On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1. Tests on his device. Despite the handwaving and nonsense published here > by Yugo and others, these tests are irrefutable. There is not slightest > chance of fraud. > I refuse to rehash that with you. If you believe that those tests were irrefutable, no rational discussion about it is possible with you. > 2. Independent tests by Ampenergo and others. > Unpublished, unverified and if done, likely by friends of Rossi's. Ampenergo has no meaningful web or other presence that anyone knows about and has never shown a single product or test. What if anything they have done, other than claim publicly in NyTeknik that they gave considerable money to Rossi, is unclear. They are certainly not a reliable source of test information. Same with "others". What is the value is citing anonymous "others"? > 3. Independent replication by Defkalion. > Who are most likely not telling the truth and who have shown no working product whatever. Great source they are. They recently banned me from their forum and removed both my question and their answers when I reminded them that a Greek Minister had directly contradicted them in an interview about their supposed submission of a device for testing or an application of any sort to the Greek authorities. That minister's interview, by the way, was discussed on Vortex previously here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51035.html > You can't ask for better proof. I mean that literally: there is no such > thing as better proof. Only more of the same. > You're really getting way way out there now!. No such thing as better proof? A test by a major university would not be better proof? A test by Oak Ridge National Lab or Sandia or CERN would not be better? Hell, even a woowoo-ite like Josephson could provide more reliable data if he tested Rossi's kludges independently. I am starting to think you've "lost it" when you argue that there is no better proof than the patchwork of equivocation, bad experiments, lengthy if amusing arguments, and wildly incredible Rossi evasion we have now. > This is so misguided . . . Yugo has no concept of separating a person from > a claim. > So then, you would buy a used car from a person twice convicted of used car fraud? Great -- you must have an interesting purchase history. > I am soooo glad I put her on my auto-delete list! > I believe in your case, that is called the Ostrich Syndrome. In Defkalion's case, banning me from their forum is very very Steornish. Truth to a scammer is like sunlight to a vampire.
