Monday, May 16, 2011
The drooling pseudoskeptic establishment defending goons that Wikipedia seems to be good at attracting as page editors are once again using underhand tactics to try and undermine and distort the facts on the public perception.
This time, their target is the information page on Andrea Rossi and the energy catalyzer. Rossi's (Cold Fusion Device) the energy catalyzer is a revolutionary new energy technology which outperforms coal, oil, gas and nuclear on every aspect from price, portability to safety and has the potential to be a new primary energy source.
Top Of Google Searches - WHY?
Wikipedia articles usually appear as one of the first links in the majority of all Google searches. This position of authority and generally held assumption as "the authority on truth" is completely without justification given the ability of anyone (regardless of knowledge) to anonymously edit and therefore negatively influence public opinion through the use of biased editing and omission.
The edits and "talk" contain references to "perpetual motion machines", magicians pulling rabbits out of a hat, and various other references to perceived pseudoscience. This is a tactic that has long been used by the pseudo-skeptic community. The aim here is to discredit by association with a fringe topic or notion.
Brian Josephson - Nobel Prize winning Physicist among others has made edits to the page which have been consistently deleted due to the establishment protection bias of the Wikipedia self-appointed "information police".
The activities taking place here (and this is prevalent in many subject matter areas where an establishment bias is held) are primarily examples of:
- attempting to discredit sources
- acting so as to prevent balance being achieved in the introductory section
This latest abuse of power and abuse of the Google ranking system is a deliberately
orchestrated attack on the truth about energy technology that could transform the world.
In this next instance Mats Lewan (NYTeknik Writer) quite rightly points out that they've been changing the phrase "is" to "was" to skew the meaning of the paragraph into the negative.
"I've noted that some of you have changed back and forth between "is" and "was" in the phrase "The plant which would supply heating for Defkalion's own purposes only, was supposed to be inaugurated in October 2011." Please explain your changing. As far as I know (I was the one who wrote the original piece based on my own interviews with Defkalion and Rossi) the plan for inauguration in October is still on track." --Matslewan (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
And here there is an obvious attempt to find negative aspects on Rossi and his character.
"Is there someone with a stronger background in the Italian language who can look at it:Petroldragon? It looks like this guy has had some serious legal issues in the past relating to a 'green' technology company. TenOfAllTrades(talk)".
Here Mats Lewan's character is being attacked in a failed attempt to try and discredit his information.
"The article is entirely supported by blog entries, half by an IT writer who for the most part is just repeating the inventor's assertions, and half from the inventor's self-published
web site. The article is largely structured as yet another blog, with an entry for each spate of press releases (one section for each press conference, plus one for their nearly-invisible company). Right now, this is a dreadful article that grants undue weight to unreliable sources. I'm beginning to believe that proper secondary sources just don't exist for this topic right now, and that it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article on this at all right now."
"For what it's worth, I don't think that Lewan is involved in any sort of deception himself; I consider it much more likely that he's just getting played. In any event, a blogger is not a good sole source for what would be – if true – this century's most stunning technological advance." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
"Why are you referring to a reporter for a well-established technical newspaper as a 'blogger'? Do you not appreciate the difference between the two forms of literature? People can consult the W. article on Ny Teknik if they are unclear as to the importance of the publication that Lewan writes for." Brian Josephson (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Here, AndyTheGrump lives up to his name with some good old fashioned establishment defending. Doesn't he realize that Time magazine, Nature et al will need to be dragged kicking and screaming before admitting to the fact that the energy catalyzer is a real phenomenon.
"The policy regarding extraordinary/fringe science is well established, and until the scientific community recognises the validity of this device, we won't. End of story." - AndyTheGrump
Here, he conveniently ignores Kullander and Essen's report and the work of the University of Bologna and University of Upsalla, not to mention another dozen or so physicists and engineers who've ACTUALLY been present and supervising an e-cat experiment.
"Personally, my highest-level qualification is in the social sciences, rather than in physics,
but since all the evidence suggests that this 'phenomenon' is either a hoax, or the product of self-deception, I'd argue that makes me well qualified to comment.": AndyTheGrump
"There is no independent coverage in the mainstream scientific press, peer-reviewed or otherwise. Realistically, this article shouldn't exist – and shouldn't be providing free publicity – until after there is either independent, peer-reviewed scientific reporting of the device and its mechanism (admittedly, unlikely)"...TenOfAllTrades
"Prof. TenOfAllTrades, how are you planning to explain the observed temperature rise on
conventional grounds? Numbers please, not faith! Re work previous to Rossi, an example is the work of Claytor, done at LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory) of which you may or may not have heard, which detected definitive signatures of tritium." --Brian Josephson
"It seems to be a prevailing myth that work in this field is not published in the regular
journals -- if you look at the excellent Library at lenr.org you will find many examples."
This behavior is standard practice by the establishment defending anonymous "experts" who hide behind pseudonyms while attacking the truth and trying to manipulate and distort any facts that they don't like.
Prof Josephson makes this stunningly accurate summary on his homepage.
Sociological comment: "Sources such as Nature appear to want to bury this news; at what point will it become so widely known that they will no longer be able to ignore it?" - Prof Brian Josephson
The blatant attempts to distort the truth by self-appointed "experts" has been all too obvious in recent days and is continuing now as we speak.
Wikipedia should never be trusted as a source of truth and accuracy as it is only reflective of the prejudices of the page editors who in most cases are establishment goons closed off to independent thought and hell bent on protecting the status quo.
Read the page and judge for yourself: