At 09:53 PM 5/25/2010, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
I spent a couple of days reviewing the "Guide to
the Cosmos" interview with Steve Krivit. I was
interested in comparing what was actually said
versus what certain individuals within the Vort
Collective seem to be implying Krivit has said.
For example, I noticed the following opinions recently levied against Krivit:
-------------------------------------------------------
"Krivit is attacking a straw man and claiming that people are lying."
And:
"Steve calling people who are thinking out of
the box liars will not get you in."
-------------------------------------------------------
The title of the radio program is "Guide to the
Cosmos Did Scientist on '60 Minutes' Lie about
Cold Fusion?" It's a deliberately incendiary
title: Hype. Anyone invited to speak on a radio
show sporting such an incendiary title where
they are asked to explain their admittedly
controversial position is likely to end up
getting branded any which way they turn unless
they are very, VERY skillful in regards to the choice of words they use.
How about answering, "No, they aren't lying," or
if you think they are lying through their teeth
but you don't have proof, "There is no evidence
that they are lying," or, if you are really sure
but you can't prove it, simply, "I can't prove
that they are lying." Unfortunately, as I recall,
he answered "Yes" to the question.
Now, what question was it, exactly? When I've
thought there might be issues about the exact
text of some speech, I've transcribed it. Lot of
work, I don't have time now, and I can't just
skim over a radio interview so easily. Let's put
it this way: the headline said lying and the
interview certainly didn't contradict it. I've
been suggesting for some time that those who fund
Krivit check it out for themselves. If he's doing
courageous investigative reporting, great, keep
it up. But if he's a loose cannon, tearing up the decks, restrain him.
On the other hand, there is some suspicion that
there is money behind Larsen, and that this might
be warping things. In the past, Krivit turned
down the chance to become a "press agent," for
Energetics Technologies; at least that's his
account. Has he done this now for W-L theory?
If W-L theory is as important as Krivit claims,
certainly there is something strange: Krivit is
asking none of the hard questions about W-L
theory. It has some very obvious problems, and I
don't see answers coming out of Larsen, and
Krivit behaves as if the objections don't exist.
If this is "courageous investigative reporting," it is strangely one-sided.
I have no investment in W-L being wrong. As a
hopeful hook to hang the cold fusion hat on,
though, it's worrisome. "No dangerous radiation."
Loose neutrons, one might think, would be quite
dangerous, that's what neutron activation
analysis is about. Somehow these neutrons manage
to run, not just one reaction, but a whole soup
of them, and sequentially, which requires at some
stages a high reaction rate, yet none of the
major reactions produce radionucleides? Why not?
Any new theory, as unexpected and unexplored as
this, may have unexplained aspects. But it's
deceptive to sweep them under the carpet, to
pretend that they don't exist. As to lying, how
about refusing to answer a direct question about
the evidence for 100% absorption of gamma
radiation by these "heavy electrons"? Was it
Garwin who asked about the experimental evidence?
Larsen answered in a way that implied he had
experimental evidence but could not disclose it.
Proprietary. This was years ago. Radiation
screening like that would be huge, with military
applications. So, perhaps the military has
clamped down on this. Down this road, however,
anything could be justified. Space aliens at
Roswell, and the evidence is being suppressed, and many other stories.
I see no sign that general cold fusion research
is being actively suppressed, beyond the old
particle physics establishment politics.
I'm not interested in defending Mr. Krivit's
journalistic style, particularly the controversy
that has surrounded NET#34. That has already
been extensively critiqued by many within this
discussion group. What I'm interested in
focusing on is the fact that I'm beginning to
read conclusions expressed in Vortex that from
my perspective seem to be skewing what was
actually said in the recent "Guide to the
Cosmos" interview. It would seem that certain
vort posters are beginning to imply that Mr.
Krivit has actually accused certain CF
scientists of lying. The "L" word is now being
openly bandied about like loose change strewn on
top of a dresser. And while the "L" word was not
directly linked to any specific CF researcher...
if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... Guilt by association.
There is a general "accusation," more like mud
tossed at a crowd, and there are specific
examples, the big one is McKubre. There is a
technique for accusing people of lying without
accusing them of lying. It is to present a series
of apparent contradictions, with "questions" that
imply some cover-up or deceptive or at least
scientifically careless presentation of evidence
to produce a deceptive impression. So we have the
change in the heat/helium ratio from EPRI
experiment M4. That Krivit noticed the shift,
when the EPRI publications were recently
released, from the publication of this data at
ICCF, was a good catch, i.e., asking questions
about it was quite appropriate. But it went much
further than that. Krivit asked EPRI about
errata, had a correction been issued? And when he
got an answer that there wasn't any, he presented
this as if McKubre were lying about it, or
failing to discharge a scientific responsibility, at the least.
