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.

 

Element 115 question

page: 15
11
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It's just amazing, tezz, what you can swallow.

I have asked you twice previously to not slur my screen name to your liking. I have asked you once in this thread and once in the "Deconstructing the anti-gravity drive" thread. Your refusal to do so is an insult to me, as this is the third time I have asked you.




posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
However, when DogHead already states this: "I consider that the same as someone refusing a polygraph and I call bullshwit on Lazar" (Quote from DogHead) BEFORE the experiment has taken place - it really shows that there's an agenda in place. That remark from DogHead clearly shows that unless Bob is prepared to play along and produce the sample, that he is to be condemned.


Tezz, look at the paragraph that you are referring to:

If we prepare everything in a forthright, honest and credible way and then the sample is not offered when there is no reason why it would not be offered, I consider that the same as someone refusing a polygraph and I call bullshwit on Lazar.


Did you miss the "forthright, honest and credible way"? Seriously.

You see, somebody makes a really exotic and important claim that would change how we perceive this world and maybe our mode of transportation, forever. That would be Bob, wouldn't it? It is only fair to ask Bob, in the forthright, honest and credible way to help us to help him to really prove that his claims are true. If he was so concerned about secrecy, he would be plastering his personal web page with info on 115 and aliens. So don't try to play this card... If he says "A" and refuses to say "B", that in fact is an insult, to any thinking individual. Your mileage may vary.


From that perspective, DogHead's offer is loaded with one of compliance - otherwise, he's going to call "bullshwit" (DogHead's word) on Bob. Comply or be insulted. That's the choice that DogHead is giving Bob.


And that's quite fair, as far as I am concerned. If you came to Dog and told him that you have conclusive evidence that his wife is cheating on him (God forbid), and then refuse to corroborate, he would have the moral right to consider you a nut, a liar, a troll-for-attention, or all of the above. If you have evidence, bring it forth, if you don't shut up and just run your half-@rse online surplus store (or a brothel, which Bob did at one point).



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Firstly, it's great that instead of irrelevant crap you are now actually addressing the thread so kudos for that Tezzajw.

Now.

I call bull# or to circumvent the kiddie safe censor bullshwit on Lazar if he doesn't at least communicate properly on this topic because of the following reasons:

1. Bob Lazar is supposed to be some kind of scientist, not a cult leader.

2. as a scientist and not a cult leader, it seems reasonable as a hypothesis that, even if commercially motivated, Lazar's behaviour will conform to that of a scientist of the type he is held out as being.

3. deliberate obscurity in this matter to me indicates one of two things:
a) a lack of evidence to support an assertion and/or
b) evasion motivated by fraud.

4. even if the putative 115 can't be found, supplied, or whatever, the fact we stand ready to test it, AND IN THE PROCESS TOTALLY VINDICATE A MAN WHO HAS BEEN AND IS PERSECUTED FOR WHAT HE HAS CLAIMED, is a clear sign of our own intentions and motivation. We are searching for scientific answers and in the process some TRUTH.

5. good science, to me, is open and honest analysis of data, whether you go in with a theory or not. Open mind, a way of getting some results, some checks on what you are measuring and thinking about to stop ill disciplined speculation that isn't supported- seems like a reasonable start. Otherwise we may as well just go back to burning scientists at the stake when they advance FACTS that disagree with our BELIEFS.


Buddhasystem has made some comments already indicating he pretty much thinks this story about alien propulsion is not true. I know parts of it are true -to an extent- but I have no knowledge directly at all about 115 or Lazar.

This bears emphasizing again and again it seems:

I HAVE NO AGENDA OTHER THAN GETTING ANSWERS. I AM NOT A SUPER SCEPTIC WHEN IT COMES TO UFOs ETC.

I am even what some would call an experiencer, to an extent. But I am also, I hope, rational. I can see something, touch something, with my own senses and still not know what it is, and also still AVOID MAKING ASSUMPTIONS about what it is.

If we have prepped an experiment or set of experiments that are compliant with best practice for our current level of understanding, in the real world we all live in, what more can we do? If we are throwing a party for free for someone to celebrate something they claim, provided only that they confirm for us the existence of what we want to celebrate, how in God's name can that somehow be a nasty agenda?

When I go to a baby shower I want to see the baby. If there was something controversial about the very existence of babies, I wouldn't even settle for photographs. I would want to directly see some proof of the controversial thing.

