On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Chris Zell <[email protected]> wrote:
> ** > > ** > I believe that this lack of civility and fair play makes the > 'extraordinary evidence' concept into nonsense. > Civility has nothing to do with it. When evidence competes, the strongest evidence is taken more seriously. > Keep in mind that the above *doesn't even begin to account for the > distortion caused by entrenched moneyed interests. *Dr. Greer (of recent > UFO exposure notoriety) referred to them as "Petro-Fascists" - which nicely > sums them up. Anyone care to explain how an entire war costing hundreds of > billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives took place when it > was entirely triggered by fraud? And hardly anyone seems to care? > Not sure of your point. Academic scientists wouldn't give a hoot about Petro-fascists if an opportunity to win glory, honor and funding presented itself, as we saw in 1989. And the US government stands to benefit strategically against the petro-enemies if cold fusion were real. Fission and hot fusion were originally thought to be the final answer to our energy woes in the 50s and later, and the US pumped billions into both. Although it didn't work out the way everyone hoped, the incident shows that energy revolutions are not suppressed for petro interests or anyone else's. > > Any exception to "generalizations" - might always be inferior as to > "weight"or "strange", given lack of funding, > Nonsense. High Tc superconductivity was instantly accepted. Quasi-crystals were ridiculed for a while but in a few years, they were embraced. Scientific inertia is no match for good evidence. If cold fusion were real, $500 M would be enough to produce similarly unequivocal evidence. A completely isolated device that can do some real work, or heat a large container of water, to prove its energy density is 10 or 100 times its weight in gasoline, would have the world beating a path to cold fusion's door …. again. > attention or the outright prejudice that many encounter - in this > circumstance of bias. > The reality of cold fusion is in the interest of all but a very few researchers, so any bias in this area is more plausibly in its favor, as is obvious from 1989. > The extraordinary goalposts might always be a distant illusion, especially > if the desired effect is subtle or difficult to enlarge. > > This is true. If the evidence does not improve, it will come no closer to convincing the skeptics. Whatever his flaws ( and they are many) Rossi displays wisdom by attempting > an end run around the biased. Godspeed to him in that. > > > I don't know if Rossi will be able to maintain what is almost certainly a charade as long as Mills has (20 years) or if he will collapse as Steorn essentially has, but if it's the latter, he will have exposed many cold fusion believers like Storms, McKubre, and of course Rothwell, (but not all) as gullible fools. That will not help their cause.
