You know that us technical types would prefer to have a large, accurate volume of data to review, but that is not going to happen anytime soon. We are forced to work doggedly on what we are given and much can be learned by what has been demonstrated thus far. A lot of concentrated data would answer all of your questions quickly, but I still suspect that more questions would pop up.
If I recall, Uri was tricked once by a scientist controlling the stage props and he failed. I would like to have seen that one. We might tend to be a little too trusting, but it takes trust to make things work. I have found that you can keep lawyers busy forever if you are making a contract that requires absolutely every item to be fool proof and without any trust in the other party. My conclusion is that you should not do business with anyone you do not trust. Rossi is bull headed, elusive, and a lot of other things, but he is a great hands on guy that gets the job done. We need a lot more people with those characteristics. (Less bull headed would be better I think) Dave -----Original Message----- From: Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism. On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:26 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: Lets try to discuss the technical details on occasions instead of the scamming part of things. It is much more interesting to most of us technical types. Sure. But the problem is that many essential technical details are mostly lacking or are unreliable because they all come only from Rossi. So I see a lot of conjecture just based on what Rossi says. For example that he has had a customer and has made a delivery. Such conjecture is amusing but not very informative. Jed's input is also interesting but for too much of it, he can't produce any reliable documentation and for some of it, he can't even say who saw what much less what they said! And for some of us, the possibility that after all this time and all the tests, this could still be (and is likely to be, IMO) a scam is part of the fascination. Sorry if you don't share that amusement. Technical types tend not to be suspicious and they want a wonderful story to be true. They are some of the most easily scammed. The example that comes to mind again is the ruthless and amazing way Uri Geller scammed no less that Puthoff and Targ and even the journal "Nature" into believing that he had psychic powers and could bend and alter metals with his mind alone. It's a good story to remember.
