Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Mark, The fact is that BM is Jewish and most of the investors he frauded are Jewish. Therefore, the Jewish community is especially outraged. This is not a slight against the Jewish community and provides no reason not to identify this fact. Of course they worked hard for their money and have reason to be outraged. However, I fail to see the relevances of your comment. The Jewish community is a fact of life in the same way the Catholic, Hispanic, or Baptist communities, for example, are a fact. I see nothing wrong with identifying such groups when they are likely to act in a particular way as a group. Ed On Jul 13, 2009, at 10:33 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: Ed: Although a significant proportion of the wealthy and powerful are jewish (and they probably worked hard and smart to get there), I think you could have left the religious background out of your statement and it still would have been accurate... -Mark -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury Come now, let's be realistic. He did not run because he would not have been safe anywhere in the world. When you damage so many people, many of whom are very powerful and well connected to the Jewish community, you will be killed very soon after leaving the US. Besides, his family was also at risk. He took the only rational path. Ed On Jul 11, 2009, at 8:07 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I don't know why he didn't run. He didn't ran because he was a scapegoat. Scapegoats don't run, by their very definition. It's always better to blame it all on a lone shooter, than acknowledge the corruption within the system. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.9/2229 - Release Date: 07/11/09 05:57:00
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Edmund Storms wrote: Therefore, the Jewish community is especially outraged. This is not a slight against the Jewish community and provides no reason not to identify this fact. You are missing the point. Your original comment was: When you damage so many people, many of whom are very powerful and will connected to the Jewish community, you will be killed very soon after leaving the US. This makes it sound as if the Jewish community is more likely to kill someone than other communities. To avoid any hint of bigotry, the sentence should have read: When you damage so many people, many of whom are very powerful and will connected, you will be killed very soon after leaving the US. In point of fact, I expect the wealthy Jewish community would be somewhat less likely to kill someone than other groups of wealthy people. MOSAD would definitely not take this assignment, if that's what you are thinking. I think it is unlikely that anyone would have killed Madoff if he had fled, but he would have been caught in a week. (Unless he went to some country where extradition is not allowed and he had not stolen from a single person in that country.) Anyway, this is off-topic. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Ed: So what if he's Jewish, or his investors. His jewish teachings didn't cause or encourage his behavior, so why even mention it. And the fact that most of his investors are jewish is also irrelevent. What did cause his reprehensible behavior was good ol' greed, which knows no affiliations, religious, political or otherwise. It's simply a lack of integrity, which seems to be all too prevalent these days; epecially amongst our politicians. I would place the blame more on the parents... -Mark -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:51 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury Mark, The fact is that BM is Jewish and most of the investors he frauded are Jewish. Therefore, the Jewish community is especially outraged. This is not a slight against the Jewish community and provides no reason not to identify this fact. Of course they worked hard for their money and have reason to be outraged. However, I fail to see the relevances of your comment. The Jewish community is a fact of life in the same way the Catholic, Hispanic, or Baptist communities, for example, are a fact. I see nothing wrong with identifying such groups when they are likely to act in a particular way as a group. Ed On Jul 13, 2009, at 10:33 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: Ed: Although a significant proportion of the wealthy and powerful are jewish (and they probably worked hard and smart to get there), I think you could have left the religious background out of your statement and it still would have been accurate... -Mark -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury Come now, let's be realistic. He did not run because he would not have been safe anywhere in the world. When you damage so many people, many of whom are very powerful and well connected to the Jewish community, you will be killed very soon after leaving the US. Besides, his family was also at risk. He took the only rational path. Ed On Jul 11, 2009, at 8:07 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I don't know why he didn't run. He didn't ran because he was a scapegoat. Scapegoats don't run, by their very definition. It's always better to blame it all on a lone shooter, than acknowledge the corruption within the system. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.9/2229 - Release Date: 07/11/09 05:57:00 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.12/2235 - Release Date: 07/14/09 05:56:00
