This is a good example of why circumstantial evidence should be the last resort. Who can deny that Rossi was indicted and tried? Who can deny that the Italian government is corrrupt? Most importantly, how do you weigh the virtually unlimited bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence against each other when what you are actually demanding is consummation of multiple layers of inference, each layer of which is fraught with uncertainty? Agreed, if that's all you've got to go on, that's all you've got to go on. But.... IT ISN'T.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Marcello Vitale <mvit...@ucsbalum.net>wrote: > OK, I have to repeat myself: Rossi was found wholly not guilty (no crime > was committed, is the sentence) by not one but three courts in Italy for > trafficking in toxic waste, with the last sentence in November 2004. The > more I look into it, the more it seems that somebody with good connections > had it in for him, moreover he became an easy scapegoat for professional > eco-politicians (the green party has imploded in Italy because taken over > by a series of ego-driven opportunists). > > As I already said, Rossi found himself between a rock and a hard place > with the changing definition of "toxic waste" and very reduced (for lack of > final regulations which are always late in Italy) disposal opportunities. > Working it up was not any longer legal, and it was not legal transporting > it without a permit he did not have and would have taken years to obtain, > nor was it legal storing it without same permit, and so on. I would have > quit everything and moved to Australia, Rossi tried to fight it. That > really does show he has no business sense. > > If you have no idea what it is like trying to do business in Italy, stop > talking about it > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Robert Leguillon < > robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> If you don't think that Rossi's past has any bearing on the E-Cat, or if >> you think the October 6th test showed conclusive, first-principle, >> irrefutable proof, you probably can just skip this E-Mail. For the rest: >> >> PETROLDRAGON >> I really didn't want to get into the Petroldragon stuff, but I can't let >> the recent posts hang out there unbalanced. Most of the English >> information on the "Petroldragon affair" was quite literally penned by >> Rossi. >> >> I've reviewed several contemporary Italian articles, and here is an >> exerpt of a 1994 article that should shed some light: >> >> ""Based on laboratory tests, hydrocarbons did not exceed 3 per cent, the >> rest of the product was formed by water (23%) and three-quarters of a >> cocktail of industrial solvents, acids much to put in serious danger of the >> same columns Distillation..."" >> ""The State Forestry Department had seized a 'tanker, from the filing of >> Piossasco Petrol Dragon (Turin), which was unloading about 10 tons of >> sewage in the tanks of Omar. Toxic waste transported without a permit, the >> rangers discovered, and so contaminated with PCBs (polidiclorodifenile >> highly toxic) as to be prohibitive for any disposal plant in Lombardy."" >> ""The reduced 's turnover of Omar and' small quantity 'of "oil" actually >> distilled, the judge wrote, "indicate unequivocally that the principal >> activity' was carried out in Lacchiarella the storage of toxic substances >> harmful." >> And he added a curious detail: the best customers of the Dragon Petrol >> included a paper mill in the province of Frosinone, that between January >> '91 to March' 92 had purchased 600 tons of fuel self-sufficient. Too bad >> that the factory had stopped production since '90"" >> >> The gist of the accusations is that industrial partners were unloading >> toxic waste (really toxic) for "reclamation". Only a tiny percentage was >> being processed, and that material that was processed was less than 3 >> percent hydrocarbons. The customers buying the fuel (the best evidence of >> efficacy) weren't even operating. The article seems to indicate that Rossi >> discovered an "easy out" for industry to stockpile waste and circumvent the >> higher costs of actual disposal. >> This was the reasoning for the earlier comparison of Petroldragon to the >> U.S. crematorium that stockpiled bodies instead of using their furnace. >> >> >> http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/1994/marzo/09/petrolio_dai_rifiuti_inservibile_tossico_co_0_94030910061.shtml >> >> LTI >> At UNH, Leonardo Technologies, Inc. demonstrated a Thermo Electric >> device at 20% efficiency, when the norm was 4%. I am actually curious if >> this demonstration involved boiling water. (If anyone can find info on the >> University of New Hampshire testing, this could be incredibly telling). >> According to the Army pdf below: When it can time to deliver, his >> facility caught fire. Then he moved production, and the subcontractors >> failed. Upwards of 75% of his units didn't work at all, and the remaining >> gave 1 watt instead of 800-1000W. When he was bailed out to the point that >> true experts were building him new assembly procedures, he finally built >> working devices that performed right on par with existing technology. >> >> http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo(2004).pdf >> > >