Now, from McKubre's account, he fulfilled his
obligation, though if he'd had some kind of
super-lawyer looking over his shoulder, the
lawyer might have said, "Make sure you put that
in writing." But the EPRI project was over, done,
paid for, complete, apparently. This was a
private report, not widely published, if I'm
correct. It was just a pile of data and analysis.
McKubre said that he told "EPRI" of the
correction. It came out in private discussions
that he told a specific EPRI manager, and
privately. I'm not going to go into trying to
prove anything here, and it may not be possible;
the point is that the normal and reasonable
common-law assumption, that testimony is true
unless controverted, was dropped. Instead of
asking McKubre *how* he informed EPRI, Krivit
asked an official who would not necessarily have
had any knowledge, got an answer that meant "Not
as far as I know," and ran with it.
Krivit's blog posts are now missing from the NET
site. Is that deliberate? The story is that he's
changed software. It's trivial to keep old
material up when you do this. It was irritating
when Krivit "revamped" his web site and the old
links usually came up with "not here" messages.
But the absolute disappearance of material is
worse. It's trivial, if one is revamping a web
site, to keep the old one up, perhaps at a new
address, and it's actually easier than what
Krivit did before and appears to be doing now.
It's easy to set up redirects from old pages to new ones, as well.
But maybe it's better that he's doing this. I
fear, though, that Krivit has so badly damaged
his relationships with the major researchers in
the field that he'll be unable to function except
as some kind of outside gadfly and critic. From
conversations with people in the field, I have
the impression that damage had accumulated and
rapport had been breaking down for years. A good
investigative reporter will not hold back on a
major story just because it might offend a
source, but will make damn sure the story isn't
just some passing impression or appearance before
publishing it, that it is truly important, not
just a suspicion. If some suspicion appears, the
reporter will approach the subject, encouraging
the subject to help get the truth out, and would
never act to create the impression that the
reporter is a hostile agent or actor. People may
dislike what a good investigative reporter
presents, but will recognize that the questions
are real. If they can remain engaged, then the
work of the reporter will help to establish the truth.
From what I've seen, Krivit's pursuit of The
Story led him to publish prematurely, many times,
leading to raw conflict being presented without
depth and neutral analysis. Krivit became an
actor instead of a reporter, he became personally
involved, as with the story about the aborted
interview with Fleischmann last year, and the
Dardik involvement. That was Krivit's personal
frustration becoming the story, with speculations
revealing his personal suspicions about Dardik,
as if it was news. It was this sequence, in the
missing blog posts, that alerted me to the
problem, and Krivit became quite angry when
confronted about it (here). Before that, I had
nothing but a good relationship with Krivit, and he'd been helpful.
Let me be clear about this. I never heard Krivit
state that that CF scientists and researchers
"lied" about their data in this interview.
You should consider his answers to questions. I
think you are literally correct, Steven, but he
answered "Yes" to a leading question on this. My
impression was that they had a conversation
first, so the host was primed to ask that
question, and Krivit certainly did not dispel the
impression. Krivit is welcome to dispel it any
time. Has he? If that interview was deceptively
presented, surely Krivit could blog about it.
It's not linked from the main NET page, AFAIK,
but it's here: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/
<http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2010/05/11/new-blog-platform/>New
Blog Platform
Posted on
<http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2010/05/11/new-blog-platform/>May
11, 2010 by <http://blog.newenergytimes.com/author/sbkrivit/>Steven B. Krivit
Hi folks! After quite a few years running on an
outdated blog platform weve finally upgraded
our blog system. If you really want to see
something from our blog archives from before the
upgrade, shoot us an e-mail. Thanks for reading.
The old files have been replaced with a redirect
to the "new blog platform." But that was
actually, my guess, more work than just
installing the new and linking it from the main
page, and placing a link to the old blog. He's
set up a subdomain, which is an easy way to use
new software. But why was the old, which doesn't
occupy that subdomain, removed? What this means
is that all requests to see that information have
to go through Krivit. How practical is that?
<Personal analysis of what got Krivit into trouble>
[Feel free to skip the "personal analysis"
portion if you're not interested in my own
personal blow-by-blow analysis of a specific portion of the Cosmos interview.]
I can understand how such a black & white
accusation could be conjured up, particularly
since in my view Krivit's handling of himself
(the choice of words he used) showed in my view
some inexperience in the "PR" management of his
personal speculations. I think that inexperience
got him into trouble and allowed his critics to exploit the situation.
It created the criticism, Steven. You are
presenting a picture as if the critics were
critics and just looking for a way to criticize
him. Why? The existence of NET was good news. If
it were being run well. What I've been hearing
for some time, though, is that Krivit was
impervious to constructive criticism, he was
Krivit, he was going to do his thing, and that was that.
I heard the radio host attempt to maneuver
Krivit into confirming conjecture that certain
scientists had lied. The radio host used the
phrase "...deliberate misrepresentation by these
scientists" which Krivit initially confirmed.
You can hear Steve say "Yeah... Ummm..." Anyone
who has a modicum of intelligence in regards to
the manner in which those two monosyllabic words
had been uttered would quickly suspect that this
reporter was not entirely comfortable with his
response, that probably in Krivit's mind he
might be trying to work out a clarification in
regards to what he is beginning to realize he
has just found himself agreeing to.
How to confirm that there was deliberate
misrepresentation without the blatantly obvious
"lying." But that impression had been created by
Krivit for quite some time. The knee-jerk
affirmative (I remembered it as "Yes," in fact,
but maybe it was "yeah," or maybe I was remembering a different interchange).
Meanwhile, the interviewer presses on and uses
the term "scientific fraud". At this point
Steve counters by stating "No, I'm not going to
say 'scientific fraud' ... although people are
free to make their own assessment of that."
That's tell-tale. He believes there was fraud,
but he can't prove it, so he says "I'm not going
to say," but allows the accusation by the host,
the host's impression of their off-the-record conversation, to stand.
I conclude from this, a rebuttable conclusion,
that Krivit believes there has been deliberate
deception. It's been obvious for some time by the
way he has conducted his open conversations, as with De Ninno in NET 34.
Unfortunately, it's the latter portion of
Krivit's reply ("...free to make their own
assessment...") that in my view gets him into
even more trouble. It can leave many a listener
with the impression that "scientific fraud", of
"lying", is still a legitimate conclusion that
Krivit might be indirectly endorsing. (IOW: the sins of omission.)
Duh! I don't see how Krivit can function as an
investigative reporter in this field any more.
Had he addressed the issues when they started to
come up, he could have recovered. He allowed
himself to become a biased player in the game.
It would not surprise me if Krivit as he went
about performing his investigations in
preparation for NET#34 may have found himself on
more than one occasion privately entertaining
speculation as to whether certain CF scientists
might have lied about the content of their data.
It would be a natural form of creative
speculation that any of us could easily find
ourselves privately entertaining while in the
midst of trying to unravel a complicated
confusing puzzle of scientific data. A crucial
point listeners who might chose to assume Krivit
has actually claimed CF researches "lied" is the
fact that Krivit has already stated for the
record: "...I'm not going to say 'scientific
fraud'". That means Krivit never said that anyone had "lied" about their data.
It doesn't mean that, Steven. Read it literally.
"I'm not going to say" is literally about his
response to the question. It's not about other
times, it's not about the past or the future,
though, again, literally, it's a prediction about
the future, but if we apply it to the indefinite
future, rather than just the immediate, it would
be preposterous. Surely if there were proof of
fraud, he'd report it, don't you think? What he'd
already done is to present possible elements of
proof, together with charges of serious
misbehavior, laden with accusation, but presented
as "unexplained facts," even though the
explanations had been provided and Krivit was
unable to understand. The inability to
understand, I infer, was due to interference from
held assumptions. I wrote extensively about this
in my review of the De Ninno material.
As previously stated, it seems to me that
Krivit's handling of his words (particularly
what I would describe as a mismanagement of some
his private speculations) was awkward, and that
transparency got him into trouble. Hopefully, in
the future as Krivit continues to pursue his
career as an investigative reporter he will
become better experienced in the management of
private speculations, particularly where he
himself becomes the star witness, where the
interviewer is attempting to steer the direction
of the conversation to a desired outcome.
An ability to separate oneself from private
speculations and to function as a neutral
investigator and witness is essential to
investigative reporting. The existence of a
"desired outcome" is fatal to neutrality, when
"desired outcome" becomes a fixed object rather
than bringing out the truth. Yes, the
investigative reporter will form hypotheses along
the way, and is like a scientist in that. The
questions asked will attempt to clarify or to
disconfirm the hypotheses. Krivit began to assume
that he understood the field, when his analyses
have shown that, too often, he didn't. That would
not have been a problem, because if he had
continued to process of educating himself, by
asking rather than, effectively, accusing, his
process of education would have been useful for
all of us. But he became obsessed, he lost his
balance, and it was painfully obvious in the
press conference at ACS San Francisco in March.
He'd become a hostile critic, grandstanding,
instead of asking questions to clear up what was
unclear. There would have been lots of good
questions to ask, some of them difficult, some of
them merely as clarifications. M4, for example,
is a minor result, compared to other work in the
field. I'm sure most hearing his questions had no idea what he was getting at.
As McKubre commented, if he'd wanted to "prove 24
MeV," he'd certainly not have made the
correction, since it pushed the result away from
that. So why the fuss over this particular result
and the correction. I see only one reason. To
attempt to prove that McKubre was sloppy at best,
and deceptive at worst. Krivit had what he thought was a smoking gun.
</Personal analysis of what got Krivit into trouble>
It seemed to me that Krivit spent a good portion
of the interview clarifying what he personally
perceived to have been a "...misrepresentation
of [the] data", a conclusion based on his own
research of the scientific findings. What I took
away from that interview is that Krivit doesn't
seem to link his perception of a
"...misrepresentation of data" as deliberate:
"intent to deceive." ... of "lying." But some
within the Vort Collective seem to have come
dangerously close to interpreting Krivit's
statements as having been an all-out accusation:
That certain CF researchers lied.
Funny that you seem to be defending Krivit as
merely naive about how he presents himself.
Krivit plainly believes that CF researchers lied,
but doesn't want to admit it because he can't
prove it. If he were to recover from the mess
he's gotten into, he'd have to (1) admit his
belief, and (2) examine the basis for the belief,
and (3) admit that he'd been caught in a trap of
his own making. That's pretty difficult, few
people can do this. But that's the situation, and he created it.
It's beginning to look to me as if the rumor
mill has started to grind away. Will Krivit soon
be accused of deliberately accusing CF scientists of lying?
He allowed that to appear. He hasn't denied the
way in which the interview was framed. Will he?
Let's watch. But, Steven, you are presenting the
appearance, now, of some kind of conspiracy
against Krivit. Most of the researchers in the
field that I've talked with seem to have decided
to just let Krivit go his own way. There is no
rumor mill, no organized attempt to discredit
Krivit. I'm a commentator, a kind of
investigative reporter myself, but the field I'm
investigating is cold fusion and the research
community, and I'm not neutral. I will defend
this community against attack. I will not defend
actual misbehavior, because I believe that any
deliberate deception on the part of researchers
does great harm to the whole community. But
Krivit is not part of the research community, and
he has alienated it, without any apparent
necessity. Questioning the heat/helium ratio is
good. But Krivit's obsession with W-L theory --
which he clearly does not understand -- caused
him to ask the wrong questions and to make
assumptions about the significance of 24 MeV that aren't true.
This whole "not fusion" emphasis is basically
nuts. Krivit does not deny that helium is being
produced. Larsen does not deny that there are
nuclear reactions involving deuterium as a fuel.
Where do these ULM neutrons come from, according
to the theory? They come from deuterium, through
d + e -> 2 n. If, then, these neutrons are
combined with "stuff" to make helium (and other
nucleides), the reaction has accomplished fusion.
That is, deuterium in with helium out. Krivit
presents the operating hypothesis of the field as
being "d+d fusion," but that is merely one of the
possible reactions that accomplish fusion. From
what I'm finding, most researchers at present
seem to favor an operating hypothesis of cluster
fusion, which isn't d+d fusion either. Takahashi
theory seems to be, basically, 2 D2 (two
deuterium molecules, including electrons) ->
collapse and fusion -> Be-8 plus energy -> 2 He-4
plus energy. Other cluster theories involve larger clusters.
If, however, the primary fuel is deuterium, and
the primary ash is helium, the heat/helium ratio
will *primarily* be 24 MeV. That is not proof of
"d+d fusion," but supports "cold fusion." Cold
fusion is not a synonym for "d+d fusion," and,
politically, it's important to erase the
assumption that "cold fusion" is impossible,
merely pointing out that there are many ways to
skin a category, fusion is a broad term, not a
narrow one. Assuming that the reaction, if it was
real, must be "d+d fusion," was certainly
premature in 1989, and then the obvious problems
with this hypothesis allowed critics to reject
cold fusion as impossible. But we already knew
that cold fusion was possible; indeed, *very cold
fusion*, i.e., muon-catalyzed fusion. Were other
forms of catalysis possible? Electron catalysis
*seemed* impossible, but that was based on a very
shallow understanding of the possibilities. What
we now have, with Takahashi's TSC theory, is not
merely an explanation, but a *prediction* of
fusion under conditions that might *possibly*
exist in the lattice, from quantum field theory.
It is no longer appropriate at all, while
Takahashi's math remains unchallenged, to
consider cold fusion as impossible. That's not
the end of this story, because the required
physical conditions are not well enough known, it
is not known if the tetrahedral symmetric
configuration for two deuterium molecules to form
is actually possible. But the energy that would
be required, the confinement that would be
required, is no longer far from what could exist.
It's possible, so TSC theory is certainly on the table.
It requires much less hand-waving than W-L
theory. W-L theory seems to be impressing some
because, indeed, *maybe* ULM neutrons could form,
and they would certainly cause LENR. I'm not
going to rule it out, because as long as we don't
know what's happening with real and complete
theoretical clarity, *nothing* can be completely
ruled out, because "obvious objections" might
turn out to have other-than-obvious explanations.
But what is W-L theory? You can look in vain at
the NET "Widom Larsen theory portal." Krivit
presents the claims, but none of the criticism.
On the other side, which he presents inaccurately
as "d-d fusion," Krivit is now presenting the
criticism, but misrepresenting the claims. As far
as I can tell, he's ignoring cluster fusion theory, which is being published.
This is what researchers really think: cold
fusion is deuterium fusion, but probably not "d-d fusion."
Rumors can be insidious little disinformation
pathogens. Is the Vort Collective in danger of
catching the fever? Will this nasty little virus
replicate and spread its message to other hosts?
I'm sure this little gem would love to do just that - if it hasn't already.
I'm the "virus." But I'm not spreading
"disinformation," I'm collecting data and
analyzing it. Turn it around, Steven. Is Krivit
calling researchers "liars"? I'm saying that his
campaign is having that effect, and that it's
apparent that Krivit believes it. Now, can he fix
this if it's not true? He certainly can, if he
wants to. He can make public statement, any time,
that denies the impression created by the radio
interview. I suggest, however, that he be
completely honest and not weasel his way out of
an accusation on technicalities. "I didn't say
that," when his comments were informed -- or
deluded -- by the belief of lying, would be mere
technicality, a technicality which you are
encouraging here as if it were substantial, Steven.
What I took away from this interview concerning
Krivit's reporting style is the fact that Vort
participants (myself included) are not immune to
becoming a tad cloistered, even incestuous as we
continue to bask the admiration and eloquence of
each other's expressed opinions.
Really? Incestuous? Wouldn't that be more fun?
Our posts occasionally include extensive
analysis of the behavior and motivations of others.
Mine do, when that behavior impacts the field or
is harming the person in question. Both are true
with Krivit. *In my opinion.* I'm not affiliated
with any institution and nobody else is
responsible for what I write. I'm independent,
and intend to remain that way, unless the
situation changes, in which case I'd disclose it
before proceeding. I have a reputation for
rigorous honesty and a willingness to admit
error, that's what I'd want to defend. Certainly
not "being right." If I'm wrong, challenge it,
and show me and others what's right.
Our posts can also turn into circuitous feedback
loops stated and re-stated over and over occasionally in tedious bulk format.
I write at length, these are conversations, for
me, and a transcript of a phone discussion would
be quite long. They are not formal, edited
publications and they are not polemic, i.e.,
designed to penetrate and convince. I'm not a
professional, being paid either to do
investigative reporting and editing to boil it
down, or to promote some point of view. Make your
own conclusions, or do as I do, suspend
judgement, as long as possible. I'm assertive, I
will state the way things appear to me, and I
often stick my foot in my mouth. From having done
this for years, though, I do tend to quickly recognize the taste of my feet.
(I freely admit that I'm probably just as
guilty of having committed many of these sins,
particularly since this post is five pages in
length, single spaced.) It wouldn't hurt too
keep in mind the fact that the world is a big
place where plenty of alternate perceptions are
floating about, different perceptions that
don't necessarily coincide with what some
within the Vort Collective appear to be advertising as the truth of the matter.
I don't advertise "truth," because I don't own it
and possess it in any exclusive way. I'm not the
ultimate judge of truth. You are, but you are,
dear readers, then, responsible to the judge of judges. Be careful.
