Rossi, blogger

Rossi’s blog can show subtleties that are not likely to be recognized by many. Today: a JONP post likely relates to recent content at 

I was asked on lenr-forum, “Which, by the way, disproved the arguments you used to make about Woodford’s involvement, as now we see they did see the plant, twice, and then decided to invest–there was direct interaction. If there were tensions and troubles, why did Darden bring them by in August?”

This question has often been asked by Planet Rossi, following Rossi himself, who attempts to make hay with the visits and what he imagines that Darden told the Woodford representatives.

My reply, now with emphasis: “They saw the plant once, in February, and I have, to my recollection, never denied that first visit. I have, instead, explained what likely happened. They did not “decide to invest” after two visits, that’s clear. So why did they visit the second time? And why were they accompanied by both Darden and Vaughn? With an understanding of psychology, it’s not much to come up with a hypothesis. August was after ICCF-19. Rossi would have had to make a huge scene if he refused them. In fact, it’s possible that the purpose of the visit was to show that. As I say, we don’t know what happened. What we do know is that by December, there was major dissent, IH had disavowed the GPT and Penon as ERV, in writing.

Okay, maybe this could be a coincidence … but what other sense does it make?

Lack of source is the norm on JONP. Where does the “psychology” idea come from? It would, in this case, completely miss the point of what had been written, but that is also normal. Rossi’s “community” feeds him questions ripped from context, implying something that he probably wants to imply.

There was a series of posts on lenr-forum about JONP posts referring to the “silent majority.” It was pointed out that even strong Rossi supporters were ridiculing this. So, here Rossi can look like he is careful, while still pushing the idea of “paid puppets.”

This started with a series of questions and comments:


November 17, 2016 at 2:02 PM
Why don’t you sue all the guys that are libelling you?

Andrea Rossi
November 17, 2016 at 4:13 PM
Because if you sue guys that have not the money to pay when they lose, you collect a series of Pirrus victories. Besides, they do not produce damages to us. They never did.
Warm Regards,

Hines Wardy
November 17, 2016 at 2:03 PM
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
1- There are rumors that IH paid beween 50 and 100 thousand dollars per month to the puppets that attacked you in the blogs.
2- They are about ten against you
What do you think?

Andrea Rossi
November 17, 2016 at 4:10 PM
Hines Wardy:
1- No comment
2- 10*0 < 1 Warm Regards, A.R.


November 18, 2016 at 2:10 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Can you confirm if you have evidence of the fact that the thousands of comments published on LENR Forum against you have been paid by IH?
There are rumors that there is strong evidence of this. The thing is serious, so your answer is important.

Andrea Rossi
November 18, 2016 at 7:56 PM
No comment.
Warm Regards,

November 19, 2016 at 10:48 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi
We of the silent majority have in our network an investigator that has found evidence of the fact that Industrial Heat paid tens of thousand $ per month to make published in LENR Forum an infinite series of slanders against you and your technology, continuing to repeat the slanders, ignoring the answers. We will send you this evidence soon. The money is gone to their puppets (but most of them are just pseudonyms).
Win for us all,

Andrea Rossi
November 19, 2016 at 12:13 PM
If you have evidence of what you write, please send it to
If this evidence does not exist, your comment is not deonthologically correct.
From my side, anyway, NO COMMENT.
Warm Regards,

And then there is this:

November 19, 2016 at 1:15 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi:
Now we suspect that LENR Forum is “biased”.
“Non ti curar di lor,
Ma guarda e passa”

Andrea Rossi
November 19, 2016 at 3:23 PM
Before any opinion of mine, I wait for the evidence of what Jo said.
Warm Regards,

Rossi has been claiming “paid puppets” for a long time. At various times user comments — always taken out of context, as far as I’ve seen — have been used to support this claim (not by Rossi, he has merely made the claim without evidence) At one point, I wrote about some facts of the lawsuit, something like “we know …” and this was seized on as proof that I was affiliated with Industrial Heat, though by “we” I was referring to us, the public, and what evidence is in public….. I have no secret private evidence regarding Industrial Heat, not at this time. Because I’m a journalist of a kind, I might have some at some point in the future, that’s normal. I will not pretend, however, to be other than I am.

