Over Unity is No Longer Disputable

I am completely confused. If I was running a scam. I would not set up 4 cameras in a public display and never produce anything at all. Why?

What is the gain?

Why not make a video of a fake? Or stage a private bogus display with a paid audience?

C' mon skeptics make me believe.
 
There are many possible reasons, including stupidity, but in my opinion the most likely explanation is the one about them demonstrating PR leverage for potential future clients.
 
Sorry. I was having so much fun, I forgot to quote post 200, re: hot sauce.

But Wollery-If I were going to hire PR firms, I don't think I'd hire an outfit that was so blatantly manipulative, lest I be manipulated, myself.'Course, I suppose it's the subtle manipulation which should be feared the most.
 
It's very simple.

They're saying "We can cause huge public interest in something that doesn't even work, just think what we could do for a real product."
 
True, enough Wollery. But, I say that this case isn't a good seller for the firm, because they are selling something for which the demand is already there.
Sell some ice cubes to the eskimos, if you want to impress me.
 
g4macdad said:
They wanted a demonstration of the machine without giving the complete design away for the whole world to easily copy, but the engineers didn't succeed. Or the whole thing is bogus.
Click to expand...

Huh? Showing the finished product working gives the "complete design" away? That's like saying that if you can see a train locomotive, you know the complete design of it's innards. I don't think so.

What does DR say? Pasture pizza for 50, Alex. :)
 
I agree with trvlr2. Doing PR for a product that could actually revolutionize humanity is kids play. Even without PR at all it would draw huge attention as the product sells itself (even if it is not physically realizable).

Maybe their motive is focusing the world's attention to the need for new 'green' sources of power.

Regards,
Yair
 
Beady said:
I dispute that.
Click to expand...

a_unique_person said:
OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here, I'm disputing over unity.

There, I did it.
Click to expand...

Beady and AUP: Brave pioneers standing up for human knowledge gleaned through centuries of scientific progress.

Beady and AUP: Blind pussies who can't recognize revolutionary progress when it is right in front of their faces.

Which is it? I know, it is ....
 
g4macdad said:
I am completely confused. If I was running a scam. I would not set up 4 cameras in a public display and never produce anything at all. Why?

What is the gain?

Why not make a video of a fake? Or stage a private bogus display with a paid audience?

C' mon skeptics make me believe.
Click to expand...

When you look at the history of enough quack claims asking questions like that will just make your head explode. If you turn that logic upside down then why wouldn't they do it if people would just ask the question you just did rather than just recognize the absurdity?

My suggestion would be to read in depth about the history of many claims that you can verify are quack claims. You'll never again ask the above question again. You'll also be better equipped to recognize when you are being scammed. It even happens within peer reviewed journals. I hoped that cold fusion, sonofusion, etc. would pan out but I knew even there it was a very long shot.

A good example is the Princeton Pear research. That article is about closing down but that's not exactly true. They are taking it to the public as a business venture. What was Brenda Dunnes' response to Randis' challenge?
We are not in the business of demonstrating “paranormal" abilities.
Click to expand...
and
His offer is a scam.
Click to expand...

http://www.randi.org/jr/072905beenthere.html#1
Read and learn.
 
You can't win a point by citing a supposed post buried in 8+ pages of other posts. Anyway, it's an entirely different thread, of which I was totally unaware; I can't be accused of copying if I didn't actually copy. AUP copied me in this thread because my post occurred before his, and we know that no true Scotsman skeptic would add a response without first reading the entire thread.
 
g4macdad said:
I am completely confused. If I was running a scam. I would not set up 4 cameras in a public display and never produce anything at all. Why?

What is the gain?

Why not make a video of a fake? Or stage a private bogus display with a paid audience?

C' mon skeptics make me believe.
Click to expand...

The plan is very simple.

Anounce you have a machine that will generate untold wealth

and you simply require personal investors to part finance the final stages R$D

Impress said gulliable fools investors with some science mumbo jumbo

sell 5-10% share chunks for as much $$ as you can manage

Suffer a number of R&D "setbacks" - thus keeping the completion date "some time soon."

Keep this up for several years - each year obviously announcing significant R&D costs....

Once you have milked any new investment, announce that you have run out of funds - and that due to "financial difficulties" you have to close the business

Enjoy being a millionaire

See, it doesn't matter what their excuses are at this stage, as long as they are semi-plausible. They'll already have $$ in the bank. They just need "setbacks" to justify where all that money will have disappeared to when they finally announce the project can't continue. Keeping those excuses simple and nebulous is a far safer bet than constructing elaborate hoaxes which are far more likely to be busted. Always remember to KISS ;)

say, g4macdad I've got a fantastic get rich quick scheme - 500% returns guaranteed, I just need some initial capital, are you in? :)
 
Last edited:
wollery said:
It's very simple.

They're saying "We can cause huge public interest in something that doesn't even work, just think what we could do for a real product."
Click to expand...

Hmm, I am pretty sure they would be in jail though, so.............:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom