Recently LENR Forum team members have been discussing the age old problem of truth and lies. This has been brought to the fore time and time again in posts on the Rossi threads, going back many years. Anybody performing experiments yielding unexpected results can expect to be asked many questions in an effort to understand how this is possible, or to discredit the claimed results altogether, This has been a problem I have faces myself, on the one hand coping with pleas not to disclose from colleagues, but on the other hand wishing to be as open as possible.
But what about the posters, who may well be anonymous who post claims of 'interesting' or even miraculous results, yet despite several or numerous never (or rarely) produce a proper photograph of their lab set up, offer only the most generic of data and when their claims become unsustainable Vanish like smoke?
Does anybody have an opinion on this topic? Is peddling unsubstantiated LENR fantasy a more damaging habit than offering incomplete proof? Are lies more damaging to the field than flat denial of even the best supported papers from world class scientists? Personally I stand in favour of the truth, even if it hurts, and as much disclosure as seems possible at the time. But others- including my admin/mod colleagues may have opinions of their own of course. Please feel free to comment.
NOTE. THIS IS INTENDED TO BE A GENERIC DISCUSSION, THERE IS LITTLE NEED TO NAME NAMES, AND POSTS DOING THAT MIGHT (JUST POSSIBLY) BE MOVED.