Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: That is not the case with Rossi. He has funds in hand to build a MW unit, he > says that this plan is underway, and essentially is telling skeptics: stuff > it. >
These are good points. They are not the same kind of evidence as Dufour feeling a hot pipe. They are more the kind of "evidence" that a police detective would look for in a fraud investigation. Such investigations are not experiments, but they are a valid way to determine what is real and what isn't. The evidence I cited -- that university professors seldom destroy their own reputations for no reason -- is also an example of "police detective evidence" rather than physical evidence. Beene and are making some assumptions about human nature here. Human nature is, of course, variable and sometime inexplicable, but that does not mean we can make no assumptions based upon in. I prefer physical evidence, but it would be foolish to ignore "police detective evidence." If Rossi was asking for capital it would be a red flag. Rossi has many other red flags, as I have often noted, and it sure makes me uncomfortable. > They recognize that the patent is weak (useless, really) and think they can > do better. They probably can do better . . . > That is what I have heard. Rossi mentioned a patent attorney, and someone else told they are taking a second shot at a patent. That is welcome news. Trade secrets will not cut the mustard for this product. - Jed
