Howard Johnson Replication Tube Claim

Omnibus · April 04, 2009, 10:45:43 PM

@lostcauses10x,

It's been explained many times over and I don't think now is the time to go back to these theoretical considerations. As many have already pointed out, the most important thing at this point is to attempt at a careful replication of this claim. Even if it turns out negative there's plenty to be learned from such experience.

Omnibus · April 04, 2009, 10:53:56 PM

@plengo,

I already told you where your flaw is. You demonstrate an unsuspected fine structure containing internal accelerations followed by decelerations in the run of Mylowâ€™s motor which by no means should lead, as you portrait it, to a conclusion for a hoax. On the contrary, it is an interesting finding which deserves further attention.

Omnibus · April 04, 2009, 10:59:42 PM

@lostcauses10x,

The only real solution is to have and independent party reproduce the claim. Period. End of story.

lostcauses10x · April 04, 2009, 11:07:23 PM

I agree to a point.
Yet I must ask why is there so many pages??
What is the content of those pages??

Quote from: Omnibus on April 04, 2009, 10:59:42 PM
@lostcauses10x,

The only real solution is to have and independent party reproduce the claim. Period. End of story.

Omnibus · April 04, 2009, 11:11:51 PM

Quote from: lostcauses10x on April 04, 2009, 11:07:23 PM
I agree to a point.
Yet I must ask why is there so many pages??
What is the content of those pages??

It's like any discussion rich in content. In the process each one of us develops his or her own understanding of the problem at hand. Take a look at the recent developments in the thread, as an example. Analyses such as these in this thread are very useful, alongside w/ the hands on reproduction of the device.