On 07/03/2016 08:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
But I have reason whatsoever to believe that somebody's idea of
how Rossi could cheat was actually implemented.
Yes, you do have a clear idea. The person who told you how Rossi
cheats is Rossi himself. He said refused to allow anyone into his
pretend customer site. The only plausible reason for doing that is to
hide the fact that there is only a 15 kW radiator in there. Other
reasons that have been suggested are absurd. If there was an actual
machine in there, Rossi would be paid $89 million for showing it to
the I.H. experts. There is no way he would fail to do that.
It is obvious he is covering up fraud by doing that. Add to that the
fact that there is no heat or noise coming from the pretend customer
site, and it is case closed.
This may be the case, but there's also another valid reason why Rossi
wouldn't allow anyone to come into this customer site. First of all, let
me say that I think there's probably only a 30% chance that Rossi has a
working device. So if I was a betting man, I would give odds. Also, if I
was IH, there is no way in hell that I would give Rossi 89 million
dollars unless I was convinced, absolutely, that the thing worked. So I
don't doubt that the device may not work, and that IH may not believe in
it, either.
But having said all this, if I was Rossi, I would not want anyone in the
customer site during the year long trial, either before or after, and I
would write the agreement accordingly -- and Rossi did this. He wrote an
agreement which prevented IH from doing any evaluations of their own on
the device, during this one year test. The reason to prevent them from
interfering or doing any type of evaluation on their own, is simply
because the test is going to take a year. If I were Rossi, what I would
want is an independent evaluation of the device, from which, neither
side could dispute the results. It is just way too much time to waste on
another demonstration test for IH. Two years had already passed. The IP
had already been used by IH to build the Lugano reactor. So much time
has already gone by, that if IH did not believe the device worked at
this time, then they should be out the door -- before any type of one
year test was performed.
From Rossi's point of view, the purpose of the one year test was not to
prove to IH that the device worked -- but to finalize the deal; to
demonstrate to both Rossi and IH how it performed over the course of a
year. This was a test to objectify the results; nothing more. This is
how the agreement was written, and why I believe that Rossi could very
well win this lawsuit -- without the court ever trying to ascertain if
the device works, because the agreement does not depend on whether the
device works.
So Rossi may be a fraud, but if he's legitimate, then his behavior
during the test is totally expected.
Craig
