail. Or you can believe people who
know nothing about engineering and have no proof at all. Take your pick!
It is the same situation with cold fusion. On one side we have
distinguished experts such as Fleischmann, Bockris and Srinivasan, who
have published peer-reviewed, definitive proof that cold fusion is real.
They were the creme-de-la-creme of the establishment. They signed their
papers. On the other side, we have an anonymous crew of idiots at places
like Wikipedia, who name themselves after comic book characters and the
like. They claim that cold fusion is not real, but they never actually
give any science-based reason. They say only that other, unnamed
(imaginary) people found (undescribed) errors. Errors in papers these
people have never read and do not know anything about.
So which side do you believe? I am conservative. Establishment oriented.
I go with established experts who publish detailed proof of what they
say. They have credibility. The cartoon character crowd that does not
know the difference between energy and power has no credibility. That
crowd of hapless flakes happens to include some scientists and the
editors at Scientific American, but that only goes to show that idiots
sometimes manage to get high level jobs. Any experienced person knows
that.
It may seem as if cold fusion is outside the establishment. Politically,
it is. But from a scientific point of view, it is inside and the critics
are out there in cloud-cuckoo-land.