RE: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Ed: Although a significant proportion of the wealthy and powerful are jewish (and they probably worked hard and smart to get there), I think you could have left the religious background out of your statement and it still would have been accurate... -Mark -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury Come now, let's be realistic. He did not run because he would not have been safe anywhere in the world. When you damage so many people, many of whom are very powerful and well connected to the Jewish community, you will be killed very soon after leaving the US. Besides, his family was also at risk. He took the only rational path. Ed On Jul 11, 2009, at 8:07 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I don't know why he didn't run. He didn't ran because he was a scapegoat. Scapegoats don't run, by their very definition. It's always better to blame it all on a lone shooter, than acknowledge the corruption within the system. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.9/2229 - Release Date: 07/11/09 05:57:00
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I don't know why he didn't run. He didn't ran because he was a scapegoat. Scapegoats don't run, by their very definition. It's always better to blame it all on a lone shooter, than acknowledge the corruption within the system. This is wildly OFF TOPIC, it's provocative politics of the worst sort, it appears in this message unsupported by anything except your bald assertion. The discussion in this thread had to do with Madoff as a model for scammers in other areas, which is certainly relevant to the 'free energy' field. However, Mauro's dialectical twist on it is something else. We have heard all this junk about the corruption within the system being the root of all evil, very recently, from Grok. We have no need to hear it all over again from Mauro. PLEASE KEEP THIS GARBAGE OFF VORTEX. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm not trolling, or trying to initiate a debate. I just felt the question was hanging in the hair, so to speak. I came up with the scapegoat thesis on my own, so I'll not post any links (besides, this is OT). An internet search should yield some interesting results on the subject, I suppose. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: OrionWorks wrote: From Mario Lacy: Edmund Storms wrote: Come now, let's be realistic. He did not run because he would not have been safe anywhere in the world. When you damage so many people, many of whom are very powerful and will connected to the Jewish community, you will be killed very soon after leaving the US. Besides, his family was also at risk. He took the only rational path. Could be. Although with all those millions probably something could be done, I think. Anyways, he nevertheless served the scapegoat role, from the moment he was exposed to the public view. I see that Mr. Lawrence has weighed in with his two cents as well. Yeah, I don't like the direction a number of Mauro's posts are taking. Well, that's a matter of taste and opinion, isn't? I'm not grok! and my mispellings and grammatical errors are sincere :) most of the time, they are the result of quick posting and not double checking before, and sometimes simply the result of an informal education in the english languaje. Best regards, Mauro Here are some additional items which started bells going off for me: Comment on capitalism: That's the classical (profit driven) capitalist line Comment on the economic system, and how incorrect it is: the economic system is today a superstructure of the politic system In short: we're are approaching the crisis of civilization which results from incorrect social and economic models, A comment directed at Jones and his lifestyle: Now, in front of the crisis, and instead of acknowledge this, you pretend to find some miracle energy source to merely postpone the day of reckoning Your way of life is also undesirable at the aesthetic and ethical levels. I for one don't want to live my life as a self-indulgent gluttonous person... I'm no doubt overreacting but the tone here is enough like Grok to make one wonder if one of the two was a sock puppet. (Note that Grok's English was intentionally so mis-spelled and mis-formed that he could very well have spoken it as a second language, and we might not have known.) Anyhow, Steve, as usual you are much, much better about giving the gentleman the benefit of the doubt, and your post (the part I snipped off, below) had some provocative/interesting points in it, which I won't respond to (since I just finished yelling about how this has deteriorated to being totally OT ;-) ). I have a nasty tendency to go off half cocked, and perhaps I am doing so this time too. Anyhow, I'll be out of town for a week, so I won't be yelling DIALECTIC! BAD! for at least a few days. 'Till next weekend... [snip part to which I'm not responding]
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
On Jul 12, 2009, at 6:18 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I don't know why he didn't run. He didn't ran because he was a scapegoat. Scapegoats don't run, by their very definition. It's always better to blame it all on a lone shooter, than acknowledge the corruption within the system. This is wildly OFF TOPIC, it's provocative politics of the worst sort, it appears in this message unsupported by anything except your bald assertion. The discussion in this thread had to do with Madoff as a model for scammers in other areas, which is certainly relevant to the 'free energy' field. However, Mauro's dialectical twist on it is something else. We have heard all this junk about the corruption within the system being the root of all evil, very recently, from Grok. We have no need to hear it all over again from Mauro. PLEASE KEEP THIS GARBAGE OFF VORTEX. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm not trolling, or trying to initiate a debate. I just felt the question was hanging in the hair, so to speak. I came up with the scapegoat thesis on my own, so I'll not post any links (besides, this is OT). An internet search should yield some interesting results on the subject, I suppose. Mauro, this is not a subject that benefits from debate because it is so much a matter of opinion without factual support. In addition, you are using the word scapegoat incorrectly. The scapegoat is an innocent person who is used by the guilty to misdirect blame. In this case Malloff is clearly guilty along with many other people. These other people are gradually being found and will also be sent to prison. This scam affected too many important people to be ignored. In any case, this subject has no general importance except to make a person more careful where they put their money and whom they trust. Ed Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
