A2: >At best, its inconclusive based on independent testing. >Not as cut and dried as you position it. Not at all. Only if you count "some guy's" website or an un-credentialed/referenced magazine article author as equal weight against experts under oath in a court of law. Let's let a court scrutinize "some guy's" credentials and if approved let's put him under oath and hear what he has to say. Until then he's "some guy" with a website. >As far as his death comment, that was already corrected in >earlier in the thread. Would you mind referencing the post where this was corrected? Thanks. JB
A graphic copy of the magazine article is referenced here: http://www.angelfire.com/sd/paulkemble/stan4.html Are you accusing Wireless World of libel? And printing false testimony on behalf of prominent individuals????? Seems a little far fetched, doesn't it? Its in the article, genius.
A2: >Are you accusing Wireless World of libel? ... Perhaps you should check the definition of "libel". LOL And to answer your question directly, "no, I am not accusing Wireless World of libel". ...>And printing false testimony on >behalf of prominent individuals????? Uhhh...on behalf of what "prominent individuals"? >Seems a little far fetched, doesn't it? What seems far fetched to me is believing that a magazine article carries the same weight as statements by credentialed individuals under oath. >Its in the article, genius. Uhhh... What's in the article? JB
achilles28 Registered: Apr 2005 Posts: 1058 09-11-07 08:40 PM After performing a demonstration for the Queen of England and some Military Heavyweights - who agreed he had unlocked H20 free energy - the guy was killed at his inaugural dinner for a American Research Facility in his honor. Food poisoning. achilles28 Registered: Apr 2005 Posts: 1058 09-12-07 08:23 AM Stan died of apparent food poisoning at 57. The time and place is disputed. So this is supposed to be a "correction"? What a friggin liar......
I guess you missed the fact that this post was to Madison, not you. Ok, so you disagree with my opinion about why you would make a derogatory post towards my Copy/Paste jobs that I'm supposedly "famous" for. Fine. Care to explain why then? Crickets chirping.....
Well, I'll just say this - it looks like he may have had a "novel way" of electrolysis. The patents prove this. The lawsuit against him say that his claims about "free energy" were false, however. Towards the end of the article it mentions some concerns about whether or not it actually produces more power than it consumes. It says that these questions remain unanswered. Maybe due to patent laws? Or is he just another hoax inventor? I'm sure that others, by now, have built more of these WFC's. Has anyone ever published the data? It would be VERY easy to prove as a workable system if it was true. So, any data?
Seems to me all he is doing is converting the energy stored in the water as hydrogen. That takes energy, so how can it be a net gain in output? I would like to see some data on energy expended and the output. PS Homerun, thanks for posting this. I find it very interesting, just don't understand how it could be economically feasible. PPS. You're right about electric engines being powerful. Afterall that's what locomotives use.
Play stupid all you want. The article is right there in black-and-white for all to see. http://www.angelfire.com/sd/paulkemble/stan4.html
The facts surrounding Stan Meyers death are contested. Prove it otherwise (you won't). My correction came Long Before your pathetic ass began whining about it. Why? Because I avoid posting rumor and innuendo (and correct myself if done so). If you had actually read the post, it was prefaced with an admission of bad memory. Not surprisingly, you left that key bit of info out. Backpedaling on that Page#7 hissy fit was the smartest thing you could have done. Frankly, it was embarrassing. Between your pseudo Freudian guesswork and pansy ass attempts at redemption, you look like a tired little fool trying to make good on hot air and empty hubris. Others have noted this. Your spam jobs are a matter of public record (use the search function). Yes, in-the-not-so-long-ago past, you routinely passed off the work of others as your own rants. Again, not surprising given the quality of character demonstrated here. If you haven't anything constructive to contribute, then myself and others would be most happy if you kept quiet. I'm giving you the last word. Feel free to start a new thread defaming all you like. See ya