Rossi’s Oath

Here’s an interesting and unusual Q&A from the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

jackie
August 15, 2016 at 4:49 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi, would you be kind enough to state the words below for us people of a spiritual nature.
I have great faith in good beliefs and it would be comforting if you would take this oath.
——–
I swear on the Holy Bible that my E-cat works as I have described, giving a clear output far above the input in line with a discovery outside of any known process.
———
All best wishes Jackie

Andrea Rossi
August 15, 2016 at 7:14 AM
Jackie:
I swear on the Holy Bible that my E-Cat works as I have described, giving a clear output far above the input in line with a discovery outside of any process I have knowledge of.
Dr Andrea Rossi, CEO of Leonardo Corporation

This takes things outside the realm of technical reports and into the realm of character, faith and honor.

  • sam

    An interesting video about A.R.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6B8Muz-A_e4

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Since the discussion here has branched out into a lot of issues, I will introduce the concept of “ethics”. I recently (Thursday, August 18th) participated in a two hour course on Engineering Ethincs sponsored by the Madison Section of the IEEE and given by a lawyer who often uses engineers in cases involving liability. His comment was in general “Engineers are usually quite ethical. They are truly trying to solve problems”. His comment about his profession was in effect, “I find a lot of unethical behavior in Lawyers”.

    One of the things discussed was the IEEE’s publish “Ethics” statement. I post it here for discussion:

    ==========
    We, the members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies in affecting the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal obligation to our profession, its members and the communities we serve, do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree:

    1. to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;
    2. to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist;
    3. to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data;
    4. to reject bribery in all its forms;
    5. to improve the understanding of technology; its appropriate application, and potential consequences;
    6. to maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations;
    7. to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others;
    8. to treat fairly all persons and to not engage in acts of discrimination based on race, religion, gender, disability, age, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression;
    9. to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action;
    10. to assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics.

    ==============

    I would like to feel that the primary role of the e-catworld site is to enhance Items 5, 6, and 7. I fear that items 2, 3, 4 and 9 might not be being followed truthfully.

  • sam

    Frank
    Is this comment within your
    moderation limit?
    Sam

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Déjà vu. Sir Thomas More’s oath.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLIsqYKDqY8

    • georgehants

      Showing the problems of a man of principles trying to stick to those principles when his life is at stake.
      We just have to wait now, as always, for Mr. Rossi’s principles to be revealed.

  • sam
    • sam

      I just remembered that I did see a
      comment somewhere that A.R.
      made Saying he had made
      mistakes in his past business dealings etc.
      Just thought should add that.

  • Steve Swatman

    Again I thank you sir.

    I often smile at your comments and your concise, succinct and direct defense of your stance concerning Mr Rossi and LENR.

  • georgehants

    bachcole, you have made an interesting statement as you have before. would you like to back up your opinion by explaining in a little more detail how my comment that you are answering can in any way be described as me “having a monopoly on the Truth” when I clearly stated in English, “I THINK”.

    • Mats002

      Ehum…

      “A little study of basic psychology [I think] may help you to understand why you make such errors of opinion.”

      • georgehants

        Morning Mats, the word “may” takes away the uncertainty and already confirms I am not stating it as a Fact, but an opinion of hope.

  • Steve Swatman

    I accept that as a compliment sir, from such an auspicious commenter as yourself.

  • georgehants

    For a man who can publicly state these words below to then lie on the bible I think would be unforgivable in any moral sense.
    ——–
    Andrea Rossi
    August 17, 2016 at 9:20 PM
    Stephen:
    May God be with your daughter every day of her life.
    Warm Regards,
    Andrea

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      yes

  • Jarea

    I think it would be more valuable for Rossi to present the promised massive production on 2016 instead of doing the Oath. Words are words and facts are facts, at the end of the day, the facts show the truth intentions and the words hide it.
    It has been a very long run and what it is incredible is that there is still doubts about LENR.
    In other words, if a very powerful instance would like to hide or destroy this LENR movement. It could do it. That is because, after so many years, we still don’t have the open science we want, the reproducible experiment, the receipt we want. MFMP tried. me365 promised us, but still the efforts are void.

    Rossi plays with fire trying to hide and protect his IP. He should use his patent and create the massive production he told us. He should once for all show the world that his device works. That LENR+ is real. That would be something that big bank and big oil could not stop. The world need it.

  • Steve Swatman

    The thing is, that you totally ignore the fact that the people who feel 100% certain do so on information from valid scientists, professors and electricians. who were there, who tested the device, who understand as much as anyone can that the device worked, even IH claimed the device worked, they made the device and it worked, and yet, You have a desire to not accept these people, their evaluations and their tests, for some reason known only to yourself.