OrionWorks wrote: Certainly, it is conceivable that Maddox had a few assistants, possibly playing their roles passively. But their sins are likely to be more the sins of omission . . . What I think is far more alarming, perhaps even sinister, is the fact that years ago certain financial analysts had already determined (some, without a shadow of doubt) that what Maddox was doing HAD to be blatantly illegal. . . . Madoff, not Maddox. Maddox was the editor of Nature. He had plenty of assistants, but what he did was perfectly legal. In the long view of history, Maddox and his cohorts caused much more harm than Madoff, albeit unintentionally. They thought they were doing good. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Jed sez: OrionWorks wrote: Certainly, it is conceivable that Maddox had a few assistants, possibly playing their roles passively. But their sins are likely to be more the sins of omission . . . What I think is far more alarming, perhaps even sinister, is the fact that years ago certain financial analysts had already determined (some, without a shadow of doubt) that what Maddox was doing HAD to be blatantly illegal. . . . Madoff, not Maddox. Maddox was the editor of Nature. He had plenty of assistants, but what he did was perfectly legal. In the long view of history, Maddox and his cohorts caused much more harm than Madoff, albeit unintentionally. They thought they were doing good. - Jed Jeez! I even googled maddox and ponzi scheme together in an attempt to make sure I got the spellin cerrect. Upon closer inspection I now see Google changed the spellin to fromMaddox to Madoff. Once again I have been deceived, for my own good! -- Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Craig Haynie (Houston) wrote on 7-11-09: It reminds me of Greg Watson. We never could figure out what his motive was. He claimed to have found an anomaly in magnetic fields that he could exploit. He claimed to have built a magnetic track which would move a ball around the track indefinitely. But it could never be looked at independently. -- Steven Vincent Johnson wrote on 7-11-09: From Mr. Lawrence: ... ``I don't know why he [Madoff] didn't run.'' ... Shoot! I'm still alive! I thought I'd surely die in my bed of silken sheets before everything unraveled. -- Hi All, Greg never sent me a SMOT (or refunded the $130); but I always felt that he saw the effect. Maybe it was a Hutchinson effect -- he may have been working at the conjunction of powerful telluric forces. Jack Smith
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I don't know why he didn't run. He didn't ran because he was a scapegoat. Scapegoats don't run, by their very definition. It's always better to blame it all on a lone shooter, than acknowledge the corruption within the system.
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Come now, let's be realistic. He did not run because he would not have been safe anywhere in the world. When you damage so many people, many of whom are very powerful and will connected to the Jewish community, you will be killed very soon after leaving the US. Besides, his family was also at risk. He took the only rational path. Ed On Jul 11, 2009, at 8:07 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I don't know why he didn't run. He didn't ran because he was a scapegoat. Scapegoats don't run, by their very definition. It's always better to blame it all on a lone shooter, than acknowledge the corruption within the system.
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Edmund Storms wrote: Come now, let's be realistic. He did not run because he would not have been safe anywhere in the world. When you damage so many people, many of whom are very powerful and will connected to the Jewish community, you will be killed very soon after leaving the US. Besides, his family was also at risk. He took the only rational path. Could be. Although with all those millions probably something could be done, I think. Anyways, he nevertheless served the scapegoat role, from the moment he was exposed to the public view.
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I don't know why he didn't run. He didn't ran because he was a scapegoat. Scapegoats don't run, by their very definition. It's always better to blame it all on a lone shooter, than acknowledge the corruption within the system. This is wildly OFF TOPIC, it's provocative politics of the worst sort, it appears in this message unsupported by anything except your bald assertion. The discussion in this thread had to do with Madoff as a model for scammers in other areas, which is certainly relevant to the 'free energy' field. However, Mauro's dialectical twist on it is something else. We have heard all this junk about the corruption within the system being the root of all evil, very recently, from Grok. We have no need to hear it all over again from Mauro. PLEASE KEEP THIS GARBAGE OFF VORTEX.
