On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The Penon report?!? > ***ALL of it. The Penon report, the supposed heat exchanger, all of it. If the Penon report is as fraudulent as you make it out to be, then Rossi would be up on charges for that. All the other stuff would be icing on the cake. But Rossi is not up on charges. The standard of proof for civil cases (fraud in this case) is "preponderance of evidence" and IH couldn't make the case. The standard of proof for criminal cases is higher, "beyond a reasonable doubt". So if you can't meet the lower standard, you can't meet the higher standard. Therefore, there is legal proof that Rossi is NOT a fraud. > Either you haven't read it or your interpretation of it is the extreme > opposite or what Murray, Smith and I think of it. I have never seen such > blatant, in-your-face fraud. If this report does not convince you Rossi is > a crook, nothing will. > ***If it is so blatant and in-your-face fraud, then Rossi should be up on charges and IH should have pressed forward. They didn't, because it is neither blatant nor in-your-face. > > > >> >> > > You cannot "file charges" based on the laws of thermodynamics > ***I didn't say it was based on science, it was based upon LEGAL principles. The Legal case against Rossi is proof that he is not a fraud. If the scientific case is so blatant then you should write a paper on it. It would be easy, if you're so right. > and an idiotic report that would fail a junior high school class. > ***These independent reports associated with Rossi have fooled PhD physicists, not junior high schoolers. Your exaggerations just don't meet with reality on the ground. > It is not a crime to publish fake data. > ***It is a crime to use fake data to defraud investors. Some of these frauds who have pushed the envelope of fake data ended up in prison. That is where Rossi should be if what you are saying is the verifiable truth, but such is not the case because all that stuff is tied up in a bow as evidence sworn in, and the law is not pursuing it. > You would have to show intent and various legal proof that I do not > understand. > ***If you don't understand it then you're just as bad as these people you rail against for not reading the Penon report. It is simple reasoning to proceed from "preponderance of evidence" burden of proof having failed to "beyond a reasonable doubt" obviously failing. To see the whole thing in reverse, just look at OJ Simpson. The authorities failed to prove he murdered 2 people even with extraordinarily strong DNA jklkjevidence, but the civil suit found him to be guilty of causing their deaths. If the civil suit had come first and he was found not guilty, no one would have moved forward on the criminal case. > I.H. apparently decided not to pursue the civil law suit. Since I know so > little about the law, whatever their lawyers advised I would go along with. > But that changes nothing about the scientific content of the report. It is > fraudulent nonsense. I cannot imagine why you and others do not see this, > but based on your reaction, I begin to see why the Flat Earth Society still > exists. > ***Based on your reaction, you have succumbed to the emotion surrounding this case. If all that stuff is so provably fraudulent then IH would have moved forward. It is NOT provable. My suggestion is to use your emotional state to generate something for everyone to benefit from: write a report delineating every instance of scientific fraud entered into the docket as evidence. If life gives you lemons, make lemonade. > > - Jed > >
