We see what we want to see

Too often. If we have a firm position, and we are faced with a massive body of data, and the data dumped into Rossi v. Darden was massive, we will scan over it looking for “facts of interest.” If we are not careful, and some are not at all careful, we will pick facts that appear to confirm our prior views. It’s called “confirmation bias.”

I’ve pointed out an example in How Planet Rossi reads fact. Here is another from the same user, same deposition.

IH Fanboy wrote:

Remember the mis-matched water meter serial number FUD that was pushed on all of us here? As if this was proof of fraud?

All just one big mistake by Murray. 215-03, pages 263-264.

This was classic. I’ve called it trolling, based on the actual meaning of “trolling.” Even though I do think IHFB is “sincere.” Nevertheless, he makes statements that are evidence free, or that don’t actually match the evidence, if it is cited. Naturally, IHFB doesn’t link to the document and this is a huge PDF file, but at least it is there. However, IHFB is actually comparing two alleged facts. One is what is in the deposition and the other is what was “pushed on all of us here”? That is largely meaningless without any actual citation or quotation, but trolls are not interested in evidenced and sober discussion, and IHFB expects to be attacked.

What happened?

I’m not — yet — looking for the old discussion, because it could easily be buried in mountains of drek. The one who claims it is such and so should much more easily be able to find it, assuming it exists. (What I’ve seen way too many times is that those older discussions are presented with an astonishing level of warp. but maybe.)

However, I can look at the deposition at the point cited. And it’s text, having been produced by the reporter, so I can easily quote it.

-page 263-
·7· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Now, turning, sir, to document page,
·8· ·bates number Industrial Heat_FPL-000044.
·9· · · · A.· · 44, uh-huh.
10· · · · Q.· · Okay.· You got that?
11· · · · A.· · Yeah.
12· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Looking at the top of the page, it
13· ·purports to be the reading for January 1, 2015?
14· · · · A.· · Yes.
15· · · · Q.· · Meter Number L0556058707?
16· · · · A.· · Uh-huh.
17· · · · Q.· · Okay.· I’d like to now ask you to flip to the
18· ·last page, which is Industrial Heat_FPL-000053.· And
19· ·this purports to be the meter reading on March 1, 2016?
20· · · · A.· · Yes.
21· · · · Q.· · And it’s got Meter Number L0556058707?
22· · · · A.· · Yes.
23· · · · Q.· · Okay.· You told me, sir, that the meter
24· ·number had changed?
25· · · · A.· · Yeah.· I believe that I had seen that in the
-page 264-
·1· ·data, but I don’t know that this is all of the data.· I,
·2· ·and I could be wrong.
·3· · · · Q.· · Okay.· But, sir, this, you would agree, even
·4· ·if it’s not all the data, this is the data between
·5· ·January 1, 2015 —
·6· · · · A.· · Yes.
·7· · · · Q.· · — and March 1, 2016?
·8· · · · A.· · Uh-huh.
·9· · · · Q.· · Which encompasses the entire —
10· · · · A.· · The date.
11· · · · Q.· · — test period?
12· · · · A.· · Test period, yes.
13· · · · Q.· · So the entire test period, at least according
14· ·to this document, the same meter was used?
15· · · · A.· · Yes.· It appears, yes.
16· · · · Q.· · Okay.· So what information did you look at to
17· ·indicate the meter had changed?
18· · · · A.· · I don’t know if it was the data before this
19· ·or after, or maybe I was just mistaken.
20· · · · Q.· · Okay.· And you, you’re not testifying at all
21· ·as to the propriety of that information, whether it was
22· ·done properly, properly recorded or otherwise?
23· · · · A.· · No, I am not.

Rossi’s attorney is playing “gotcha.” This is a deposition. The witness is a human being. The attorney presents him with a possible contradiction. To know if it is an actual contradiction could take research and study. However, does this actually show an error? It shows a possible error, which Murray acknowledges. IHFB turns that into a proof of prior FUD, but was are not looking at what was prior. IHFB is reading what he wants to see. He has his own reasons, to be sure, specifically his own recollections and his past impressions. I’m not saying he is “wrong.” But his claim here will only increase acrimonious debate, and that is what trolls do. I have not yet read ensuing discussion, so I don’t know what will actually occur. I also have not done the research to attempt to find the prior facts and discussion. However, a little I can easily do.

“Meter” occurs in the deposition 201 times, and the technical term for that is “frikkin'”, i.e., it occurs 201 frikking times. Not terribly helpful, and I don’t want to search all day. Glancing through the deposition, there is also a frikkin’ lot of information there. My smart-ass comment is, enough information that if the paper is collected, and ignited, it would fry a certain Italian goose.

I do find mention of the specific flow meter, dep page 334, but this is later in the deposition. From early testimony, Murray could be an expert on flow meters. This is, of course, the testimony that Rossi is attempting to strike. (and that is why we see the whole deposition, that was important for that motion). The same with the IH expert, Smith. We have the whole thing, not just cherry-picked excerpts. These are Hail Mary passes, desperate attempts to find a way to prevail, when it is looking … frikkin’ difficult. That word again.

