Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed:You mean the heat magically jumped 70 feet, and then spread past two 
bunkers which were not on fire.



What I recall - there were several fires in the bunkers on and off at 
different times; so a lot of heat damage.





Jed:No marine architect, sailor or White Star Line official believed it 
was unsinkable.


Are you sure about that? As you point out -

Jed: A few people said that to the press, and some of the passengers may 
have believed it


There was big publicity telling the public that it was unsinkable;  the 
publicity could easily have started to fool those more professional. 
Those employees- being around the public and continually telling them it 
was unsinkable - could easily start believing the lie themselves. (When 
I was in sales it was pointed out that the best salesman is the one 
believing the lies that they tell the customers. It would have been the 
same with the Titanic employees - tell the lie to the customers and 
believe the lie yourself --> because if you don't believe the lie you 
are telling them then most people can spot liars.) The reasoning for why 
it was deemed unsinkable was - it had hull compartments; and it would 
take (I think the number was ) 4 hull compartments to be breached for 
Titanic to sink, and that was deemed impossible that 4 would be 
breached- hence unsinkable.




-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Thursday, 23 Jun, 22 At 01:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  > wrote:




I take it that the photo is not the best so doesn't show everything; and 
heat was so bad at one time that it spread a long way.


You mean the heat magically jumped 70 feet, and then spread past two 
bunkers which were not on fire. That is physically impossible.





Well you can say that from hindsight, it would bewilder me from my 
perspective in the NOW. But at the time they would have been told the 
ship was unsinkable and whereas in other ships it might be worrying, 
there was nothing to worry about in this ship because - unsinkable 
unlike other ships.


No marine architect, sailor or White Star Line official believed it was 
unsinkable. A few people said that to the press, and some of the 
passengers may have believed it, but no one who knew about ships would 
ever say such a thing. This was made clear in both the British and U.S. 
investigations. Senators and others asked about this.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> I take it that the photo is not the best so doesn't show everything; and
> heat was so bad at one time that it spread a long way.
>
You mean the heat magically jumped 70 feet, and then spread past two
bunkers which were not on fire. That is physically impossible.


> Well you can say that from hindsight, it would bewilder me from my
> perspective in the NOW. But at the time they would have been told the ship
> was unsinkable and whereas in other ships it might be worrying, there was
> nothing to worry about in this ship because - unsinkable unlike other ships.
>
No marine architect, sailor or White Star Line official believed it was
unsinkable. A few people said that to the press, and some of the passengers
may have believed it, but no one who knew about ships would ever say such a
thing. This was made clear in both the British and U.S. investigations.
Senators and others asked about this.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed: I can always be wrong.


I take it that you are, because I'm not.

I take it that the photo is not the best so doesn't show everything; and 
heat was so bad at one time that it spread a long way.




Jed:Sailors seldom break regulations when they know it might well kill 
them.



But put them under enough pressure of losing their jobs etc and promises 
that all will be well and .


Jed: A major fire that could cause a 30' streak would be 
life-threatening to everyone on board. It will fill the whole ship with 
smoke. Especially a streak that magically appears 70' away from the 
fire, with no streak near the fire! That would upset sailors because 
they tend to be superstitious. It would bewilder them. Or anyone. It 
should bewilder you!


Well you can say that from hindsight, it would bewilder me from my 
perspective in the NOW. But at the time they would have been told the 
ship was unsinkable and whereas in other ships it might be worrying, 
there was nothing to worry about in this ship because - unsinkable 
unlike other ships.


Jed:I do not think you have worked in a hazardous trade such as the 
merchant marine. My father saw someone killed or maimed at the docks on 
nearly every voyage he made. He came close to being killed, and he was 
finally maimed, almost losing his arm. It was disfigured for the rest of 
his life. Sailors did not then and they do not now casually disregard 
regulations when there is something like a fire large enough to scorch 
the outside of the ship.


I have worked down the docks, one of the big cranes fell over - there 
was a big coverup after that - all the cranes had not followed safety 
regulations.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 23:38
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  > wrote:



So, you are not sure and only "think" and could be wrong.

Well, pretty sure. I can always be wrong. (I suggest you practice saying 
that to yourself: 'I can always be wrong.')





 I would have thought the heat from the coalfire would have gone along 
the hull and be even was where the photo was not showing it.


It is not going to jump ~60' away from the bunker that is on fire, and 
then produce a 30' streak on another part of the hull while having no 
effect where the bunker is. The streak will not then vanish. That's 
preposterous.





They didn't get back from the voyage to be told off for sailing under 
dangerous conditions; so not out of the question that they were breaking 
regulations.


Sailors seldom break regulations when they know it might well kill them. 
A major fire that could cause a 30' streak would be life-threatening to 
everyone on board. It will fill the whole ship with smoke. Especially a 
streak that magically appears 70' away from the fire, with no streak 
near the fire! That would upset sailors because they tend to be 
superstitious. It would bewilder them. Or anyone. It should bewilder 
you!




Jed: Regulations back then were tight.

From my experience regulations are broken when forced to do so by those 
in charge; same would apply then.


I do not think you have worked in a hazardous trade such as the merchant 
marine. My father saw someone killed or maimed at the docks on nearly 
every voyage he made. He came close to being killed, and he was finally 
maimed, almost losing his arm. It was disfigured for the rest of his 
life. Sailors did not then and they do not now casually disregard 
regulations when there is something like a fire large enough to scorch 
the outside of the ship. They are not suicidal. Pilots do not casually 
take off when one engine will not start. Construction people building 
apartments do not ignore it when a wall collapses.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> So, you are not sure and only "think" and could be wrong.
>
Well, pretty sure. I can always be wrong. (I suggest you practice saying
that to yourself: 'I can always be wrong.')

I would have thought the heat from the coalfire would have gone along the
> hull and be even was where the photo was not showing it.
>
It is not going to jump ~60' away from the bunker that is on fire, and then
produce a 30' streak on another part of the hull while having no effect
where the bunker is. The streak will not then vanish. That's preposterous.


