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

reply to post by DJW001


Where are these people coming from putting these stars?

I am sorry, but the video does not prove anything.

Anything AT ALL.

Whether it's him or someone else.

You cannot use a lack of evidence to come to a conclusion.

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

As I said, I am confused.

That sounds like your problem as you started this. The only person that can clear up your confusion now is you. You confused me from the get go and I have been straight forward with you.

I simply stated that there is no proof that any of this is the least bit real because there is nothing but videos and real science depends on more than a video for confirmation.

You rearranged that to say I was saying something I was not. You are confused but you did that all by yourself.

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

What do you need cleared up, exactly?

List it all out for me, I would love to make sure that you understand everything I am saying here.

Please tell me when I attacked you personally.

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

Poorly but no rebuttal to back that up? Well everyone is entitled to an opinion even if they cannot back it up I suppose.

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...

Why are you confused? Have you been following along?

Freezer tried to argue that being able to recreate the sun on video must be evidence that the sun is not real. I was responding to that. Just because you see something on video is not proof it is not real. It was a silly argument. If it confused you, talk to Freezer.

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

I thought you were a scientist? Now you are a writer? Which is it?

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.

Neither would I and that is why I have not. I have already asked you to show me what you are talking about once. How many times do I need to ask you to show me what you are trying to accuse me of doing?

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.

Nope. You are just wrong all the way around. Apparently you did not read what Freezer tried to argue as that would make that response real clear for you. Apparently arrogance is getting in the way. Instead of correcting me and going on about research, do some.

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

I will try to make this as simple as I can.

I merely stated that all there was as evidence was video and that was not enough to make it real.

Freezer then tried to argue that just because they are on video does not mean they are fake.

The logic goes off the rails there but I had to respond. I never said that simply being video proves they are frauds but apparently both of you read that. Interesting for a scientist/writer and a stranger to get the same thing so wrong when it is in print, able to be reviewed at will.

Anyway, so let me paraphrase Freezer for you -'Just because it is on video does not mean it is fake. I can make a video of the sun, does that mean it is fake?'

My response is that no, making a video of something does not mean that thing does not exist.

Now, if you go back and follow from the beginning it should be all clear. Now please set your arrogant attitude aside and stop pretending you are more knowledgable about nothing in particular, giving you place to judge what I have said as being wrong. So far, all you have pointed out is that you could not be bothered to follow the entire conversation and could not resist opining on something you were not informed about.

Care to try again?

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by DJW001

 

Where are these people coming from putting these stars?

I am sorry, but the video does not prove anything.

Anything AT ALL.

Whether it's him or someone else.

You cannot use a lack of evidence to come to a conclusion.

The proof is the video. The post you are responding to is not about a lack of proof at all but actually addresses the video evidence presented and bases a conclusion on the given evidence. That would be why a person may get a star as opposed to a hysterical cry that it is real for no good reason.

You cannot use a lack of evidence to come to a conclusion.

So is this video evidence or not? If this video is evidence of anything, it is that toy flying saucers obey the known laws of physics. If you wish to claim this video does not exist and therefore is not evidence, fine.

reply to post by evil incarnate


How in the world do you get arrogance out of me pointing out the flaws in the logic employed by some on this board?

I could list a litany of personal attacks toward me that permeate your comments, but I would rather stick to the facts.

I read the posts in question both before your last comment and after, and now that you have cleared up exactly what you meant, then I am not confused.

You could have simply typed
"that does not meant that they are fake"

And it would have made this a lot easier.

If an argument is not worded in a congruent manner then it is liable to be confused.

Just like I typed from the beginning.

I was confused by what you meant.

Thank you for the clarification.

The funny thing about this is that now that I understand your argument...

We agree with one another.

[edit on 3/18/2010 by Josephus23]

reply to post by DJW001


A video is not evidence of anything.

I do not choose to debunk people on things that I do not know, and I honestly just don't call myself a skeptic.
Because all of the skeptics that I know want to DISPROVE something based on a LACK of evidence.

