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.

 

Brilliant Light Power Achieves Self-Sustaining Reaction

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


Methinks you protest to much vwww.cheniere.org...




posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Ahahahhaha now you're citing a blog post on the fraudster Tom Bearden's website! Priceless.

Thanks, your inept attempts at scientific discourse only serve to keep underscoring the point myself and others have been making all along.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

I've got a question for you.

Have you found any of the "100 peer reviews" you said there were?

If you have, why not post them instead of blogs and people wanting to sell books?



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79



You just don't like the idea that QM could be shaky, yes he has got a lot of endorsements, from what would be considered good scientists. vbrilliantlightpower.wikia.com...



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

I didn't ask for endorsements (anyone can endorse anything. It doesn't make it real, true or effective).

Let's go back over what you said, shall we?

2 days ago you said.....

The only thing Mills is getting wrong is the timing , I don't think it will be ready for about five years. Its had about a hundred peer reviews. So we will see who ultimately has egg on their face


Yet in those 2 days you haven't managed to post a single one.

What you HAVE done is post blogs, links to people who work for BLP, stories and a whole list of other nonesense that hasn't been 1 of the "100 peer reviews".

It's VERY clear that you made it up and are now stuck because you got called out to back up your (false) claims.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


Did you read the bit about the patent application when it said it was independently verified.? They don't grant patents for PM .Time will resolve this argument. Since from now on the device is getting assembled with off the shelf tech. It wont be long.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
They don't grant patents for PM .


Oh, SURE they do. They don't intentionally do it, but there are a number of patents I've run into where the inventor intentionally obfuscated the claims and description to slide a perpetual motion machine past the examiners.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Yes they do. You obviously don't know much about patents and the human beings who make mistakes.

I see you still failed to post ANY of the "100 peer reviews". Guess we should lump you in with the likes of Mills and his ilk who like to make up stories.

And I love the "it won't be long" comment. I wonder where I've heard that before? Oh, that's right. Mills, every year for the past 20+ years.
edit on 2032017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


The wiki has a list of peer reviews . www.sciencedirect.com... I seriously cant be bothered anymore, other things to do.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Then you should be able to link to full peer reviewed papers.

Not abstracts or papers put on sites that anyone can submit.

The full peer reviews.

So far all you've done is show that you made up your statement of "100 peer reviews".



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

that the best you have ? - its been cited ONCE [ mills own self cite doesnt count ]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join