Monday, August 13, 2007

Forums are Public Again, Two Unnamed Jurors

The forums are again available to all anonymous lurkers. These seem to be Sunday only blackouts. Also in the forums today crank lets us know that she has the names of two jury members:

The way I'd look at it is...I was shown the names of two jury members. At any time over the past six months if Sean pissed me off sufficiently (and Sean is good at pissing me and everyone else off :sad: ) I could have phoned those scientists and asked them if they really were on the Steorn jury. If they weren't, they could and would have publicly disassociated themselves from the Irish crackpots who were using their name in vain. So if it was a house of cards, it would all have come tumbling down over quite a simple thing.

Therefore...the names he gave me had to be genuine. Therefore...there is a jury. Therefore...anything Sean has stated publicly about the jury has to be real, or jury members would be kicking up a fuss.
I don't exactly follow her logic, but it is her choice not to follow up on the information that was provided to her. She continues to talk about the Jury:
How could they be 'planted' members? They're people with pretty illustrious careers, in very famous institutions. Why would they get involved in a scam? What would be in it for them?
I'm assuming she is referring to the two jury members that she has direct knowledge of, but I could be wrong.

There is most likely a Jury, what we don't know is where they are in the process of ruling. Steorn has predicted that the Jury will reach a verdict late this year or early next year. In the mean time, we may or may not get additional information from Steorn.


maryyugo said...

Excuse me. Crank, who'd believe almost anything Steorn says, was shown two names said to be those of jury members. She has not and will not check them out so she doesn't know if in fact there even is a jury. This is not evidence of any sort that there is a jury.

Now "alsetalokin" says on Steorn's forum that a friend of his is a jury member and he has finally decided it's time to talk to this person about it. That's a bit more promising.

If there's a jury, they need to tell everyone whether or not they have seen a working device and what they think about its general properties, "OU" and "FE" in particular. None of that would reveal trade secrets and none of it should violate any reasonable NDA which would seek to protect the details of the supposed "technology".

I could be wrong of course but I bet AGAINST there even being a jury-- and if there is one, I bet they were given only mubojumbo papers and graphs of the sort Sean "revealed" to the "private" session at Kinetica after the demo disaster. I would bet that they have never been given any concrete evidence that an OU/FE device has ever been built and tested by Steorn.

Anonymous said...

To paraphrase then, "I have the means to prove or disprove what Steorn are saying, but because I want to believe what they are saying, I am not going to use it, in case it ends up disproving it".

Not saying that Steorn or Crank are one thing or another here, but there's another theory she should consider - that the reason Sean gave her those names was that he considered here to be such a rube that she'd not test the evidence at all; which so far she seems content to do.

Senthil said...

However, Steorn can be no longer given the benefit of doubt.

Simply because Crank was shown a list of Jurors means nothing. The old argument "it had to be real or else they would not show it" does not hold anymore.

The failed demo shows us that.

Anonymous said...

"How could they be 'planted' members? They're people with pretty illustrious careers, in very famous institutions. Why would they get involved in a scam? What would be in it for them?"

A secret jury member would do exactly what Steorn told them to do and pretend to be working on the orbo and receive their money. A scientist would quickly see that this orbo thing is not working and then he would keep his mouth shot as long as he receives money from Steorn. A secret jury member doesnt risk anything at all, do they ?

The fact that we do not hear anything from the jury tells me that the orbo does not work or doesnt exists, and the jury member just want to collect their monthly fee for as long as possible.

If there is a jury somewhere ?

Anonymous said...

thicket should check the CRO-website in a couple of months. I guess there will be a message about share allotments. Steorn probably took a lot of investors money before the failed demonstration.

JTerry said...

Once again, Crank flies her true colors. Her convoluted, confused reasoning for not confirming the participation of the alleged "jury" members reflects a below average intellect or possible mental illness. Crank has not in the past given indications of such incredible stupidity or possible mental defection. It therefore raises the strong implication that Crank is again intimately involved with Steorn, actively assisting in perpetrating the fraud, and knowingly engaging in falsehoods to lend credibility to the existence of the alleged "jury".

Perhaps I am giving her too much credit. Perhaps she is the simpleton reflected in her absurd and irrational reasoning.

The most telling thing for me is the incredible evasiveness of both Steorn and its agent Crank when discussing what the "jury" has/has not seen. There is one simple question for you to answer Crank, let me put it to you bluntly in your capacity as agent for Steorn:


maryyugo said...

A very interesting (and revealing) post by Running Bare on Steorn's forum links to what seems to be Cranks reports on her Steorn visits. Dates are December 5-7, 2006. You may draw what conclusions you like. I didn't know this existed. Must be a lot more like it in Steorn and other forums.

Vardan1899 said...

Although the Steorn forum reports of Crank and the others is interesting. Such third hand unverifiable stuff is really of no important use other that "just chat". Fun to read, but really not worth much.


maryyugo said...

To avoid crossposting:

I am continuing a discussion with RB and others about what Crank claimed to know early on and I ask in detail about what possible reason she could have for not pursuing those obvious leads at this late date -- leads which could blow this whole ridiculous Steorn farce wide open.

Here on Fizzx forum.

(That Fizzx post has more than one page -- pls. scroll up and/or down for the whole discussion)

Anonymous said...

Why would Sean show the name of two jury members to Crank ? Why not show her the name of all 22 jurors ?
Early on Sean was talking abut a jury of 12 members, but suddenly he told us that there are 22....

I have got the impression that Crank is more active when Steorn are in trouble.... I think she is a shiller and taking part in the fraud/hoax.

Quanten said...

What I find extremly interresting is this part of the post from Crank :
I saw 'The Big One', what they tested up to 550bhp on. That was to prove its scalability. It was initially in a frame which was fixed to the wall, but is now in a larger frame which is fixed to the floor.

Now link this with the fact that there is nothing which was tested to 550 bhp, it was admitted to be a guesstimate later, this bring the above in a new light.

1) Most probably Crank was lied to, and in a very obvious way since she was SHOW something which was admited later not to be existing
2) Crank despite making a show of being skeptic/neutral, is in reality a Steorn employee or somebody linked to an employee. I assign a low probability on this, but it is still non zero.

Pez said...

The real flawed reasoning in this is that we have to assume crank is telling the truth.

Suppose this is a hoax /social experiment ,whatever- it would be extraordinary if they didn't have some plants on the forum.

Anonymous said...

"Why would Sean show the name of two jury members to Crank ? Why not show her the name of all 22 jurors ?"

I think Sean wanted Crank to leak the names of the 2 jury members in order to make us believe that a jury exists.