Why would the E-Cat unit sit for a year (back in 2012) with no where to
go for testing when IH brought it for testing in the first place?
(Remember everyone bashing Rossi for the delay after photos surfaced of
the shipment?)
Why would IH agree to such an "incompetent" tester? (Confidentiality
agreements would have nothing to do with that.)
Why would IH keep quiet about concerns for a full-year of testing -
while applying for their own patent?
Why would IH solicit and receive funds based on their "acquiring E-Cat IP"?
After all of that, why does IH say now, the three years was "without
results" - now that it is time to pay $89,000,000?
To seriously claim "it is ridiculous to assert that IH have not acted in
good faith" will require answers to these questions first.
Ruby
On 4/7/16 9:43 PM, Robert Lynn wrote:
*De-lurks*
Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the
demo worked they would be the happiest people in the world and would
be on track to make vast amounts of money even if they had to hand
over 90million they would be doing so with a big smile on their face.
The very simple truth is that Rossi has made big claims and has (as
usual) failed to deliver. Almost certainly IH will have their hands
tied due to confidentiality agreements, so will be prevented from
revealing in detail just how bad/unconvincing things are and how
ridiculous Rossi's usual dissembling shenanigans have been.
I could be convinced that he does, and is fooling himself, but think
it most likely he does not given how long his circus has been going on.
On 8 April 2016 at 12:10, Frank Znidarsic <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
It is Rossi that says that the test was OK. According to IH, it was not OK,
> because IH says three years without success, not merely 1 year. So, the
> money is still in the escrow.
Maybe we should ask Steven Krivit. He seems to have the heads up
on a lot of this stuff.
--
Ruby Carat
Eureka, CA USA
[email protected]
www.coldfusionnow.org
lenrexplained.com
