Is John K. Hutchison a proven fraud?

Originally posted by Freezer
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

That's some mighty convincing evidence.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by Freezer]

....and where do you have any more evidence of any of the snakeoil you are buying than we do of unicorns. Pictures. That is all you have.

reply to post by Freezer



Freezer, I have to ask and this is not a way to try and be rude. I am sincerely asking because I feel it is important to this discussion. Do you understand "peer review?"

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
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.

Actually, Bushman didn't claim to discover anti-gravity, his experiment proved that anti-gravity and magnetism are related somehow is all. He repeated the experiment 9 times with 9 different people who signed affidavits to the result they witnessed. His experiment showed a 100% statistical relation, 9 out of 9 times. The "rock" with the strong opposing magnets fell at a slower rate than the one with no magnets.

Maybe you guys should do some research before claiming to state facts. If you want to just go around stating opinion, thats fine, but be clear with everyone that it is an opinion.

Here...

Google Video Link

Video isn't working, here is the working link.

Boyd explaining his experiment

[edit on 5-5-2009 by AlienMike]

reply to post by AlienMike


You are going to have to cite those 9 people who signed those affidavits. I do not believe anyone credible signed off on anything. I have looked into it and found my belief to hold up. Care to prove me wrong?

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by Freezer

 

Freezer, I have to ask and this is not a way to try and be rude. I am sincerely asking because I feel it is important to this discussion. Do you understand "peer review?"

I'm all for a discussion without mockery. I understand where you are coming from in terms of "peer review." And therefor we can't possible say there is any scientific proof of what Hutchison has done. That has been established. However I do know that there exists experiments conducted which have never been done before such as what companies like Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and others have done which fall into the same category which push the boundaries of what is thought of as possible. There exist no proof of anything they do in the black programs, but it doesn't mean they that those programs don't exist. In fact the big $35 billion dollar hole in the annual budget would say otherwise.

I personally believe Hutchison did stumble upon some of this, and that is just my personal belief (one which I have obviously been flamed for, but I don't mind as it's expected), as I've seen much stranger things than that which most would think I'm crazy for even mentioning (which is why I don't). But you see just as one can say there's no proof that these companies are doing any of this, there exists no proof that they are not. I'm not trying to inject the belief that any of Hutchison's work is absolutely real and verified, I'm only saying that it is totally reasonable that he could have done what he claimed, and it's not so impossible, and can't be dismissed based on the fact other credible scientists in the mainstream haven't levitated bowling balls or whatever else he claims to have done.

My point is simply that one can't dismiss something based on the fact someone else isn't doing it. I do however agree it therefor can't be proven, but I tend to not believe only things which fall into the category of being scientifically proven fact. Perhaps that makes me crazy, or insane, label it what you will.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by AlienMike

 

You are going to have to cite those 9 people who signed those affidavits. I do not believe anyone credible signed off on anything. I have looked into it and found my belief to hold up. Care to prove me wrong?

Nope, you stated a belief and not proof or disproof, which I don't have a problem with. Claims of proof and disproof have to backed up by facts to be valid. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Bushman seems like a nice enough person, he probably still has the magnets. Any one of us could contact him with a decent chance of him agreeing to repeat the experiment for us as long as we contacted him with tact and some common respect. I just might do that and put it on video, sounds fun!

reply to post by AlienMike


You said he did it for 9 different people. Now you will not say who they were? Why did you bring it up then? What was your point there? Why would you mention them and then insist on not naming them?

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

Nope, you stated a belief and not proof or disproof, which I don't have a problem with. Claims of proof and disproof have to backed up by facts to be valid. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Bushman seems like a nice enough person, he probably still has the magnets. Any one of us could contact him with a decent chance of him agreeing to repeat the experiment for us as long as we contacted him with tact and some common respect. I just might do that and put it on video, sounds fun!

I would say that a claim of hearing John admitting to faking video and a hearsay statement from a forum poster who may or may not be Tim Ventura isn't really the same, is it?

Even if it were verified that Tim Ventura did say that specific quote all it really shows was that John was having trouble with it at the time.

Notice that in the wikipedia article the stated reference about the supposed claim of John admitting fakery, is actually unreferenced, it doesn't exist in the material they cite.

From: en.wikipedia.org...

