Is John K. Hutchison a proven fraud?

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
 


I am happy to do it for you. He is a fraud. He has admitted it on the radio and apparently to another poster. Not one thing he has ever done has been witnessed by a credible scientist. I believe someone said 9 had witnessed it but then refused to offer a list of who. So he has not been able to repeat them, do them under controlled settings, or do anything to offer proof other than some videos. How can you be unsure of it based on some videos. Do you watch David Copperfield and believe his is magic?




posted on May, 5 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
 


I am happy to do it for you. He is a fraud.


Marvelous, case solved.


He has admitted it on the radio and apparently to another poster. Not one thing he has ever done has been witnessed by a credible scientist. I believe someone said 9 had witnessed it but then refused to offer a list of who. So he has not been able to repeat them, do them under controlled settings, or do anything to offer proof other than some videos. How can you be unsure of it based on some videos. Do you watch David Copperfield and believe his is magic?


'Credible' is a point of view, who judges who's credible and who isn't? Seems to me the only credible people are the people who tow the party line, nearly everyone who comes out with some revolutionary new technology or science seems to be a 'fringer', pseudo-scientist or lacks credibilty.

It's an interesting pattern when you see it and it makes you, or me at least, wonder.

EMM

[edit on 5-5-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
 


Ok every other free energy/anti gravity guy has said he had his equipment stolen. What a convenient excuse for not being able to perform. I am not sure about you saying my statement is making me look stupid or cool. I wasnt trying to do either. It is a known fact that some people make fake videos just to screw with people. However, some people will believe whatever magic trick they see as long as the guy doesnt say its a trick, well even then sometimes they still believe.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
'Credible' is a point of view, who judges who's credible and who isn't? Seems to me the only credible people are the people who tow the party line, nearly everyone who comes out with some revolutionary new technology or science seems to be a 'fringer', pseudo-scientist or lacks credibilty.

It's an interesting pattern when you see it and it makes you, or me at least, wonder.

EMM

[edit on 5-5-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]


Who judges who is credible? Its called peer review. You publish your results and the methodology you used to get them, and then your peers try the same thing and try to produce the same results. If they cant then you are deemed to be wrong. In Hutchinsons case that is impossible because even he couldnt reproduce it before or after the alleged taking of his equipment. He has never taken notes or documented anything. Basically he sits in his apartment all day turning knobs for the fun of it. And when has any "fringer" ever came out with revolutionary tech. By fringer, I mean crackpot with a youtube video as his only evidence. People who arent scientists create stuff all the time, but they have there work tested and can reproduce the results before some investors.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
'Credible' is a point of view, who judges who's credible and who isn't? Seems to me the only credible people are the people who tow the party line, nearly everyone who comes out with some revolutionary new technology or science seems to be a 'fringer', pseudo-scientist or lacks credibilty.

It's an interesting pattern when you see it and it makes you, or me at least, wonder.

EMM



This is why we have peer review. Please look into it and you will realize I mean by credible. Towing the party line has nothing to do with it. A guy with a 7th grade education and some imaginary guys who checked him out are not what I call credible. Yes it may be a matter of opinion but seriously, you give them more credibility than say...actual scientists with actual educations and field experience?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
'Credible' is a point of view, who judges who's credible and who isn't? Seems to me the only credible people are the people who tow the party line, nearly everyone who comes out with some revolutionary new technology or science seems to be a 'fringer', pseudo-scientist or lacks credibilty.

It's an interesting pattern when you see it and it makes you, or me at least, wonder.

EMM

[edit on 5-5-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]


Who judges who is credible? Its called peer review. You publish your results and the methodology you used to get them, and then your peers try the same thing and try to produce the same results. If they cant then you are deemed to be wrong.


Ahh yes, peer review, the infamous publish or perish, like thats still around, people conform, conform, conform, it's as simple as that. You can publish all you want, as long as it conforms and continues the current path, but the minute a paper comes out that doesn't conform, it gets slammed, to me, that doesn't sound like it's working, it almost sounds like it is trying to prevent progress, but I'll accept that that is my opinion, and not necesarily how it goes, although I have seen evidece towards this.


In Hutchinsons case that is impossible because even he couldnt reproduce it before or after the alleged taking of his equipment. He has never taken notes or documented anything.


You see, I have read accounts that it did work, he did reproduce the effects for the Canadian governemnt, who then called the US government, who praised him, shut him down and took all his stuff. Now this is a second hand source, an old 'friend' of John's. I don't know if this is truth or not, but I'm guessing the sources your quoting are the same, second hand sources, people who knew him, met him, saw him. Who's right?


