We most be open that there are mistakes in pro cold fusion results, but also make sure that they are put into contexts, are the mistakes of a few outliers, or are they the main part. That is the question we need to answer. Typically to validate or disprove cold fusion you make sure to draw a representative sample of the old results and do a serious examination to evaluate the evidences you just don't search for the weakest papers and then argue that they are the norm. Of cause one need to know what a fair representative sample is, proper statistical scientific methods are sorely missing in this field, as well as many other technical fields. Here we have a phenomena that shows up seamingly random. Why don't they consult experts in that field and improve the, which I find disturbing, poor presentation, discussion and methods regarding statistics.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: > removing evidence of artifact is fraud. > don't feign to be kind. > > nobody with a brain ignore that rejection of cold fusion is based on a > conspiracy theory involving thousands of actors, mostly frauding, some just > incompetent. this is the 10 ton gorilla in LENR critics. > > people observing the usual mainstream position have to be informed they > observe a conspiracy theory group. > > now there can be errors, but nobody with a brain can ignore that it is > impossible to explain the mass of result without a conspiracy theory or > accepting LENr reality. > > now, grouthink have the ability to make the brain work in negative IQ, > this mean that the most intelligent and educated can flee from reality more > deeply than simple minds. > > Nothing personal, I am tired of this kind of hypocritical understatement... > "I am only criticizing that result" > > it is a tactic and each result individually is attacked with unproven > conspiracy theory, carefully not critical on itself. Divide the claims, > attack individual facts, and conquer the minds. very professional. > > If you say that you believe cold fusion phenomenon is real, or probably > real until disproven, I can interpret your critics as critics. > > I will accept it when you will apply some critical judgement on your > replication, like considering the artifact possible in YOUR setup, the > difference in various setup. > > but I doubt you will admit that reality as do most of deniers. this mean > that only serious people, who can be very critical I observe it, can > propose critics. > > this is a great problem of todays conspiracy theories supported by > mainstream, that make real critics hard to separate from pure denial. > Edmund storms in his book was clear that deniers are toxic to the > discovery of reality as they prevent sane analysis and push "circle the > wagon" or "I am tired". > this is the symptom of the "dead clock right twice a day", which give no > information. > > nothing personal (I always kind when I am personal), this is what I could > say to any denier like Lewis or Hansen (take it for them), or our beloved > mindguards,... > > all that is in fact coldly, rationally, a very common situation. > Conspiracy theories grow in our societies, and there is nothing exceptional > in cold fusion story. > There is also conspiracy theories in LENR constellation, that make me > laugh, and I would understand than the accused lose some of their flegme. > > I blame incompetence with high ego, as the main source of that tragedy. > People like Lewis, quite competent, but much more vexed and egotic than > their great competence, pretended to be sure on what they should not. and > less competent people with even more ego and influence amplified that > error, until nothing could be step back. > and it is tragic that less and more important people became mindguard for > that individual failure, transforming the tragedy of 5-10 egotic people > into a western academic tragedy. > > maybe Mizuno made an error, but your demo, the conspiracy theory behind, > is even worse than Rossi's demo, and charge of evidence is on your side > given the mass of other evidence. > > sorry to compare Rossi with you. > (Rossi will survive that comparison.) > > 2015-01-10 12:26 GMT+01:00 Gigi DiMarco <[email protected]>: > >> Alain, >> >> I'm not accusing anyone of having hidden an excel file; I'm just saying >> that Jed removed that file from his archives where I found it several weeks >> ago. I don't know why he removed it, maybe he could explain... >> >> Jed says it is of no importance to the present discussion; I find it of >> paramount importance. I call this, scientific democracy. >> >> There is no cospiracy around, but only measurement data: Mizuno's data >> and ours. Full stop. If you are not able to follow a scientific discussion >> please feel free to be silent. When we proved that Celani was right with >> his electrochemical compression at 80 bars, I do not remember you speaking >> of conspiracy against skeptics... >> >> 2015-01-10 10:45 GMT+01:00 Alain Sepeda <[email protected]>: >> >>> it move to an accusation of having hidden an excel file... >>> conspiracy... >>> >>> now my tactic is to force the people denying LENR to be clear out the >>> conspiracy theory they support so witness see it is huge and impossible. >>> >>> conspiracy is the easy answer to things one cannot accept... >>> not only in science 8( >>> >>> >>> >>> 2015-01-09 21:48 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I see that we are not communicating accurately. To quote you in >>>>> response to Alain message regarding this subject several days ago, "I >>>>> will >>>>> not bother" with further communications. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I meant I would not discuss the matter over at the Italian web site. >>>> >>>> - Jed >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