Otherwise, let's be plain here, Lazar and Lear and their claims and their disingenuous way of advancing those claims are less convincing inherently even than the alien videos. Because even the alien videos allow up close scrutiny by both experts and laypersons.

Standards of Proof

"STANDARDS OF PROOF

1. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" - used in criminal cases

"The test is one of reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense -- the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt must, therefore, be proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it unhesitatingly in the most important of your own affairs. A reasonable doubt exists whenever, after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case, the jurors do not feel convinced to a moral certainty that a defendant is guilty of the charge."

Federal Jury Instructions - See Devitt & Blackmar, Section 11.01

2. "Clear and Convincing Evidence" - used in fraud cases

See Collins Securities Corp v. SEC, 562 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1977); See Gellhorn, p. 270.

The trier of fact must believe that it is highly probable that the facts are true or exist; while it is not necessary to believe to the point of almost certainty, or beyond a reasonable doubt, or that they certainly are true or exist; yet it is not sufficient to believe that it is merely more probable that they are true or exist than it is that they are false or do not exist.

3. Preponderance of the Evidence - Used in civil cases

The trier of fact must believe that it is more probable that the fact is true or exists than it is that it does not exist. See Gellhorn, p. 270 & Oregon Jury Instructions 22.02

4. Substantial Evidence - Use in most administrative cases

More than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389; Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474. See Gellhorn, pp. 258, 259, 737

5. A mere scintilla of Evidence- Used some old administrative cases

Enough evidence to create a suspicion of the existence of a fact.

See Universal Camera y, NLRB, supra."

I will, deliberately and under advisement, use the following to sum up my current position on each and every statement made by Lazar and Lear in relation to Element 115:

THERE IS NOT EVEN A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE OF IT.

I will, deliberately and under advisement, use the following to sum up my current position on each and every statement made by Lazar in relation to his work at S-4:

THERE IS NOT EVEN A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE OF IT.

I will, deliberately and under advisement, use the following to sum up my current position on the possibility that Lazar has in the past worked at a classified laboratory doing classified work of some kind for at least a short period:

THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF IT.

I will, deliberately and under advisement, use the following to sum up my current position on the possibility that Lazar has insider knowledge, that is, knowledge not capable of being explained as coming from another, open, source in relation to UFOs:

THERE IS NOT EVEN A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE OF IT.


When closely analysed with an open but inquiring mind almost all of Lazar's claims, separated out and looked at for evidence, fall way short of any real standard. ALMOST ALL. Not all.

And the beauty of being rational about this is, every time more evidence comes in we can see whether Lazar becomes more or less reliable and with him the story he tells.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
However, when DogHead already states this: "I consider that the same as someone refusing a polygraph and I call bullshwit on Lazar" (Quote from DogHead) BEFORE the experiment has taken place - it really shows that there's an agenda in place.


tezzajw...

I'm having trouble understanding your position. If you're interested in this field, i would imagine you would be more than happy and full of expectation because of such an offer.

BuddhaSystem offered to arrange an independent verification of Bob Lazar's claims. Aren't you interested in the outcome?

I mean, yes, we are skeptic of these and similiar claims, especially when we see mistakes and contradiction, not to mention past experience.

But i am sure that all of us are more than willing to consider the possibility. In fact we would love for it to be true. Yes, we trust science to offer the best explanation so far, but we would always love to learn even more, if possible.


But from reading your posts, i get a feeling you allready decided Bob isn't going to cooperate and are therefor creating excuses for him in advance.

Now why would you do that? Why attack BuddhaSystem's idea and accuse DogHead of having an agenda simply because he chooses to base his beliefs on facts rather than on other peoples claims?

I mean, he's willing to spend HIS money in order to verify YOUR belief! All you have to do is stand by and watch.

Are you scared your belief might get shattered? If you search for the truth, you have to be willing to accept all outcomes, not just the ones you like.

We are more than willing to do just that. Are you?



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Tezz, look at the paragraph that you are referring to:

If we prepare everything in a forthright, honest and credible way and then the sample is not offered when there is no reason why it would not be offered, I consider that the same as someone refusing a polygraph and I call bullshwit on Lazar.


Sure, let's look at this paragraph and see what it means.

"Bob, show us the piece and have it tested or you are full of ****".

Where in that paragraph is it implied that Bob will be asked to show the piece? Where is it implied that he has the option to respectfully decline, without being labelled as an expletive?

