On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Jouni Valkonen <[email protected]>wrote:
On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:31 PM, "a.ashfield" <[email protected]> wrote: > > In fact an independent test has been carried out. > > This is not true. The test was arranged in Rossi's facilities and by > Giuseppe Levi. And problem is that we do not know what is financial > relationship between Rossi and Levi, so Levi, who has been chief scientist > in all ecat tests, cannot be considered as independent entity. > > Therefore it is factually correct to state that there has not been > arranged independent test. > On one level, I disagree with this statement. I do not think we have enough information to conclude for sure whether it was a fully independent test; I'm inclined to think it sufficiently independent to not have to worry about the measurements that were made. On another level, I agree with you. Wikipedia is not a suitable place to air parisan views as fact. Ideally, it would either not contain controversial statements, or it would uncontroversially summarize different sides to a controversy. Since the latter is probably not possible right now in a highly charged Wiki article such as that for LENR, in think the former is a reasonable course. The implication is that the Wiki article should not refer to the Levi et al. report as "independent," even if many of us here think it was sufficiently so to be useful. > My personal opinion is that that Levi must be also key player in ecat scam. It occurred to me recently that we put Bill Beatty and Eskimo.com at risk by pursing the fraud angle without clear evidence to back such allegations up. In my opinion, people should not bring up fraud unless they have specific and compelling evidence. I do not know what the law (e.g., US law) says about the permissible boundaries for discussing possible fraud in a public forum, but we should not recklessly put this one at risk. Eric
