Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • I might start becoming even more of a grammar Nazi soon Eric, . . . This most be stopped!

    You grammar Nazis! As Mr. Churchill supposedly said in response to a memo telling his staff not to end a sentence with a preposition:


    This is the sort of nonsense up with which I shall not put.

  • Seems there was a genuine misunderstanding on Wyttenbach's part about the meaning of the sentence that he quoted within the larger context of the paragraph. He did not understand that it was Abd attempting to be humorous. I jumped to conclusions in thinking that he understood what he was reading, so my apologies for this. The kind of reading comprehension needed to pick up subtle but seemingly obvious humor is no doubt more difficult if you're not a native English speaker. I've reluctantly removed the ban.

  • Seems there was a genuine misunderstanding on Wyttenbach's part about the meaning of the sentence that he quoted within the larger context of the paragraph. He did not understand that it was Abd attempting to be humorous.

    Even a non native speaker supposed to grasp that Abd is just mocking the conspiracy theorist who accuses him to be an "APCO guy" when he writes:

    I received $4.25 million dollars from APCO to promote advanced voting systems. I wish. In fact, I have received nothing to promote anything. I have never talked with anyone connected to APCO, as far as I know.

    (Bold font not in original quote)


    Edit: Damn, I only now notice that I used some apostrophes in my text....

  • I know the mistake seems clear as day. But knowing some of the people who have made an appearance on this forum over the last several years, I think it is safer to assume that they do not understand something like this, hard as it is to believe. People are at all levels of reading comprehension, and they shouldn't be penalized for genuine errors, although a certain perversity of character can definitely compound the problem. In this case there is concrete evidence outside of this thread to think that Wyttenbach was being sincere. It's a good reminder not to make too many assumptions.


    Perhaps there should be a rule that only people with a reading comprehension above a certain level can participate. I don't know how that would work in practice.

  • I know the mistake seems clear as day. But knowing some of the people who have made an appearance on this forum over the last several years, I think it is safer to assume that they do not understand something like this, hard as it is to believe. People are at all levels of reading comprehension, and they shouldn't be penalized for genuine errors, although a certain perversity of character can definitely compound the problem. In this case there is concrete evidence outside of this thread to think that Wyttenbach was being sincere. It's a good reminder not to make too many assumptions.


    I agree, and good for W too to realise his certainties may be based on misapprehension. The real issue is so many people following erroneous statements without checking.

  • There are certainly a couple of exhibits which would be interesting to get a glimpse on it.


    BTW, there is also in the Plaintiffs Exhibit list:

    5/20/2016

    Blogging communications Dewey Weaver, Eric Walker, Stefan

    5/22/2016

    Blogging communications Dewey Weaver and Andrea Rossi to Rigel


    Is this communication on lenr-forum, and if yes, what alias did Rossi use?


    And in the Defandants Exhibit list there are also several checks listed... - look yourself.

  • [...]

    Perhaps there should be a rule that only people with a reading comprehension above a certain level can participate. I don't know how that would work in practice.

    [...]


    Eric I normally appreciate your posts. In this case sorry to say but I find it hard to believe you entertain such a thought. Holy cow - this is a thread about Rossi, not Shakespeare or Wordsworth.

  • Is this communication on lenr-forum


    It would have to be; I've only communicated with Dewey Weaver in forums (two of them), and in the other forum there was nothing said that would be of interest for an exhibit in the trial. Since it is in the list of plaintiffs' exhibits, I have no idea what the topic might be. Wild guess: I was arguing at one point that there were few sockpuppets here, and that if there were any, Rossi was probably not among them. (Not sure how well that conclusion has held up since that discussion.)

  • Eric I normally appreciate your posts. In this case sorry to say but I find it hard to believe you entertain such a thought. Holy cow - this is a thread about Rossi, not Shakespeare or Wordsworth.


    It was a suggestion that was partly toungue-in-cheek. It would make things so much easier if there weren't basic mistakes that were tripping people up. But I don't see a way to make it work. Hopefully it was not too mean-spirited.

  • Eric I normally appreciate your posts. In this case [ban those who can't read] sorry to say but I find it hard to believe you entertain such a thought. Holy cow - this is a thread about Rossi, not Shakespeare or Wordsworth.



    I'm inclined to agree - after all we don't want a conversation from which Rossi supporters, due to intellectual deficits, are nearly all banned....


    And then Eric might get onto bad spelling/grammar und I'd banned myself.

  • Eric and all the moderators and admins are human beings, and we often have to make decisions here and therefore read tons of text, which means that we have to read EVERYTHING in order to make a judgment that is timely, which is very difficult if you, for example, lives in Europe and most posts from the US at 4:00 am local time.

