Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Evidence is truly in the eye of the beholder then. For instance when I hear of one of Rossi's coworkers testifying about the Quark X something like, "I've seen incredible things that you would not believe", I see that as evidence there is something very interesting going on, while others take it as evidence that his coworker is in on the scam. Go figure.


    I'm figuring that your analysis here is leaving out a lot of relevant information:

    • Is the co-worker subject to the type of rose-tinted "accept everything Rossi says is true" that is common amongst those Rossi holds tight?
    • Is the co-worker a reliable witness?
    • Is the co-worker considering the possibility of very impressive shows put on by Rossi that in fact do not mean what on the surface they might? Out of about 20 tests we have verifiable understanding of how nearly all of them have built in gotchas that deliver astonishing results due to some error. In most of these cases some external observers (even when technically knowledgable such as Jed) have been unable to see the error which in fact does exist, until it is pointed out by others.

    You are also making a logical error; assuming Rossi's co-workers are in on a scam rather than believing Rossi's false assurances. There is no evidence, for example, that the Lugano report author's were "in on a scam".


    That is all what a careful observer must consider, even leaving out the whole issue of Rossi's known ability to lie and the farcical lies around the Court case.


    The point is: Rossi's co-workers are a selected group. we know anyone who does not accept all his fantasies gets shown the door pretty quickly. Given such a filter the large variety of human nature, and large numbers of people who might potentially want to be part of the greatest invention in human history and help save the world, makes it easy for Rossi to choose selectively unreliable witnesses. He has known form in this area with the Lugano team; genuine scientists who were somehow persuaded to sign that appallingly written, unprofessional, report in which there were technical (thermography) and non-technical (incorrect description of independence of experimental work from Rossi and team) errors.


    Perhaps I am biassed. But I see you put too much weight on anecdotal evidence from people close to Rossi, when such people are by definition selected for unreliability in this one area of evaluating Rossi's work.

  • Evidence is truly in the eye of the beholder then. For instance when I hear of one of Rossi's coworkers testifying about the Quark X something like, "I've seen incredible things that you would not believe", I see that as evidence there is something very interesting going on, while others take it as evidence that his coworker is in on the scam. Go figure.

    Fabiani falsified an affidavit to the UPSTO, reporting that one of the 50-odd small reactors inside the Red Doral container was (somehow) a domestic ecat climatizing his laboratory, while in fact the “reactor” was actually owned by IH and only used for two days (if at all). That sure looks like evidence of being in on a scam.

  • @ THHuxleynew Yes of course you raise a good point, that Rossi's coworkers have been selected as to their agreeableness, their friendliness to his goal. Sure. If I were Rossi I wouldn't take someone on board who was antagonistic or suspicious, either. Who would? That does not make them 'unreliable' witnesses. I know lots of companies where people who were friendly to their superiors called a spade a spade when they saw something unbecoming. (I was one of those people.) I've heard nada from people surrounding Rossi.

    You talk about 'genuine scientists' who were 'somehow' persuaded to sign a report. I thought these scientists did the experiment, so of course they would sign it.

  • Fabiani falsified an affidavit to the UPSTO, reporting that one of the 50-odd small reactors inside the Red Doral container was (somehow) a domestic ecat climatizing his laboratory, while in fact the “reactor” was actually owned by IH and only used for two days (if at all). That sure looks like evidence of being in on a scam.

    If that is true, was he arrested for perjury?

  • If that is true, was he arrested for perjury?

    The evidence sits plain as day on the USPTO website.

    The penalty for knowingly submitting false support documents could be a fine and/or loss of the cat and ball trademark (noted on the application form). Since Rossi submitted the documents and knows well that the domestic heater was installed in the container, that probably puts Rossi on the hook more than Fabiani.

    I think the USPTO simply doesn’t care or can’t be bothered.

  • Fabiani falsified an affidavit to the UPSTO, reporting that one of the 50-odd small reactors inside the Red Doral container was (somehow) a domestic ecat climatizing his laboratory, while in fact the “reactor” was actually owned by IH and only used for two days (if at all). That sure looks like evidence of being in on a scam.

    I missed that one. Where is it in the court docs? And BTW: FF had a major medical event about 8 months ago. Hopefully he is recovering well.

  • That does not make them 'unreliable' witnesses. I know lots of companies where people who were friendly to their superiors called a spade a spade when they saw something unbecoming. (I was one of those people.) I've heard nada from people surrounding Rossi.

    You talk about 'genuine scientists' who were 'somehow' persuaded to sign a report. I thought these scientists did the experiment, so of course they would sign it.


    You make three points, all rebuttable without effort:


    That does not make them 'unreliable' witnesses.

