The way they are going about it, is obviously not to everyone's satisfaction, and outright irritates some. Nor does it satisfy any basic science requirements as proof, or provide any basis to be believed
Pretty much all I was saying here, but since I am branded an “anti-LENR guy”, everyone got their panties in a bunch. Pretty typical.
If you have not calibrated with a gamma source, then your experiment is also stupid and negligent.
I can also use a knife and fork. Gimme a break Jed. Americium, Thorium, Cesium, Radium. if you really want to know.
I can also use a knife and fork. Gimme a break Jed. Americium, Thorium, Cesium, Radium. if you really want to know.
Yes, I really do want to know. This information is essential to judging your claims. One should never assume that a research knows what he is doing. The burden of proof is with the researcher to demonstrate that.
In papers by people such as Bockris and Fleischmann, and in discussions with them, they would always state things like that. If I were to ask them, "what gamma sources did you use" they would reply promptly, and they would never say: "I can also use a knife and fork. Gimme a break Jed." That is rude, and unprofessional. That is exactly the kind of response that makes you look bad.
Furthermore, that is the kind of information you should put in one document, in one place, so that the next person who wonders about it will find it, rather than floundering around with this message system here.
Let me ask you this: Given the choice between them discontinuing all communications about Androcles, or continuing on as before, which would you prefer?
It is up to them. Whatever they chose to do, I recommend they should stop posting graphs without numbers and silly descriptions of dancing gamma rays. As a tech writer and editor, I think that is a bad strategy. Also, when someone asks you what gamma source you calibrated with, it is highly inappropriate to respond by saying "I can also use a knife and fork. Gimme a break Jed." I have worked with hundreds of scientists including FRS and Nobel laureates. Not one of them would respond so dismissively.
There is no 3rd option to fully disclose all they have in a scientifically correct manner, as that is simply not going to happen.
There is no need to disclose "all they have." However, the parts that they decide to disclose should be communicated in a professional, serious, organized and conventional way. Not as random, jumbled messages here that vanish into the cybernetic continuum.
I do not know whether full disclosure is an option or not, or what would prevent it. Russ George says that he has worked hard and he wants to keep it secret for that reason. That would make sense if this were a commercial venture. Perhaps it is commercial. I have no idea what it is, who is paying for it, or what the goal is. HOWEVER, if this is an academic research project then the opposite goal applies. You want to reveal everything as quickly as possible, to grab priority. Priority is the only thing that counts in academic science. You may be the first to discover an effect, but if you are second reporting it, you get no credit. For example, Mizuno probably observed excess heat from Pd-D before Fleischmann and Pons did, but he never reported it. So he gets no credit for it, as he himself readily admits. This is described in his book.
If this is a commercial venture and they hope to get patents, they should shut up and say nothing, according to people who know about patents.
Let me illustrate what I said above. Suppose that during ICCF21 I had asked Ed Beiting, "did you use a UPS on your computer, to avoid losing data during a power outage?" That's a mundane question. You might think "obviously they did; anyone would do that" but I might ask because I have done a lot of data collection, and it is the sort of thing people sometimes overlook. I know how Beiting would respond, because this is what he wrote in his report:
"Due to the long duration of a continuous data acquisition period, an important element in the experimental configuration was the uninterruptible power supplies (UPS). The battery in the laptop computer made the this controller immune to power interruptions but each of the Rigol instruments required an individual UPS to allow the experiment to operate through a loss of grid power of at least two hours. There were two power interruptions during the experimental runs. Any interruption would have compromised the results."
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BeitingEinvestigat.pdf
If I were to ask Smith or George that question, I think they might blow me off instead of answering. It would provoke something like "I can also use a knife and fork. Gimme a break Jed." As I said, no professional scientist or engineer should respond that way.
There is a lot of other boring minutia in the Beiting report. Which makes it a consummately professional presentation. It does not conceal any potential intellectual property (IP) as far as I can see, but even if it did, it should still have details about the uninterruptible power supplies. That is not IP. It tells you the researchers know what they are doing. Listing the types of gamma sources you used to calibrate, and publishing a graph of the calibration, also tells the reader you know what you are doing. It also would not reveal any IP.
Nor does it satisfy any basic science requirements as proof, or provide any basis to be believed
Then what is the point of it?? And why doesn't it provide a basis to be believed?
