Yes, it seems ridiculous on the surface. Keep in mind the ERV was the
referee too. Seems inconceivable to me he would not listen to valid
objections from IH, so it is not a question of Rossi refusing - he would
have to refuse. The guy was well enough qualified to understand the
situation.
On 6/4/2016 8:32 PM, H LV wrote:
If the instrumentation was so contentious then IH should not have
allowed the year long test to go forward, or at least they should have
formally told Rossi that they would not respect the results of the
test even if Rossi insisted on performing the test.
harry
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
a.ashfield <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
My point to Jed earlier was why "expert" IH would allow
improper instrumentation (if that were the case) to begin
with. It doesn't make sense.
They did not want to allow this. It was a bone of contention.
Rossi wanted one set of instruments and procedures, and I.H.
wanted another. They were arguing about it for a long time. (I do
not know how long, and I do not know whether the instruments were
changed out at some point, but anyway, the dispute began early.)
It "doesn't make sense" because what you are describing did not
happen.
- Jed