    And you have such a low vicious manner of denigration, for both Mr Rossi and his device and the people who come here with positive ideas, positive comments, positive hope.

    What is that all about, envy?

  • georgehants

    Notice that a House committee has recommended that charges of perjury be brought against Hillery Clinton for lying under Oath, showing the importance attached to an Oath, religious or not in the American justice system.

    • Billy Jackson

      on oath given to a court of law or judicial system is a separate entity than an oath given as an individual. i do not believe that you can be held accountable for promises or statements made outside of the courts if you can show reasonable cause that prevented you from securing your stated action.

      (aka i can make an oath all day long that if i win the office of the presidency i am going to change immigration… in the end, reality will show that it takes more than just the president to change such a law in a manner that’s acceptable to at least 51% of the nation. should you fail.. you may not get voted in for a 2nd term but you wont go to jail for failing to keep your promise)

      oaths are tricky things.. and generally are only accountable when giving testimony in some form of official setting.

      • georgehants

        Billy, O yes very True, just pointing out that an Oath is a very powerful thing either in a court etc. or to an individual who’s morals demand the Truth, when known and possible as in the case of Mr Rossi’s clear and simple Oath of a working, high output E-cat.
        I am sure you are correct in that no legal action could be connected to this Oath only our interpretation of his honesty, but if he repeats it when the case comes to trial then it certainly will.

        • Billy Jackson

          There in lies the conundrum, our interpretation of his Oath changes not one instance of Rossi’s character for giving it. It changes our perception due to our own failings. An honorable person wouldn’t need to give said oath because we have yet to be given cause to doubt his word. Its our own distrust and second guessing nature that requires soothing by requiring an honest individual to state openly their own honesty. when in fact. nothing changed for them.. they were telling the truth to begin with or their oath means nothing when given. All the doubt and fear.. and lack of character lies in our lap not his.

          • georgehants

            Billy, respect your view but taken a little more logically you are saying there should be the same objections in a court of law etc.
            The Oath only works not because of any interpretation of those asking for the Oath, but by the importance of Truth and morals of the person taking the Oath.
            Normally Mr. Rossi, allowing normal scientific testing and third party independent repetition of his claims is necessary, but for us still following the story and his refusal to take the normal course based on his personal need to protect his IP, it seems reasonable to make a change of tack from the pure speculation etc. regarding pipes and fans etc.

            • Billy Jackson

              An oath given in a court is not for the courts sake but for your own. It is an oath given that swears you are telling the truth. so that you know that there are consequences should be caught or proven to lie under said oath.. (or legal setting)

              • georgehants

                Yes of course that is correct, but as said above many times an Oath to an individual depends on their respect for Truth and honesty as in the case of this Oath by Mr. Rossi.
                You pay’s your money and makes yer choice if you believe he has given a Truthful Oath or lied.
                Best

                • Billy Jackson

                  Agreed,

                  An oath given freely of one’s on volition can be a powerful statement of integrity and honor from a man who has proven time and again that his words and actions are his bond.

                  An oath forced under duress or peer pressure carries with it the same cloud of doubt and fear that the individuals who forced such an oath bring with them.

                • georgehants

                  O dear, nothing forced Mr Rossi to take the Oath, he explained clearly on his page why he did.
                  taking an oath even in a court of law is by choice (I think) nobody can force it to be sworn, but if you do not then it would rather devalue your Evidence I think.
                  It again is up to the individual how they interpret that persons free choice to take or not take an Oath.

                • Billy Jackson

                  Its my belief that peer pressure forced this oath. It was not given until it was talked about here first i believe? (i refuse to believe that was coincidence)

                • georgehants

                  Many Thanks, I think I will except Mr. Rossi’s explanation.

                • Billy Jackson

                  you wouldn’t have a link to that statement would so i can make sure i didn’t miss it?

                • georgehants

                  Billy, sorry about the bad spacing to much to clean up, ha.
                  ———
                  Andrea Rossi
                  August 16, 2016 at 7:19 AM
                  Gerard McEk:
                  As I received that request I was offended, but rethinking about that I
                  decided to accept. Our foe is using the tactic to make his puppets raise
                  mud saying stupidities of which the puppets are not liable because
                  they, substantially, are nobody and are not officially bound to him; nor
                  the foe is reliable, because he is saying nothing directly, he is
                  always shielded by the puppets. This way they can disseminate slanders
                  and repeat their lies like a commercial spot on television: repeat a
                  message to sell a product, and people will buy it even if it is not
                  good. I cannot disclose information that have to be disclosed in Court,
                  and they are taking advantage of this, creating confusion. At the end I
                  decided to comply. I wrote the truth, so at the end my emotions about
                  this are strong, but positive.
                  Warm Regards,
                  A.R.

                • Billy Jackson

                  Thank you sir.

                  I still stand by my stance. Much respect as always but you can see from the first line that he was offended regardless of the reasons to accept or pass on making such an oath.

                  Don’t get me wrong. it took great amounts of integrity to step forward and take that oath and for it I take my hat off to Rossi for being the man that he is. Yet i shake my head at the fact that he was asked to take such an oath to begin with by people who do not understand the full ramifications of asking for such a thing. It should have never been asked for.. instead we should have accepted his word until he’s proven wrong or that he gave such an oath freely of his own will.. anything else was just peer pressure.

                  I think that both of us have laid out how we stand and as such i can live with and respect your explanation for your stance. I may not follow the same but i can respect it as given in the spirit its intended.

                  Thank you very much George.

                • georgehants

                  Well Billy we have had a good chat.
                  His last sentence to me is the most important.
                  There are many extremely arrogant people who think that they should be believed unreservedly, many scientists for example, with their laughable expert opinions.
                  You can say you or science knows there are no genuine off-world UFO’s, but now if I ask you to swear an Oath saying that you or any part of science has the slightest Evidence to back up your claims, you may well get a little uncomfortable and start banging your fist on the table etc.
                  Look forward to our next chat

                • Billy Jackson

                  always 🙂

                • georgehants

                  Billy, can only say, Amen to that.

  • georgehants

    Has, I think been a super page giving people the chance to talk in human terms about the situation.
    I am not religious but strongly spiritual, based I believe on good Evidence (nuf said)

    For the good of the World I Spiritually pray that Mr. Rossi is genuine, but until the clear Evidence is available I just stay open-minded and like us all wait for that day, as I have for five and a half years, when that bottle of bubbles can be opened.
    People like maryyugo can never be right even if Rossi is wrong, because without an open-mind a person is just a fool.

  • LilyLover

    Just as Billy said and others agreed, I am a Rossi believer, even though he is religious. Also at the same time, I fully believe that we should not have put him to this oath-test. It only shows our lack of trust in the good man over biased consensus-Science with witchcrafty peer review.
    Risking being labeled a desparate con man, he still took the challenge up, not because he is naive but because he is the zen-master.

  • Steve Swatman

    Just this

    “I swear to the Living God that I will not disbelieve Rossi until someone proves him false. In my mind, he is innocent until proven otherwise.”

  • Steve Swatman

    “Innocent until proven guilty” you accuse mr Rossi of charades, fraud, deceit, Teemu does the same but with less openess, however you could be both sat across the same desk.

    So Again Mr rossi is “Innocent until proven guilty” and he offers far more proof of his innocence that any of you “nay sayers” offer as proof of his guilt.

  • Steve Swatman

    What is really happening is this, You accept the word of unknown people who were not there and have done any scientific tests with Mr Rossi’s device and or the word of a legal team who know only that they are paid to win a court case.

    We (the believers) take the details from Mr Rossi, the ERV, the guys who worked with Mr Rossi, the lugano testers and the professors, who have seen, touched and tested Mr Rossi’s device, as holding far more credence than the negative commenting, no experience Apco/Academi brigade of condemnation and derogatory remarks aimed at condemning a man who is trying to create.

    If you do not accept that’s fine, however you might just let who do accept have their bit of fun and stop heckling the actors in this play.

  • Steve Swatman

    And there I was enjoying the show, in walks the guy with 4 noisy kids, a big bag of crisps and doesn’t switch off the phones…

  • Nixter

    Anyone can swear an oath to something, that does not count for much if they themselves are not truly, deeply spiritual. An atheist breaking such an oath is completely different from someone who is a true believer and a regular practitioner of their faith. If Dr. Rossi’s oath is to be taken seriously, one must first be familiar with his psychological makeup, one would need insider knowledge regarding his religious practices and beliefs, does he attend religious services with regularity, or is he a casual believer who attends church services only occasionally? ( I must confess I have serious doubts as to whether or not attending church services regularly actually makes you a religious practitioner with deeper spiritual beliefs. ) A truly highly devoted religious believer takes such an oath quite seriously. The sincerity of any such oath is directly related to their innermost beliefs, whether or not they are genuine and deeply felt is key. To summarize, if Dr. Rossi truly and really is a deep practitioner and believer then his word could actually carry some weight, however if his is just a stated belief ( The religious refer to this as a “said faith.”) put out there for the public to see without any real underlying basis, then any such oath is completely worthless and not worth any consideration what so ever.

    • Omega Z

      Rossi believes so the oath has merit.

      As to people who go to regular services or not does not matter.
      I know those who seldom ever make it to a service(only special circumstances) and believe and practice strongly otherwise.

      I know others who rarely ever miss a service that are just plan hypocrites.

  • Gerrit

    I believe I can fly

    • Mats002

      So did the Wright brothers – noone believed them.

