Friday, November 25, 2011

Otto Rössler testifies for El Naschie!

A 25 November article from BBC News science correspondent Pallab Ghosh.

Nature journal libel case continues

A scientist has told the High Court that an article criticising him was "scandalous" and had nothing to do with freedom of expression.

Professor Mohamed El Naschie is suing the Nature journal for libel and says the claims in the article [read it here] are "despicable and defamatory".

The barrister representing Nature said the article, published in 2008, was true and in the public interest.

Judgment on the case will be reserved and is set to be announced in January.

In November 2008, Nature published an article which alleged that Prof El Naschie self-published many papers and that some did not seem to have been independently checked by scientists working in the same area - a process known as peer review.

The article also alleged that five of the 36 papers in the December edition of Prof El Naschie's publication - Chaos, Solitons and Fractals - were written by him and 60 self-penned articles had been published since the beginning of the year.

Prof El Naschie, who was representing himself, used his opening statement to tell the court that publishing in one's own journal was not something that was unheard of.

He said that he would discuss his papers with fellow scientists, and only when he thought that they were of a sufficiently high standard would he publish them.

"I am too arrogant and have too much self-respect to allow a bad paper to pass through," he said.

Prof El Naschie called one witness, Prof Otto Rossler - an honorary editor of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals.

He told the court that there was no-one who could peer review him, referring to Prof El Naschie, because "if you have something new to offer, peer review is dangerous", adding that in such cases "peer review delays progress in science".

Prof El-Naschie asked his witness whether he thought that his (Prof El Naschie) papers were of "poor quality".

Prof Rossler replied: "On the contrary, they were very important and will become more important in the future."

And he added: "You are [one of] the most hard-working and diligent scientists I have ever met."

Last week, Nature provided testimony from three of its expert witnesses that the procedures used by Prof El Naschie's journal for the selection of papers did not appear to follow the normal practice of peer review.

The case continues next week, and the judgment on the case will be reserved and is expected to be announced early in the New Year.

Why does Ghosh not mention that Rössler is the infamous crackpot best known for claiming the LHC will destroy the world, and for covering a university building with paranoid spray-painted graffiti about a pogrom against him? Inexcusable. Ghosh also did not mention in either of his articles that El Naschie is an Egyptian presidential candidate, or that he claims he deserves the Nobel Prize many times over, but did not win it because he's an Arab, a Muslim, and named Mohamed, and the decision is made not in Stockholm but in Tel Aviv, and the prize "lost its way" to him because of Israel and George W. Bush. Are these facts not necessary for fully understanding the story? Ghosh does his readers a disservice by not linking to El Naschie Watch.

The trial continues Monday, an hour earlier than usual:

Monday, 28th November 2011
At half past 9
Jury List

TLJ/10/1474 El Naschie v MacMillan Publishers Ltd & anr Pt Hd

Related posts:

Translate English to Arabic
محمد النشائى El Naschie Watch محمد النشائي El Naschie News محمد النشائى محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائى


  1. In his November 24 Lifeboat post “Alethophobic CERNiots” I see Otto said "Note: Since I have to leave acutely for a court hearing in a somewhat related context, I shall finish this post on my return." Hehe.

  2. >>He told the court that there was no-one who could peer review him, referring to Prof El Naschie, because "if you have something new to offer, peer review is dangerous", adding that in such cases "peer review delays progress in science"<<

    Why the hurry, now nobody in the physics community bothers to take any of the papers seriously? :D Its amazing, his defense is that peer-review is not necessary...? He is digging his own grave.

  3. His first choice for defense would have been that his papers were peer reviewed. But then he'd have to name the reviewers, which is impossible because they don't exist. So he's stuck, and has to say peer review is unnecessary.

    He tried to wriggle out of the case, offering to drop the suit if Nature would apologize and not make him pay their legal expenses, but they refused the offer. That was during his stint as columnist for Rosa Al Youssef.

    There are many, many things the defense should be bringing up, for example his sockpuppet army.

  4. OMFG, who will he call next? The Chinese IF scammer who considers him the new Einstein, maybe? LOL

    BTW: Who were the other two Nature's expert witnesses?

  5. Costello and Pedley on November 14.

  6. Ah, right, they testified before Turok.

  7. Can we read somewhere a summary of their testimonials?

  8. Costello and Pedley. That's all I've got. I wish I had full transcripts and video. Maybe in January when the judgment is handed down we'll get more details.

  9. I hope Pedley took no prisoners in exposing El Naschie's affiliation fraud. If I gather correctly, El Naschie's claim of affiliation at Cambridge (in DAMTP) was around the time the department head (David Crighton) was dying of cancer (see This makes El Naschie's a cruel heartless bastard, to have coerced an ill and dying man into giving him a library card (meaning some kind of visitor status that would allow him to be in the building) from which El Naschie could then extrapolate the lie of "Professor at Cambridge".


    That's interesting, thanks. Here's more about the El Naschie/Cambridge connection:

    Stephen Hawking works with El Naschie

    My friend the Jewish scientist (Sir Hermann Bondi)

    El Naschie's blacklisting from the arXiv (conflict with Michael Green)

  11. Richard Holmes also comments here:

    But the question is why hasn't Ji-Huan He yet testified?


    I have a theory about why Ji-Huan He hasn't testified. Maybe I'll do a post on it.

  13. Maybe he picked up the idea of supplementing his paradigm-shifting bear's hair td analysis by analyzing the entropy of you-know-what and relating it to pottery of a certain kind...

  14. rössler has some new comments on lifeboard: