Reply #139: Evidence? [View All]

[rayofreason]

Got any evidence for any of your claims? Post the link.

And as far as misconceptions go, the writings of DePalma speak for themselves - he was a crank with no real understanding of physics. If you want to argue the point, start with DePalma's ludicurous description of Lenz's Law that I quoted in the post above. If you can't do that, then how can you defend his other, even more silly statements?

One other thing - the timeline shows DePalma's pedigree was a fraud. He allegedly finished a BS from MIT in 1958, then went to grad school in the early 60's. If he then spent 15 years at MIT after getting a Ph.D. (say 1965?) that means he left MIT around 1980 - but he had been in CA from the early 70's develping his "N" (for nonsense?) machine. And when did he work for Polaroid? Not much room in the timeline for that.

Nope, the whole story is a fraud, pure and simple.