Hi all As to the supposed ERV 2 we have seen no proof it exists. In fact the first we hear of it is from Jed, who then starts to back-pedal quite a bit about it. I personally think Jed has misunderstood what IH has said perhaps under the instruction of APCO Worldwide as a spun story to trap the unwary, hence why I think Jed is back-pedalling the supposed ERV 2.
Having said that from Jed we now know that contrary to what, various pundits/mouthpieces said that the real ERV exists and they are now back-pedalling the ERV 2 story. Why does IH not publish the Real ERV? We have seen the contract IH signed it clearly states that IH were paying half the cost of the ER and thus have as much right as Rossi to publish the Real ERV. However we now know that IH have had the real ERV, the one they co-contacted for, with people they agreed to running it. Instead we have the mouthpieces doing ad-homonym attacks on one of the person's involved in the ERV almost purely on the grounds he is Italian as far as I can tell. He was so qualified that IH spent over $10 million on his advice that they contracted him for but suddenly now his report means IH must full-fill their contract, the spinner's mouthpieces say he is no longer qualified or competent enough to write the very report IH co-commissioned from him; when the mouthpieces have never seen the report. It is not physically possible to describe something you have not seen. If you do then you have failed science 101 and the Galileo test for you have not put your eye to the telescope. On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to report something in the future state the source and quote what they say, otherwise you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to back-pedal the fantasy. A notebook or recorder is useful. Kind Regards walker On 14 April 2016 at 14:47, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Jed, >> >> Rossi explains why he does not publish ERV-1 now. >> > > His explanation is nonsense, as I explained in the message titled: "Rossi > states his reason for not publishing Penon report." > > - Jed > >