Basically he sits in his apartment all day turning knobs for the fun of it. And when has any "fringer" ever came out with revolutionary tech. By fringer, I mean crackpot with a youtube video as his only evidence. People who arent scientists create stuff all the time, but they have there work tested and can reproduce the results before some investors.


There are many examples of 'credible' scientists coming forth with amazing technological ideas, that just seemed to get buried, BFFT (BigFatFurryTexan) is bang into these and has a few threads up about the most intersting ones, the most recent (to my knowledge) being Nang Li.

I have also read of many other [sigh] 'Fringers' who have created some awesome tech, but again, it is lack of credibility and evidence that causes them to be overlooked.

All I know, is that if I was a governmental agency, trying to prevent the release of future techonologies, I wouldn't be going around killing everyone, I would leave them right out there in the open, up sh!t creak without a paddle, with all their claims and no evidence to back it up, that way, it is us that buries them, not the government.

EMM

Edit to add:

Ok every other free energy/anti gravity guy has said he had his equipment stolen. What a convenient excuse for not being able to perform. I am not sure about you saying my statement is making me look stupid or cool. I wasnt trying to do either. It is a known fact that some people make fake videos just to screw with people. However, some people will believe whatever magic trick they see as long as the guy doesnt say its a trick, well even then sometimes they still believe.


Lol, convenience is a point of view. For you, it is convenient, for those who really have something to show the world and can't, I'm going to guess it's really inconvenient. But then again, I spose it's the way you look at it.

Also, I said you looked stupid as you said that people like 'us' refering to whatever click you conform yourself to, I was merely pointing out that harrassing people online because you are bored, is really, really, sad.

Go outside, meet some people!

I apologise if I was wrong, but re-read you post, you did say it.

EMM

Edit:


This is why we have peer review. Please look into it and you will realize I mean by credible. Towing the party line has nothing to do with it. A guy with a 7th grade education and some imaginary guys who checked him out are not what I call credible. Yes it may be a matter of opinion but seriously, you give them more credibility than say...actual scientists with actual educations and field experience?


you mean actual scientists, with actual ego's so big that they believe that everything has been answered and just needs to be ellaborated on? The same scientists that create invisible undetectable THINGS just to make their calculations work, credible scientists who think Science has discovered everything there is to discover.

No, I accept that they have a well better education than most and I also think that it is this which makes them so arrogant, so set in their ways, and so resistant to new ideas.

Don't get me wrong, I dont think that every scientist in the world is like this, but I think that because the majority is, most of the minority keep schtum and just conform, the others who may publish some crazy ideas, no matter how credible and researched they may be, will get burned, laughed at and booted from the table, fully discredited. It's happened many times before and it will happen again.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 6-5-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 6-5-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
 


Well all I can say to all that craziness is that I totally agree. I have invented an antigravity vehicle that also produces free energy when it idles. However, some evil scientist/government official stole some of my tech. Now if you just give me 50k I can replace the stuff they took and show you how well it works.

And who is your friend that cooberated that Hutchinson had his stuff taken? John Lear?

Name one fringe person that actually invented anything that is in use today by the general public.

Not to get off topic but you should check out the thread about the 200k year old statue they found on the moon. You will love it. It was probably left dropped there by a soul on its way to the great soul catcher in the moon.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Sorry for the previous post.
Ok now that I have my whits about this let me approach this like an adult.


Ahh yes, peer review, the infamous publish or perish, like thats still around, people conform, conform, conform, it's as simple as that. You can publish all you want, as long as it conforms and continues the current path, but the minute a paper comes out that doesn't conform, it gets slammed, to me, that doesn't sound like it's working, it almost sounds like it is trying to prevent progress, but I'll accept that that is my opinion, and not necesarily how it goes, although I have seen evidece towards this.


Its not about conformity it is about proof. Some papers that are huge changes do get slammed at first. However, over time if they are proven accurate they become accepted. Even with the human flaws in the system, its still better than blindly believing any BS somebody can turn into a youtube video or make into a great story.


You see, I have read accounts that it did work, he did reproduce the effects for the Canadian governemnt, who then called the US government, who praised him, shut him down and took all his stuff. Now this is a second hand source, an old 'friend' of John's. I don't know if this is truth or not, but I'm guessing the sources your quoting are the same, second hand sources, people who knew him, met him, saw him. Who's right?


