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.