At 02:44 PM 12/16/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 12/16/2009 02:23 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
So, not only are the batteries running down (obvious from the slowing
of the motors discussed in another thread) but the units seem to be
failing. The cameras also go off line at convenient times. What in
heck are they up to? Too much Irish whiskey?
Conclusions:
1) They're not slick, after all. (I was certainly wrong about
that.) I guess we should have guessed that from the earlier fiasco.
2) They're not all that bright, it appears. This isn't going to
convince anyone of anything good, and they should have at least had
a good idea of how long their batteries would last. Did they even
test this design before they set up the demo?
3) There's no hidden power source.
4) Their demo is obviously totally phony.
5) This is too blatant to be self-deception. Nobody capable of
building a motor of any sort could be so totally retarded as these
guys would need to be to continue believing their own nonsense with
stuff like this going on.
6) When I said things would still be murky come the end of January,
I was wrong.
Didn't someone have a theory that they were doing all this just to
show how good they are at running a PR campaign?
If Steorn really does have investors, they may get into rather deep
trouble over this -- they are surely in violation of a number of
securities laws. Madoff's team had no exit strategy, which I found
nearly inexplicable. Perhaps these folks have the same disease
(whatever it is).
A "perpmo machine" built from existing novelty toys would work
better than their demo.
Well, Stephen, my comment is that you are effing naive. You are
correct about the visible facts, but are making exactly the kind of
assumptions that a skilled magician would want you to make. There are
people who know how to do this stuff, you know!
I have some serious problems with the Amazing Randi, but he is good
at smelling out some of this stuff, because he's been good at it
himself. It's called Magic. The art of deception, and a major device
is misdirection. You create an impression in the audience of what the
trick is, building that, allowing them to believe it, then you turn
it upside down and show that their theory is totally false. You have
done something entirely different, and, having put so much energy
into the hypothesis you led them into, with all your skill, they are
flat footed and their jaws drop and they have no ideas at all.
That's the effect of that contrast between expectation and reality.
For a moment, it creates the impression that they don't know Bleep.
That's actually a good thing, by the way. We don't, more often than
we like to admit. But that doesn't mean that you should give all your
money to a someone who can turn a $1 bill into a $20 with his little
box, so that he can multiply it for you. Even if he lets you look at
the box all you want. There are other ways to run that trick that
don't involve anything odd about the box! More than one.
Really, if you are up against a skilled magician, you are dealing
with someone with a thousand times as much experience in the
situation as you. This person knows all the responses you might have,
can observe and see exactly what you are thinking, etc., and knows
how to lead that thinking exactly where he wants it to go. It's
skill, born of study and practice, and isn't really a mystery --
except inasmuch as human consciousness and skill are mysteries....
