OOPS -- Sorry, Jed, you obviously have *NOT* blocked Mary, and the rest
of what I said is therefore of little consequence, because you've read
the arguments already.
On 11-12-05 04:46 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-12-05 03:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Robert Leguillon <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com
<mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
/snip/
As long as a positive test is based purely on physics rather than
his personal credibility, or it is performed by others (as some
tests have been)...
/snip/
What tests have been performed by others?
Ampenergo, before they signed a contract. Mike McKubre discussed them
in a recent lecture. See the lecture and slides here:
http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHwhathappen.pdf
See p. 32. As you see this is Run II. There were several
others. McKubre remarked that he knows a highly qualified person who
was present. I know several, and I know of other independent tests.
Some of them failed, like the NASA test. Others succeeded.
As I have pointed out here before, if this machine was fake he would
make it appear to work every time, on demand, especially when he has
important visitors such as NASA.
Did you miss Mary's comments on this? (Of course you did; you've
blocked her.)
Have you read nothing of how psychics operate? Not all that Randi has
written was of no value, you know.
Having the equipment just happen to not work when there happens to be
someone on hand who's equipped to perform what might really be a
rigorous test, rather than a friendly oh-sure-that-seems-good-enough
sort of test, is *not* a sign of honesty.
"Oh, well, it doesn't seem to have been working today, too bad,
perhaps it'll work next week when you (and your nasty looking
instruments) are far away..."
If he wanted to give it versimillitude perhaps he would have it fail
when unimportant people come,
The unimportant ones are most often the ones who are easy to fool.
Fool enough people, even unimportant ones, and the occasions when the
equipment "didn't work" will be viewed as the exceptions, obviously
caused by some fluke condition.
Then the Nasa failure becomes just "bad luck" rather than something
conclusive.
or he would have it fail at first and then the next day start to
work. That is not what has happened. In some cases it has gone for
days without saying boo. That is characteristic of genuine
cutting-edge prototype new technology, such as the early incandescent
lights, internal combustion engines, transistors, and rockets.
And also characteristic of bogus claims, when someone was watching a
little too closely.
