Anti-Gravity Technology Is Real. Thank You Nikolas Tesla & John Hutchison!

h other object...two hands, or two people at same time...either way

Try this experiment for yourself:

Watch these "anti-gravity" videos while you're upside down. Will give you a new perspective.....

It is an illusion, nothing more. Totally faked.

[edit on 18 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

I'm not sure what is better, the fact that you are right...or the fact my roommate walked in while I was trying it.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
the real anti-grav science.

Good video, alienscientist is pretty intelligent.

Here's another guy who talks about antigravity.

reply to post by Chadwickus


This supposed video of a string shows me nothing.

Firstly, the gentleman in the OP is not even referenced in the video.

As a matter of fact....
The video is totally silent, and the setting simply looks as if it could be his lab.

I could have made that video for all anyone knows.

Until I see some smoking gun that this guy is wrong, then all of your allusions to magic are summed up in the video that YOU have posted trying to debunk this guy.

This video shows me NOTHING that debunks the OP.

Anyone who is watching, and also possesses critical thinking skills, should see right through this very poorly "debunked" charade; however,

I will not 100% believe this until I go and repeat the experiment referenced in one of the following videos, which concerns bolting two opposing magnets together and then placing that into a hollow rock. This is then dropped from a height simultaneously with a real rock and the results are compared.

The magnetized rock supposedly falls slower, and that is hypothesized to happen because the magnets cancel out the effects of gravity.

But even then it is a correlation that does not establish causality.
Notice the usage of the word HYPOTHESIZED.

Why do the amateur-debunkers come on these threads and act so smug and self-righteous when their evidence is MUCH WEAKER than what is posted in the OP?

It is much better if one does not know to simply state that one does not know.
If not, then one is not a scientist, but a fanatic.

I see many, many, many more fanatics on ATS than scientists.

reply to post by Aggie Man


PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IS SO CONVINCING ABOUT THE STRING VIDEO.

It shows me absolutely nothing.

I do not have an opinion either way, but I have seen WAY more evidence in support of the OP than against it in this thread.

If the only thing that anyone can provide is a weak video supposedly debunking this guy then I personally see not one thing that is proved, or should I say disproved.

I am not saying that the OP is true, but I will NOT say that it is false.

Anyone who knows validity in science will tell you this...

You cannot use the absence of evidence to establish causality.

The links at the end of my comment are for the many debunkers on this thread who think that you can only use pseudoscience when trying to prove something.

You can also use it when you are trying to disprove something.

If it does not show in the evidence, or data, then one can say only say I do not know.

Unless, one is trying to establish a null hypothesis.
So, for those who choose not to click on the link and exercise your brain and think, then here is a description of the null hypothesis:

A null hypothesis is a hypothesis (within the frequent context of statistical hypothesis testing) that might be falsified using a test of observed data. Such a test works by formulating a null hypothesis, collecting data, and calculating a measure of how probable that data was assuming the null hypothesis were true.If the data appears very improbable (usually defined as a type of data that should be observed less than 5% of the time) then the experimenter concludes that the null hypothesis is false. If the data looks reasonable under the null hypothesis, then no conclusion is made. In this case, the null hypothesis could be true, or it could still be false; the data gives insufficient evidence to make any conclusion. The null hypothesis typically proposes a general or default position, such as that there is no relationship between two quantities, or that there is no difference between a treatment and the control. The term was originally coined by English geneticist and statistician Ronald Fisher.

Here are some links debunkers. READ THEM. KNOW THEM:

Here is a link to the scientific method.

Here is a link to pseudoscience.

Here is a link to logical fallacies..

reply to post by Aggie Man


Sorry man...

I didn't see you retract your statement that I responded to above.

I kept seeing all of these people harp on this string video and it showed me absolutely nothing.

For real.

I should read all of the thread before posting.

reply to post by evil incarnate


So now that I have read through the thread adequately, I am puzzled as to why you are stating that a lack of empirical evidence disproves anything.

According to the scientific method...

The only thing that can be done is to invalidate something, and in order for that to happen, evidence must be present that invalidates it.

You cannot use a lack of evidence to invalidate something.

The absolute best thing that anyone say is "I do not know".

Sorry if I spammed this, but I am a scientist and I cannot stand pseudoscience.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Should you really be thanking a known fraudster?

Keep an eye on the top left corner.


I doubt Tesla would ever associate himself with a joke of a man like John Hutchinson.

Yes, that does look odd, but it could be that that string is actually also being affected and following a quite similar pattern to the UFO type metal disk on the wooden table.