I would rather say that I do not know.

The videos are interesting, but they do not convince me one way or the other.

As I have said in a previous post, I want to repeat the experiment concerning the bolted magnets and the rocks before I make any type of conclusive statement, 100% true or false or neither, but I have seen way more "evidence" in support of the OP than refuting it.

This evidence could be anecdotal and eventually prove false, but I do not like to burst anyone's bubble.
Only those that like to burst bubbles, but do not really know how.

I found your argument to be interesting, but I took umbrage to your use of the word CONFIRMS.

Because NOTHING is CONFIRMED by these videos.

[edit on 3/18/2010 by Josephus23]

[edit on 3/18/2010 by Josephus23]

reply to post by banegame


And this is a reasonable explanation to you? You think it's ok to demonstrate anti-gravity by using a string to lift the object?

I think he had to come clean because he was caught out in a huge lie.

Just to add as well, the video I posted on the first page stated that John had come clean about the string. So I am fully aware of this fact, but thanks for pointing it out.

[edit on 18/3/10 by Chadwickus]

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

How in the world do you get arrogance out of me pointing out the flaws in the logic employed by some on this board?

From you insisting on it when you are so incorrect and could have easily realized that had you bothered to read just a little. That is how.

I could list a litany of personal attacks toward me that permeate your comments, but I would rather stick to the facts.

Because up until I called you arrogant, you had NONE. If you are going to make accusations, back them up. If you want to stick to facts, then supply a couple of those facts and back up what you said. It is pretty simple. Either it is a fact or a lie.

Admit it was a lie or present the facts to prove your point. I am pretty interested in facts as well. I am calling your claim a lie.

I read the posts in question both before your last comment and after, and now that you have cleared up exactly what you meant, then I am not confused.

Then an appology for correcting me about something I had correct would be in order, unless someone were too arrogant to do so.

You could have simply typed
"that does not meant that they are fake"

And it would have made this a lot easier.

So, I should have dumbed down the conversation I was having with someone else just so that you, a "scientist" and "writer" could understand the logic in my English written words? That has to be the most entertaining thing I have ever read on ATS. Thanks for that.

I could have typed all kinds of things. You said you are interested in facts.

The fact is, I was not addressing you so there was no need to consider your lowered intellect when writing my response. The fact is that it was both logical and made perfect sense when you simply did not understand it. The fact is that you told me I was wrong twice until I explained it in the most simple terms I could at which point you told me you had been following along, you just did not get it. Am I missing any facts yet, scientist?

If an argument is not worded in a congruent manner then it is liable to be confused.

1. It was perfectly congruent. You have failed to show that it was not.

2. I was not worried about anyone understand what I wrote other than Freezer. My autistic nephew would not have understood either but I was also not addressing him.

3. That means I could care less if you understood. If you wanted to jump in, you should have started by stating you were confused by my English words.

Just like I typed from the beginning.

I was confused by what you meant.

Thank you for the clarification.

Just like I typed from the beginning.

Freezer,

Get it? I was not talking to you. Had you spoken up and said I confused you and asked me to make it simple for you, I would have nicely. Instead you told me that I was wrong twice before sort of admitting you were just so confused that you were actually wrong. Not a nice way to start any discussion, do you agree?

The funny thing about this is that now that I understand your argument...

We agree with one another.

[edit on 3/18/2010 by Josephus23]

Thus, you should see why starting out by telling my how logically challenged I was before considering you just did not understand comes across as arrogant?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I come on these boards expecting to get attacked, because people continually use preposterous logic.

The difference between me and skeptics is this.

I do not like to debunk people for things that I cannot 100% validly debunk.

I would rather debunk the many debunkers who come on here and try to take down someone's OP, when they have NO IDEA if it is right or wrong.

Nice allusion to hysteria. Were you referring to a comment of mine?
If so, then please quote me and parse my logic.

But then again, you might not have been referring to me, but simply making a general statement that you were trying to tie with me.

A sort of guilt by association thing.

