that press conference sounded like classic Newman.
He's threatend to punch me out as well. It was funny to see aghast people in the audience. I have info on eeven more strange newman behavior at
www.phact.org/e/skeptic/newman.htmthe following is some dialog from another list from people who were at the show:
> Cc:
> David Crockett Williams <gear2000@lightspeed.net>,
> "Dr. Robert Park - American Physical Society - UMD
> College Park Physics Department)",
> Mark Avrum Gubrud
>
>
> Subject:
> Re: Mar.28 DC Newman press conference - "Otherwise" sounds like it
> went great
>
> Date:
> Mar 29, 2005 4:05 PM
>
>
> At 6:37 PM -0800 3/29/05, Thomas wrote:
> At 07:45 PM 3/28/2005, David Crockett Williams wrote:
>
> Thanks for this report Evan. I will look for news coverage and
> their evaluations of the presentation.
>
> Uh, excuse me, David, Evan's representations, are -- like as are
> apparently the claims of the would be Jesus freak Newman -- a soup of
> snake oil
>
> Unfortunately perhaps (Mark Gubrud) did not have enough background on
> the Newman
> machine or theory to know the past history, so this update fixes a
> framework
> of comparison to past larger models and the refinements you describe
> below.
>
> Nonsense, David. I sat around for half hour, maybe 45 minutes,
> listening to theories (referencing Faraday's laws, and such), which
> kinda might seem sort of impressive (know what I mean? Michael
> Faraday, physics? Wow, I'm impressed. Well, not really. After all,
> I've listened to a lot of snake oil salesmen), quite frankly, I wasn't
> favorably impressed, because there was nothing solid in the
> presentations ... just theory and some favorable press coverage.
> NOTHING of any substance. Nonetheless, being the open minded
> son-of-a-bitch that I am, I figured I'd give this Newman fellow the
> benefit of the doubt.
>
> At some point after I got to this road show, I happened to notice that
> Mark showed up. He was standing in the back of the room.
>
> Then here comes Mr. Newman, he was late too, with this oversized
> hatbox devise which he hooked up to a box of batteries, and it turned
> this little wheel with a couple of lights on it. Jeeze, what do I
> know, maybe this was some kind of profound illustration of physical
> truth, shucks I couldn't see it, but at this point, I kept my mouth
> shut.
>
> In the meantime Mark came from the back of the room and took a seat in
> the first row (I was behind him in the second row. By the
> way,contrary to the optimistic picture Evan painted, it didn't seem
> that Mr. Newmans Press Club charade was any kind of success, there
> were a whole lot of empty seats at this ground-breaking event, and. it
> seemed to me, that almost the entire audience were Newman groupies.
>
> Then, David wrote:
>
> In any case, my skeptical friend Thomas apparently is the referenced
> "heckler" - although from their phone conversation apparently it was
> Mark who asked the question when picked to do so, "how does your
> motor differ from other kinds of motors" (didn't do his homework, but
> still a reasonable question for some occasion) and they said that is
> what set Mr. Newman off on Mark, and that Thomas just rose to defend
> the apparent legitimacy of the question whereupon he was grabbed
> by the collar and physically harassed.
>
> Not quite. This is REALLY the way it went down. After Mark moved
> into the first row, and was looking at this Newman hatbox thing, Mark
> raised his hand and got called on (by the esteemed Mr. Newman
> himself). First Mark asked whether he could look under the lid of Mr.
> Newman's hatbox thing. At this point the great humanitarian,
> christian, saviour of the SUV class, explained that Mark couldn't look
> under the lid, because the hatbox thing-a-ma-jig wasn't properly
> patented (Peek under the lid -- potential threat to the savior's
> pocketbook. Oh yeah, we'd just heard the genius go on at some length
> about how the Navy had already ripped off his amazing hatbox.) Then
> Mark asked the question about how this hatbox differed from other
> kinds of motors. Then the Newman character asks Mark what he's doing
> there (Get it? What's Mark doing at the Press Club for this public
> scam that Newman set up, publicized, and invited the public to
> attend. Like, is this guy playing with a full deck, or what?)
