-----Original Message----- From: Terry Blanton "and chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society . . ."
Which makes the acceptance of Rossi, and the total rejection of Mills all the more curious... and indefensible... especially from a Skeptic. "Curious" ... in the sense that Mills has strong academic credentials, no hidden ingredients, a vetted theory with 20 years of refinement, a stellar Board of directors, >$60mm raised in capital - and yet suffers only from the lack of 100% independence in verification. Rossi has secret ingredients, a discredited partial theory (insofar as it relates to Ni -> Cu) no academic credentials to speak of, but arguably has somewhat closer to 100% independence. The 'arguably' part is because it can never be 100% as long as there exist basic secrets inside a closed device. Most ironic is that Mills needs credibility to maintain his high 'burn rate' of funding, and Rossi apparently doesn't give a hoot what others think (aside from the Greek funders) since he has chosen the all-or-nothing approach of a megawatt demo that no one can deny. Mills apparently cannot pull that off, and if Rossi can - he deserves full credit. But it is the "if" that makes the Swedish comments sound even more absurd to the point of even foolishness. >From the perspective of someone who has studied Mills, yet understands the failings of CQM, it would seem that the more rational judgment from a non-skeptic would be to accept Rossi as the best proof of Mills (or more precisely: the best proof of that part of CQM which is valid). But that appraisal cannot come from a skeptic. There is NO acceptable proof, in either case for any skeptic to hand his hat on. Either accept them both (with provisos) or reject them both until one or the other gives 100% independent proof with no secrets. Otherwise you sound like the worst of both sides of the aisle. Jones
