Here you are trying to confuse the issue by insinuating that if there is any validity to LENR, then Rossi must be valid as well.Your logic is flawed.
***NO, that is not what I’m trying to do. It is an inductive argument, where it is very LIKELY to be true/valid, not necessarily MUST be true.
It is entirely possible that Rossi is a con man, using “cold fusion” as the basis of his frauds.As was pointed out earlier, these people you name are Rossi's partners, and they are not there in their capacity as University personnel.
***And as the list of co-conspirators grows, the theory weakens proportionally.
Your logic is flawed.
***Then show the flaw.
As was pointed out earlier, these people you name are Rossi’s partners, and they are not there in their capacity as University personnel.
***Don’t forget the reporters such as Mats Lewan. Levi was certainly no partner when he started looking into it. Given Rossi’s background, I would think that most who have looked into it were skeptical beforehand.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2768729/posts
. Recognising the danger that the University of Bologna was in through its association with Andrea Rossi, Levi set out with a sceptic’s eye to look at the businessman’s claims. A member of the US Sceptics’ Society and an experienced physicist, he was familiar with the signs that traditionally signal a scam artist at work .