> They didn't get back from the voyage to be told off for sailing under
> dangerous conditions; so not out of the question that they were breaking
> regulations.
>
Sailors seldom break regulations when they know it might well kill them. A
major fire that could cause a 30' streak would be life-threatening to
everyone on board. It will fill the whole ship with smoke. Especially a
streak that magically appears 70' away from the fire, with no streak near
the fire! That would upset sailors because they tend to be superstitious.
It would bewilder them. Or anyone. It should bewilder you!

Jed: Regulations back then were tight.
>
>
> From my experience regulations are broken when forced to do so by those in
> charge; same would apply then.
>
I do not think you have worked in a hazardous trade such as the merchant
marine. My father saw someone killed or maimed at the docks on nearly every
voyage he made. He came close to being killed, and he was finally maimed,
almost losing his arm. It was disfigured for the rest of his life. Sailors
did not then and they do not now casually disregard regulations when there
is something like a fire large enough to scorch the outside of the ship.
They are not suicidal. Pilots do not casually take off when one engine will
not start. Construction people building apartments do not ignore it when a
wall collapses.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

typo correction

-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 22:47
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

Jed: So I think it was an artifact of the photo.


So, you are not sure and only "think" and could be wrong. I would have 
thought the heat from the coalfire would have gone along the hull and be 
even where the photo was not showing it. The photo was supposed to be 
the only photo of the Titanic on that side before setting sail, so 
pointing out you want other photos is asking for something impossible.


Jed: If the crew ignored it and sailed, the captain and all officers 
would lose their licenses and never sail again.


They didn't get back from the voyage to be told off for sailing under 
dangerous conditions; so not out of the question that they were breaking 
regulations.


Jed: Regulations back then were tight.

From my experience regulations are broken when forced to do so by those 
in charge; same would apply then.








-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 22:26
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  > wrote:




It wasn't as massive a fire as you are trying to make out.

I have read about shipboard fires, shipwrecks, storms and other 
disasters. I have heard about such things directly from people who 
sailed on ships made before WWI. Any fire large enough to leave a 30' 
black streak on the outside of the Titanic would be very large indeed. 
The fire would be readily apparent to everyone on board. If the crew 
ignored it and sailed, the captain and all officers would lose their 
licenses and never sail again. It is simply out of the question. 
Regulations back then were tight. Fire is one the worst shipboard 
disasters.



More to the point:


1. The 30' streak is far larger than a bunker, which is only 9' wide, so 
it would have to be in several bunkers.
2. It is in the wrong part of the hull, not where the bunker that was 
reportedly on fire is located.

3. The streak disappears in other photos.


So I think it was an artifact of the photo. Other people have come to 
that conclusion. See:



https://www.titanicswitch.com/coalbunker_fire.html 




http://glinds-diversions.com/titanic/titanic-fire-2.html 







O-ring of Challenger disaster should never have happened, just bad 
engineering.


That is true. There are examples of disasters caused by bad engineering.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed: So I think it was an artifact of the photo.


So, you are not sure and only "think" and could be wrong. I would have 
thought the heat from the coalfire would have gone along the hull and be 
even was where the photo was not showing it. The photo was supposed to 
be the only photo of the Titanic on that side before setting sail, so 
pointing out you want other photos is asking for something impossible.


Jed: If the crew ignored it and sailed, the captain and all officers 
would lose their licenses and never sail again.


They didn't get back from the voyage to be told off for sailing under 
dangerous conditions; so not out of the question that they were breaking 
regulations.


Jed: Regulations back then were tight.

From my experience regulations are broken when forced to do so by those 
in charge; same would apply then.








-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 22:26
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  > wrote:




It wasn't as massive a fire as you are trying to make out.

I have read about shipboard fires, shipwrecks, storms and other 
disasters. I have heard about such things directly from people who 
sailed on ships made before WWI. Any fire large enough to leave a 30' 
black streak on the outside of the Titanic would be very large indeed. 
The fire would be readily apparent to everyone on board. If the crew 
ignored it and sailed, the captain and all officers would lose their 
licenses and never sail again. It is simply out of the question. 
Regulations back then were tight. Fire is one the worst shipboard 
disasters.



More to the point:


1. The 30' streak is far larger than a bunker, which is only 9' wide, so 
it would have to be in several bunkers.
2. It is in the wrong part of the hull, not where the bunker that was 
reportedly on fire is located.

3. The streak disappears in other photos.


So I think it was an artifact of the photo. Other people have come to 
that conclusion. See:



https://www.titanicswitch.com/coalbunker_fire.html 




http://glinds-diversions.com/titanic/titanic-fire-2.html 







O-ring of Challenger disaster should never have happened, just bad 
engineering.


That is true. There are examples of disasters caused by bad engineering.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> It wasn't as massive a fire as you are trying to make out.
>
I have read about shipboard fires, shipwrecks, storms and other disasters.
I have heard about such things directly from people who sailed on ships
made before WWI. Any fire large enough to leave a 30' black streak on the
outside of the Titanic would be very large indeed. The fire would be
readily apparent to everyone on board. If the crew ignored it and sailed,
the captain and all officers would lose their licenses and never sail
again. It is simply out of the question. Regulations back then were tight.
Fire is one the worst shipboard disasters.

More to the point:

1. The 30' streak is far larger than a bunker, which is only 9' wide, so it
would have to be in several bunkers.
2. It is in the wrong part of the hull, not where the bunker that was
reportedly on fire is located.
3. The streak disappears in other photos.

So I think it was an artifact of the photo. Other people have come to that
conclusion. See:

https://www.titanicswitch.com/coalbunker_fire.html

http://glinds-diversions.com/titanic/titanic-fire-2.html


O-ring of Challenger disaster should never have happened, just bad
> engineering.
>
That is true. There are examples of disasters caused by bad engineering.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

typo correction

-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 19:00
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

Jed

I found reference to the documentary - 
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kristinharris/titanic-the-new-evidence
It wasn't as massive a fire as you are trying to make out. The facts as 
presented by the documentary are disputed by some and there are 
alternative facts of course, as per all good conspiracy theories have.


