Re: [Vo]:How to confirm that a document at LENR-CANR.org is real

[Mauro Lacy]

This is a good summary.
Maybe you could publish a version of it somewhere at lenr-canr.org. It
surely will not hurt, and could help first comers with doubts about the
validity of the sources and the information presented.

I never doubted the document was legit. In the name of truth, what
happened was that I presented the information to a skeptical friend, and
he came up with those questionings. So I decided to post those
questionings (why is not on an official internet site, etc. etc.) on
vortex. Also because of what I read in the wikipedia comment pages,
which sparked my curiosity.

Thanks,
Mauro


Jed Rothwell wrote:
> People here raised this question in earnest, and I have been mulling
> it over. It is a legitimate concern after all.
>  
> >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
> <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
> <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
>
> Footnotes
>
> 1. 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" fusion
>  
> newenergytimes.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."