Well there are two guys on this thread who seemed to have met him. Read there posts if you wish. My point is anybody can make up a story. Like I can tell you I had pictures of Monkies flying out of my butt and I would share them but my camera broke. I could also get my friends to swear they had seen Monkies fly out of my butt.

Ning Li is a real scientist unlike John Hutchinson. If you look at her history it goes along like you would expect. Expreriment. Publish. Grabs NASA's interest. They give her some money. She does more experiments. She disappears from the internet at least - possibly into the black world.

Lets compare that with JH. Buys a bunch of equipment. Hooks it all up in his tiny apartment. Turns a bunch of knobs and films the result. Puts in on youtube. Government may or may not have cared. John still in his apartment turning knobs. Do you really think that any government in the world woudnt offer JH a job if he could really create such spectacular results. They arent just going to steal his equipment when they would need his insight to make it produce results.



[edit on 6-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   


Also, I said you looked stupid as you said that people like 'us' refering to whatever click you conform yourself to, I was merely pointing out that harrassing people online because you are bored, is really, really, sad.

Go outside, meet some people!

I apologise if I was wrong, but re-read you post, you did say it.


Its really no more sad then a grown man believing in the equivalent of the tooth fairy. Its not so much I am harrasing people as I am trying to knock some sense into their foolish heads. I am amazed how many people will believe anything based on the slightest bit of evidence. Then when it is pretty much disproved they continue to believe it. That is just the definition of ignorance. There are people on here who actually think they can have spiritual contact with aliens. That is just borderline insanity.





you mean actual scientists, with actual ego's so big that they believe that everything has been answered and just needs to be ellaborated on? The same scientists that create invisible undetectable THINGS just to make their calculations work, credible scientists who think Science has discovered everything there is to discover.

No, I accept that they have a well better education than most and I also think that it is this which makes them so arrogant, so set in their ways, and so resistant to new ideas.

Don't get me wrong, I dont think that every scientist in the world is like this, but I think that because the majority is, most of the minority keep schtum and just conform, the others who may publish some crazy ideas, no matter how credible and researched they may be, will get burned, laughed at and booted from the table, fully discredited. It's happened many times before and it will happen again.


And you say I look stupid? How much ego does it take to believe you know something is true when you have been given proof it was a hoax? I would say pretty darn much.


[edit on 6-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Radical.Realist

Him and I exchanged emails about two years back after I heard him on Coast to Coast AM and he was more than happy to let me swing by his residence to take a look at his setup while I was in Vancouver visiting family.



Interesting insight.

So this was back in 2007 when you met John in Vancouver?

Which C2C AM did you listen to?



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Heres a quickie for you. You know the old in and out. I'm not sticking around either. Whats wrong with someone posting on Youtube? At least the video has piqued some interest. Whether or not its John doesn't matter. Some people who have watched might be tempted to try it themselves. If I stumbled on antigravity I wouldn't dick around with papers, peer review, experiments and the rest of the crepe. I'd blatantly post it in as easy to understand and reproduce a manner as I could. As a matter of fact I would spam the entire net if I could with the info just so everyone could take a crack at it before the info disappeared. I wouldn't care if it looked like a hoax and I wouldn't care a bit about making a cent. Thats the only way the truth will come out. The people who have come across some great ideas that could have made a difference were all shut down because they all made one fundamental mistake. They worried about science and capitalizing on their discovery. So far every time I read one of these threads I see lots of people calling fraud and belittling someone like John who probably doesn't care about your opinion anyways but I never see a poster actually try one of these things out and come back and post what happened. Whats the matter? Scared? I see lots of perfectly good electronics parts in the dumpster every day but I suppose that effort would drag me away from the glory I get being on here during a discussion. By the way aren't those things you're torrenting copyrighted? Does downloading them and encouraging others to do the same make you any more credible. And while I'm attacking there maybe I should also mention that anyone can post and say that they have met John and been at his place and then indirectly discredit him by calling him simple in polite terms. By the way what grade education did some famous savants have? Look that up too. I'm probably wrong but Einstein for one. Anyways I don't care about your opinions either.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by michial
Heres a quickie for you. You know the old in and out. I'm not sticking around either. Whats wrong with someone posting on Youtube? At least the video has piqued some interest. Whether or not its John doesn't matter. Some people who have watched might be tempted to try it themselves. If I stumbled on antigravity I wouldn't dick around with papers, peer review, experiments and the rest of the crepe. I'd blatantly post it in as easy to understand and reproduce a manner as I could. As a matter of fact I would spam the entire net if I could with the info just so everyone could take a crack at it before the info disappeared. I wouldn't care if it looked like a hoax and I wouldn't care a bit about making a cent. Thats the only way the truth will come out. The people who have come across some great ideas that could have made a difference were all shut down because they all made one fundamental mistake. They worried about science and capitalizing on their discovery. So far every time I read one of these threads I see lots of people calling fraud and belittling someone like John who probably doesn't care about your opinion anyways but I never see a poster actually try one of these things out and come back and post what happened. Whats the matter? Scared? I see lots of perfectly good electronics parts in the dumpster every day but I suppose that effort would drag me away from the glory I get being on here during a discussion. By the way aren't those things you're torrenting copyrighted? Does downloading them and encouraging others to do the same make you any more credible. And while I'm attacking there maybe I should also mention that anyone can post and say that they have met John and been at his place and then indirectly discredit him by calling him simple in polite terms. By the way what grade education did some famous savants have? Look that up too. I'm probably wrong but Einstein for one. Anyways I don't care about your opinions either.