More to the point: Yes, you are right, it doesn't do this. Therefore, they have no right to complain that people don't believe them. Or that people don't understand what they are doing. Smith almost seems to expect us to read his mind, or to know what is happening by ESP. He thinks we should assume that he is a professional who does not make stupid mistakes, even though he has not posted any professional description (as far as I know). Why would I be certain he calibrated with gamma sources correctly? The cold fusion literature includes hundreds of papers describing idiotic mistakes, some of them much worse than not calibrating. See pages 10 and 11:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf
The literature in any branch of experimental science reveals many stupid mistakes.
Competence is not the default assumption in science or engineering. You are guilty until proven innocent. People assume you are wrong -- as they should. Otherwise, software would not work, and airplanes would routinely fall from the sky.
There is no need to disclose "all they have." However, the parts that they decide to disclose should be communicated in a professional, serious, organized and conventional way. Not as random, jumbled messages here that vanish into the cybernetic continuum.
I do not know whether full disclosure is an option or not, or what would prevent it. Russ George says that he has worked hard and he wants to keep it secret for that reason. That would make sense if this were a commercial venture. Perhaps it is commercial. I have no idea what it is, who is paying for it, or what the goal is. HOWEVER, if this is an academic research project then the opposite goal applies. You want to reveal everything as quickly as possible, to grab priority. Priority is the only thing that counts in academic science. You may be the first to discover an effect, but if you are second reporting it, you get no credit. For example, Mizuno probably observed excess heat from Pd-D before Fleischmann and Pons did, but he never reported it. So he gets no credit for it, as he himself readily admits. This is described in his book.
If this is a commercial venture and they hope to get patents, they should shut up and say nothing, according to people who know about patents.
Jed,
Russ has made it clear he has some commercial ideas in mind. In addition, he mentioned in his last column, of possibly making a lab kit for the universities. It is his prerogative alone, to decide what he releases, how much, and in whatever style he chooses. What difference does it make to you, or the people you mention who know about patents, whether he "shuts up", or not? If Russ loses some, or all of his IP as a result, well...that is something he will have to live with. Not anyone here.
They have not kept it secret BTW. Yes, from us they have, but I can tell you there are many well qualified visitors who have seen the data first hand, with many more to come. In fact, Wyttenbach is there right now. Late next month they will be visited by a team from an agency, that has access to the best of detection equipment, specialists in another field , and the resources needed to get to the bottom of this.
In all honesty, I am baffled why this pisses you, and some others off the way it has. Is this some kind of science purist thing?
“In all honesty, I am baffled why this pisses you, and some others off the way it has. Is this some kind of science purist thing?”
No, it’s a distinguishing between science and hype/salesmanship thing.
AS: Can you count to three (how many in the team), plus a fair gaggle of people who would sooner die than post in here who are pretty sure we have something significant . And you had your chance to see for yourself, but turned it down. So maybe I don't think much of your judgement either. But that isn't personal of course.
THH: Well that is encouraging, I agree, and you are entitled to whatever view you want of my judgement - just as I am of yours. It will be fascinating to see who is correct on this one. As you point out being a naysayer on LENR is normally a low-risk position. Perhaps you would consider my negative judgement in this case high risk? In which case if I end up being correct it is more to my credit, than if it were a normal low risk prediction?
AH: Far be it from me to encourage you to gamble on credit.
This combative and somewhat personal sequence has been parked here. I'm just hoping that the initial (combative and personal - in a sarcastic way) sentence from AS has also been deleted - because I don't see it here and it would give an erroneous view of things were it left unchallenged.
Nothing has been deleted.
The United States and Russians have certainly built all sorts of field effect craft that manipulate gravity, mass, and inertia since the mysterious vehicles fell out of the sky during the late forties. They would not have just held onto such technology without trying to de-engineer it. My guess is that many of the craft that are being filmed by fighter jets are really these advanced vehicles. According to Harold Puthoff and several others that contracted for AATIP, these craft are capable of accelerating instantly at rates of beyond 200G. They can also seamlessly transition between space, atmosphere, and water.
And then Russians spent good part of the GDP on conventional izar missiles as a cover up.
It is more probable that some kind of Russian Axil wrote an article in the newspaper which name suggests it is meant for lumpens.
