Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • No, I didn't say that, did I? However I implied that "deposition evidence submitted to a federal court under penalty of perjury when the evidence provided is adverse to the party but provided by that same party" can reasonably considered factual.


    You didn't answer what you consider such evidence to be though. What would you call that type of evidence, since you seem to object to categorizing that as factual?


    Ok. So you simply take the convenient position (as the Jed) that allows you to choose when Rossi is telling the truth or not according the the narrative that suits you the best? Or do you mean it is somehow more criminal to lie about something that goes against your interests than something that is to your advantage?

  • As was IH back to him, and even to Boeing! Sending a reactor to Boeing without disclosing that to Rossi? Not providing Boeing with the correct fuel mix? Without disclosing to Boeing that it wasn't the correct fuel mix? As the poor Boeing engineer spent a good amount of his personal time testing it?

    Again... absolute case in point of pure hypocrisy.


    1) IH owned the reactors and Rossi was an IH employee. They did not need his approval. This is not deception in anyway. Why would it be deception?


    However Rossi... fake engineer, fake customer, fake invoices, fake.... list goes on...to your own employer, THAT is deception.


    2) Not providing correct fuel mix. Your speculation and contrary to IH interest. Makes no sense. However Rossi's deceit / fraud is proven without doubt. Yet your speculation fuels your hypocrisy.


    3) Poor Engineer? You are truly a case. Boeing was paid, and probably handsomely. There would have been no subterfuge to Boeing on IH part regardless of what they sent. They paid for it. Yet, since the test did not support Rossi, then your view is that IH MUST have been deceitful. Truly amazing.


    So here is iHFB view. Rossi can cheat, lie, defraud and con without impunity because it is a "dog eat dog" business world. IH is despicable without any fact or proof. Simply because if IH is not evil, then Rossi must be. The alternative is unthinkable!


    Again, care to count the KNOWN AND FACTUAL lies of Rossi compared to IH?


    Zero factual to IH but Rossi proven to lie about everything. But to the "unbiased one", Rossi's lies do not count. Made up speculation on IH far out weigh known fact against Rossi.


    Simply admit it, your posts confirm it.X/

  • As was IH back to him, and even to Boeing! Sending a reactor to Boeing without disclosing that to Rossi? Not providing Boeing with the correct fuel mix? Without disclosing to Boeing that it wasn't the correct fuel mix? As the poor Boeing engineer spent a good amount of his personal time testing it?


    That's the normal stuff business partners do to each other. :) Seriously, and in all honesty, I never understood why Darden did that to the Boeing scientist Childress. Does not make sense to use such talent that way.

  • This is not a psychological assessment. It is a logical conclusion. Sane people seldom lie to hurt themselves, or to deliberately lose large sums of money.


    The by far most logical conclusion is of course that Rossi simply told the truth in his deposition. All of it. Not doing so would result in an enormous risk of him going to jail. It is so funny to watch you guys dance around this elephant in the room. :D

  • Ok. So you simply take the convenient position (as the Jed) that allows you to choose when Rossi is telling the truth or not according the the narrative that suits you the best? Or do you mean it is somehow more criminal to lie about something that goes against your interests than something that is to your advantage?


    You again failed to answer my question: what do you consider deposition evidence submitted to a federal court under penalty of perjury when the evidence provided is adverse to the party but provided by that same party?



    In answer to your seemingly obtuse and diversionary question: It's not "convenient" to place higher credibility to self-admitted inculpatory evidence. Rather, it's blatantly obvious that any thinking person would do so. Yet you seem to be arguing that doing so is duplicitous. If so, that is absurd, and provides evidence that you have no interest in intelligent debate, just trolling.


  • 1) Leonardo and IH had a licensor/licensee relationship. Licensees don't (usually) go behind the back of licensors and have a device that contains trade secrets tested by a third party without first consulting and agreeing to such tests with the licensor. This was deceptive on IH's part, whether you like it or not.


    2) Darden admitted under oath that he provided the incorrect fuel to Boeing. Not speculation, and apparently not contrary to IH's interests.


    3) Yes, the poor engineer, who proceeded to waste a bunch of his own time testing a device that had the incorrect fuel mix, as later admitted by Darden.

  • BTW, this "discussion" has nothing to do with the Prominent pump. So moderators may want to direct us back to another thread, such as Rossi Blog, or Rossi vs Darden (but I think that might be closed)


    I'm pretty sure Alan Fletcher would appreciate that, at least, and probably IHFB would agree.

  • The by far most logical conclusion is of course that Rossi simply told the truth in his deposition. All of it.


    I think he lied in some places, and he told the truth elsewhere. I am certain he lied about the invisible heat exchanger, for example. I think he lied when he could, but at times he was forced to tell the truth against his own interests, because he realized they had proof.


    But, in any case, if you claim that he told the truth in all of it, then you are saying he had no customer, he lied to his previous supporters, and he did many other unethical things that he admitted.



    Not doing so would result in an enormous risk of him going to jail.


