Clearance Items

Quote from Alan Smith

Never confuse ardent support with failure to condemn. For now I am content to watch and wait.

I am sorry Alan, but you and IHFB are one and alike. A trait that for some reason is high on my pet peeve list... hypocrisy.

IHFB says he is unbiased and you state "failure to condemn" is not support. IHFB's and your posts clearly state otherwise and this is simply BS.

It is true you NEVER condemn Rossi. Not for lying about customers, "salting" test samples" and much worse over 11 years of fraud. No you do not condemn or hold him responsible for anything, even when proven seriously wrong. Yet you often throw "shade" on IH and NEVER say anything POSITIVE about them even though they are supporting TRUE researchers with serious funding. These true researchers are happy with IH. Only crooks like Rossi, who when caught, call them snakes and clowns.

NO, your posts clearly state you support Rossi and condemn IH. This is fine, just admit it. Do not be like IHFB and be hypocritical. Man up to your true position. Most people can respect a person if they are upfront and engage with integrity. However, the "Unbiased One" and now "The one who does not condemn" are simply being hypocritical and statements otherwise are complete BS, as proven by their own posts.

Hiding under the "failure to condemn" when refusing to give an assessment of a clearly sham demo, when promising a detailed report prior to attending clearly shows that you cannot be trusted to give unbiased or complete information. This damages your credibility, event to the extent of the "Atom Ecology" drama. This is most unfortunate.

No you owe me nothing, but you do owe yourself better.

So sad but this is true and has been for a long t..... all Rossi supporters cannot defend Rossi on his merit, his work, his statements or anything as such. So they therefore simply attack and try to discredit Rossi's opponents. They cannot defend Rossi by any working product, positive data, demos, customers etc. So they resort to arguing heat exchangers, missing windows, pages on "possible backout offers", conspiracy theories and worse. Not one iota of actual positive proof can be made, so they attack others.

I am afraid this same pattern has started with the Atom Ecology drama. Big claims, no data. Secret people visiting, yet almost a year later no revelation. Principal party lashing out with unprofessional vigor. We are coming up to the 1 year anniversary and yet nothing more is known than day one. Not promising, unfortunate.

By the way..... somethings CLEARLY SHOULD be condemned. You seem to have to problem casting shade on IH for unknown and unproven allegations yet on absolutely proven and known fraud from Rossi, not a word. That by default is support and not confusing at all!

Quote from RobertBryant

Bob should speak for himself... perhaps he cannot read

I know a lot more.

Indeed? Perhaps you could educate me on what is "known". I have seen only a manipulated chart, some references to dancing gamma girls, claims of visiting experts who evidently do not feel the data is significant yet for them "to come out" and some reactor photos. All of which Rossi has done in the past several times as well. Does this make Rossi legit? I very well could have missed published information, in that case perhaps you can share the details. If Shane and yourself know more, but cannot share it or it is from only "RG says", then you are playing the role of Lewan, like it or not.

Saying " I know more" means little.

"perhaps he cannot read".... Really RB? Falling into the same defense that Rossi supporters can only use.... Insult the opponent since no positive factual defense can be presented?

Quote from Shane D.

So do I, and his fixation on Alan S, has been mentioned, and warned about before. Bob is one of our more eloquent, and read members, with a big following. However, that does not exempt him from being a gentleman, and giving up the campaign when he has already made his opinion well known many times over.

Hopefully this is the last time.

Shane,

I am sorry to say I am quite disappointed. You seem to have always been a reasonable and open minded person. Yet now, something is forcing you into a corner to protect someone that needs no protection.

Fixation? Kevmo, Ascoli, A.A. and others have made literally hundreds of posts against designated people. Much of which is down right personally insulting. I have made probably no more than 5 posts actually calling out A.S. on his failure / refusal to report on the Stockholm event. While the others make adhoc accusations, "my fixation" is based upon solid foundation.

1) A.S. is a leading mod here, he is a leading researcher, he is making significant claims. This puts him in a category that elevates more scrutiny. Especially when one makes claims of active CF, continually gives the thumbs up to a known and proven fraudster and then throws shade on a known and proven CF entity (IH) that supports true researchers. I do not and will not back off from that stance. I ask you to respond why I should.

2) A.S. himself, promised before attending the demo to fully report. People sent him money to help relieve his expenses. (No he did not ask for, but did use the funds) After promising to fully report, he DOES have a responsibility to report as such, if not for the integrity of CF research at least to honor the funds he did spend. He can do this, but it is clear why he does not. It would put Rossi in a damning light. He will not criticize Rossi. (and yet he throws shade on IH) Please explain why I should back down on this? Ascoli and others continually harass Rothwell with minutia quotes and ask that he prove or respond. Yet no wrist slapping there! Yet A.S. is to be protected and factual posts moved to clearance? Yes, I would ask for a logical statement of why the difference.

3) While my very, very few posts (relatively speaking) may have been to the point and clearly stating what I believe the deficit is, I am confident in that I have not been gratuitously insulting nor demeaning. A.A. and his hundreds of "babbler" comments and yes, from "the other side" D.W. often posts the spiked jab, do not get wrist slapped. Why? It appears simply because of who the remarks are pointed to.

So here is my question to you, a "forum friend" that has long known my posts and should know my intentions by now......

Is truth to be squelched or should it speak for itself? If truth is to be censored here on this forum, then I will move on permanently. I have no desire to live on Planet Rossi such as at ECW. Is this forum to become "Planet Atom Ecology"? Yes, Ackland banned me from ECW for the very same reason... not insulting nor baseless posts, but posts with supporting evidence that was critical of Rossi and could not be offset. It appears the same law is being applied here to A.S.

