Display MoreFolks, I think we all need to take a breather, step back, and let's look at the big picture. This is a historical moment for LENR and the events unfolding now will reverberate for many years into the future. It is too important for us to immediately dismiss each other or dismiss the evidence without very good reasons for doing so.
It is perfectly clear now that Rossi was running the operations and financing for JMP. The evidence reveals this. There are few questions remaining on that front. Rossi has essentially explained the scheme in excruciating detail during his testimony. If you think Rossi is lying about this in his deposition, then you would be more of a Rossi supporter than Rossi himself. He knows it looks bad. He knows IH will use this to their fullest extent. He laid it out on the table because he knew he had no other choice. He is human, and he messed up. He probably wanted to try and help IH attract the funding it needed to consummate the $89 million deal. Greed probably got in the way.
IH has also been less than forthcoming. On April 7, 2016, IH said: "Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success." But prior to that, JT Vaughn wrote: "After receiving the components from various suppliers, we proceeded to build the control equipment, heating elements and reactors, which we fueled. . . . They appeared to operate similarly and we believe they produced significant excess energy, though we do not want to report specific multiples until we have reviewed the data thoroughly and conducted tests using at least two thermal cameras to ensure the data is accurate." (emphasis added.)
Before you criticize my position, which is still neutral at this point, please absorb the documents and evidence as I am doing now. If you are the type of person that goes straight to the end conclusion, and perhaps just reads the brief, then don't even try to grapple with me. If, on the other hand, you are interested in gaining a complete understanding of what happened, and what is happening, and want to dig in as I do, then I welcome you to engage with me.
I don't see an issue with IH making statements that they are seeing positive results only to conclude that they could not validate Rossi's technology. Even the quote you provide from JT Vaughn says "until we have reviewed the data thoroughly and conducted tests using at least two thermal cameras to ensure the data is accurate." Initial results may be positive but upon further analysis or repetition they may be negative. There is no conflict here.
Also remember that many of these communications are to investors and potential investors. They are trying to indicate as positive a picture as possible. If you listen in on any CC for company you will see the exact same thing. Whenever IH claims possible positive results they always provide the usual caveats about the results.
To me what is important is that after three years they have concluded effectively that Rossi's IP as provided to them does not work and that, as you point out, Rossi has engaged in significant fraud throughout his association with IH.
And I have to say your words belie your statement that you are neutral. Case in point is you nick and the statement you just made.