FUD on E-catworld

Quote from JedRothwell

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

I meant that steam quality was not directly measured, using instruments and techniques intended for that purpose. Plus you have to actually see the steam, by venting some of it with a valve. I do not think this was done.

Yes. I know what you meant. But your expression went beyond that. As you know, I point things like this out, because it creates unnecessary disputes. Something was don, but it was primitive and vulnerable to problems.

We will often see claims in debates like "There is no evidence that ..." when, in fact, there is evidence. It might be weak, it might be misleading, but it's evidence. Perhaps they mean "proof." However, we often do not have "proof," but only a preponderance of the evidence. If we are lucky!

Quote

(If it had actually been 1 MW, you would not want to fully open the pipe and vent all of the steam. Even 100 kW produces a huge plume, dangerous enough to kill someone.

Yes. In fact, working with a megawatt is so dangerous that the idea of a 1-year test of a megawatt plant was way crazy, and not only not necessary, but less informative than a more extensive series of tests with a far smaller set of less "powerful" units.

Quote

But you can open a valve and vent a sample. I have seen this done in factories.)

Yes. Very carefully. Oops! Slipped!

This would not be definitive. There are better ways. The big issue, as I've mentioned, is not "steam quality," generally, but overflow water, which could create a far larger error than a little fog in the steam. It occurs to me that wet steam will be isothermic. I.e., if you add heat to it, the temperature will not increase. How much heat is necessary to lead to a temperature increase would give a measure of steam quality. A steam quality meter could be made on this basis. As it is, there are devices and procedures for measuring steam quality.

http://www.biotech.com/metrolo…s-steam-quality-test-kit/ ... one month rental, $2300.
http://www.carltex.com/steam-q…-healthcare-sq-test-kits/

Then the steam line would need to have a trap that will detect and measure liquid water. I don't this would be difficult.

Here, as well: an article on steam dryness and removing entrained water: http://www.tlv.com/global/US/s…/wet-steam-dry-steam.html

http://www.tlv.com/global/US/s…lines-best-practices.html covers condensate removal using "steam traps," which actually are liquid water traps. In a proper design, there would be one of these on the steam outlet from the Plant, to immediately remove any condensate at that point. Or it could be just before the steam enters the "customer area," because condensate in that pipe length represents power that is not actually delivered to the customer. Regardless, the amount of water collected there would be metered, I'd assume, with a meter of appropriate sensitivity, and that water would be returned by a separate line to the reservoir. A meter in the return line from the condenser, also properly installed with a loop so that it must be submerged, and of the appropriate capacity, would then show only evaporated water.

Quote

Measuring temperature and pressure are indirect ways to estimate steam quality. As you note, they can be wrong for various reasons. In this case, the temperature was right at the margin, where a slight error would cancel the result. The pressure was clearly wrong, and impossible.

Yes. There is a possibility, though, that a gauge meter was used, instead of the absolute specified. Do remember that the document just revealed was not a description of the Plant, but a plan. Even so, 0.0 is probably impossible, as Murray noted. The pressure at the Plant outlet with a megawatt of steam being generated would definitely be higher, because of flow resistance in the pipes, the customer application, and the condenser.

The Penon plan was clearly not designed to be a solid test, considering possible error sources. It really was the same-old same-old naive Rossi evap calorimetry, as was already widely criticized, and that Penon was not aware of the criticism -- if he was not aware of it -- would show incompetence in itself.

Rossi is quite a puzzle. It's easy to just think of him as a fraud. However, if he was a fraud, two things stand out: the fraud was singularly stupid. Rossi was able to pull the wool over the eyes of fervent supporters and wishful thinkers, but did he think this would stand up in court? Did he think he could get away with a fake customer, once IH was alerted and needing to defend itself from his lawsuit?

Further back, when he was planning his "masterpiece," how in the world did he imagine that this would work?

