Knowledge, Theory, Proof, Paradigms

So much talk and you know talk is cheap.
So we want peer review. We want proof.
If I tell you something even with a degree and peer review many do not get it.

paradigms take almost 40 years to get into the public consciousness even with peer review

When it comes to whats known and what a peer review really means I give you the words of Boyd Bushman. He lives a paradigm that are miracles. Same universe as you and me, his has miracles.

It applies to all of us.
If I said it you would never believe me.
If he said it openly there would be no theories where he is.
So with that in mind may his words open up your mind the next time you want the peer review and your only belief is what is published. Remind yourself that many things are not as they seem. He may be talking antigravity but it applies to the basics of physics, whats known, whats believed and whats actually going on.

You can live in that world where only peer review is your level of belief...or you can open up your mind and live in his.
I choose to life in his.

Ladies and Gentlemen
Boyd Bushman
I believe Mother Nature does not speak English.
Mother Nature tells us what must be honored, and has been talking to us on many domains, and we have dataset's we're still trying to understand. I cannot talk to all the theoretician's because there are no theories were I am. What we have is wonderful, and it comes from miracles occurring, but that what we see will not be that what we have. To listen where languages are not taught and verbalization is not used.
But we have to learn its language

I tell my team, don't talk to me about things, you know, they have all that in production. Talk to me about things that we can only think of in dreams
We are alone in our walk but it is fullfilling.

The evidence of the separation of the galaxies is evidence of dark energy and antigravity.
Two equal weights. One made up of two North Pole magnets that oppose each other. Iron filing tests show that this showers out a magnetic plane. We wanted to see how this magnetic plane intersected with gravity. When dropped from a height, the duel North Pole magnet will land last.

They have refined, a device that as it charges will lift, because it is losing weight.

youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 14-5-2007 by junglelord]

I am curious to what world most people live in.

Any comments on paradigms and knowledge base at the present time vs what the truth is?

Do you believe in miracles?

Do you think the universe is understood.

Have you listened to Mother Nature lately>

Is she talking a langugaue that we need to learn>

or is it english and found in the library and in peer reviews?

[edit on 14-5-2007 by junglelord]

Originally posted by junglelord
Boyd Bushman... lives a paradigm that [has] miracles.

It has misplaced apostrophes, too.

we have dataset's...

I cannot talk to all the theoretician's...

Peer review would have got rid of those, you know.

Originally posted by junglelord
I am curious to what world most people live in.

Most often, their own. As Jimi said: 'and who in your measly little world are you trying to prove that you're made of gold and can't be sold.'

Most people. Not all.

Any comments on paradigms and knowledge base at the present time vs what the truth is?

I have far too much to tell in one post. Search my name here at ATS. Read 'Behold a White Horse.'

Do you believe in miracles?

I believe what my eyes see...and these days I see things I can't even explain or find a logical explanation for (and I am a lover of logic and actual ANSWERS instead of dreamy fake fairy tales). My mom and Scott have most often also witnessed these things, with me. Now Scott's third eye is opening and he got to see me in a way I will never get to, but at least I know what he saw and it made sense - just like all the other seemingly impossible things that have happened these last several years - the whole thing as an experience is CRAZY and FAR-FETCHED beyond description...but the crazier it gets, the more congruent/consistent it shows itself to be and it is way too LOGICAL to not be 'right.'

I have learned that perceived human reality and logic are actually not at all obligated to one another at all...when stuff makes sense...it just makes sense! Even if it seems like something from a sci fi novel or comic book.

It's great!

Do you think the universe is understood.

What do you mean? Does it understand itself? Yes, but not in a wholly manifested way. Do I understand the universe? More than I ever ventured to discover and more than even the current popular theories propose.

Have you listened to Mother Nature lately

Do you mean 'the voice of the Earth Goddess?' Well, just between you and I, yes, I talk to myself all the time!

Is she talking a language that we need to learn

Agape love and unity is an unspoken universal truth...that's all that is absolutely necessary. It is the spark that ignites the fire of true life. But it's been sparked already....just slow to start but there comes a point when suddenly the fire seems to be everywhere. Cali and Fla are both burning...L A (the city of angels) and the Lizard King's birthplace....east to west just like the bible says the coming of the son of man will be.

or is it english and found in the library and in peer reviews?

It's everywhere. EVERYWHERE.
Really potent on the classic rock radio stations, though. There are some monumental events taking place this summer, too - like Ozzfest and Van Halen touring again...Joan Jett and also the Police.

Listen to the Doors if you like them. Especially 'The Soft Parade.'

