I just don't see how it's possible for Rossi to provide 'proof'. No one
is going to believe this report. They're not going to trust the
examiner. They're not going to trust the process by which he was chosen.
They'll question his conflict of interest. They're probably not going to
know exactly what he did to come up with whatever he says; and if he
provides a detailed explanation, there will always be questions over
issues that were overlooked.
If Rossi or Mills has something real, then we'll either have to have
numerous, high signal, replications, from different sources; or we'll
have people who've purchased these machines, come out in unison that
they're all amazed at how much money they're saving. Neither Rossi, nor
Mills, seem to be interested in the former.
Craig
On 03/31/2016 07:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com
<mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com>> wrote:
To be a little more clear, I don't think Rossi is going to provide
any proof for anyone, other than his investors . . .
He said he would! Mats Lewan is counting on him to provide proof.
Otherwise he will have to cancel his symposium.
Anyway, I sure won't go to the symposium without solid proof. Mats
told me that's the deal: rock solid proof or we call it off. It is
getting close to a deadline.
Granted, Rossi only said that. He is not contractually obligated. But
since he himself is slated to attend the symposium, I suppose he means
it. But, you never can tell with him. As Churchill said of the Soviet
Union, he is "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."
I hope he does. But I think I.H. has more credibility. Since they have
repudiated the report (I think!) and since they talk about "embracing
failure" I have a feeling the report will be a bust. It makes me nervous.
- Jed
