Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

In favor of Mr. Acland, I have not seen any pattern of censorship of my posts on ECW. I have also requested that others who believe their posts were deleted, post copies here. (Ordinary deletion would remain in the Disqus user profile list of posts, at least the very few of mine that have been deleted have, AFAIK.) So far, nobody has bothered. I have been roundly attacked by some users there, but not by Acland. The site is not for raw pseudoskepticism and "debunking," but it certainly allows critique. As more and more fact comes out about the world of Andrea Rossi, Frank may have some choices to make. I have no demands, and appreciate diversity.

I must apologize to Mr. Acland as I was not clear. I too have not had posts removed, (although I was moved to the "moderate before post" list after some of my posts were of a questioning mindset.) I did not mean to say that Frank did not allow questioning or that ECW was a "cult". However, there is a "cult like" mentality amongst many of the posters there. Rossi can do no wrong in the view of a number of ECW members. IH is the devil accordingly.

What I was trying to say (but did not do a very good job) was that I think Mr. Acland tries to keep ECW a very positive forum, which is not bad in itself. However, none of the actual threads are of a questioning nature. Posts may be placed that question, but none of the threads are as such. Thus my example with the requested postponements. There was a thread about IH requesting a delay, but not one for Rossi. You will probably not see a thread "What happened to the satisfied customer and the three purchased plants" thread! We see threads such as "Rossi on Resolved QuarkX problems" but we probably will not see one on "Can the consulting aerospace engineer post his opinions (or who is he?)". There are also occasional threads posted from JONP that were almost certainly Rossi himself and then posted as somewhat "factual". Such as...

http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/11/24/17259/

This is probably where reality should be checked?

Quote from sigmoidal

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

My mistake due to my sometimes feeble memory: Darden has a law degree from Yale. I must have confused this with Vaughn. So only one of the two principals is a lawyer.

I haven't checked on Darden but I assume you are correct. And not only is no profession perfect, nobody is perfect. Hey, even me! Yes, I know it's rare, but I have made one or more mistakes.

(Actually, I often go back and reading what I've written and I find mistakes. WTF? Why didn't someone tell me?)

(I do not assume that my memory of what I wrote is accurate. It's often defective! So I will often check if I'm going to refer to something I wrote before....)

Quote

I agree that effective lawyers have to be careful thinkers, but my point goes beyond that. Lawyers have more to loose than (most) non-lawyers if caught making untrue statements because they can be disbarred, and or worse if the dishonesty occurs within a legal context.

Yes. And so ... Johnson is in some very hot water, possibly.

Quote

But since it was Vaughn rather than Darden who made the statement to the NC DHHS, that does reduce the 'risk' to Vaughn about his characterization that Rossi was not credible. He's just the vice-president of IH, after all, so why not mis-characterize Rossi (tongue-planted-in-cheek)?

I see no risk to Vaughn for any statement reported there. There was no material misrepresentation. And we don't know at all that he misrepresented Rossi. Basically, consider "Ha, ha! He says some crazy things sometimes!" Or something similar. This isn't even controvesial! Geez, has anyone read Mats Lewan?

Quote

I respectfully disagree with you that this NC DHHS report with the specific statement that Vaughn characterized Rossi as 'not credible' was in your words 'essentially meaningless'. In fact, I give it more weight because its coming from a government official who is merely writing up an incident report.

He was accurate, recording his impressions from a conversation and in context, it's on point, and "meaningless" when taken to mean what some have taken it to mean.

Rossi's hysterical response looks to me like it hit a sore spot, most likely _because it was true_. I know this is reading between the lines, but it seems to me more likely that the NC DHHS used measured language regarding Rossi, since it was not central to the conclusion in the report that there was "nothing to see here, move along", so to speak. But hey, that's just my opinion.
He was saying "not credible" with reference to the specific information the inspector was looking at. I.e., any implication that there might be radiation. I have above mentioned that Rossi might actually believe that the inspector's statement was a "lie." I don't think so. Ah, so many think in black and white terms, truth and lies. Life gets a lot easier when we back off on the strict categorization of everything, what is called in my training "Already Always Listening" because the damn machine can't be turned off. Fortunately, there are better things we can do with it....

Quote

Regarding Rossi's about face on radioactive emissions. He stated before 2012 that there were radioactive emissions. And his reactor has lead shielding. What is all that lead for if there are no radioactive emissions? If there are radioactive emissions which is what he and Levy claim to have measured in 2010, then he has been illegally operating a device (and according to his blog he's also been 'manufacturing' 3 or 11 e-Cats depending on which of his accounts you read). Either way this seems to confirm that Rossi is 'not credible'.

That, however, is not the issue here! Rossi is way, over-the-top, not credible. He has been known to create red herrings to confuse possible competitors. As well, consider the Hydrofusion affair. From the email alone, Rossi is admittedly deceptive. Then there is the comparison of that email with what is in Mats Lewan on the same incident. If Rossi was faking a failure, he went way out of his way to appear totally ignorant to boot. Failure would have been enough, but why go over the top with ignorance about input power measurement? And why have all these people -- including Mats Lewan -- travel a major distance, going to all that trouble, when "Sorry, the damn thing just isn't working, sorry," would have done the same thing. No, more likely, this was a real failure, but Rossi needed to explain it to IH differently, so he did.

The issue I've written about here is whether or not that statement to the inspector reflected a major shift in IH. I don't see that it did. Yes, by that time, they had confirmation that something was off, but they were not about to push Rossi, they went ahead with Doral, and even put quite a bit of money into that -- if they did not collect the power revenue, which Dewey claims they did not.

BTW, though I am new posting here, I am not new to Rossi's e-Cat story. I've been following this story on and off since 2009. It took me almost four years to come to the conclusion that Rossi is either nuts or a con man or both.
You took a long time. I was onto "nuts or con man" in 2011, and it is just that "nuts" is not the same as "no heat." And real inventors, with some real effect they are working on, also sometimes fall into fraud. Reality is much more complicated than we might want it to be. We want to know who is Good and who is Bad, so we can react accordingly!

Quote

So yes, I have come to my conclusions - when Rossi did the immediate 'about face' after the Florida 'inspection' (2012), that sealed the deal for me. In any case, I too have been pouring over a lot of evidence over the years. Which, given the other things I could have been spending my time doing, is somewhat embarrassing.

There are at least two ways to look at the radiation thing. First of all, he took precautions, in case there was radiation. It also looked good. But when he saw that this could cause problems, he then went with a new story, no radiation. After all, no radiation was detected in the "independent professor" tests. So, time for a new story! That Rossi was not a scientist was clear, and might say whatever he wanted to say to create the effect he wanted, also clear, by 2011 to me.

Quote

In any case, I do think you (Abd) have done a remarkable job of carefully piecing together the most plausible narrative on IH's perspective. And I recognize that as a kind of thought experiment, you've attempted to explore a coherent narrative where Rossi is not operating fraudulently, even if you might suspect otherwise. Quite an ambitious task, I believe!

When that was proposed on ECW, I thought it would be easy. It wasn't. I needed to rip out some stuck gears.

This was not a change in my assessment of the preponderance of the evidence, it was just an expansion of my ability to see some different alternatives, it didn't make them likely. One point: once someone is insane, "understanding" them may require, at least, a local simulation of insanity.

Quote from Bob

I must apologize to Mr. Acland as I was not clear. I too have not had posts removed, (although I was moved to the "moderate before post" list after some of my posts were of a questioning mindset.)

I will agree that Acland doesn't initiate "questioning" threads, just "positive' ones.

As to moderation, at some point I was put on moderation. I thought this remarkable since I have something on the order of 500 accepted posts, and very few (3?, I'm not sure and it's not easy to find) were deleted, i.e., rejected. That's not efficient! So I wrote Acland. I got a polite email back, something about "I'll consider it," I forget exactly. It is his choice, and his labor. It tends to slow down conversations, which is not a harm to me, not really. But wait! I want to say what I have to say when I want to say it! WAAAAA!

