On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:18 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote:
Gee, I guess their behavior seems highly suspicious :-)))
It seemed a little evasive, but in spite of that, in 1904 the prestigious
journal Science wrote:
The newspapers of December 18 contained the announcement that
From Marcello,
The Wright brothers were certainly complicit in the lack of attention
they received. Fearful of competitors stealing their ideas, and still
without a patent, they flew on only one more day after October 5. From
then on, they refused to fly anywhere unless they had a firm
Let me repeat that I started this thread to discern what might have
been reported from ardent skeptics AFTER it had been determined beyond
reasonable doubt that the Wright Brothers [Sorry about that blatant
misspelling of Wright with Right in my original post... Hadn't had
my cup'o'Java.] had
Am 16.11.2011 14:28, schrieb OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson:
From Marcello,
The Wright brothers were certainly complicit in the lack of attention
they received. Fearful of competitors stealing their ideas, and still
without a patent, they flew on only one more day after October 5. From
Also in the same, rather short, wikipedia article, one can read of the
furious patent dispute (on the mechanism to steer the planes, not on lift,
by the way), of the disrepute that befell the brothers because of their
perceived greed, and of the refusal (for 40 years! ) of the Smithsonian to
Mary Yugo pointed out that other energy scams make money by accepting
secret investments from carefully selected credulous people, who have to
sign iron clad nondisclosure agreements... this can go on for years...
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote:
Also
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote:
To the hard-core skeptics, two questions:
- did man actually set foot on the moon? Compare and contrast level of
proof.
I agree, the moon-landing requires some trust, because there is no way for
us to witness it
I agree, the moon-landing requires some trust, because there is no way for
us to witness it directly.
Maybe. But if you've seen a Saturn V launch, as have hundreds of thousands
if not millions, you have to be impressed that some considerable chunk of
mass is traveling very fast moonward. And
There is the only problem with the investment story that it does not appear
to be true. The only source of money Krivit cites is Ampenergo, that is
Rossi himself.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Marcello Vitale
Ampenergo is owned by his wife.
2011/11/16 Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net
There is the only problem with the investment story that it does not
appear to be true. The only source of money Krivit cites is Ampenergo, that
is Rossi himself.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Joshua Cude
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote:
There is the only problem with the investment story that it does not
appear to be true. The only source of money Krivit cites is Ampenergo, that
is Rossi himself.
That may be the only source that he claims
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Ampenergo is owned by his wife.
No:
This was confirmed by Andrea Rossi’s wife, Maddalena Pascucci who is
a commerce graduate and manages the commercial part of the energy
catalyzer. Formally, the agreement was made
On 11-11-16 10:43 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net
mailto:mvit...@ucsbalum.net wrote:
To the hard-core skeptics, two questions:
- did man actually set foot on the moon? Compare and contrast
level of proof.
I
In any case, it doesn't make sense to call Ampenergo as one of the
(supposedly) scammed parts. The deal with AP was to sell the e-cat in the
name of AR's company, so they should actually be the front gate of a scam.
2011/11/16 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:09 AM,
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
**
Now, I'd agree that believing in BLP requires a certain level of trust
This string isn't about BLP but BLP has a lot of the hallmarks of a scam.
It could also be a delusion and I suppose there is a still a
Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net wrote:
The Wright brothers were certainly complicit in the lack of attention they
received. Fearful of competitors stealing their ideas, and still without a
patent, they flew on only one more day after October 5. From then on, they
refused to fly anywhere
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding the Right Brothers, when proof became irrefutable that
their contraption could fly under power, how did some of the most
ardent (and well known) skeptics deal with the news? I'm curious as to
what kind of follow-up might
Jed,
Thank you for taking some time out to answer this query. A willingness to
share your knowledge of certain historical events is much appreciated.
Regarding Rossi, will history repeat itself, again? I suspect we must wait
for some more shoes to drop for the definitive answer. All I can say is
from the wikipedia article about the Wright brothers.
about the first flight in 1903 The Wrights sent a telegram about the
flights to their father, requesting that he inform press. However,
the *Dayton
Journal* refused to publish the story, saying the flights were too short to
be important.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:45 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Jed,
Since you are a pretty decent historian on a number of events...
Regarding the Right Brothers, when proof became irrefutable that their
contraption could fly under power, how did some of
20 matches
Mail list logo