And then I look at Mats Lewan. Mats has seen enough to know far more what is going on than his recent behavior seems to show. He knows that Rossi is erratic and wants to be seen as a fraud. He actually attempted to confront Rossi on the input power measurements at the Hydro Fusion test in 2012. Reading through An Impossible Invention, again, Mats has seen and knows quite enough to have a model for Rossi behavior, but seems very reluctant to believe what he must see, from his more recent comments.

Sometimes what seems impossible is not. In this case, one can see so many signs that Rossi's claims were fraud or insanity, but it seems impossible! He works so hard! Again and again, Mats considers the idea that the power was fake, and then concludes it couldn't be, more or less because he thinks it would be insane. So he excuses fiasco after fiasco as just bad luck and then several times speculates on Rossi wanting to fail or create confusion and doubt.

And now we have, as IH Exhibit 12, Rossi's explanation of the Hydro Fusion fiasco, that it was deliberate, to get out of his contract with them.

So ... Rossi either lied to Industrial Heat (my guess is that this is the case) or he lied to Mats Lewan, who covers that test in detail (An Impossible Invention, pp 242-249.)

I look at the photo of Rossi on October 6. 2011 (p. 180). I see pain in the vertical lines in his forehead, and I see fear in his eyes. Maybe I'm projecting. Behind him is a similar reactor to the one that showed overflow, in the Mats Lewan video of September 7, 2011. Lewan describes that test on pp. 160-161, but does not mention what he saw, overflow water. Just to make sure, I watched the video again. Yeah. the more I see the less I am impressed. Lewan talks about "steam temperature" at at one point it is 133 C or so. The thermocouple is not in a steam chimney, but inserted, apparently, into the body of the reactor. There is no telling what that is the temperature of. When the valve is opened, water and steam pour out under pressure. The interior has high steam pressure, apparently, and it would store a fair amount of energy. The behavior of such a system could be difficult to predict, but such a thing could definitely be set up in such a way as to be deceptive. Lewan says that the overflow water he found would not be considered in the power estimation, but there is no power estimation, not in the video nor in his ANI report.

The presence of major overflow water did demonstrate that the concerns about overflow were valid. Meanwhile, was the temperature reading used to declare dry steam? One of the classic objections was a "steam thermocouple" that was too close to a hotter reactor body or heater and wasn't actually measuring steam temperature.

So Lewan was there to address concerns, and by that time, the overflow concern had been voiced. So he looked. And what did he do with what he saw?

Quote

Liberty Newspost Liberty Newspost • 2 days ago
[about Steve Krivit]
P.S. I often wonder if he is on someone's payroll to run interference on LENR technolgy.

roseland67 Liberty Newspost • 2 days ago
Liberty,

Please stop The conspiracy theory, the overwhelming majority of people in the planet have never heard of LENR, Krivit, Rossi, Ponds:Fleishman etc.

Krivit is just another person with an opinion, like Mary Yugo, but not anonymous.
Very few people care about what he says or writes and certainly no one is crazy enough to PAY him to be their shill.

Liberty Newspost roseland67 • a day ago
I just wonder what motivates him if he is not being paid to be so persistent? Some sense of justice? If Rossi is a fraud it would have borne out by now. Most folks here that follow the E-cat and other developments understand that this type of development is precarious at best as there are many roadblocks to bring ANY product to market, let alone a new paradigm shifting energy source.

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax roseland67 • 2 days ago
I'll agree that nobody is paying him to attack Rossi. As far as I can tell, nobody is paying anyone to attack Rossi, and I think I'd probably know.

georgehants Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax • a day ago
Abd says --- "and I think I'd probably know."
Well Abd, I for one am in awe of your self considered importance, every organization etc. that would like to stop or slow a new energy source informs you of their plans on how to do so before proceeding.
It is a privilege to be in such illustrious company.

Bernie Koppenhofer Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax • 2 days ago
How would you know?

Display More

Is it worth replying there? Any opinions?

