In reference to Mr. Krivit's Oct 30 blog:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/ Before I embark on what I perceive to have been a deliberate exploitation of Rossi's broken English I want to briefly focus on Krivit's self-perceived powers of prediction. Krivit states: > As I predicted on Thursday night, promoter Andrea > Rossi's final demonstration of a series of boxes of > pipes and wires did not light any bulb or turn any > motor. Again, he failed at science, and he failed > to deliver a technological device. I believe it was common knowledge that Rossi was building the equivalent of a 1 megawatt thermal reactor to do nothing more than heat water. My impression was that prior to the demo there may have some speculation as to whether Rossi would attempt to generate steam or just make a lot of hot water. Be that as it may, I don't recall Rossi ever planning to produce electricity from generated steam, presumably in order to power light bulbs or motors. Granted, while it might have been impressive to see a bunch of bright lights or a whirring motor that never appeared to have been Rossi's intent. Even if Rossi had powered a bunch of light bulbs or a motor I doubt their inclusion would have contributed anything useful in the scientific sense. Skeptics (and that obviously now includes Krivit) would have, as they have in the past, continued to doubt Rossi's claims. They would have continued to cry foul and scam precisely because Rossi's demonstrations, as they always have in the past, continued to avoid following adequate scientific protocols. However, because it was common knowledge as to what Rossi was planning to demonstrate I find it very odd that Krivit seems to be self-congratulating himself for predicting that there were no light bulbs or running motors. It was a frivolous and meaningless prediction for Krivit to have broadcast to his readers. ... And now, on to what I really wanted to discuss. Krivit goes on in the same Oct 30 blog to say: > Visually, Rossi exhibits absolute confidence. Yet > listen carefully when I interview him on camera > and ask him a crucial question: He is vague, he > stutters and he is logically inconsistent, even > within a 12-minute period. > > I asked him whether he had a specific moment of > discovery in his low-energy nuclear reaction research. > > "Yes, because I burned a finger," Rossi said. At this point I would recommend to any who might be interested in what Rossi actually said, view the actual You-Tube conversation of Rossi's "Ah ha" moment. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II3NxxyxQ0I ...and be sure to focus on Rossi's actual comments, the "Ah Ha!" moment starting around 10:19. Krivit's transcript of Rossi's "Ah Ha!" is meticulously transcribed, down to each and every single utterance and inflection: > "Can you tell me more about that moment?" [Krivit] asked. > > Rossi replied, "Yes, uhh, because, umm, I was, uh, uh, > working with a, with a small reactor which was made of, > uh, umm, of copper, was made of copper, uh, and with a > small lead shielding, and I was giving energy with a > resistance, uh, giving, eh, some sort of temperature. > At a certain point, the, the temperature raised very > suddenly, and, uh, and I had in my, the, the, uh, left > finger of, uh, of, uh, the, the, the, the finger of, > umm, uh, the index of my left hand, umm, sit on a, a > part of this small reactor which was as big as this, > and I burned the top of the finger." For Krivit to have produced a technically accurate word-for-word translation of Rossi's broken English, a typical Rossi-reply which was filled with Italian inflections, and pauses, and "umms", and "as" and "eh"s, was in my opinion deliberately manipulative. Krivit intentionally, and with forethought, exploited Rossi's inability to adequately express himself in a foreign language. He did so as a pretext to generate innuendo that Rossi displays confused thinking patterns. It is a cheap shot. It is despicable journalism. What I find incredibly egregious about what Krivit did is based on the fact that Krivit obviously knows that Rossi does not possess a good command of the English language. Krivit also realizes that many readers will simply read the transcript of Rossi's statement and quickly conclude, "Jeez! This Italian is a real wacko!" I suspect Krivit is banking on the hope that many readers would simply jump to such a conclusion without even bothering to watch the video of Rossi struggling to form proper English syntax. Therefore, for Krivit to have exploited Rossi in such a manner was opportunistic and IMO intentionally manipulative. I suspect it was done to bolster Krivit's assessment that Rossi must be confused about many things. I can only assume Krivit truly believes that he was doing his readers a service, due to his perceived prowess of analyzing the perceive analytical prowess of others, or the lack of. On that point I beg to differ, strenuously so. I disagree due to my own prior interactions with Krivit and what I have come to personally perceive to be an occasional inability on Krivit's part to accurately assess the actions of others. I can only assume that Krivit believes that posting this technically accurate transcript of Rossi's broken English wasn't manipulative nor opportunistic. Unfortunately, it was in both cases. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
