It could also be that Vaughn has some sort of NDA as well. If he disparaged Rossi while under NDA that would leave Rossi with the right to sue.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Brad Lowe <[email protected]> wrote: > All nuclear reactions produce byproducts, many of which could be > public health hazards. > > Mr. Wright now needs to make the case that for the sake of public > safety, the government should compel Rossi, Darden or Vaughn to > disclose the location of any US based LENR laboratory. > > We have seen pictures of the hotcat that were taken somewhere... and > we know a device was delivered to Lugano. Evidence is high that Rossi > is tinkering with nuclear energy. > > Keep digging, Mr. Wright! I want the truth. > > - Brad > > > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Blaze Spinnaker > <[email protected]> wrote: > > HmmmmMMMMM careful james, I think you're starting to buy into this mass > > conspiracy thing. > > > > The government is EXTREMELY touchy about anything that could involve > nuclear > > materials because of terrorism. They probably said he wasn't credible > > because they wanted to explain why they weren't following up on it > further. > > > > Analog's view is interesting for sure, though I think he's fooling > himself > > if he thinks that his perspective is anymore probable than the idea that > > Vaughn just got misquoted. > > > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:36 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Why would a government official word things in such in a way that is > >> obviously biased to serve the open agenda of the querent, "Gary Wright"? > >> > >> One Rossi-favorable interpretation is that this NC State official is > >> attempting to cover his ass with the Federal bureaucrats in charge of > >> nuclear matters who, the history of the physics establishment shows, > clearly > >> share in Gary Wright's agenda? > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Yeah, not a big deal when your partner says you have no credibility > to a > >>>> government rep. > >>> > >>> > >>> He does not have credibility. No one disputes that. Why are you making > >>> such a big deal about it? > >>> > >>> I assume the statement was not only "paraphrased" but taken out of > >>> context. It was probably something like: "He does not have credibility > with > >>> the scientific community, but we have reason to believe his claims are > >>> true." > >>> > >>> - Jed > >>> > >> > > > >
