[Right Wing Professor]

What has happened is marginalization of anyone who even shows an interest in the subject, and plenty of fallacious debating tactics in false arguments to attack a proponent for things like his weakness in knowledge concerning unrelated subjects.

So when you clain CF is a field populated by scientists of a caliber comparable to those in the Manhattan project, and it turns out you know very little about the scientists who worked the Manhattan project, that's irrelevant? How conveeen-ient! Maybe it would just be better if you didn't make outlandish claims in the first place, and then we won't have to argue whether their incorrectness has any relevance?

Your statement is irrelevant to the existence of CF.

Claytor's statement, not mine. In contrast to electrochemical hydrogen or deuterium loading of palladium, this method yields a reproducible tritium generation rate when various electrical and physical conditions are met.

Claytor also participated in a 'junk science' symposium recently, in which participants in other 'persecuted scientific topics', like alien abductions, Benveniste's discredited homeopathic research, creationism, and faith healing had what looks like a 'whine-in'. Miles was there too. This does not give their research legitimacy, in my eyes. If they're going to join their cause with the alien abduction crowd, why should I take them any more seriously than they themselves evidently do?

[Waldozer]

Once again, you manage to evade the issues and resort to ad hominem attacks. This is very typical for people who find reacting to new information a threatening prospect. Your ridicule disproves nothing.

Here's a quote from a very famous electrical engineer, the man who originated and patented the idea of using space based repeaters. Nowadays, we call them communications satellites. The man's name is Sir Arthur C. Clarke (he also wrote a few popular books).

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, his is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong."

By choosing to slander the Society for Scientific Exploration, you merely display your disdain for what you do not wish to consider. That society is not promoting the ideas you ridicule. They investigate in a scientific manner, claims that may seem outlandish (like cold fusion). In my brief exposure to their work, papers are produced by persons with high academic standing that are as dry, methodical and conservative as any I see in traditional journals. The difference is the subject matter. Sometimes they find evidence to support claims, sometimes they do not. If Claytor decides to attend one of their conferences, it may be because he has come to realize that there are certain taboo areas of research, like cold fusion, which the established scientific community is not ready to consider. Perhaps his frustration has turned to curiosity about what else being scientifically investigated is being ignored.

Would you not agree that any subject matter can be studied scientifically, if only as a matter of the psychology of the claimants?

[PatrickHenry]

When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right.

Asimov's Corollary to Clarke's Law