Your response to this guy’s post makes me ask you a final question as you talk about “evidence”.
Clearly there is plenty of historical evidence to distrust Rossi. Given his past and what’s he’s done. Being involved in prior cons. It is known, it is not debatable.
You would be an idiot NOT to consider such evidence when he is once again making a large scientific claim.
I would ask you where is your evidence that Rossi has changed? Point to the evidence. Don’t point to the machine. Don’t point to him paying any penalty, he just got caught. That’s not evidence of change. Point to some concrete evidence he has done that shows he ought to be trusted and a higher degree of skepticism is totally unwarranted. Show me your hard evidence Rossi would never pull another massive scam.
The only type of "con" Rossi was actually convicted of was financial....not scientific.
"You would be an idiot NOT to consider such evidence when he is once again making a large scientific claim."
See above about "scientific".
"I would ask you where is your evidence that Rossi has changed? Point to the evidence. Don’t point to the machine. Don’t point to him paying any penalty, he just got caught. That’s not evidence of change. Point to some concrete evidence he has done that shows he ought to be trusted and a higher degree of skepticism is totally unwarranted. Show me your hard evidence Rossi would never pull another massive scam"
The idea that Rossi could generate a "con" of this complexity is ludicrous. There are simply too many factors that he would have to control to "make it happen". There is also simply too much internal evidence from the various demos that it isn't a con. And I'm seen just enough "counter information" to Rossi's malfeasances to make me largely discount those. Of course, the naysayers never mention those little factors, as it doesn't fit the story they want sold.
I "have" considered the evidence....ALL the evidence....and I arrive at a different conclusion from the "seagull crowd".