Why Cherokee changed its tune?

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Axil, you are derailing the discussion here with ad homs and insults.

Anyway the "new developments" on the LENR scene are what Josh and I were predicting (Rossi technology does not work) so really only new for you.

Unlike your posts, Mr. Cude's posts are repetitive and unoriginal. I am not criticising Cude, just his posts. Without criticism, how are we on this site to improve. You have characterized my posts as pink unicorns. Have I ever complained? I am only suggesting that Cude put more energy and originality into his posts and to come up with new objections to this revolutionary subject matter. Cude's usual fair is tiring. Conversely, you provide an ideal genotype that most sceptopaths should strive for.

Shane wrote:

Quote

Darden is a lawyer. As we found out with the word *is* 18 years ago, lawyers intone more meaning in to words, than the dictionary defines. *Substantiate* is a much longer word than "is".

This is what I believe Darden mean't to convey by using the 12 letter word "substantiate" in his statement: "Rossi, you little bastard, turn over all the damn secrets, or you aren't going to get your $89 million!". Exclamation point is my artistic addition.

And like I said, you're grasping at straws if you believe that. There is no need for the secret to substantiate the claims. By the well-understood meaning of "substantiate", he is stating that he does not believe the ecat works.

That is also the only plausible explanation for all of this. If he believed it worked, there is no way he would get himself into a battle like this, risking being shut out of a trillion dollar enterprise.

Shane wrote:

Quote

Darden is rich enough already.

No one is so rich as to squander the possibility of that kind of potential wealth.

Quote

He is altruistic at this point in his life. Wants to help the world, and have a place in history. Establish his legacy.

Nothing like wealth to purchase such things. Anyway, wealth aside, if he thinks the ecat works, his best chance of fame and legacy is with Rossi, not against him.

But he doesn't think it works. It's what the words mean.

Shane wrote:

Quote

Seems you are hung up on wealth. I am not. That skews your thinking and unfetters mine.

It's not about either of our interest in wealth. It's about Darden's, and he's an investor. His entire life is defined by investments, and that's about making money.

Anyway, I also said, apart from the wealth, his best chance at a favorable legacy if the ecat were real would be by supporting Rossi, not by fighting legal battles with him. Legal battles take time.

Quote

And if he thinks Rossi is being recalcitrant, and not willing to release his secrets to them (IH), therefore the world as they intend to do, then Darden's mission to help the world is a failure.

That is why he is against Rossi, twisting his arm so to speak, at this point. Not to make more money.

I don't buy it. Whether Rossi or Darden are motivated by money or benevolence, if the ecat were real, both would be most effectively facilitated by getting the ecat on the market, where it actual does some good. Their interests would therefore be aligned to this extent.

If Rossi claims he is delaying the disclosure of the secrets because he doesn't have a patent, and he fears competition, then that would mean he's holding out for hundreds of billions instead of billions, and $100M is not gonna change his mind. If one believes Rossi in this scenario, then the quickest way to get him disclose the secrets, were they real, would be to help him prove the ecat is real (by funding him), so he could get the patent. But Darden surely figured it out by now that Rossi could prove it's real without $90M -- indeed, without the $10M -- and get his patent, which means the lack of a patent is just an excuse for pretending there's a secret, and conning more money out of him.

Furthermore, if Darden were so eager to get the secret, he could have made the $90M contingent on the disclosure, and if he did, then why would he say what you say he's saying in such an opaque way?

I still say believers are grasping at straws in trying to make a perfectly plain statement sound equivocal.

Thomas Clarke

Hi Thomas: You said, “Darden/Vaughn were like the Swedish scientists extremely foolish….difficult not to be foolish when offered a miracle” Here is a list of distinguished “fools” who believes in LENR:

Pons, S. and M. Fleischmann , Duncan, R., McKubre, M.C.H, Storms, E, Hagelstein, P.L, Miles, M, Swartz, M.R, Celani, Mizuno, T, Mallove, E Olafsson, S. and L. Holmlid, Zhang, H, Cook, N, Violante, V, Dominguez, D.D., P.L. Hagans, and M.A. Imam, , Mosier-Boss, P.A, Asami, T, Wayte, R, Chubb, S.R. and T.A. Chubb, Bockris, J, Buehler, D.B, Claytor, T.N., D.G. Tuggle, and S.F. Taylor, De Ninno, A., Gozzi, D, Iida, T, Ikegami, H, Kaliev, K, Kasagi, J, Nakada, M., T. Kusunoki, and M. Okamoto, Ota, K., Smedley, S.I, Srinivasan, M, Wan, C.M, Yamaguchi, E. and T. Nishioka, DeChiaro, L., L. Forsley, Tsyganov, E.N, Grimshaw, T, Grimshaw, T, Meulenberg, A., Takahashi, A., Jiang, S, Li, X.Z., Z.M. Dong, and C.L. Liang, Iwamura, Y, (a partial list)