>
> This is where the Heckler comes in. When the Maestro asked Mark what
> he was doing at his public event, and who invited him, being the
> consummate P in the A, at that I am, I said, "One of your biggest
> fans, David Crockett Williams, invited him. He's (Mark) a physicist
> and David said this would be an opportunity for Mark to examine your
> machine.
>
> It was at this point that the maniac flew off the handle, leapt off
> his podium, grabbed me by my sweater, and slung me against the wall.
> Problem was, while this idiot is physically assaulting me, I was
> laughing so hard that, fortunately, I was unable to respond to his
> uncivilized behavior. Perhaps my laughter disarmed the madman,
> whatever, at that point he seemed to lose his steam, and let go of my
> sweater.
>
> I do not think they had the intent to disrupt the news conference
> because I asked both of them to go and report on what they
> saw and invited Mark into a serious level scientific discussion
> about this machine due his sincere offer of his time to test it
> and support it to the scientific community if it passes his testing.
>
> You're right, David,we had absolutely no intention of disrupting his
> faux news conference. My point.is that this marvelous avatar of the
> alternative energy movement seems to be far more interested in selling
> books and making money than he is with illustrating the viability of
> his humorous hatbox.
>
> My apologies to Mr. Newman for this disturbance which was not
> my intent in asking Thomas and Mark to attend today.
>
> Whadda you apologizing to this wingnut for??? He should be
> apologizing to Mark and I.
>
> My apologies to Thomas and Mark for anything on my part that
> is behind this misunderstanding.
>
> Whadda apologizing to us for? After all this Newman jerk invited the
> public to look at his scam. If he can't deal with the heat he oughta
> get out of the kitchen.
>
> One view is that "well if Newman had something real, he would
> answer the questions satisfactorily".
>
> Sounds reasonable. So we're left wondering: Why is Newman so adverse
> to satisfactorily answering questions?
>
> But Joseph Newman has been through all this over and over
> and knows from people's tone of voices etc when he feels
> his truthfulness is being challenged blindly or due prejudice
> against this whole genre of "new energy techs".
>
> Poor guy, he's been through all this over and over. Shit! He
> deserves it.
>
> Look at it! This nut case continuously talks in terms of his
> "opponents." Mark and I obviously fell into this "opponent" category
> ... notwithstanding the fact that we weren't (at that point, anyway)
> "opponents," but were merely inquiring minds. So what you got here,
> it seems to me, is a paranoid, schizophrenic, physically abusive, nut
> job named Joe. Poooor guy. People challenging his truthfulness, oh
> my! David, give me a break, anybody who doesn't question this guy's
> claims has got to be some kind of a sycophant, or just plain
> gullible.
>
> Personality problems has now today jumped to the top of my
> list of reasons why these new energy technologies are "not
> already out there".
>
> I humbly disagree. I don't think it's so much personality problems as
> it is capitalistic, money grubbing, "Who invited you?", "opponent,"
> lying, paranoia.
>
> Then the Just Normally ParanoidCo. wrote"
>
> From: "JNPCo." <josephnewman@earthlink.net>
> To: David Crockett Williams <gear2000@lightspeed.net>
> Subject: News conference update
> Date: Mar 28, 2005 4:39 PM
>
> David --
>
>
> At the news conference the table-top-sized energy machine performed
> beautifully -- the latest innovation of the EM technology proved two
> things:
>
> Yeah, right, seemed like it, kind of, but you can't look under the
> lid. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Just note that
> the little wheel, with the two cool little lights, that's hooked up to
> a box of batteries, is spinning around, and be unquestioningly
> impressed.
>
> 1. Opponents of Joseph Newman do not deny that the technology produces
> significant torque,
>
> Here we have it: "Opponents of Joseph Newman." Except, how the heck
> can one affirm or deny whether this hatbox is doing anything other
> than spinning a little wheel with a couple of lights on it, if one
> can't look under the lid, because the Saviour wants to insure that his
> financial interests aren't threatened?
>
> Oh yeah, lest we forget, buy his book.
>
> 2. Opponents of Joseph Newman claim that the back-emf sparking
> produced by
> the energy machine is unmanageable and can never be controlled. On
> Monday,
> March 28, 2005, Joseph Newman demonstrated complete control of that
> sparking
> effect.