I don't doubt that the experiment will be credible, forthright, etc... however, the terms of trying to force Bob to provide the sample are not credible, honourable.

(Your continual slurring of my screen name is again noted.)


DogHead
3. deliberate obscurity in this matter to me indicates one of two things:
a) a lack of evidence to support an assertion and/or
b) evasion motivated by fraud.

DogHead, like you, I would love to have definitive proof that it is 115. However, we're not going to get it. We don't have to believe it. We don't even need to believe it. If it really is 115, then I can understand why Bob needs to suppress it, probably for his own safety. If it's not, then big deal - he's just another fraud.

Yes, his story has a lack of evidence. Yes, offering to fund the experiment is great! However, I don't know why you had to label any non-compliance to produce the sample in such a negative light. As a purely neutral observer/experimenter/scientist, wouldn't it have just been better to offer the funds and then allow Bob to respectfully decline? You can't expect to paint him into a corner, where he has to produce the sample for you, buddhasystem, or even the good of humanity - just to satisfy your whims.

Your offer is noble. Your attached cause of 'comply or be denounced' then went and spoilt your generous offer. That's the only issue I have with your generous, loaded offer.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
If it really is 115, then I can understand why Bob needs to suppress it, probably for his own safety.


Tezz, I can't figure out why you call it "suppression" whereas Bob's own site contains plethora of information on this element. It does not contain crucial pieces of data, however, which would allow us to be satisfied with the veracity of Bob's data on the 115. Further, Bob didn't care to secure this alleged super-secret element, and kept it carelessly enough such that two pieces were stolen! Hardly looks like he is trying to protect the element itself (clearly irreplaceable, if true) or the fact of his alleged possession thereof.


If it's not, then big deal - he's just another fraud.


Yes, I agree that it's not a big deal that Bob is a fraud. I spent more time on this topic than Bob and his slab of fake 115 deserve.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by deezee
But i am sure that all of us are more than willing to consider the possibility. In fact we would love for it to be true. Yes, we trust science to offer the best explanation so far, but we would always love to learn even more, if possible.

Of course, I don't doubt that. Science is great, as incomplete as it is. I would dearly love to know how they fly and how they travel the way they do. So many questions, so much more to learn. So much for the mainstream to catch up on too...



But from reading your posts, i get a feeling you allready decided Bob isn't going to cooperate and are therefor creating excuses for him in advance.

Don't read my posts, read John's posts. I can't find it now, but you need to read John's post where he explains in fairly good detail about the three pieces of 115. He explained that only three people (he is one) know where the last piece is and that it will not be revealed. Read John's words, not mine. John has stated that the piece of 115 will not be revealed. I don't know why any of you will think that's going to change, just because an offer is made to fund an experiment? Ask John why the last piece of 115 won't be revealed, if you like. If I thought that there was a chance that Bob would reveal the piece, then sure - I'd go along with the experiment. I'm not against it at all, in principle - except for when it is loaded with a condition to comply or be insulted. It's not going to happen though, as John has clearly stated that piece is staying hidden.



I mean, he's willing to spend HIS money in order to verify YOUR belief! All you have to do is stand by and watch.

Sure, I understand that. I agree it is noble. If I had the money, I would make the same offer.

DogHead, have you read John's post where he states that the piece of 115 will remain hidden? I can't search for it right now, I forget the thread it is in. If you find it, then you'll realise why your offer is futile. Noble, but futile.

Note, I don't believe either way that it is or isn't 115. I've got no way to know. The best that I can do is to trust John's word that it is. I'm not stating I do or I don't, but if you read John's words, the piece of 115 will not be revealed.



Are you scared your belief might get shattered? If you search for the truth, you have to be willing to accept all outcomes, not just the ones you like.

What belief are you attaching to me? I don't know if the piece is really 115 or not. I've read most of John's posts about the incident and it's a great story. Believe or not, it's anyone's choice. I know the US Air Force conceals their dealings with ET, that's not a belief. What difference will it make to me if Bob has a piece of 115 or not?



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
...
However, I don't know why you had to label any non-compliance to produce the sample in such a negative light. As a purely neutral observer/experimenter/scientist, wouldn't it have just been better to offer the funds and then allow Bob to respectfully decline? You can't expect to paint him into a corner, where he has to produce the sample for you, buddhasystem, or even the good of humanity - just to satisfy your whims.

