Are you sure Puthoff was so skeptical to start with? He spent more than a decade spending public money to research paranormal even before meeting Yuri Geller.
2011/12/11 Mary Yugo <[email protected]> > > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Are you saying Levi, Celani, Kullander, Essen,Bianchi, McKubre,Focardi, >> etc and Rossi are ALL fools, idiots, liars or incompetents? If you throw >> mud at Rossi you throw mud at them as well. >> > > No. You're putting up a straw man. The people you mention may have been > bamboozled by being gullible. That doesn't make them what you suggested. > Scientists are very poor at detecting scams because while they may expect > and look for errors they are often insensitive about deception which they > fail to anticipate. That's how Puthoff and Targ, who are very bright and > not fools, liars or incompetents, were totally flummoxed by a mediocre > magician, Uri Geller, in a complicated but classical scam. If you are > unaware of that story, I'll be happy to provide links including the > unfortunate and now withdrawn article they wrote in the journal "Nature". > > The other point you miss is that Kullander and Essen are clear that they > want better testing from Rossi. And I am not convinced McKubre believes > Rossi without reservation either. > > > >> I suspect you have never had any contact with Rossi? I can tell you he is >> VERY conservative in his claims. He has NEVER asked for money up front. >> Always no money until my plant passes your test, which also meets his >> published specifications. There is no fraud or scam here. > > > If there is a scam on Rossi's part, when it comes to collecting money, > you're not the mark. Investors are. You're a decoy. He doesn't need or > expect your money. > > Where there is fraud or scam here is in the actions of deniers, some who >> refuse to accept the data of fellow scientists and professors and some who >> have an agenda to destroy Rossi and the E-Cat by any method or statement >> they can dream up like the power meter was placed in HOLD mode and NO one >> noticed it. > > > The power meter on hold was just a thought someone had. There innumerable > *other* ways to cheat given Rossi's sloppy demonstrations. More to the > point, if Rossi had something real and demonstrated it properly using the > methods suggested here and elsewhere ad nauseam, nobody could possibly > impede, much less stop his development. There is no way to suppress a > robust, working and reproducible cold fusion power generator -- none at all > in this day and age of information technology and rapid communication. > > > | The testing methods at the 15 Jan test were fine as they were in the > Kullander and Essen test as they were in the 6 Oct test and in the 28 Oct > test. It works as claimed. Time to accept it and to move on to trying to > understand the physics that is occurring. > > No they were not. Enthalpy measurement by heat of evaporation of water is > highly error prone as Grabowski et al clearly illustrated with their > paper. If you need the link again, I can find it for you. > > >> I'm not a scientists but I am very good at connecting the dots, in >> seeing patterns and systemic relationships before others see them. That is >> one way I make money. > > > Humans probably evolved a sensitive and rapid pattern recognition to evade > predators. As such, it's highly error prone in that it overestimates the > positive matches. In that sense, I suppose, you seem to be highly evolved. > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected]