That covers Titanic, next the Japan Fukushima disaster-

Jed: As one engineer in Japan said: After a disaster, you can always 
find a  document on file recommending an improvement that would have 
prevented  the disaster. The problem is that if we did all recommended 
improvements, no project would ever be finished and no power reactor 
would go online. The tsunami was a once per thousand years event. Not 
the sort of thing you would normally make a priority.


I think that bad and a cover up - usual thing to make excuses.

O-ring of Challenger disaster should never have happened, just bad 
engineering.


Silkwood pointed out bad engineering at Atomic plant and that made her a 
martyr etc



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 18:17
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  > wrote:





Jed:No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker 
fire.



Exactly hence conspiracy



Nope. You are confused. There was no massive fire. If there had been, 
the whole ship would have been filled with smoke, as I said. Also carbon 
monoxide, which is what you get from spontaneous combustion deep in a 
pile of coal. That is what reports of other bunker fires say. If there 
was a fire, it was small.






It was massive but not that massive.



Massive enough to detect or cause damage would have been obvious to the 
crew and passengers, who would have refused to board.






Jed: The people running Fukushima were also first class. Japanese 
engineering is some of the best in the world.


And they didn't think about building a bigger sea wall?

They did think of it, and it was recommended, but they did not do it. As 
one engineer in Japan said: After a disaster, you can always find a 
document on file recommending an improvement that would have prevented 
the disaster. The problem is that if we did all recommended 
improvements, no project would ever be finished and no power reactor 
would go online. The tsunami was a once per thousand years event. Not 
the sort of thing you would normally make a priority.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed

I found reference to the documentary - 
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kristinharris/titanic-the-new-evidence
It wasn't as massive a fire as you are trying to make out. The facts as 
presented by the documentary are disputed by some and there are 
alternative facts of course, as per all good conspiracy theories have.


That covers Titanic, next the Japan Fukushima disaster-

Jed: As one engineer in Japan said: After a disaster, you can always 
find a document on file recommending an improvement that would have 
prevented the disaster. The problem is that if we did all recommended 
improvements, no project would ever be finished and no power reactor 
would go online. The tsunami was a once per thousand years event. Not 
the sort of thing you would normally make a priority.


I think that bad and a cover up - usual thing to make excuses.

O-ring of Challenger disaster should never have happened, just bad 
engineering.


Silkwodd pointed out bad engineering at Atomic plant and that made her a 
martyr etc



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 18:17
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  > wrote:





Jed:No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker 
fire.



Exactly hence conspiracy



Nope. You are confused. There was no massive fire. If there had been, 
the whole ship would have been filled with smoke, as I said. Also carbon 
monoxide, which is what you get from spontaneous combustion deep in a 
pile of coal. That is what reports of other bunker fires say. If there 
was a fire, it was small.






It was massive but not that massive.



Massive enough to detect or cause damage would have been obvious to the 
crew and passengers, who would have refused to board.






Jed: The people running Fukushima were also first class. Japanese 
engineering is some of the best in the world.


And they didn't think about building a bigger sea wall?

They did think of it, and it was recommended, but they did not do it. As 
one engineer in Japan said: After a disaster, you can always find a 
document on file recommending an improvement that would have prevented 
the disaster. The problem is that if we did all recommended 
improvements, no project would ever be finished and no power reactor 
would go online. The tsunami was a once per thousand years event. Not 
the sort of thing you would normally make a priority.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:


> Jed:No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker
> fire.
>
>
> Exactly hence conspiracy
>

Nope. You are confused. There was no massive fire. If there had been, the
whole ship would have been filled with smoke, as I said. Also carbon
monoxide, which is what you get from spontaneous combustion deep in a pile
of coal. That is what reports of other bunker fires say. If there was a
fire, it was small.



> It was massive but not that massive.
>

Massive enough to detect or cause damage would have been obvious to the
crew and passengers, who would have refused to board.



> Jed: The people running Fukushima were also first class. Japanese
> engineering is some of the best in the world.
>
>
> And they didn't think about building a bigger sea wall?
>
They did think of it, and it was recommended, but they did not do it. As
one engineer in Japan said: After a disaster, you can always find a
document on file recommending an improvement that would have prevented the
disaster. The problem is that if we did all recommended improvements, no
project would ever be finished and no power reactor would go online. The
tsunami was a once per thousand years event. Not the sort of thing you
would normally make a priority.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed: Which is probably farther than you know.


nah, you are making stuff up.

Jed:No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker 
fire.



Exactly hence conspiracy

Jed: It would be obvious to everyone there was a fire. The ship would be 
filled with smoke.


It was massive but not that massive. There was a documentary - photo of 
Titamic before it set sail showed damage to the superstructure from the 
heat.




Jed: Insurance did not pay for even a small fraction of the Titanic 
disaster.



About recouping losses

Jed: First of all, the sailors on the Titanic were very competent.


nah, there was big strike on at the time that would have reduced ability 
to get the best. There was a documentary taking a critical look at the 
captain and decided he wasn't the best



Jed: The people running Fukushima were also first class. Japanese 
engineering is some of the best in the world.


And they didn't think about building a bigger sea wall?

etc


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 16:46
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  > wrote:





Jed:  There were many coal bunker fires in the ships of that era. They 
never sank a ship as far as I know.



So, as far as you know.

As far as you know

Which is probably farther than you know. As I said, I happen to know 
about ships of that era, mainly from books, but also from old sailors, 
long dead, who sailed on ships built at the same time as the Titanic. 
That makes you think about the nature of time and history, doesn't it? 
The past is not as distant as we think.





- would they be so incompetent that they would go to sea with a massive 
coal bunker fire which they were finding impossible to put out?