Your offer is noble. Your attached cause of 'comply or be denounced' then went and spoilt your generous offer. That's the only issue I have with your generous, loaded offer.


If there were another source of the sample on God's green Earth that we could get at, I would suggest we go there and get it in a heartbeat.

But the sample in this case has a spin attached. It HAS TO BE one of these putative samples. For the sake of certainty and just for common sense reasons hopefully.

And Lazar can decline, accept or do whatever he wishes. However- having created what is currently, absent proof, a mythology, he needs to take some responsibility for his statements or they cease to be statements we can rely on at all. They fall short even of basic theory and become mere fiction. Fiction can only be factually accurate by accident because it is not its intention to BE accurate. It has a dominant purpose that overrides being factual.

Lazar's story currently stands firmly in the fiction camp due to lack of evidence.

"signature
I seek only the truth. But let me make it perfectly clear how little I think I know:
1. All of my claims are only possibilities.
2. I could be completely misinformed.
3. All of what I believe might not be true.
John Lear"

A forum where the person espousing information has this disclaimer -let's call it what it is- at the bottom of every post has elevated disingenuousness to an art form.

If this was a forum about a fictional work like Star Trek, then all views are in a sense equally valid.

But this is a forum fundamentally about science. Science and technology. These are in the realm of the senses and the physical universe.

If we play around with our perception of reality, whether through the use of drugs or far more dangerously ideas and dreams... Where do we end up? Further along in the quest for self-development and truth or consigned to a delusional state where nothing is certain enough for someone to function normally in society.

Leaving aside the conspiracy theory stuff, some of which is indeed undoubtedly true, anything that can cause psychosis -and the study of UFOs most certainly can- anything that can cause any sort of serious dissociative state- needs to be treated respectfully. And where a concept or an alleged fact can be tested it not only should be it HAS TO BE. To stop being analytical, questioning, flexible in our thinking is to stop being civilised. It is to throw away the whole amazing history of science and technology and replace it with superstitious barbarism. And tragically we would be reverting to barbarism not through epic disaster or war but through voluntary lazy decadence and ignorance. Relaxing into a comfortable haze of superstitious nonsense.

No thanks.

Bob Lazar is not a disinterested outsider in this field. His claims have spawned the XCOM computer game, a large part of the X-Files, an entire subcultural viewpoint and a new strand of anti-science feeling whose antipathy is remarkably deep. He has said and done things for which, in any other field, investigative journalism would hold him and his compatriots to account.

Investigation is not persecution. I though it was the NWO that said "the number one enemy of progress is questions". When you make a statement as a scientist you need to back it up or swap over to the religion column. Scientists do not need faith to carry out their work. Believers in God or not, they don't need to pray to make experiments work (all jokes aside) and they don't need to find faith-based rationalisations to explain why their science is bad. They just need to accept that evidence is not bearing out their initial thinking and adapt. And yes, lots of scientists are bad at doing that. They're human.

But to make a raft of unsubstantiated claims, many of which, related to typical disinterested people sound like nothing more than the dizzying heights of lunacy, is irresponsible. And therefore the burden of proof remains with the claimant. As it would in any other field of human conduct. It has to, or we have stopped being rational beings.

No thanks.

[edit on 12/1/08 by DogHead]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DogHead
And Lazar can decline, accept or do whatever he wishes. However- having created what is currently, absent proof, a mythology, he needs to take some responsibility for his statements or they cease to be statements we can rely on at all.

At what point is he personally asking you to believe what he states? He offers his testimony and that's about it. If you don't believe him, then is he any worse than Orson Welles for the 'War of the Worlds' broadcast? If you don't believe him, then is he any worse than JKRowling for 'Harry Potter'? If you don't believe him, then that's ok! You're allowed to think he's a nut who speaks and writes fiction.



But this is a forum fundamentally about science. Science and technology. These are in the realm of the senses and the physical universe.

That's funny, I thought this was a forum about conspiracies. More specifically, I thought that this particular forum (John Lear's) was about the more ridiculous, fringe conspiracies, where even mainstream science struggles to keep pace.

There is a science and technology forum located on ATS, perhaps you should post there, if you're after science fact?



Bob Lazar is not a disinterested outsider in this field. His claims have spawned the XCOM computer game, a large part of the X-Files, an entire subcultural viewpoint and a new strand of anti-science feeling whose antipathy is remarkably deep.

For that, I thank him. I don't play PC games, but I enjoyed the X-Files. It was a great show. Some of it might have been true, right?



