A remarkable post on LENR Forum — and posts like this are part of the reason that most scientists stay away.
[17 alleged examples of Dewey or Jed “misinformation.”] Here, I look at them, having known for a long time the tactic of presenting “overwhelming evidence” that vanishes when examined. Is that happening here?
Conclusion: IH Fanboy was creating noise, personally attacking Dewey and Jed, in a highly misleading way, with the effect of distracting from new information from Dewey about the lawsuit.
It [sic, “I”] said it is backpedaling, because it is. And that is actually a very generous term, considering the circumstances. You now say that there are “certain ‘other systems’ on the ‘customer’ side that have recently been discovered.” Whereas before, the claim was that the customer facility had been inspected, and that there was nothing more than a radiator and a fan. Here is a sampling of your prior misinformation.
IHFB is pursuing a theme that criticism of Rossi is stupidity or lying. In service of this, IHFB believes he has found clear contradiction. I’m going to look at what he cites. First of all, he conflates Jed and Dewey. They are different people, with different levels of knowledge and different personalities. IHFB was using this to discredit Dewey, most importantly, but only 5 out of 17 quotations were from Dewey. Both Jed and Dewey make what I would call “insufficiently qualified statements,” that can lead to apparent contradictions if one reads them as literally true. In fact, a literal meaning would be preposterous. We know, for example, that there was a large black box in the “customer area,” and that is not a radiator and fan. By misinterpreting what are substantial statements, what I woujld call “ordinary speech in hot conversation,” not intended to be taken as fully literal, and possibly only expressing what is known, not what is not known, one can create an appearance of contradiction. What were Jed and Dewey actually talking about? IHFB’s list:
Dewey Weaver, June 16, 2016. The essential idea is that there is nothing happening there but a radiator. Is that false, partially true, substantially true, or totally true? At this point we — the public — don’t know. Those who attach to a side (any side) may make statements that might possibly be in error, but are they misleading? I’ve been reading this idea for a long time now, and never derived from it that there was literally nothing there but a radiator and fan.
Jed Rothwell, November 12, 2016. The essential idea is “pretend factory,” and then there must be a way of dissipating the power. This is a long post, wherein Jed brings up many issues. Is there “equipment” in the “customer area,” claimed to be a chemical processing plant? What kind of equipment? How do we know? Rothwell refers to a photo. What photo?
Jed Rothwell, May 21, 2016. Jed often has access to private eyewitness accounts. It’s not clear what he is referring to, but my sense is that someone saw “a radiator and fan” and didn’t see anything else. This is pretty simple. Expressed without full qualification, it is like all unqualified speech, it may be incomplete. Is this misleading, though? It would only be misleading if there was an actual factory there, something substantial beyond those items.
Dewey Weaver, May 18, 2016. This would be a reference to claims of endothermic reactions, and the idea that the only thermal effect was dissipation of heat by a radiator. I will look below at what is now suspected, probably based on discovery.
Jed Rothwell, November 1, 2016. Nothing that I have seen, so far, contradicts this. For example, there might be something else there, but not readily visible. Something that might have been overlooked by a witness reporting to Jed or Dewey. Or the statement was hyperbole from the start, i.e., a fact stated in black and white terms, very common in ordinary speech. “He was nothing but a liar” does not negate that the person might tell the truth once in a while! Or even often!
Dewey Weaver, May 21, 2016. It is essential to distinguish between fact and interpretation. The term “proof” is always interpretive, not fact, but people often use “proof” to mean “evidence.” Dewey is giving a list of 14 “facts.” Most are mixed fact and interpretation. Some of the factual basis alleged has been confirmed, some remains unconfirmed. The essence of this one is some third party witnessing or report that shows a radiator being in that room. “Just contained” may be hyperbole, or a witness actually said that. What is evidenced here is that Dewey writes polemic, not necessarily only testimony as to fact. Yet what is the substance? Is it misleading? IHFB’s apparent agenda here is to prove deception, to discredit testimony that is appearing. Has he done that? Not so far….
Jed Rothwell, October 22, 2016. That is, the Plant was a 20 kW electric heater, and then there was a radiator in the customer area, which he calls an “empty room.” We know the room was not literally “empty,” and Jed knows that. The word “empty’ here has a meaning from context. All speech is like that, but some speech can be carefully qualitied to avoid most of the possible misinterpretations. Most people don’t bother. Who was actually misled? The take-away here is fake power and fake “consumption.” Just a radiator …. But maybe there is something else. Like a pump, which could then explain the 0.0 barG reading. For me to assert that as a “fact” would be an error. I don’t know it. It is merely a possibility that occurs to me….
Dewey Weaver, May 20, 2016. Pretty straightforward, assuming that Dewey knows of, say, an inspector who saw a radiator and who reported this, in writing or verbally, to IH. That would easily be translated to “only a radiator.” In fact, even if there were a legitimate plant, there would still be a radiator, very likely. Dewey was not explaining the legal process well. This particular issue may never come before the Judge. And Dewey was predicting that Rossi would flee, here it was to Sweden, and that remains possible. Penon is in hiding, which largely demolishes the utility of the Penon Report for Rossi.
