Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: Wait a minute. What is the need for a secret, when there is no scientific > proof of an anomaly? I have seen no proof from Rossi, have you? >
That seems illogical. Two problems: 1. There might be scientific proof of an anomaly, so in that case there is the need for a secret. Obviously you & I have not seen this proof, but that does not mean it does not exist. 2. I have seen no proof from Rossi either. Just because you & I have not seen proof, that does not mean there is no proof. It just means we haven't see it. > Let Rossi prove through an independent third party that there is a valid > thermal anomaly in the E-Cat, then Ahern can be criticized for complaining > about not knowing the secret of the anomaly. > Is he complaining about that? He complained that Rossi did not "divulge A. the ERV person, B. His location, C. His report . . ." Maybe he will, in the report. I hope he publishes this report. You never know with Rossi. By the way, Brian Ahern said a strange thing here: "Rossi admitted paying for this INDEPENDENT TEST." What's with "admitted"? He said it. Of course he paid for the test. Someone had to pay. Experts do not do such tests for free. It would be suspicious if he did *not* pay. - Jed
