Display MorePeter,
Read it again,
I did NOT say you believe in Santa Claus, I think a student named Henry wrote that attached to my post, an understandable mistake on your part.
I simply asked if you believed that Rossi has developed an Energy Out > Energy In machine.
I'll ask it again, do you believe it?
Simple yes or no answer please.
Dear colleague,
YES. Henry said it. Mea culpa!
peter
That does not sound threatening to me. If I were Hoistad, I would thank Weaver for this information.
Yes, that is a point that shocked me in the interpretaion of the Lugano testers. When someone say you may have made a big mistake, you say , thanks, or sorry, or "WTF I have to check",and if the guy Dewey give you a sample to check, you say "thanks, that was just I would have asked you".
I had such a moment, but not being a tester, nor an expert , when Luca Gamberale send me his report against DGT test in Milan, I just started to warn all people following my initial enthusiasm, to be cautious and wait for the questions to be answered. They were never and report was made public, showing that I was fooled by DGT, like many.
If I was responsible for a test, convinced that it was well made, and someone propose me a report raising serious issues, and chances to check if I screwed up, I'll take the chance, privately to avoid shaming, to have time to swallow the crow calmly.
Only rational reason to ignore such proposal is when you are sure you have screwed up, and nothing can be improved. But people are not always rational, and groupthink exists, making sincere and honest people oppose to what could show them they screwed up, even if it send them into worse troubles.
Look how genius CEO of Enron, with a stone proof business model that could not fail, managed warning that he may have screwed up :
http://www.princeton.edu/~rben…f%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf
I'm more sad for what Jed says about the dying LENR science.
To Alain,
Dear Alain,
The sad truth is that Dewey srated threatening everybody who did not accepted the IH story and dared to put questions immediately after the start of the litigation.
Simultaneously he and other IH supporters have
started a savage character assassination campaign against Rossi extended to Rossi supporters (Rossi Planet) and, horribile dictu, to NiH LENR.
IH was converted in the Savior of the correct scientific LENR.
I think this quote, esssential Deweyism is sufficient to demonstrates his and IH's strategy:
(the aim is) Expose Rossi into perpetuity in US Federal Court for what he really is."
Fritz Schiller would have enjoyed this.
Not about the Technology.
The judge will decide if the messages to the professors are threats or nice, benign, fatherly advices.
Peter
That is a lie Peter and you know it.
You'll be seeing plenty off truth very soon.
Yes, that is a point that shocked me in the interpretaion of the Lugano testers. When someone say you may have made a big mistake, you say , thanks, or sorry, or "WTF I have to check",and if the guy Dewey give you a sample to check, you say "thanks, that was just I would have asked you".
You are brain-washed Alain. If a researcher gets a phonecall of technological dilettant, which by mere look is an investor and has an overwhelming legal interest to claim you made a mistake, then may be you would say: OK: How much? And yes then I will tell I made a mistake????
If I was responsible for a test, convinced that it was well made, and someone propose me a report raising serious issues, and chances to check if I screwed up, I'll take the chance, privately to avoid shaming, to have time to swallow the crow calmly.
The Lugano game is over: IH orchestrated everything of Lugano by contracting a bunch of dilettantes! If and when somebody made a mistake, then it was IH that made the mistake!
If I (not you) make a test, then I write a protocol, long before any test runs and let it be signed off by all parties. Further on there must always be three parties. The third party beeing a supervisor independent of the test-team and the equipment provider.
bdw: Any sample taken after a test is void!
That is a lie Peter and you know it.
You'll be seeing plenty off truth very soon.
Dewey, Peter is not lying, he is expressing a very strongly held view of the situation. Sometimes people do that. He may be mistaken, some might say very mistaken, but that doesn't make him a liar, and more than your beliefs make you de facto a liar. Though you did strongly suggest in court that my total guess about the origin of the reactor chips analysed at UniBo was a fact. Which was naughty, but you are forgiven.