I gave you a star for showing you had a pair.


Ok I know you probably wont read this but I will post it for whoever will. I see your point kinda. You would post on youtube and give everyone a clear layout of how you did it so they can reproduce that. I got ya. It might even work. However, JH did not do this. He didnt show how he did it, he just showed us what he wanted us to see. Like a good magician.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by RubberBaron
 


Do you have a smidgeon of an iota of a hint of a clue what year and maybe month that was? I find it hard to believe that with so many "Hutchison haters" out there that the quote isn't posted and/or YouTube or other recordings linked on every other skeptic and pseudoskeptic's blog and website, ad nauseum. Especially since it is looking like this is the only accusation of "proven fakery" that is holding any water.

I have searched via Google using the words "John Hutchison coast to coast am" then added "admit" then tried "ufo string", then "faket", then "creative." Each search I looked through 2 pages of results and found not one page referencing it.

Sorry, if you can claim he said something but can't even remember what year, I call the validity and accuracy of your memory into question. I made a decent attempt to validate the claim. So far the best you have is hearsay.



Originally posted by evil incarnate
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?


That is not the topic of this thread I'm not attempting to provide proof of "is real or not." I never said you have to believe him, but if you can't prove him fraudulent then don't make false truth statements that he is a proven fraud. You are welcome to your opinions, just be sure they don't come off sounding like truth or fact. Why, because that is lying and you already said you don't like that, I don't either.


Originally posted by evil incarnate
...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?


And I still disagree totally, still. You all haven't even provided one reference that is valid, not one. No links, no videos, no testimony from a non anonymous person, nothing, nada. No one can come up with an estimated date for the C2C AM claim. All this should be easy, I mean really easy to find with a few minutes in a search engine if it were true that he had been proven fraudulent. Especially with all the people that really seem to want to do just that, discredit John Hutchison in any way they can. Well you did post a video that seems to be the basis for the entire argument, but...



Originally posted by evil incarnate
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.


The edited YouTube video(s) with no sound appears to have been tampered with to create just the illusion that John was trying to pull a fast one and the “he admitted later” thing I can not find a single reference supporting that. It appears to me that someone is purposely making the "ufo on a string" look way more dubious than it was.

Really, even if the statement in the wikipedia or the C2C AM turned out to be true about him admitting to him being “creative” for the Discovery Channel footage it doesn't automatically discredit the other things claimed in all the other videos.


Originally posted by evil incarnate
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.


Again, I didn't say it was real, not once and I would appreciate it if you would not attempt to “put words into my mouth” or twist the focus of this thread anymore. Honestly, that is up to John and/or his supporters if they want to prove empirical validity or be accepted by the scientific community in general.

I am saying that all these people spouting off making truth statements claiming John to be a "proven fraud" and the like, have not provided any evidence supporting their claim. Just because there has been no decent evidence of fraud so far doesn't mean he couldn't be one. By showing lack of evidence of fraud doesn't prove him to be valid or scientifically accepted. Does that help you sleep at night?

You are telling me to come up with reputable references?
The "con" John side has to come up with the references for the proof of fraud that have been so boldly claimed or be labeled as pseudo-skeptic. Perhaps apologizing for incorrect statements of fact and going back to fairly stating opinion and disbeliefs if they have no proof would be the polite thing to do.

You are somewhat skilled at attempting to turn an argument around, somewhat.

Here is a video with one of the T.T. Brown based "ufo on a string" experiments where he explains the string being attached.