As Bertrand Russell said “knowledge is product of doubt“....so a scientist is one very, very cautious creature.

In defining knowledge, there are two further matters to be taken into consideration, namely the degree of certainty and the degree of precision. All knowledge is more or less uncertain and more or less vague. These are, in a sense, opposing characters: vague knowledge has more likelihood of truth than precise knowledge, but is less useful. One of the aims of science is to increase precision without diminishing certainty. But we cannot confine the word "knowledge" to what has the highest degree of both these qualities; we must include some propositions that are rather vague and some that are only rather probable. It Is important, however, to indicate vagueness and uncertainty where they are present, and, if possible, to estimate their degree. Where this can be done precisely, it becomes "probable error" and "probability". But in most cases precision in this respect is impossible.

Theory of Knowledge // B. Russell




And peer review aims (or should aim) to meet the scientific standard. We just need to try to make it better ( be it by naming publicly the names of rewiewers or trying to prevent any false control of information which aims to some sot of “elitism“).

I think he is talking about telepathy with ET and ED as well as Sacred Geometry when he says mother nature does not speak english...
Just a guess but thats what I think.

kindly borrowed from corsair00 and steven greer thread

Jacques Vallee
the following text is from: www.ufoevidence.org...


quote:
In his recent autobiographical book, Forbidden Science, Vallee summed up his views about the provenance of UFOs, a viewpoint that he's developed through decades of research: "The UFO Phenomenon exists. It has been with us throughout history. It is physical in nature and it remains unexplained in terms of contemporary science. It represents a level of consciousness that we have not yet recognized, and which is able to manipulate dimensions beyond time and space as we understand them." So much for anti-gravity-powered starships ferrying Big Brothers from outer space. Vallee thinks UFOs are likely "windows" to other dimensions manipulated by intelligent, often mischievous, always enigmatic beings we have yet to understand.

Vallee moved to America from his native France in the early 1960s, as young astronomer-turned-computer scientist. Vallee pioneered the use of computers to analyze and categorize the UFO phenomenon, and his 1965 book, Anatomy of a Phenomenon, is still considered one of the most scholarly books on UFOs ever written. At Northwestern University, Vallee assisted Prof. J. Allen Hynek, the academic consultant on the Air Force's infamous Project Bluebook, now seen by most saucer students as either a half-hearted government effort to address the UFO craze of the 1950s and 1960s or a full-blown coverup. While working with Hynek, Vallee and his wife, Janine, compiled the first-ever computer database of UFO sightings.

In 1969, Vallee published another groundbreaking book, Passport to Magonia, in which he collected a body of folkloric "myths" that read remarkably like modern UFO encounters, from Celtic tales of fairyland abductions to Biblical passages and medieval chronicles of "visitors" from beyond. Building on Carl Jung's thesis that UFOs are a sociological phenomenon, a product of the collective unconscious, Vallee forever left behind the space-bound E.T. theorists. But his folklorist's approach to the problem would influence a number of later researchers and writers who continue to echo his ideas about other-dimensional forms of consciousness. Best-selling author Whitley Strieber, Harvard "abductee psychologist" John Mack, and journalist Keith Thompson (author of Angels and Aliens all owe a debt to Vallee. Stephen Spielberg paid homage to Vallee in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, basing his French scientist character (played by Francois Truffaut) on the real French UFO theorist.

Josef Allen Hynek

(the following text is from Wikipedia)


quote:
Josef Allen Hynek (May 1, 1910 - April 27, 1986) was a U.S. astronomer, professor, and ufologist.

He is probably best remembered for his UFO research: Hynek acted as scientific advisor to three consecutive UFO studies undertaken by the U.S. Air Force: Project Sign (1947-1949), Project Grudge (1949-1952), and finally, Project Blue Book (1952 to 1969); for decades afterwards, he conducted his own independent UFO research.

In 1977, at the First International UFO Congress in Chicago, Hynek presented his thoughts in his speech "What I really believe about UFOs". "I do believe," he said, "that the UFO phenomenon as a whole is real, but I do not mean necessarily that it's just one thing. We must ask whether the diversity of observed UFOs . . . all spring from the same basic source, as do weather phenomena, which all originate in the atmosphere", or whether they differ "as a rain shower differs from a meteor, which in turn differs from a cosmic-ray shower." We must not ask, Hynek said, what hypothesis can explain the most facts, but we must ask, which hypothesis can explain the most puzzling facts. (C. Fuller, 156-157)

