Just to confirm my understanding. it seems the rust have been cleaned after inspection?
If I don't make an error, this tells much more. what other "evidence" have been cleaned. I remember of cooling circuit fluid (which thus may be salted, eg for highering vaporisation temp)... Being a bit naive I would say it is not smart to clean evidences when you want to convince someone it works, and it is indeed working. If my insurance company says I lie to them about a catastrophe in my house, my best reaction is to protect all evidences, to protect the scene until the company's expert (and mine) can see the reality without losing any details of convincing evidences. It really make you like you are hiding evidences. 2016-08-26 0:03 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>: > a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > > Murray is speculating the stains he saw were proof. >> > > Okay, that is a different story. But I think *you* are speculating here. > You speculate that stains are not proof. > > I suppose just about anyone would agree that a rust water mark in a pipe > and in an instrument is there because that's how high the water was. I > would say that goes beyond speculation, right to the level of common-sense > proof. I doubt you will find a plumber or some expert on pipes who looks at > a stain and comes up with some other explanation. I doubt that you can > think up some other plausible explanation, and if you do, you will be > speculating. > > - Jed > >
