On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I am saying I believe - your opinion is as good as mine just my believe - > that there is a conflict between people and that some say 'let us publish', > while other say > > we get the question xyz- what are we saying. > ***They should have known that stuff GOING IN. This is, after all, the 2nd round of testing. > Conclusion let us find out and delay, which is better than showing an > unprofessional behavior in the mind of those guys. > ***Then that goes back to what I said on another thread, how this report is a form of saving face for the earlier researchers. They screwed up then. They're screwing up now. > I agree they did not sign up to answer the theory. > ***And yet that is likely the holdup. Rossi has far more time on point with these devices and he obviously ran isotopic analysis at some point. Yet he says that he doesn't know how this thing works. Running the analysis isn't what takes so much time. It is the act of pulling their heads out, that's what's taking so much time. > However, I think they want to have theory that support the findings. It > would be covering that special part we all are concerned about. To make > another test to find out exactly how much CU and Fe and Ni that has been > involved and the isotopes must be of value as I think they listen to you > guys who are providing theories and ask questions all the time. Good of > course but making the people involved feeling they need answers to the > different ideas they did not answered before - and for which they found > themselves without clear answers. You can say that given the situation it > is bullshit behavior. OK I can see that point it does not change what I > think and I do not know nor communicate with either one of them. > ***Basically, Rossi claimed to have an excess heat generator. They found that this device generates excess heat. Rossi already did isotope analysis. They now believe Rossi that he has an excess heat generator because they've seen it for themselves, but DON'T believe Rossi on the isotope analysis? Bullshit. > > Your insider idea is not possible, > ***It is not only possible it is probable. And the longer this goes, such probability increases each day. > Yes, I agree that they should have lived up to their promises about > timeline. However, I have been in many situations where you just cannot get > anywhere by saying it is no good, when people say they need more time. They > are in no hurry - but for the purpose of insider trading - no way. > ***And your argument for this is...??? > > Sorry Kevin you need to meet with more people. They mostly protest about > the missing pickles. > ***What??????? > Most often such issues take size not proportional to their roles in the > whole - just look on our political debate. > ***Again, what? I am not defending the lack of accountability - I merely tried to give you the internal reasons I think they have ***Actually, you didn't give the internal reasons. You simply reiterated your stance that this insider thing isn't possible. and combined with their environmental situation. It is still 3 out of 300 month - 1%. ***What? > >