Meanwhile, how would I know? First of all, I did not say that "every organization ... would inform me." I said, "I think I'd probably know." That is merely a suspicion of probability, not a definitive claim as presented. That is so common on Planet Rossi, to convert hostile impressions, not actually what was stated, into some sort of absolute and strong claim that can then be attacked in some way or other, a variety of straw man argument. Georgehant's implication is that I'm an arrogant egotist, whereas Koppenhofer may be raising suspicion; from prior posts from him, as I recall, I suspect this, but the question could instead have been simple and sincere. So maybe I'll point to this. Or not.

First of all, I see no sign of any organization active to suppress Rossi technology. Planet Rossi suspects or claims that IH did this, but, in fact, what IH did, so far, has done nothing but support Rossi, giving him a pile of cash, and leaving him with substantial freedom to make more money and develop products in Sweden or in half the planet, and the only thing inhibiting that would be the filing of Rossi v. Darden, and they did not file, Rossi did.

Their "right of first refusal" would not stop him ... unless they were willing to give him more money than anyone else. And that would hardly be stopping him, it would be rewarding him. This whole concept of suppression as applied to IH is vague and unsupported and senseless.

The original issue was about Krivit, and I have long suspected that Krivit is supported by Lewis Larsen, contrary to his claims. He changed his organization so that it would be less transparent. That is not proof however, I simply wonder why he did this if his claims to be "reader supported" are valid. He was pulling down $90,000 per year, and subscriptions and small donations were a small part of that, there was a single large cash donation, I think it was $100,000, the last time I was able to see the full report of an active year. But the goal of Larsen would not be to crush Rossi but to promote Larsen's business, all wrapped up with Widom-Larsen theory.

Krivit goes after Rossi because that's what he does: search for scandal to expose, he is a classic yellow journalist, looking for the sensational story. He did this for years, and it didn't start with Rossi.

So if someone is being paid, who? The two names most commonly given are Jed Rothwell and myself. Obviously, if it was me, I'd know! I have not received any payment related to criticism of Rossi. I was promised reimbursement for PACER download costs, from someone not connected with Industrial Heat, which amounts, so far, to a little over $50, and no agenda was associated with that other than the study of Rossi v. Darden. It was a lawyer, and he likes my legal analysis. (Which, by the way, I have encountered many times, and many times I was told I should go into law. But researching law in real cases gave me a headache. This is much more fun. No stress. Maybe I'd do better now, I have better tools for dealing with stress, I have training. A brief summary is learning to DGAF.)

Jed Rothwell is independently wealthy. He has given money to many researchers. He would be utterly outraged if asked to spread deception. And he'd probably tell me about it, though I can't be sure, because someone might ask him under promise of confidentiality. He would then have a conflict, because he does respect such requests. My own opinion would be that if asked to create deception, and if I were certain of that, an ethical requirement to blow the whistle might override the promise. Whistle-blowers often violate confidentiality, consider Gamberale, who violated an NDA to disclose the true story of Defkalion's 2013 fiasco.

There is a cold fusion community, people who talk openly with each other, either in the private CMNS list, or in private email. I'm in communication with many people this way. There is no hint of any effort to recruit critics of Rossi. There is no organized effort, that I have seen, no coordination. That doesn't prove that it doesn't exist, but ... I'd think some hints would have shown up.

What is interpreted as "paid FUD" on Planet Rossi is the existence of criticism, but critique of cold fusion itself has been strong for many years, so trolls like Mary Yugo and Joshua Cude are very unlikely to have been paid. I have spent a lot of time writing about Rossi v. Darden, and sometimes this is considered evidence of being paid. But I've been a writer, now, more than full-time, since the early 2000s, and have been paid for very, very little of it, comparatively. It is not why I write. I write to make a difference, in a world I am leaving, soon enough, for my children and grandchildren and for all of us.

So ... I think I'd know, but this is because of the position and reputation I have developed. I am trusted to keep confidence. I was offered inside information in 2013, as I recall, from Defkalion, if I signed an NDA. The NDA was way too restrictive, as to embargo period, so I declined. If I end up with some restrictive agreement, beyond ordinary privacy of communication, I would not lie about it, because a real future cannot be built with lies. I would STFU, if needed.

