The Solution vs Hoax equation

[Tom Booth]

Well that is a matter of perspective Tom.  In a world where the ratio of hoaxes, frauds, and mistakes likely outweigh genuine OU or FE machines, one has to approach submissions from the point of first proving that a submission isn't a hoax, fraud, or mistake.  If it is none of those, then it passes a bar which gives it a major push towards forwarding, funding, and recognition.

It's a glass half empty/full equation.  The idea isn't to prove it is a hoax, it's to prove it isn't....or...hmm?  Motive really doesn't matter, only result.

I'm not suggesting a witch hunt, but witches do exist and must be looked out for when searching for Puritans.  Does that make sense?

Um, yeah, I guess. sort of. But here is my question or perhaps paradox.

Assume a guy has a REAL device.

What is the intent of the "investigating team" ? Really ?

Say I'm part of that team just for arguments sake. What am I looking for or what is this team really looking for ?

Something to invest in ?

In that case it would be in our best interest as potential investors that there be patents, protection, iron clad secrecy, non disclosure agreements etc. the whole nine yards.

Say the inventor is of the same general mind set. He wants to patent his device. He hopes to hit it big time, but realistically, can a bunch of guys with names like audiomaker (not to get personal) from some internet message board be trusted ?

If you were the inventor, would you trust US ? I think not. The whole deal would have to be iron clad and real and legal with lawyers and written signed documentation. Can a "team" of so-called or self proclaimed "experts" make any such guarantees to an inventor ?

As far as I can see there is no real possibility of any such thing happening.

First of all, from an inventors perspective, what is OUR credibility ? Who am I addressing in here ? Really. I have no clue. How is this "team" of "experts" from this internet message board supposed to establish any kind of credibility ?

But, lets just say all that is really possible somehow. Where does that leave the so called "puritan"?

He's left high and dry while the "team" is off chasing some hair brained shyster with a get rich scheme in hand looking for the big payoff.

There is no money in the puritan. He has a rough time just trying to give his idea away to a world full of greed and self interest. All that really seems to mater is not does it work but is the stock ticker going up or down. You can make a million dollars on a fraud if enough people THINK it MIGHT work as long as you get out before the fraud is revealed but then who cares, you can laugh all the way to the bank. That seems to be the current trend unfortunately.

[Tusk]

Well you already know my interest in this 

Put my Paradox Engine on your list and let's have some experts give it a good kicking. I realise it's not a working OU system (yet) but there's enough there to confound any serious investigation.... and may I claim 'first in best dressed'?

[Tom Booth]

Well you already know my interest in this 

Put my Paradox Engine on your list and let's have some experts give it a good kicking. I realise it's not a working OU system (yet) but there's enough there to confound any serious investigation.... and may I claim 'first in best dressed'?

I think I'd be in favor of that as as far as I can tell you seem as "puritan" as anybody although I really have no idea what your engine is supposed to be doing and have more or less myself, while trying to keep an open mind, classified it in the... what is the official term for it ?

I see what looks like a motor running, presumably being powered by an attached  battery pack all revolving on a lazy Susan. I'll confess to not having taken the first step by reading through your thread. I assume there is some explanation there of what is going on that is such a paradox but at present I just don't get it, though I've been trying. In my experience with motors. ANY motor. If you just set it on the floor you will see some side torque making it turn. But lets not get into that here. I'll visit your thread and ask questions if I have any there after I give it a thorough read. As yet I don't see any potential for anything with this contraption of yours but maybe you can help me take the blinders off.

But, just the same, whatever my personal opinion or first impression of your particular device, it is typical I think of the "puritan" knocking on the door. Certainly not hard to find or identify being ignored.

The "team" has plenty of material at its doorstep, or so it seems to me. Your main flaw is you don't offer any kind of investment opportunity. Get a patent, sign this non-disclosure agreement, then we'll talk.

[Tusk]

Thanks Tom (initially misread the origin of the reply - apologies). I'll make myself as available as possible (I occasionally stop to eat, sleep etc) and answer all questions as intelligently and accurately as I can manage. Feel free to use email if you'd rather not clutter up the forum, people are simply not asking many questions and I suspect this is due to concerns about being 'behind the 8 ball', which nobody really enjoys, so you may prefer a private discussion (not confidential - you could re-post any material you thought relevant).

We may struggle to find common ground initially - I have trouble grasping the fact that while there is significantly more mass in motion than is being 'paid' for yet nobody else thinks much of this circumstance. Which seems odd to me as I would have thought this a requirement for mechanical OU.

[Tusk]

@ Tom Booth

There appears to be something amiss with the PM system. Following on from our friendly chat here I received a PM with your name on it (although that may be an error) with a hostile and interrogative 'spin' reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition. Since you have been so clearly open and fair minded during the course of this thread I can only presume a failure during data transfer. Probably your message crossed over with another which somehow changed the content from intelligent discussion to malignant invective. Perhaps we should proceed out here in the open to avoid further confusion; the idea does have an appealing honesty about it.