  • From Discovery you could reckon it also very likely that the heat exchanger is imaginary, and so Rossi perjured himself.


    It isn't his style. I don't think that you believe this yourself. Why would he be so open in his depos about the JMP ruse (which is quite damaging to his position) and then cherry pick a big lie on the heat exchanger in the mezzanine, thereby risking his entire case? I think you are all in dreamland on the heat exchanger, just like you were on the spoliation.


    Edit: I accept that the spoliation issue isn't finally resolved yet and situations can change. So maybe I'll hedge a little and say you were all in partial dreamland on that issue at this point.

  • It isn't his style. I don't think that you believe this yourself. Why would he be so open in his depos about the JMP ruse (which is quite damaging to his position) and then cherry pick a big lie on the heat exchanger in the mezzanine, thereby risking his entire case? I think you are all in dreamland on the heat exchanger, just like you were on the spoliation.

    Right. He is probably too clever to lie about the heat exchanger. It lacks flare compared to a fake company for a fake customer. Then have fake agreements between both which restrict anyone from entering one side or the other. Compounded on fake Russians stealing fuel and so on. In all seriousness, it is absurd to assert that he would not lie about this. But, I would expect him to keep driving this point home against Darden on perjury, as he tries to cover his own actions by accusing others of the same thing first. Personally, I don't care about whether there was a heat exchanger or how big the pipe was. I enjoy the technical analyses of these issues, which is just more nails in the coffin of this atrocious farce. It just is not needed as the whole weight of the shady behavior of AR is more than enough evidence of a scam.

  • I think you are all in dreamland on the heat exchanger, just like you were on the spoliation.

    You will probably dismiss this as FUD spread by IH, but there is apparently a photo in the Defendants Exhibit list (doc 289 page 49), which reflects that there is no bypass (to the alleged heat exchanger)


    194

    JMP Dep. Ex. 16 (Photograph of piping inside of black box reflecting no bypass exists)


    https://drive.google.com/drive…Ktdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

  • Compounded on fake Russians stealing fuel and so on.


    Do you believe this Darden-says? That is one whale of a story, and probably exaggerated, in my opinion. After all, if Darden really believed that his dummy reactor produced the same results as his high-COP IH-built reactors, he would have never sought to attract tens of millions of outside money, with Rossi being core to the investments.

  • You will probably dismiss this as FUD spread by IH, but there is apparently a photo in the Defendants Exhibit list (doc 289 page 49), which reflects that there is no bypass (to the alleged heat exchanger)


    Not sure I'd label it FUD, but I would find it to be very curious, given that Smith would have included it in his report. Why did Smith instead appear to provide two photos next to each other with what appeared to be a missing section?

  • Abd's message is deeply troubling. It is unfair to me. For the record, I would like to say that I am willing to work for either side, I.H. or Rossi -- or both at the same time! -- at a significant discount. I'll take $4.1 million.

    OK Jed, now we have established the principle, what can I get for $1.50

    Guys,

    I highly doubt that anyone of you receives money (from any side - Rossi or IH) for writing on this forum, but for the unlikely case that I would be wrong about that, I expect you to donate half of your payments to a "children with cancer" foundation.


    This poor kids would really deserve a small benefit from the e-cat farce - after all Rossi promised them years ago half of the income from the 1st "1MW" container, and it seems that they are still waiting... and waiting....

  • Not sure I'd label it FUD, but I would find it to be very curious, given that Smith would have included it in his report. Why did Smith instead appear to provide two photos next to each other with what appeared to be a missing section?

    Maybe because there was nothing important in the "missing section", and Smith couldn't forsee when he wrote his report that somebody would later claim in his depositions that there was a bypass? (with a self made butterfly valve - ROTFL)

  • I think you are all in dreamland on the heat exchanger, just like you were on the spoliation.


    IHFB,


    Now you are spoiling for another fight! :) Have you read 285 yet? In it, IH requests the trial judge (Altonaga) to overturn magistrates (Sullivan) ruling on spoliation. They go on to summarize their grounds, and theirs make for a very persuasive argument. I would be interested in your thoughts as to where, exactly, IH's lawyer (Pace) has drifted off into "dreamland"?


    IMO, and keep in mind my legal skills are no better than my engineering skills, there could not be a stronger case for spoliation. It is almost classic by definition, and if Sullivans (no apostrophe as protest), decision stands, it would make a mockery of the law, and common sense. Now I took some time to read up on this, even took a few notes, so come to the battle prepared with something other than taunts!

