*Which leads me to my next question.. What would your estimate be? Probably more interesting than mine.*
Mine's not any more interesting, or any more legitimate. You're the pro, not me. But neither is subject to the scientific method, so I don't think either can be ranked in any meaningful way. But I will say I haven't factored in BLP or McKubre/Brillouin into my assessment of *Rossi's*technology. Again, why did you integrate those two totally disconnected stories into your analysis of Rossi? It's not like the balance of the world hinges on sorting this conversation out, I'm just in a pugnacious mood and curious to know. Regards, John On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]>wrote: > "but you seem to want to make a centerpiece of your arbitrary assessment > and no one can figure out why" > > Not at all. I have a history of successfully making such 'arbitrary' > assessments based on speculation / gossip / rumours / second hand > information .. generally by measuring the credibility of the individuals > that I gather such information from. > > Which leads me to my next question.. What would your estimate be? > Probably more interesting than mine. > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > >> *What I find fascinating is you guys probably think I'm a downer for >> saying 35%. * >> >> *But the reality is 99% of the scientific world probably thinks I'm a >> total crank for putting that much faith into Rossi.* >> >> I'm more interested to know how you arrived at that number. By factoring >> in totally unrelated news about BLP and McKubre? Go ahead and put 35%, >> everyone has a different opinion, almost all equally valid (beyond >> denialism), but you seem to want to make a centerpiece of your arbitrary >> assessment and no one can figure out why. That's why its annoying, not >> because it runs contrary to our own personal beliefs as to the legitimacy >> of the technology. >> >> Regards, >> John >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Blaze Spinnaker < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> What I find fascinating is you guys probably think I'm a downer for >>> saying 35%. >>> >>> But the reality is 99% of the scientific world probably thinks I'm a >>> total crank for putting that much faith into Rossi. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:31 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> At this point I would have to be shown iron clad evidence that the >>>> ECAT does not generate additional heat beyond what is used for drive. That >>>> would have to fall into the upper 90's. >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]> >>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 4:24 pm >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, >>>> to 35% >>>> >>>> So, Dave, I guess you're at .. what? 95%? 90%? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> John, it does seem rather arbitrary how his game works and hopefully >>>>> he can help me understand it better. Does anyone actually risk capital >>>>> on >>>>> this issue? >>>>> >>>>> I have seen plenty of proof that Rossi has the real deal and I can not >>>>> imagine how additional proof will make a difference to many others. The >>>>> skeptics will all howl as usual with MY taking the lead. The only way >>>>> that >>>>> the world will accept that Rossi's ECAT is real is for them to be placed >>>>> in >>>>> common usage. There has been more than enough evidence already >>>>> demonstrated. >>>>> >>>>> Dave >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Foks0904 . <[email protected]> >>>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 3:48 pm >>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, >>>>> to 35% >>>>> >>>>> Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the latest news >>>>> coming out of BLP and McKubre. >>>>> >>>>> Yesterday you were complaining about how stupid BLP and >>>>> McKubre/Brillouin are and how "annoying" they were behaving. Now you see >>>>> value in these reports, why? And you associate them with Rossi, why? >>>>> >>>>> You're all over the place Blaze, and your off-the-cuff guesstimating >>>>> is beyond arbitrary. Why not just follow your own advice from yesterday >>>>> and keep meaningless information yourself as well? >>>>> >>>>> Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon. The next >>>>> indie report on the ecat should be an interesting inflection report. >>>>> >>>>> Ditto. That's going to be exciting when it lands. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the latest news >>>>>> coming out of BLP and McKubre. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon. The next >>>>>> indie report on the ecat should be an interesting inflection report. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Fulvio , the tech Director & R.D. at Leonardo Corporation MIAMI - FL >>>>>>> - USA previous job was: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> " Frelance >>>>>>> Consultant<http://www.linkedin.com/search?search=&title=Frelance+Consultant&sortCriteria=R&keepFacets=true¤tTitle=CP&trk=prof-exp-title> >>>>>>> European >>>>>>> Gaming and Gambling Tech >>>>>>> Market<http://www.linkedin.com/search?search=&company=European+Gaming+and+Gambling+Tech+Market&sortCriteria=R&keepFacets=true&trk=prof-exp-company-name> >>>>>>> " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -4% >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now back to 31%. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is based on >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - STMicro patent (Increased about 4.5%) >>>>>>>> - Cherokee Investments (Increased about 2.5%) >>>>>>>> - Rossi stating third party reports in March (increased 2%) >>>>>>>> - Lack of news from Defkalion (-1%) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> News seems to be coming in fairly rapidly at this point. Could be >>>>>>>> updating this probability more frequently. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