My being slowed down helps keep my participation there down, and that's probably an improvement. Anyone interested there in what I have to offer will find it here, and there will be increased visibility to coldfusioncommunity.net. It is totally crackerjack for writing about the case, since all the case files are organized and annotated there for easy access. It is a vast improvement over what I was doing before!

Quote from ele

Mary Yugo wrote:

Seems that Mary&Fred could be a good couple in the anti Rossi dance.

Notably Mr. Fred Zoepfl is an old EX (eventually) expert in nuclear physics now linked strictly to IH&Friends .

Read this interesting page from Sifferkoll

http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…physisist-malfunctioning/

Display More

ele doesn't understand what he has read, but is focused on certain implications. That is, indeed, an interesting page, but Sifferkoll confesses:

Quote

Reading all these comments. I’m baffled to the core.

He is baffled because his theme is that Fred Zoepfl (if that is the real name) is an IH operative, like Dewey Weaver (who is actually an IH investor and consultant, well-known as such), like me and Jed (and I have no business relationship with IH, nor does Jed.) Yet the comments show that Fred is highly contemptuous of IH.

(Dewey does not necessarily represent any approved IH position, IH has not been engaged in a public campaign against Rossi, and I'm sure that APCO has not been retained to bash Rossi, it would be a waste of money. IH is only defending itself in Rossi v. Darden and made only the barest minimum public statement about that, reporting their experience without attack language. "We have been unable to verify" is hardly a massive attack, though it pulled the rug out from under what had been supporting Rossi before then, the appearance of support by IH. Dewey is acting on his own, I infer. If I were to guess where there might be paid FUD or the use of sock puppets by a principal actor, it would be on the other side, but I have seen no evidence other than for socks.)

Rather, Fred Zoepfl's comments are consistent with a strong and nuclear-knowledgeable pseudoskeptic. His quoted comment on pseudoskepticism shows the misunderstanding of the term common among pseudoskeptics. This term was coined by Truzzi to refer to skeptics who are only skeptical of the opinions of others, not of their own. It was applied to "debunkers" who are obsessed with the alleged errors of others, instead of looking at their own possible errors, instead of what CSICOP was formed for, as the "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal." Repeating over and over that Rossi is a convicted criminal, as some of these due, is not "scientific investigation," it is debunking and defamation (in addition to being possibly misleading, it is commonly overstated).

There have been many of these appear over the years with regard to cold fusion. Most are largely ignorant, but a few are much more knowledgeable than that, such as Joshua Cude. To infer, from the existence of people like this, a common species of internet troll, a conspiracy of paid FUD, is simply not very smart or is obsessed.

So what connected Fred with IH? Well, first of all, he was highly acidic toward Rossi. Of course, so is Steve Krivit and "Mary Yugo" and neither is connected with IH. But there is a piece of evidence. Sifferkoll points out that FredZ knew about the $11.5 million investment before that became public knowledge.

However, lots of people had inside information through various means, and for someone with military connections, as may be the case for Fred -- it would not be surprising. The possession of such information does not prove an actual connection, and the bulk of FredZ's posts show him as a pseudoskeptic, debunker, and not working for or with IH, rather, thinking that the whole IH investment strategy was stupid and trashing it about as much as Rossi. Yes. Like Mary. Diametrically opposed to the entire IH mission.

Sifferkoll's thinking is not uncommon on Planet Rossi. "the enemy of my friend must be a friend of my enemy."

I did a little search for Fred Zoepfl. He was active with acidic debunking of cold fusion in 2015.
Aeon.

[email protected]/msg104378.html">Quoted on vortex-l from an Amazon review.

Disqus.

This page fails to load, but googlecache shows Fred Zoepfl, in a comment by Fred7777 that quotes an email exchange with Fred Zoepfl. I consider this reasonably strong linkage, FredZ777 is indeed Fred Zoepfl.
So, then, Discus again.
From this, a thread started four days ago by FredZ777 on ecat-fraud.com. So he is still active. I see that I interacted with him about a month ago (I made a few posts there...) I did not mince words. Fred didn't like it, but he freely insults others.

