Craig, I like your analysis. Therefore I think any statements in regards to technial,legal and moral status is very disturbing. Personal judgment based on the situation is just slander. I am not a betting man, but I think the odds are reversed. On Jul 4, 2016 20:13, "Craig Haynie" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 07/03/2016 08:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> But I have reason whatsoever to believe that somebody's idea of how Rossi >> could cheat was actually implemented. >> > > Yes, you do have a clear idea. The person who told you how Rossi cheats is > Rossi himself. He said refused to allow anyone into his pretend customer > site. The only plausible reason for doing that is to hide the fact that > there is only a 15 kW radiator in there. Other reasons that have been > suggested are absurd. If there was an actual machine in there, Rossi would > be paid $89 million for showing it to the I.H. experts. There is no way he > would fail to do that. > > It is obvious he is covering up fraud by doing that. Add to that the fact > that there is no heat or noise coming from the pretend customer site, and > it is case closed. > > > This may be the case, but there's also another valid reason why Rossi > wouldn't allow anyone to come into this customer site. First of all, let me > say that I think there's probably only a 30% chance that Rossi has a > working device. So if I was a betting man, I would give odds. Also, if I > was IH, there is no way in hell that I would give Rossi 89 million dollars > unless I was convinced, absolutely, that the thing worked. So I don't doubt > that the device may not work, and that IH may not believe in it, either. > > But having said all this, if I was Rossi, I would not want anyone in the > customer site during the year long trial, either before or after, and I > would write the agreement accordingly -- and Rossi did this. He wrote an > agreement which prevented IH from doing any evaluations of their own on the > device, during this one year test. The reason to prevent them from > interfering or doing any type of evaluation on their own, is simply because > the test is going to take a year. If I were Rossi, what I would want is an > independent evaluation of the device, from which, neither side could > dispute the results. It is just way too much time to waste on another > demonstration test for IH. Two years had already passed. The IP had already > been used by IH to build the Lugano reactor. So much time has already gone > by, that if IH did not believe the device worked at this time, then they > should be out the door -- before any type of one year test was performed. > > From Rossi's point of view, the purpose of the one year test was not to > prove to IH that the device worked -- but to finalize the deal; to > demonstrate to both Rossi and IH how it performed over the course of a > year. This was a test to objectify the results; nothing more. This is how > the agreement was written, and why I believe that Rossi could very well win > this lawsuit -- without the court ever trying to ascertain if the device > works, because the agreement does not depend on whether the device works. > > So Rossi may be a fraud, but if he's legitimate, then his behavior during > the test is totally expected. > > Craig > >