"Hutchison later admitted to being "creative" with the footage, citing pressure from the Discovery Channel to create material for the show and an inability to legally reproduce the original effect, according to Tim Ventura of American Antigravity.[13]"

There is not a single phrase in that reference that is directly or indirectly from John Hutchison admitting to being creative, a hoaxer or a fraud. It looks like someone with a bias, maybe even some agenda, put that in the wiki.



[edit on 5-5-2009 by AlienMike]

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by AlienMike

 

You said he did it for 9 different people. Now you will not say who they were? Why did you bring it up then? What was your point there? Why would you mention them and then insist on not naming them?

Because I am not Boyd Bushman and I don't have his documentation reguarding that experiment. Boyd said that in his interview, I even provided a link.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Hey Freezer,

I can take pictures of all kinds of metal and tell you it is a melted butterknife. How do these stills prove anything at all?

We have already established that he is a fraud and a liar. He admitted himself that he faked some footage.

What more do you need?

How can you believe in someone who already admitted they are a liar??????

What is wrong with people today?

Um, actually you haven't established any of that. All you have done is made assertions that he has without citing a single valid or verifiable reference. Not proof of fraud, just speculation based on bad, malicious, mistaken and/or no research/reference checking so far.

By your logic anyone who has ever told a lie is a fraud, right? Everything else we do in life is no good because we told a lie once? Well then we are all screwed there. Well technically by stating that John Hutchison admitted to being a fraud, if that statement proved untrue, wouldn't that make you a liar?

Remember the topic of this thread is "Is John K. Hutchison a proven fraud?" not "has he been proven legitimate." I know, not fair, I loaded the topic a bit.

I've seen people lump John in with Billy Meier recently. Boy that is stretching it, ol' Billy got caught acting in a fraudulent manner quite a few times. Why the attempts at associative fallacy argument? Is it because John may actually not have been proven to be fraudulent? The whole 'ufo on a string" thing, he does point it out in the original video. Doesn't really fit the definition of intentionally being fraudulent, right?

Oh yea, I heard about someone in a university accidentally reproducing one of John's effects recently, and I'm not talking about the batteries. I'll post these references soon enough, but right now am I so tired. Goodnight everyone!

Well I am sure Boyd Bushman may have produced some effects using magnets, and that is great. I hope he did create antigrav in some black project. That woud be awesome. Certainly, if he worked for Lockheed he could have been given the resources to succeed.

If you want to believe John Hutchinson knock yourself out. Obviously no amount of proof is going to change your mind. Just ask yourself, why cant John reproduce these, why cant John document his work, why cant John get anyone to invest in his work?

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
If you want to believe John Hutchinson knock yourself out. Obviously no amount of proof is going to change your mind. Just ask yourself, why cant John reproduce these, why cant John document his work, why cant John get anyone to invest in his work?

Well, while you might see some video that shows a toy UFO with a wire and extrapolate that into meaning he hoaxed everything that he did, I don't. It's easy to attack a guy such as John, given the fact the guy isn't even here to defend himself on these specific allegations. Again just because others can't reproduce what he did doesn't really equate a hoax, and in actuality Boyd alludes to doing just that, which is why he mentions him in many instances while talking on the subject of anti-gravity.

Why doesn't John document his work? I honestly don't know, although if you look at his lab/ house you can tell he isn't the kind of guy who follows the normal protocols of proper experimentation, which is probably why he stumbled across these effects in the first place. I don't really think he had it in mind to log his settings, as he probably didn't even expect to see any of these effects, they just happened while tinkering with random settings, and in that sense I can understand that he wouldn't at the moment be thinking about logging settings so that others who wouldn't believe him could do it for themselves in controlled lab conditions for proof that it even exists.

Originally posted by AlienMike


Um, actually you haven't established any of that. All you have done is made assertions that he has without citing a single valid or verifiable reference. Not proof of fraud, just speculation based on bad, malicious, mistaken and/or no research/reference checking so far.

Wow, that is amazing logic. Where is the proof that he is real? Where is the proof that anything he ever did was confirmed? Why do I need to prove he is a fraud but I should believe him based on some youtube videos and some pictures? That is enough evidence for you? When did anyone cite any proof that anything he did was real?

By your logic anyone who has ever told a lie is a fraud, right?

Yes. I am glad you understand what that means now.

Everything else we do in life is no good because we told a lie once? Well then we are all screwed there. Well technically by stating that John Hutchison admitted to being a fraud, if that statement proved untrue, wouldn't that make you a liar?

