Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Shane D.

Perhaps so, but not at the level seen at Doral. Making up fake companies, fake products, fake stories, corruption of data, sabotage of equipment, denying access to facility, making up invoices, all and more designed to trick your partner into paying you $89 million, are not your normal day to day shenanigans businesses pull on one another.

Also, keep in mind he was as deceptive to us, his supporters (which I was one until reading the court documents), and even to his long time business partner Cassarino. as he was deceptive to IH.

That's what IH says right (and their muppets over here) ? IH says,... Rossi says ... IH says ... blabla. Speculations and narratives is what it is. No facts. Only fact is that they settled.

Trusting the money/lawyer/PR people of IH is doubtless way worse than trusting Rossi. Their whole business since inception is to trick money out of investors by painting good looking narratives (ie. raising money). That's what they do for a living. Nothing else.

Quote from Shane D.

Just Rossi's depositions alone are enough to prove the man is very dishonest, conniving, and ruthless

No it does not. That is simply your opinion based on whatever preconceptions, incentives and narratives you find attractive at the moment. It's actually mindboggling the amount effort spent here trying to argue that obviously very biased speculations should for unknown? reasons be regarded as proof or facts.

So you do not agree with Rossi admitting under oath that he lied about his customer JM Products?

Quote from zorud

So you do not agree with Rossi admitting under oath that he lied about his customer JM Products?

Interesting - Is it your opinion that everything Rossi said under oath should be considered facts?

Quote from steppenwolf

Interesting - Is it your opinion that everything Rossi said under oath should be considered facts?

Statements against his own interest are likely to be facts. There is no reason why he would lie in ways that hurt his own case.

I take it as proven, that all available evidence is proof enough to me, that there was no customer with a heat consuming production process in the back box behind the blue 1MW plant. Take it or leave it.

Quote from Shane D.

as he was deceptive to IH.

As was IH back to him, and even to Boeing! Sending a reactor to Boeing without disclosing that to Rossi? Not providing Boeing with the correct fuel mix? Without disclosing to Boeing that it wasn't the correct fuel mix? As the poor Boeing engineer spent a good amount of his personal time testing it?

Quote from Shane D.

If I ever get charged with fraud, and they have me on tape confessing to it, I want you on my jury at the trial.

And if Hydrofusion ever sells an Ecat, and the customer testifies it works, then we won't have a reason to speculate anymore....now will we?

a) You can't afford it

b) At least that is positive thinking Shane! Good for you. In the end you will be right of course, but the anti-rossi-ists will not give up without a fight. It has become religion to them. They will furiously try to discredit the customer, owners, family, children, friends, pets, etc. in any way they can.

Quote from JedRothwell

Statements against his own interest are likely to be facts. There is no reason why he would lie in ways that hurt his own case.

Wow! That is sooo transparent Jed!!!! What you really mean is that you like to reserve for yourself to decide what is facts and what is not? Why am I not surprised...

Quote from zorud

I take it as proven, that all available evidence is proof enough to me,

Hard to argue with that. At least you seem to understand that your opinion is an ... opinion ...

Quote from steppenwolf

Wow! That is sooo transparent Jed!!!! What you really mean is that you like to reserve for yourself to decide what is facts and what is not?

No, what I really mean is that when people make statements in a legal deposition that hurt their own case, it is not likely they are lying. A person does not usually lie to make himself look bad, and to increase the chances he will lose millions of dollars. When people lie, it is usually to improve their chances of winning. They lie to get money by some strategy, not to lose money deliberately.

Is there something about this you do not understand? Would you lie about something if by lying you would lose millions of dollars, where telling the truth would not risk the money?

Quote from steppenwolf

Wow! That is sooo transparent Jed!!!! What you really mean is that you like to reserve for yourself to decide what is facts and what is not? Why am I not surprised...

This statement is just so utterly ignorant. A person (in this case, Rossi) is involved in a lawsuit in federal court, and has legal representation. In the U.S., lying while under deposition is a felony crime, with time in jail as punishment. That person testifies to things they did (for example, Rossi testifies that he was the sole decision maker for JM products, a company he claimed was an "independent" customer, and he provided emails showing that he told IH that he deceived Hydrofusion), that HARM his case. And he does this with legal representation, in consultation with his lawyer who is hired to defend him.

So steppenwolf, are you saying that 1) Rossi's testimony that he was the sole decision maker for JM products and 2) the email Rossi provided (which was also identical to the email that IH provided), are not facts?

BTW, the court specifically uses the word "facts" to describe these. In fact the purpose of the deposition is to establish facts, while the purpose of the jury trial is to decide aspects that involve interpretation of the facts.

So if you don't think this should be considered factual, what exactly do you consider deposition evidence submitted to a federal court under penalty of perjury when the evidence provided is adverse to the party but provided by that same party? Do you call this "opinion"? Or maybe you call this "blah, blah, blah"?

Quote from sigmoidal

So if you don't think this should be considered factual, what exactly do you consider deposition evidence submitted to a federal court under penalty of perjury when the evidence provided is adverse to the party but provided by that same party?

Ahh. Excellent. So you are saying that EVERYTHING Rossi said in the court documents should be considered facts?

Quote from JedRothwell

No, what I really mean is that when people make statements in a legal deposition that hurt their own case, it is not likely they are lying. A person does not usually lie to make himself look bad, and to increase the chances he will lose millions of dollars. When people lie, it is usually to improve their chances of winning. They lie to get money by some strategy, not to lose money deliberately.

Is there something about this you do not understand? Would you lie about something if by lying you would lose millions of dollars, where telling the truth would not risk the money?

Nope. I hear you loud and clear Jed. Did or did Rossi not lie during deposition? Or are you simply making amateaurish psychological assessments to suit your narrative?

Can’t help, but it seems that steppewolf tries to catch up the pace of kevmole 😀

Quote from zorud

Can’t help, but it seems that steppewolf tries to catch up the pace of kevmole 😀

Thankz! I take that as a compliment.

Quote from steppenwolf

Ahh. Excellent. So you are saying that EVERYTHING Rossi said in the court documents should be considered facts?

No, I didn't say that, did I? However I implied that "deposition evidence submitted to a federal court under penalty of perjury when the evidence provided is adverse to the party but provided by that same party" can reasonably considered factual.

You didn't answer what you consider such evidence to be though. What would you call that type of evidence, since you seem to object to categorizing that as factual?