Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > Interesting. > > Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: >> At 03:35 PM 9/30/2009, Rothwell wrote: >>> Steven V Johnson have expressed confusion, such as: >>> >>>> I'm left with two conflicting perspectives. I don't understand why >>>> Mr. Rothwell wasn't able to "read/scan" what I presume were hardcopy >>>> documents allegedly given to him by Dr. Swartz at a prior encounter. >>>> Presumably such "hardcopy" could have been scanned. . . . >>> Rothwell: "Actually, he sent a CD-ROM which I could not read. Later I >>> got electronic copies of all ICCF-10 papers from Peter Hagelstein. I >>> have printed copies of Swartz's papers in books, and I could always >>> scan them." >> >> Well at last, Rothwell finally admits he did receive those copies >> from me. > > No, that's not what Jed's words said. In case anyone isn't paying > attention, I think it's worth pointing out that Dr. Swartz is drawing an > incorrect inference. > > Jed said, as he has repeatedly said, that he received a CD from Swartz > which he could not read. Nothing new there. > > In this case he also says he received electronic copies from Peter > Hagelstein, *not* from Mitch Swartz. There is no "admission" of > receiving anything from Dr. Swartz here. Dr. Swartz's statement that > Jed "admits" he did receive copies "from ME [Dr. Swartz]" is not correct. > > >> Seems his previous story, based on falsehoods, is eroding >> little by little. > > No, this statement from Dr. Swartz is wrong. The statement from Jed is > entirely consistent with what he's said all along, and there is no > "erosion" in evidence. > > It's not consistent with what Mitch Swartz has said all along, of > course, but that's a different issue. > > > [ ... ] > >> ============================================= >> >>> Rothwell: "You have to understand that Swartz uses this and other >>> forums to ran an extortion and intimidation racket. He has been doing >>> this for years. He tried to nail me twice, and he nailed some other >>> people who contacted me. I don't know if this is a hobby or a >>> business. You can see half of his scheme in the messages he posted >>> here. It works like this: >> I never did this. >> >> Rothwell is frothing at the mouth again. I have contributed to cold fusion >> education through the COLD FUSION TIMES and have >> lost money doing it for two decades. We even hosted >> a free seminar, the LANR Colloquium at MIT this year. >> >> Where was the extortion? What the hell is Rothwell >> talking about? >> >> Rothwell is challenged to prove it, or admit he is a screwball, >> afflicted with paranoia. >> >> ============================================= >> >>> Rothwell: "1. He goads the mark, as he has done here with me. Or he >>> makes nice." >> When I gave Rothwell a ride from Gene Mallove's funeral in NH to Boston >> Newbury Street (and handed him a CD which he never admitted >> until the above) > > He never admitted to receiving the CD until just now? That's bullshit. > > On 5 December 2004 (almost five years ago) Jed said in a post to Vortex > that he had received the CD-ROM from Swartz and could not read it. His > "story" on the CD has not changed a whit in the last five years and > there is no reason to doubt it. (At least a third of the home-burned CDs > I receive are unreadable on my equipment, and there's no reason to > believe Jed has much better luck than that). > > Furthermore on 5 December 2004 Jed said, in his post to Vortex, > > "I could not read the CDROM. Swartz never gave me a URL for the web. If > he has one, he should repeat it HERE AND NOW, and I will transfer the > paper to LENR-CANR in a day or two. If he will not post the URL here, > all of the readers here will see that he is bullshitting us." > > That was nearly five years ago. Jed's recent statements regarding > Swartz's papers could almost have been cut and pasted from that message; > he has not changed his "story" at all since then, as far as I can see. > > Please note that Dr. Swartz has not as yet posted the URLs of the papers > to Vortex.
Update: Dr. Swartz has posted the URL of one of his papers on Vortex, as of about an hour ago. I don't know if it's one of the papers Jed was considering uploading or not. The point of the posted paper seems to be that flow calorimeters must be calibrated and must be operated at a significantly nonzero flow rate, which seem like reasonable conclusions.
