This is science. You can't just wave your hands and say there is an invisible unpublished technical problem that is your little secret. You have to show your hand. If you cannot point to one or more technical problems that caused people to doubt these results, you have no case. Making up fake history and ascribing unnamed, unsupported opinions to imaginary scientists are not valid arguments in a scientific context.
I know you like to rehash the same arguments ad infinitum, regardless of whether they address the current issue, but it gets kind of tedious. I entered this discussion because of the new GEC/NASA alliance, and at Shane's query, the recent ubiquitous claims of transmutations. I cited history *only* to support my claim that mainstream science would welcome what they regarded as good evidence for cold fusion, Rossi or no Rossi. Nothing you have written has disputed the observation that cold fusion was welcomed with enthusiasm for a few weeks in 1989. And I think you know it, and you're trying to distract attention from your failure by cutting and pasting irrelevant arguments from your past.
As for the validity of those old claims, that has been hashed and rehashed repeatedly, and by people far more qualified than you and I, so I'm certain we will not bring anything new to the discussion. It's reached a standoff with a few people thinking the claims are persuasive and have not been debunked, and the vast majority of mainstream science finding the claims unpersuasive and considering the debunkings (including Shanahan's) to hold sway. This is most clearly illustrated by the two expert panels enlisted by the DOE to examine the best evidence in 1989 and 2004. Both times they concluded that the evidence for cold fusion is not persuasive.
I can't see any progress being made regarding the experiments of the 90s by more debate. What would be needed to advance cold fusion's case is better results, not more arguments. I suspect there is no way for the skeptics case to advance, other than by attrition and continued failure to identify a single experiment that a qualified scientist can perform with a positive result, even if only on a statistical basis. The absence of such an experiment is emphasized by the existence of the MFMP, which was formed specifically to identify one. Five years later, they're still trying.
And I don't agree that a skeptic must explain every observation in experiments that claim cold fusion to remain skeptical, any more than a believer needs to explain the mechanism for cold fusion to believe it is cold fusion. This is a matter of judgement, and if one judges artifacts, errors, deceptions, or bias to be more likely explanations than nuclear reactions, particularly with the absence of commensurate reaction products, then one remains skeptical.
Finding errors or artifacts or alternative explanations in others' experiments from the written report alone is a mug's game. What would be needed is to go into the lab, but this is time-consuming, and if the skeptics are satisfied (based on the wildly erratic and marginal results reported from different groups, and the examinations of the evidence by expert panels) that the likelihood of a nuclear explanation is vanishingly small, then they would regard it as a waste of time. If the effect is real, skeptics are prepared to wait for MFMP (or someone) to identify a killer experiment. We're not holding our breath.