Well reading the court docs Dewey has been a naughty naughty boy all along 
The latest salvo of Court evidence is unusually revelatory and perhaps explaims why the anti-IH camp here is posting false statements with renewed vigor. They just don't have anything other than false statements to post!
To see why their interpretation of Court documents is so false have a look at Abd's thoughtful summary (with links to relevant sources). The source material, particularly the TD e-mail, needs to be read!
Dewey, Peter is not lying, he is expressing a very strongly held view of the situation. Sometimes people do that. He may be mistaken, some might say very mistaken, but that doesn't make him a liar, and more than your beliefs make you de facto a liar. Though you did strongly suggest in court that my total guess about the origin of the reactor chips analysed at UniBo was a fact. Which was naughty, but you are forgiven.
Dewey is consistent here, he believes that Peter understands that his false statements are false, in which case they are indeed lies.
Personally I think Peter is just very stuck in self-generated fantasies from which he cannot escape.
The Lugano game is over: IH orchestrated everything of Lugano by contracting a bunch of dilettantes!
Your view here has no supporting evidence, and is directly contradicted by Darden's e-mail. This, now released was confidential and contemporaneous (July 2014). I suggest you read it in full, and then change your view.
Darden's 3 July 2014 e-mail:
THH. I am not interpreting the court docs. They clearly state:
Quote1. The pleadings of Defendants Thomas Darden, Industrial Heat, LLC, and IPH
International B.V. are hereby stricken, with prejudice, for engaging in bad faith litigation,
including the attempted bribery and coercion of witnesses.
2. Monetary sanctions fail to address the severity of Defendants’ acts of witness
tampering, which threaten the public’s trust in our system of justice and disparage the core
values for which it stands.
They also order that:
QuoteAll communications between Thomas Darden, Industrial Heat, LLC, and/or IPH
International B.V. and Zalli Jaffe and Uzi Sha shall be produced by Defendants, and any
privilege that may have attached to such documents shall hereby be deemed waived as a result of
the parties’ illegal behavior.
So there is more - perhaps even juicier - stuff to come
Does anyone know Uzi Sha?
That is a lie Peter and you know it.
You'll be seeing plenty off truth very soon.
Dewey,
what exactly is a lie?
The quote not, it is from this thread.
That you have threatened IH skeptics, ofended
Rossi supporters spoke very ugly about IH's former collaborator?
That the Judge will decide re the nature of your messages to Bo et al? A lie?
Anyway you make me happy with your promise
that I will see plenty of truth soon and I guess this will be relevant truth-
so should i dare to hope to see:
the digram with its 18 deadly flaws, the flowmeter with its 5 points that make Rossi to lose instantly, the JMP non-process, the complete ERV report results, minute by minute. what more?
Demonstrate the total impotence of the technology and win. Very easy actually.
Truth makes free- see in what sense here.
peter
Rossi has made a huge mistake by re-asserting Lugano in his own special way and there are going to be broad consequences.
L.F. got slimmed over the weekend by Planet Rossi doing what they do best. The experiment is working.
We'll be stomping out cockroaches in a big way once the light flips back on.
THH. I am not interpreting the court docs. They clearly state:
Quote
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
FOR BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONDUCT WITH ATTACHED EXHIBITS
Maybe you did not see the first word of the Order?
And it is always good to link sources, so people ncan read it for themselves...
I am afraid, this thread is developing towards a "kindergarten" ... We can make a summary right now in order to not get lost in all those sujective self-loving argumentations.
Should we summarize the facts UNTIL now, here ?
(Please note, NOTHING subjective, JUST OBJECTIVE FACTS in terms of "what Do we know for sure until now.
???
THH. I am not interpreting the court docs. They clearly state:
On several occasions it has been pointed out in this thread that that is a proposed document. But it is being quoted as though it were written and signed by Altonaga, which it is not. It is a document that the plaintiffs have suggested Altonaga sign. Earlier ultrasure did quote from a document that does not exist, however, which made it look like this document had been signed, adding more confusion to an otherwise straightforward matter.
Hi Eric. Thanks for clarifying this. Will be interesting to see what the judge will make out of this.
