On 11-12-21 03:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]
<mailto:[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?
Why do you ask that? We've been over this, and it's completely
reasonable for Giovanni to dismiss your report. From where everybody on
this list except you is sitting, it's a FOAF story. (As I've already
pointed out.)
Its accuracy cannot be assessed by any of us, and consequently it
doesn't count for diddly.
What's worse, the statements you've actually relayed are so vague and
open to interpretation that even if they're all true it's inconclusive.
This resembles an observational science claim, such as birdwatcher
sighting, or meteorite.
No it doesn't. Such a claim generally has a person's name attached
(this doesn't), a precise date (this doesn't), a precise location (this
doesn't), and a precise description (this doesn't).
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.
No, it doesn't, for the reasons I just gave.
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.
Yes, of course, the snakes and the clowns. It's all their fault that
everything surrounding Rossi is so vague, for sure.
