Mysteries abound when eyes don’t see

When we fail to observe the world carefully, and without strong prior belief, many mysteries appear, and often questions that support prior belief, i.e., argument from mystery, argument from lack of imagination, or, often, very restricted imagination.

When we have knowledge, these questions often vanish because possible answers become obvious, and where these possible answers have high organizational function, we may choose to accept them, at least until we have even more knowledge (i.e., evidence combined with a broad sense of possibilities).

On LENR Forum, SSC wrote (links added)

THHuxleynew wrote:

SSC seems just to be incapable of imagining uncertainty – and then fits his rationalisation around his lack of imagination. In this case that IH could be confused by Rossi’s setups, and the other independent tests, working when their own – done with much weaker technical resources, we know, Dameron, did not. So I have some sympathy with SSC – lack of imagination is no crime.

Error in general is not a crime, except when it is…. The problem is an imagination that follows established tracks, and particularly, here a track laid down by Rossi, as a major theory behind his lawsuit, but that ignores obvious other possibilities, including some well-established by evidence, rather than the kind of imputation that SSC uses here (which Annesser and Chaiken also use, it’s quite visible in the Murray deposition.)

Dear TTH, it may be that I am lacking in imagination, but in any case I would not speak of “uncertainty” talking about IH…. Please read PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (doc 254), where you can find these words:

“Notably, Defendants could not point to a single document in which they notified Plaintiffs of their alleged inability to replicate the technology, whether as a result of their incompetence, faulty equipment, inferior materials, or outright lies. See SOF ¶¶ 31, 33. “

This is citing Rossi’s pleading and the Rossi declaration as evidence, and the claim is presented in a narrowed way that might easily be overlooked. There are two general kinds of evidence in the case: documentary evidence and testimony under oath. Documentary evidence will be subject to interpretation, the claim is often that it “speaks for itself,” but here Rossi is referring to what the documents do not say. Maybe. We’d have to look at all of them to verify this. Meanwhile, the public record contains evidence that IH showed Rossi — in person, not by an email and formally — that their tests were not confirming his claims, and that Rossi was irate.

SSC is writing from what he believes, which is ultimately based on Rossi Says, and what he quotes here shows it. That is not admissible evidence. The question asked assumes a context that was missing, open communication. It ignores timing. It ignores what is completely plain on review of the record: IH strategy for communication with Rossi, it was designed and controlled to “not piss him off.” This is so obvious that Annesser uses it to ask Murray why the visit to the plant by Murray was proposed for July 2015, if it was expected that it would upset Rossi.

It obviously did upset Rossi, so much so that he violated the Term Sheet to deny the visit (by generically denying the right to visit of anyone not already agreed, until the “tests under way were complete,” I think is how he put it, as if Rossi had that right. It was the IH Plant and they had a clear right to visit it at any time.

Rossi counsel is attempting to have it both ways: IH should have told Rossi, in writing, and that they did not has some implied meaning, and then that IH was provocative by scheduling the Murray visit. (As if “provocative” has some legal significance here. Annesser and Chaiken seem to be, to some extent, grandstanding for Planet Rossi.)

(IH had no legal obligation until and unless Rossi himself put in writing that the Doral test was the GPT, and that idea is also missing from the documentary record, as to the contractually required prior consent in writing, and probably did not happen until later in 2015. In fairly short order, IH formally challenged the GPT interpretation, but we can see evidence that IH still hoped to negotiate something with Rossi, some test or way of moving forward that could satisfy the parties.)

There are e-mails and documents where you can read that IH has initially obtained good results from its E-Cat tests.

There are documents that can be read that way. However, I strongly suggest reading the Murray deposition, the whole thing (423 pages!). IH largely abandoned its efforts with Rossi by the middle of 2015, focusing on other technologies. It appears that they allowed the Doral test as a last-ditch opportunity for Rossi to perform in some way. There are many other comments in depositions on this. SSC, like Rossi, focuses on a possible fact: no written notice, but ignores all the rest. That Rossi Partial Motion for Summary Judgment failed. Does SSC know why? He is here citing argument that was not accepted by the court, the only part of this that is admissible testimony is Rossi Says, in the form of the Affidavit cited.