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
From Mario Lacy: Edmund Storms wrote: Come now, let's be realistic. He did not run because he would not have been safe anywhere in the world. When you damage so many people, many of whom are very powerful and will connected to the Jewish community, you will be killed very soon after leaving the US. Besides, his family was also at risk. He took the only rational path. Could be. Although with all those millions probably something could be done, I think. Anyways, he nevertheless served the scapegoat role, from the moment he was exposed to the public view. I see that Mr. Lawrence has weighed in with his two cents as well. Now, it's my turn to shed a few pennies from my own purse, regardless of how wildly off topic this thread has degenerated to. To speculate that Maddox ...served the scapegoat role implies that through deliberate forethought and careful planning (a conspiracy, if you wish) he was left out in the open high-and-dry by his associates in order that they could save their own skins. But all the evidence that seems to have been revealed so far would indicate that Maddox pretty much masterminded his devastating Ponzi scheme all on his own. Certainly, it is conceivable that Maddox had a few assistants, possibly playing their roles passively. But their sins are likely to be more the sins of omission, as compared to the sins of commission. If such guilty parties DO exist, I suspect few will be discovered. They are not likely to be in positions of power where they could have pulled any strings that would have personally lead to Maddox being set up as the scapegoat. If anything, such assistants are probably pulling what few dwindling strings they have left at their own disposal to keep themselves carefully concealed from unwanted scrutiny. What I think is far more alarming, perhaps even sinister, is the fact that years ago certain financial analysts had already determined (some, without a shadow of doubt) that what Maddox was doing HAD to be blatantly illegal. What could almost be conceived as criminal negligence at work here is the fact that these whistleblower's attempts to warn the financial community were ignored. Perhaps another example of the sins of omission at work here. But, IMO, such sins of omission is not necessarily in itself evidence to support conjecture that Maddox was being carefully set up to play the role of a highly publicized scapegoat. I think it's more a matter that such sins of omission, (meaning: They did NOT investigate the matter as thoroughly as they should of when they had been given repeated evidence to suggest something was terribly amiss), are now causing such guilty parties to distance themselves as far as they possibly can from being personally tainted by the horrible Maddox fallout. But again, such actions to distance themselves from Maddox is not evidence in itself that they are operating covertly within the context of a conspiracy to turn Maddox into their personal scapegoat in order to save their own skins. Whom do you speculate these associates might be, the associates who allegedly masterminded subsequent events that are now being played out in the news, the ones that are responsible for personally turning Maddox into the scapegoat? ...Or are you using the term scapegoat within a different context? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
OrionWorks wrote: From Mario Lacy: Edmund Storms wrote: Come now, let's be realistic. He did not run because he would not have been safe anywhere in the world. When you damage so many people, many of whom are very powerful and will connected to the Jewish community, you will be killed very soon after leaving the US. Besides, his family was also at risk. He took the only rational path. Could be. Although with all those millions probably something could be done, I think. Anyways, he nevertheless served the scapegoat role, from the moment he was exposed to the public view. I see that Mr. Lawrence has weighed in with his two cents as well. Yeah, I don't like the direction a number of Mauro's posts are taking. Here are some additional items which started bells going off for me: Comment on capitalism: That's the classical (profit driven) capitalist line Comment on the economic system, and how incorrect it is: the economic system is today a superstructure of the politic system In short: we're are approaching the crisis of civilization which results from incorrect social and economic models, A comment directed at Jones and his lifestyle: Now, in front of the crisis, and instead of acknowledge this, you pretend to find some miracle energy source to merely postpone the day of reckoning Your way of life is also undesirable at the aesthetic and ethical levels. I for one don't want to live my life as a self-indulgent gluttonous person... I'm no doubt overreacting but the tone here is enough like Grok to make one wonder if one of the two was a sock puppet. (Note that Grok's English was intentionally so mis-spelled and mis-formed that he could very well have spoken it as a second language, and we might not have known.) Anyhow, Steve, as usual you are much, much better about giving the gentleman the benefit of the doubt, and your post (the part I snipped off, below) had some provocative/interesting points in it, which I won't respond to (since I just finished yelling about how this has deteriorated to being totally OT ;-) ). I have a nasty tendency to go off half cocked, and perhaps I am doing so this time too. Anyhow, I'll be out of town for a week, so I won't be yelling DIALECTIC! BAD! for at least a few days. 'Till next weekend... [snip part to which I'm not responding]
[Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=61849page=1#Item_0 Here is an excerpt from a message in the above thread. It's actually heresay (not directly from a juror); but, it rings true: I wasn't on the jury and first got to hear of it last year through some university people. They gave me a bit of the background. I took a mildly passing interest on how it would unfold. No confidentiality agreements were broken and no one was waving pieces of paper with drawings and the like around. In the early days, the jury were given test data in the form of computer printouts and spreadsheets. Steorn were asked for more details - test protocols, schematics, build details of the devices being tested etc. There were always reasons why these were not supplied. The main one being that the test rigs were too complicated and expensive to replicate and that Steorn was developing a simplified version of a rig (it wasn't called Orbo in those early days) which the jury members could replicate. At one stage it was stated to a couple of the jury members that Kinetica would be a preview of the unit the jury would get to see, build and test. This didn't happen. The excuses then became the need to iron out the glitches. It was at that point some of the jurors left for personal reasons. Apart from one (who did have genuine personal reasons), the reason was a frustration with Steorn and a lack of any evidence to verify. Steorn were advised late 2008 (end of October / early November) that the remaining members of the jury were going to return a negative verdict. There wasn't going to be a report ... since the jury essentially had nothing to report on. Steorn asked that they didn't go public until a comprehensive press statement could be prepared which would include the jurors' conclusion and Steorn's response. There were more delays ... Most of the jurors now believe this was so Steorn could come up with the Talks and the 300 engineers stage. Following even more delays the remaining jury members got so frustrated they told Steorn they were going to post their brief conclusion on ning. Steorn tried to convince them to delay it, again using talk of just about having the glitches solved. By this stage none of the jury believed them and the statement was published. Steorn had been given advanceed warning of the statement so had their press release ready. Bottom line ... all members of the jury are convinced Steorn do not have anything. They were given nothing to convince them otherwise. The onus was on Steorn to give them the evidence to evaluate. It didn't happen. end excerpt
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
From Terry: http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=61849page=1#Item_0 The steorn saga has been a real education for me. Whether it is naivety on my part or not, I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Steorn's engineers in assuming that they had accurately detected an energy/force anomaly in their ORBO technology. However, assessing these latest comments would seem to suggest to me that my trust may have been misplaced, perhaps badly so. If so it is not Steorn's fault, by my own alone. I still find what seems to be transpiring hard to reconcile within myself because my own common sense would seem to suggest to me that Steorn's engineers couldn't have been *that* stupid or so utterly self-deluded that couldn't have detected mistakes in their measurements. However, from my own personal experience I have to make the confession that once one has acquired a strong personal BELIEF in the existence of a particular process, any sense of objectivity pertaining to actual evidence that supports that BELIEF (or more importantly, the lack of actual evidence) is in danger of being parsed through the filters of one's personal beliefs. The results: The alleged explanations (excuses?) from Steorn's that the test rigs were too complicated and expensive to replicate, or that Steorn was attempting to build a simplified version might sound reasonable at first glance - perhaps for a while. However, as best as I can tell there simply doesn't seem to have EVER been any hard published data for which the jury could sink their teeth into. No wonder the jury eventually threw up their hands and left a sinking ship. In Zen-like philosophical terms, this does look to me to be a good example of the folly of what happens when one allows oneself to worship a belief, or as in this case: a belief in a process or technology. Creating beliefs are not in themselves bad or evil. Beliefs are simply tools we all end up crafting throughout our lives to help us negotiate our way through the universe we operate in. The problem is when we allow ourselves to identify our very existence, the innermost part of our soul, too closely with a belief we have personally manufactured. All too often we tend to forget the subtle fact that we were the ones who came up with the belief(s) we subscribe to in the first place. We forget that we are responsible for creating all the false-gods we worship. We subsequently don't notice our incessant attempts to continuously prop them up on a pedestal, for we literally fear that if they were allowed to topple, so will our very soul. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
OrionWorks wrote: From Terry: http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=61849page=1#Item_0 The steorn saga has been a real education for me. Whether it is naivety on my part or not, I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Steorn's engineers in assuming that they had accurately detected an energy/force anomaly in their ORBO technology. However, assessing these latest comments would seem to suggest to me that my trust may have been misplaced, perhaps badly so. If so it is not Steorn's fault, by my own alone. I still find what seems to be transpiring hard to reconcile within myself because my own common sense would seem to suggest to me that Steorn's engineers couldn't have been *that* stupid or so utterly self-deluded that couldn't have detected mistakes in their measurements. A quick slice using Occam's razor suggests a very simple explanation, one which doesn't require you to worry too much about