Jed Rothwell
Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:22:40 -0800
From time to time, skeptics have asked me to prove that a document is real or that I actually have permission to upload it by providing them with an e-mail. I have told them I do not care what they believe. Also, that I never reveal personal e-mails, and it is easy to fake an e-mail in any case, so this would prove nothing. I have no qualms about brushing off skeptics, but let me give a more considered reply here.
You can confirm most of the documents at LENR-CANR.org by going to library and looking up the original printed version. It is more difficult to confirm something like the BARC report because it is out of print, and because India is far away.
Another obvious method is to ask the author or co-author. When I wrote "ask the authors" in response to that question I was not being facetious. If I had any doubt about any of the documents at LENR-CANR I would do this, first thing. [1] It may not be easy to find someone in the Defense Intelligence Agency but some of the scientists who contributed to the document are easy to find. (But please do not find them and bother them. They are busy!)
In fine arts, curators use the word "provenance" to describe the "place of origin; derivation," or "proof of authenticity or of past ownership." They look for documents or physical evidence. Historians and detectives use similar methods. They examine documents, photographs, and they question people to establish a claim. They also make common sense assumptions about how people behave. They like to use documents that do not originate with the author, claimant or criminal suspect, especially documents such as phone books and old newspapers which no one could to forge. For example, to prove that Obama really was born in Hawaii, they cite a newspaper notice announcing his birth. The assumption is that it is impossible to insert a fake old newspaper into a library and that on the day Obama was born no one knew that he would someday become famous.
In the case of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document it is easy to come up with such methods to confirm that it is real. Here are some of the ways you can do this --
A common sense assumption:I am not crazy and I am not trying to get myself arrested on charges of stealing or forging a U.S. federal government document.
Some easily verified matters of fact:It is dead simple to find me. I have a unique name. My name, address and telephone number and e-mail address is on the front of the LENR-CANR.org front page. My home address is in the Atlanta telephone book. To put it another way, LENR-CANR.org is the opposite of http://wikileaks.org
It is easy to confirm that the co-authors and contributors to this paper know me, and are familiar with LENR-CANR.org. You can find photographs of Boss, McKubre, Forsley and I together. Many people have seen us in conversation. They have referred to me in some of their papers and letters. The DIA document itself lists LENR-CANR.org in some of the references, so obviously the authors and reviewers of the document know about LENR-CANR.org.
From this you can reach some firm conclusions:Suppose I were to upload a fake document attributed to these authors. Whether I faked it myself or whether I was duped by someone else, the authors would soon find the document, and demand that I remove it.
More to the point, the DIA would soon find it. They would also demand that I remove it, and since their demands are backed by the force of law they are compelling, to say the least.
How would they find the document? Well, first of all, they are intelligence agency. They probably have extensive means of finding things. Even if they do not, anyone can find anything on the net with Google. Do a Google search for "Defense Intelligence Agency cold fusion" and bingo, up pops the front page of LENR-CANR.org, item #5, with the title of the report on the Google screen: "U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report on cold fusion: Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining " [2] Scroll down and there's my name and phone number . . . So they would call me.
Second, even if you are not an intelligence agency it is easy to find out that I have a copy of this report. I have a link to my copy in bold letters on the front page of LENR-CANR.org. We know that the DIA people looked at LENR-CANR.org, because it is listed as a source in their paper. It is reasonable to think they may look again soon and see their name on the front page. In bold, with a blue hyperlink. I am vigorously promoting the document and inserting links to it elsewhere on the web, for example in the New York Times:
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/opinion/18friedman.html?sort=newest&offset=2(By the way, if you are registered at the New York Times I would appreciate it if you would click to Recommend this message.)
In short, I am not hiding anything, and it would not take a Federal intelligence agency to find out that I have a copy of this document. Thousands of people have looked at the front page since I added the notice. If it were fake, word would circulate and get back to the DIA. I am trying to bring this document to the attention of as many people as I can. If it were forged document, or if I had stolen it, no matter how you look at it, it is safe to conclude that the DIA would soon find out. They would take steps to have the document removed from the webpage, and probably they would have me removed to the hoosegow.
- Jed Footnotes1. I myself have no doubts about any of the documents, because I copied them myself, or received the originals directly from the authors. The only one I do not have the original copy of is the ERAB report. I trust the National Capital Area Skeptics did not forge this report -- at least not much -- because I know that the conclusions of this report are much to their liking.
2. Item #6 is gratifying. It is a Digg pointing to Krivit's site: "Finally! Finally! - US DIA acknowledges "cold" fusionnewenergytimes.com After 20 years of only private research, continued mockery, and kiss-of-death treatment for academics investigating it, the US Defense Intelligence Agency acknowledges a technology that can get the equivalent energy of 300 gallons of gasoline from the heavy water in one gallon of seawater. This 8-page summary pdf begins undoing the damage."