I've also noticed that an opinion was recently
expressed, that Mr. Krivit has "lost it",
presumably in reference to Krivit's
discriminatory performance as an investigative reporter.
Yup. C'est moi.
The accusation
... or observation ...
reminds me of a similar situation I experienced
[... basically a version of "time will tell who
has fell and who is left behind." Dylan favored
linguistic impact over grammar.]
Investigative reporters are often perceived as
either heroes or villains depending on what side
of the fence one is working on.
True investigative reporters are careful about
fences, and straddle them. It's a problem with
some investigative reporting, and it's less
effective when the problem arises, because the
bias is visible and the results therefore less
trustworthy. Even if what is reported is true, it
can, then, be cherry-picked to create a desired
impression. This kind of "investigative reporter"
is really a political activist pursuing an agenda
that is other than the exposition of truth and
balanced presentation of evidence. It's okay to
be a political activist, but not okay to, then,
masquerade as a neutral investigator, just
interested in finding and reporting the truth.
It's the cross those who engage in this scrappy
profession must carry. As such, it is my opinion
that accusations, such as Krivit has "...lost
it", or that he's using the "L" word ("make him
stop!!!!") strike me as not terribly insightful.
Cool. Time will tell, Steven.
Drama of this nature plays out all the time in
the public arena. It seems to me that many have
gotten themselves all whipped up over Krivit's recent choice of words.
I'm not noticing a great deal of discussion of
this, here, so isn't "many have gotten themselves
all whipped up" a bit ... exaggerated? Krivit is
an important player in the *politics* of cold
fusion, he's quite visible. My Wikipedia article
on NET got deleted, but only because I'm topic
banned and couldn't defend it and nobody else
took up the cause. Definitely, there should be an
article on Krivit *or* NET. Krivit is probably
more notable. If anyone wants to work on that,
email me, for unless you are very familiar with
Wikipedia process and politics, you are more
likely to screw it up than to be successful. I'm
completely free to advise, but off Wikipedia.
Vorticians may also be interested in the
possibilities at
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion. That
is, I hope, being configured as a seminar on Cold
fusion. I will shepherd it to keep it within the
bounds of what is legitimate at Wikiversity, but
"fringe" topics are fine to explore at
Wikiversity. My position is that cold fusion is
no longer fringe, that the "fringe" opinion is
simply a socio-political position, not reflective
of actual scientific consensus, as shown by
peer-reviewed publications and even the 2004 DoE
review (many in this field missed that this
review, was, overall, reflective of a massive
shift since 1989. Cold fusion research was
clearly treated as respectable, by most reviewers.)
I'm also getting the impression that some here
might even begin to feel confident enough to
start predicting Krivit's untimely professional
demise, or that he will be ostracized.
I'm not predicting it, it's already happened to a
degree. Just look at that ACS press conference,
March 2010, and the reaction of Jan Marwan to
Krivit. These were collaborators, and if looks
could kill, Krivit would have fallen over, dead.
Krivit's still flopping about, there are
publications in the pipeline, but if I were a
researcher at this point, I'd not be eager to
talk to Krivit. What's happening with Energetics
Technologies? Why was Krivit reduced to reporting rumors?
Is it impossible to find out? Why? There are a
lot of people involved. There are things that
would be public record, or that would be
available to anyone with, say, contacts in Israel. And Missouri.
An investigative reporter needs a network of
friendly contacts. Does he still have it? This
field is in the process of breaking out, but
where is the news? Not on NET, I can tell you. I
expect to see massive increases in funding over
the next several years. I'd think that there
would be more news now than in the past, much
more. What's the status of the various research projects?
I don't think so, but that's just my opinion. In
the meantime, I certainly understand the anger,
the outrage. I will not make light of those
emotions. Insofar as the craft of investigative
reporting goes: Hopefully, as we get older and
more experienced we acquire more insightful (if
not more tactful) ways of delivering the
message. Like any profession, it's a learning
process, one that possesses its share of pitfalls.
Sure. So, to survive, one must be able to recover
from mistakes. How? Denying that there are any
mistakes is not part of the recovery process.
Krivit has acknowledged an error, in NET 34.
Unfortunately, the acknowledgement was more
confused than the original error. Krivit "fell
for" cold fusion without actually understanding
it, he admits that. But he's now fallen for a
false hope, almost certainly, and he's making the
same error: believing something that he doesn't understand.