Or maybe it is a funky test with a string. I still think that his other experiments aren't fraud.

Come on this is ATS you people aren't trying hard enough to see conspiracies in this. What if the obvious string video was altered by some agency attempting to discredit a man who wants to share anti-gravity technology with the world. Most likely the military industrial complex who is secretly using this and other stolen technologies to power their most advanced secret aircraft. Aircraft they conveniently design to look like UFO's so that any eyewitnesses of those top secret aircraft can be discredited as kooks and UFO/alien believer nutballs. duh

Take a look at this other website
www.scribd.com...
This is a very scientific paper on the technology.

even wikipedia has a page on real world levitation
en.wikipedia.org...

then you have these hobbyists building 'lifters'
jnaudin.free.fr...
this is it, you just need to come up with a power source able to generate enough electricity to lift significant weight and you have an anti-gravity ship. this demonstration levitates a mouse in a toy UFO. why can't this be scaled up? I don't see any reason.

I am surprised that people do not believe anti-gravity machines exist.
Just because you were not standing in the room while it was being demonstrated does not give anyone the right to say it does not exist.
You are more than welcome to ask for more evidence pertaining to this subject...better yet .....Contact Hutchinson and ask for an "In Person" viewing of his machine and have him try it on YOU!

Antigravity has been around for thousands of years....The Egyptians knew all about it during their reign.
If anti-gravity DID NOT exsist....there would be no such thing as the Pyramids of Giza!!!

reply to post by Josephus23


Perhaps you should have done a bit more research before claiming that the video shows nothing.

I was about to go to bed last night so the video was just a quick demonstration of this guys game.

Let's add a bit more shall we?

Firstly I hope you've downloaded the 4 videos already provided earlier, if not you can get them from HERE

Ok so we have 4 videos but nothing to tie in John Hutchison.

So now let's have a look at a few images:



Here we see Hutchison showing us his UFO, identical to the one in the footage.





Here we see Hutchison in his living room, notice the ships wheel, the padded shelving and chains?

Look familiar?

reply to post by Chadwickus


I do not need to do research on your videos.
Why would I say that?
Because I am not trying to prove anything...

You are the one trying to prove things and you are engaging in logical fallacy after logical fallacy in doing so.
Why?
Because you are trying to prove a negative.

So this is the best evidence that you can provide?

Here we see Hutchison in his living room, notice the ships wheel, the padded shelving and chains? Look familiar?

While the things that you have presented might look familiar, you should research HOW to research.
The links that I have provided previously are a great place to start.
As for the quote of yours, please, please, please, please, please, PLEASE read this.

Corrlelation does not imply causation.

Want to know an interesting statistic?
In the months that more people drown, much more ice cream is consumed.
It must be the ice cream causing the drownings.

No, actually that is wrong.
Why?

Because correlation does not imply causation.

They are not related in any way shape or form.
They only APPEAR related.

People must be in the water swimming in order to drown, and that happens in the SUMMERTIME.
The same time of year when people eat more ice cream.

Similarities in pictures does not prove a thing.

Please see my link to the null hypothesis above.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Should you really be thanking a known fraudster?

Keep an eye on the top left corner.


I doubt Tesla would ever associate himself with a joke of a man like John Hutchinson.

I just watched the 1 hour long Google Video from the OP and if you actually took your time to watch it, you would see why it's on a string..

So yes, you were right that it is on a string. John says it himself and shows the string, but it also says why!!

This is the only experiment where he uses a string, all the others he doesn't.

So please, before calling John a fraud artist, then watch the damn video!

- S.V.

READ:

Everyone, the video Chadwickus posted is true and does have a string, John says it himself here:

video.google.co.uk...#

At the 32:30 minute mark. He starts with that experiment.

But he not a fraudster..

Originally posted by Josephus23

So now that I have read through the thread adequately, I am puzzled as to why you are stating that a lack of empirical evidence disproves anything.

Probably because that is not what I said.

According to the scientific method...

The only thing that can be done is to invalidate something, and in order for that to happen, evidence must be present that invalidates it.

You cannot use a lack of evidence to invalidate something.

The absolute best thing that anyone say is "I do not know".

Sorry if I spammed this, but I am a scientist and I cannot stand pseudoscience.

That last sentence is the most puzzling thing here. As a scientist, you should be a tad more detail oriented and be able to observe and report accurately.

Yet, you just wasted an entire post making a point against an argument I never made. I guess if that makes you a scientist, then I am an uber-scientist.