    No, it would be a very slight risk, according to lawyers I have heard from.

  • But, in any case, if you claim that he told the truth in all of it, then you are saying he had no customer, he lied to his previous supporters, and he did many other unethical things that he admitted


    I tend to favor this. It is not illegal to lie, and many people do so often. The legal penalty for perjury, on the other hand, is very real, and few people purposely lie under oath. You get the sense when reading Rossi's depos that he is putting it all on the table, even the things that aren't so pretty for him.

  • 1) Leonardo and IH had a licensor/licensee relationship. Licensees don't (usually) go behind the back of licensors and have a device that contains trade secrets tested by a third party without first consulting and agreeing to such tests with the licensor. This was deceptive on IH's part, whether you like it or not.


    2) Darden admitted under oath that he provided the incorrect fuel to Boeing. Not speculation, and apparently not contrary to IH's interests.


    3) Yes, the poor engineer, who proceeded to waste a bunch of his own time testing a device that had the incorrect fuel mix, as later admitted by Darden.


    (THANKS SHANE FOR GETTING US BACK ON THREAD!)



    1) You just made that up out of thin air: "Licensees don't usually have a device that contains trade secrets tested..." That may be your opinion, but you have not basis for supporting it. We have the contract and know that IH had no responsibility to inform Rossi, but rather Rossi had to have permission from IH to disclose. Beyond that, IH almost certainly signed an NDA with Boeing (to not do so would be blatant malpractice).


    I know you've read that document because we've discussed it before. The problem with IH is not that they hired Boeing to independently verify when they did. The problem is that they waited as long as they did, or didn't hire them or some other competent organization as part of the original contract. Based on the docket, Darden would probably argue that he didn't want to risk the opportunity to work with "temperamental" Rossi since he thought he might really have the goods. In retrospect, that was a really bad idea.


    2) I read but don't remember this. I'm not saying your wrong, but if you have the reference link to Abd's site, that would be clarifying. Thanks


    3) ibid

  • The problem with IH is not that they hired Boeing to independently verify when they did.


    Independently verify what? A reactor having a known (to Darden) incorrect fuel mix? Now why would Darden want that? Could it be that he was hoping for a negative test result at that stage in his relationship with Rossi? Just possibly?

  • t's not "convenient" to place higher credibility to self-admitted inculpatory evidence.


    Of course it is.... Maybe not in the sense that these statements are credible - of course they are - but in the sense that it enables you to both eat the cookie and keep it for later - since you can continue to accuse Rossi of lying in a lot of other cases when it is exactly as illegal as in the case mentioned. As I said the most logical and reasonable explanation is of course that Rossi is telling the truth in his deposition. All of it. No exceptions. Since everything else is criminal.

  • You get the sense when reading Rossi's depos that he is putting it all on the table, even the things that aren't so pretty for him.


    No, I do not get that sense at all. He often lied through his teeth, for example when he described the non-existant heat exchanger. In a few cases, when he knew they had overwhelming evidence against him, he admitted to things which were not so pretty for him.


    You get that sense because you are in thrall to Rossi. You cannot bring yourself to face reality or admit you have been deceived. "It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled." - attributed to Mark Twain.

  • No, I do not get that sense at all. He often lied through his teeth, for example when he described the non-existant heat exchanger. In a few cases, when he knew they had overwhelming evidence against him, he admitted to things which were not so pretty for him.


    You get that sense because you are in thrall to Rossi. You cannot bring yourself to face reality or admit you have been deceived. "It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled." - attributed to Mark Twain.


    "You" meaning anyone who actually read all of the available depos from Rossi and approach it with a fair mind.

  • No, I do not get that sense at all. He often lied through his teeth, for example when he described the non-existant heat exchanger. In a few cases, when he knew they had overwhelming evidence against him, he admitted to things which were not so pretty for him.


    You get that sense because you are in thrall to Rossi. You cannot bring yourself to face reality or admit you have been deceived. "It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled." - attributed to Mark Twain.



    Are you accusing Rossi for lying under oath?

  • since you can continue to accuse Rossi of lying in a lot of other cases when it is exactly as illegal as in the case mentioned.


    The legality is not the issue. It is extremely unlikely he will be prosecuted for lying in a civil case. The issue here is that the statements make him look bad and endanger his own case. You seem to think that person will lie when lying makes it likely he will lose a legal case and lose millions of dollars, where telling the truth would help his case and protect the money. Explain why you think anyone would do that.


    People usually lie to get something for themselves, not to deliberately lose a fortune. Explain why you disagree. Give us some examples of people who lied in order to destroy themselves.

  • Are you accusing Rossi for lying under oath?


    Yes, I am 100% certain he lied under oath, about the heat exchanger and many other technical details. The heat exchanger could not possibly have existed. There is overwhelming proof of that. I am also 100% certain the reactor did not produce 1 MW as he claimed.


    I did not read his testimony about contracts or business, so I wouldn't know about that. I only read the technical testimony, and the reports by Penon, Murray and Smith.