Regarding recent comments made by Hoyt Stearns: ...
> Their strategy is rather bizarre, but in a way I think it is > ingenious for many reasons (speculative): > > They must prove that their techniques are not "obvious to anyone > skilled in the art" for patentability, even though they are > extremely simple. > > They have released many clues over the years, and still no one has > conclusively made a self runner ( except one person who was unable > to repeat his experiment after trying to optimize it ). > > They must avoid serious attention of the "Men In Black". This is > a delicate balancing act. I’m reminded of a great move “The Verdict” starring the late Paul Newman as a has-been down and out of his luck lawyer forced to feed off the bereaved at funeral homes. In the movie there was a classic comment uttered by another equally seedy lawyer. I gather the “advice” being dispensed is a cross examination tactic most defense/prosecution lawyers must know by heart: Never ask a question of a witness on the stand for which you don’t already know the answer. * * * So, what does STEORN know, and when did Steorn know it? ;-) Hoyt, please correct me if I’m wrong here but you seem to be implying that Steorn may be deliberately attempting to “herd” all the rabid skeptics and debunkers down a particular line of reasoning, and then at the right moment, go in “for the kill.” According to this “theory”, it seems to me that Steorn would have to have actively speculated that they knew using the D cell on the contraption would immediately draw significant criticism and yells of “fraud!” from all the card-carrying disbelievers. It also implies to me that, in order to execute an effective “kill” Steorn would have to ALREADY have the equivalent of another prototype in hiding, a prototype that they plan on rolling out at a pregnant moment of public scrutiny, a prototype that clearly does NOT have a “D” cell configuration, a new prototype that clearly is not getting any external electrical energy from such an obviously prosaic source. Such a planned tactic would have to attempt to control and funnel all the active debunking criticism down a very specific shoot of “reasoning”. Lead them all down to the ol’slaughter house, and then at the right moment, whack them over the head. Hopefully, they’ll never know what hit them! ;-) Ok... back to Earth, Steve! While this is obviously outlandish speculation on my part, in fact speculation that seems to break the basic sensibilities of Occam’s Razor, it is a potential tactic that is not entirely unheard of. I’m sure variations have been executed many times within certain international CIA operations. It COULD be extremely effective if everyone knows the role they must play and WHEN to speak their lines clearly. Maybe it will work. Or maybe not. I think it would be a very dangerous game to play, particularly for those inexperienced in playing the game of trying to control (funnel) all the major lines of skeptical reasoning to a very specific point where it can be destroyed, utterly. Based on Steorn’s past record, specifically the failed 2007 demonstration, their operations seemed to indicate they weren’t terribly skilled at the game of manipulating public opinion to their favor. I hope Steorn has done their homework when it comes to running covert operations. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