After Rossi had sued them, they began to say that they had never seen excess heat. But this complaint never came officially to Rossi. If at one point they really realized they were not able to replicate the reactor, why did not they even send an email to Rossi to tell him about it?

Nor did the Rossi intention to consider Doral the GPT ever come “officially” to IH. Until that intention was registered in writing, it did not create an enforceable obligation. If IH had decided to push and shove, they would have needed to formally notify Rossi of their inability to make devices that worked reliably, when thoroughly tested. (This is not the same as “never seeing excess heat,” unless we are careful about what “seeing” is. Operating reactors do not in themselves display “excess heat.” It must be inferred from measurements, and what is truly bizarre in the history of Rossi Results is that on occasion the results were directly contrary to plain and simple sensory evidence. Instead, error-prone measurements were used and attempts to confirm them (i.e., with control experiments and independent measures) were resisted strongly.

I decided to look at the material quoted by SSC in detail. I had started to look at the Rossi Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, but had originally abandoned it because the exhibit numbering was highly confusing (which was also noted by Industrial Heat in their Opposition.)

So I did a study, published at RvD: Rossi Partial Motion for Summary Judgement – Replication

It takes about a day to do one of these.

This is what I’ve seen about Planet Rossi. It does not appear that those who comment like SSC have read much of the case. The question of why IH would not inform Rossi in writing of their failure to replicate has a very obvious answer, and it’s answered in the documents (because Annesser asks it in depositions!).

Reading the case takes a lot of time. There are many hundreds of often-confusing documents. But if one wants to have an informed opinion, there is no substitute for becoming informed. What I see on Planet Rossi is the repetition of certain simple memes, often repeated.

I also see this from Rossi himself, which should not be surprising.

If anyone wants to move from imagination and fantasy to reality, and on the questions and claims made by SSC, I’d suggest reading, in particular, this, and this. Or read the whole section on replication in the Rossi Partial Motion for Summary Judgement: those links refer to paragraphs in it, as quoted on the Study page. Read the evidences, don’t just read Rossi’s claims based on them — or my comments or IH objections. Read sworn testimony and attested documents, actual evidence that can be introduced at trial.

And notice how, sometimes, pleadings distort the evidence, in ways that are easy to see. Sometimes they actually lie, it’s that blatant. However, it is not unlawful to lie in a pleading, pleadings are not sworn testimony. It’s a crime to lie in a deposition or in the attestations that are sometimes provided. Notice that the witness in a deposition is sworn. The lawyers aren’t.

If life is a vote, I’ll say that the Eyes Have It.


SSC wrote some more:

Darden has raised funds from investors, so it’s fair to suppose he has spoken well of the E-Cat with them. You may also not give too much credit to document 254, but it is a text presented to the judge and can hardly contain easily disprovable things. In that document you can read this:

“There is no written evidence that, prior to Defendants’ receipt of $50 million in investment funds, Defendants ever told Plaintiffs that they believed Plaintiffs had violated the License Agreement or that the 350-day test taking place in Florida was not the GPT. See SOF ¶ 60”

This lack of understanding of legal process is common on Planet Rossi. (It’s common in general, but here it is used as part of a syllogism, one that can easily be shown as a fallacy by simple counterexample). If SSC reads what is linked from above, he will fund abundant claims made in DE 254 that are not supported by the evidence cited or that are even contradictory to the evidence.

One way to explain DE 254 is that this was Rossi’s last chance to lie in his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, it would not be contradicted by IH. So he repeated stuff from before, ignoring contrary evidence and response. Just saying it over again. If his goal was to fire up his base, it worked. I don’t think SSC is Rossi, the English is too good. Though it could be an English-speaking puppet.

What is not true: the claim that the Defendants received $50 million. They did not. The $50 million was received by an independent U.K corporation that is not a defendant in Rossi v. Darden, but the distinction — which is legally quite clear — is suppressed in Rossi claims because he is playing on emotions. Here there is an attempt to connect the $50 million with the GPT issue, as if it is somehow relevant. Unfair!!!

