People here raised this question in earnest, and
I have been mulling it over. It is a legitimate concern after all.
From time to time, skeptics have asked me to
prove that a document is real or that I actually
have permission to upload it by providing them
with an e-mail. I have told them I do not care
what they believe. Also, that I never reveal
personal e-mails, and it is easy to fake an
e-mail in any case, so this would prove nothing.
I have no qualms about brushing off skeptics, but
let me give a more considered reply here.
You can confirm most of the documents at
LENR-CANR.org by going to library and looking up
the original printed version. It is more
difficult to confirm something like the BARC
report because it is out of print, and because India is far away.
Another obvious method is to ask the author or
co-author. When I wrote "ask the authors" in
response to that question I was not being
facetious. If I had any doubt about any of the
documents at LENR-CANR I would do this, first
thing. [1] It may not be easy to find someone in
the Defense Intelligence Agency but some of the
scientists who contributed to the document are
easy to find. (But please do not find them and bother them. They are busy!)
In fine arts, curators use the word "provenance"
to describe the "place of origin; derivation," or
"proof of authenticity or of past ownership."
They look for documents or physical evidence.
Historians and detectives use similar methods.
They examine documents, photographs, and they
question people to establish a claim. They also
make common sense assumptions about how people
behave. They like to use documents that do not
originate with the author, claimant or criminal
suspect, especially documents such as phone books
and old newspapers which no one could to forge.
For example, to prove that Obama really was born
in Hawaii, they cite a newspaper notice
announcing his birth. The assumption is that it
is impossible to insert a fake old newspaper into
a library and that on the day Obama was born no
one knew that he would someday become famous.
In the case of the Defense Intelligence Agency
(DIA) document it is easy to come up with such
methods to confirm that it is real. Here are some
of the ways you can do this --
A common sense assumption:
I am not crazy and I am not trying to get myself
arrested on charges of stealing or forging a U.S. federal government document.
Some easily verified matters of fact:
It is dead simple to find me. I have a unique
name. My name, address and telephone number and
e-mail address is on the front of the
LENR-CANR.org front page. My home address is in
the Atlanta telephone book. To put it another
way, LENR-CANR.org is the opposite of http://wikileaks.org
It is easy to confirm that the co-authors and
contributors to this paper know me, and are
familiar with LENR-CANR.org. You can find
photographs of Boss, McKubre, Forsley and I
together. Many people have seen us in
conversation. They have referred to me in some of
their papers and letters. The DIA document itself
lists LENR-CANR.org in some of the references, so
obviously the authors and reviewers of the document know about LENR-CANR.org.
From this you can reach some firm conclusions:
Suppose I were to upload a fake document
attributed to these authors. Whether I faked it
myself or whether I was duped by someone else,
the authors would soon find the document, and demand that I remove it.
More to the point, the DIA would soon find it.
They would also demand that I remove it, and
since their demands are backed by the force of
law they are compelling, to say the least.
How would they find the document? Well, first of
all, they are intelligence agency. They probably
have extensive means of finding things. Even if
they do not, anyone can find anything on the net
with Google. Do a Google search for "Defense
Intelligence Agency cold fusion" and bingo, up
pops the front page of LENR-CANR.org, item #5,
with the title of the report on the Google
screen: "U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report
on cold fusion: Technology Forecast: Worldwide
Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions
Increasing and Gaining
" [2] Scroll down and
there's my name and phone number . . . So they would call me.
Second, even if you are not an intelligence
agency it is easy to find out that I have a copy
of this report. I have a link to my copy in bold
letters on the front page of LENR-CANR.org. We
know that the DIA people looked at LENR-CANR.org,
because it is listed as a source in their paper.
It is reasonable to think they may look again
soon and see their name on the front page. In
bold, with a blue hyperlink. I am vigorously
promoting the document and inserting links to it
elsewhere on the web, for example in the New York Times:
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/opinion/18friedman.html?sort=newest&offset=2
(By the way, if you are registered at the New
York Times I would appreciate it if you would click to Recommend this message.)
In short, I am not hiding anything, and it would
not take a Federal intelligence agency to find
out that I have a copy of this document.
Thousands of people have looked at the front page
since I added the notice. If it were fake, word
would circulate and get back to the DIA. I am
trying to bring this document to the attention of
as many people as I can. If it were forged
document, or if I had stolen it, no matter how
you look at it, it is safe to conclude that the
DIA would soon find out. They would take steps to
have the document removed from the webpage, and
probably they would have me removed to the hoosegow.
- Jed
Footnotes
1. I myself have no doubts about any of the
documents, because I copied them myself, or
received the originals directly from the authors.
The only one I do not have the original copy of
is the ERAB report. I trust the National Capital
Area Skeptics did not forge this report -- at
least not much -- because I know that the
conclusions of this report are much to their liking.
2. Item #6 is gratifying. It is a Digg pointing to Krivit's site:
"Finally! Finally! - US DIA acknowledges "cold" fusion
newenergytimes.com After 20 years of only
private research, continued mockery, and
kiss-of-death treatment for academics
investigating it, the US Defense Intelligence
Agency acknowledges a technology that can get the
equivalent energy of 300 gallons of gasoline from
the heavy water in one gallon of seawater. This
8-page summary pdf begins undoing the damage."
