Sifferkol? Okay, I rest my case.
Even if you do not like the container you can not deny the content. Everything that is written in Sifferkol is documented, you can not deny that they are real things. You can just ignore them deliberately, just as you are doing.
Photographs taken during the test show no pipes going to the mezzanine, and nothing in the mezzanine window except glass. As Smith described, photos taken of the mezzanine after the exchanger was reportedly dismantled show that no such equipment was or could have been installed in that room. There would be wires and marks left. No one can remove every trace of such heavy equipment.
Photos do not show the room in its entirety, and anyway there are signs on the floor. Well, obviously you are free to not see them, if you like.
OG - the audacity of Rossi is beyond imagination. He is the one who took and provided those pictures referenced in his deposition. Pace let him live in his depo and now that is yet another
gauntlet that he has to run and survive on the stand. Looking like a crestfallen July for Planet Rossi.
There were many Boeing made reactors tested with R's fuel. We still have them. None of them worked.
And who says it? You?? Should you be trusted? Has Darden ever described these tests? And tell me, why did he ask Boeing to test a reactor that could not work, since he sent a wrong fuel?
Read the court papers!
I've read the court papers. Citing the whole Docket without specifics is, well, to be clear and concise, inane.
Do you think it is appropriate for yourself, or any other commenter here, for that matter, to claim as fact 'completely illegal' behavior on the part of a party, and then not cite any specific example, but rather cite the whole Docket?
I've spent a lot of time commenting here. When I make an argument related to facts on the Docket, I generally take the time to get the information from the Docket, and enter the direct quote from it. I find that helps support the argument, because everybody can agree on the specific text of the evidence (even if they have different interpretations of what the text means). So as a moderator, would it not be appropriate for you to have some semblance of specificity about 'completely illegal behavior' on the part of 'Darden, et. al', as you allege? I mean, you're from Germany, right? Where they have tougher slander and defamation laws I'm told. So I'm quite puzzled by your bold claim of 'completely illegal' behavior with no specific citation.
Furthermore, if the evidence is on the Docket, then Rossi's lawyers would be neglectful, to the point of malpractice, if they also didn't cite this 'completely illegal' behavior in order strengthen Rossi's case, right? But Annesser and Chaiken have made some pretty poor choices, at least in the opinion of the Magistrate (who advised them to 'put on their big boy pants') and Judge Altonaga (who threatened them with sanctions for their 'inexplicable' behavior repeatedly ignoring her instructions).
So Rossi's lawyers might benefit from your specific citing of Darden et. al.'s 'completely illegal' behavior.
But if you refuse to cite from the Docket (or elsewhere) any specific evidence of 'completely illegal' behavior by Darden, et. al., then you can forgive people here if they are wondering if you, as a Moderator, just over-reacted and expressed your strong bias and unsupported opinion as fact, a practice I would assume you would prefer commenters here avoid, especially when that unsupported opinion defames others.
AhiAhi - talk about sewage into lemonade - check this one out
If you want to talk about Rossi's past, you also have to mention the sources that do not play in your favor. Rossi was acquitted of charges, as it is written on Corriere della Sera on November 27, 2004.
https://drive.google.com/open?…HMDd6bUQwcVZPM0pfOXNnNldR
And what about Cherokee's past? If you like to put links, complete the collection with this:
There is not even evidence of its absence. And Rossi never said he had dismantled everything all alone. If he had told you the name and surname of the four or five Mexicans who probably gave him a hand, would you feel better? In return, however, we know that the photos do not show the room entirely and that there are signs of the presence of a bulky object on the floor. I do not think the jury will have so many doubts as you think .....
Are you saying that in the approximately 600 feet of pipe need for the correct surface area of pipe was some how occupied only the area not covered by the photos?
Good try SSC - your posted CDS article relates to some of the waste oil charges but not the gold smuggling / money laundering charges. There was a plea deal by R's smuggling partners that resulted in jail time for them from the St. Andre's days - they agreed to jail time as part of their settlement - no acquittal there.
You have no standing to question any of the IH tests and your days as a hiding hack are coming to an end (FYI). Care to expand on your Cherokee thinking?
