Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Kevkel - it has proven out to be useless to point out facts

***If ONLY. What you call FACTS have been shown to be, time and time again, merely assertions.

to you because you are not able to recognize or acknowledge them.

***Maybe just start with , say, 3 acknowledged facst. Like, did IH:and Rossi settle their lawsuit? If Rossi committed obvious perjury, wouldn't the judge refer him to criminal authorities? (Such as if he said he couldn't fulfill the contract because he was robbing banks across town, under OATH). Is Rossi under indictment right now? Okay, so that's 3 facts at a time for you to acknowledge the factual basis of. You can editorialize all you want, but just stick to the facts and then post 3 facts of your own. Then I'll put my editorializing on a separate paragraph and we'll see if the sunshine causes you to melt.

You are also not able to interpret contractual terms or locate a factual source to support anything.

***Shane is the one who posted the contract. All you're doing is jumping up and down, harumphing and whining. Answer facts with facts.

Instead you just spew senseless noise which is the new Rossian way.

***Where you see noise, point out the noise. That's how you have been operating all along, spreading your noise and when I point it out, all you manage to retort with is that you don't like it. You're not even answering factual assertions with factual assertions. Just pure whining.

You're now helping destroy what is left of the crook which many of us greatly appreciate.

***Happy to help. Either he's an evil genius crook or a genius mercurial inventor. You seem incapable of tolerating anything positive to be said about the man. You have RDS -- Rossi Derangement Syndrome.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Please specify how the court upheld that.

***That is the contract entered into the docket (fact). IH transferred $10M to Rossi on the basis of that contract (fact). The settlement was an unwinding of what was supposed to move forward into $89M land, using that contract as the pivotal basis for both parties to agree on. IH had to transfer back all of Rossi's IP (fact), withdraw all allegations of fraud and breach (fact) Rossi also had to withdraw his allegations(fact) and neither side could sue over this contract in the future (fact). The alternative report written after the transfer of $10M had to be withdrawn as part of the asserted allegations from IH (Surmision).

What shows that the IP was successfully transferred?

***The FACT that IH:transferred $10M to Rossi per the contract stipulations of Validation. The contract was essentially held up in court as a valid contract, with both sides withdrawing allegations of misconduct in the settlement (fact). What IH did NOT count on was that Rossi probably salted the reactor and that he rigged it Fred Flintstone style so that it only works when he's there (surmision).

The lack of massive production of ecats by IH,

***FACT

under licence of course,

***FACT, or would have been a FACT.

seems to show that the IP was not successfully transferred.

***The $10M was transferred AFTER the Validation, per the contract. (Fact) Rossi didn't sue until it was obvious that IH couldn't or wouldn't pay the $89M moving forward. (Fact, for the most part). IH still wanted the IP (fact). IH:took more than a year to settle the case (fact). They could have gotten the same exact deal a year earlier (surmision) so why didn't they? Basically, IH was NOT happy with the transferrence even though there was an agreed to Validation (fact). They had made a contract with Fred Flintstone who salted the reactor and was making harsh demands (surmision). They paid millions of dollars in lawyer fees and $10M for IP they had to transfer back, so they paid good money for basically nothing (fact).

Quote from interested observer

Shane, it seems like you’ve been waxing nostalgic for the wild and woolly days of ECN when nutcases like GreenWin and the amazing Sojourner Soo clogged the forum with their manic defense of Rossi. Well bravo! I think you have brought those days back. Maybe 3000 members will become 5000 soon. There are lots of folks who like nothing better than a train wreck.

Dude, you're the biggest train wreck on this forum. You said yourself that your own comments are not intended to further science.

Quote from bang99

After reading your posting raid here on LF:

***Raid? You start out with an insult, so this whole thing is likely to be shunted to the Clearance Items thread.

You seem to be incapable of tolerating anything negative to be said about the man.

***Horse manure. I've acknowledged that he has a very casual relationship with the truth, that he is a convicted tax evader. I posit that he SALTED the reactor, that he did the very uncomplimentary Fred Flintstone stragedy. You don't seem capable of reading carefully.

You seem to lack of acklowledging common sense.

***Just pick ONE common sense item. See if it flies. Then pick another. Is it common sense to point out that NO ONE on this forum answers why IH was countersuing to get Rossi's IP?: Why, if his IP was supposedly worthless? Why not address that ONE common sense item as a starter.

You seem to be incapable of avoiding insults in a dispute.

***I don't mind trading insult for insult. But what I don't like is that the RDS insults are allowed to survive while mine are shunted. When stuff like that happens, it just points to the unhealthiness of the debate on this forum.

You seem to be on an ego trip (again).

***Same could be said of you. Why doncha stick to the substantive issues rather than this bs downshitfing into personal insults?

Quote from THHuxleynew

KevMo is to be applauded for enlivening this thread. He argues strongly, and that is a good thing because his arguments do not stand up to scrutiny,

***What , YOUR scrutiny? You can't put two sentences together without a logical fallacy. I see below that you have downshitfed into tldr argumentation, so I'll choose to answer a few paragraphs at a time.

and showing this helps to expose the peculiarities of this case, and provides those who have not followed it for many years with context.

