The Solution vs Hoax equation

[evolvingape]

Anyone can sign up for this forum with a new name, using a proxy server, as many times as they like. Some people are known to do this on a regular basis and you cannot stop this from happening. You ban them and they come back pretending to be someone else. Sometimes they will even have a conversation with themself to appear to offer support from "the community" or take the heat off and misdirect when tough questions are asked they cannot answer.

Therefore...

Polls are useless.

Limiting the members who actually know what they are doing and talking about to one post each is completely pointless. The process of discovery often requires that the members "chat" over multiple pages until all the facts are known. The fraudsters often deliberately hide and withhold vital information so in that case no summary can be made until discovery has occurred, which is often fought tooth and nail by the fraudsters, because the game is up when the facts are known.

If you did have a team of knowledgeable experts, with suitable funding to investigate "promising devices", your finances would be drained very quickly if the people who don't know what they are talking about (the majority) are given the ability to disseminate those resources.

[Tusk]

@ evolvingape

your finances would be drained very quickly if the people who don't know what they are talking about (the majority) are given the ability to disseminate those resources.

Just wondering if that was a typo, or intentional?

If I may quote myself, from earlier in this thread:

why here on this forum? To which I say, why not? Perhaps you underestimate the vast reservoir of knowledge, wisdom and analytical skills present in such company.

There appears to be an issue here with direct bearing on audiomaker's investigation. Which of us is correct?

We might follow the lead of the legal system and have a 'jury' of trusted investigators... not sure about the selection process, that would depend on which of the above statements were in line with your own thoughts. Rather we might in the second instance a call it a 'panel', I believe the correct term for the first would be 'posse' or perhaps 'lynch mob'.

[audiomaker]

Anyone can sign up for this forum with a new name, using a proxy server, as many times as they like. Some people are known to do this on a regular basis and you cannot stop this from happening. You ban them and they come back pretending to be someone else. Sometimes they will even have a conversation with themself to appear to offer support from "the community" or take the heat off and misdirect when tough questions are asked they cannot answer.

Therefore...

Polls are useless.

Limiting the members who actually know what they are doing and talking about to one post each is completely pointless. The process of discovery often requires that the members "chat" over multiple pages until all the facts are known. The fraudsters often deliberately hide and withhold vital information so in that case no summary can be made until discovery has occurred, which is often fought tooth and nail by the fraudsters, because the game is up when the facts are known.

If you did have a team of knowledgeable experts, with suitable funding to investigate "promising devices", your finances would be drained very quickly if the people who don't know what they are talking about (the majority) are given the ability to disseminate those resources.

Ok, well that's a start, and I had considered this.

My response is that this "chatting", rarely remains on focus.  In fact, it becomes such a blur of dogmatic wrestling that anyone trying to follow the thread at a later date simply gives up.
I am going to suggest that even the board members that "don't know what they are talking about", are 3 steps up in intelligence from the average man.  Just join the "Justin Bieber Fan Club" board for a few days and I think you'll be right back here with the same conclusion.

I also believe that the "in the know" people on this board would be able to write a very convincing summary in a single post, and that most of the board members are going to be able to give that the weight it deserves vs the summary that states "That ROCKS!.... Do It!"

That said, since funding is involved, voting must have a weight to it beyond "it's free for me...why not send the team?".  Perhaps this becomes a "panel" as Tusk suggests (although that has some issues too), or perhaps one should pay to vote.   I'd happily donate $10 per submission.  For $300, I could have 30 as-yet-not-discredited devices off my radar.  That's a lot. (p.s.  that math assumes I'm in a large group willing to do the same).   Surely 300 people from this entire site would put in $10 on an interesting candidate? $3k should get a team and equipment to any site in style.

As far as fraudsters changing their IP's and such, I'm guessing so they could vote down their own submission?  It makes no sense that a fraudster would want to be subject to investigation.
The concept that a fraud or hoaxster would come on here and dismiss their own device is quite interesting.   Still, the result is that it gets voted down and no money is spent to validate it.
Only the cooperative inventors willing to submit would get a shot at funding an exploration team.  Non-cooperative inventors get a thumbs down right from the start.

Here is my first draft copied from earlier in this thread.  Take a few of your own hypotheticals (working, not working, hoax, fraud, mistake, voting fraud...etc.) and run them through it and see what results you come up with.  Then, if may humbly beg... try to come up with solutions to any problem you might find.  Problems are easy to find, solutions are what we are about right?

Here it is:

1.  A new forum is created for the submission of devices or even concepts.

2.  Each submission has it's own thread.

3. Each thread contains a "poll" where the board members can discuss and "vote" on the potential validity of the submission.

