Blacklight Power Sues Wiki Trolls

Sweet.

Let's see the trolls make their case for fraud in court.

I doubt the excuse "but it's impossible because the standard model!" will fly. BLP has never been sued for fraud and they have multiple third party tests from numerous university labs that support their claims.

From Blacklight Power's website:

Blacklight vigorously disputes the allegations of fraud by certain anonymous Wikipedia editors, and has announced intentions to proceed legally against individuals and entities that assert these false allegations. To this end, it has recently filed a defamation action in New Jersey, see: NJ Civil Case Information Statement

The BlackLight Power Inc. Wikipedia page was amended with the notification of the filing of the defamation suit that was promptly removed in conflict with the rules Wikipedia claims that it adheres to. The Wikipedia page prior to being censored by an anonymous Wikipedia editor can be found at this link: Wikipedia PDF

Gotta love the fact that the mods let unsupported slander fly on Wiki because they are terrified of any threat to their precious standard model.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

you really need to increase your understanding of US law [ in addition to science ] - the plaintiff has to demonstrate that the accusations are false - good luck with that .

I actually hope this come to trial - it will be a hoot.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist


Gotta love the fact that the mods let unsupported slander fly on Wiki because they are terrified of any threat to their precious standard model.

Do you honestly believe that?
Wiki is not run by some 'standard model' patriarchs who have built up a website that is an entire world encyclopedia on practically everything, purely to push a standard model....


Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
(Tim Minchin)

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

I do find these guys that go on about the conservation of energy laws when we are without a unified energy theory quite annoying. At least some of them do sound well paid as they defend the market for the current energy barons.

As for the others on this bandwagon I do see a striking similarity with Israels attitude towards Palestine. In the past scientist where branded as heretics, attacked and ostracized. Similar to what happened to the Jews in WW2 Germany. The social conditioning that appears to have arisen for this poor and degrading treatment is to repeat it. I know this is not true for all cases as not all people who are abused become abusers, but it is a factor to consider when trying to understand the current situation.

It is good to hear blacklight taking a stand and building in strength.

a reply to: ignorant_ape
Surprised they haven't tried to sue under English law, where the burden of proof for libel is pretty much reversed.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

He might be able to demonstrate that though. I did some research on Blacklight Power after reading about it here. I believe two things: 1) The unexpected (by normal thermochemistry) exothermic reaction Mills reports, which has now been observed by two independent universities, is in fact real. 2) Mill's theory explaining it is wrong.

If you do some research, you'll find it was a suprise exothermic reaction that set off the LENR (cold fusion) movement in the first place, involving smart scientists in the dead end theory. You'll also find tails of explosions and meltdowns that shouldn't have been able to happen from the industrial world too. The point is, something is happening that we don't yet understand. But the LENR theories haven't panned out, and nor do I think will Mill's will either. Regardless Mills proposing a wrong theory to explain a demonstrable phenomenon that shouldn't be happening doesn't necessarily make him fraudulent.

a reply to: tridentblue

yes - I am aware of various anomolus results in experiments

but these do not extrapolate to the claims of blacklight

a reply to: ignorant_ape
I dont think they do either, all I'm saying is that fringe science isn't a crime, and every now and then it turns out to be right.

a reply to: tridentblue
Fringe science isn't a crime, but if he is tying to make money of claims that are false.

BLP has a case.

To accuse fraud, there has to be proof or at least evidence of deliberate fraud for the accusation to be just or it becomes slanderous.

BLP could simply be incorrect in it's measurements, have misjudged certain parameters, drawn confused conclusions, or may well be correct in everything they claim, but as yet have not provided conclusive and concrete, irrefutable proof.

NONE of which is evidence or proof of deliberately fraudulent operations...and so, accusations of fraud MUST be false in the absence of any proof of deliberate fraud on BLP's part.

So yeah...BLP have a legitimate case to take to court IMO.

Debunkers for the sake of debunking, take note...you may soon require proof of your accusations of fraud, or deep pockets, or both.

Or take up a different pointless hobby.

a reply to: MysterX
Any claim of fraud would not relate to the science claims. But to using claims of results that they cant substantiate to gain investors. If they have not done this then they may have a case.
Nothing to do with debunking any science, that is a whole separate issue.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Would their claims of naming third party institutions as independently validating their work not be considered fraud? Seeing as such claims have never materialized outside of BLP's press releases, that would certainly be considered deception if they are indeed misrepresenting claims in order to gain credibility in the eyes of investors.

Anyway, watching BLP have to bare all in a court of law will be hilarious. I doubt it will ever get that far, though. Seems like typical bullying tactics to silence critics.

a reply to: kwakakev

It's not difficult: if you wish to make extraordinary claims about breaking the laws of physics, you will need to present extraordinary evidence. To date, not has every been presented.

As for your comment about those who are skeptical of extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence being "paid" to do so, you are simply delusional. If anyone is getting paid for shameless promotion, it's got to be OP. He seems like a one-man publicity machine for BLP.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
and they have multiple third party tests from numerous university labs that support their claims.

You claim that, but are unable to show the results of these 3rd party tests.... funny that, it is as if they don ot exist!

originally posted by: MysterX
BLP has a case.

To accuse fraud, there has to be proof or at least evidence of deliberate fraud for the accusation to be just or it becomes slanderous.

BLP could simply be incorrect in it's measurements, have misjudged certain parameters, drawn confused conclusions, or may well be correct in everything they claim, but as yet have not provided conclusive and concrete, irrefutable proof.

NONE of which is evidence or proof of deliberately fraudulent operations...and so, accusations of fraud MUST be false in the absence of any proof of deliberate fraud on BLP's part.

So yeah...BLP have a legitimate case to take to court IMO.

Debunkers for the sake of debunking, take note...you may soon require proof of your accusations of fraud, or deep pockets, or both.

Or take up a different pointless hobby.

I concur.

This is a defamation suit. The defendants must prove fraud or BLP will win the case.

The EFF explains a defamation suit here:

What are the elements of a defamation claim?

The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:

a publication to one other than the person defamed;
a false statement of fact; that is understood as:
* being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
* tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.

Is truth a defense to defamation claims?

Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.

Can my opinion be defamatory?

No—but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").

They have no proof of fraud.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

the US justice system - however does not

in US defamation cases - the plaintiff has to prove that the accusation is both false and defamatory

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
They have no proof of fraud.

BLP have no proof for their claims....

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
They have no proof of fraud.

BLP have no proof for their claims....

BLP has three independent lab studies by major universities that prove their claims. Further, BLP doesn't have to prove the claims are false. The defendants need to prove they are true.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
BLP has three independent lab studies by major universities that prove their claims.

You keep claiming that, but refuse to show these studies - why is that?

Also why do you ignore the fact that in US defamation cases - the plaintiff has to prove that the accusation is both false and defamatory...