@BillRM,
Quote:Second, note one of the biggest indications that this is a hoax is the behaviors of yourself and the other supporters of this device/theory.
That's one of the biggest indications that this is a hoax? That's one of your
biggest arguments? If so that is the most pathetic thing I have heard in a very long time.
This comment is like Lady Astor saying, to Winston Churchill at a dinner party, "Sir, you are drunk." Winston replied "Madam, you are ugly, and in the morning I shall be sober."
So with regard to the behavior on this list, you are saying "You supporters are acting rudely." Poor baby Bill, to that I reply, "Bill, you are clueless, the cart works, and in the morning I shall regain my temper."
The cart and the facts of the matter don't care about behavior. Bill, while your mistaken attempt to use psychology may convince yourself, it convinces no one else.
The biggest indication that this is a not a hoax is the number of independent builders of the device who have demonstrated over decades that the cart works exactly as advertised.
Another of the biggest indications that this is not a hoax is the large number of independent cogent explanations and analogies explaining the observed cart behavior, none of which violate any fundamental physical laws. A significant corollary to this is the speed with which
invalid explanations and analogies are flushed out by other competent supporters; that is one thing that could
never happen in a successful hoax. I.e. The basis for the hoax would be false to begin with; therefore pointing out flaws in alternate explanations would threaten the house of cards that supports the hoax. In the case of the cart, the opposite happens because
leaving mistaken claims
unchallenged actually
threatens the
valid claims of the cart.
Another of the biggest indications that this is not a hoax is that the deniers have to resort to ignorant speculation about motives behind the behavior of the supporters (and of the unsuccessful deniers for that matter) to support their case, instead of addressing the actual issue in a cogent manner, even though the denier's (N.B. that's singular) behavior in steadfastly refusing to address the issue in a cogent manner can be considered by some to be far more rude than any other behavior in the matter.
Another of the biggest indications that this is not a hoax is the deniers continuously and shrilly claiming that fundamental physical laws are being broken but never,
ever, ever putting together any cogent explanation, such as correct force and energy balances, to support this unfounded claim.
Another
possible indication that this is not a hoax is the absence of
any deniers willing to put their money where their mouth is. My presumption here is that because they know their limitations, they know they
cannot back up their denials with cogent debate in the face of overwhelming evidence, and they therefore shrewdly refuse to back them up with anything tangible like money. The closest anyone has come to taking the bet is Richard Jenkins spending his own resources to show up at the tests at El Mirage, but as a skeptic and not a denier, and who in the end by posting his experience and observations showed to the rest of the world that, in addition to claiming the current land speed sailing record holder, Great Britain also has the lock on the the most gracious, subtle, dry and witty people on the planet.
That the supporters are willing to back up their claims with tangible bets means of course means nothing because such bets are also used elsewhere e.g. as part of con games. However, it is logically fallacious to assume that the fact that such bets may be part of a con in any way identifies the cart as a con, and only a fool would attempt to make such an association.