For some time, users have been presenting “fact” on blogs that wasn’t, where investigation showed there was nothing there. That’s a reason why I present links, because phrases and even longer comments can be taken out of context to twist the meaning. Then some readers only remember those claims, and remember them as “fact” and repeat them, and this is how an entire community can become deluded.

$10,000 per month? Wow! For that sum, they must be producing real value! Where are these comments? Any examples?

I have trouble thinking of ten writers who could be described as “puppets.” As well, if a paid writer writes verifiable truth, should it be discounted? Is that even meaningful? Who is libeling Rossi? I can think of some examples, generally long term pseudoskeptics with little credibility. And, of course, there would be Steve Krivit who might well be paid in some way, but by whom would be obscure as to the Rossi affair. But Krivit has nothing to do with lenr-forum, never writes there, he writes on his own “newsletter.”

Now, as to the “silent majority.” There are a considerable number of users on lenr-forum who are Rossi supporters. They are not banned. If a libel is written there, they are free to negate and correct it. If they really are a majority, they would overwhelm the “paid FUD.” What is actually happening is that fewer and fewer are supporting Rossi … and that brings us to the last post I”m covering today:

Ezekiel Elliott
November 17, 2016 at 2:04 PM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Looking at all the documents in the Pacemaker it appears your position is very strong: you produced evidence, Cherokee Fund Partners and IH produced only assumptions.
If this is the situation, if they do not propose a settlement they are mad.
What do you think?

Andrea Rossi
November 17, 2016 at 4:09 PM
Ezekiel Elliott:
No comment.
Warm Regards,

There is no “Pacemaker,” there is Pacermonitor, which shows only the last few documents in the case — and which solicits payment at rates higher than can be obtained from the actual court site, PACER. Except for a little boilerplate from the beginning, all documents are available in the file space for the newvortex mailing list (follow instructions there to join, a yahoo account is needed to use the file feature).

Other than the original documents with the filing, which were important but missing much, Rossi has provided no evidence in public, only legal arguments, and his Motion to Dismiss the IH counterclaims was just dismissed entirely by the Judge. (Document 76) That document is worth reading, because it gives the Judge’s summary of the case from the IH point of view, whereas the prior Order on the IH Motion to Dismiss (Document 24) did the same for the Rossi point  of view. Rossi now has less than two weeks to actually Answer the countercomplaint, and may produce evidence there.

Meanwhile, there is a dribble of evidence coming out in Discovery disputes. I have seen none that strengthens the Rossi position, it’s the reverse, though some of this may not have much legal import. For example, Rossi has claimed in public many times that IH only objected to the “Guaranteed Performance Test” when it was time to pay. But one of Rossi’s appeals to an IH discovery objection shows that there was a mail in early December, 2015, with such objections. Rossi is asking what evidence they have. (Document 70.3, Request 30).

Maybe he should have asked back then? Maybe he should have talked with an attorney? Any competent attorney would have read the Agreement and Second Amendment and would have told him that without an explicit written agreement to the start date, there could be no Guaranteed Performance Test, so get that agreement and if you can’t, don’t waste everyone’s time!

(Had IH unreasonably refused, an attorney might have told him it was possible to sue for specific performance, and that attorney might have had a chat with the IH attorneys. Skilled attorneys are good at working these things out. The attorney might have told him to make sure that IH could make devices, because if they couldn’t, no agreement in the world would squeeze $89 million out of them. They wouldn’t have it.)

Obviously, I haven’t seen the Rossi answer yet, and I’ve been writing that he might pull a Wabbit out of the hat. But it’s unlikely, and at this point high confidence is stupid, and those who egg Rossi on under these conditions are not his friends.

Yes. Support friends. Maybe even send him money if you believe in him. Loyalty is a value. But encouraging someone to maintain a suicidal action is not. Rather, encourage him to make sure he has good attorneys and listens to them.

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax


Leave a Reply