He has said and done things for which, in any other field, investigative journalism would hold him and his compatriots to account.

But he's not in any other field. He spoke of his personal account, that's all he did. Believe it to be true or not, that's your choice.



But to make a raft of unsubstantiated claims, many of which, related to typical disinterested people sound like nothing more than the dizzying heights of lunacy, is irresponsible. And therefore the burden of proof remains with the claimant.

Ok, so he's irresponsible. Still, he did spawn the X-Files, according to you. I find that commendable. What burden of proof does he have to endure? He's given his testimony in the past. Take it or leave it, as it certainly seems that you'll never get to touch the 115.

I want 'proof' as much as you do. More for the public's sake, not mine. I already know my personal truths, I don't need a government to disclose it for me. It just seems to me that you'll have to keep looking elsewhere, other than Bob to find the proof. Forget the piece of 115 and try to focus on proof that can't be discounted.

Check out the thread called "Team ATS in Roswell" in the main Aliens/UFO forum where Springer and Crakeur have been researching government FOI documents. They're chasing a papertrail for real proof of 'something' and they're making progress, according to the updates. I suggest if you really want your money to be useful, then you should provide some funds for Springer to help him with his important work. It's a great thread, read it. I'm sure that Springer might have use for some serious financial backing to help him. (Disclaimer: I don't have a clue and I am not speaking for Springer.)

In the mean-time, it's most likely a wasted effort trying to chase Bob Lazar's piece of 115 in John Lear's forum.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DogHead
To stop being analytical, questioning, flexible in our thinking is to stop being civilised. It is to throw away the whole amazing history of science and technology and replace it with superstitious barbarism. And tragically we would be reverting to barbarism not through epic disaster or war but through voluntary lazy decadence and ignorance. Relaxing into a comfortable haze of superstitious nonsense.


Dog, second time in a row, on this thread, you have exhibited godlike writing skills. Mine I lacking...



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw


But this is a forum fundamentally about science. Science and technology. These are in the realm of the senses and the physical universe.


That's funny, I thought this was a forum about conspiracies. More specifically, I thought that this particular forum (John Lear's) was about the more ridiculous, fringe conspiracies, where even mainstream science struggles to keep pace.

There is a science and technology forum located on ATS, perhaps you should post there, if you're after science fact?


Tezzajw this seems like it means a lot to you, but really... The conspiracies here are all "nuts and bolts" conspiracies. What makes them "sexy" is the Star Trek technobabble aspect, the mystification of ordinary science, the Da Vinci Code -esque sense that there is something more than what we plainly see, the whiff of something beyond the fields we know, leading us on into a wonderland only we and a select few are privy to... And all of this -ALL OF IT- is centered around science and technology. Not comets, devils, NLP, Xenu, Ancient Chinese Recipe... Science and technology. When Lear and Lazar say "yo momma" they are saying it to every scientist and open-minded layperson on the planet Earth.

As for "personal truths"... I hold to an ethical and moral code as well as I can. That is a "personal truth". But truth, real truth -is no more than certainty. Certainty in the face of ridicule. Certainty in the face of superstition. And certainty in the cold light of day. Where the quest for truth takes us could literally be anywhere. But the whim we are at the mercy of when we quest for truth is the whim of FACT. We can't control facts. Only witch doctors and snake oil salesmen claim otherwise.

I don't even subscribe to Occam's Razor as it is generally described. Arguments about simplicity of explanation fall into the logical trap too often of not acknowledging that we may not be armed with enough facts. However Occam's Razor generally serves us better than cheap credulity.

I would rather strive mightily for an unobtainable noble goal than dance around a fire in warpaint, seduced by the drumming of deceivers and charlatans.

And were I called a charlatan, when I was not one, I would put down my beer and go get my proof and beat the attacker down with facts, proof and logic. Not hide behind McCarthy-like claims of "a conspiracy so immense..."



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
It just seems to me that you'll have to keep looking elsewhere, other than Bob to find the proof. Forget the piece of 115 and try to focus on proof that can't be discounted.


Your advice to forget about the piece of 115 seems to recommend that we should write off Lazar and his fables. It's a pity because it could be a unique piece of physical evidence which is 1000 stronger than any document you'll obtain under FOIA.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by DogHead
Tezzajw this seems like it means a lot to you, but really... The conspiracies here are all "nuts and bolts" conspiracies. What makes them "sexy" is the Star Trek technobabble aspect ... And all of this -ALL OF IT- is centered around science and technology.