The other person sometimes mentioned about FUD is Dewey Weaver. That's really funny! Dewey is an investor in Industrial Heat. He gave them money, not the other way around. To be sure, I think he may also be a contractor, so he might be paid something; however, not to write comments on blogs, I'm sure. Planet Rossi may be clueless about this, but IH gains no advantage from attacks on Rossi. They will have no effect on Rossi v. Darden. Public opinion is irrelevant to that case. For them to pay "shills" makes no sense economically. They might have consulted with APCO about that press release, it's possible. They might intend to work with APCO in future negotiation of governmental support. But for FUD on blogs? Get real! There is no advantage from it.

All this fuss, all those words when it's so simple. Yes, Rossi is a fraud and nothing else. and yes, Lewan, the Swedish scientists and IH were all stupid in that they could have required a proper test of the original ecat-- fast and cheap to do -- and they never did. If that isn't idiotic, tell me what is. Levi is the one mystery. I tend to give him benefit of doubt and to think he was duped. But he could be in on the con. He doesn't seem either smart enough or charismatic enough, though, to be a con man. Krivit, by the way, is paid for his writing. Obviously, Jed and all skeptics are not. The complications introduced by knuckleheads like Abd and sometimes Shane are laughable. They are almost as funny as the believers.

Quote from axil

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax, can you see the ocean?

Sometimes. I am the ocean, and I've seen this since I was in my twenties.

We are all the ocean, but most don't see it. There is that difference.

Quote from Alan Smith

Don't bother - it is not worth the pixels. I suspect that you are being made fun of. 'I would probably know' is sufficiently hubristic in this context to trigger the glandus satriricus of almost anybody who has one.

"Not worth the pixels." Or of course, the work involved. However, I could simply point to this discussion. Very little work there, and not substantially increasing the massive clutter there. Any other ideas?"being made fun of." Glad to be of service, then. I think fun is great. If you are having real fun, you are probably contributing to the progress of humanity. However, I don't think that most of those people are actually having fun. Consider Peter Gluck. The man is in despair much of the time. I look at those people and think, "These are not people I'd want to sit down to lunch with." Even Mary Yugo would be more attractive. If he can laugh. I really don't know about that, most of his apparent laughter is really contempt. (Peter Gluck, I would want to sit down with, because I know his history and his heart. He got stuck, it happens, and it's tragic. Maybe, in person, I could get through to him. Text sucks for this.)"sufficiently hubristic." This could have two meanings. "Has an obvious appearance of hubris," which means "extreme or foolish pride or dangerous over-confidence." Yes, easy. However, this is what I actually wrote, on which the replies were based:

Quote

I'll agree that nobody is paying him to attack Rossi. As far as I can tell, nobody is paying anyone to attack Rossi, and I think I'd probably know.

So I was confirming as my opinion what someone else had actually written with much more confidence than I. That person was not attacked as hubristic. The person had written:

Quote

I'll agree that nobody is paying him [Krivit] to attack Rossi. As far as I can tell, nobody is paying anyone to attack Rossi, and I think I'd probably know.

Strictly speaking, Krivit is being paid, but not exactly to attack Rossi. He is being paid to be a yellow journalist, treating only one line of research with kid gloves: the work of Lewis Larsen. He attacks anything he sees as inconsistent with W-L theory. His obsessive conclusion of "Rossi Fraud" was formed in 2011, based on the obvious obvious that the rest of us could also see, but he takes circumstantial evidence, sometimes only weak conclusions, and presents them as proven fact. He piles up innuendo and what is actually irrelevant, all to create an impression of monstrous bogosity and utter reprehensibility. He was doing this before any plausible motive to attack Rossi would have arisen, other than his "fearless investigative reporter" stand. So I set him aside. When I write "no one" I am referring to those possibly writing on the blogs and public fora, or possibly spreading FUD privately. Not professional reporters and writers who are obviously paid by someone. The issue is agenda to damage Rossi.

