Is John K. Hutchison a proven fraud?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by Freezer
 


Its not character assasination. I said earlier he is a performance artist. His joy is in seeing how people react to his works. It is like live art. There is nothing wrong with it. Its kinda cool, but you cant be treating it like its fact until it is proven to be something other than a trick.

I suggest if you are John Huchinson's friend you recomend that he keep some notes about what he does so he can reproduce it in front of some one. If he can do what he says and can reproduce it he will become a very wealthy man. [edit on 4-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]


I can agree with you there, and I could never say it's fact, as there is no documented proof, and therefor can't be "scientifically" verified. You are also right about taking "notes", and this is why is it very hard to reproduce his effects. They only happen at precise settings, and if one doesn't log those exact settings it will be like the lottery in finding them again. I believe this is why Hutchison fails to reproduce on demand the effects that he has found. As for the wealth, he has stated many times he's not interested in becoming rich off this. The reason he does it is because he is fascinated with "uncovering natures secrets."

I find it funny that someone like Boyd Bushman who has stated much bolder claims would not be as harshly scrutinized as John, being that he has rock solid credentials, and the patents to back up what he talks about, such as a energy beam type device which has a portable endless power source, which can levitate objects with ease. Of course, that's impossible right?




posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer
I can agree with you there, and I could never say it's fact, as there is no documented proof, and therefor can't be "scientifically" verified. You are also right about taking "notes", and this is why is it very hard to reproduce his effects. They only happen at precise settings, and if one doesn't log those exact settings it will be like the lottery in finding them again. I believe this is why Hutchison fails to reproduce on demand the effects that he has found. As for the wealth, he has stated many times he's not interested in becoming rich off this. The reason he does it is because he is fascinated with "uncovering natures secrets."

I find it funny that someone like Boyd Bushman who has stated much bolder claims would not be as harshly scrutinized as John, being that he has rock solid credentials, and the patents to back up what he talks about, such as a energy beam type device which has a portable endless power source, which can levitate objects with ease. Of course, that's impossible right?


Do you have a patent number for this energy beam that has portable endless power and can levitate objects with ease? Also just because you have a patent doesnt make it true either. The patent office doesnt verify the validity of every patent. Also, I dont put too much stock in Boyd Bushman. I know he supposedly worked at Lockheed and all that, but his claim that he discovered antigravity by screwing two powerful magnets with their north poles facing each other on a stick is a bit hard to swallow. Seems like someone would be able to verify that pretty quick.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


I'm sure patents such as those will not be in the public domain. I can point you to his public patents here. -

www.google.com...

Actually I haven't seen anyone try and duplicate what Boyd did with the opposing fields. Remember these were 2 neodymiums at $5,000 a piece.. Working with a magnet of that of field strength would be very dangerous. Were talking about a magnet which could easily crush or kill you if you weren't careful or have the proper tools to work with it. A $25 neodymium could crush your hand as some have unfortunately found out the hard way.

You can listen to a great interview with Bushman here. -
media.blubrry.com...://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3?theparacast.com...



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Freezer
 


I am pretty sure all patents are in the public domain.

So you are saying that no company or venture capital firm or university or rich guy went out and bought some $5000 magnets to test this. Gee, I wonder why that would be?

Seems like a small price to pay for verifying the existence of antigravity.

Also your google link gave me the patent you mentioned. It is the first on in the list patent# 5929732.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Can you "debunk" his crystal battery? I didn't get an answer to that one..

If you think shaking objects in a cardboard box is the same as what Hutchison did, I don't know what to tell you..


OK, I can easily debunk any of Hutchinson's projects. Not one person of integrity has ever witnessed any of these events and been able to examine the evidence. You believe some old films and some new youtube videos.

Where is the actual proof? You know the movie King Kong? That giant monkey was not real. People can fake all kinds of things for photos and video. Show me proof of one thing he has done. Proof. Not films, not your whiny oppinion, not some rude blowoff. Prove it. Prove just one of his things is real. Can you do that?



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
i am not claiming to believe the man, but...

i do wont to comment on the U7FO with string movie. You see something bothers me. If the string would pull the UFO (since i do not know of a string that can push) then the cord should be loose when the ufo is laying down and it should become firmly straight when pulled. But somehow this here is working reverse. When the ufo rises the string becomes loose, or...
Could it be that the string is getting pulled by gravitational forces?



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter.be
 


This might help you with your question.

www.skywise711.com...



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grifter.be
i am not claiming to believe the man, but...

i do wont to comment on the U7FO with string movie. You see something bothers me. If the string would pull the UFO (since i do not know of a string that can push) then the cord should be loose when the ufo is laying down and it should become firmly straight when pulled. But somehow this here is working reverse. When the ufo rises the string becomes loose, or...
Could it be that the string is getting pulled by gravitational forces?


You need to watch it again. The string is not pulled back as you would think to raise the UFO. It is being pulled down. It NEVER gets slack, it lowers. It is always taught. Just because the ufo is on the plane below does not dictate that the string must be loose then either. It can be pulled to the point just before it begins to lift. You know, it is called pulling it tightly or making it taught. This is not that difficult a concept. Watch it again. It never comes loose.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by Grifter.be
 


This might help you with your question.

www.skywise711.com...


That was interesting, thanks for backing me up.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Look at the upper left quadrant of the video.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ablue07
 


Yes I have seen it many times. I'll admit that I know what you are talking about. But the string matches the movement every time. What are the odds of that?

Let's not forget that Hutchinson himself admitted to being "creative" with the footage.

Then we have the analysis provided by the link I posted.

When I first heard about him on Dan Aykroyd Unplugged on UFOs, I was really impressed. Don't get me wrong... I was really open minded about him. But you got to be careful with con men.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

OK, I can easily debunk any of Hutchinson's projects. Not one person of integrity has ever witnessed any of these events and been able to examine the evidence. You believe some old films and some new youtube videos.


