On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Marcello Vitale <mvit...@ucsbalum.net>wrote:
However, it does not fit the available information, which seems to indicate > that Rossi is refusing investments because he wants to maintain control. Really? How do you know? Do you have Rossi's word on it? What legitimate large investor who offered money has Rossi turned down please? If there is such an entity, could it be that the reason they were turned down was that they required due diligence and proper testing and knew how to do it? Apparently that may have happened with both Quantum and NASA. On the days they showed up to do due diligence, Rossi's machine apparently did not work. Strange. I suspect more about this has not been heard because the people who tried to do the testing had to sign some sort of silencing agreement. > And it requires numerous leaps of faith. > Not as large a leap of faith as to believe that Rossi has what he claims and can't be bothered to do a simple, quick, safe and cheap independent test to prove it. > My experience with R&D financing is also inconsistent with the secrecy > hypothesis. Lots of companies get (have gotten in the past and will get in > the future) private investment money for projects in an R&D phase, with > failure to deliver not being automatically a scam: investors put money > there for the potential large payoff, related to the large risk. That means > they want a large share of the resulting profits, usually written as shares > in the company itself. The financed company likes to publicize investment, > in order to attract more investments. Even more so should be true for a > scammer, who needs to get money quickly, before he is found out. There is > anyway no legitimate reason for the R&D company to ask for secrecy from the > investors, as any lawyer would point out. > I have no idea what that means. Failure to deliver is not automatically a scam. In Rossi's case, self-delusion can be ruled out at this point because of his behavior and his statements. That means that in Rossi's case, if the machine doesn't work, it has to be either a scam or I suppose Rossi could plead insanity. I don't see any other choices in the event that the device does not work. I don't understand the rest of the paragraph. > So, it should be more "financial fraud based on secretly accepting cash > from VERY credulous investors who sign iron clad nondisclosure secrecy > agreements IN OTHERWISE VERY WISHY-WASHY CONTRACTS THEY CANNOT ENFORCE", > and all that because convinced by the shining personality of Rossi and his > perfectly run experiments, and neglecting to take along a lawyer. That theory, which you present sarcastically I think, actually explains the cases of the convicted felon fraudsters Tilley and Lee. It also explains how Steorn's investors got sucked in. Stock fraud explains the Sniffex explosive detector (convicted) scam. And a joke was the reason some guy calling himself Mylow fooled Sterling Allan into running all over the country after a free energy motor that actually ran on the mains via a monofilament fishing line! It is not beyond belief that Rossi has fooled some wealthy investors. People get fooled all the time which is why the independent testing is so needed. > OK, hypnosis could be an explanation, then. > How? > With your permission, I will keep thinking that a scam seems highly > unlikely from a business case point of view. Sure. If you're so certain, I suggest you invest.