The United States and Russians have certainly built all sorts of field effect craft that manipulate gravity, mass, and inertia since the mysterious vehicles fell out of the sky during the late forties.
Certainly? You are certain because mysterious things fell out of the sky? My office is here at the airport, and I often chat with pilots, plus I see them repairing airplanes in the hanger outside my window. Two observations:
I think you arrive at certainty far too easily. I think that if such technology existed it would be impossible to cover up. Every other aspect of aviation in the 1940s was known in detail by the early 1950s, even though the government made strenuous efforts to cover it up in some cases. For example, the cavity magnetron was one of the biggest secrets of 1945 but you can find examples everywhere today. (If you do not know where to look for one, you do not know much about 1940s military technology.)
Along similar lines, someone once told me that semiconductor technology is proof that aliens have visited Earth and taught the government secrets that people could not possibly uncover. How else could we have supercomputers the size of cell phones? I pointed out to this person that every discovery and every step along the way from ENIAC to the cell phone is well documented. The people who made the discoveries are well-known. I personally have met some of them. There are no mysteries and no unexplained leaps in computer technology. Or any other human technology in recorded history. Obviously the origins of prehistoric technology are not known.
yeah, something like the QX researchers looking for how a ufo works. no one on the planet has the credibility. We will be kept divided for some time yet but that's a good thing. checks and balances~
Speaking of UFO's this story has achieved traction with the Peruvian government who took over the research program last year - and gave a 5 hour TV press conference/presentation about it a couple of days ago multiple mummies of 'little grey aliens' who only share 15% of their DNA with humans.
https://www.the-alien-project.…s-analyzes-mummies-nazca/
Impossible of course, it will be Unicorns next
Certainly? You are certain because mysterious things fell out of the sky? My office is here at the airport, and I often chat with pilots, plus I see them repairing airplanes in the hanger outside my window. Two observations:
- Pilots say that things often fall off of airplanes. Such things are known as TFOA: https://www.airspacemag.com/da…lane-droppings-180956153/
- I have often seen piles of spare parts and engine components that look mysterious to me, and I have been looking at equipment all my life. If piece of the on-board toilet plumbing fell into your yard, unless you know a lot about airplanes you might not have a clue what it is.
I think you arrive at certainty far too easily. I think that if such technology existed it would be impossible to cover up. Every other aspect of aviation in the 1940s was known in detail by the early 1950s, even though the government made strenuous efforts to cover it up in some cases. For example, the cavity magnetron was one of the biggest secrets of 1945 but you can find examples everywhere today. (If you do not know where to look for one, you do not know much about 1940s military technology.)
Along similar lines, someone once told me that semiconductor technology is proof that aliens have visited Earth and taught the government secrets that people could not possibly uncover. How else could we have supercomputers the size of cell phones? I pointed out to this person that every discovery and every step along the way from ENIAC to the cell phone is well documented. The people who made the discoveries are well-known. I personally have met some of them. There are no mysteries and no unexplained leaps in computer technology. Or any other human technology in recorded history. Obviously the origins of prehistoric technology are not known.
Let me try to explain why I feel this way.
Mysterious craft with astounding performance characteristics have been flying in our skies for a very long time, but the activity really started increasing in the 1940's. Since then, there have been many sightings of these vehicles made by credible individuals - including pilots. However, around December of last year, the AATIP was revealed after the former director, Luis Elizondo, resigned. From the information he has shared (read about the Nimitz incident and listen to the testimony of the pilots involved, radar operators, etc), we know that these vehicles are using technology that is beyond our currently accepted understanding of physics. No Newtonian based propulsion systems can be utilized to achieve the performance documented by our most sophisticated cameras, radar systems, and experienced pilots. The Nimitz Incident was only one out of at least dozens of such encounters that have occurred across the United States. In short, the reality of these craft is now irrefutable and unable to be disputed.
So we have these objects flying in our skies. Let's assume for the sake of argument they were made by humans. How would they have developed the technology? If the technology had "organically" evolved step by step like ordinary advancements, it would seem "on the surface" that these craft are something from the future. Otherwise, the civilian world would be fully aware of the technology, the traditional military would be using the technology, and the official space program would be using the technology.
Instead, we are still building rockets that use chemical fuel for space travel.
The only hope for an answer is to look backwards to when the sightings of these vehicles started to increase. This was about the same time as the first atomic bomb tests. I don't want to turn this into a long winded report, but during that time period there were also many alleged crashes of non-terrestrial vehicles. Roswell was only one of many such incidents, although it is the most well known and most documented. If you listen to the witness interviews of the people that were there at Roswell (including their families) it's clear that something happened that wasn't a weather balloon. Then, if you do even more research, you'll find interviews with highly credible sources (generals in the military, highly qualified scientists, university presidents) that learned about the various crashes that took place, the bodies recovered, and the research and studies that were performed. In a nutshell, they reveal that many of these vehicles were transferred to Wright Patterson Air Force Base (along with other locations like Los Alamos) where they were experimented on and put into storage. Both damaged but mostly intact vehicles AND smaller samples of debris were sent to these locations.
All indications are that a very secretive group was formed to manage and control the whole UFO issue. They worked on actual hardware and corpses while also controlling Project Grudge, Project Sign, and Project Bluebook. These projects served a couple purposes. First, to pacify the public by making them believe the subject was being properly investigated. Secondly, to collect and gather additional information on the phenomenon. These projects were immensely successful in that even after they were ended they were used to dismiss the entire phenomena.
The technology obtained from studying these vehicles was the equivalent to giving cavemen a hot rod sports car. The implications were so enormous that the group in control (some call the group Majestic 12 although it may have had another name) made sure to keep the technology almost completely sequestered in Special Access Projects. A division was maintained that prohibited most of the acquired technology from leaking through to the conventional military and civilian world. Considering their point of view, there could be no alternative: they didn't want every nation on the planet having technology that rivals science fiction. However, in secret, they continued their work and research. One result was the Fluxliner ARV that has been described in documentaries on YouTube.
Interestingly, Tom Delonge, who founded the To The Stars Academy of Arts and Science, was helped along by none other than the current commander of Wright Patterson Air Force Base, General William McCasland. He was the military official that guided him to other officials and parties that could help his project. In fact, in an email sent to John Podesta, copied to General McCasland, Tom Delonge made it clear that the general knows all about Roswell because the vehicle and wreckage was taken to his base so long ago. Apparently, as far as we know, the General didn't send an email to object to the characterization.
Virtually everyone who was working for TTSA has also confirmed that Roswell and other incidents occurred. This includes Hal Puthoff, Eric Davis, Tom Delonge, and others. In fact, Eric Davis, a contractor for AATIP through Harold Puthoff (his boss at Earthtech) stated that AATIP was denied access to the evidence collected by a UFO crash retrieval program ran by another agency that ended in 1989 because THAT agency couldn't make sense of the technology that was acquired. Basically, the general theme that is repeated again and again is that the military industrial complex is full of "stove pipes" when it comes to the UFO issue. This means that the issue is so enigmatic, confusing, taboo, and classified that projects in different agencies and even in the same agency don't communicate!
For goodness sake, a major reason why Luis Elizondo resigned was because he was being told not to reveal his findings to his superiors in the Pentagon!
I personally think many of these advanced vehicles are manmade and one reason why they didn't want him to speak about them with his superiors (who would have a right to know if they were in our airspace) was that they belonged to us!
And if they belonged to us, or some black budget semi-corporate entity with minimal accountability, then I think we had some sort of help in building them.
There are many ways to interpret the reality of these advanced craft -- exactly like how there are many ways to interpret the reality of LENR or cold fusion. But denying their existence (WHICH IS INDISPUTABLE FACT) is just as bad as the Mary Yugo's of the world dismissing LENR.
You may be jumping to many steps ahead , even I'm not willing to let go of my doubt, no matter what I'm told. I hang on to it for all its worth, Safe zone, I believe a lot but I'm only willing to share if its in step as an optional thought.
Speaking of UFO's this story has achieved traction with the Peruvian government who took over the research program last year - and gave a 5 hour TV press conference/presentation about it a couple of days ago multiple mummies of 'little grey aliens' who only share 15% of their DNA with humans.
https://www.the-alien-project.…s-analyzes-mummies-nazca/
Impossible of course, it will be Unicorns next
Hello Alan.
I have searched that site and I can't find any reference to the 5 hour press conference a couple days ago. Do you have a link to a site that mentions the press conference?
