On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> That is absurd – John. > > Do you have any depth of understanding on this test, since you seem to be > coming in after all of these details have been hashed and rehashed ad > nauseum ? > I'm not sure what there is to "understand" about the October 28 test. The data were taken in secret. None of the illustrious observers saw how it was done. None of them know how much power was introduced by the generator, none of them know how much power *or* energy the device produced during the test. The customer isn't known. Nothing is known about the "colonel". None of the illustrious guests wrote anything convincing about this event. It has only been hyped in the usual brainless web sites that promote UFO's, Obama's trip to Mars, magnetic free energy motors and cars that run on water as the only fuel. In addition, several of the guest scientists have had substantial prior involvement with Rossi including Levi, Stremmenos, and Focardi. Assuming these three are honest, that they have not held Rossi's feet to the fire about doing independent tests or performing a properly documented and controlled repeat of Levi's experiment of last February, or adequately explaining in public the ridiculous contradictions between Rossi and Defkalion's claims regarding their breakup and the reasons for it. Either the credibility or the honesty of those three has to be considered questionable, IMO. As for Lewan, Kullander and Essen, they obviously are not as knowledgeable in making thermal and fluid flow measurements as they think they are. And they are too polite and not willing to confront Rossi about the inadequacy of the dog and pony show he presented on October 28. That doesn't mean they believed him. IIRC, even they expressed doubts, as noted in the NyTeknik report, and remarked that nobody should be certain that Rossi's technology is real until it has been independently tested. > These were not merely “guests” dragged in off the campus - Dozens of PhD > level scientists were there. Are they all in on this with Rossi? Did they > take his word for it? > What favorable and credible reports did any of the people attending, other than credulous fools like Sterling Allan and people who work with Rossi -- what did any of the independent and reliable scientists write about the October 28 demonstration? Maybe I missed it but I didn't see a single one that said that the demonstration was well done and convincing. > A good magic show can fool a few journalists and grad students and yes, > Levi > does not inspire confidence – but take a closer look at the “guests”. > It didn't fool the guests that matter, for example the AP reporter. Rossi uses the same tools as stage magic, IMO. But that doesn't mean he's putting on a "good magic show". In fact, it's a pretty lousy one in that a lot of people aren't buying the illusion.
