Tom Friedman NYTimes: The most telling element in this entire extended discourse, is of course, Tom Friedman's sudden infatuation with this subject. Tom Friedman is a creature of international power & insider undercurrents of strategic global initiatives. You would have to 'be' Tom Friedman' to be fully aware of just who he is playing the global game of information 'chess' for relative to promoting 'whose' agendas, and for exactly 'what' ulterior juxtapositioning of information manipulation. The following is 'not' an exercise ofin quantum-paranoia & conspiracy theory.
One could guess; but 'one' would likely be saddled with having one's own relative motivations of being spun, debunked, discredited, twisted, &/or maligned. This would especially tend to be 'more' likely; if objections were made loudly & publically casting a baleful eye upon Tom himself----> 'if' <-----he were indeed 'fronting' certain 'imformation slanting' agendas for some heavy hitters in the wings. The exact 'hitters' might be trickier to identify; but anybody that has just received 'blanket fusion-project no-bid-super-contracts' from the Gov. like emc2fusion, for instance, might be a likely candidate for being the wiz-kids-of-choice for Big Brother. If any of us were 'selected' to participate on the 'in-crowd-team' we would probably also play-along/play-coy as well. And it really sounded to me that quite a few people that knew the 'straight-skinny' were apparently doing exactly that. And you guys are sharp enough obviously to know immediately when you are being 'snow-jobbed.' This whole convoluted deal actually connotes and tends to indicate that 'really' a for-real Manhattan Project 21st Century is actually on the fast track and hard-reality even as we speak. This is kind've cool. And information & 'secret-stuff' is particularly difficult to keep completely off of the 'jungle-telegraph' and the www-digereedoo will likely be chiming right-up enough to slake our most fascinated conjecturing-faculties until the 'real-deal' is finally made public. Tom Friedman well knows just which side his bread is buttered-on. And it is that 'larger' status-quo international cooperative-regime that makes U.S. a co-defence-tech partner with 'they' whose regional positition is precariously perched amongst the most lethally hostile neighbors one could possibly imagine. This creates dyer necessity that they be a constant(nearly eternal) military weapons-systems proving ground. For the Military Industrial Defense boys this is a match made in 'battle-Valhallah' and hey; they've got the deepest open (and black project) pockets on 3rd-Rock. Tom is that 'power group's' poster-boy; and if he should cease his cooperative arrangement with them he wouldn't dare elaborate any of the whys & wherefores. This would be simply tough on the high-income and hazardous to one's health. Fusion &/or LENR/CANR is the biggest game going; or they are making it a 'monumental Red-Herring' of it for something else huge; maybe even Tesla-esque.~JO~ P.S. I like Tom Friedman just fine & observing him to fathom the more revealing undercurrents 'in-play' is always entertaining. That's his business and it's always a pleasure to watch someone that is really a master of his trade. His job would be an extremely interesting one, and if I'd been fated with his talent and positioning-opportunities I'd likely be enjoying myself immensely as well; and as he appears to be doing also. But I'm far too sloppy literately,) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:30:08 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: stev...@newenergytimes.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The two irritating Nates CC: nsle...@caltech.edu Jed, I could be wrong, but my guess is that Nate Lewis just doesn't have what it takes to admit that he was frustrated and very emotional about the whole damn thing and that he threw the baby out with the bathwater. I approached Nate a few years ago in person but he turned his back on me and walked away. He seemed to feel very bad about the whole 1989 situation. Can't say I blame him, though his response didn't register high on my integrity meter. I'm hopeful he will allow me to close the gap with him on this story some day. On the other hand, Frank Close has not run away from me. In fact, I connected with him back in March and we have been having fascinating, in-depth dialogue for several months now - a detente of sorts. Steve cc: Nate Lewis At 07:58 AM 9/16/2009, you wrote: I wrote: Friedman is buddy-buddy with one of the other hard-core opponents . . . I did not mean to include the word "other" here, which implies that Friedman is a hard-core opponent. I doubt that he knows much about it. But he did mention his good friend who is in the opponent's camp. As I recall, it was Lewis. If Friedman ever thought about the subject, I expect he asked Lewis, and I know what the answer would be. Lewis is a jerk. I printed out the entire NSF/EPRI conference and I am reading all papers and comments carefully. Lewis gave a good presentation laying out potential problems with cold fusion, especially recombination and the separation factor that may concentrate tritium in the electrolyte. Then he sits through several presentations that prove beyond question his concerns are moot. They are legitimate, but they they were tested for and ruled out. He asks the speakers detailed questions to confirm this. So, why didn't he say so, publicly?!? He should have announced: "although the problems I cited earlier in the year are real, recent research has ruled them out." What's the matter with that? Lewis starts his presentation by saying that electrochemists all know what he has to say, and the presentation is for people in other fields. Fair enough. It it is a fine presentation, well worth reading. The thing is, he is sitting there with the creme de la creme of 20th century electrochemistry: Fleischmann, Bockris, Huggins, McKubre and others. Does he think they have not heard of recombination? When they demonstrate that recombination can't possibly be an issue, because they used closed cells and for other reasons, why doesn't he acknowledge that?!? Also in attendance are leading experts in tritium, such as Storms and Talcott (Carol -- now Miz. S.). They and others demonstrate many reasons why separation cannot be an issue. Talcott displays a slide with a co-author's v.c.: Roland A. Jalbert *25 years working with tritium and tritium detection * involved in the development, design, and inplementation of tritium instrumentation for 15 years * for 12 years he has had prime responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintainance of all tritium instrumentation at a major fusion technology development facility (Tritium Systems Test Assembly). * Consultant on tritium instrumentation to other fusion energy facilities for 10 years (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princton) So why the heck does Lewis still, to this day, claim these people don't know tritium when they see it? I am sure he did not sleep through the presentations, because he made comments. (All Q&A comments are transcribed, and some are more interesting than the papers.) The two irritating Nates were at this meeting: Nate Lewis and Nate Hoffman. Alan Bard of the ERAB panel was also there, and also irritating. - Jed _________________________________________________________________ Drag n’ drop—Get easy photo sharing with Windows Live™ Photos. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/photos.aspx