What is not true: that IH never told this about the GPT to Rossi. They obviously did, from evidence presented. However, the question is not whether, but when. It was certainly before the end of the test, but IH would not say that to Rossi, for all the obvious reasons, until and unless Rossi claimed the reverse. We don’t know when Rossi first claimed that Doral was the GPT, but there is no evidence of it being mentioned when the move was planned to Florida, and no mention, as far as I’ve seen, until IH and Rossi started communicating through lawyers, and that was clearly before the end of the “test,” easily by about the beginning of December, 2015.

Why would anyone tell him it was not the GPT if he didn’t claim it, and if the context was that Rossi knew the Second Amendment had failed, and the time had expired? IH knew that Rossi knew — because Cassarino forwarded the Rossi mail about it to IH.

What it would have taken to start up a new GPT would have been a written agreement. IH was willing to sign one, the original Second Amendment. That Amendment failed because it required Ampenergo sign-off and Ampenergo refused. But IH could certainly have signed a new Agreement, and would have had no trouble with Ampenergo if AEG rights were respected. So why didn’t Rossi propose that, instead of proposing this cockamamie faux customer? I find the answer to that question distressingly clear. Rossi is crazy, and demands control, doesn’t deal straightforwardly in cooperative enterprises; instead he lies and manipulates. It is crazy rather than merely controlling and selfish, because he is headed for a serious fall, and my guess is that he also dominates his attorneys. They sound like him, except for better English.

As to violations of the License Agreement, and setting aside the various minor alleged violations, SSC would probably be referring to the claim that Rossi may not have disclosed all the necessary IP for replication. We have testimony that IH people complained to Rossi, concerned that they could not replicate. They certainly would not have sued him for failure to disclose unless they first formally claimed the failure, perhaps demanding specific performance. They were not ready to do that, so they didn’t.

Failure to disclose is simply one of the IH stated possibilities: failure to disclose necessaries, or false claims of performance. Annesser is insistent that there are other “logical possibilities.” Maybe the Russians put Darden in a trance so that he couldn’t function to make the fuel properly. After all, if they could steal the fuel from a sealed reactor, why not stealing his mind? Logically possible, hypothetically. Really, we couldn’t make this up.

Read those pleadings and, if you care about Rossi, or about simple honesty and straightforward argument, weep.

Back to the investment, the original IH investment was in 2013 and probably the $20 million issue was completed in fairly short order. The large investment in IHHI came in May, 2015, and was not invested in Rossi technology, i.e., it was not spent, apparently, on attempting to develop E-Cats, more than a little. What of it has been spent already was allocated to diversifying, exploring other LENR possibilities. So what does this have to do with “praising the E-Cat”?

The Woodford rep statement about the Rossi technology as being “core,” besides being often misquoted (including in pleadings and even in a joint stipulation as agreed), is probably, then, a misinterpretation, with the meaning being imputed to make it into something it wasn’t, which has been very common in this case.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax


3 thoughts on “Mysteries abound when eyes don’t see”

  1. Hi Abd

    You said this on your Blog.

    my guess is that he also dominates his attorneys.

    My feeling is the opposite.I think he works well with
    his attorneys.
    That being said according to Eric Walker on Lenr forum he has brought in
    a new attorney from Chicago to work with them.

    Doc. 314, a notice of attorney appearance, now on the docket.


    1. We have seen nothing from the newer attorney, so far. He does have substantial credentials. What I’ve seen is Annesser and Chaiken repeating Rossi propaganda without regard to what effect it would have on the case. In some cases, it seems his attorneys have not stopped him from perjuring himself, and at the same time they have libelled the defendants, claiming perjury with no evidence. This appears to be attorneys repeating what the client has told them without themselves undertaking due diligence, which can result in sanctions. I do not know the limits of that, what can be done without sanction and where it crosses the line.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WordPress Anti Spam by WP-SpamShield