ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: > Please provide proof. > You don't need me to do that. There are many authoritative sources on line, at places like the FBI and the Senate Committee. If you don't believe them, you will not believe anything else that I provide.
The difference between a conspiracy theory and a fact is easy to spot. Take the 9/11 destruction of the Twin Towers. You can find thousands of pages of authoritative analyses from places like NIST, FEMA and various universities. These explain every detail. Or you can believe people who know nothing about engineering and have no proof at all. Take your pick! It is the same situation with cold fusion. On one side we have distinguished experts such as Fleischmann, Bockris and Srinivasan, who have published peer-reviewed, definitive proof that cold fusion is real. They were the creme-de-la-creme of the establishment. They signed their papers. On the other side, we have an anonymous crew of idiots at places like Wikipedia, who name themselves after comic book characters and the like. They claim that cold fusion is not real, but they never actually give any science-based reason. They say only that other, unnamed (imaginary) people found (undescribed) errors. Errors in papers these people have never read and do not know anything about. So which side do you believe? I am conservative. Establishment oriented. I go with established experts who publish detailed proof of what they say. They have credibility. The cartoon character crowd that does not know the difference between energy and power has no credibility. That crowd of hapless flakes happens to include some scientists and the editors at Scientific American, but that only goes to show that idiots sometimes manage to get high level jobs. Any experienced person knows that. It may seem as if cold fusion is outside the establishment. Politically, it is. But from a scientific point of view, it is inside and the critics are out there in cloud-cuckoo-land.
