Steven V Johnson wrote:
I'm sure this was stated with tongue firmly implanted in cheek.;-)
Not really. I'd bet even money someone is diddling with the Google's
search engine. It would be pointless to speculate about who or why.
My apologies if the following speculation has already been discussed
at length, but isn't it conceivable that Google's search engines
focus on the data mining of actual text. Since the DIA report is in
an image/graphic format there is no actual text for which Google
can directly index.
Nope. I converted it to image-over-text Acrobat format. Google has
indexed other documents in this format. Plus there are claims on the
net that Google OCRs image-only Acrobat files automatically.
Also, it is not finding this text on the HTML main screen at
LENR-CANR.org. It found this very same text a few days ago, but now
it has stopped finding it. This is unprecedented as far as I know.
All HTML text at LENR-CANR has always be indexed and made available.
Therefore, Google is unintentionally blind to its existence.
Honestly, this does not look like a program error to me. I have
looking at program errors for nigh on 40 years, and this ain't one.
It reminds me a little of the fake MIT data with 7 or more extra data
points mysteriously crammed into the first 20 hours. Computers never
do that sort of thing. See p. 23 here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMisoperibol.pdf
If you set out to deceive people, you should not use inept,
transparent lies. They fooled the skeptics but they only insulted my
intelligence. It took me 2 seconds to see this was fake. I have never
had any doubt about it. It could not be inadvertent or unnoticed. I
do not know exactly who did it, or when they did it. (I think Gene
told me it was probably Stanley C. Luckhardt, a co-author to the
Albagli paper in which this figure appeared.) So I suppose my
observation would not constitute legal proof. But I think any sane,
unbiased programmer would agree that the data points have been
manually changed.
- Jed