    The point is that they could very easily, as I've suggested, be unreliable in the sense that they will not question Rossi and will accept his word for things. That makes their evidence against the mountain of contrary evidence not what you conclude. You put them forward as the one thing that cannot be explained. This is a logical error: just because they are not proven unreliable, it does not mean they should be considered proven reliable.


    I know lots of companies where people who were friendly to their superiors called a spade a spade when they saw something unbecoming. (I was one of those people.) I've heard nada from people surrounding Rossi.

    You liken Rossi's close and carefully vetted set of supporters to workers in a company one of whom would smell a rat. Clearly this is a bad comparison. Rossi is a lone maverick with maybe 1 (?) close colleague who is also a long-time friend. As I've pointed out he ejects from the inner circle anyone who is not fully in line with his thinking. In a normal company there would be tribunals, etc, at such treatment of employees. But Rossi does not (AFAIK) have employees, except possibly Fabiano - even then I'm not sure technically that he ever was an employee. Someone else will know. Rossi has people who work with him.


    You talk about 'genuine scientists' who were 'somehow' persuaded to sign a report. I thought these scientists did the experiment, so of course they would sign it.

    Note P's point above. In addition, although the report says they did the experiment it is clear from evidence that later emerged that Rossi and team did the experiment. They were present some of the time. Nor am I sure how much involvement different ones of them had - it probably varied and certainly their expertise varied - I strongly suspect that they all viewed Levi as the IR thermography expert. Perhaps the expert on everything related to the input and output power measurement. Unfortunately. In this situation, where multiple people are signing for something that they trust others to have validated, persuaded to sign is quite apposite.

  • Gerard gets the big thumbs up and

    Rossi has had a couple of good days.

    1. Gerard McEk March 7, 2020 at 5:28 AM

      Dear Andrea,

      This is what I commented on E-catWorld where Frank Acland issued his question and your reply that testing will start mid of March 2020:

      “Thanks Frank, I was just thinking of asking him the same question.

      Well guys, the hour of the truth is approaching. Hoping is not enough, do something:

      Keep our fingers crossed, pray to the Lord, use your willpower and want it to succeed, or do whatever you do to make something a success that isn’t in your hands. I do them all :)

      Success Andrea!”

      I got many thumbs up, so many will spiritually help you to succeed.

      Kind regards, Gerard

    2. Andrea Rossi March 7, 2020 at 11:14 AM

      Gerard McEk:

      I am delighted to read this.

      I am very optimist. A great day yesterday and today.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

  • TTH

    There is the past but what about the

    future.What wil you be looking for in

    the ECatSKL third party testing that

    convinces you that the SKL is for real?


    You mean, what surprising change in practice would convince me of this? A reliable independent party with a reputation to lose and expertise in testing. For example NASA (Rossi refused), IH (after they up-skilled) - negative tests, any university department (not a lone scientist doing their own thing).


    Or, what would convince me is any large company putting serious money into this with PR stating they had tested it themselves - which anyone who knew this stuff worked would of course want!


    The thing is Sam, one or other of the above is what Rossi could have got 10 years ago if his stuff works. he does not need 5 sigma, does not need electrical output (weird idea). Does not need robotic factories. Just a genuine working black-box demo.

  • Remember when the January presentation (DPS2) from Rossi’s Miami condo was to be the moment of truth?

  • Yes, Rossi's eternal, "it works, no it does not" - refrain sort of is compatible with an inventor ever-hopeful but unable to see the tragedy that his stuff will never work.


    It certainly seems to work for his followers, who do not worried by the 10 years of claimed reliably working devices, with the zero external evidence of any one ever having worked.


    It is just as plausible that Rossi is entirely cynical and knows full well how he manipulates his followers.


    I find this psychodrama, though increasingly sad, still compelling.

  • Why are people talking like Rossi has employees who could even "see things", and that the SKL even exists? There is no evidence of anything. Alan, if you have any evidence of a single person working for Rossi, time to show the evidence or admit you were scammed. No more being an enabler of this scammer.

  • Why are people talking like Rossi has employees who could even "see things", and that the SKL even exists? There is no evidence of anything. Alan, if you have any evidence of a single person working for Rossi, time to show the evidence or admit you were scammed. No more being an enabler of this scammer.


    I believe for quite some period that Fulvio Fabiani was working under Rossi's direction. I doubt the relationship was that of employee - Fulvio seemed to be paid through Rossi's network of shell companies via contracts.


    So I agree there is no evidence of anything real, and that Rossi's talk of "team" has never been true: when he was asked this during discovery I believe he said he had no-one working for him.


    Nevertheless there have been, maybe still are, people like Fulvio funded by Rossi and doing work he wants. Rossi has quite a lot of money still from previous unwise investors.