So Rossi's lawyers might benefit from your specific citing of Darden et. al.'s 'completely illegal' behavior.
You got it!
OG - just imagine the support infrastructure needed to keep that much piping in place. Nothing of the sort existed except in R's vivid imagination.
You got it!
Go for it, cowboy!
As for me, my opinion is that you've stepped in it (hopefully ya got yur boots on).
You get to remain ignorant on the number of iterations of fuels tested
in the Boeing / IH effort ...
A single one according to the Boeing engineer. He asked you guys to provide one with the correct fuel. When the attorney asked him in the deposition whether IH ever provided such a reactor, he said no. So unless you are saying that the Boeing engineer lied, he never tested a reactor with the correct fuel mix.
Now, he did say that he built a few of his own reactors later on (without fuel) using parts previously purchased by Boeing. You seem to suggest that he provided those self-built reactors to IH for testing. Okay, well that totally defeats the purpose of having a third party like Boeing test a reactor with the correct fuel mix. Furthermore, we have no idea if the Boeing engineer even knew how to properly make a reactor--after all, you instructed him not to consult with the inventor himself!
OG - just imagine the support infrastructure needed to keep that much piping in place. Nothing of the sort existed except in R's vivid imagination.
And getting it all up that old rickety ladder.
It surely is fun in here with all of these Perry Mason/Bull trained nitwits.
IHFB - The inventor chose not to help us - we had to try and figure it out on our own which turned out to be impossible for obvious reasons. He took the money and ran. Now he has made the mistake of suing us and is caught, along with his attorneys, in a conundrum of exponential lies.
The fire is lit buckwheat - the price for lying and stealing is going to have to be paid.
A single one according to the Boeing engineer. He asked you guys to provide one with the correct fuel. When the attorney asked him in the deposition whether IH ever provided such a reactor, he said no. So unless you are saying that the Boeing engineer lied, he never tested a reactor with the correct fuel mix.
Now, he did say that he built a few of his own reactors later on (without fuel) using parts previously purchased by Boeing. You seem to suggest that he provided those self-built reactors to IH for testing. Okay, well that totally defeats of the purpose of having a third party like Boeing test a reactor with the correct fuel mix. Furthermore, we have no idea if the Boeing engineer even knew how to properly make a reactor--after all, you instructed him not to consult with the inventor himself!
If the patents are to be valid they must teach someone skilled in the art how to make them work. If the patents are to be valid or if the IP was to be truly transferred as required by the agreement, there should be no need to contact the inventor.
OG - how much do you figure 100 meters of 6" diameter steam pipe weighs?
Display MoreI think you said you had not been following the technical details.
LENR, particularly variants of the Ni/H2 process like Rossi's, have not been accepted by mainstream science. Major journals will not publish papers on it and official bodies like DOE reject it.
So if Rossi were able to prove that he could get significant excess heat from the QuarkX it would be a game changer. Not only for the future of energy production but also strongly suggesting that he had had success with the earlier E-Cats, where the tests were not conclusive. The current trial is really about whether LENR worked at all, not just Rossi's E-Cat and showing that a later version did work should change the equation.
No one knows (outside of Rossi's group) if he will be able to do that but I am prepared to wait for the facts before reaching a conclusion.
No, no, no. The current trial is not about whether LENR works, it is whether (as to the complaint) IH owes Rossi $89 million and to get that Rossi has to prove that he satisfied the conditions precedent thereto (or was otherwise excused). If someone else came along tomorrow and proved LENR, especially if another non-Rossi method, that has nothing to do with this trial.
Using someones intellectual property without permission is illegal and a crime everywhere in the civilized world!
It's quite rare, in the civilized world, for IP infringement to be treated as a crime unless there are exceptional circumstances. It's more typically treated as a matter for private litigation.
IHFB - The inventor chose not to help us - we had to try and figure it out on our own which turned out to be impossible for obvious reasons.
That seems like a new allegation to me. So Rossi never spent any time with IH? No time with helping Dameron? He never told Darden the fuel mixture? It seems like you are going out on a pretty flimsy limb here. All one has to do is read the deposition record to see that what you suggest is bollocks.
It's more typically treated as a matter for private litigation.