Here is Dr. Judy Wood's challenge to Ace Baker who has attempted to prove John to be a fake.

www.drjudywood.com...



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienMike
 


Oh sweet feathery Jesus! You guys got to go to the website link that AlienMike has in his post. Watch the videos. John actually has gotten worse at doing his tricks. The one of the RedBull can on a string is a hoot. He even leaves the tab pulled up where the string is attached. I have got to start thinking of some stunts like this.

I am not even going to go into the boat trick. That was just a waste of time.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Name one fringe person that actually invented anything that is in use today by the general public.




Nikola Tesla...

...most of his work was regarded as fringe until it worked... but they kept calling him that every step of the way.

And he's responsible for most of the electronic industrial age.



Not that I'm saying anyone mentioned in this thread is credible... but you did ask.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


It is a misconception. Tesla was considered a mainstream scientest. It was not until later when his ideas go "off track" that he is considered eccentric.

"During this period, in the United States, Tesla's fame rivaled that of any other inventor or scientist in history or popular culture, but due to his eccentric personality and his seemingly unbelievable and sometimes bizarre claims about possible scientific and technological developments, Tesla was ultimately ostracized and regarded as a mad scientist."
Source

A guy like Westinghouse is not going to invest money on just anybody's ideas?

[edit on 8-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
I think tesla was black balled..he was doing some strange ass stuff,and some was cutting into big bussiness money..Like wireless power...There perfecting it now..



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Redpillblues
 


Yeah intel has a wireless power unit for short distances that should be on the market very soon, if not already. I dont think he was blackballed. I think maybe he just flipped his nut
It happens from time to time with geniuses, or is that what they want us to believe



[edit on 8-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlienMike
That is not the topic of this thread I'm not attempting to provide proof of "is real or not." I never said you have to believe him, but if you can't prove him fraudulent then don't make false truth statements that he is a proven fraud.


Ummmm.... I, along with others, have already proven him a fraud. You did not open this thread to find out. You opened it to argue and troll. It has been proven over and over again. You have even been linked to HIM ADMITTING IT himself. You have people that claim to have met him and gotten him to let them know he knows he is a fraud.

What else do you want? You do not want proof or truth. You want your opinion and you want to be able to argue with people that do not agree.


You are welcome to your opinions, just be sure they don't come off sounding like truth or fact. Why, because that is lying and you already said you don't like that, I don't either.


Dude, what is opinion about "hey look at the string in the shot pulling the UFO up and down?"



Originally posted by evil incarnate
...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?


And I still disagree totally, still.


Thank you for proving my point. You really think that string is something you can agree or not agree with???


You all haven't even provided one reference that is valid, not one. No links, no videos, no testimony from a non anonymous person, nothing, nada. No one can come up with an estimated date for the C2C AM claim.


A link was provided.


All this should be easy, I mean really easy to find with a few minutes in a search engine if it were true that he had been proven fraudulent. Especially with all the people that really seem to want to do just that, discredit John Hutchison in any way they can. Well you did post a video that seems to be the basis for the entire argument, but...

The edited YouTube video(s) with no sound appears to have been tampered with to create just the illusion that John was trying to pull a fast one and the “he admitted later” thing I can not find a single reference supporting that. It appears to me that someone is purposely making the "ufo on a string" look way more dubious than it was.


You were provided a link to him admitting that he faked stuff including the toy UFO video. No youtube magic here. He already acknowledged it himself. Sorry.


Really, even if the statement in the wikipedia or the C2C AM turned out to be true about him admitting to him being “creative” for the Discovery Channel footage it doesn't automatically discredit the other things claimed in all the other videos.


And there is the reality of it. Even proof and an admission does nothing for you. You want to believe soooooo badly that even when the man himself says so, you even call him a liar about that. Now how can he be lying about faking his own footage but not lying about what it is footage of?

Is he a liar or not? If not, then...again I point to his admission.


Again, I didn't say it was real, not once and I would appreciate it if you would not attempt to “put words into my mouth” or twist the focus of this thread anymore. blah blah


You are a lost cause I am afraid. Anyone that wants to believe that badly cannot be reasoned with. Sorry if we poked a hole in your fantasy but you did open the thread. Happy trolling your own thread!



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I say those of you who believe JH is not a magician should contact him and request that he create a video of an effect that also includes info about his setup, equipment, etc. Then someone can test it.

It should also include multiple camera angles so there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that it is a magic trick.

If he trully wants to be taken seriously then he should have no qualms about doing it this way.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join