Jed,
I'm really curious to know why IH is providing you with so much data
about their internal workings.
The only reason I can think of is that they are using you to spread
their side of the story.
Obviously one party is lying. There is no proof yet which one and I
take the position of waiting for facts. You apparently have already
decided Rossi is guilty, without hearing his side of the story.
You wrote. "Obviously they know (IH) that poof will be required." But
they weren't the ones to initiate the court case.
"Poof" looks like a Freudian slip ;-)
On 8/7/2016 9:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
Rossi's answer to the claim the customer was not using the heat.
Why would Rossi make a court claim unless he was confident he
could prove the plant worked?
Why would I.H. say they measured the heat coming from the customer
site and found nothing, unless they were confident they could prove
there was no heat?
Obviously he knows proof will be required.
Obviously they know that poof will be required.
Look, this is simple. ONE OF THESE PARTIES IS LYING. I think Rossi is
lying; you think I.H. is. I have seen more data than you, although you
have now had the opportunity to look at some key documents. It seems
you have not read them, but you could, if you wanted to make a serious
evaluation.
I know for a fact that Murray's account is correct. I am sure Rossi
and Penon claimed the reactor was producing heat on days when it was
turned off and disassembled. People I trust who were there when it was
off saw the log and could see that's what it showed. So I know that
Rossi is lying through his teeth about many things here. I also know
that I.H. is working with many other researchers, and they all like
I.H. So, in my opinion, it is far more likely that Rossi is lying.
You can evaluate the facts and reach your own conclusion. Or you can
believe any damn thing that Rossi says, mindlessly.
- Jed