So, the comment I was replying to was stated as fact, and mine was stated as opinion, and based on my experience and my assessment of what I think it would be likely for me to know. That could be incorrect, and certainly it is true that it is possible someone is paying and I would not know about it.* But, as I stated, I consider it unlikely. I don't think this falls under the definition of hubris. But someone who doesn't look at context and consider actual possibilities might well think so, and that is completely understandable.

My qualified statement was attacked as "self-considered importance" but the definitive, unqualified claim from the other user was not. I think it is obvious why. My statement was truth, i.e., what I thought, -- which is how it was reported -- whereas the other statement was opinion, about fact, on the face. If there was hubris involved in the conclusion, it was there. But I don't think so, the person was simply stating how things appeared to (him?).

I have been carefully studying social process since the 1980s. Once could even call this study "obsessive," because I did things that most people would consider way too much trouble, not realizing the value of the experience. I once taped a meeting of an organization, about thirty people, where there was high controversy. Then I transcribed the entire meeting and studied it. Many hours of work. One of the things I discovered was that my personal memory of the meeting was highly defective. In my later training, this was all explained. It's common, routine. Memory is plastic and tends to conform to the opinions and impressions that we create -- consciously or, mostly, unconsciously -- instead of what actually happened. Learning to move beyond this into a world that is far more grounded is a major part of the training.

(This is reflective of the process by which we make memory more efficient and accessible, by remember what things meant to us rather than the raw sensory. "Meaning" is shorthand. But it is not reality, it's conclusory and easily defective. Because of the necessity of that "compression," the process cannot be avoided, but it can be recognized, which then creates new possibilities.)

What blew my mind by the late 80s was that even when there was a total and easily accessible record of conversation (in an on-line forum, the W.E.L.L., where I was a moderator), people continued to react to their own impressions of "right" and "wrong," and their judgment of people, rather than to what was in the actual record, and, mostly, there was no interest in even looking at the record, even if it showed clearly that much of what was being said was fantasy. Perhaps because of that, though I don't think so. Rather, most people have high trust in their own judgments and consider it so unlikely that they could be wrong that they won't bother to look, and someone who suggests it obviously, to them, must have some hostile agenda, so they reject that suggestion and often attack the person.

I fail to understand the vitriol against Krivit. Two journalist (Lewan and Krivit) in 2011, each with equal opportunities and originally equal access, took a good look at Rossi and his claims with the original ecat. Lewan was thoroughly fooled and remained so for years, maybe even until now. Lewan never looked at Rossi's background, choosing instead to accept the line of bullsh*t drivel that Rossi fed him. Lewan never asked for calibration though he had ample opportunity all along from the first demo onward. Krivit asked the right questions of Rossi and Levi and got answers he correctly found to be bogus. He investigated further and meticulously and uncovered Rossi's unsavory history and past scam (Petroldragon) which in many subtle ways was mirrored by the ecat scam. He may have missed the full depth and import of Rossi's thermoelectric scam on DOD which I helped to uncover but hey, nobody is perfect.

Lewan was flummoxed and probably still is after five miserable years of Rossi lies and complete nonsense like the absurd QuarkX. Meanwhile, Krivit, who got it right very early on and for all the right reasons and did all the investigative work to unearth original Italian news articles (he reads Italian fluently) -- he is reviled.

Go figger.

Quote from JedRothwell

Timar wrote:
Which means that you do have contact to IH now. Thanks for finally clarifying that.

What do you mean "finally"? Abd clarified that months ago. Many people have had contact with I.H. Anyone who attended recent ICCF conferences had an opportunity to meet with them and chat.

This is a favorite theme of Timar, and it's obvious what he does, if one looks at his sources. He jumps to conclusions, then remembers and presents his conclusions as fact, and, in addition, he attaches high "meaning" to what may be meaningless. This is the original Timar quote:

Quote from Timar

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
As well, the funding did not come from anyone connected with Industrial Heat, and it came before I had any contact with anyone from Industrial Heat, before Rossi v. Darden, which broke the situation open.

Which means that you do have contact to IH now. Thanks for finally clarifying that.

