They were probably both guilty of ignorance of what the reaction actually was/is and its potential although Papp had an idea. Unfortunately more injury may result until the reaction(s) are nailed down. There is a reason Plasmerg/Rohners maintain Lexan bullet proof glass around their devices, they have no &%&^%! idea how to control it from self-destructing the devices.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > ** > 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 <jabow...@gmail.com> > *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. > >