"There is sufficient evidence to defend both the ETI and the EDI hypothesis," Hynek continued. As evidence for the ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) he mentioned, as examples, the radar cases as good evidence of something solid, and the physical-trace cases. Then he turned to defending the EDI (extradimensional intelligence) hypothesis. Besides the aspect of materialization and dematerialization he cited the "poltergeist" phenomenon experienced by some people after a close encounter; the photographs of UFOs, some times on only one frame, not seen by the witnesses; the changing form right before the witnesses' eyes; the puzzling question of telepathic communication; or that in close encounters of the third kind the creatures seem to be at home in earth's gravity and atmosphere; the sudden stillness in the presence of the craft; levitation of cars or persons; the development by some of psychic abilities after an encounter. "Do we have two aspects of one phenomenon or two different sets of phenomena?" Hynek asked. (C. Fuller, 157-163)

Finally he introduced a third hypothesis. "I hold it entirely possible," he said, "that a technology exists, which encompasses both the physical and the psychic, the material and the mental. There are stars that are millions of years older than the sun. There maybe a civilization that is millions of years more advanced than man's. We have gone from Kitty Hawk to the moon in some seventy years, but it's possible that a million-year-old civilization may know something that we don't ... I hypothesize an 'M&M' technology encompassing the mental and material realms. The psychic realms, so mysterious to us today, may be an ordinary part of an advanced technology." (C. Fuller, 164-165)

thanks corsair00 for the work that goes with my post so well.

I believe it shows that a real change in paradigm is required to really dream the reality of his universe...and maybe its telepathy with ETE and EDE when he says Mother Nature does not speak english but we must learn its language.


[edit on 15-5-2007 by junglelord]

Well, Houston, you have a problem, there.

The words "knowledge, theory, proof, paradigm" have two kinds of definitions... the "folk" definition and the "official" definition.

Folk definitions aren't tightly constrained. A "theory" can be a wild guess, an idea, or even a dream. "I have a theory that the universe was created by the flying spaghetti monster" is a folk theory.

In science, definitions are very precise. A "theory" in science is something that is a building block. It is generated from other scientific theories or proofs and is testable (folk theories don't have to be testable) and falsifiable (the countercase can be easily outlined) and is run through the mills of having scientists hammer on it until they're sure it's solid.

What we see on this board (when people come up with theories) are simply folk theories (a better name for them is "speculation.") We try to keep those theories in Skunk Works where they can be developed by the supporters and not hit on by the skeptics out here.

Folk theories are useful to the ordinary guy because they explain the universe in terms the ordinary guy likes and understands. But they can't be used as science or to generate new scientific models of the world or things because they aren't testable, aren't falsifiable, etc.

Science's method of testing is very exact. I've taken courses in experimental design, and it's not that easy to set up a good experiment (it's very easy to set up a bad one, however.) A case in point was the group that decided to test their miracle serum by dunking mice in a beaker and seeing how long it took them to drown. The experiment they did was useless (so many variables) and cruel... but they were using folk science and had no idea that their experiment could actually give them wrong answers.

Those of us (there are several) on this board who have gone through the training and have actually done experiments (and gotten whapped when we had a bad design) will often caution peole when we see news stories based on someone's very bad science. That kind of bad knowledge can end up hurting folks, and we don't like to see it promoted.

(I've glossed over a lot of details here. The science end of things is a lot more complex, but I'm not in the mood to write huge chunks of text on a subject that may not be terribly interesting.)

did you ever try his simple coil copper wire experiment?
I am gonna try it.
lets see what happens

Originally posted by junglelord
did you ever try his simple coil copper wire experiment?
I am gonna try it.
lets see what happens

Whose experiment? What experiment? And was it an experiment or "foolin' around with stuff"?

Just because "folk science" calls something an experiment doesn't actually mean it's a real experiment.

Second video, first post, byrd.
Its one of the lead managers of Lockheed Martin for the black ops.
Its very clear in the first post, I have two video links
Ovbiously you did not bother to watch them, please do.
They are only like four minutes a piece.

PS Where did you come up with this Folk stuff?
I guess from not clicking the links.
You really need to be more careful if your gonna respond, please fully read and also go to links before I get the Folk treatment and you waste space. I love your interest...I need your full participation my good friend.

Not trailer park stuff, Lockheed Martain Black Ops senior excutive scientist.
The only link I gave is too Lockheed and boyd bushman.
I don't think he is faking it or BSing it to us or anyone.
He can only say so much.

From what he says I don't need too wait for peer review.
I know its real.
I know that the universe can make miracles.
I choose to live in his universe where I will learn the language

cheers.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by junglelord]

paradigms take almost 40 years to get into the public consciousness even with peer review

So learn this lesson now:
CREATE CONTROVERSY

It should be realistic enough to believe and radical enough that traditionalists will hate it. Then you'll get your media spotlight and won't have to wait 40 years.

well they say with the internet that this will change for the first time and that mindsets will not take 40 years to enter the public consciousness...I just heard that yesterday on the radio
Lets hope Lockheed comes forth instead of teasing us.
I am ready to take the next step.
If not I believe what he says and that the language is learnable....that she is talking to us on many levels and we do have subsets we still do not understand...but we can do miracles right now...somewhere locked up under high security they are freaking doing miracles.
I am excited to know that the universe is far stranger then I could suppose.

Originally posted by junglelord
Second video, first post, byrd.

Not all of us have time for videos. This one blathered on for quite awhile before getting to the point. The effect is well known (I'm not sure why they're presenting it like that) and won't work unless it's on a metal platform (such as was shown.)

Nor is it an experiment. They don't give you enough info to accurately reproduce it or get the same effects, as a googling of folks who have tried it will show. But yes, it does work if you do it right.

PS Where did you come up with this Folk stuff?

I didn't "come up" with it. This is one of the things they teach you in the first three days of any beginning anthropology course... that there are different kinds of knowledge. I didn't go into the whole background, but it's well established.

You really need to be more careful if your gonna respond, please fully read and also go to links before I get the Folk treatment and you waste space.

Actually, things about videos need to go in the multimedia area. Like a good many folk, I don't watch them since I read far faster than they speak.

From what he says I don't need too wait for peer review.

Indeed, you don't. It's a variant of the Thompson ring. I was doing science fair demos on this back in the 1960's -- these toys were available back in the 1950's. I got mine for the science fair from my dad, who was in military intelligence... and yes, they were researching that back then.

As I said, folk knowledge, proof, and ideas of peer review are very different than the scientific community's standard.

Nor does knowledge take 40 years to become accepted in the science community... that's another folk belief.

(sorry if I sound cranky. I didn't get much sleep last night.)

God bless Byrd.
Thanks for taking the time and discussing it.
I read faster then anyone I know
I spell terrible
dyslexia...
LOL
Cheers

[edit on 17-5-2007 by junglelord]

well you got me on the thompson ring thing
never heard of it.
simple google
have to say that the experiment you mention is not related to his demonstration.
apples and oranges
He is Lockheed specialist...he was not talking about a variation of the thompson ring....he stated clearly he came up with the technology to fly the drone.
So if he came up with it...its new.
Cheers
Not sure why you dont do video links, and why would I post a video link in a seperate thread>?

thompson ring

www.physics.montana.edu...

Needs a vertical transformer and a ring
how in the world is the boyd bushman demo even remotely related to that experiment
you have to teach me that one

apples and oranges bigtime, sorry not in a million years do I believe your little science experiment flys drones for the military


Your experiment is a ring floating in the field created by a virtical transformer

his is basicly one side of a transformer or an inductor floating not the same in the least.

I don't see your transformer floating, I see a ring floating in a magnetic field created by a virtical transformer.

I dont see a simple 30guage 250 turns floating in your experiment.


again your experiment does not power UFO miltary drones
his does


he is intersecting gravity he says it himself.
you make no claims and rightly so as your experiment is not antigravity


but to refute his work and call it a thompson ring anomoly is grossing lacking in understanding of what he said or what it means.
Shalom Byrd


[edit on 17-5-2007 by junglelord]

Originally posted by junglelord
Needs a vertical transformer and a ring

The vertical transformer is just the simplest application and one done most often as a toy. The coil needs to be a ring (can't "float" any other shape) and (as is frequently pointed out to the folks who have tried it and complain that they can't make it work) it only works with a table surface of a certain type.

apples and oranges bigtime, sorry not in a million years do I believe your little science experiment flys drones for the military

That's just it... the military tested it, and it didn't work (as I said.)

Nor has the military created drones flown by antigravity/mag lev, etc. Military technology tends to reach the public in some form after 10 years (the "night vision" module on the Cadillac, for instance, was actually developed by Raytheon for tanks. It had been in use in the military for about 8 years when it was released to the public.)

BTW, the "Gulf Breeze" incident was revealed to be a hoax by researchers in the UFO community.

So Boyd Bushman is lying?
I guess we agree to disagree
thankyou for your reply
God Bless my friend

patent for a antigravity device
lovely read.
Notice he uses mercury...same as the flying triangle and web info on the TRB3 I think its called
cheers Byrd

patft.uspto.gov.../3 626605&RS=PN/3626605

[edit on 18-5-2007 by junglelord]