No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker 
fire. It would be obvious to everyone there was a fire. The ship would 
be filled with smoke. The passengers would refuse to board. There might 
have been a small fire. Such things were fairly common. It is likely 
they would have extinguished it before setting sail. It was common 
enough that they knew how to deal with it. Regulations ensured they 
would know about even a small fire.





 It was asking for the ship to sink as far as I am concerned, and you 
get the money from insurance scam.


That's preposterous. Insurance did not pay for even a small fraction of 
the Titanic disaster.




A series of unforunate events is easy to arrange as far as I am 
concerned. If it takes a series of unfortunate events to cause a reactor 
meltdown by a collection of people - then just employ incompetent people 
at each stage of the process.


First of all, the sailors on the Titanic were very competent. They were 
some of the best people in the industry, because it was a high status 
ship and it paid well. The people running Fukushima were also first 
class. Japanese engineering is some of the best in the world. Second, it 
is not possible to deliberately cause something like the Titanic or 
Fukushima disaster. No one can known in advance how to sabotage such 
complex systems. They are designed with multiple layers of protection to 
prevent that. Both disasters were almost -- but not quite -- prevented.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed: Then I suggest you read a dictionary.


Don't see any big difference.

this points out it is a vague term ->

The concept of stigmergy was introduced by Pierre-Paul Grasse in the 
1950's to describe the indirect communication taking place among 
individuals in social insect societies. Stigmergy was originally defined 
by Grasse in his studies on the reconstruction of termite nests. Grasse 
showed that the regulation and coordination of the building activity do 
not depend on the workers themselves but is mainly achieved by the nest: 
a stimulating configuration triggers a response of a termite worker, 
transforming the configuration into another configuration that may 
trigger in turn another, possibly different, action performed by the 
same termite or any other worker in the colony. Although Grasse's 
concept of stigmergy was attractive and stimulating, it has been 
overlooked by students of social insects because it left open the 
important operational issue of how stimuli must be organized in time and 
space to allow perfect coordination. Despite the vagueness of Grasse's 
formulation, stigmergy is a profound concept, the consequences of which 
are yet to be explored.

https://www.stigmergicsystems.com/stig_v1/stigrefs/article1.html?858732

given its "vagueness " -> just can end up as another form of conspiracy



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 16:50
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  > wrote:





Stigmergy (/ˈstɪɡmərdʒi/ 
  STIG-mər-jee 
 ) is a 
mechanism of indirect coordination 
 , through the environment, 
between agents or actions.[1] 
 
The principle is that the trace left in the environment 
   by an individual 
action stimulates the performance of a succeeding  action by the same or 
different agent. . . .



Just sounds like another form of conspiracy as far as I am concerned.

Then I suggest you read a dictionary. The two are completely different.




 A chain reaction of unfortunate events - domino effect - with someone 
pushing over the first domino that causes all the other dominos to fall.



Except that with stigmergy no one pushes over the domino. And no one 
pushed it with the Titanic or Fukushima. With cold fusion, everyone 
knows who pushed the dominos, so it was not secret, and therefore not a 
conspiracy. The people who pushed the dominos bragged about that for the 
rest of their lives.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

add on


Jed : "No one would say that people engaged in a conspiracy are only 
"acting in harmony toward a common goal.""


I disagree, they would say something nice like that in the prep talks 
when join - that working towards a common goal.




-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 17:01
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone


Jed

"Definition 2 only applies to inanimate objects, as an analogy."

Doesn't say that -- no use of "only" there!

So, you misunderstand definitions



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 16:56
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  > wrote:





definition 2
 to act in harmony toward a common end
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire 



--> nothing about a conspiracy has to be unlawful or illegal

-> not your definition



You misunderstand. Definition 2 only applies to inanimate objects, as an 
analogy.



: to act in harmony toward a common endCircumstances conspired to defeat 
his efforts.… the sun and the wind conspired to make splinters out of 
solid wood.— B. J. Oliphant



No one would say that people engaged in a conspiracy are only "acting in 
harmony toward a common goal." They have to be secret, and engaged in 
nefarious conduct, or it ain't a conspiracy.




You should stop arguing that words do not mean what everyone knows they 
mean, and what every dictionary says they mean. It makes you look 
stupid.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed

"Definition 2 only applies to inanimate objects, as an analogy."

Doesn't say that -- no use of "only" there!

So, you misunderstand definitions



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 16:56
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  > wrote:





definition 2
 to act in harmony toward a common end
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire 



--> nothing about a conspiracy has to be unlawful or illegal

-> not your definition



You misunderstand. Definition 2 only applies to inanimate objects, as an 
analogy.



: to act in harmony toward a common endCircumstances conspired to defeat 
his efforts.… the sun and the wind conspired to make splinters out of 
solid wood.— B. J. Oliphant



No one would say that people engaged in a conspiracy are only "acting in 
harmony toward a common goal." They have to be secret, and engaged in 
nefarious conduct, or it ain't a conspiracy.




You should stop arguing that words do not mean what everyone knows they 
mean, and what every dictionary says they mean. It makes you look 
stupid.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

definition 2
>
> to act in harmony toward a common end
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire
>
>
> --> nothing about a conspiracy has to be unlawful or illegal
>
>
> -> not your definition
>

You misunderstand. Definition 2 only applies to inanimate objects, as an
analogy.

: to act in harmony toward a common endCircumstances *conspired* to defeat
his efforts.… the sun and the wind *conspired* to make splinters out of
solid wood.— B. J. Oliphant

No one would say that people engaged in a conspiracy are only "acting in
harmony toward a common goal." They have to be secret, and engaged in
nefarious conduct, or it ain't a conspiracy.

You should stop arguing that words do not mean what everyone knows they
mean, and what every dictionary says they mean. It makes you look stupid.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

*Stigmergy* (/ˈstɪɡmərdʒi/ 
> *STIG-mər-jee*
> ) is a
> mechanism of indirect coordination
> , through the environment,
> between agents or actions.[1]
> 
> The principle is that the trace left in the environment
>  by an individual
> action stimulates the performance of a succeeding action by the same or
> different agent. . . .
>
Just sounds like another form of conspiracy as far as I am concerned.
>
Then I suggest you read a dictionary. The two are completely different.


> A chain reaction of unfortunate events - domino effect - with someone
> pushing over the first domino that causes all the other dominos to fall.
>
Except that with stigmergy no one pushes over the domino. And no one pushed
it with the Titanic or Fukushima. With cold fusion, everyone knows who
pushed the dominos, so it was not secret, and therefore not a conspiracy.
The people who pushed the dominos bragged about that for the rest of their
lives.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:


> Jed: There were many coal bunker fires in the ships of that era. They
> never sank a ship as far as I know.
>
>
> So, as far as you know.
>
>
> As far as you know
>
Which is probably farther than you know. As I said, I happen to know about
ships of that era, mainly from books, but also from old sailors, long dead,
who sailed on ships built at the same time as the Titanic. That makes you
think about the nature of time and history, doesn't it? The past is not as
distant as we think.


> - would they be so incompetent that they would go to sea with a massive
> coal bunker fire which they were finding impossible to put out?
>
No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker fire.
It would be obvious to everyone there was a fire. The ship would be filled
with smoke. The passengers would refuse to board. There might have been a
small fire. Such things were fairly common. It is likely they would have
extinguished it before setting sail. It was common enough that they knew
how to deal with it. Regulations ensured they would know about even a small
fire.


> It was asking for the ship to sink as far as I am concerned, and you get
> the money from insurance scam.
>
That's preposterous. Insurance did not pay for even a small fraction of the
Titanic disaster.

A series of unforunate events is easy to arrange as far as I am concerned.
> If it takes a series of unfortunate events to cause a reactor meltdown by a
> collection of people - then just employ incompetent people at each stage of
> the process.
>
First of all, the sailors on the Titanic were very competent. They were
some of the best people in the industry, because it was a high status ship
and it paid well. The people running Fukushima were also first class.
Japanese engineering is some of the best in the world. Second, it is not
possible to deliberately cause something like the Titanic or Fukushima
disaster. No one can known in advance how to sabotage such complex systems.
They are designed with multiple layers of protection to prevent that. Both
disasters were almost -- but not quite -- prevented.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed


Well the problem here is what definition are you going by

going by Merriam- Webster

conspiracy

definition 1
: the act of conspiring 
  together

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy

to know what conspiring means

leads to
definition of conspire

definition 2
 to act in harmony toward a common end
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire

--> nothing about a conspiracy has to be unlawful or illegal

-> not your definition





-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 16:36
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  > wrote:






There are open conspiracies -

That is a contradiction of terms. The dictionary definition of 
"conspiracy" is:
"a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." 
Dictionary.com
"1 · a secret agreement to do something harmful or unlawful ; 2 · the 
act of plotting with others to do something harmful or unlawful." 
Webster
"the activity of secretly planning with other people to do something bad 
or illegal" Cambridge Dictionary


If it is open and not secret, it is not called a conspiracy.



H.G.  Wells was one of the most influential visionaries of the early 
twentieth century. His many books, both fiction and non-fiction, 
inspired multitudes of men and women who, like Wells, looked to a “World 
State” as the savior of humanity. Although he wrote often of an 
international order, Mr. Wells’ optimism for the future waned due to the 
destruction of World War II. Nevertheless, his desire for an “Open 
Conspiracy”


I doubt that was the right word back then, but anyway, in modern English 
that would be an organized movement, not a conspiracy.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:


> There are open conspiracies -
>
That is a contradiction of terms. The dictionary definition of "conspiracy"
is:

"a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful."
Dictionary.com

"1 · a secret agreement to do something harmful or unlawful ; 2 · the act
of plotting with others to do something harmful or unlawful." Webster

"the activity of secretly planning with other people to do something bad or
illegal" Cambridge Dictionary

If it is open and not secret, it is not called a conspiracy.


> H.G. Wells was one of the most influential visionaries of the early
> twentieth century. His many books, both fiction and non-fiction, inspired
> multitudes of men and women who, like Wells, looked to a “World State” as
> the savior of humanity. Although he wrote often of an international order,
> Mr. Wells’ optimism for the future waned due to the destruction of World
> War II. Nevertheless, his desire for an “Open Conspiracy”
>
I doubt that was the right word back then, but anyway, in modern English
that would be an organized movement, not a conspiracy.

RE: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Stigmergy (/ˈstɪɡmərdʒi/ 
  STIG-mər-jee 
 ) is a 
mechanism of indirect coordination 
 , through the environment, 
between agents or actions.[1] 
 
The principle is that the trace left in the environment 
  by an individual 
action stimulates the performance of a succeeding action by the same or 
different agent. Agents that respond to traces in the environment 
receive positive fitness benefits, reinforcing the likelihood of these 
behaviors becoming fixed within a population over time. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy



Just sounds like another form of conspiracy as far as I am concerned. A 
chain reaction of unfortunate events - domino effect - with someone 
pushing over the first domino that causes all the other dominos to fall.



-- Original Message --
From: "Chris Zell" 
To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 15:04
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy 



Many of these things are technically not conspiracies, just stigmergy. 
The US defeat in Afghanistan – after the longest war in US history, 
20yrs+  -  is one example.  Congress, The White House,  the mass media, 
the Pentagon lie and deceive  for decades and get away with it.  The WSJ 
claimed 6 intelligence reports about Afghanistan said nothing about the 
whole thing collapsing.


And that harmful trend continues as no one seems to scream about an 
ineffective US intelligence community.  I also think the same thing will 
happen with Russia/Ukraine and the sanctions Cold War.


All too often science goes the same way.  Termites denying anomalies 
such as Cold Fusion obediently.




From: Jed Rothwell 
 Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 9:49 AM
 To: Vortex 
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone





ROGER ANDERTON  > wrote:






This is getting too diverted. What you were saying sounded like a 
conspiracy theory.





Perhaps it did sound like that, but it was not. Because --





1. A conspiracy is organized and surreptitious. The opposition to cold 
fusion was unorganized and very much in the open. Opponents published 
books, papers, newspaper editorials, editorials in Nature and so on. 
They were proud to lead the  attack against cold fusion.






2. It is not a "theory;" it is a fact. You can read the books and 
editorials. A "conspiracy theory" means an assertion that a hidden group 
of people carried out an organized campaign of opposition. There is no 
proof, and you don't know  who the people are. Although you might 
speculate about who they are. If I had said: "we don't know who opposed 
cold fusion, but I suspect it was the editors at Nature and the plasma 
fusion researchers" that would be a theory. I am not saying that. I am 
saying: "we  know who opposed cold fusion, because the editor at Nature 
published signed editorials excoriating it, and the plasma fusion 
researchers at MIT called Boston newspaper reporters and demanded that 
Fleischmann and Pons be arrested for fraud." Those researchers  never 
denied doing that. We have the news reports and quotes from them.






There is a world of difference between an unsubstantiated conspiracy 
theory and attacks carried out in public by people who bragged about 
their role in destroying cold fusion. Calling that a "theory" is like 
saying "perhaps it was the Japanese  navy that attacked Pearl Harbor in 
1941, but we will never know for sure."









CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. 
Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the 
sender.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed:  There were many coal bunker fires in the ships of that era. They 
never sank a ship as far as I know.



So, as far as you know.

As far as you know - would they be so incompetent that they would go to 
sea with a massive coal bunker fire which they were finding impossible 
to put out? It was asking for the ship to sink as far as I am concerned, 
and you get the money from insurance scam.


A series of unforunate events is easy to arrange as far as I am 
concerned. If it takes a series of unfortunate events to cause a reactor 
meltdown by a collection of people - then just employ incompetent people 
at each stage of the process.





-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 15:16
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  > wrote:




Titanic sounds to me a conspiracy fact - it left port with a fire in its 
coal bunker that could not be put out - that sounds to me that didn't 
want the Titanic to survive the journey.


There were many coal bunker fires in the ships of that era. They never 
sank a ship as far as I know. Trying to sink a ship by that method would 
be incompetent. It would almost certainly fail. It would only work if 
you managed to arrange many other improbable events, such as sailors 
ignoring the fire -- something they never did. And making the fire 
undetectable, which is impossible, because bunkers were equipped with 
thermocouples, and bunkers were checked regularly, because everyone knew 
fires were common. Or making the fire impossible to put out, which it 
would not be. Or simultaneously inveigling the captain to go along with 
the conspiracy and ignore iceberg warnings. That would be impossible 
because it was impossible to know there would be icebergs, and without 
them, even a large fire would cause no harm. Also because the captain 
would never agree to such a thing.



It is also a conspiracy theory because you have no idea who might have 
arranged it; there is no solid evidence that it happened; and fires of 
this nature were common and caused by spontaneous combustion, so there 
is no reason to think anyone set it -- assuming there even was a fire.



In short, this is a conspiracy theory. No written evidence, no known 
people involved, no motivation, and if the event occurred it is highly 
unlikely it would cause serious damage.




 A series of unfortunate events that happens - is usually arranged by 
someone to happen.


Nope. Just about every major industrial accident in history, from the 
Titanic to Three Mile Island to Fukushima, was caused by a combination 
of unfortunate events. These systems have multiple fail-safe protection. 
One failure cannot destroy them. It takes multiple failures. One person 
-- or even a group of people -- could not arrange to have the right 
combination of failures because no one knows in advance what has to 
fail. For example, no one would deliberately add sulphur to the steel in 
the Titanic, because no one at that time knew what effect that would 
have, and no one would even know the sulphur was in the steel. Without 
the sulphur there would have been no tragedy. A person who 
surreptitiously arranged for sulphur would have no way of knowing the 
embrittling effects of extreme cold it has, and no way to influence the 
captain to ignore an iceberg warning years later. Most ships never 
struck an iceberg or anything else, so even if they had been brittle 
(without anyone knowing that fact), it would never have caused any harm.




(Note that some of what I wrote here is not well documented. I know a 
thing or two about ships of that era because my father was a fireman on 
one, albeit with oil instead of coal. There were still many coal fired 
ships when he sailed.)

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Esa Ruoho]

so hey i found the craddock engineering phonenumber but i'm not sure how to
proceed since i'm in finland.
craddock engineering was founded by anthony craddock, a boss of energetic
productions, that produced the energy from the vacuum dvd science series.
and since both energy from the vacuum and cheniere websites are down,
getting in touch with him would be really important to getting the pages
reinstated.
i just realized there are now 46 DVDs of Energy from the Vacuum science dvd
series, and i only have episodes 1 to 33, so i'd need to buy 34-46 to have
the full collection.
nobody on the energeticforum seems to have an inkling as to what has
happened.


ke 22. kesäk. 2022 klo 18.07 ROGER ANDERTON (r.j.ander...@btinternet.com)
kirjoitti:

> Jed
>
> There are open conspiracies -
>
>
> H.G. Wells was one of the most influential visionaries of the early
> twentieth century. His many books, both fiction and non-fiction, inspired
> multitudes of men and women who, like Wells, looked to a “World State” as
> the savior of humanity. Although he wrote often of an international order,
> Mr. Wells’ optimism for the future waned due to the destruction of World
> War II. Nevertheless, his desire for an “Open Conspiracy” – a movement of
> organizations and people seeking the establishment of a world collective –
> was forefront in his thinking.
> https://www.forcingchange.org/open-conspiracy/
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Jed Rothwell" 
> To: "Vortex" 
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 14:48
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone
>
> ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:
>
>> This is getting too diverted. What you were saying sounded like a
>> conspiracy theory.
>>
> Perhaps it did sound like that, but it was not. Because --
>
> 1. A conspiracy is organized and surreptitious. The opposition to cold
> fusion was unorganized and very much in the open. Opponents published
> books, papers, newspaper editorials, editorials in Nature and so on. They
> were proud to lead the attack against cold fusion.
>
> 2. It is not a "theory;" it is a fact. You can read the books and
> editorials. A "conspiracy theory" means an assertion that a hidden group of
> people carried out an organized campaign of opposition. There is no proof,
> and you don't know who the people are. Although you might speculate about
> who they are. If I had said: "we don't know who opposed cold fusion, but I
> suspect it was the editors at Nature and the plasma fusion researchers"
> that would be a theory. I am not saying that. I am saying: "we know who
> opposed cold fusion, because the editor at Nature published signed
> editorials excoriating it, and the plasma fusion researchers at MIT called
> Boston newspaper reporters and demanded that Fleischmann and Pons be
> arrested for fraud." Those researchers never denied doing that. We have the
> news reports and quotes from them.
>
> There is a world of difference between an unsubstantiated conspiracy
> theory and attacks carried out in public by people who bragged about their
> role in destroying cold fusion. Calling that a "theory" is like saying
> "perhaps it was the Japanese navy that attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, but
> we will never know for sure."
>
>

-- 
http://lackluster.bandcamp.com/music | http://twitter.com/esaruoho |
+358403703659

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed

There are open conspiracies -

H.G. Wells was one of the most influential visionaries of the early 
twentieth century. His many books, both fiction and non-fiction, 
inspired multitudes of men and women who, like Wells, looked to a “World 
State” as the savior of humanity. Although he wrote often of an 
international order, Mr. Wells’ optimism for the future waned due to the 
destruction of World War II. Nevertheless, his desire for an “Open 
Conspiracy” – a movement of organizations and people seeking the 
establishment of a world collective – was forefront in his thinking. 
https://www.forcingchange.org/open-conspiracy/



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 14:48
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  > wrote:



This is getting too diverted. What you were saying sounded like a 
conspiracy theory.


Perhaps it did sound like that, but it was not. Because --


1. A conspiracy is organized and surreptitious. The opposition to cold 
fusion was unorganized and very much in the open. Opponents published 
books, papers, newspaper editorials, editorials in Nature and so on. 
They were proud to lead the attack against cold fusion.



2. It is not a "theory;" it is a fact. You can read the books and 
editorials. A "conspiracy theory" means an assertion that a hidden group 
of people carried out an organized campaign of opposition. There is no 
proof, and you don't know who the people are. Although you might 
speculate about who they are. If I had said: "we don't know who opposed 
cold fusion, but I suspect it was the editors at Nature and the plasma 
fusion researchers" that would be a theory. I am not saying that. I am 
saying: "we know who opposed cold fusion, because the editor at Nature 
published signed editorials excoriating it, and the plasma fusion 
researchers at MIT called Boston newspaper reporters and demanded that 
Fleischmann and Pons be arrested for fraud." Those researchers never 
denied doing that. We have the news reports and quotes from them.



There is a world of difference between an unsubstantiated conspiracy 
theory and attacks carried out in public by people who bragged about 
their role in destroying cold fusion. Calling that a "theory" is like 
saying "perhaps it was the Japanese navy that attacked Pearl Harbor in 
1941, but we will never know for sure."

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:


> Many of these things are technically not conspiracies, just stigmergy.


That is a great word! I have never heard it. You learn something new every
day. Here is another definition:

https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Stigmergy

Yes, the opposition to cold fusion was stigmergy. It was spontaneous and
unorganized at first, but later self-organizing. Many people thought it was
in their interests to suppress cold fusion, from Robert Park at the APS and
other mainstream physicists, to the editors at Nature, to the plasma fusion
researchers. They had different reasons. Some reasons made sense, others
did not. The plasma fusion people feared their budget would be cut. They
were right; it would have been. Robert Park made his reputation as a
naysayer. As Gene Mallove said, his column "What's New" should have been
called, "What's New -- that I hate." The physicists were reacting
emotionally, and playing the usual academic politics. There was no
coordination at first, but as the attacks intensified, each group of
opponents made use of the other groups. You might say they all left
pheromone tracks in the public record, and the tracks all led in one
direction.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> Titanic sounds to me a conspiracy fact - it left port with a fire in its
> coal bunker that could not be put out - that sounds to me that didn't want
> the Titanic to survive the journey.
>
There were many coal bunker fires in the ships of that era. They never sank
a ship as far as I know. Trying to sink a ship by that method would be
incompetent. It would almost certainly fail. It would only work if you
managed to arrange many other improbable events, such as sailors ignoring
the fire -- something they never did. And making the fire undetectable,
which is impossible, because bunkers were equipped with thermocouples, and
bunkers were checked regularly, because everyone knew fires were common. Or
making the fire impossible to put out, which it would not be. Or
simultaneously inveigling the captain to go along with the conspiracy and
ignore iceberg warnings. That would be impossible because it was impossible
to know there would be icebergs, and without them, even a large fire would
cause no harm. Also because the captain would never agree to such a thing.

It is also a conspiracy theory because you have no idea who might have
arranged it; there is no solid evidence that it happened; and fires of this
nature were common and caused by spontaneous combustion, so there is no
reason to think anyone set it -- assuming there even was a fire.

In short, this is a conspiracy theory. No written evidence, no known people
involved, no motivation, and if the event occurred it is highly unlikely it
would cause serious damage.

A series of unfortunate events that happens - is usually arranged by
> someone to happen.
>
Nope. Just about every major industrial accident in history, from the
Titanic to Three Mile Island to Fukushima, was caused by a combination of
unfortunate events. These systems have multiple fail-safe protection. One
failure cannot destroy them. It takes multiple failures. One person -- or
even a group of people -- could not arrange to have the right combination
of failures because no one knows in advance what has to fail. For example,
no one would deliberately add sulphur to the steel in the Titanic, because
no one at that time knew what effect that would have, and no one would even
know the sulphur was in the steel. Without the sulphur there would have
been no tragedy. A person who surreptitiously arranged for sulphur would
have no way of knowing the embrittling effects of extreme cold it has, and
no way to influence the captain to ignore an iceberg warning years later.
Most ships never struck an iceberg or anything else, so even if they had
been brittle (without anyone knowing that fact), it would never have caused
any harm.


