Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Thetruemonty

I think it was a brave decision what Thomas Darden did to support Rossi and his claims.

And my personal opinion about Mr. Darden is a positive one as well.

There was a very intersting video of a speech he gave (about one hour long) in which he explained why he is doing what he is doing and what made him the person he is today.

But when Dewey is writing things like:

then yes you are right, that sounds very bitter to me. I am not the right addressee for his criticism.

But to question your own motives and thinking is far harder than to blame "true enemies". Isn't it Dewey?

Display More

Given the IH ordeal by RossiSpin and Court action, and the enormous interference with their mission, as well as loss of money, so caused, I'd be a bit miffed in Dewey's position. Wouldn't you be?

It was a costly way to learn a lesson.

Dewey's comments here, it seems to me, are directed to those (mainly new on the scene) who come here ignorant of facts and continue to traduce his friends. It is something that would annoy anyone because morally there is just no comparison between the proper behaviour of IH and the slimy antics of Rossi as evidenced in open documents and repeated ad nauseam on his web site. (Take the latest totally bankrupt QX demo for example).

IH gets tarred with this brush, just because they took a brave but in retrospect monumentally foolish decision. Everything I've heard about Darden (Shane's excellent to the blog comment from Marcia adds much color) leads me to believe his motives in starting IH were altruistic, and he has given LENR so much that for LENR guys to be saying bad things about him is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Quote from THHuxleynew

(1) Rossi has never in his life allowed proper testing to be done. All tests were with Rossi operating the Rossi-designed test setup until IH paid up.

I quibble with that. As I said above, I think the 2013 Levi test was not operated by Rossi. I do not know who designed it, but I thought it was good. It included a thermocouple to confirm the IR camera. That was much better than Lugano. Not a 100% slam-dunk but pretty good.

All of Rossi's other tests were lousy. They ranged from lousy to outrageous fraud.

TrueTroll sticks with the script - keep lobbing bombs and I'll keep swatting them back into your hole.

No dirt is even possible from the clean angels of Planet Rossi. Nothing to see here - everyone please move along and leave the misunderstood genius alone. The R'ster must remain the victim and there can never be any accountability. All others are to blame into perpetuity. Period.

THH - these are not new acolytes on the scene. Look at the numbering conventions.

Quote from JedRothwell

I quibble with that. As I said above, I think the 2013 Levi test was not operated by Rossi. I do not know who designed it, but I thought it was good. It included a thermocouple to confirm the IR camera. That was much better than Lugano. Not a 100% slam-dunk but pretty good.

All of Rossi's other tests were lousy. They ranged from lousy to outrageous fraud.

Jed. You may be correct, but I doubt this. it was operated by Levi, in Rossi's factory. You think Rossi was not there as well? In which case how much input Rossi had is something we cannot know, especially after the revelations that Rossi (or Fulvio) was present throughout the Lugano test when the Profs were not present!

My view is that, especially for tests on which money hinges, Rossi would want as close control as he could possibly get. That is just based on his character and past known actions. And my view is also that Levi would not say to what extent Rossi had this type of control, given that it was not mentioned in the Lugano report.

I can't prove this. Maybe Rossi at that time allowed a fully independent test? If you view Levi as truly independent of Rossi. I'd only say in that case that Rossi still was the person who controlled the test setup and protocol.

Quote from Thetruemonty

I am still wondering why IH bothered with this ridiculous 1 year test.

Because they weren't sure? I think you are arguing to a great extent from hindsight.

Quote from Thetruemonty

I am still wondering why IH bothered with this ridiculous 1 year test.

I think Rossis motivation for this was to win time. Maybe for R&D. Maybe for something else.

But why did IH take part this charade?

TTM - surely a simpler motivation for Rossi was to win money? He would hope that under threat of court action IH would cave and pay him some part of the $100M.

I've noticed that Rossi is not totally rational in evaluating his own work. As an engineer, where self-evaluation is essential, both against project aims and competition, Rossi would fail badly. Of course his lack of ability to perform even the simplest of measurements correctly would also fail him as an engineer.

He always acts as though the twisted over-optimistic versions of the truth he tells (it is the contracted test etc) are true. And to be fair it seems his acolytes often believe him, so perhaps this strategy works? He is careful to reduce the number of outright lies so there is sense in his apparent irrationality.

(all the above can be shown from Court documents and JONP).

IH were unwise. Why the allowed it has been explained many times. Having allowed this test, at a time when they were sure Rossi's stuff did not work, it must have been difficult for them to stop it. How do you propose they should do that, given the existence of a year-long contract?

Quote from Thetruemonty

I hear your words about Rossi.

Did you ever meet him or work with him? Do you have first hand infomation about him?

Never: but, if I had this, I would reckon I might be unduly influenced by somone who is from other accounts a very charismatic individual. He is obviously not as powerful as a cult leader, but shares some of the same characteristics. The egregious technical mistakes and ongoing misconceptions he has made, and his reaction when challenged, are public record. They do not change if you know him more closely.

Quote from Thetruemonty

Yeah Tony.

This forum is focusing on the wrongdoings of Rossi! Please stick to this dictum.

Over at ECW there is a space for you if you don't support this narrative.

You are mischaracterizing things, as there are several Rossi supporters who do (mostly) stick to facts, who are not inclined to personalize things and who do not engage in gratuitous provocation, and for these reasons they have encountered no difficulties over a long period of time. But no matter. For the newbies I'll mention that how this place is moderated is not a promising direction to take the discussion.

@ JedRothwell,

Quote from JedRothwell

I spoke with Scanlan on the day he met with Rossi. I agreed with him.

That's really interesting. If I correctly understand it, that means that on the very same day of June 2011 when Scanlan met Rossi, along with his partners from Leonardo at the presence of Mike Melich and Maryanne Macy, either you also was there, or you had a phone call with him (before, during or after the meeting).

Whatever the circumstance, what you lately said doesn't comply with what you wrote before:

Quote from JedRothwell

I doubt that Krivit has any inside knowledge of what potential investors heard from any LENR researchers, or whether they were influenced. I do not think investors would discuss this with Krivit. None of them has discussed it with me. [...]

It seems, on the contrary, that at least one of this potential investor, specifically Scanlan, discussed this argument with you. And that happened already in June 2011, well in advance of the 2013 Levi report on the Ferrara test, that you said was the one which peaked your interest in Rossi and maximized your confidence in the credibility on the Ecat performances.

I wonder if you too were involved since 2011, besides promoting the Ecat idea in the LENR community by posting a lot on the web, also in assuring the potential investors of the reliability of the Ecat test results and of the credibility of the professors who proclaimed such results.