You missed the point. The man lied about the very thing you are claiming is real. I am not calling him a fraud because he lied to his mom when he was 12. I am calling him a fraud because he lied about this stuff that you believe in for no reason.

Remember the topic of this thread is "Is John K. Hutchison a proven fraud?" not "has he been proven legitimate." I know, not fair, I loaded the topic a bit.

...and he has been proven a fraud. Over and over again he has been proven a fraud. What more do you need aside from the string in the film and his own admission that he made stuff up?

I've seen people lump John in with Billy Meier recently. Boy that is stretching it, ol' Billy got caught acting in a fraudulent manner quite a few times. Why the attempts at associative fallacy argument? Is it because John may actually not have been proven to be fraudulent? The whole 'ufo on a string" thing, he does point it out in the original video. Doesn't really fit the definition of intentionally being fraudulent, right?

What? How is that not fraudulent? He tried to pass it off as levitation until people pointed out the string and then he admitted he faked it. That is what fraud is.

Oh yea, I heard about someone in a university accidentally reproducing one of John's effects recently, and I'm not talking about the batteries. I'll post these references soon enough, but right now am I so tired. Goodnight everyone!

Yeah, you really need to come up with at least one reputable reference. You cannot put up some pics and a few videos and then say that it is real until proven not. There is no reason to believe it is any more real than the lord of the rings movies.

Originally posted by AlienMike

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

Nope, you stated a belief and not proof or disproof, which I don't have a problem with. Claims of proof and disproof have to backed up by facts to be valid. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by AlienMike]

So go listen again to his shows on coast 2 coast, i already told you where the proof is. It doesn't really make any difference, even when I've had Hutchinson supporters in the past who found it, they just rationalised it, by saying he was under pressure, and that was just one mistake.


[edit on 5/5/2009 by RubberBaron]

reply to post by Freezer


Well according to the way you describe it, John shouldnt really get credit for anything. He stumbled onto an effect, didnt document anything about how he did it, and cant reproduce it. So wouldnt that be the same as me seeing the never before seen Butt Monkey and not knowing where I was or how I got there and not brining a camera. So therefore I didnt discover anything I just fell butt backward into it with no means to prove I did it. Is anybody going to give me any credit for that?

To me, you assasinate his character more than any of the debunkers. I say he is an artist, other say he is a conman, either way that is better than being some dumb.ss that spent a bunch of money and time experimenting and then you dont document what you are doing. If you arent documenting than to me you are just jacking around. As soon as he saw something defy gravity maybe he should have stopped for a moment and wrote down all the settings on his equipment. Is that asking too much?

reply to post by justsomeboreddude


I don't really have anything more to say to you. It's obvious you can't talk to me like a human being with any respect so have a good one. What ever floats your boat buddy.

reply to post by Freezer


Freezer are you really John Hutchison?

First of all if I treated you as a non human my apologies.

Where exactly was I disrespectful to you?

Or did you bow to my super Butt Monkey logic skills?


[edit on 5-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Originally posted by RubberBaron
So go listen again to his shows on coast 2 coast, i already told you where the proof is. It doesn't really make any difference, even when I've had Hutchinson supporters in the past who found it, they just rationalised it, by saying he was under pressure, and that was just one mistake.

Your post is confusing. Are you trying to claim that he proves what he claims on a radio show? It seems like you go on to chide the believers about how they rationalize the lies. Which point were you trying to make? I really really hope you are not trying to claim that the proof can be found in a radio broadcast.

Originally posted by Freezer
reply to post by justsomeboreddude

 

I don't really have anything more to say to you. It's obvious you can't talk to me like a human being with any respect so have a good one. What ever floats your boat buddy.

Not agreeing with you is not talking to you like a human being? I read the posts you are referring to and the only person being insulted is John. How about you go back up to that post and show us just which parts of it offended you.

I am calling you out as a liar. You are purposely missrepresenting yourself and others here on ATS. That is against the TOS. Prove you were treated like less than a human in that post. Prove Hutchinson is not a fraud. Prove either one of those. Or, we can just take your silence as a concession to the fact that we proved the man is a fraud.

See, I believe you are running away because you are plum out of lies to defend him with. We have all proven that Hutchinson is a fraud and you cannot handle it so instead you are going to claim others are so rude that you refuse to engage any more.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by evil incarnate]

reply to post by evil incarnate


Posted removed because I decided to act older than a 5 yr old

[edit on 5-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]