(Note that some of what I wrote here is not well documented. I know a thing
or two about ships of that era because my father was a fireman on one,
albeit with oil instead of coal. There were still many coal fired ships
when he sailed.)

RE: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Chris Zell]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy

Many of these things are technically not conspiracies, just stigmergy.The 
US defeat in Afghanistan – after the longest war in US history, 20yrs+  -  is 
one example.  Congress, The White House,  the mass media, the Pentagon lie and 
deceive for decades and get away with it.  The WSJ claimed 6 intelligence 
reports about Afghanistan said nothing about the whole thing collapsing.

And that harmful trend continues as no one seems to scream about an ineffective 
US intelligence community.  I also think the same thing will happen with 
Russia/Ukraine and the sanctions Cold War.

All too often science goes the same way.  Termites denying anomalies such as 
Cold Fusion obediently.

From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 9:49 AM
To: Vortex 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> wrote:

This is getting too diverted. What you were saying sounded like a conspiracy 
theory.
Perhaps it did sound like that, but it was not. Because --

1. A conspiracy is organized and surreptitious. The opposition to cold fusion 
was unorganized and very much in the open. Opponents published books, papers, 
newspaper editorials, editorials in Nature and so on. They were proud to lead 
the attack against cold fusion.

2. It is not a "theory;" it is a fact. You can read the books and editorials. A 
"conspiracy theory" means an assertion that a hidden group of people carried 
out an organized campaign of opposition. There is no proof, and you don't know 
who the people are. Although you might speculate about who they are. If I had 
said: "we don't know who opposed cold fusion, but I suspect it was the editors 
at Nature and the plasma fusion researchers" that would be a theory. I am not 
saying that. I am saying: "we know who opposed cold fusion, because the editor 
at Nature published signed editorials excoriating it, and the plasma fusion 
researchers at MIT called Boston newspaper reporters and demanded that 
Fleischmann and Pons be arrested for fraud." Those researchers never denied 
doing that. We have the news reports and quotes from them.

There is a world of difference between an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory and 
attacks carried out in public by people who bragged about their role in 
destroying cold fusion. Calling that a "theory" is like saying "perhaps it was 
the Japanese navy that attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, but we will never know 
for sure."



CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> This is getting too diverted. What you were saying sounded like a
> conspiracy theory.
>
Perhaps it did sound like that, but it was not. Because --

1. A conspiracy is organized and surreptitious. The opposition to cold
fusion was unorganized and very much in the open. Opponents published
books, papers, newspaper editorials, editorials in Nature and so on. They
were proud to lead the attack against cold fusion.

2. It is not a "theory;" it is a fact. You can read the books and
editorials. A "conspiracy theory" means an assertion that a hidden group of
people carried out an organized campaign of opposition. There is no proof,
and you don't know who the people are. Although you might speculate about
who they are. If I had said: "we don't know who opposed cold fusion, but I
suspect it was the editors at Nature and the plasma fusion researchers"
that would be a theory. I am not saying that. I am saying: "we know who
opposed cold fusion, because the editor at Nature published signed
editorials excoriating it, and the plasma fusion researchers at MIT called
Boston newspaper reporters and demanded that Fleischmann and Pons be
arrested for fraud." Those researchers never denied doing that. We have the
news reports and quotes from them.

There is a world of difference between an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory
and attacks carried out in public by people who bragged about their role in
destroying cold fusion. Calling that a "theory" is like saying "perhaps it
was the Japanese navy that attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, but we will never
know for sure."

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed


This is getting too diverted. What you were saying sounded like a 
conspiracy theory. Titanic sounds to me a conspiracy fact - it left port 
with a fire in its coal bunker that could not be put out - that sounds 
to me that didn't want the Titanic to survive the journey. A series of 
unfortunate events that happens - is usually arranged by someone to 
happen. Thanks for the links. But as far as I am concerned from my 
observations of people - they often say one thing and do the opposite; 
so, in case of scientific method - yes scientists are supposed to follow 
the scientific method, but when it comes down to what they actually do - 
its usually the opposite.



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 01:59
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON  > wrote:




sounded like conspiracy theory.



What sounded like a conspiracy theory? What do you refer to?


As I said, not everything that sounds like a conspiracy theory, is a 
conspiracy theory. Not everything that sounds implausible is false. The 
Titanic disaster was caused by a whole series of unlikely events that, 
taken together, sound like a third-rate pot-boiler disaster movie. Quite 
unbelievable. Too much sulphur in the metal; the captain ignoring radio 
warnings of ice; not enough lifeboats; a ship nearby ignoring distress 
rockets and not waking up the radio operator . . . it is a long list. If 
even one of the causes had been missing, no one would have died. It 
sounds extremely improbable, but it happened.






As for cold fusion -

Criticism of cold fusion claims generally take one of two forms: either 
pointing out the theoretical implausibility that fusion reactions have 
occurred in electrolysis setups or criticizing the excess heat 
measurements as being spurious, erroneous, or due to poor methodology or 
controls. There are a couple of reasons why known fusion reactions are 
an unlikely explanation for the excess heat and associated cold fusion 
claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion 



The first sentence is correct and at the same time, idiotic. Theoretical 
implausibility is never a valid reason to reject replicated, high-sigma 
experimental results. That violates the scientific method. There are no 
actual critiques of the excess heat measurements, but only stupid, 
groundless assertions by people who do not know the difference between 
power and energy, such as Morrison and Taubes. See p. 18 and p. 27:



https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf 




See also:


https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf 




That is the best -- and only -- skeptical experimental "critique" there 
is. There are no others.



The second sentence is bullshit. There are no valid "reasons why known 
fusion reactions are an unlikely explanation for the excess heat and 
associated cold fusion claims." Not a couple. Not one. None.