No, it does not mean that, not as presented. I was, in fact, incorrect, I met Dewey Weaver, apparently, at ICCF-18, riding the bus with him to the Murrah Research Reactor, and we chatted, but I do not recall what we talked about and I knew nothing about Industrial Heat at the time, this was 2013. I'm pretty sure that IH was not mentioned. The funding came in 2015, as described.

The statement does correctly imply that I have "now" had some contact with someone from Industrial Heat, privately by email. This was many months ago, probably April or May. That person is also a subscriber to the private CMNS list, so anyone subscribed to that list may look up one of his occasional posts and obtain his email address and could even be considered to be in some kind of contact. As I recall, he contacted me. As to the content of those conversations, beyond the bare fact that they exist, I cannot reveal, but I do affirm that no financial support has ever been offered to me by anyone connected with Industrial Heat. Nor has there been any inducement, even indirect, to attack Rossi. I do not, in fact, think of my work or goal as "attacking Rossi." Rather I'm highly interested in what actually happened.

The last such private contact was in July. Is that "now"? I have received very little private information, in fact, this is all, for me, long term development of relevant relationships with people active in the field, consistent with my goal to facilitate research.

I have many such, and I had private and friendly correspondence with Hadjichristos of Defkalion, as one example, and I've described how I was offered private information under NDA (like others), and I declined.

I have never had any correspondence with Rossi, other than indirect, through his comments on me and mine on him, here on lenr-forum or on newvortex. With any confidential source, I do not use information obtained unless I can independently verify it, and then I may base a report on that independent verification, I consider the private information not relevant. (But I am aware that such information may be cherry-picked.) This is all normal journalistic practice. It has been rare. Once, I did present information that I could not verify, and I presented it as such, but it was essentially self-verifying once revealed. It confirmed other known information, but placed it in a context that was a bit more clear. And if it had been false, that would have come out quickly, I'd have expected.

Jed is similar, but is more likely to make a claim based only on the confidential source. That's okay, it's done. "According to sources considered reliable, speaking off the record ..." etc." Those are all testimony to fact, as stated (even if the source turns out to be wrong or worse). The probity of the report then depends on the reputation of the reporter. A reporter who makes these up, if it is discovered, has trashed his or her career, it's happened. It is like a scientist fabricating data. Scientists can draw incorrect conclusions, it happens all the time, but if they fabricate data, well, there went that career.

Timar has been exposed as, essentially, a liar. He has stonewalled the exposure, as could be expected.

However, I do not routinely read his comments and this one I had not read, and somehow I missed Jed's reply at first, which is why I am only replying now. If Timar has actually addressed the issues somewhere, reactivating a real issue that might call for reply from me, I depend on others to bring it up. Otherwise this is just the usual on-line mishegas generated by trolls.

Dewey Weaver from IH has written here. Others have responded. That is "contact." I did not include that kind of contact. The whole issue, creating an impression that any contact with someone working with a company that is now the major source of research support in LENR is somehow proof of Something Horrible, is preposterous. Everyone here has contact with Dewey Weaver, if they read his comments and if they reply.

Dewey has email enabled here, it seems. So anyone can initiate "private contact" with someone connected with IH. If he replies, it is two-way. If the contact has no meaning or significance to him, I'd expect me might not reply. But if anyone has a real question, they could ask him. Even if he answers, "I cannot answer that at this time," it would still be contact.

Not everyone on "Planet Rossi" is this way, but some of these people are Compleat Idiots.

Or paid shills for Rossi. That is actually a far higher possibility, because Rossi has motivation that IH does not have. His future may depend on buzz and the development community of his supporters. If not for that buzz, back in 2011, IH would never have attempted to investigate his technology. Rossi uses clear sock puppets to promote his ideas. But he might also use "meat puppets." On Wikipedia "meat puppets" are treated like socks, for good reason, even if once in a while it's unfair. Attacking anyone who criticizes him could be something attractive to him, and certainly does it personally. Why not through others as well? If they are others.

But his is not proof of anyone being paid, and I have seen no proof, only strong evidence of socking or something quite similar.

Quote from Shane D.