DogHead, Bob's piece of 115 means very little to me, as I'll never be able to see it or verify it. Being the very sexy man that I am, the only things that mean a lot to me are my immediate family. Maybe I'll recite the story of element 115 to my boys at bed-time in the future, it seems fitting enough to be placed right next to Pooh Bear.

Spending time here, reading stories and theories is a past-time, nothing more. Stories don't always involve science or technology to be accountable, as we know it. If you're after science fact, as commonly accepted by mainstream science, then this forum will probably not provide it for you. Many people 'know' things that they can not prove to be true. You take it, or you leave it.



When Lear and Lazar say "yo momma" they are saying it to every scientist and open-minded layperson on the planet Earth.

Yeah, so? Considering that most people don't even listen to them (or even know of them) and of those who do, most don't believe them, then does it really matter?

I applaud your bankrolling effort to support a project searching for truth. I really do. However, I am almost certain that you will not find it chasing Bob Lazar's hidden piece of 115, using John Lear's forum as a starting point.

Seriously, if you have the cash to splash around, then contact Springer and ask him how you can help search for absolute definitive proof.



buddhasystem
Your advice to forget about the piece of 115 seems to recommend that we should write off Lazar and his fables. It's a pity because it could be a unique piece of physical evidence which is 1000 stronger than any document you'll obtain under FOIA.

I agree it is a pity. There's no point wasting the effort on Bob, if he won't produce the 115. It's hidden and that's it. Accept it and move on. Bob has his reasons. Neither you nor I are privy to them. I'm not insulting Bob at all nor supporting him.

You're far better off putting in money and effort where you will stand a chance of getting real results.

Here's a thought, DogHead, why don't you fund buddhasystem's attempts to create a gravity shielding device? That way, you would both be doing exactly as you want to, in the name of mainstream science and truth? That's assuming that DogHead has the money and that buddhasystem has a PhD. I'm sure you can verify it, but at this point in time, I've not seen any proof. Combine your resources and sally forth for the common good of science!

[edit on 12-1-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by borek
 


What a pleasure it is to hear from you, borek. Sounds like you will have an enormous abount of knowledge to share with us.

As an 'armchair' physicist (not even that, really...just an average Joe who watches a lot of the Science Channel) I find anything brought into the discussion to be useful.

There is a phrase I heard somewhere...about knowing a little bit about a lot of different things. That would describe me, when it comes to physics. I use my analytical mind, using my basic knowledge...but keep an open compartment for new ideas to get inserted.

(sorry for the silly analogy)...


Thanks. I also consider myself someone who knows a little bit about a lot of things. But I do have degrees in Physics and Astronomy, so most of the things I post here comes from first hand experience. For example, I've worked for 3 years with PIXE and similar methods, and I have a couple of articles on it.

However, I'm also a passionate, young scientist who tries to keep an open mind, which means that I'm not here to debunk anyone, but I'll share my knowledge and experience whenever I can. Unfortunately, my vacation ends on this very weekend, so I will have even less time to read and post on ATS, but I'll be around.


I've skimmed through all the posts since I last posted, and I have some comments. First, buddhasystem, as I said earlier to Mr. Lear in this thread, I can offer my experience on all the methods I listed to analyze the element 115 sample. I could work with any of you, no problem about that. I haven't worked on nuclear physics for some years, but I still could have access to labs here in Brazil, if nedeed be.

Another thing... I still don't know what mainstream science is supposed to mean. To me, there's only... well, science. What does happen frequently is that we may have more than one theory to explain the same phenomenon or observation. Then, one theory is favored over the others based on objective discussions usually related to observations and/or previous theories. The "problem" is that, for several reasons (I could detail them later on, if anyone asks) and most of the time, only the most accepted theory is divulged to the outreach public.

But that does not mean all the other theories are completely forgotten, far from it. In fact, a lot of scientists continue to work on and publish their results about "less" accepted theories - for example, MOND.

[edit on 12-1-2008 by borek]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
assuming that DogHead has the money and that buddhasystem has a PhD. I'm sure you can verify it, but at this point in time, I've not seen any proof. Combine your resources and sally forth for the common good of science!
[edit on 12-1-2008 by tezzajw]


How odd that you hold us to a standard of proof to which by your own admission you don't hold Messrs. Lazar and Lear.

