I would agree that the court documents were significant.  I particularly 
thought that Darden’s email to Rossi regarding the successful production of 
fuel  and reactor performance using the super confidential fuel mixture , known 
by only 4 individuals, was deterministic.

>From Mats’ recent interview with Rossi it was noted:

“During the discovery phase, emails from Darden were provided and made public, 
where Darden himself confirmed to have replicated our process successfully. We 
also have testimonials from persons who have assisted at such replications. 
Woodford [Investment Management] assisted at one of those replications, after 
which it invested USD 50M in Industrial Heat, even before the [one-year 1MW] 
test started in Doral [Miami], at a time when IH obviously had nothing but our 
IP in its portfolio.”

I guess Eric Walker does not know about this are thinks it is not true.

Bob Cook
From: Eric Walker<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:22 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

Hi Bob,

I'll propose another reason for the recent silence:  disappointment at an 
extractive settlement and a realization that it is a mostly futile excercise to 
continue to debate with what remain of the hard core of Rossi's followers who 
haven't yet decamped after becoming familiar with the contents of the lawsuit 
docket.  No need to postulate the eating of crow, except in those instances 
where someone made a prediction about the outcome of the lawsuit.  Few people 
that I recall expressed much confidence in any particular outcome.

So we are left with two groups of people following developments, even more 
divided than before the lawsuit, with each somehow further confirmed in their 


On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:22 PM, 
<bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
The folks on Vortex-l that in the past have suggested Rossi was a fraud etc 
must be busy eating crow based on the significant silence of their anti-Rossi 

Bob Cook

From: Che<mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 7:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

This has likely already been pointed out here -- but I'll point it out now 
(again), if it hasn't.

Here’s The Settlement—Getting The License Back Was Rossi’s Top 

The bottom line appears to be that IH 'settled' -- because they simply could 
not *prove* fraud (which perhaps, never actually took place -- at least the way 
IH sees it). Simple as that. So they would have _lost_ the case if it had gone 
to trial -- and been liable for whatever _they_ would have been liable for.

Rossi OTOH, strategically forewent the money he was 'owed': because he valued 
the IP over everything else -- and is smart enuff to know when to 'fold' and 
walk away.

Is that it, or close enuff..?

Reply via email to