your own belief in various aspects of reality. In short The Steorn engineers are not self-deluded. They're dishonest. Fraudulent. Liars, plain and simple. As far as I can tell, Steve, you are not dishonest, not a liar, and I dare say you would never undertake anything of a fraudulent nature. Consequently, you may find it hard to believe, on a gut level, that someone else could be so utterly bent, so totally alien to everything you think of as a normal human, as to publish bald-face lies about their work, and take investors' money using completely false promises about what is going to be done with it. You may find it even harder to believe that dishonest scum can *appear* open, trustworthy, cheerful, positive, and like all-around Good Guys. Consider this: So far, every claimed perpetual motion machine for which we have the full story has turned out to have been the result of either fraud or error, and most of the modern ones, done by people with a good deal of expertise, have been the result of fraud. The fact that Steorn's is, too, should surprise nobody. You might be tempted to say the Steorn operation is too big for it to be based on a fraudulent claim, with too many engineers in on the secret. But all you need to do is look at the Madoff mess to see absolute undeniable proof that a rather large organization, in business for many years, dealing with many customers, can be built entirely, 100%, on a flat lie, a lie which must *obviously* have been well known to all the insiders. Maybe only Madoff himself has been convicted, but surely every officer in the company, and most of the accountants and traders working for him, must have been in on the dirty little secret too. Dishonest people are a dime a dozen and finding enough smart ones to staff a sham organization is clearly possible. Don't waste sympathy on anybody at Steorn. They're the kind of repulsive people who make it necessary to have a lock on your front door.
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: The Steorn engineers are not self-deluded. They're dishonest. Fraudulent. I have not been following the story. Is there evidence that they benefited financially? It isn't a fraud unless someone is defrauded. People have claimed the Mills is a fraud, but I see zero evidence for that. He has collected millions of dollars, but it has been spent on laboratory equipment and salaries. If he was dishonest he would take the money and run, instead of spending it on mass spectrometers. Is there evidence that the people at Steorn have collected money and not spent it on research? Or that they paid themselves more than a typical researcher might earn? If there is no evidence for this, and if most of the money has been spent, then I suppose it is not fraud. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: The Steorn engineers are not self-deluded. They're dishonest. Fraudulent. I have not been following the story. Is there evidence that they benefited financially? It isn't a fraud unless someone is defrauded. They had investors. I think that says it all. If you lie to prospective investors about something material to your company and then you accept investment money, that's fraud. Doesn't matter what you do with the money afterward. People have claimed the Mills is a fraud, but I see zero evidence for that. He has collected millions of dollars, but it has been spent on laboratory equipment and salaries. See above. Mills has investors, and his claims have encouraged them to invest. Either he's right, or he's mistaken, or he's committing fraud; there's no fourth possibility. But in any case, regarding the question of where the money went, how do you know what he spent it on? Have you audited his books? Some of it, certainly, went to lab equipment. I think that's the most an outsider can say with certainty. Perhaps more to the point, has Mills, personally, drawn no salary? If he was dishonest he would take the money and run, instead of spending it on mass spectrometers. The kind of argument you're positing doesn't work in cases of massive fraud, because you're assuming the person in question thinks like a normal person. But perpetrators of fraud at that scale don't think like normal people. Consider Madoff again; he's a great counter-example to nearly all common sense arguments about whether a particular situation could be a case of fraud: Madoff stayed until the money ran out and the roof fell in -- he had no exit strategy, as far as I can see. And note well: Madoff spent an awful lot of the money paying out 'interest' on people's investments. He didn't just run off with the whole pile; if he had, he'd be living in luxury today on some South Seas island. Madoff's company was built on a Ponzi scheme and everyone who knows anything about finance knowns Ponzi schemes have a limited lifetime and inevitably collapse. It's simple arithmetic. Certainly, Bernard Madoff must have known, too. Yet, he ran it without building an exit strategy. Bernard Madoff could not be a fictional character because his behavior made no sense; a character like that would ruin a good book by making it unbelievable. Yet, he exists, and by existing he proves the possibility of someone heading up a large organization built entirely on lies, and what's more, lies which have a 100% probability of eventually being exposed, to the ruin of all involved. So, don't say, If he were dishonest, he'd maximize his profit by doing XYZ sensible (but despicable) thing, and he's not doing it, so he can't be dishonest. Dishonest people do not always act in sensible ways. Is there evidence that the people at Steorn have collected money and _not_ spent it on research? Or that they paid themselves more than a typical researcher might earn? If there is no evidence for this, and if most of the money has been spent, then I suppose it is not fraud. No, as I said, if they lied to investors, then it's fraud, and it doesn't matter what kind of salaries they drew.
