On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:47 AM, a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote:
Jed: "Whether or not this happened, there's a more general point that > should be apparent to anyone who has had a chance to read all of the > documents filed so far. Leonardo made zero effort to involve IH in the > planning and execution of the alleged GPT, and at no point was there an > effort to persuade them of its validity. " > > It doesn't look like IH had a single technical person so why do you think > they could have contributed anything to the plant design or operation? > They ultimately hired Murray, but lacking tech expertise they hired someone > with the wrong experience. Likewise, it seems that they were unable to > understand if the plant was working and if it wasn't, do something about it. > AA > That was me, not Jed. Apart from the hiring of Murray, I am unfamiliar with the preparations that IH took to evaluate any technical claims being made. Perhaps Murray was their only man. Perhaps they retained one of the best engineering firms in the world. Whichever case it was is irrelevant to the point that was being made, which is that the alleged GPT was not done with IH's participation. This is even more strange than the fact that Murray was prevented from seeing the customer area. If the fact about IH not being involved in the arrangements for the test does not raise a red flag for you, I don't know what would. I suspect that nothing would. Eric