      I just landed from a flight.

    • Steve Swatman

      ah, another paraglider? fly high, fly long.

  • Mats002

    It all boils down to experience.

    Rossi et al experienced the effect, IH/Darden et al did not.

    As long as I cannot experience the effect I am not convinced.

    The jury need to experience the effect.

    • Omega Z

      ->”IH/Darden et al did not.”

      Actually you can’t be certain of that.
      What is their agenda?

      Could it be they don’t want this technology available for another 10/15 years.

      Certain stated goals from different positions of world power would indicate that LENR is the last thing they want at this time. The U.N. just released a statement that the world needs to drastically reduce making/using/building anything including housing. LENR would not be in their interests.

  • georgehants

    There seems to a fundamental misunderstanding by some on page.
    This topic is not religious but purely psychological
    A very serious and unfortunately horrendously inexact scientific subject.
    After many thousands of technical and engineering comments, nobody is any nearer the Truthful answer regarding Mr. Rossi and his high output Cold Fusion.
    While we wait for that clear scientific Evidence to confirm or deny his claims, it would seem very appropriate to look at the problem from a different and very valid perspective.
    The Topic page asking people to record their confidence in Mr. Rossi like so many other things in life is based purely on the psychological leanings of those that replied, the only correct scientific answer was of course, I don’t know, excluding anybody such as Jed Rothwell etc. who we do not know the accuracy of their claimed inside information.
    Science demands the investigation of any area that could give Evidence and this page like all the others can prove nothing, but it has added Evidence from Mr. Rossi that one must interpret in line with ones own psychological leanings

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Ah, but your problem is you think science somehow is not faith based. You really don’t know what the acceleration of gravity is. However you can read from a book. However to accept that book, you are in fact accepting a HISTORIC statement from that book – and one that is simply witness and testimony from that person.

      You now have to make an act of faith to accept that witness and testimony. However if you are honest, you will still accept that you are in fact making an act of faith to accept that witness and testimony.

      There nothing wrong with making acts of faith, but far too many bring up the word “science” and use that word in place of the fact you are making act of faith to accept the witness and testimony of someone else. Calling something science in ZERO WAY removes this simple issue that you still making an act of faith on the given matter.

      Simply placing some label of science does not get one past the jail card that you still making an act of faith and accepting witness and testimony of someone else.

      And even more interesting is you accepting a past tense – thus it is an historic witness and testimony. So you read in a book that someone saw people eating a bunch of fish.

      Of course such a witness and testimony becomes more believable and your acts of faith become easier to make when provide with evidence – but as noted, you are making acts of faith to accept such evidence. You can post in this forum that you have 10 dollars in your pocket. Calling your position “science” does not change that I must make that act of faith to accept your witness and
      testamoney.

      And then you can say that your friend is in the room, and have him follow up here and post and state that you do have 10 dollars and you seen that 10 dollars. At that point, I now have to accept that testamoney on a act of faith. Or I could simply state that your friend in dishonest and he is in bed with you so to speak.

      So, keep in mind, that 99% of your knowledge and in including your so called “scince” is based on an act of faith on your part. And evidence anyone provides will also require you to make an act of faith.
      The bottom line here is your going to have to make a act of faith to accept the ecat.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • georgehants

        Albert, thank you, all agreed, I would prefer if you stopped referring to me individually in your reply.
        You say for example ——-
        “Ah, but your problem is you think science somehow is not faith based.”
        I think nothing of the kind, most of science is a silly Dogma based religion, if one moves to the depth of analyses that you have.
        You have moved away from generalities where solid Evidence exceptable to any reasonable intelligent person moves it from faith to Fact, to the more philosophical area showing the difficulties and complications of ever being able to talk generally on a Website where full coverage of any subject is not usually feasible.
        Interesting subject that could be discussed very enjoyably with a good bottle of red.
        Best

  • Jonnyb

    Rossi’s word is good enough for me, a devout atheist. So long as he believes in what he is swearing on then then that is fine with me.

  • bachcole

    If I was an investment dude, of course I would require more proof.

    Truth may be out there, but what we believe to be true varies from person to person.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    Hey, at least I’m not the one making absolute statements.

  • Frank Acland

    The subject of religion is bound to come up, especially in a thread like this, but this site is not intended to be a place to argue about religion — hence moderation.

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      This subject has been raised by the person who required an ‘oath’ of Dr Rossi: why?
      Was it in order to believe or disbelieve, or to place a judgement on the person performing the oath?
      Personally, I question the reason for demanding. It seems to be a subjective demand, placed for subjective reasons.
      The answer to this question seems to imply many unpronounced answers that are other than strictly rational, or scientific. Proof: the length of this thread.
      It is understandable that a researcher might feel offended by the question.