Seriously, do NOT publish his name and address.

Quote from: poynt99 on May 20, 2009, 08:27:49 AM
Stefan,

No I don't think you should publish his personal information, nor do anything in an attempt to punish Mylow.

Really, the onus is on the audience, US that is. We have to be skeptical if sufficient proof is not provided, and this goes for those making similar ou claims with conventional electronics circuits as well.

If the claimant does not provide sufficient evidence of authenticity, then they should be dismissed by this community. That is the best punishment for anyone making false or unsubstantiated claims, such as Mylow and others have done in the past. If they lose their captive audience, they will go away. If their device is real, they will make the effort to prove it.

.99

I think publishing personal information about Mylow is not a prudent idea. I see no reason to punish the man other than the public humiliation he is already receiving. Is vengeance appropriate? I don't think so. And how would that help anything except feed people's schadenfreude and possibly cause a tragedy no one wants. The best thing is to let it die and move on but learn from the experience.

The lesson learned has to be that the scientific method of verification, falsification and replication are the best tools to ensure that the claimant is offering something worthy of consideration in a professional manner. I think that the burden of proof always rests with the claimant and if ever you see them balk at any aspect of conforming to the scientific method then that should send red flags up immediately. A lot of people spent good money on the materials necessary to replicate and others may have spent a good deal of time and possibly money to disprove it.

When someone wants to fool people it shows their deep disrespect for those people who trust what they are being told is true. It should take a long time to build trust and as Mylow found out a very short time to lose it. But to go on a witch hunt for Mylow is completely unnecessary and counter productive to good science.

I think demanding verification from the beginning is the best way to avoid the inertia of a scam or hoax. As Mylow demurred from allowing someone to inspect his set up then attention should have been turned away until such time as inspection was allowed. Once that was done then the process of replication could have occurred with the aim to falsify the data so that the only possible answer as to why it works is true.

Stefan

It makes me happy that you are asking before doing. That's important.
IMHO, absolutely not. A violation of the forum's confidentiality for anything other than criminal reasons would only reflect poorly on the forum.
Mylow will receive his just rewards, in this life or in another, so I'm not worried about him.

The replication prize, now...
that's a different story. That's mine and I want it.

Regards, TK

Okay, I think you all are right and I will not publish his real name
and address.

Well, here is another video showing the fishing lines:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLLSUV6rNPo

and here in the original video from 8:08 to 8:13 you can
also see it easily:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNwhZH8zGD0

Also TinselKoala has shown it very well in his videos,
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=TinselKoala&view=videos
how Mylow did it.
I also think, Sterling should pay him the prize
or donate it to charity and post the charity receipt.

Regards, Stefan.