At 07:25 am 28-02-05 -0800, Jones wrote:
> Steve, Frank et al.
>
> Speaking of this "incident" i.e.
>
>>> Charles called the "incident" a meltdown. I'm not quite
>>> sure why he labeled it as such..... The hole in the concrete
>>> floor was 30cm wide by 10cm deep. Somebody want to tell me
>>> that the concrete *melted*? I don't think so.
>
>> That is an extremely valuable confirmation of the facts,
>> Steve. As an expert in the failure of concrete I can
>> definitely say, that ain't no meltdown. ;-)
>
> And also, remember the runaway incident of Vince Cockeram.
> It is too easy for the skeptics to call these incidents
> "anecdotal," because they are singularities that have not
> been reproduced, and were huge surprises even to the
> experimenters. They just were not supposed to happen. If one
> accepts that the accounts are true and accurate, of what has
> transpired, then that raises the level of evidence to a
> entirely different level above "anecdotal" IMHO.
Too bloody right, mate!!!
> This is something that is so unusual in science, that
> the funders are at a total loss on how to proceed,
> in time of tight budgets due to unnecessary war.
>
> Personally, I have absolutely no doubt that the accounts
> are true and accurate accounts, so let's move on to the next
> step. What do we have here?
>
> To me, the best analogy is an ancient shipwreck.
Yep. Blackbeard's Treasure - and we've got the map that everyone
else thinks is a forgery - but we know damn well it ain't.
In trader's parlance, we have the necessary "edge". (see
ISBN 0-06-074064-7 page 16).
> Let's say some dusty threadbare evidence has been found in a
> Madrid library about a treasure ship that went down five
> hundred years ago off the coast of Florida. A manifest of
> the contents is listed. OK this is somewhat anecdotal,
> right? Five hundred years clouds a lot of memories, and
> maybe the pirates got it first, or the manifest was faked,
> or maybe the captain absconded with the goods and called it
> a shipwreck, etc. etc.
>
> You can ignore it, which is what most people do, or you can
> try to do something about it. If you have $80,000 you can
> hire a small boat and a diver and search for a few years and
> probably turn up nothing. There is a lot of ocean out there.
>
> Like many visitors to Key West in thirty years ago, I met
> Mel Fisher in a bar (he made the rounds daily to all the
> bars) and was given the spiel on the Atocha. At the time, my
> thinking was more like Bob Park, and I thought this guy was
> nuts and wasting his time and the money or others.
>
> Fast forward, and we find Mel and his investors (and the
> great state of Florida) now several hundred million dollars
> wealthier, because he was able to overcome natural
> skepticism about second hand accounts that "appeared"
> reliable, and raise considerably more capital than other
> treasure hunters (it is addictive, I hear) in order to
> finance his dream. It paid off.
>
> The comparison here to cold fusion is that instead of
> several hundred million dollars found in the Atocha, finding
> the answer to either of the two" anecdotal" incidents, known
> and appreciated by the vortex crowd as accurate accounts,
> the payoff will be in the hundreds of billions of
> dollars...or is that an exaggeration? I think not.
>
> How much effort does that warrant? Certainly a quarter of
> the yearly hot fusion budget, no?
>
> Jones
If you were practising as a barrister, Jones, and I was up
before the beak, I'd certainly want you on my case. ;-)
Cheers,
Frank
Where do I find out about "the runaway incident of Vince Cockeram."
