Let's cut thru this cloud of confusion, shall we? In historical warfare, opposing armies would build "Strongholds". A stronghold is a fortified position from which an army could launch offensive strikes or retreat to for defense. A typical example would be a walled city and/or a tower in such a wall. A typical charateristic of a Stronghold is that it takes considerably less resources and manpower to defend a stronghold than to overcome it. Such a stronghold is very hard to overcome. It would take considerable effort, energy and resources to overcome a well fortified stronghold. Any action of the opposing army for any other tactical goal becomes less important as long as the stronghold remains intact - in fact, they are irrelevant. Any tactical goal achieved by the opponent will quickly be overcomed by offensive actions launched from a stronghold. This "operating base" doctrine is still applicable today, of which our concept of a carrier battle group is based on. (Why do you think other countries like China are so concerned about our carriers?) Overcoming a stronghold requires an overwhelming majority of forces and resources. In fact, the outcome of the battle is always determined on whether such a stronghold holds or is overrun. In ancient times, the capital of the Assyrian Empire Nineveh was surrounded by an inner and outer wall over 60 feet high. The walls enclosed an area with enough planting land to sustain a population of over 600,000. Such a stronghold is very difficult to overcome as any tactical gains achieved by the enemy can quickly be recovered with offensive stikes launched from such a stronghold. In fact, it took the combined resources of 3 rival kingdoms (Babylonians, Medes and Scythians) to finally overcome Nineveh.
With this background, I would like to introduce my way of thinking, to help me cut thru the cloud of wrong information, confusing statements, and incomplete facts, I always like to identify what I call "Stronghold" arguments that are very hard to demolish. Every argument point or logic by the opponent is less important and even irrelevant until he can satisfactorily address and overcome the Stronghold Argument. Let me illustrate a couple of actual examples of a "Stronghold" argument. 1. In the case of Darwinian Evolution, there are over a dozen Stronghold arguments. These include: Abiogenesis, Genetic Improbabality, Specified Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, Biological Chirality and others. Until such time as proponents of DE can address these concerns, any other argument they make is irrelevant. For example, proponents can introduce clever arguments like Punctuated Evolution, but until they can address how life arose out of non-life chemicals, all their Punctuated Evolution arguments are irrelevent. Now, I am only mentioning this to illustrate my point. I am not necessarily inclined to reopen the DE vs Intelligent Design argument. 2. With the Brither issue, the Stronghold argument is "Why Obama still has a gag order in place for access to his vault Birth Certificate". College dropouts can argue with all their verbose "eloquence" that the BC presented was real, etc. etc., but until they can answer why Obama is still restricting access to this most basic of all documents, all their other arguments are irrelevant. 3. In the case of this Papp engine. The stronghold argument consists of asking why after 30 years, is there still no viable Papp engine we can buy. We can argue about whether confinement, gremlins, Rydberg matter or plasma is the source of the power, but until we can answer this simple question, all those arguments are irrelevant. 4. In the case of Rossi and his cats, I have not identified a stronghold argument, that is why I am still undecided. His lying and misbehaviour can be explained as part of his business strategy. 5. In the case of DGT, the stronghold argument may consist of recognizing why DGT has not released the data from half a dozen third party testers. This glaring and deliberate omission is a very strong argument for recognizing whether DGT has something or nothing. 6. In the case of whether Feynman or Papp was at fault for manslaugther, well, let's examine a few facts and I will present my stronghold argument. First, Papp sued Feynman. The University defended their star professor. A settlement was reached. The stronghold argument consists of recognizing that the University would not settle unless Feynman was guilty. A University has access to incredible resources, and high-priced lawyers. Even after deploying these considerable resources, they could not prove that Papp rigged his engine to explode. When one recognizes this stronghold argument, it becomes clear who the guilty party is. Feynman should have been incarcerated for this, but I guess, miscarriage of justice was evident. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: James Bowery To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion There was a man killed in this explosion. Either Feynamnn was guilty of manslaughter or Papp was guilty of manslaughter. Neither ever got his day in court.
