If I repeat it enough, it will become true

or, alternatively, if they didn’t get it the first time, if I keep claiming I proved it, surely they will recognize The Truth and agree with me.

This is the apparent position of Asocoli65 on LENR Forum, who keeps beating the same drum he has apparently beaten since 2011. Here is the latest incarnation of his idea:

Ascoli65 wrote:

And, again, could you explain me, please, how his [Rossi’s] geniality could have induced some “credentialled academics” who teach Physics in a prestigious University to unintentionally write in the calorimetric report that the steam was “checked to be completely dry” by using a “HP474AC probe”, an instrument which is not suited at that scope, and, above all, which didn’t appear in any of the many photos or video frames available after the January 14, 2011 demo?

To Ascoli, this was a blatantly obvious smoking gun, and that nobody else picked up on this proof of … of what? He is hinting that this is so preposterous that there must be some other dark force operating.

What’s the basis for his claim?

This was discussed at length on LENR Forum, and he states that it “concluded with” this post, in which he quotes me.

I had asked him, and he quotes:

Think, Ascoli. You can redeem your reputation by coming up with a way. Suppose you have this problem, you want to be able to quickly change probes into a steam chamber. How would you do it?

He did not redeem his reputation. He wrote:

I don’t know. For sure I wouldn’t like to unscrew the upper dice which keep in place a probe fitted into an electric boiler (in this case considered a presumed nuclear reactor) which is producing 16 kW (or even much less) of hot dry steam.

Please, tell me how you would have done it.

He obviously didn’t spend anywhere near as much time with the problem as he has spent, subsequently, claiming that his view is so obvious and clear that it proves Something Must Be Terribly Wrong. There is something wrong, indeed, and some scientists, more than one or two, did make some mistakes, but dealing with subjects they had never before encountered, and scientists put their pants on one leg at a time. That they might be influenced by psychological manipulation is simply not impossible, it is not even improbable, because most scientists are not trained to recognize fraud, and scientific culture is so horrified by fraud that it is only suspected when evidence becomes overwhelming.

Looks like I never told him. He assumes high pressure, yet indications are that the pressure was not high; in fact, that is one of the issues. With the claimed power, pressure should have been higher, I’d expect. This whole topic was discussed to death in 2011. The humidity meter claimed to be used was, indeed, entirely the wrong instrument, because humidity meters cannot measure steam quality, and, even worse, cannot measure the Elephant in this Living Room, overflow water. We know that multiple scientists and others who should know better made that mistake. And, by the way, never admitted it, which is actually more serious than the mistake itself.

Instead, Ascoli65 thinks that the meter claimed wasn’t used at all. His evidence is that the probe appears to be missing in multiple photos taken at the time. Without checking now, I assume he is correct about that, so could the humidity meter probe have been inserted with the “reactor” in operation? What would have happened if the existing probe was pulled (I assume these were not screwed in) to insert the meter probe? Well, that would depend on the pressure. As well, it would depend on the nature of the probe port.

I think I did not reply at the time because I searched for the product I had in mind and didn’t find it right away, and Life interfered. It does that. In any case, today I found one: Dura Test Plug. Temperature to 135 C., Pressure to 135 kPa. That’s 1.35 bar. If the alleged steam was at 100 C or slightly above, say, the pressure would have been well below that limit. These devices may exist with higher pressure limits.

While Ascoli65 creates a possible question, it is not the smoking gun he imagines, and his argument is not strengthened by the number of times he brings it up, nor by the lapse of years since his first comments on this. Given that the real objection to that “test” is so obvious, it’s not surprising that nobody cares about his speculation.

Ascoli65 spends many words defending his insane conspiracy theory, including claiming that it’s not a conspiracy theory because he never used the word “conspiracy.” Reminds me of an old question:

If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

Answer: Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.

I just reread my old post. It did not call anyone a liar. I think it was balanced. Yet, looking at Likes/Dislikes, it has one downvote. From whom? Sifferkoll, of course. Why? By this time, Sifferkoll was convinced, as I recall, and extensively writing, that I was a paid creator of FUD. The real problem: Because LENR Forum does not really use voting to control presentation of quality answers (vs fluff), most users don’t touch those buttons, and only those do it, too often, who have an axe to grind. (This is in no way a criticism of those who vote, some do just want to acknowledge the best posts, but the site does not take advantage of that for filtering, other than the silly “lightened display,” which still leaves the post taking up a lot of space. (Does it still do this for -2 or greater?)

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax

See http://coldfusioncommunity.net/biography-abd-ul-rahman-lomax/

3 thoughts on “If I repeat it enough, it will become true”

  1. The headline is not just a critique of those who “repeat” something to make it true. This is an actual transformational technique: declare a possibility as real, as present, and then watch it become true.

    This works within a special space. It doesn’t work with “pie in the sky.” It doesn’t work to control others, nor to directly control reality, but rather it asserts power within the realm of our own mind. The results can seem like “magic.” Creation through word. However, it is not — as far as I know! — external magic, except as humans understanding language are involved. It can work with animals, because animals are responsive to correlates of language, when we speak, the rest of our body conveys a message correlated with what we “mean.” Most of all, though, word, the complex neural response patterns in the brain, and then especially in the amygdala, creates organic state.

    Complex concepts like “success” are states, patterns of response that may be considered “emotional.” Our idea that we understand something is not “logical.” (I’ll give a possible exception.) It is a sense, and it can be neurochemically created, all well known to those who have explored (over the centuries) psychedelics or similar mind-manifesting (that’s what “psychedelic” means) substances, and the body itself produces such substances.

    The exception. We can declare understanding and it can appear to function, that is, we have declared it and we sense it. This is a sense that all the evidence — or at least most of it — fits together, it’s consistent. So, perhaps we understand or perhaps we are paranoid — and “just because you are paranoid does not mean that they are not out to get you.”

    However, can we then use this understanding to predict outcomes, with relatively objective standards for success, i.e., not vague, and hopefully quantitative? (With vague predictions, our declared understanding will simply mold the outcomes into the already existing “story.”)

    We can see such vague prediction operating with evidence being considered “suspicious.” All that means is that the mind can imagine some hostile or deceptive intention behind an observed behavior. Or, less paranoid, can notice an anomaly — which is functional, even logical.

    Mastering the art of transformation involves distinguishing what happens (description of events that is relatively objective) from what we make it mean (not only “good” or “bad” but often much less obviously “story,” such as success or failure — without objective standards).

    “Story” is not bad. “Subjective” is not bad, and the creation of story is a quintessentially human enterprise. If I say the sunset was beautiful, that’s story, and life without stories like that would be impoverished. Another story, of course!

Leave a Reply