Dear Reader,
I have, more or less, got what I expected. Harti's come forward with his list to 'qualify' for that prize. It's a confused mishmash of testing - not so much for over unity - but for perpetual motion. I'm reasonably satisfied that with that criteria he'll be able to hang onto that prize money - forever. There's nothing about doing an accreditation on the claims in our paper - which simply and quickly get to the gullet of the anomaly. However - there may be something here that can be salvaged. I'll look into this further. Steven E Jones has, surprisingly, expressed some interest in 'replicating' and I'm still to hear what he makes of our papers. And Poynty - bless him - has been left with a mouth full of teeth and nowhere to hide. But he'll beg off. I know. And this because, unlike the others - he's well aware that our claim is entirely valid.
I, meanwhile, am still struggling with the paper on gravity - and getting nowhere fast. I have, however, established who is to do those diagrams. But I first have to draft them - obviously - and even that small task seems as elusive as the peaks of Everest. I'm growing somewhat weary.
What I am glad of though is that I've had an opportunity to remind the forum members that our claim is substantial and replicable. I think the most of them have assumed that Poynty's rather unscientific assessment carries any merit at all. This, hopefully, may disabuse them. We are very much a victim of that psyops program that is out there to kill off the hopes of our forum members.
Anyway. I'll wait and see what more comes out of this. Intriguing to see which way Poynty will wriggle. My best guess is that he'll pretend to take exception to any proposal of testing. I'm relying on it. More of that fabricated 'indignation'. It's laughably predictable. A clumsy combination of bluff - bluster and scorn - and the outright dismissal based on some minor variation to his terms and conditions or an outright dismissal of our experimental results. Or both. lol
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
