Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[MileHigh]

I love hunting images!

I think this is my last post in this nonsense thread......

Epic Electronics Superfail!!!!!!!

Aieeeeeeee!!!!

[EMJunkie]

I love hunting images!

I think this is my last post in this nonsense thread......

Epic Electronics Superfail!!!!!!!

Aieeeeeeee!!!!

Oh MileHigh - Don't go!!! I thought we were friends and had something in common?

Maybe we can talk, and sort it out?

[EMJunkie]

Sorry MileHigh, that was very funny, but a little naughty!

P.S: I liked your Pumpkin!

[allcanadian]

@Mark E

@MarkI believe that's what I just said, you cannot believe it therefore it
cannot be true.
What is wrong with you?  The evidence refutes the
claim therefore it is false.

I am simply applying your own rules Mark, I see no real evidence I consider valid therefore I reject it. It is interesting that you have no issue with rejecting the evidence presented in the same context as yours however when your supposed evidence is questioned then something must be wrong with those people. No I see no real evidence of anything presented and I reject your claims and your possible issues concerning rejection which are not really my problem.

I don't believe you have ever seen the actual device in person nor have you
ever tested the device in person therefore by your rules you don't actually have
any real evidence do you Mark?.
LOL what sort of nonsense is this?

It is the kind of nonsense referred to as facts I think, you have no first hand knowledge of the device nor real evidence therefore you are simply speculating.

What you have is hersay and speculation you believe
is evidence which any credible person would most likely reject and I do. Well then you have a hard time understanding what
evidence is.  EMJ made claims for configurations of coils in a circuit.  Those
configurations can and were analyzed and it was found that EMJ's claims are
false.  Further at least Itsu and TK replicated according to EMJ's instructions
and again his claims failed.  EMJ has never presented any data from his alleged
apparatus that actually supports his claims.

Just because you claim something more times does not make it more true Mark, repetition is not proof. You have no real evidence nor proof and you are simply speculating thus I must reject your claim. However I do find it interesting that you reject others claims for insufficient proof but then when you do the same thing you expect to be treated differently. Then you accuse them of getting upset and repetative and uncooperative when this is exactly what you have done here. To be honest I make no distinction between you and them and until such time as I see concise evidence, proof, supporting a claim one way or the other I will reject it. 
AC

[EMJunkie]

@Mark EI am simply applying your own rules Mark, I see no real evidence I consider valid therefore I reject it. It is interesting that you have no issue with rejecting the evidence presented in the same context as yours however when your supposed evidence is questioned then something must be wrong with those people. No I see no real evidence of anything presented and I reject your claims and your possible issues concerning rejection which are not really my problem.It is the kind of nonsense referred to as facts I think, you have no first hand knowledge of the device nor real evidence therefore you are simply speculating.  Just because you claim something more times does not make it more true Mark, repetition is not proof. You have no real evidence nor proof and you are simply speculating thus I must reject your claim. However I do find it interesting that you reject others claims for insufficient proof but then when you do the same thing you expect to be treated differently. Then you accuse them of getting upset and repetative and uncooperative when this is exactly what you have done here. To be honest I make no distinction between you and them and until such time as I see concise evidence, proof, supporting a claim one way or the other I will reject it. 
AC

AC - I agree!!!

MarkE's way of thinking:

I have now refuted UFO's because:

(Litres_used X Unit_distance) / km_travelled= Litres per Unit_distance).

All UFO Fuel Tanks are 65 Litres so:

(65 X 100) / 500 = 13 and ALL UFO's get 13 Litres per 100 Km

I call this type of Contrivance of Convoluted Confuddled ASSUMPTION Math - Which quite obviously is TOTALLY Wrong all day every day of the week!

This is how a GOON thinks! They don't know any other way!

   Chris