Folks! I’ve had a communication from one of the purveyors of ShooTag™ which, I think you’ll agree needs to be awarded headline status, rather than languish in the Comments on this post.
Melissa Rogers, the person credited as CEO of ShooTag™ on the About page on the ShooTag™ site, has found her way to The Cow (whilst vanity-searching her product, we must assume). Well, of course, I said things she didn’t like so she found time to mount her best and most coherent argument against my point of view.
I reprint her thoughts for you here in full.
Melissa Rogers adds:
Your response proves that you are not disaplined in physics or quantum physics. The statements that you made about frequencies being the same as a cell phone demonstrate you lack of science knowledge. There are many types of frequencies and ours are not radio frequencies. When we go from patent pending to full patent protection, then all of our sceince (all three applications) will be disclosed. Instead of making a judgement without knowledge, try it. Actually, try the people mosquito tag. If you usually get bitten by mosquitoes, you will know if you do not get mosquito bites -won’t you? If would give you more credibility to have a quantum physicist contact us and then let him explain the science to you. Otherwise it just makes you sound ignorant! Technology is changing very quickly and most people have no science background to understand how any of it works. Did you know that radios were first made with crystals? did you know that digital items are made with liquid crystals? Did you know that cell phones use fractal geometry to make a minute antenna that uses your energy field to extend? Do your homework and try the people mosquito tag. See for yourself.
Now, let’s see:
•Your response proves that you are not disaplined in physics or quantum physics.
Melissa, unlike you, I’m not pretending I am disciplined in physics or quantum physics in any formal way. I’m not the one trying to take money from people based on my ‘expertise’ and so my credentials are not the ones under scrutiny. Nevertheless, I am very well read in both physics and quantum physics, and I plainly know a great deal more about these sciences than you do. I certainly know enough to understand that your page on The Science Behind ShooTag™ is a whole lot of waffle that makes no scientific sense whatsoever.
•The statements that you made about frequencies being the same as a cell phone demonstrate you lack of science knowledge.
Whoa! Hang on there pardner! For a start, it’s your site that bandies around the the words ‘electromagnetic frequencies’ without any discrimination at all. I am completely aware of the scope of the electromagnetic spectrum and my point was that you use this catch-all description without having the vaguest idea of what it means. I don’t know whether or not your frequencies are the same as those of a cell phone because you never specify. You just claim, in the scatty manner of peddlers of pseudoscience, that your product ‘uses electromagnetic frequencies’. That’s as daft as saying it uses ‘vibrations’.
•There are many types of frequencies and ours are not radio frequencies.
Really? So you think mobile phones use radio frequencies then? Um, exactly who’s the science dummy here? So, the frequencies that your device uses – they’re ultraviolet, maybe? X-ray? Gamma ray? Perhaps they operate in the visible light spectrum? You haven’t got a clue what I’m talking about, have you?
And, may I ask, does your device have a power source? From my investigation of your site it doesn’t seem so. If this is the case, then please don’t attempt to sell me the idea that it ‘radiates frequencies’ of any kind at all. This would be flying in the face of all known physics. Unless of course it’s radioactive, and I think I’m taking a pretty safe punt that it’s not.
•When we go from patent pending to full patent protection, then all of our sceince (all three applications) will be disclosed.
Yeah, now, see, you claim your patent is pending, and if that is even the case (which I doubt), it would be because it hasn’t been awarded. We can discuss this further if you actually ever get a patent.
•If would give you more credibility to have a quantum physicist contact us and then let him explain the science to you.
Oh, I would LOVE to hear an explanation from a quantum physicist. PLEASE get one to write to me. But don’t bother if it’s Prof. William Nelson – he is NOT a quantum physicist.
•Technology is changing very quickly and most people have no science background to understand how any of it works.
Yes, I’m afraid that is entirely true. Most people have very little understanding of science. If they did, gewgaws such as ShooTag™ would never see the light of day. Melissa, what your product offers is in no way based on science. If it was, you’d be able to clearly communicate the ideas behind your device in a way that doesn’t sound completely addled to anyone with knowledge of scientific principles. You’d have conducted properly run double blind experiments, and accumulated data that confirms your results from unbiased researchers. You’d have submitted your science to peer-reviewed periodicals, and have the endorsement of real scientists instead of a lone nutcase who has a track record of ridiculous claims and refers to fictional publications (the ‘Quantum Agriculture Journal’, for example).
•Otherwise it just makes you sound ignorant!
Really? You seem strangely desperate to try and make me seem ignorant. That’s what’s called an ad hominem argument, and is usually the last resort of someone who has run out of actual facts.
•Did you know that radios were first made with crystals? did you know that digital items are made with liquid crystals?
Um, yeah, but so what? Is that supposed to impress me? Is it an example of your superior science knowledge, perhaps? What’s it got to do with anything? How does it relate to your invention?
Oh crap. Something just occurred to me – please don’t tell me that the ShooTag™ uses some kind of ‘crystals’. That would be most dismal. Or actually, do tell me that, if you like! I think that would firmly stake your credibility in this argument.
•Did you know that cell phones use fractal geometry to make a minute antenna that uses your energy field to extend?
Now, do you even have the foggiest idea what that means? Do you know, or understand any fractal geometry? What ‘energy field’ are you talking about? Extend what? How? Why?
Or is it, perhaps, that like the words ‘magnetic’ and ‘quantum’, you’re throwing in ‘fractal’ because, for you, it’s some kind of mysterious magical notion that you believe will somehow be impressive? Well, sadly, it might bluff those who know nothing about such things, but really, you’ve picked the wrong person on whom to use that kind of language. I work with fractal math. I know what it does and what it means. What you are attempting to say does not in any way sound sensible to me.
•Do your homework and try the people mosquito tag. See for yourself.
I shouldn’t need to try your product to know that it’s plausible, in the same way that I shouldn’t need to buy, oh, toaster or something to ‘see if it works’ – I know that the toaster is likely to function as its manufacturer claims because the scientific principles on which it’s based make sense.
You imply that you know more about science than I do, and yet you don’t even have the most basic understanding of scientific process. I’m not the one you need to convince. Convince people who have no vested interest in your product (that is, NOT people who’ve forked over money, or friends, or credulous tv presenters). Convince unbiased scientists, using properly conducted scientific trials. Take all the spurious anecdotal ‘evidence’ off your website and replace it with some properly endorsed rational thinking.
I reiterate what I said in my original post – if your science is genuine, and your device does what you claim, then doctors working in malaria zones all over the world will be beating your door down. That would certainly be convincing evidence.
But while you continue to invoke dubious ‘scientists’ like ‘Professor’ William Nelson, mythical gazettes like the ‘Quantum Agriculture Journal’ and spout equivocal gibberish such as that which you use in ‘The Science Behind ShooTag™’, your credibility is near zero. Your small pool of personal ‘It-worked-for-me-TOO!’ testimonials may serve to fleece gullible pet owners of their dollars, but it doesn’t constitute any kind of science.
Come back and push my face it in when you’ve solved the world’s malaria problems (which, if your device works as claimed, should be a trivial undertaking and be achievable in a scant year or so – or maybe you don’t think that’s a worthwhile use for your invention?). I promise I will make a full and humble apology in that event.
Until then, all you have to do is show me where the science is in all your claims.
