Kevin, I think you failed to account for CME and sunspot activity being very low.
Elevated sunspot activity is related to aberrant behavior. This will reduce the odds of a sudden reASSesment by Blaze down another 0.013% down to 7.077% On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So now Blaze won't even post on his own thread, instead posting to his own > blog about "rumors" > <http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/20/e-cat-report-watch-thread/> of > delay around the next ITP report... > > Rumors? The damned report was due in April. That ain't no rumor. It is > delayed. I'm constrained to decrease my ASSessment of an ASSurance that > Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine "hind quarters" down to 7.44%, > taking into account the direction of the wind and the stock price for CYPW > Cyclone Power. > > Then Blaze goes on to say that "there may be some ambiguity in the results > that the researchers are having trouble digesting and so are delaying the > report until they figure them out. We estimate this at about 60% chance." > > And how is that supposed to have any bearing whatsoever on whether Rossi > is "real"? If Rossi weren't "real", there'd be NO ambiguity in the results > and he'd be a pile of stones right now. I'm constrained to decrease my > ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine > "hind quarters" down to 7.39% > > Then blaze gives a 40% chance that they believe "they have seen > spectacular results and they need to get their ducks in a row because it’s > going to attract a lot of attention and their reputations are all on the > line." So, on the basis of 40% chance of SPECTACULAR results contrasted > with 60% chance of AMBIGUOUS results, he DOWNGRADES Rossi? That is a 100% > chance that Rossi has generated a real effect. AMBIGUOUS results mean that > Rossi is "Real". Otherwise those guys would have published quickly and > decisively in APRIL, when the report was due. I'm constrained to decrease > my ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his > ASinine "hind quarters" down to 7.33%. > > Then blaze talks about Rossi talking about his 1MW plant. "He seems to be > diverting attention away from the reports"... Uh, blaze: What reports are > those? The ones that aren't even out yet? How can he divert attention > away from something that hasn't even been published yet. It's OBVIOUS he's > trying to fill the dead air time. I'm constrained to decrease my > ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine > "hind quarters" down to 7.29%. > > Then Blaze injects a supposition: "which may because he’s concerned those > results aren’t favorable." Wow, dude. Like. Yer some kinda genius er > sumthin. Rossi said PLAINLY on his website that he has anxiety over the > upcoming results. They could be positive, could be negative. So, blaze is > saying that his one supposition is supported by his other supposition so > he's downgrading Rossi. What a dipwad. > > Then blaze blows himself out of the water: "If we see confirmation of > this delay to September (say nothing by mid July), we will likely reduce > the probability to 25% that Rossi is Real." How incredibly stupid. Delay > is due to the fact that they found something and "need to get their ducks > in a row". If they found NOTHING, their report would have come out in > April. Blaze, pull your head out. I'm constrained to decrease my > ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine > "hind quarters" down to 7.15%. > > And what would blaze be, if not wishy-washy? Here he tries to > equivocate: "If a report comes out before that date, be warned – you could > potentially see a massive swing upwards to 50% or even 60% that Rossi is > Real. " All I can say is: Wow, blaze yer like, so friggin brilliant... > NOT. Where do you come up with this crap? > > And then blaze ends with POTO, saying the "report has the potential of > being a very significant inflection point in this Andrea Rossi / > E-Catelyzer Saga." For those not in the know, POTO is Pointing Out The > Obvious. So I'm constrained, finally, to decrease my ASSessment of an > ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine "hind quarters" > down to 7.09%. Those are not good odds. > > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Blaze Spinnaker < > blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/probability-rossi-is-real-is-now-28/ >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Well I worded that strongly to drive home a point, we often hide our >>> ignorance in the talk of probability. >>> >>> There are 4 domains in which we apply probability. >>> >>> 1: Things which are set and we are ignorant of, no actual element of >>> chance exist, such as with Rossi. >>> >>> 2: Macro chance, things that we fail to predict but maybe could if we >>> did sufficiently in-depth analysis, this could be likened to the spinning >>> of a wheel of wheel of fortune >>> >>> 3: While a machine could be used to spin a wheel and get the desired >>> selection to come up on a wheel, some things seem beyond our ability to >>> predict. The experiment with falling BB's hitting pegs and being seemingly >>> effected by the intent of the observer in university studies backs up that >>> this is maybe beyond modeling within known physics/ Rolling a dice is >>> similar, but we do know dice can be loaded showing that even on this level >>> small physical changes can reduce the randomness. >>> >>> 4: Quantum physics where it is believed God does actually pay dice. >>> But this is in ignorance of the state of the aether behind such >>> interactions. >>> It could be that these things are not random at all. >>> >>> But even IF you believe that probability really exist, that does not >>> apply to Rossi. >>> >>> And if you were to hide ignorance in the language of probability despite >>> the obvious lack of 'chance', there is the fact that if you were at 1% >>> confidence and then saw one tiny single sign, you could have to go to 100%. >>> >>> Such as an event that can only be explained by Rossi being genuine. >>> >>> Granted this is difficult with magicians (illusionists) and con men, but >>> there has very likely been such a sign that either moves him to 100% or >>> damn near 0%. >>> Not that there is anything that could prove him false so easily >>> including proof he faked a test as there might be genuine motives to fake a >>> test despite being genuinely in possession of the real thing, it really is >>> harder/impossible to prove a negative. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or >>>> they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real.. >>>> There is no such thing as probability in reality." >>>> >>>> I see.. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 5:12 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Blaze's ego is astounding, thinking that he has things so well worked >>>>> out that his ramblings about probability have meaning. >>>>> >>>>> Even if he were that good at working out probability, a few facts >>>>> remain that make it worthless. >>>>> >>>>> 1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or >>>>> they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real.. >>>>> There is no such thing as probability in reality. >>>>> >>>>> 2: What is the difference between a 30% chance and a 70% chance? >>>>> Answer 1: 40% >>>>> Answer 2: Nothing much, both means that there is a very real >>>>> possibility of it going either way. >>>>> If you were invested in oil, it would mean that there is a very real >>>>> risk that you must take seriously. >>>>> If you are on the side of good, you know that there is an >>>>> extraordinary possibility that might be worthy of attention, but might not >>>>> pan out. >>>>> >>>>> But the difference between 0.1% chance and a 0.0000001% chance is huge! >>>>> With the 0.1% there is a long shot, but one that could still very well >>>>> pan out. Just 1 in 1,000 is not too distant odds to let one ignore >>>>> something potentially significant good or bad. >>>>> >>>>> But 0.0000001 is 1 in ten million, an almost impossible long shot >>>>> worthy of no attention/investment unless there are enough of these low >>>>> level 'promises/threats' to bring it up to a level of relevance. >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm constrained to decrease my ASSessment of an ASSurance >>>>>> that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine "hind quarters" down to >>>>>> 7.51%, taking into account the direction of the wind and the stock price >>>>>> for CYPW Cyclone Power. >>>>>> >>>>>> At least this time Blaze increased the chances of Rossi being real >>>>>> on the basis of stuff that had SOMEthing to do with Rossi. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, he thinks the In Mercato Veritas is a sign of unrealness rather than >>>>>> the OBVIOUS thing it is: >>>>>> an old fashioned Rossism expression of confidence. This was exactly >>>>>> the way Rossi used to post >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> before his friend Focardi got cancer. >>>>>> >>>>>> When Blaze talks about the lack of news leaks, he doesn't seem to >>>>>> realize he's engaging in a classic >>>>>> fallacy of arguing from silence. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>>>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Going to start publishing updates on this blog >>>>>>> http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/ rather than this mailing list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rossi is now at 30% >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If it's interesting enough to generate a patent then it is >>>>>>>> worthwhile. The world would sit up and take notice simply because >>>>>>>> Rossi >>>>>>>> ain't a fraud, as the common notion suggests. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>>>>>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Another possibility is IH may have decided they don't want the >>>>>>>>> world competing with them, so they gave the researchers an eCat which >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> just enough interesting to generate a patent but not so interesting it >>>>>>>>> causes the world to sit up and take notice. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>>>>>>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> More and more I'm beginning to wonder if we're going to get a TIP >>>>>>>>>> report that shows something interesting, but nowhere guaranteeing >>>>>>>>>> the power >>>>>>>>>> densities shown in the first report. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> While I believe that Rossi believes he has something and that IH >>>>>>>>>> believes they have something and that there is no fraudulent >>>>>>>>>> behavior going >>>>>>>>>> on here, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And the middle is, yes energy, just not very exciting energy. >>>>>>>>>> And possibly, after some analysis, it could be just an impressive >>>>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>>>> source of chemical energy that's competitive perhaps with Rocket >>>>>>>>>> Fuel in >>>>>>>>>> the best case scenario, but in reality it's just competitive with >>>>>>>>>> optimal >>>>>>>>>> Geothermal. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In this scenario, I consider the eCat not to have lived up to its >>>>>>>>>> promises which is why my estimate is around 35%. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>>>>>>>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Decreasing the probability to 31% based on smelly stock offering. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://freeenergyscams.com/andrea-rossi-e-cat-hydro-fusion-cashing-in-before-the-collapse/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> HydroFusion is ran by Dr. Magnus Holm. Seems credible - but why >>>>>>>>>>> didn't he wait until after the report to ask for more money? Why >>>>>>>>>>> is Rossi >>>>>>>>>>> doing shout outs about Dr Holm? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andrea Rossi >>>>>>>>>>> May 18th, 2014 at 11:20 PM >>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848&cpage=1#comment-957368> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Orsobubu: >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your comment, that indroduces us to the paper >>>>>>>>>>> published today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics: >>>>>>>>>>> GEOMETRY OF STRING THEORY SOLITONS >>>>>>>>>>> by Dr Magnus Holm . It is an important work of this scientist >>>>>>>>>>> made in 1999, but I find his work dense of important information. >>>>>>>>>>> It is not >>>>>>>>>>> an easy reading, the work is rigorous, but this is the Journal of >>>>>>>>>>> Nuclear >>>>>>>>>>> Physics, and the paper is perfectly in line with the field of >>>>>>>>>>> application >>>>>>>>>>> of our Journal. Dr Magnus Holm is presently working also with me >>>>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>>> E-Cat. >>>>>>>>>>> About the comment of our friend Orsobubu: I do not share his >>>>>>>>>>> certainties regarding the so called “social sciences”. >>>>>>>>>>> Warm Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> A.R. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This could be just really inane business strategy or perhaps >>>>>>>>>>> Magnus just doesn't have a good contract with Rossi/IH. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For those who really believe in Rossi, my suggestion would be to >>>>>>>>>>> contact Hydro fusion and buy up as many shares as you possibly can. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think everything comes down to this report that should be >>>>>>>>>>> coming over the next month. We could see a rise over over 20-30% >>>>>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>>>>> basis of this report. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Another possibility is that the report may reveal a low COP >>>>>>>>>>> which is competitive only with geothermal and could be the result of >>>>>>>>>>> uninteresting fuel sources. (which means a drop in probability of >>>>>>>>>>> 10% or so) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Another (unlikely in my mind) possibility is that the report >>>>>>>>>>> will reveal that it doesn't do anything useful, which will be a >>>>>>>>>>> drop in 25%. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>>>>>>>>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Decreasing the probability to 35% based on shattering news of >>>>>>>>>>>> the Defkalion demo being completely worthless. I hesitate to say >>>>>>>>>>>> it, but >>>>>>>>>>>> It almost sounds like fraud is being implied. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://animpossibleinvention.com/2014/05/12/defkalion-demo-proven-not-to-be-reliable/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>>>>>>>>>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Decreasing probability to 46% based on lack of news from Nanor >>>>>>>>>>>>> but up to 47% based on recent news from Darden in China: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.icebank.cn/news/detail_2.php?id=118 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> hat tip: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/05/09/tom-darden-involved-in-opening-of-nickel-hydrogen-energy-research-center-in-tianjin-china/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Note: I suspect there will be an up to (-30%, +15%) swing in >>>>>>>>>>>>> probability when the june report comes out. Big news indeed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>>>>>>>>>>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Increasing the probability to 47% on the basis on Nanor / MIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Put that back to 43%: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mr. Darden earned an MRP in environmental planning from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,* a JD from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yale Law School* and a BA from the University of North >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was a Morehead Scholar. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correction, make that 41%. It's not Cherokee but rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Darden (investor, co founder of Cherokee) and Mr. Vaughn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (senior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyst at Cherokee, BA Economics) who are the players here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It'd be good to find out who those other investors are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Increasing the probability to 44% on the basis of Cherokee >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR release. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Big big BIG news. Now this is no longer about Rossi, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about Cherokee. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know you guys think I'm a git for my doubt, but hey, my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model is waaaay ahead of the curve than the vast majority of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the investing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe. XOM is still trading near historical highs, for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest news coming out of BLP and McKubre. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The next indie report on the ecat should be an interesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inflection >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fulvio , the tech Director & R.D. at Leonardo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Corporation MIAMI - FL - USA previous job was: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Frelance Consultant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/search?search=&title=Frelance+Consultant&sortCriteria=R&keepFacets=true¤tTitle=CP&trk=prof-exp-title> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> European >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gaming and Gambling Tech Market >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/search?search=&company=European+Gaming+and+Gambling+Tech+Market&sortCriteria=R&keepFacets=true&trk=prof-exp-company-name> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -4% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now back to 31%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - STMicro patent (Increased about 4.5%) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Cherokee Investments (Increased about 2.5%) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Rossi stating third party reports in March >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (increased 2%) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Lack of news from Defkalion (-1%) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> News seems to be coming in fairly rapidly at this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point. Could be updating this probability more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequently. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
