Steorn Jury Update: Good Circumstantial Evidence

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Forum member "Crank" said yesterday:

"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 ) 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 have to agree with Crank on this one since Crank could have easily proved the non-existence of a jury by a simple phone call. Steorn have indeed been upfront about the jury and it is now only the more heavily skeptical people who would dispute this now.

Also today, the forums were opened up again and you no longer need a login to read the posts.



Beetlebau August 16, 2007 at 6:31 AM  

A few points:
1) Having the potential of calling the scientists to find out on the jury is not the same as having done so. Crank should have called them regardless of whether Sean pissed her off or not.
2) Even if the scientists said they were not on the jury, I doubt that would be enough to collapse the "house of cards". The skeptics might feel vindicated, but the believers will find some justification to continue to believe.

Anonymous,  August 16, 2007 at 8:41 AM  

Common sense will tell you that If a scam relies on keeping things secret, then Sean would have given the game away easily.

The fact he was open about it tells me he's got absolutely nothing to hide.

Beetlebau August 17, 2007 at 5:11 AM  

Horrible experience tells me that the potential of calling the scientists is not the same as calling them. And trying to apply logic to their actions won't work if they are acting illogically.

For the record, I don't think that Steorn is a scam, but I do think they are mistaken.

Anonymous,  August 17, 2007 at 12:29 PM  

The jury contract/NDA specifically forbids them from speaking about anything until three years after termination of said contract.

eg. if there was ever a jury, it could have disbanded months ago and we would never know until 2010, unless of course Steorn chose to recveal it.

Beetlebau August 17, 2007 at 11:44 PM  

Yes, that is another thing that bothers me about this. The lack of independent channels of information, but the nondisclosure agreements seem to prevent these.

It has been a year and no successful public demonstration of a propetual motion device.

Another thing that is not being talked about is the physical implications of a working propetual motion device. It would imply that the laws of physics change over time. Something we are not observing.

From Wikipedia:
"Noether's theorem is a central result in theoretical physics that shows that a conservation law can be derived from any continuous symmetry. For example, the conservation of energy is a consequence of the fact that all laws of physics (including the values of the physical constants) are invariant under translation through time; they do not change as time passes."

Post a Comment


Contact me at

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by 2009

Back to TOP