It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Blacklight Power Sues Wiki Trolls

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

And where can we find the reports of these "three independent lab studies by major universities that prove their claims", other than in a questionable BLP press release? You've been asked on numerous occasions to substantiate this claim.
edit on 14-8-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
They have no proof of fraud.


BLP have no proof for their claims....


BLP has three independent lab studies by major universities that prove their claims. Further, BLP doesn't have to prove the claims are false. The defendants need to prove they are true.



Nope, please go read TITLE 26 App. TITLE XIV. Rule 142 which states who has the burden of proof in a fraud case.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

And where can we find the reports of these "three independent lab studies by major universities that prove their claims", other than in a questionable BLP press release? You've been asked on numerous occasions to substantiate this claim.



Yeah where is that?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

and the identities of these alleded univeristies are ??

and their aledged results are published at .................... ?

further - how long will you remain wilfully ignorant of the basics of US defamation legislation ?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune
BLP has three independent lab studies by major universities that prove their claims. Further, BLP doesn't have to prove the claims are false. The defendants need to prove they are true.


Yeah, I looked into this and you are correct.

Of course, that's easy for BLP to do.







edit on 8/14/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

How and where is the proof of the three labs claim?

Also in the post above you quote a quote that was not mine
edit on 14/8/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

and the identities of these alleded univeristies are ??

and their aledged results are published at .................... ?

further - how long will you remain wilfully ignorant of the basics of US defamation legislation ?





Urbana-Champaign University:
www.blacklightpower.com...

Auburn University:
www.blacklightpower.com...

Rowan University:
www.blacklightpower.com...


Oh, and they have quite a few more PhD's besides those three who are willing to testify that their process is legitimate:

www.blacklightpower.com...




edit on 8/14/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

All of those come from BP can you source it form the Universities themselves?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

All of those come from BP can you source it form the Universities themselves?


Doesn't matter.

The professors who published the reports can be subpoenaed by BLP to assert their reports are accurate. The professors who conducted the testing are listed on the reports provided.

Further, BLP has videos of each of those professors discussing their findings in person.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

All of those come from BP can you source it form the Universities themselves?


Doesn't matter.

The professors who published the reports can be subpoenaed by BLP to assert their reports are accurate. The professors who conducted the testing are listed on the reports provided.

Further, BLP has videos of each of those professors discussing their findings in person.



Yeah and the only sources for these reports is BP itself where is the independent verification? These reports should be published elsewhere ..... where is that?

I would also note that the one report I read by Glumac was looking at a single reaction not a useable product.
edit on 14/8/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

All of those come from BP can you source it form the Universities themselves?


Doesn't matter.

The professors who published the reports can be subpoenaed by BLP to assert their reports are accurate. The professors who conducted the testing are listed on the reports provided.

Further, BLP has videos of each of those professors discussing their findings in person.



Yeah and the only sources for these reports is BP itself where is the independent verification? These reports should be published elsewhere ..... where is that?



Doesn't matter. Test reports are not published in journals.

Are you suggesting that the professors in the videos are not really who they claim to be, and that BLP fabricated those reports out of whole-cloth, using the University and scientists names without their permission?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
Urbana-Champaign University:
www.blacklightpower.com...


They did not test BLP's claims - they simply tested some material with a DSC..


Auburn University:
www.blacklightpower.com...


another DSC test - but the control was a different weight!


Rowan University:
www.blacklightpower.com...



By applying a high current to solid fuels, BLP has achieved a breakthrough in power and power density. Using earth-abundant and eco-friendly chemicals, explosive power of millions of watts and astonishing tens of billions of watts per liter were demonstrated. Using existing components and technologies, systems could be engineered and built into very inexpensive commercial power generators that use H 2 O as fuel having 100 times the volumetric energy content of gasoline.


Sounds like promotional material rather than a scientific report...

How about links NOT from BLP?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune
I would also note that the one report I read by Glumac was looking at a single reaction not a useable product.


Glumac:


"I've been interested in the Blacklight material for quite an number of years... since about the mid 90s.
...
I have rigs running in my lab right now based on the basic principles provided by Blacklight over the number of years.
...
As far as the systems you saw today, the SunCell system and these systems where you get a lot of light output...commercial photovoltaic technology will couple very well to the emission from those systems.
...
I offer my endorsement of the techniques and results presented here."


Starting at time 1:14:00, second video.

www.blacklightpower.com...



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

Doesn't matter.



Yeah, it does, actually. Watch:

Hey everyone, Oxford University have validated my claims that I can fly!

See how meaningless these claims are?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

Doesn't matter.



Yeah, it does, actually. Watch:

Hey everyone, Oxford University have validated my claims that I can fly!

See how meaningless these claims are?


Could you subpoena an Oxford professor to testify that this is the case? Because BLP can.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   
A jury is not going to be biased against BLP because a jury isn't going to care if the standard model is wrong. A jury is going to care about results.

When BLP brings out a parade of PhDs all asserting that they tested BLP's process and deem it to be legitimate, a jury isn't going to care that some random joe on the internet says it's impossible because the standard model says it can't be done.

BLP has a case.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
A jury is not going to be biased against BLP because a jury isn't going to care if the standard model is wrong. A jury is going to care about results.

When BLP brings out a parade of PhDs all asserting that they tested BLP's process and deem it to be legitimate, a jury isn't going to care that some random joe on the internet says it's impossible because the standard model says it can't be done.

BLP has a case.



Actually they don't they are attempting to sell a useable unit - do they have one? Nope, and how many years have they been saying they will have such a unit "soon"?

How many years is it AC?

Edited to add - they have been saying this for 23 years....lol, hmmmmmm lol x 2
edit on 14/8/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

You avoided the question the question is where is the report in a third party location. plus as I noted it concerns a reaction only. Also who has verified his report?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

yet glumac - in all his 20 years " research " into this hasn't managed a single paper on the topic



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Yep I looked at his publication list, not to bad but not a single thing on this subject - interesting eh?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join