(ecat-fraud.com is a pile of comments on a single Welcome post., totally unmanageable.)

The real name is likely Fred J. Zoepfl. (from 1994 or so).

(links here are major buggy.)

Quote from Shane D.

Speaking of Siffferkoll; where is he? As you may recall, he is affiliated with Hydrofusion (staunch Rossi supporter/licensee/official Leonardo website keeper) in some way. He even met with Rossi. Last I heard from Siffer was when I asked him why HF does not provide some public announcement of support for Rossi, and the Ecat they are licensed to sell. With the legal proceedings casting doubt on their product, you would think they would want to get on record in defense?

Also, when Siffer comes back, maybe he can give us an update on Rossi's plan to host a QuarkX demonstration/demo there in Sweden...I assume at Hydrofusion's facility, this February? e-catworld.com/2016/11/06/ross…of-quarkx-sweden-and-usa/

Or if the Swedish branch for the industrial production of the 1MW has started up yet: e-catworld.com/2016/08/04/ross…he-production-is-started/

Don't hold your breath.

I don't know the direct connection between Sifferkoll (Torkel Nyberg) and Hydrofusion, but his coauthor on a book and apparent close friend owns 9000 shares, nominal value 0.005 GBP each. That would be 45 GBP.

Sifferkoll went ballistic when this was mentioned. She was not accused of any improper behavior, but Torkel had been raking others over the coals for imagined conflicts of interest, and he apparently had one -- albeit small -- at home. Torkel also continually called the penny stock of IH "toilet paper," but Hydro Fusion Ltd. stock is worth approximately a penny a share, nominally, and in fact less than a sheet of toilet paper. None of this was actually important, and that was my point.

(In fact, the penny stock of IH leveraged $50 million, i.e., could vote on how it would be spent, at a penny per share vs more than $45 for the preferred stock held by the Woodford trusts, though as a practical matter control is in the hands of the majority shareholders, Darden and Vaughn (technically LLCs that they may control), and all this makes obvious that Woodford trusted them, personally.)
(and HF stock may have a value due to possible agreement with Rossi. Or not.)

I would imagine that there are HF shareholders not happy with Rossi's deception wrt Hydro Fusion. From Companies House, a majority of shares was held, at report, by Magnus Holm (29%) and Stefan Helgesson 28%) . They would be the people to ask!

As of the last financial report, HF has liabilities exceeding assets, but elected to be treated as a going concern because of major shareholder assurances that more capital would be provided.

Sifferkoll's last comment here was September 29, 2016, ballistic, over the top, frothing at the mouth.
His last comment on e-catworld was three months ago.
His last blog post was September 11, using a religious argument.

I wondered where SifferKoll went. He was so sure about conspiracy, IH being the devil and Rossi being the real deal.

Also, I am curious of Engineer48. I believe he stated he had figured out the secrets and was perhaps working on his own
design? I know he stated he represented a company ready to purchase eCat plants but the purchase was on hold due to
the lawsuit. He seemed very convinced Rossi was completely on the level.

While Sifferkoll and Engineer48 seemed to approach the drama differently, (I did not see Engineer48 attacking others
per se ) they both seemed very active and supportive. I have not seen either for quite a while, although I do not visit
ECW that often.

Normally when one is very vocal in opinion, either positive or negative and then their stance if found to be on the "losing side",
most often these people disappear instead of admitting that their view was incorrect. One of the hardest things for many people to
do is state "I was wrong" or "I am sorry". Something in human nature......

Some live in denial... like still supporting Defkalion!

Actually, Fred Z is precisely the sort of person you need to address some theoretical claims for LENR. And he put Rossi in his place-- characterizing him as a borderline lunatic and low grade conman. As to all those people on the list, let me know when they make a replicable LENR reactor which can make 100W preferably without power input for prolonged periods but I'd settle for a decent power out to power in ratio which for some bizarre reason LENR fanatics call COP.