If you truly believe what I have posted is not truth, then please educate me, with specifics where I have errored. I will certainly apologize and sustain from that line of thinking.

If what I have said is basically true and A.S. keeps giving Rossi "the thumbs up", making significant experimental claims AND throwing shade at IH, (all related) then please explain in detail why I should be censored. (And A.A., Ascoli, Kevmo, DW and others not) Why I should "keep my mouth shut" on the subject.

I was once a Rossi "supporter" but it became clear he was a fraud. Unlike a few here, I publicly recognized this and am not afraid to state it. I will always call it like I see the facts pointing. It does not matter if the person is Rossi or A.S. I will call it as I see the facts...... in a non-insulting and gratuitous way. Such as RB's "perhaps he cannot read" statement.

Thank you for your honest consideration in this.

Sincerely

Bob

Quote from Wyttenbach

Does fully report only mean to condemn Rossi???

Nobody can comment on a trick cabinet show unless the master tells him the trick...

Time will tell the truth and it should not be our concern whether AR has a product or not.

No, fully report does not mean condemn Rossi nor support Rossi. It means simply to report the facts as one should with any observation. If it supports Rossi, then report it ... if it does not support Rossin report it.... as a scientist should with any report. A small sampling such as:

Equipment used : The equipment seemed to be of sufficient type and sensitivity to measure the data recorded. (Or the reverse, no it was not)

Methodology : The test protocol was planned and followed so that it likely would provide actual and dependable data. (or the reverse, no it was not)

Calibration : Calibration was conducted to offset artifact and the results compared to expected and tested values, as is standard in most experiments. (or the reverse, not is was not)

Independent evaluation / observation : The test was conducted via independent parties or observed/inspected by independent parties to assist in detecting oversight or missed artifacts. (or the reverse, no it was not)

Peer review of data provided : Being experienced in the field, my peer review of the provided data seemed to be logical, follow test protocol and indeed supports the hypothesis of the test and that the test successfully demonstrated a positive result (or the reverse, the data, test and methodology was completely insufficient to support the claims of the hypothesis and should be considered null and void)

This is basic science, not unreasonable. Especially when there is considerable hype being made BY the testor (Rossi and suppporters) that the demo was not only valid but showed a novel and completely new source of energy. Of which proof should be relatively easy to show.

I have some knowledge of magic but am not a complete expert. However, I can watch a magic show and tell you how much of it is done. When I see something completely novel, it will indeed raise my interest and curiosity. I would want to discuss it eagerly.

A.S. evidently has much knowledge of experimentation and measurement. He should be able to watch a test and conclude it's likely validity. If he feels the test was of sufficient aptitude, it should deserve much discussion and debate. If it was a bust, he would know it.

Why should we care? This forum was ripe with people stating the demo was a success. Having a Rossi supporter state it was not, would bring some reality to the drama. To not clarify or report, only continues and support the deception, or at least the acceptance of poor practice.

Rossi has already frauded 11.5 MILLION dollars that could have went to valid researchers such as Bob Higgins. This is why we should care. Also, when people start turning a blind eye to crime and immoral behavior, we all lose at some point in the future! Not condemning fraud / malfeasance is a form of support!

Quote from Alan Smith

I would point out that what IH supports is a particular business model involving ownership and control of as much LENR IP as possible. That is fine from an investment point of view, it's what capitalism is all about, but I'm not sure that a monopoly or semi monopoly model is a good route for something as important as CF. So I am not an IH fan simply for social reasons. As for Stockholm, I have said many times that i didn't see anything worth reporting in detail, it was a demo pure and simple, which is not what I was expecting- I had hoped to see more. But the videos saw it all so I became redundant as an expositor.

Thank you for your response.

While I may not agree I can respect your opinion in regards to IH's capitalistic leanings. At least that is now an honest and valid opinion and certainly honorable to debate.

It seemed to me (and I do mean my opinion) was that Rossi's flagrant and proven fraud/lies/malfeasance was out weighed by some major IH evil in you eyes. It seemed the old "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic was involved. I do not think that a good scale. If Rossi is a fraud and liar, he should be called out regardless. Supporting Rossi because he is against IH does not further conviction against IH. I would say it damages it. You do show that support for Rossi and the shade at IH...... even if inadvertently..... something to consider.

Quote from Shane D.

We just can not have that anymore from you. I suggest you move on permanently as you suggest.

I am sorry to hear that from you. I would truly be interested why and exactly what is untrue that "We just cannot have that anymore from you" is, even if in private email discussion.

Personal? There are hundreds, possibly thousands of posts on this forum that are extremely personal. Are or have my posts been gratuitous or insulting? If something is true two times, it is true on the 10th time.

I can be wrong and will acknowledge it when realized or shown factually. I am no martyr, but I am no sheep either. I find it extremely interesting that a permanent ban is threatened over such a relative infrequent subject that you admit has a valid foundation in comparison to the thousands of repetitive, personally insulting and factless posts made by others here. Permanent ban? This must truly be a fragile subject? Quite interesting and sad.

My activity here has reduced dramatically over the past months and almost certainly will continue to fade as this site seems to slide into selective censorship and less relevance. While the mods have the technical ability to remove my login, I will not be forced into silence by political sequester. I guess it is a good thing I do not live in North Korea..... I would probably have been shot by an anti-aircraft gun by now. (Or would that be a perma-ban gun?)