At 11:27 PM 8/19/2012, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman
Lomax <<mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
I don't think Mike is likely to make any
announcement soon.... He said enough on the stage at TeslaTech....
That's too bad for us, but understandable.
I listened to a shorter version of the TeslaTech
video once more to better understand what McKubre was saying.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS1MsymF8hc>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS1MsymF8hc
At 5:27 minutes, McKubre says that he was
intrigued by the Papp engine and set up a
challenge. Â The challenge, presumably to
replicators, was to demonstrate that more than
10 times the electrical energy being put into
the system was being produced. Â McKubre and
coworkers set up the test and showed those
involved what to do. Â He then explains that the
challenge was successfully met, presumably by Bob Rohner.
You cannot assume that. Mike hasn't said that.
Later it becomes apparent that Bob Rohner's
group does not have a final product yet, and I
think Jones is partly correct that I have
misrepresented things when I said that McKubre
endorses Rohner's work. Â It is also clear,
however, from McKubre's description of the
(Rohner) test, from his comments on the history
of the Papp engine and from his description of
an interview of an eyewitness to the Feynmann
accident that he believes there is probably
something to the Papp engine and that it is a worthy line of exploration.
Mike has made it clear that there is a mystery
here. Until we have independent, open
confirmation, where fraud can be ruled out (as
well as error), it will remain a mystery.
At TeslaTech, Bob Rohner demonstrated a "popper."
We were not given operational data, and
shortcomings like this help maintain the mystery.
At the same conference, Bob's arch-enemy, his
brother John, showed a popper of his own
construction, but did not demonstrate it. He's selling it.
Anyone who looks into this can see that something
is very fishy. But what? "Mystery" means "we don't know."
People seem to love to jump to conclusions from
however things appear to them. That is either
gullible or pseudoskeptical. Real skepticism
rests with "mystery" until we know.