Thomas Clarke

Quote

Hi Thomas:
You said, “Darden/Vaughn were like the Swedish scientists extremely foolish….difficult not to be foolish when offered a miracle”

Here is a list of distinguished “fools” who believes in LENR:
Pons, S. and M. Fleischmann , Duncan, R., McKubre, M.C.H, Storms, E, Hagelstein, P.L, Miles, M, Swartz, M.R, Celani, Mizuno, T, Mallove, E Olafsson, S. and L. Holmlid, Zhang, H, Cook, N, Violante, V, Dominguez, D.D., P.L. Hagans, and M.A. Imam, , Mosier-Boss, P.A, Asami, T, Wayte, R, Chubb, S.R. and T.A. Chubb, Bockris, J, Buehler, D.B, Claytor, T.N., D.G. Tuggle, and S.F. Taylor, De Ninno, A., Gozzi, D, Iida, T, Ikegami, H, Kaliev, K, Kasagi, J, Nakada, M., T. Kusunoki, and M. Okamoto, Ota, K., Smedley, S.I, Srinivasan, M, Wan, C.M, Yamaguchi, E. and T. Nishioka, DeChiaro, L., L. Forsley, Tsyganov, E.N, Grimshaw, T, Grimshaw, T, Meulenberg, A., Takahashi, A., Jiang, S, Li, X.Z., Z.M. Dong, and C.L. Liang, Iwamura, Y, (a partial list)

Yes, it is difficult, is it not? Glad you agree with me. Nevertheless Josh will tell you that, to their credit, the vast majority of scientists (and of distinguished scientists) manage to face miracles without this foolishness.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Yes, it is difficult, is it not? Glad you agree with me. Nevertheless Josh will tell you that, to their credit, the vast majority of scientists (and of distinguished scientists) manage to face miracles without this foolishness.

The vast majority of scientists have never faced a miracle/miracles.

Quote from Piet

Quote from Thomas Clarke: “Yes, it is difficult, is it not? Glad you agree with me. Nevertheless Josh will tell you that, to their credit, the vast majority of scientists (and of distinguished scientists) manage to face miracles without this…

Just to clarify my comment above, I would call it "facing a miracle" when you witness directly in front you, or in your own experiment, a phenomenon which, after careful examination, seems to be beyond the current knowledge of science. And that's different from facing other people's reports of these kinds of "miracles". Perhaps there's a way to manage both situations without foolishness?

Quote

Note that talking to various scientists in the LENR domain, all agree that LENR is real

Alain, this is a tautology. Any scientists that do not think LENR is real will not be in the LENR domain.

Quote from Piet

The vast majority of scientists have never faced a miracle/miracles.

True, but many have faced anomalous results that could be explained by an apparent miracle. They generally resist the temptation to proclaim a miracle and dig down into the specific anomalous experiment, adding instrumentation, until either new science is discovered, or the anomaly is explained in some mundane way. That is how science works, as I understand it. The new science could sort of be called a real miracle, but it is very rare. High temperature superconductivity perhaps. Most science is dealing with things sufficiently complex that there are no anomalies because no clear expectations to be broken.

it is confusing because anomaly can mean:
Something that absolutely appears to break physics as we know it (LENR)
Something that has no clear explanation, but does not obviously break physics (ball lightning)

In the case of Rossi's tests, very few scientists have supported Rossi. You'd expect them to be interested, even if they thought there was a half chance. If his effect is real then there is a Nobel prize waiting for the first scientist that can demonstrate it clearly, and another one for a decent mechanism.

Quote

I do declare, I think we are dealing with ai bots on this message board.

Not sure who is in charge of this message board, but do you see what is happening here?

LOL. Deacon - are you claiming to be an AI bot? you are making the sort of generic non-specific comments that could maybe be programmed?

But I agree the thread has gone off-topic. Shall we all agree to stop the diversion - entertaining though it is?