I believe that Essen and Levi were not skeptical, independent investigators
and that Rossi had plenty of opportunity to rig the test or, less likely,
they made optimistic measurements.

That seems more probable to me then that this narcissistic fool has
discovered the solution that will change the future for everyone on planet
earth.

That being said, I'd probably take the other side of the bet if someone
gave me 30-1 odds


On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:

> blaze spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Rossi, however, I am willing to bet is a dangerous fool that undermines
>> the LENR community and its credibility.
>>
>
> Rossi is not the issue any more. You are betting that Focardi, Levi and
> the other six are gullible fools who know nothing about how to do
> experiments. You are wrong about that. Their paper proves they know what
> they are doing.
>
> The paper by Ericsson & Pomp and the comments by people such as Shanahan
> at Forbes prove that the skeptics do not have a leg to stand on. They
> cannot think of a single valid objection to the Levi paper. If they could,
> they would. If YOU could, you would, instead of flailing around with these
> absurd arguments that people who know nothing about research should by
> magic ESP know all about. Ask yourself: What are E&P saying? That Levi
> should have built his own IR camera from scratch instead of using a
> commercial one and comparing it to a thermocouple. Is that really the kind
> of argument you want to hang your hat on? Do you really believe those
> nitwits?!? Have you ever read more absurd arguments in you life? (Okay go
> read Morrison versus Fleischmann . . . and you will.)
>
> Or take Shanahan's argument that he will not believe the thermocouple
> tracked the IR camera until he sees every single data point. Being told "it
> stayed within two degrees" is somehow magically not informative enough for
> him. Don't you see that he is making excuses and evading the issue? And
> making a fool of himself!
>
> - Jed
>
>

Reply via email to