You are basically speaking pseudo-science in your response. The scientific method requires that an experiment be able to be recreated and predicted, no? Why are you so quick to toss that part out in order to pretend science does indeed endorse the invisible dragon in my garage?

I have one you know? You have no evidence that I do not so according to your "scientific method" I must have a real dragon in my garage.

What kind of scientist are you, exactly?

[edit on 3/18/10 by evil incarnate]

reply to post by evil incarnate


You should read your posts better.

Of course we can recreate things with video and that does not mean they are not real. The point is that all you have are videos. There is no empirical evidence of any kind. There are no controlled experiments. There are no recreations or live demonstrations.

That doesn't mean that they are not real?
I think that maybe you don't really understand what you are typing.
Two negatives that does not balance with the rest of the statement?

And here is my quote...

Originally posted by Josephus23.
So now that I have read through the thread adequately, I am puzzled as to why you are stating that a lack of empirical evidence disproves anything.

And here is your quote

Probably because that is not what I said.

I will give you that.
You didn't say those exact words.

I suppose that I took this quote of yours to mean that you thought that a lack of empirical evidence disproved the OP.

Of course we can recreate things with video and that does not mean they are not real. The point is that all you have are videos. There is no empirical evidence of any kind. There are no controlled experiments. There are no recreations or live demonstrations.

That quote, and the 3 websites that you have posted debunking the story in the OP.

And yes, I am a real scientist.

Thus, quoting you exactly and not taking a stand one way or the other.





[edit on 3/18/2010 by Josephus23]

[edit on 3/18/2010 by Josephus23]

reply to post by SalkinVictory


Great find!!!

stars for that one.

I just found out that he lives in the same city as me. Hearing him talk about getting a letter from the mayor due to effecting his neighbors is very interesting.

Should see if I can have a coffee with him or something...

reply to post by Chadwickus


And maybe you should do a little research too. Refer to 32:40. John clearly states that the damn UFO is suspended by a string!!!

video.google.co.uk...#

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

You should read your posts better.

Of course we can recreate things with video and that does not mean they are not real. The point is that all you have are videos. There is no empirical evidence of any kind. There are no controlled experiments. There are no recreations or live demonstrations.

That doesn't mean that they are not real?
I think that maybe you don't really understand what you are typing.
Two negatives that does not balance with the rest of the statement?

Let me see if I can help you out a bit here.

Read what I actually wrote.

Now, read it again.

See what it actually says yet? What is says is simply that you have no evidence other than videos. That is all it says. Nowhere does it say that this lack of evidence proves beyond all doubt that he is a fraud. All it says is that you HAVE NO EVIDENCE.

Do you have any evidence aside from videos or are you just looking to make up arguments over nothing?

Maybe you can also explain to me what you are confused about with the first part because it has made perfect sense to me every time I have had to read it so far. What are you missing?

[edit on 3/18/10 by evil incarnate]

Oh dear. I can't believe I'm about to get involved in this one. Note that in the toy flying saucer video, the saucer swings in accordance with the law of periodic motion. In other words, it wobbles faster the higher it goes. This is consistent with it being suspended by a shortening string. If this guy's invention somehow nullifies the laws of physics, it would not be subject to this gravitational principle. Right? In other words, even if we couldn't actually see the string, which we can, we could infer the presence by the object's behavior. In other words, the video actually CONFIRMS that it is operating under known gravitational laws.

reply to post by evil incarnate


As I said, I am confused.

And if you want to clear it up rather than attack me personally then I would highly appreciate it.

Your first post was a list of 3 sites that debunked the OP, very poorly too I might add.

Your next post, which contained the quote in question, states exactly what you have just stated, kind of.

You start out by stating that

Of course we can recreate things with video and that does not mean they are not real.

And this is where the confusion sets in...

When dealing with things like research, a writer always looks for parsimony.
This is just the simplest way to do things.

And one huge flaw that happens to people is that several choose to use two negatives to prove something.
This is horribly confusing and no scientist would write things in such a manner.

So either one of two things exist
either you made a typo and meant to type

"that does not mean that they are real"

or...

you used to two negatives to create positive by stating that

"that does not mean that they are not real"
when you should have stated
"that does not meant that they are fake"

I suppose that I could tell you to read it AGAIN, but I will let you do take care of doing that, the reading I meant.

Congruence and parsimony are always the goal when expressing interpretations of data.


[edit on 3/18/2010 by Josephus23]