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.
4 thoughts on “How mind-warp is created”
Re these discussions about the Rossi vs.
Darden Trial, I want to remind you a famous historical quote by my favorite politician:
“Never, in the field of human conflict was something discussed so much, so loudly, angrily and unwisely by so many people who know so little about the reality of the situation. (Winston Churchill)
As you can see beside the legal tricks (non GPT- but what?) the famous Exhibit 5 remains the Big Ace of IH in the game.However you are more rational than those who see water flowing only in the half of a pipe(upper or lower) and who think the same flow of water and steam (ex 1 ton/hr) needs pipes of the same diameter- OK you are not so technologically illiterate- do you understand that this Exhibit 5 values nothing or less with no diagram of the Plant and no ERV report. Nothing, nihil, niente, nada, nichts…etc.
Not necessary to answer and you can cut this – no problem
I have looked at the exhibit outside the “GPT” argument. Items such as exact same flow every day, exact same heat produced, even when reactors were off line and now we have information that the electrical bill shows that it does not match up with reports.
That the “ERV” did not take the measurements and was only at the facility (4) times over the course of a year. That the “satisfied customer” was non-existent and a complete front. That the engineer presented as “Chief of Engineering” knew nothing of any process and was an IT person by trade.
That the employment records of JMP showed one part time person. That the JMP bank account could not pay an $800 bill. What process could JMP have done that used 1MW of heat with no money nor employees? To use 1mw of heat, the raw material would have been enormous! (Although we have no clue what type of process would use that amount of heat in such a small space anyway!)
Then you must consider what Rossi so adamantly stated… The customers USED the 1MW of power for actual production of product! That they were very satisfied. He presented requests for invoices. He presented Mr. Bass as an engineer and gave him explicit instructions on what to say. Rossi has answered to court documents that JMP does NOT have a UK parent company that he clearly stated was the case. Rossi requested the accountant (a relative of Johnson by the way) to issue a fake invoice for nickel powder so he could pay the $800 bill from Leonard Corp’s funds. And I can list many more instances of clear falsehoods!
Now you have to take the total sum of information given…. almost all of what Rossi has claimed has been proven false and he has provided NO data or evidence that anything he has claimed is true! NOT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO THE COURT! Each month, more damning information comes out against him and yet he produces no evidence to support his case! At some point soon, the judge is going to throw out Rossi’s lawsuit against IH and keep IH’s suit against Rossi. How can you argue this? Forget about the GPT, look at the overall evidence! Clear falsehoods on Rossi part in almost every claim.
You have to ask yourself, what are you basing your belief that anything at the Doral facility was legitimate? Was the customer? No. Was the ERV? No, he was only there 4 times in 400 days. Was the Customer Engineer? No. Did JMP produce product? No, not with one part time employee and unable to pay a $800 bill.
Please ask yourself, what data / evidence am I basing by belief on? If it is only “Rossi Says”, you need to understand that what “Rossi says” is being proven false! Unfortunately.
Not every detail above from Bob is completely correct, but it’s close enough. Thanks, Bob.
The Judge, though, is not going to look at the documents at this point and throw the Rossi claims out, unless it is explicitly moved, and probably doing that before Discovery is complete would be premature and would be denied.
Peter, I don’t think that quote is from Churchill, who said, instead, “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.” Peter, consider: I am curating all the case documents, and I have read them many times, studying them, and I understand American legal process with many years of study, so, about whom are you talking, who knows “so little about the reality of the situation”? You post material about this where you clearly have no clue what is happening.
Exhibit 5 is a small part of the IH defense, not even critical. You have argued strenuously against this, without knowledge. It is all we have as to public knowledge of the Penon reports. Jed has affirmed that it matches what he obtained, before, allegedly from Rossi (though an intermediary). In it Murray asks Penon about some observations. You don’t like them, but it would be useless for him to lie about this. He really asked questions, and perhaps those questions had answers, but the IH point of Exhibit 5 is that no answers were forthcoming, and Penon made himself disappear. You are defending what is probably indefensible. Do you think that the Penon Report could be accepted as probative without Penon’s testimony?
A partially empty pipe could be a physical possibility, not what you have claimed, it would depend on conditions which we don’t know, and it is merely one possible failure mode, and, in the end, this is only a consequential or conditional defense, unlikely to actually make a difference in the case.
You mention GPT. This is not merely a legal trick. There were explicit conditions for a GPT which was a necessary condition for the payment of $89 million. It is apparent that Rossi did not set up those conditions and obtain the necessary explicit agreement in writing. For the payment of $89 million, people do insist on details, and that detail was a necessary part of the Second Amendment, or it would not have been agreed to. Rossi could not unilaterally set up a GPT, nor engineer an apparent consent without getting it in writing — or a very clear equivalent, and it is highly likely that it simply did not happen, because if it existed, Rossi would have claimed it, instead of what he did claim, something quite fuzzy. Underneath all this, a clear reality: without a functional technology transfer, such that IH could independently verify it, it would be impossible for IH to raise the money to pay Rossi $89 million. Your general story depends on IH lying to the Court, and Woodford — which did invest $50 million in IHHI, and commit up to $150 million more, were you aware of that? — plays along?