On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Zell, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
> ** > > Testing without cost or risk? Not in any way that I would risk, if I was > him. > What is the risk beyond any risk Rossi already assumed when he did some 8 or 10 public demonstrations already? And he still gives regular interviews and meets with lawmakers and scientists, most recently in Massachusetts. What defies credibility to me are academics who believe corporations and > governments won't neutralize people who get in the way. The sign guarding > Area 51 says, 'use of deadly force authorized'. > Area 51 is where secret and stealth weapon systems are developed for the Armed Forces. They don't make house heating units there. Where they do, they rarely use deadly force if you sneak into the factory! President Obama orders the killing of US citizens without trial. > Perhaps but irrelevant even if true. > As with an iceberg, *if this is what you can see openly, how much is > below the surface that is hidden from your sight? *Did Karen Silkwood > just have an 'unfortunate accident'? Did JFK ride thru Dallas in an open > vehicle after the Secret Service knew about multiple plots on his life? > How about the silver trade whistleblower who was rammed by a car, not so > long ago? How many Americans know about a plot to overthrow FDR in the > '30's and replace him with a military junta - that Congress took seriously? > Can major politicians be bought off - to help corporations - by faking > commodity transactions? (Hilliary) > I don't know the answer to any of those conspiracies but they have nothing to do with Rossi. If every inventor who had a radical new technology that would upset someone's apple cart were to be assassinated, the grave yards would overflow with them and we'd have no Salk Institutes, Microsofts, IBM's, Oracles, Googles, Groupons, Facebooks, solar and windmill power, new medical discoveries and so on. Rossi is running no unusual risk by allowing his invention to be properly tested. In any case, he has said clearly on his blog that the invention is protected by his giving many anonymous friends secret access to the "formula" should anything happen to him. There is no valid reason to give equivocal and badly designed demonstrations instead of proper tests. It's been argued that this was to mislead. I find that proposal absurd because if Rossi didn't want people to believe him, he would not have given public demos at all.