***It's too bad there isn't a place where both sides are free to engage in argumentation on facts alone.

You don't understand stupidity. You seem under the strange impression that high IQ, or high education, makes people less stupid. Nothing could be further from the truth, when we are talking as here about ability to be deceived by a plausible con artist.

***This was tackled upstream. You confuse stupidity with gullibility but you extend the narrative of gullibility so far that it becomes easier to believe the alternative. All because RDS has twisted you into a pretzel.

I guess that is the root of your misjudgement here. You accept proof from authority, without examining that authority.

***No, far from it. The authorities on Nuclear science are the hot fusion boys and they blew chunks when it came to LENR. The authorities on electrochemistry are... well,.... the top 100 elechemists of their day.

https://disq.us/url?url=https%…P5wOoF5Ijo0Q&cuid=3763762

But there are some RDS types here who think they know more than the top hundred electrochemists of the day.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I, too, found it strange that a self-proclaimed skeptic should be so unskeptical when assessing Rossi's claims.

***Then why don't you drop the attitude?

But his actions and writing speak much louder than any claimed previous interest.

***He's always been kinda the same Rossi dude as far as I can tell.

Have you read his original reports, and compared them with the other accounts?

***I read everything I:could get my hands on in 2011. But after a few nonsensical lies I decided to just follow Rossi according to his own motto, "in mercato veritas" and so far there's nothing in mercato so there's no veritas.

Because I, and some other here, did. You show your lack of research and general knowledge by imagining that a theoretical physicist in his old age would be a good judge of scams,

***That wouldn't be a lack of GENERAL knowledge, it would be a lack of SPECIFIC knowledge. No one here has explained how Focardi's 2 colleagues were hoodwinked, and how the Swedes were bamboozled when Rossi wasn't even physically present.

or able to do experimental measurements.

***By all means, if the ability to do experimental measurements is a requirement of being on this forum then point it out in the rulebook.

I've known many theoretical physicists - in old age they are often wonderful people: inspiring, funny. But they have a tendency to take up religion or mysticism (Polkinghorne, Penrose) and are characterised by a child-like optimism that is engaging but not what is needed in this case.

***Longwinded stream-of-consciousness nonsense tldr argumentation. Ho hum.

Few of them have any knowledge of practical measurement issues.

***By all means, produce an article that points this out so we can all benefit from your amazing knowledge. You might consider taking a freshman level critical thinking class beforehand, though.

You highlight here what Rossi does best. He talks well and cleverly in abstract terms, and can convince clever people.

***Then it is time to start dropping this nonsense that he's an inept and stupid con man. If he is a con man, he is an extremely wily one. He's brilliant. Whether he's a brilliant inventor or a brilliant con man remains to be seen. But for a brilliantt con man , he sure left a lot of money on the table and he's getting old. He'll have to pull off his big con soon, doncha think?

That sort of goes with his actual (as opposed to pretend) qualifications: a B.A. equivalent in philosophy. See also Marci's revealing blog post as linked here various times in (infinity? I dont remember) magazine about Rossi's charisma.

***Yeah, we get it. Those who have RDS (Rossi Derangement Syndrome) are bothered by his schtick.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Dewey:They did not trust him an inch. VCs judge people, and Rossi, as a person, is clearly unreliable.

Kevmo (to be edited) As you point out, he SUPPOSEDLY is a convicted fraudster. At some point the RDS narrative stretches so thin that at the very least, you guys should be dropping the attitude.

He was convicted of lying and breaking regulations but not of farud.

***Isn't that different than what you were alleging upthread?

As I've pointed out, convictions for fraud when people are selling technology that does not work are difficult to make. however i'm glad we can agree that he is a fraudster.

***Actually, that was a grammar error. It was intended to be said that YOU SAY he's a fraudster. He was convicted of tax evasion or tax fraud IIRC.

Don't you think Occam's razor would therefore weight the balance towards fraud

***Yes, if it were tax fraud. But the presence of the mafia in waste disposal systems and Italian justice points to another Occham's razor application, that a person targeted with 56 counts and acquitted on 50 of them is essentially someone who has been contextually vindicated.

in this case as well even without the copious additional evidence we have posted?

***No.

Quote from THHuxleynew

However, they unwisely trusted the scientists who claimed to have clear evidence

***PRODUCE that EVIDENCE! This is the 4th time requesting it.

from many tests, and took what they knew was a high risk high reward gamble.

***asked & answered.

Kevmo:They are experts in Industrial Heat, are they not? They know how to measure heat. They paid $10M validating the IP. They could have saved that $10M by listening to an average 7th grader and bringing a thermometer to their own demo. Can you see where the narrative stretches so thin that at the very least the RDSers should be dropping their attitude?

RDSer:Again you show a lack of research. IH had no significant in-house technical expertise,

***So, they are incompetent. Thanks for agreeing with me.

and relied unwisely on others, as you do,

***As you do, as well, it appears you're even relying on THEM.

and Rossi's employee (who went to work for them), until after it was abundantly clear Rossi's measuremnt techniques were wrong.

***Go ahead and post a thread proving this. It would be good material.

So I guess you should not criticise them for this, but I do.

***Whatevs.