Maybe you didn't read what I said so I will write it again very slow for you. I don't think there is "scientific" proof of what he did. Get it?


Sorry I don't consider shaking objects in a cardboard box proof of a hoax. I also don't consider lack of witnesses proof of a hoax. A bear can take a dump in the woods and nobody might see it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I can also photoshop a ufo into a picture. Does that automatically mean that if I take a real picture of a ufo it's fake. Not quite.

You said you can debunk any of Hutchison's projects, and I asked where is the proof Hutchison faked the crystal battery?

Also where is the proof Marcus reid faked the Hutchison battery?



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
I am pretty sure all patents are in the public domain.

Do you really think advanced propulsion or weapons technology would be put into the public realm? That would be very unwise given that all our enemies would use it against us.. Go and inquire about the technologies incorporated into the b2 or later, and see how far you get.


Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
So you are saying that no company or venture capital firm or university or rich guy went out and bought some $5000 magnets to test this. Gee, I wonder why that would be?


I actually don't know if anyone else has tried that, but I haven't seen it publicized, but I have no reason to doubt Boyd Bushman.


Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
Seems like a small price to pay for verifying the existence of antigravity.

I would agree..
I would give it a try if I had $10 grand lying around.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by Freezer]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Freezer
 


Dude, my whole point was that no one reputable built any of this because they know a magic trick when the see one. If there was even a glimpse of hope that Hutchison's or Bushmans claims were valid big money people would be all over it.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienMike

Originally posted by RubberBaron
I heard Hutchinson admit on Coast to Coast that some of the video was faked because he was under pressure from a TV company. So yes, he is a proven fraud by his own admission.


Do you happen to know what year and month? Maybe you could provide a link to it, saved on YouTube maybe? That would surely be some "incriminating" evidence!

C'mon hes been doing these videos for how long? Someone has found evidence in all those videos of a string, some proof of video editing or something, right?


Sorry, I don't know the actual show, it can't be too hard to find for someone with good C2C archives though.

Here is a quote from a Hutchinson friendly site though, American Anti-gravity, saying the same thing:

"This second set is a concern, because John has been unable to recreate the true Hutchison-Effect since approximately 1991 (by mandate of the Canadian EPA). Puttkamer asked John to get creative, however, resulting in a toy-UFO flopping wildly in the air. This clip has been criticized because a wire is clearly seen suspending the UFO This was the result of John’s attempt to produce low-power effects by direct single-wire power transmission, and not in any way indicative of his experimental procedures or results from the 1980’s (which utilized no wires or strings of any kind)."

socialtech.ca...-398
(ATS Broken link as ever, use /dkfuhg)

Anyone who really cares could find this in the C2C archives. Myself, I've given up on Hutchinson, he's only ever got a couple of other crackpots to be able to allegedly reproduce his results. There are some very fair scientists like William Beaty who have spent a lot of time trying to reproduce his results with no success. Beaty is someone who thinks there might be a diamond lurking in this huge manure pile of dubious claims, and has tested many.

www.mail-archive.com...@eskimo.com/msg05695.html
(ATS Broken link as ever, use /cedk9b)

[edit on 4/5/2009 by RubberBaron]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer

Originally posted by evil incarnate

OK, I can easily debunk any of Hutchinson's projects. Not one person of integrity has ever witnessed any of these events and been able to examine the evidence. You believe some old films and some new youtube videos.


Maybe you didn't read what I said so I will write it again very slow for you. I don't think there is "scientific" proof of what he did. Get it?


Sorry I don't consider shaking objects in a cardboard box proof of a hoax. I also don't consider lack of witnesses proof of a hoax. A bear can take a dump in the woods and nobody might see it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I can also photoshop a ufo into a picture. Does that automatically mean that if I take a real picture of a ufo it's fake. Not quite.

You said you can debunk any of Hutchison's projects, and I asked where is the proof Hutchison faked the crystal battery?

Also where is the proof Marcus reid faked the Hutchison battery?


LOL, where is the proof Hutchinson made the crystal battery?

Where is the proof Hutchinson did anything?

By your logic, Unicorns must be real. I have seen pictures of them and I know they were not real but just because the pictures were not real does not mean unicorns are not right? So they must be.

Can you find ONE reputable scientist to back up any of Hutchinson's claims?



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Dude, now that hurts. Everyone knows unicorns are real. My sister had posters of them, books about their many fantabulous adventures, and even toys that look just like a unicorn. How could someone make a toy that looked just like a unicorn if they didnt exist? Answer that you dirty skeptic.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by Freezer
 


Dude, my whole point was that no one reputable built any of this because they know a magic trick when the see one. If there was even a glimpse of hope that Hutchison's or Bushmans claims were valid big money people would be all over it.


So because "big money people" haven't duplicated Bushman's opposing magnet experiment means it's a magic trick. Alrighty then, great logic.


reply to post by evil incarnate
 


That's some mighty convincing evidence.


[edit on 4-5-2009 by Freezer]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Dude, now that hurts. Everyone knows unicorns are real. My sister had posters of them, books about their many fantabulous adventures, and even toys that look just like a unicorn. How could someone make a toy that looked just like a unicorn if they didnt exist? Answer that you dirty skeptic.


My sincerest of all apologies. I forgot about dragons too. Why would so many different cultures imagine them if they were not real once right?



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer


So because "big money people" haven't duplicated Bushman's opposing magnet experiment means it's a magic trick. Alrighty then, great logic.




Because NOT ONE REPUTABLE scientist has duplicated it and he cannot perform his trick under controlled conditions. What do you not understand about this?





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join