reply to post by curtisicity
Curtisicity, thanks for the reply!
I mean absolutely no offense here, but I'd like to draw a parralel so that perhaps you might understand our dilema with the Martin affair.
Have you ever heard of using magnets to alleviate pain?
There are many sites online (a google search will find them) selling magnets for just this reason.
Now, I'm not saying that magnets don't work in pain alleviation, I will say that there is no evidence to support that they do.
Yet those selling the magnets do so under the claim that they will help with pain.
Asking people to believe it works without evidence is very akin to what you are asking us to believe with Martin's story.
If Martin sold his symbols as artwork, I could perfectly understand your argument above. However, Martin is selling these symbols (as I understand
it) as an insurance policy. That's the discrepancy. That's the cause of the suspicion.
Also, 'proof of concept' is a general term applied to any product being marketed. Without 'proof of concept', (anyone can get a patent, but a
company will only pick up on the idea with proof of concept) it's really hard to believe anything, in any field of research. Even with proof of
concept (as in Tim Ventura's case at AmericanAntigravity) it's still very hard to get your work recognized as valid in the scientific community.
Sorry for the wierd lateral comparison, I hope it makes sense.
-WFA
