This is a page to collect evidences that Rossi has lied. These should be clear, not fuzzy. Each section on this page should have an anchor to allow external linking to that section. Comments and corrections are invited.
November 25, 2016 at 10:43 PM
Woodford visited the plant during the test in February 2015 and in September 2015: when they invested 50 million dollars in IH the sole license and intellectual property that IH had was the one of Leonardo Corporation. The top level officers that Woodford sent to visit the plant during the test had at their disposal the first and the second querterly report made by the ERV. The fourth and last quarterly report, as well as the third, were substantially equal to the first and the second. IH has also paid the invoices related to the first, the second and the third report of the ERV. Eventually, they did not pay the fourth report, because they said it was not correct. But it was equal to the former three, related to the period during which IH collected funds from their investors. At the end of the second visit to the plant of 1 MW during the test, in September 2015, the senior officer of Woodford said to me the following precise words: ” Congratulations, Dr Rossi, we saw great stuff here”.
The statement is bold is not true, Woodford, before making the investment decision, could not have had the second preliminary ERV report. They invested in May and might have seen the first report, but more likely not. However, compare the above post with what is below, written in fury when Dewey Weaver began writing on Lewan’s blog.
P.S. UPDATE AFTER 30 MINUTES:
I SAW NOW THE GIGANTIC LIE OF THIS PUPPET: HE WROTE THAT THE ERV DELIVERED IN A FIRST MOMENT A DRAFT OF THE REPORT WITH DATA ABOUT THE FLOWMETER, BUT EVENTUALLY RETRIEVED SUCH DATA FROM THE REPORT: THIS IS A TITANIC LIE !!! NO DRAFT OF THE REPORT HAS EVER DELIVERED TO EITHER PARTY FROM THE ERV !!!
HE GAVE THE DATA OF THE FLOWMETER TO US
1- WHEN HE INSTALLED THE FLOWMETER
2- WHEN HE DISASSEMBLED IT TO SEND IT TO THE MANUFACTURER FOR TO CHECK THAT THE MARGIN OF ERROR HAD NOT BEEN CHANGED DURING THE TEST
There is a possible harmonization, that is, that Rossi did not understand the claim; as well Dewey may have had second-hand information, which is not always precise. The flowmeter “data” — i.e,. specifications — was in the Penon protocol apparently sent to Darden in February, 2015. It would be surprising if it were not in the Final Report, but Rossi does not address that. He is literally denying the existence of any preliminary reports (and those would be “drafts,” of part of the full Report).
What I see here is that Rossi says what he wants to be true, for some purpose. He would know enough to see the possible problems, i.e., “misinterpretations,” but he pays no attention to that. This is very common with fanatics and those who are paranoid. Proving a “lie” can be very difficult, because it requires proving intention to deceive, knowing that the statement is false or misleading.
Notice that Rossi claims the “puppet” — actually an IH insider, Dewey Weaver — was not only lying, but it was a “Gigantic Lie!” It was not a lie at all, apparently, at worst it was slightly distorted, at best it was full-on accurate.
There are other implications here. The information about Woodford is grossly distorted. Repeating the quotation:
Woodford visited the plant during the test in February 2015 and in September 2015: when they invested 50 million dollars in IH the sole license and intellectual property that IH had was the one of Leonardo Corporation.
Apparently not September. Remember, the IH disclosure is testimony under oath, unlike the pleadings. It is sanctionable to lie in a pleading, but it is not perjury, not a criminal offense. Probably, here, Rossi was being careless. Below, we have the date for the second visit as on or about August 21, and Rossi had this visit information from IH, it’s dated 10/7/2016 and became public when filed by Rossi in the document linked, 10/25/2016. Rossi does not go back and correct errors (if he ever recognizes them at all, I don’t recall such an admission.) This is obviously minor. However, there is another Planet Rossi meme here, though incoherently expressed. The idea is that IH claimed “a sole license and intellectual property,” whereas this belonged to Leonardo. Unfair! However, Rossi obviously does not understand patent and IP law. Further, the Woodford investment, as far as we know, did not depend on any claim of “sole license.” Rossi made all this up, and stated it, and his followers have repeated it many times. It was in the lawsuit, and, as I recall at the moment, was dismissed as being without any legal foundation. But that doesn’t stop Andrea from repeating it over and over, and there is a sucker born every minute. It can sound plausible if one is inclined to believe Rossi and pays little attention to the gruesome details.
Rossi is either lying or is ignoring what was readily known since not long after the Woodford investment, which was finalized and formalized by the payment of $50 million for shares in IH Holdings International, transaction dated 5/13/2015, recorded 5/21/2015. (Extensive IHHI data is accessible on the official U.K. corporation page.) By the time Rossi wrote the above, this was all common knowledge. So if he was paying attention, he’d know that the claim that Woodford based their investment on the Penon reports would be grossly misleading. However, we don’t have a date for the first preliminary report; however, there were only two visits of Darden with Woodford personnel, according to the IH disclosure: the week of February 9, 2015, and “on or about August 21, 2015.”
The top level officers that Woodford sent to visit the plant during the test had at their disposal the first and the second querterly report made by the ERV.
This would be the August visit. Were the reports quarterly, i.e, after each three months of operation, then with the “350-day test period” starting on February 23, 2015 (per the “Final Report” data), or “on or about February 19, 2015” (per the Complaint paragraph 66) (why the discrepancy in a matter where strict performance of contract was essential? Ah, well, this is Planet Rossi.)? From the Final Report data, the 90th day of “function” ended on May 25, 2015. The second 90 day period ended August 25. By that second visit, the first quarterly report would have been available, presumably. Not the second. Of course, I would expect that Woodford would eventually have seen all the reports, including the Final Report.
But this was totally irrelevant to the investment, Rossi doesn’t have the thinnest stalk to stand on in that regard.
IH has also paid the invoices related to the first, the second and the third report of the ERV. Eventually, they did not pay the fourth report, because they said it was not correct.
Again, everything is presented through the Rossi Filter. Language is shifted to allow his interpretations to seem plausible. Actually, IH objected to the first three reports, apparently, questioning them, when Murray visited the plant at shutdown, and asked questions which apparently were not answered. That they then refused to pay was unremarkable. The remarkable thing is actually that they paid for the first three, because, as Jed Rothwell has pointed out, this was all obviously problematic, there are obvious questions. We could call them “blatant errors,” but let’s allow that questions and apparent contradictions might have a resolution in fact. Rossi does not source what IH “said” about the fourth report. The IH counter-complaint does not say that they have not paid, though it would be surprising if they did. It only claims that the report was false, and that Penon “has requested that Counter-Plaintiffs pay him for his work”. Good luck collecting on that invoice, Penon! You might have to show your face.
At the end of the second visit to the plant of 1 MW during the test, in September 2015, the senior officer of Woodford said to me the following precise words: ” Congratulations, Dr Rossi, we saw great stuff here”.
Nice. However, what does that mean? This all helps us to develop a model for Rossi behavior, how he forms his beliefs and creates what he states. The Murray visit was refused in July, 2015, so we don’t know what specific engineering information IH had on operation. Visits had been brief and not by engineers — except that one or more of the “investor” visitors might have been an engineer. As well, IH may have had some information from Barry West, enough that an engineer might have been able to put together what to look for. It would be surprising if the “room calorimeter” idea had not occurred to any engineer looking at the claims, as IH would have been able to present, including data from the preliminary reports. So this is what I imagine was going on in the mind of the Woodford officer.
“The room is comfortable with this megawatt plant operating. The outlet pipe appears to be about such and such a size, as I was told. There is a flow meter that was shown to me, and it is installed in a position that could make it malfunction. I was shown the pressure meter indication and it was 0.0. Yes, what IH is telling me about this test is great! Our investment in LENR is safe from the risk that Rossi will blow it all out of the water. If Rossi does have a technology and is just trying to weasel out of his agreement with IH, IH has a License that stands regardless of these results, and if Rossi hits the market with a product, our investment will be in IHHI, which is the sole owner of IH, so any losses in other LENR investments will be fully covered. My God, this was brilliant!”
And so, as Rossi reported, the man was dancing with Darden in joy outside, as they were about to leave.
Rossi interprets reality through a strongly colored lens. How far this goes, I don’t know. This page will collect examples of “lies.” From a collection of such, it may be possible to infer mental state more deeply.
It is quite a mystery, to my mind. The hypothesis that Rossi is a pure fraud is easy enough, but he then has to be at the same time clever enough to mislead many scientists, and dumb enough to think he would get away with a blatant fraud, i.e., the fake customer, etc.
I have a general hypothesis of insanity, which is not an accusation, but a generic explanation for highly inconsistent behavior. With true insanity, a person may not be able to recognize their own lies at all. It is possible to recover from such conditions, but …. it’s not common. Recovery starts with recognizing errors, mistakes, misstatements, and as part of the process, correcting them. It starts with recognizing that our opinions of others may be drastically distorted, and retreating to what we most solidly know, and recognizing what we don’t know.