With meteorite sightings you have many witnesses in many countries. The path of the meteorite can be traced sometime (if the witness knows a little about constellations and cardinal directions). Only collecting a lot of this information one can apply it for useful science.
I think in general the main problem with these LENR claims (not just the anecdotal ones describing the actions of people and organizations but also the more scientific, phenomenon oriented ones) is the lack of repeatability and the absence of large number of widespread, reliable witnesses. Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm of pseudoscience. Giovanni On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]> wrote: > > All the other statements you make are based on your witness's report to >> you. I want to give the benefit of doubt to that but I don't consider it >> factual evidence at this point. >> > > Why not? > > Do you think I am making it up? Do you think my informant is crazy? > > This resembles an observational science claim, such as birdwatcher > sighting, or meteorite. All such claims can be faked. They are always > dependent upon the credibility of the person making the report. It > resembles Mizuno's claim that his cell produced massive anomalous heat over > five days, evaporating 17.5 L of water. It was witnessed only by Mizuno and > Akimoto. you have to depend upon their honesty. > > I will grant this case is a unusual because my contact must remain > anonymous for a while. Anyone familiar with the politics of cold fusion > will know that people often keep a low profile for good reasons. That is > regrettable, but it is entirely the fault of the opposition. > > - Jed > >
