a.ashfield, you give warnings to people not to make speculations and then you speculate yourself all the time. Where is the contract between Rossi and IH saying they could not visit the "customer" operations?
Again, please look the entire piece not single isolated bits. We already discussed how the location of the "customer" was not congruent with them using 1 MW for industrial processing in a retailer zoned area in a small warehouse, we already discussed the homemade business card with an not existing director of engineering (with no real online presence of any kind), how the business card has a photo of a plant in Japan that has nothing to do with the customer, a strange name for the company JM Products, similar to a well known and real chemical products company, but M stands for Matthew and no Matthey (super weird), the flowmeter operating below specs, Fabiani not giving raw data even if he promised to do so, Penon not answering simple and direct questions from Murray and so and so on. You may defend Rossi on one of these items but how you can conceive of a defense that deals in a reasonable way with all these issues (and the list is not exhaustive at all)? It is clear you are simply in denial and cognitive dissonance if you can ignore the whole picture. Murky you say? Giovanni On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:17 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > Eric, > While the story is murky, I got the impression Murray was hired late in > the game, had an IT background, and was not allowed in the plant;until the > trial was over, let alone allowed in the customers plant. > If IH and Rossi signed an agreement before the trial that no one would be > allowed in the customers plant, why should Murray be allowed to visit it? > It was the ERV's job to report on how well the plant worked. > If I were Rossi, I too would be suspicious of of letting an unknown IH > employee snoop around. In retrospect it seems that Rossi had already > become suspicious of IH's motives. > It also seems extraordinary to me that IH would divulge details of their > dirty linen to an outsider like Jed. If it were Murray, an independent > consultant, who leaked the information, it doesn't look good for him. > AA > > On 8/26/2016 11:54 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:47 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> > wrote: > > Jed: "Whether or not this happened, there's a more general point that >> should be apparent to anyone who has had a chance to read all of the >> documents filed so far. Leonardo made zero effort to involve IH in the >> planning and execution of the alleged GPT, and at no point was there an >> effort to persuade them of its validity. " >> >> It doesn't look like IH had a single technical person so why do you think >> they could have contributed anything to the plant design or operation? >> They ultimately hired Murray, but lacking tech expertise they hired someone >> with the wrong experience. Likewise, it seems that they were unable to >> understand if the plant was working and if it wasn't, do something about it. >> AA >> > > That was me, not Jed. Apart from the hiring of Murray, I am unfamiliar > with the preparations that IH took to evaluate any technical claims being > made. Perhaps Murray was their only man. Perhaps they retained one of the > best engineering firms in the world. Whichever case it was is irrelevant to > the point that was being made, which is that the alleged GPT was not done > with IH's participation. This is even more strange than the fact that > Murray was prevented from seeing the customer area. If the fact about IH > not being involved in the arrangements for the test does not raise a red > flag for you, I don't know what would. I suspect that nothing would. > > Eric > > >
