On 08/23/2012 07:05 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 09:39 AM 8/23/2012, Andre Blum wrote:
Rossi's attempt to scale up did not fail, too.
We don't know that. Generally, in his post, Mr. Blum made a number of
statements, as if they were fact, that are not from independent
sources. [etc, etc.]
First, please call me Andre.
Second: Presenting these statements as facts was by choice. Sometimes
you have to take a position. This is completely in line with what Jed
did, which is exactly what I wanted to point out.
We all know that *everything* related to Rossi is based on what the man
says himself. They are not fact. Likewise, not all Jed's statements on
the ugly plane are fact ('hopeless', 'of no value for aviation', '1918
experts had the knowledge to see that it wouldn't fly'), nor are his
views on commercial readiness of Rossi's and Celani's devices.
None of these are facts.They are just positions we take on an
uncertainty scale.
If you believe in Rossi 'somewhat' (as Jed apparently does), so you take
something of an uncertain halfway position on that scale, you cannot
easily make very strong arguments. His statement on commercial
availability was rather worthless, really, because it was just grabbed
from the air. Mine were grabbed at least from a source, a primary source
even, albeit a very unreliable one. Rossi.
The same is true for my statement on the plane. It crashing by bad
design is grabbed from the air by Jed. I see no facts supporting it. In
reality it flew (once, short), if rather unstable (which would not have
been so uncommon in that era), requiring it to carry a lead ballast. It
is said that this ballast shifted, causing a nose drop and the crash.
This too is from a very unreliable source on the internet, but at least
it is from a source.
Andre