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I have not been following the story. Is there evidence that they benefited financially? It isn't a fraud unless someone is defrauded. They had investors. I think that says it all. Not necessarily. As I said, it depends on how they spent the money. (I have no idea how the people at Steorn spent the money.) See above. Mills has investors, and his claims have encouraged them to invest. Either he's right, or he's mistaken, or he's committing fraud; there's no fourth possibility. I do not think there is any chance he is committing fraud, because, as I said there are much easier ways to commit fraud. Fraud does not involve locking yourself in a lab for decades, slaving over mass spectrometers. If it fraud, you just pretend to be working, while actually you are at the beach getting a tan. But in any case, regarding the question of where the money went, how do you know what he spent it on? I do not know, but I have heard from people who visited Mills and have connections that all of the money appears to be spent on research. Of course this is only a rough estimate, but there is no sign that millions have been pocketed. Perhaps more to the point, has Mills, personally, drawn no salary? That's hardly called for! Unless he is fabulously wealthy, he deserves a reasonable salary. His investors cannot expect him to live on air. If he is paying himself $200,000 a year, I would call that borderline fraud. $1 million per year would be out-and-out fraud. If he was dishonest he would take the money and run, instead of spending it on mass spectrometers. The kind of argument you're positing doesn't work in cases of massive fraud . . . I mean that people like Madoff do not actually do any work. Madoff did not invest the money. He just spent it. If he had invested it and lost it, without telling anyone, that would be accounting fraud but not a Ponzi scheme. If he invested it, lost it all, and told everyone in their monthly statements, that would not be fraud. It would be bad luck or incompetence. By the same token, reliable sources tell me that Mills and his colleagues are working hard at the lab. If he spends all of the investment funds and does not succeed in making a useful or at least a convincing gadget, that would not be fraud either. Again, it would be bad luck or incompetence. Perfectly legal, as long as he tells the investors what is happening, and informs them up front that his venture is risky. Madoff stayed until the money ran out and the roof fell in -- he had no exit strategy, as far as I can see. That's true. But most Ponzi scheme operators do have an exit strategy -- they run. He was too famous to run, I guess. And note well: Madoff spent an awful lot of the money paying out 'interest' on people's investments. He didn't just run off with the whole pile; if he had, he'd be living in luxury today on some South Seas island. That's how a Ponzi scheme works. You have to pay the early investors to make the take grow exponentially. You kite it up and then just before it collapses, you grab the money and run. Madoff did not run, but most Ponzi operators do, as I said. He acted like a bank robber who stands on the street in front the bank counting the cash until the cops show up. He seems addled. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Occam's razor suggests to me that the most likely explanation of what happened is that the engineers and researchers at Steorn simply deluded themselves. It's easy to do, I know from personal experience – even with the best intentions, especially if you believe you are interpreting and/or applying the physics at hand correctly when in fact you haven't. Sometimes, all it can take is assuming a fundamental value should be applied positively when it should have been applied negatively. Whatever... Regarding fraud, there exists a similar explanation placed out at Wikipedia, our source of accurate news – with tongue firmly lodged in cheek. I personally find the explanation, the rationale a tad too dramatic and unnecessarily complex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn Many people have accused Steorn of engaging in a publicity stunt although Steorn deny such accusations.[19] Eric Berger, for example, writing on the Houston Chronicle website, commented: Steorn is a former e-business company that saw its market vanish during the dot.com bust. It stands to reason that Steorn has re-tooled as a Web marketing company, and is using the free energy promotion as a platform to show future clients how it can leverage print advertising and a slick Web site to promote their products and ideas. If so, it's a pretty brilliant strategy.[20] Thomas Ricker at Engadget suggested that Steorn's free-energy claim was a ruse to improve brand recognition and to help them sell Hall probes.[21] It seems to me that much of this kind of juicy conjecture involves a far too complex and elaborate game plan, at least within my personal paradigm of how the universe works. But then it's only my own created universe we're talking about here. ;-) As Otter once tried to console, Flounder, in the classic film, Animal House – Hey! You f_cked up! Well... Hey! Steorn! You F_cked up! Well, who hasn't. Perhaps it's time to move on. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
It reminds me of Greg Watson. We never could figure out what his motive was. He claimed to have found an anomaly in magnetic fields that he could exploit. He claimed to have built a magnetic track which would move a ball around the track indefinitely. But it could never be looked at independently. Craig Haynie (Houston)