I notice Murray’s answers with regard to meeting West and conversations with Fabiani, whom Rossi apparently threw under the bus, freaking him out so badly that he destroyed his records, the ones that he had promised to provide to IH.

And I could go on and on. If I want to cherry-pick, I could prove almost anything I wanted to prove. Or at least appear to do so. I’m not interested in that. My interest in life is Reality. Always. And Reality is not some interpretation, it is only known, to the extent that it can be known, through presence, and being present to information without tossing “each dream into the ditch of what each one means” (Bob Dylan)  is an aspect of that.

Being human, I have “occurrings.” I disclose them, often.

I told the stuffed shirt — blouse, actually — at my child’s high school, last Friday, exactly what I thought of her utterly disparaging and condescending comments to me. Daughter was worried that this might have caused some problem, but at the same time was planning on giving them a piece of her own mind Monday– for the same reasons.

So maybe she’ll be kicked out. Or not. (I know the legal boundaries and say within them. She may be exploring the territory.) And I have no opinion as to what is “best,” except that putting up with assholes or the female equivalent is not necessarily conducive to future happiness. Rather, freedom is crucial (and that includes actually resolving disputes instead of just yelling). For me, it includes trusting my daughter. She wants to be there, she will choose her own actions. She also knows she has choices, other choices, and she knows that she is responsible for the consequences of her choices.

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax

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

4 thoughts on “We see what we want to see”

  1. Nice to see that on LF it’s been noticed that the QuarkX input power requirements have been misunderstood, so the COP of ~22K was miscalculated as well. https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5172-new-paper-by-gullstr%C3%B6m-rossi-cop-22-000/?postID=53672#post53672 . Following posts show Rossi’s lack of understanding of high voltage generation and use. So far there doesn’t seem to be much of a push-back on how the power out was measured, although this is obviously wrong as well.

    This is based on the thought of “you see what you want to see”. Until people realise that Rossi doesn’t tell the truth, but is very good at selecting what he says so that believers can read it as what they wish to be the truth, the arguments over what is really happening will not get resolved.

    I probably also suffer from confirmation bias, since I’ve decided that Rossi is about as full of ordure as it’s possible to be without medical attention. A full-body enema would be useful. We can’t be absolutely certain that he’s never witnessed some level of excess heat, but we can be pretty certain that his measurements will be unreliable.

    Abd – my best wishes for your daughter. The dice will fall as they will, but I expect she’ll do well whatever happens. My daughter also has an *interesting* life, and I expect she’ll have an impact on the world as she gains experiences.

    1. Nice to see that on LF it’s been noticed that the QuarkX input power requirements have been misunderstood, so the COP of ~22K was miscalculated as well.

      I agree, though I did not believe Rossi could be as transparent as this, and proposed a cleverer (and also plausible) way to underestimate input by 100X compatible with his data

      Also worth noting that the Rossi calculated out output power severely overestimates it. By how much depends on the spectrum of the output power, and the inner/outer dimensions of the container – but it could be up to 500X… Rossi is good at this stuff.

  2. This is not related to your (or any) comment, but instead observations over the last 24 hours. Anyway, I did some searching on sponge in post #4309. But what I found was that it was hard to find anything new information on how platinum sponge is “created” this trade secret information seems closely guarded. But did find a 50 year old JM pdf. The process could not have been duplicated by Rossi for reasons in 4309. We now have to dispute how pumps dumped 1MW out a second story window.

    The forum went into meltdown today that is apparent. I did not see it coming. I am just getting old. I think those ‘damn Ruskies’ MUST have put something in the forum ‘bits’ today. Maybe when they stole Rossi’s charge. People forget we are just spectators in this drama. I would tell them that but they were all banned. Maybe in a week or two I can if they come back. Except for you of course – your special somehow- you got a perma-ban. I have a strong feeling that you were always special. I have a feeling there is a reason that LF does not have a TOS. Even though it would really help people navigate all that thin ice.

    1. I’m not actually complaining. I trust reality. I just say what I see, right or wrong … unless I think it would directly cause harm, in which case I might keep my mouth shut. I’m a parent. One learns to do things like that. I have not seen the Forum today. The avalanche of documents has continued, and I go for a cardiac stress test today. (I requested it, no special reason to be worried, this is a precaution because I am ramping up my exercise, making up for years of purely sedentary non-activity.)

      The new documents are downright amazing. Rossi is providing for public review evidence that he is a friggin’ liar, deceiver, and that his filings are FOS. Uzi Shaya’s declaration is interesting. Uzi claims, in a sworn declaration, to be a private investigatory (effectively) working for the attorney Zalli. Uzi misrepresented himself to Levi, as representing investors, seeking to get Levi to talk, that is how I read this. PIs do that kind of thing all the time, tempt someone with possible benefit.

      So Levi’s spider-sense told him something was wrong — it was — but he then translated this into threats and attempted bribes. Uzi just wanted information. The offer of payment for a paper was probably insincere. And then, bottom line, this confirms that Zalli was an attorney working for Darden, thus the emails would be privileged unless a crime was involved, and PIs lying to investigation targets is not a crime, without additional elements not apparent.

Leave a Reply