4. Threads with high poll ratings get researched.

5. "Research" involves contacting the "inventor" and establishing communications (the board submission might not be by the inventor as in YouTube examples).

6. Once communication is established, and if the inventor still holds to his/her claim and is willing to undergo scrutiny, then "contact" is made.

7. "Contact" consists of say...3... unrelated, yet recognized board members being flown to the location... test equipment in hand.

8.  Flights, hotels, car rental, and per diem (i.e...food money) are provided by a "fund" sponsored by the board members.  Investigation time is donated.

9. "Prize money" is not required as substantiation from the "verification team" of this board will allow the inventor to make millions simply writing a book about it...even if freely given.

10.  All accounts and findings are posted to the individual threads as they happen, and the current status is updated regularly until a success or fail verdict is achieved.

11. If a success verdict is achieved, further assistance is provided by the group as is protection of the inventor and the invention from suppression.

12.  All "verification investigations", their status, and their verdicts remain publicly posted as a resource to others.

Cheers!

[evolvingape]

I don't know what your game is Tusk but I am starting to become very suspicious of you and your motives on this forum!

There are far more laymen on these forums than there are professionals with knowledge, experience  and skill sets developed over a significant time period. 62281 members at present and growing rapidly, many of these laymen freely admit that they do not have the knowledge or experience to be able to accurately assess a device, however that does not stop them having an equal vote with those who do.

Which of us is correct ?

You are seriously proposing that the vast reservoir of knowledge, wisdom and analytical skills available in this community (true) is larger than the vast reservoir of laymen without those abilities ? Seriously ? Your a laugh a minute you are! 

As far as fraudsters changing their IP's and such, I'm guessing so they could vote down their own submission?  It makes no sense that a fraudster would want to be subject to investigation.
The concept that a fraud or hoaxster would come on here and dismiss their own device is quite interesting.   Still, the result is that it gets voted down and no money is spent to validate it.

You miss my point audiomaker, I never said they would vote down their own submission. I meant the vote could be manipulated to waste this communities resources. Ask Mark Dansie about his S.Africa trip, he got to the door with his equipment and his experts, only to be refused entry, but a journalist was given the dog and pony show because he did not know what he was looking at. You could probably answer all of your questions that you are posing here with a bit of research...

[audiomaker]

<snip>

You miss my point audiomaker, I never said they would vote down their own submission. I meant the vote could be manipulated to waste this communities resources. Ask Mark Dansie about his S.Africa trip, he got to the door with his equipment and his experts, only to be refused entry, but a journalist was given the dog and pony show because he did not know what he was looking at. You could probably answer all of your questions that you are posing here with a bit of research...

Well... I had some suggestions how to refine the idea.  Could you offer some?

Even *I* am qualified to examine some types of machines.  My carry-on toolkit: VOM/Oscilloscope/Ammeter, inductive voltage sensor, magnetometer, IR and thermocouple temp' probes, video camera, laptop, and basic tool set.
I would suggest that I could give an examination and report good enough to warrant dismissal or further verification.  Someone like TK could probably go much further.

I think Evolvingape, that perhaps you are to an extent....missing my point.

Inventors refusing a free "analysis" get no analysis. No money is spent and their refusal is recorded in the thread dedicated to their device.

Of course it is possible that an inventor will agree to an exploration team, talk to them on the phone, give them their address, and make an examination appointment then refuse to open the door.
I think in general though, a "we will be there, so if you aren't going to open the door, don't bother", and the fact that such an action would be highly publicized, would discourage most.

I also believe that if the 4 prime players in this thread (including yourself) all spent 20min on the phone with an inventor, we'd have a pretty good idea if it were a prankster.

Is there a risk that the discovery team could end up wasting their time? Yes.  If it's a mistake on the inventors part, it wouldn't be a waste of time after a remote analysis was made prior to deciding if it were interesting enough to pursue in person.  The whole point is to find the mistake and move on, or if there is no mistake, to verify it.   There is ample discovery prior to anyone actually going anywhere.

I think the "Team" would expose far more mistakes than hoaxes or frauds, simply because hoaxers and fraudsters don't want to be discovered as such, and would not submit to examination.
There is a difference between presenting theater to a journalist and letting 3 qualified people with test equipment probe your device.

The mistakes....well... everyone makes mistakes.  In this case however, we are only exploring the mistakes we can't obviously explain....which I think is worthwhile.

Either way, I am but one person, but I do think there is intelligence on this board (and likely in this thread) that could come up with a near-foolproof process.
One only has to begin looking at it as a matter of "How To".