Rossi doesn't have to do a damned thing that either you or I might wish.Of course he doesn't. But, he deserves to be disbelieved if he presents his dog & pony shows to the public, and then refuses to do anything to validate it.
As I said, your VERY CAREFULLY SELECTED list proves only that you are very selective in your beliefs and link only to that information that supports your point. Your information on Rossi's fraudulent activities appears to come from a single source in Italy.I present my evidence in rebuttal the the blindly positive mix of truth, half-truths and lies that the fanboys such as yourself have been spreading. For example, you spent almost all of last year using Rossi's lie that he was going to (or already did) allow independent testing of his gadget as "evidence" that he must be legitimate.
That you are trying to "belittle" the oldest and best-selling newspaper in Italy just because you don't like the stories they covered over more than a decade shows how desperate you are to avoid the facts.
those who have impeded the development of LANR over the last quarter of a century have KILLED PEOPLE.Oh, please! It's not the fault of skeptics that no one has been able to make LENR work well enough to make it more than a research oddity. It's the two-decade-long failure of the LENR researchers to actually make it work. And rather than accept their failure, you and the fanboys simply find some conspiracy or another to blame.
I'm really not interested in banging my head against the wall trying to reason with you any further. But I do have one question I would like you to answer.
I've described the various scenarios which would cause me to change my mind about Rossi (some legitimate customer, university or other credible organization coming forward with a confirmation that Rossi's gadget works).
Please tell us what scenarios would make you change your mind? For example, if no independent confirmation that the E-Cat works has been produced in a year, will that be enough for you to admit that Rossi is a fraud? Five years? Ever?
Or are you so blindly devoted to Rossi that there is no scenario that would convince you that you were wrong?
Liar.
"For example, you spent almost all of last year using Rossi's lie that he was going to (or already did) allow independent testing of his gadget as "evidence" that he must be legitimate."
Another lie. I've responded to this point repeatedly, and you still lie about it. One more time....when I made the statement, the best information ANYBODY had (and that many others indicated as well) was that Rossi planned to allow such testing. And in fact, he has, as recently as this week, stated that he still plans to collaborate with the U of B, and hopes to get that started in a couple of months.
"That you are trying to "belittle" the oldest and best-selling newspaper in Italy just because you don't like the stories they covered over more than a decade shows how desperate you are to avoid the facts."
I know squat about newspapers in Italy. For all I know your source could be the Italian equivalent to the US supermarket tabloids with pictures of aliens on the cover. And being old and popular does not preclude the possibility that they present slanted coverage based on "guidance" from influential stockholders. Y'know, kinda like the AP does when their Saudi owners crack the whip. And for that matter, your mere statement that they are "oldest and best-selling" isn't proof that they are such.
"Oh, please! It's not the fault of skeptics that no one has been able to make LENR work well enough to make it more than a research oddity. It's the two-decade-long failure of the LENR researchers to actually make it work. And rather than accept their failure, you and the fanboys simply find some conspiracy or another to blame."
"Oh Please" nothing. It's funny that you can spend huge amounts of time pursuing Rossi's activities, and can't be bothered to actually find out the truth about the treatment of CF researchers. And since you actually make the above statement, it's also obvious that you have read precisely zero of the many hundreds of publications and conference proceedings available. The tech has been replicated repeatedly, and yet you and the other skeptopaths repeat the same old crap...."it ain't real", "there's no data", all the while denying tenure, grant funding, promotions, and more to those who actually scrape up a bit of money to actually do real science. As opposed the the FRAUD committed by MIT and thoroughly documented by Gene Mallove.
Since you like Krivit so much, read the material on the above subject on his website....it's there.
I just finished reading 385 pages of conference proceedings of the "Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science", which contains many excellent scientific papers, both theoretical and experimental, which show conclusively the truth of LANR.
Many hundreds of similar papers can be found in the "Library" section of LENR-CANR.ORG.
But you just "can't be bothered" to look at them.
And you just "blow off" ALL of that evidence.
There's a phrase for folks like that....."willful ignorance".
"Please tell us what scenarios would make you change your mind? For example, if no independent confirmation that the E-Cat works has been produced in a year, will that be enough for you to admit that Rossi is a fraud? Five years? Ever?"
"Tell us?" Did you suddenly get a royal title?? Or do you have "mulitple personality syndrome". I'd say my own personal time frame would be the end of this year. I don't deal in "scenarios". I constantly evaluate the facts and adjust accordingly.
"Or are you so blindly devoted to Rossi that there is no scenario that would convince you that you were wrong?"
Look, jackass . I've told you at least a dozen times, I have NO INTEREST in any kind of "devotion" to Rossi. I could care less about Rossi. But the best evidence available is that his TECHNOLOGY is real. Once again...I have the scientific background to make that judgement. You don't. And I simply don't buy the idea that Rossi has come up with as many different ways to fake the data as all the different tests that have been run with all the different WELL qualified witnesses that were present. That meme is simply ridiculous, and so unlikely as to be impossible.