Dewey Weaver, February 4, 2017. That was not misleading. There was a typo there, Dewey meant to write “sure do,” not “should do.” This was about a photo of a radiator, and Dewey was simply saying that it was familiar to him. He doesn’t say, there, why.
Jed Rothwell, July 26. 2016. Ditto. If there was a customer manufacturing operation, using substantial heat, this would be misleading. IHFB is jumping the gun, assuming that new information changes the fundamental picture being conveyed by Jed and Dewey … or he is, himself, being misleading by citing 17 pieces of evidence that don’t really show what he claims. Trolls get away with this because rarely does anyone bother to check.
Jed Rothwell, July 22, 2016. Ditto.
Jed Rothwell, July 2, 2016. Jed is simply stating his conclusion from the evidence he has become aware of. If someone had asked him, then, “are you sure there was nothing there but a radiator and fan?” he would have, I’m sure, said something like “nothing important,” perhaps, or, more carefully, “nothing that I know of other than an impressive-looking large black box and some pipes.”
Sometime back then, possibly more than once, I speculated on various possibilities of what could have been in the customer area — aside from a radiator. Some of these could be fraud modes. It will be interesting to see what develops.
Jed Rothwell, July 1, 2016. And the point here is not the radiator but the hiding. This was not stated as a fact, but as a conditional basis for another statement, i.e., a speculation. IHFB has quoted out of context. This was the actual statement, my bolding. The statement was about a comment by Axil.
What if the accusations are true? Has it occurred to you that if Rossi’s test was as bad as I claim it was, I.H. is justified? It would not be “jealous barbarism” if Rossi pulled out instruments to wreck the test, and he is hiding his pretend customer site because there is only a 15 kW radiator in there. That would be justified anger.
Yes, it implies that as a possible fact, and the reality might, indeed, be close to that. Nothing has been appearing change the impression from the preponderance of the evidence that the “customer chemical plant” was fake. “Only” in this context does not negate the possibility of something else being there. It means “not a chemical plant.”
Jed Rothwell, June 30, 2016. That’s just a fact. Dewey did do that. Again, what does “only” mean in context? Applying the word out of context will lead to impressions of error, which is what IHFB is obviously seeking,. and what he did here is pretty obvious: he searched for “radiator” and then copied phrases including it. Did someone deny ever saying that there was “only a radiator and a fan”? Not that I’ve noticed. What has happened is that Dewey, in particular, likely knows something found in Discover that we don’t know — and that he did not know previously.
Jed Rothwell, June 20, 2016. Obvious speculation based in inference from what he knows. Not stated as a fact.
Jed Rothwell, June 15, 2016. This was about the water supply, the idea being tossed out at that point that the 1 MW was dissipated by cooling it with water that went down the drain. Jed was negating that, asserting that there was only a small radiator (to dissipate the heat). Now, suppose he was wrong. People write what they believe. If they are testifying in court, the attorneys will make sure that they distinguish between fact, i.e., what they personally witnesses, and hearsay, what they have been told and believe, and speculation or interpretation. Only expert witnesses are allowed to testify to interpretations. The real issue here is whether or not Dewey and Jed are reasonably reliable as witnesses. Not perfect. But if Dewey, in particular, states some fact that would reasonably be within his knowledge, can it reasonably be deprecated because of a history of false statements?
“The only plausible explanation is that he did not want anyone from I.H. to see what is in the customer site, and the only reason he would not want them to see it is because there is only a 15 kW radiator in there.“
Jed Rothwell, June 10, 2016. Again, this was explicitly interpretation and obvious speculation. “The only reason he would” is blatantly not fact, but inference from ignorance. Which, of course, has some utility but is not probative.
So what did I find? I found that IH Fanboy was incautious at best, and misleading or worse, about what he claimed, quoted above. This was a personal attack, disguised as a “sampling.” What it shows is warped interpretation, looking for something wrong.
So what is new that IHFB thought was “backpedalling”?
PeterM – I think that Rossi paid the power bills. We had to subpoena to get the details from FPL.
Rossi had backup systems alright and fluid temps might have been able to remain somewhat constant in the system, even during the “down” days, very possibly because of certain “other systems” on the “customer” side that have recently been discovered.
This is quite explicit: “recently been discovered.” This would, then supersede everything said before. IHFB was creating noise, distracting from what is actually of interest here.
What DW wrote about utility bills is confirmed by their recent exhibit showing not just the monthly bills Rossi had just provided, but daily usage, apparently from a smart meter. IH has been busy!
Many of the quotes above (10 out of 17) from Jed and Dewey were from before IH filed their first Answer, August 5, 2016. What they were saying then was not regular public knowledge. Paying attention to Dewey would have given readers a leg up: IH was going to claim a fake customer operation, something that is now accepted even by some who continue to believe in the Rossi Effect.