  • Maybe because there was nothing important in the "missing section", and Smith couldn't forsee when he wrote his report that somebody would later claim in his depositions that there was a bypass? (with a self made butterfly valve - ROTFL)


    The only problem with your theory is that Rossi gave his deposition about the bypass on March 22, 2017, and Smith's supplemental report that includes the two photos questionably aligned with each other was entered on the docket on April 3, 2017. So IH's legal team would have known about the bypass claim by Rossi, and would have also reviewed Smith's supplemental report prior to it being submitted on the docket.


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/0194.07_Exhibit_7.pdf, p. 239


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0235.10_Exhibit_10.pdf, p. 23

  • IHFB,


    Now you are spoiling for another fight! :) Have you read 285 yet? In it, IH requests the trial judge (Altonaga) to overturn magistrates (Sullivan) ruling on spoliation. They go on to summarize their grounds, and theirs make for a very persuasive argument. I would be interested in your thoughts as to where, exactly, IH's lawyer (Pace) has drifted off into "dreamland"?


    IMO, and keep in mind my legal skills are no better than my engineering skills, there could not be a stronger case for spoliation. It is almost classic by definition, and if Sullivans (no apostrophe as protest), decision stands, it would make a mockery of the law, and common sense. Now I took some time to read up on this, even took a few notes, so come to the battle prepared with something other than taunts!


    Thus, my hedging with my edit, which I made shortly after posting the original thought. I'm well aware of the many potential twists and turns of this case. So, I'll go with "partial dreamland." ;)

  • As said, there looks to be some interesting things that "may", and I emphasize may, because it is written that way, be presented. There is also a clause, or footnote, for Rossis (no apostrophe) submission list that says "plaintiffs (Rossi) agree that defendants (IH) did not have adequate time to review, and note exceptions" as the list was submitted today, and the date is 5/6/17. So why Rossi would wait to submit his evidence list today...who knows.


    Couple of other things of interest on there:


    -proprietary agreement between Boeing, and Leonardo from 4/13/2011


    -NASA power point about Rossi and Ecat obtained by FOIA (Freedom of Info Act) from 10/4/2012


    -order for 10kg Pt. sponge from 3/22/15


    -This is weird, but a "cease and desist order" before the SEC against Dewey Weaver from 11/5/15. Hard to tell if it was just a complaint about Dewey, or an order that was implemented. Sounds though to me that Rossi registered a complaint with the SEC about Dewey. Knowing Dewey, it would take more than that to scare him off. :)


    Someone already mentioned the "blue car", which is Rossi funny stuff, as it almost sounds like Rossi spent much of his 16 hours/day peeking out windows. Maybe even from the Mezzazine! Could someone go back and look at the photo of the 2 "supposedly" missing window panes, and see if you can make out a skinny face, with a pair of binoculars? Should be right next to the cloud of steam.

  • The only problem with your theory is that Rossi gave his deposition about the bypass on March 22, 2017, and Smith's supplemental report that includes the two photos questionably aligned with each other was entered on the docket on April 3, 2017. So IH's legal team would have known about the bypass claim by Rossi, and would have also reviewed Smith's supplemental report prior to it being submitted on the docket.


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/0194.07_Exhibit_7.pdf, p. 239


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0235.10_Exhibit_10.pdf, p. 23

    Smith signed (and submitted) the report on 20th of March, two days before Rossi gave his deposition.

    Why would IH lawyers have to ask him to revise his report again and add another photo?


    If they have a photo which reflects that there is no bypass, then they can show it in court - they just have to put in on the Exhibit list - that's what they did.

  • Do you believe this Darden-says? That is one whale of a story, and probably exaggerated, in my opinion. After all, if Darden really believed that his dummy reactor produced the same results as his high-COP IH-built reactors, he would have never sought to attract tens of millions of outside money, with Rossi being core to the investments.

    I do believe it. It is consistent with other stories about AR. From NASA, to Darden, to Dewey Weaver.

  • Why would IH lawyers have to ask him to revise his report again and add another photo?

    Presumably, Smith would have had access to all of the available photos of the plant when writing his report. Why would IH have withheld anything from Smith? And given that he likely had access to an entire unbroken photo of the piping innards of the JMP container, why did he choose to use two photos and place them next to each other as if they seamlessly fit together, when they probably don't?

  • Presumably, Smith would have had access to all of the available photos of the plant when writing his report. Why would IH have withheld anything from Smith? And given that he likely had access to an entire unbroken photo of the piping innards of the JMP container, why did he choose to use two photos and place them next to each other as if they seamlessly fit together, when they probably don't?

    As I said before, probably because Smith didn't see any significance in the "missing section", and Rossi claimed the bypass only days after Smith had finished and submitted that report.

    Smith didn't add pictures from the lavatory neither, should he?


    In case Smith/IH would omit photos which shows important stuff, that wouldn't help their case at all, because it would be easy for Rossi to add such photos into the docket and discredit IH.