Wait a minute Steven, I think Rossi has shown adequate but not rock-solid evidence for a strong energy anomaly. How does that make me a skeptic?
However, if you take all the evidence weighted strongly towards the Swedish testing and V&B, then it looks like it is non-nuclear gain. Does that make me a skeptic? If one does not idolize Rossi, due to his past history of failures at US taxpayer expense - and the fact he has no clue about the way this device operates - does that make one a skeptic? I am only looking for truth so that others can succeed where he may not be able to succeed due to the predicament he is in. I have no axe to grind, other than that he has deliberately lied about many important and some trivial things - what I call the "George Kelly credibility problem". Some observers really want this to be nuclear, because Rossi says it is. It could be, if the evidence ever does turn up - but as of now there is no evidence that it is nuclear, and there is strong evidence that it is not. Does that make me skeptic? If there is a problem with Defkalion management, and Krivit has posted most of the names over there on his blog, then there are three names that stand out. Strongly stand out ! I will be posting more on this very soon, since if the taint of an IPO scam can be addressed and nipped in the bud - as it should be, and this will be to PROTECT Rossi more than anything else. He may not realize the mess he is in. If there is a problem with Defkalion, then I am almost certain that Rossi is NOT a part of the problem. They would have chosen him carefully for a number of reasons, and his role would be as 'patsy' if you understand that term in this context. Same goes for Stremmenos - unwitting 'patsy'. Jones -----Original Message----- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson > But I'm glad in this post you actually said something about > the experiment, and gave me an opportunity to state my > (non-rhetorical) case in another way. I really don't expect > to be able to convince you of anything, but there are other > people who read this who might like the opportunity to see the > skeptical point of view. I think you'll find several skeptics in this group - in varying degrees. For example, there are Jones Beene's comments. Mr. Beene does not appear to express very many favorable opinions of the Rossi evidence that is currently out in the public domain. As for me, I've heard so many different POVs on the heat-to-water transfer matter that under the circumstances the most sensible approach for me is to wait for more forthcoming experimental data from the universities that hopefully will help either confirm or disprove these extraordinary claims. I'm content to wait. PS: Apology accepted. Clean slate. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