>
> Here we have that same old paranoid rap again: "Opponents of Joseph
> Newman." The guy isn't even a worthy opponent. Who' in their right
> would even want to waste time crossing mental swords with this
> imbecile?
>
> At one point during the presentation, one individual attempted to
> heckle
> Joseph Newman and challenge his integrity. The heckler was then
> offered the
> following challenge by a news conference attendee from Michigan: That
> Michigan attendee would put up $20,000 if the heckler would put up
> $5,000
> for a test of the technology. If the machine was not found to operate
> as
> stated, then the heckler would be paid $20,000. However, if the test
> confirmed the operation of the machine as stated, then the heckler
> would
> donate that $5,000 to a charity.
>
> "Integrity"
?? Gimme a break. Further on this paragraph is total
> bullshit. But, nonetheless, instructive to some degree. Instructive
> to the degree that these con artists are money oriented (20 grand).
> But where the major bullshit comes in is that this fictional exchange
> with the "heckler" never occurred ... at least no where near where,
> or under the circumstances claimed. This Newman character, or some of
> his facilitators, had arranged for several video cameras to record his
> historical faux news conference. So you needn't take my word on this
> particular issue, assuming these hucksters will release the videos
> (which they probably won't, because that would conclusively illustrate
> that they are bald faced liars), the videos will absolutely prove that
> this multi-thousand challenge did not occur at the "news" conference.
>
> Prove me wrong (please). I was the alleged "heckler." Mark Gubrud
> showed up for this alleged "news conference" at the request of myself
> , and/or the most dedicated fan of Swami Newman, David Crockett
> Williams. As a physicist, Mark thought he was going to get a chance
> to peek under the lid of this amazing hatbox. Well, the Swami nixed
> that.
>
> Anyway, what actually happened with respect to this big bucks deal was
> that AFTER we left the alleged news conference Thomas (that's me, the
> alleged heckler), and Mark were waiting for the elevator, far away
> from the alleged news conference. At that time we were approached by
> Arthur W. Morris, a "certified microscopist," from Bloomfield Hills,
> Michigan (utillc@comcast.net). It was then and there, at the
> elevator, far from Mr. Newman's snake oil show, and away from the
> video cameras (which is why these weasels won't document their flat
> out lies by providing a copy of that tape) that Mr. Morris offered to
> put up 20 grand against Mark's 20. First, we should note that Mark
> wasn't the alleged heckler, it was I who was the alleged heckler.
> Next, it wasn't the "heckler" who was made this generous offer, it was
> Mark, who wasn't a heckler. Finally, again, this ridiculous bet
> (shucks, if I wanted to risk 20, 10, or even 5 grand, I'd go to Vegas
> and play blackjack before I'd bet with these sidewinders) was offered
> in front of the elevators, far and away from Mr. Newman's con game.
> Consider the absurdity of this offer -- Mark and I where there
> specifically to "test of the technology," and these wily sons of guns
> wouldn't even let Mark peek under the lid. Essentially, Mark
> indicated that Mr. Morris was coming out of far left field. Then Mr.
> Morris reduced it to 10 grand for Mark, he was still offering 20.
> Finally, he offered to let Mark go for 5 grand. Can't remember
> exactly --- you know, these Newman guys, getting really crazy and all?
> -- but I think Mark told him something like go fly a kite.
>
> The heckler refused to accept that
> challenge and continued to heckle Joseph Newman. Finally, Joseph
> Newman
> physically picked up the heckler by his sweater and forcibly carried
> him out
> of the room. The media filmed the incident. We believe the heckler's
> goal
> was to intentionally attempt to disrupt the news conference.
>
> Now this is the epitome of the bullshit. Again, there was NO
> heckling. What these misrepresenters of reality are pretending was
> "heckling," was actually my statement, "One of your biggest fans,
> David Crockett Williams, invited him. He's (Mark) a physicist and
> David said this would be an opportunity for Mark to examine your
> machine."
>
> Notice, the deceivers specifically mention that "The media filmed the
> incident." Ask for a copy. Bet they won't give it to you, because
> it'll prove they're lying.
>
> Oh, as a footnote, the lunatic "christian" did not forcibly carry me
> out of the room. He just looked stupid, shook his fist in my face,
> and went back to his podium. Then, after I'd stopped laughing, I
> invited him to meet me in the alley. Gee, ya know, you try real hard
> to be a pacifist, but, it seems, you just can't help running into
> jerks that are just begging to have their necks broken. God help me,
> what can I say? Oh yeah, so after I invited the alterative energy
> avatar to the alley, Mark and I left the room, went to the elevator,
> where Mr. Morris offered his aforementioned absurd bet.
>
> In light of the foregoing, David, I hate to call these guys a bunch of
> unscrupulous, lying assholes, but what else can I honestly say:?
>
> Don't take my word for it. Ask 'em for a copy of their faux news
> conference video with the part where the Savior allegedly put me out
> of the room.
>
> You know, David, that I like you, but when you get involved with
> characters like this it really hurts your credibility, because they
> have no integrity to speak of.
> ___________________________
> PROPOSITION ONE COMMITTEE
> P.O. Box 27217, Washington, DC 20038 USA
> 202-682-4282 phone and fax (call first)
>
http://prop1.org | mailto:prop1@prop1.org
> - WANTED: WISDOM & HONESTY -
>
> A postscript:
>
> Joseph Newman has challenged Mr. William Thomas to provide his STREET
> (MAILING) ADDRESS (NOT Post Office Box) and he will file a lawsuit
> against him for libel.
>
> =========end fwd
>
> From: David Crockett Williams <gear2000@lightspeed.net>
> To: Thomas <prop1@prop1.org>;
> Evan Soule' - Joseph Newman Power Co <josephnewman@earthlink.net>
> Cc: Dr. Robert Park - American Physical Society - UMD College Park
> Physics Department); Mark Avrum Gubrud; Dr. Jack Sarfatti PhD -
> - Stardrive.org - Internet Science Education Project; Eric Krieg
> Subject: Newman v Thomas libel lawsuit re Mar.28 DC Newman press
> conference - Joseph Newman has challenged Mr. William Thomas and
> he will file a lawsuit against him for libel
> Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 5:20 PM
>
> "Joseph Newman has challenged Mr. William Thomas to provide his
> STREET (MAILING) ADDRESS (NOT Post Office Box) and he will
> file a lawsuit against him for libel." -- Evan Soule, Mar 29, 2005
> 4:05 PM
>
> This would be a geat media attraction and would bring the truth of the
> matter into jurisdiction of public courts and all attendant news media
> attention - Hollywood style - line up your celebrities on both sides
> of the
> isle and "gentlemen, start your engines". I will cheer this court case
> on, knowing Thomas will never give up and is qualified pro per legal
> beagle having fought his way pro per through the court systems to
> stay vigiling 24yrs across the street from the White House in Lafayette
> Park (White House Peace Park), and his court cases won and lost
> have precipitated changes in law as a result, eg, park service rules
> etc.
> Thomas has been roughed up by the best of them. Will he pick up this
> gauntlet as the peoples champion to find the truth of the matter in
> court?
>
http://www.prop1.org>
> Joseph Newman would never back down from such a court challenge
> to have his name vindicated as a truthful and honest man, and his
> Massergy Theory and Energy Machine seem the disputed issue to
> be adjudged by the courts as "true" or "fake/false," so he has now
> welcomed this as an opportunity to bring the truth into brighter light.
>
http://www.josephnewman.com>
> Sounds like a real "Big Prize Fight" to me. Let's get good tv
> coverage of this case in court, the sooner the better, asap.
>
> Newman v Thomas, Round One, ding!
>
> David Crockett Williams, Mar 29, 2005 5:12 PMpst
> gear2000@lightspeed.net
> Bachelor of Science, Chemistry, CSUN 1967
> Chartered Life Underwriter, American College 1971
> Author, Tetron Natural Unified Field Theory, 1974-77
>
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/tetron2.html>
> c/o Miehi Family Circle
> 12534 Rolling Oaks Rd
> Twin Oaks CA 93518
> 661-867-2486
>
www.miehi.com>
> Global Emergency Alert Response 2000
>
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000>
> Peace Pole for Jerusalem
>
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/peacepole.html>
> Rainbow Uprising Campaign 2005
>
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/rainbowuprising.html>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rainbow-uprising>
> UNESCO Global Culture of Peace Decade 2001-2010
>
http://tinyurl.com/5keaz