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Fraud: 2. (Law) An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of obtaining some valuable thing or promise from another. Valuable a. 1. Having value or worth; possessing qualities which are useful and esteemed; precious; costly; as, a valuable horse; valuable land; a valuable cargo. If you sell me one share of stock, then in exchange I will give you some money, which has value or worth, and so is valuable. If you lied about the share of stock, then that was fraud, and it doesn't matter whether you spend the money on your sick grandmother, or donate it to the church, or spend it on a bottle of Chivas. It's still fraud. * * * Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I have not been following the story. Is there evidence that they benefited financially? It isn't a fraud unless someone is defrauded. They had investors. I think that says it all. Not necessarily. As I said, it depends on how they spent the money. (I have no idea how the people at Steorn spent the money.) And as I said, no it doesn't. Securities fraud depends on what you say, and on whether people give you money. It doesn't depend on what you spend it on. See above. Mills has investors, and his claims have encouraged them to invest. Either he's right, or he's mistaken, or he's committing fraud; there's no fourth possibility. I do not think there is any chance he is committing fraud, because, as I said there are much easier ways to commit fraud. So? I don't think he's committing fraud either, but I don't think your argument gets you to first base in proving it. People do all kinds of things the hard way. And if Mills *IS* committing fraud, I warrant that it's not just for the money, and reasoning founded on the notion that he is just trying to maximize his income is not going to lead you to the right conclusion. Fraud does not involve locking yourself in a lab for decades, slaving over mass spectrometers. If it fraud, you just pretend to be working, while actually you are at the beach getting a tan. That's the common image of a fraudster, yes. If they're sensible that's what they do. If they're sensible they mostly don't get into this situation to start with, tho. You can't apply common sense arguments to predict their behavior. But in any case, regarding the question of where the money went, how do you know what he spent it on? I do not know, but I have heard from people who visited Mills and have connections that all of the money appears to be spent on research. Of course this is only a rough estimate, but there is no sign that millions have been pocketed. Perhaps more to the point, has Mills, personally, drawn no salary? That's hardly called for! Yes it is called for, given the point I was trying to make, which is that *IF* he has been lying about his results, *THEN* he is committing fraud: He took money from people based in part on his results, and he spent at least some of it on himself. If those results were faked, then that is certainly fraud. Unless he is fabulously wealthy, he deserves a reasonable salary. His investors cannot expect him to live on air. If he is paying himself $200,000 a year, I would call that borderline fraud. $1 million per year would be out-and-out fraud. No, that's wrong. Please do not mix up the word fraud with the word bad. In for a penny, in for a pound; it is or it isn't, and it doesn't depend on the amount of money involved. It is fraud if and ONLY if he lies about it to his investors. If he draws a salary of a million a year, *AND* he either discloses that in the Prospectus for the company, or he doesn't say anything about it and only discloses the total amount spent on salaries (including his fat one), then he didn't lie about it and that outsize salary, by itself, is NOT FRAUD. If he was dishonest he would take the money and run, instead of spending it on mass spectrometers. The kind of argument you're positing doesn't work in cases of massive fraud . . . I mean that people like Madoff do not actually do any work. False. Read some more about Madoff's slide down. He did invest it, at least to start with, and slid into the Ponzi scheme only when the investments went south and he needed to jazz up results for what he supposedly hoped would be a short term. How many researchers and inventors have gone that same route when the initial results didn't pan out, and the idea they had turned out not to work as they had expected? We'll just adjust the results a little until we get the experiment to work better... I don't know but I'm sure the number is nonzero. The Dark Side is always calling, and when things go wrong, some people answer the call. AFAIK Madoff's company never stopped investing, either -- in fact they couldn't, it would have been screamingly obvious if they had no investments at all. There's only so much you can cook the books before they turn completely to mush. And
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
OrionWorks wrote: Perhaps it's time to move on. D'accord. I'm too much of a cynic anyway. I shall stop venting here.
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
From Mr. Lawrence: ... I don't know why he didn't run. ... Shoot! I'm still alive! I thought I'd surely die in my bed of silken sheets before everything unraveled. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