Mary Yugo wrote:
The complications introduced by knuckleheads like Abd and sometimes Shane are laughable

Admit it Mary, you are jealous because I am smarter and better looking than you.

If it were not tragic, I'd be purely amused. I would hate to live inside "Mary's" skin, with the expressed world view and obvious obsessions. Some results from rummaging around:

The Pomp factor in Cold Fusion, an open letter to Stephan Pomp

Quote

My scientific background is of no consequence at all. I am not asking you to accept my authority as an expert but rather I am simply stating facts which are damning to Rossi's and Levi's claims. But, as it happens, I do have experience and papers in heat transfer and fluid flow. I also hold a doctorate degree and post doctorate credentials. The guy who approves of Rossi and writes as RansomW claimed that this was a lie so I offered him a $100,000 cash bet that it was true. Haven't heard from him yet. Anyone want to take me up on it, if you're so concerned with my irrelevant credentials? Henning Dekant or even Jed Rothwell can hold the money and decide on the truth of what I say. Any takers? I'd give money to charity.

I find this hilarious. Mary maintains, on the face, anonymity, but then points to real-life credentials.

It is trivial for anyone who cares to identify the real identity, and doing so come up with this: Mary would win that bet. There are some implications there that are somewhat misleading, but the basic facts are rather easily found. There are many shallow thinkers and "writers" -- not necessarily worthy of the term, if it implies professionalism in any way -- who react to Mary with what can only be called knee-jerk stupidity. Mary is very uncautious as regards what "she" writes about others, such that some of what "she" writes could be called "lies." This is common among "debunkers," the lack of caution is typical in that crowd. But it also happens, and often, among "believers."

My skepticism is following in the footsteps of giants, like Truzzi and Martin Gardner, and one of my peak moments was when Gardener quoted my work, because I had been reading him with inspiration since I was a teenager. Truzzi was one of the founders of CSICOP, and regretted that it became an organization devoted to debunking. He actually wanted what that original name stated: scientific investigation. And he actually did that, and because he was a true skeptic, not a pseudoskeptic, he had the respect of those who were "believers" in the paranormal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi

Setting aside the Rossi situation, Mary has done some actual investigation, but it was confined to what was, on the face, blatant scam, where the results of, say, blind testing, would be obviously predictable. Mary is generally unaware of, cannot even imagine, how some things can happen that seem "paranormal." For Mary, there is no middle ground, where observed facts can exist without demanding or assuming conclusions from them. This is, in itself, a subject that has long fascinated me: how we place restrictions on our thinking with dismissive labels.

Mary is not alone in considering genuine skeptical reserve as "knuckle-headed."

Part of the Rossi Reality was quite visible in 2011. As a result of that, much of what I wrote back then was cautioning scientists against appearing to confirm Rossi's results in the absence of truly independent testing. Some ignored that caution. At one point I wrote that a particular test seemed good. I think that lasted a few days, and I was not, back then, concerned about what I wrote as affecting the "reputation of the field." Increasingly, I need to be careful, as I become better known.

Pseudoskeptics will commonly claim that whatever they are attacking has "no evidence." This is similar and related to the "atheist" claim that "there is no evidence for the existence of a god." I do not confuse that claim with something much more reasonable (about "proof"),nor these "atheists" as typifying all atheism, they don't. The better half of atheism is simply skepticism. The worse half believes, with obvious fervor, that all those who use the word God are deluded or worse, and ignore the obvious evidence.

(Evidence is not proof. Evidence can be misleading or wrong, but remains evidence. What the militant atheist is denying is that there is any evidence in human testimony, per se. It denies what would routinely be accepted as evidence in court. I have confronted this extensively on Quora, and there are atheists there who are really excellent writers and thinkers, and, in fact, we normally agree completely, we just approach reality from different positions. And then there are those who are utterly naive as to epistemology and ontology, but damn sure they are right. These, like debunkers, are generally nasty people, I wouldn't look forward to lunch with them. Atheism and skepticism are not the problem, arrogance and contempt are.)