And despite the forum disclaimers, this forum claims to provide factual information and theories based on same, NOT fiction. It is therefore putting itself into a headon collision position re: science.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DogHead
How odd that you hold us to a standard of proof to which by your own admission you don't hold Messrs. Lazar and Lear.

I stated that I'm sure you could verify your money and buddhasystem's PhD, but that so far, I have not seen any proof. Notice how I stated the facts? I tend to think that you probably do have money and that buddhasystem probably does have a PhD, however, I wouldn't bet my life on it without proof, as I don't know either of you.

I don't require any 'proof' from Bob about the piece of 115, as it's a story that I'll never know the answer to. He won't be able to prove it to me one way or the other. You and buddhasystem can easily prove your money and his PhD, which I have little doubt about.

I'm really not sure what your problem is with what I typed, when I do 'believe' you and buddhasystem at face value.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Here's a thought, DogHead, why don't you fund buddhasystem's attempts to create a gravity shielding device?


Tezz, our friend DogHead already commented on the semantics of the challenge as it relates to the likely refusal of Bob Lazar to loan us a sample for tests, so that's that.

Here's what I got to say about your proposal, though -- I volunteered to do the 115 work because it more or less falls in my area of expertise. If you google up "Atlas TRT", you'll see an example of a device that I prototyped, as a part of a team of 3. I'm modestly versed in the field of nuclear instrumentation, and that's exactly why I offered my services in this particular instance, because I was certain that my contribution would be top-notch.

As for gravity shielding devices, I'm not an expert on gravity, and I don't want to do substandard or amateurish science. I hope you appreciate that.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Of course, I don't doubt that. Science is great, as incomplete as it is.

The fact that science is incomplete and never claims it is, is the best thing about it.

What better way is there, to ever even get close to the truth, other than to search for the best explanations so far, while allways on the lookout for better ones?

Anyone who thinks he knows everything has effectively blinded himself from ever learning anything new.

This is exactly the reason i put my trust into science. Because it never pretends to profess the truth or to know all. Instead it always tries to find new theories which provide us with a better understanding of the old ones and explains the how, why and when exceptions occur.

What is this mainstream you keep mentioning?

And what better alternative do you propose? If you have one, i would love to hear it and learn from it.



Originally posted by tezzajw
Ask John why the last piece of 115 won't be revealed, if you like.
It's not going to happen though, as John has clearly stated that piece is staying hidden.

I'm not even going to mention what this behaviour reminds me of.

Instead i would like to ask you again...

What is your position in all this? Whom, what, why are you defending? I still don't understand.

And don't get me wrong.. I'm just curious.

What is your "agenda" here?


I can tell you what mine is... And i'm pretty sure BuddhaSystem and DogHead have the same one: Curiousity...



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
So this piece of element 115 has supposedly been hidden in Las Vegas since 1989 or so, I believe. That would be for nearly 20 years now. It allegedly can
power a craft for something like 35 years before it ceases to work. Unknown is how old it was when it was obtained. What I'm getting to is (also unknown) what if it has a shelf life whether in use or not? It may not work anymore, or be near the point where it won't. If Bob Lazar et al is ever going to do anything with it, it may need to be done soon.

John Lear has told us that Mr. Lazar wants nothing to do with Ufology these days, so it was surprising to hear that Lazar re-activated his web site about 115, S4, the Sport Model, etc. He also does do an occasional interview it has been previously noted. Following the money doesn't help because I don't see where Bob Lazar ever made much money from his claims. He made them to stay alive, he says. Word is that Bob Lazar doesn't care what people think about him.

Bob Lazar can be reached by email at his United Nuclear website but likely won't answer any UFO emails according to John Lear. (who has asked that his name not be used in any inquiries) Maybe if a good enough pitch comes his way he'll listen and respond to it. I hold out small hope for that from what I've read.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by deezee
 



Originally posted by deezee
I'm just curious.
What is your "agenda" here?


Hi deezee, I follow this interesting discussion between you all for some time now, and really wander why you are so curious about the “agenda” of a fellow member?
Is it because he don’t share the same opinions with you all.
But what can be wrong about that, it happens all the time here on ATS?

But, because of your question, you make me curious with the remark you make yourself.


Originally posted by deezee
I can tell you what mine is... And i'm pretty sure BuddhaSystem and DogHead have the same one: Curiousity...


I really wander how you can be so pretty sure of knowing what the “hidden agenda’s” of these two other members are?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join