Jed, I don't read IH's statement the way you see it. It could just as
well been because Krivit claimed in New Energy Times that IH and Rossi
had parted company.
If Rossi releases the ERV report or even the synopsis, giving the
credentials of the ERV that would be proof positive. I expect IH will
back it anyway in due course.
You might read the piece from Ego Out
FROM DOUG MARKER- A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE ABOUT THE ERV OF THE 350 DAYS
TEST
Title: 'The IH/Rossi ERV Report'
Doug Marker (dsm). Sydney Australia.
" Many general observers of the stories seem to believe that both
parties in the IH/Rossi test *owe* it to them for IH or Rossi to
disclose the full results. That is IMHO (and from a business
perspective) unrealistic, and something of a fantasy. If this author
were IH, I would never disclose *any such detail* beyond the bare
minimum information required to meet legal obligations to all parties
involved. The disclosures only need to be such that other businesses
could draw their own *business* conclusions and consider entering into
secure discussions with IH on future ventures in the countries that they
have secured rights for. It is no secret that ‘Energy’ is a multi
trillion dollar business. IH did not enter into this venture to
entertain the expectant the public.
So, IMHO, any other expectations (or demands) of IH and Rossi, are
unrealistic and somewhat self serving. IH only owes disclosure of
results to itself and in a broader sense, to its investors (they do not
even need to disclose the blow-by-blow detail to them). Rossi would
have a very strong desire to have his technology endorsed as that would
elevate his position in the 'new energy' stakes and would give great
credence to any other claims he makes (and he makes many). Any serious
investors with significant existing energy portfolios would want a swift
yes/no answer as to if ‘new energy’ is real and if yes, then *time* to
re-organize their investments and positions."
snip
"The IH 'test' initiative was a very valid and a very useful one even if
it actually proved the Rossi process didn't deliver. Some critics of IH
and Woodford clearly fail to grasp the significance of what IH undertook
and what the answer means to many of the investors. They shared the risk
as the answer good or bad has great value to them. One may even ask if
this 12 month test and any more delays, bought another 12+ months for
savvy investors with energy portfolios, to plan their futures and
realign their portfolios accordingly. Is this what the Saudis and the
Rockefellers are doing ?. Time will tell, but when it does, the party
and re-positioning may already be over in the investment sense."
