sifferkoll wrote:
Jed, If the data you have been fed is real at all, it is a by IH very well sampled part of it showing what they want you to see
No, it is direct from Rossi. He showed it other people, and other people of I.H. saw the lab notebooks and instruments.
Trolls will suck you into errors, it's part of how they work. Sifferkoll here claims as fact what is his own paranoid speculation, basically that IH is running a campaign to discredit Rossi, including generating fake or misleading data.
If I have read you correctly, Jed, one thing seems clear. The data did not come to you "direct from Rossi." It may have come to someone else who then shared it with you, and it is even possible that you saw the email headers from Rossi. But you are trusting someone else. I would imply that the "someone else" is not affiliated with IH, though you haven't stated that. Bottom line, you personally trust that the data came from Rossi, perhaps because you trust your source. And you can tell us that, if you choose, as you have chosen. As to what "other people at IH" saw, again, how do you know that? In this case, the information would have to come from IH or "IH people."
It is very obvious that there are leaks. People are showing what they have, ostensibly in confidence, to others. However, speaking for the LENR community, we cannot rely on leaks and rumors, the most they can do is to cause us to look carefully at what we have.
When Dewey Weaver reports personal experience, I listen. Testimony is presumed true unless controverted, and that is testimony, not merely interpretation. Interpretation is limited, in a court, to expert witnesses, and is always subject to close scrutiny, because experts can err.
When it is sufficiently careful, and interactive (as in a court with cross-examination of witnesses), personal testimony is of high value, because most people will not, faced with that context, perjure themselves. They may interpret what they have witnessed all over the map, but if the witness says "I saw John shoot Jack," the cross-examining attorney will not say, "Liar!" unless prepared to prove it or to raise, with evidence, substantial doubt. Rather, the attorney will ask "How did you know it was John?" What exactly did you see?"
In fact, evidence in a court must always be accompanied by personal testimony to its authenticity, unless the parties stipulate it as agreed. "Yes, this is a true copy of page xxx of the 2015 Miami telephone directory." We are not accustomed to this level of evidence in this field. Instead we argue endlessly over what is unclear and not solidly established.
