On Peter Gluck’s blog, I noticed a Rossi blog reference. Examined for specificity, we can see that Rossi has misrepresented fact, or at least has misinterpreted what he saw.
Here are the comments:
January 24, 2017 at 8:24 AM
Interesting post regarding IH and their position:
character assassinations do not bolster IH’s credibility. Let’s see what actually happened between IH and Rossi. Let’s see your lab records and notebooks. Let’s see how IH reps behaved when showing the 1 MW plant to investors. Let’s see the evidence, and then we shall all decide.
January 24, 2017 at 3:57 PM
I cannot comment issues to be disclosed in Court.
This is standard on Rossi’s blog. Someone makes a comment using a name that would be very unusual, and the comment says what Rossi has said in the past. There is reasonable suspicion that these users are simply Rossi himself, imagining that if he does it this way, there would be no harm. In fact, if he does say something with a legal impact, the anonymity could be penetrated, does he realize that? Be that as it may, this was not an original statement, it was quoted, though that wasn’t made completely clear. The lack of attribution is also common with these blog posts. It came from LENR-forum. I will quote the entire post. I have previously commented on it.
IH has conclusive proof that the Rossi’s technology presented to IH doesn’t work but that is nothing new.
What is new, however, is that IH’s lead engineer apparently disagrees.
This was based on a claim made in a doomed Rossi Motion for Sanctions, rooted in some cherry-picket snippets that could only be interpreted as claimed here by ignoring everything else known. Dewey Weaver deconstructs this, the man is not the IH “lead engineer,” for starters. That became Murray, I’d think. Rather, this was T. Dameron Barker, who was the IH engineer for a time, best known in Rossi-v-Darden-land as the putative coinventor for a certain Rossi/IH patent, with Rossi bitterly complaining about that harmless action. Barker simply answered honestly about extremes of measurement, asked specifically to ignore reliability or reproducibility. The extreme was a COP of about 1.3. Which is close to nothing, or easily nothing. No contradiction. IHFB is accepting and stating the Rossi Line as if Truth.
Dewey Weaver wrote:
Petroldragon didnt work.
It actually worked far too well, attracted the attention of the wrong folks, and that was the end of that.
What is clear from the record is that Petroldragon did not work well enough to handle the problems that arose. That it was attacked by enemies, often stated to be the Mafia, is not implausible, but to leave the story at that, as if it “worked far too well,” is to, again, ignore most of the evidence. To determine extensive fact on Petroldragon would take a great deal of research, in Italy, not merely internet searches. However, “worked far too well” does not match known fact. As well, Rossi rejected corporate support that, had he accepted it, would have made it possible for him to defend against legal sabotage. Once again, IHFB is forwarding the Rossi Line as if fact, other than claim. Dewey Weaver could be said to be doing the same, but Dewey Weaver is openly and clearly a supporter of IH, an insider, and an actual investor and consultant for them. He has personally been burned by Rossi, to follow his story.
Dewey Weaver wrote:
On the other hand, fake invoices worked very well in a previous life (for a little while but not this time), money-laundering worked. Gold trafficking worked (for a little while) – I could go on.
While conclusory, this is based on known legal allegations.
And yet, Rossi was acquitted of all charges, save for a pair of tax issues.
As if this establishes fact. The charges were criminal, not civil. I suspect that the standard in Italian courts might require a higher standard of evidence for a criminal conviction, and often charges are dismissed for technical reasons not related to the fact of an alleged offense. Dewey is writing about a plausible appearance. I think he has claimed that IH did investigate the Italian problems; tax issues were mentioned in the 2012 License Agreement, reference to which was the subject of a strong attempt by a Rossi Motion to Strike and other related pleadings.
I do not treat the charges in Italy as proven, but as plausible, and they then create an additional weight toward seeing the Rossi claims as possibly fraudulent, tossed in with the Rossi email about Hydro Fusion, where he either misled Hydro Fusion to lead them to cancel an agreement, or he misled Industrial Heat as to what actually happened. (His account conflicts with the account of Mats Lewan in his book. Was his behavior there entirely fake? Does it matter?)
And now we come to what was quoted on JONP:
Let me make a suggestion Dewey: character assassinations do not bolster IH’s credibility. Let’s see what actually happened between IH and Rossi. Let’s see your lab records and notebooks. Let’s see how IH reps behaved when showing the 1 MW plant to investors. Let’s see the evidence, and then we shall all decide.
This was not attributed on JONP. I suggest that this could be so that the full discussion, where IHFB’s claims were dismantled, would not be seen, so that Planet Rossi, following his blog, would only see “positive” ideas.
We already have a great deal of evidence as to “what happened between IH and Rossi.” Much more exists in Discovery that has not been make public. However, the claim about the behavior of “IH reps” echoes nothing in the record of evidence we have, but only Rossi’s claims on JONP. They were supposedly exhuberant, hugging and dancing with glee.
However, there is only one set of visits where this would make sense:
On February 9, 2015, Darden and Vaughn visited the Plant with one or two Woodford representatives. There was another visit with Darden, Vaughn, and Woodford reps August 21, 2015, which is after Murray was refused access. Woodford invested in IH in May, 2015.
IH’s understanding of the Plant operation in early February — the alleged GPT did not begin until February 19, 2015, according to the Complaint — is unknown. Rossi has claimed, on his blog, that IH used Plant operation to cause the Woodford investment, but if that were true, and if IH did not disclose the problems to Woodford, their later claims of no confirmation of LENR heat would be enough to establish fraudulent inducement on their part. Woodford could get their money back and give it to Rossi if they chose. Not going to happen.
Woodford chose to invest in IH, and in a way that would keep that investment away from Rossi’s touch, even if Rossi manages to prevail in Rossi v. Darden. It is extremely unlikely they were misled. But were they dancing with glee? And if they were, what did that mean? Do we trust Rossi’s ability to discern what people are thinking, and, in particular, what they might be saying to each other privately?
“Paul, we want to give Rossi every opportunity to succeed at this test. He’s touchy, he’s been known to bail at any sign of suspicion. So, while we are there, we will be enthusiastic, in spite of what I told you earlier. Okay? Please don’t ask any challenging questions.”
As to “your lab records and notebooks,” they would not be Dewey’s, they would be IH, and they have been disclosed in Discovery, presumably. We are not likely to see them.