I have typed this more than once, I am continually blown away at the appeals to emotion that are laden with stars, but the most logical and congruent statements seem to be overlooked more times than not.

Watch this video and tell me Hutchison isn't the next Tesla. The similarities are quite striking, mainly the hair.

I highly recommend this German professor on scalar waves.

Podcast is excellent -- comparing Tesla scalar waves with his transmission verification.

www.meyl.eu...

His German accent is kind of funny -- experiment or excrement -- you decide.

[edit on 18-3-2010 by drew hempel]

reply to post by evil incarnate


Enjoy your adrenaline rush evil.

As I said before, thank you for the clarification, but this is not a proper statement.

That does not prove that they are not real.

This statement is confusing, no matter how you try to break it down. Ask a teacher if you are in school and if not, then I suggest you find one.

And yet another post ridiculing me personally and not any logic that I have used.

You guys are funny.

I have to go to a lab and do real science guys.

The OP was a good read. I hope that y'all had fun derailing it.

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

Enjoy your adrenaline rush evil.

As I said before, thank you for the clarification, but this is not a proper statement.

That does not prove that they are not real.

This statement is confusing, no matter how you try to break it down. Ask a teacher if you are in school and if not, then I suggest you find one.

There is nothing wrong with that sentence.

You are hung up on the idea that two negatives cancel each other out.

That is not what is happening in the above referenced statement.

I am an English teacher.

Try...


...again.

It is perfectly logical as well as gramatically correct. You do not like it much and that is too bad but that does not make it incorrect. Sorry that I do not write the way you prefer. I do not care for Stephen King's style but he keeps writing books no matter what I say.

And yet another post ridiculing me personally and not any logic that I have used.

You keep saying that I am ridiculing you and attacking you but I have asked twice already for you to give me just one example. Why bother continuing to whine about it if you are going to insist on refusing to back it up?

You do realize just how absurd that is, right?

You guys are funny.

I have to go to a lab and do real science guys.

The OP was a good read. I hope that y'all had fun derailing it.

Make sure you hit every garbage can this time, the lab was a mess this morning.

-now you have something to call an attack if you like.

reply to post by scubagravy


Hmmm...are you sure it's such a good find scubagravy?

Look carefully...not just at the wire/string/cable...but what it's doing.

Imagine if you rigged up a fraud with a pull string, as is being suggested, how would that string behave in relation to the spinning top's movements?

I don't know about you, but if i had rigged it, when i pulled the string the top would rise up..yes? And when the top fell down again, you'd logically expect the string to go slack..yes?

Look again at the clip...and tell me if the 'string' behaves as you'd expect in relation to the spinning top moving up and down.

This guys flat resembles a surplus junk store, there are bits and pieces of old equipment in every square foot. Don't you think there are wires and cables strewn everywhere too? Is it not possible that the wire is being influenced by whatever effect is generating the movement in the spinning top, and just happens to be in the field of effect slightly?

Originally posted by evil incarnate
When did I say you were harassing people? Are you ok?

I'm fine, thanks for asking.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
If all you want to do it post Hutchison videos and then harass anyone not jumping behind you to cheer for him then this is nothing more than trolling.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
The video did not post anything here, I did. You were responding to me.

Right, because you posted the video. My comment was pertaining to the video, not you. I don't see how you automatically take it as a personal attack to you, as nothing I said was about you.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
So, if videos are the only evidence you have then showing how easily videos can be tricks just points out that that level of evidence is worthless on its own.

You are right the videos shown here are not proof of anything, thing is, I never said they were. Just as there is a lack of proof that it is real, there's a lack of proof that it's a hoax.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Freezer tried to argue that being able to recreate the sun on video must be evidence that the sun is not real.

This is what I really said -

Originally posted by Freezer
So I guess if I can fake an image of the sun, that means the sun must be a hoax right?

Perhaps learn how to identify sarcasm.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
I merely stated that all there was as evidence was video and that was not enough to make it real.

No actually this is what you said word for word.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
There is also...

skywise711

actionskeptics

randi

and I really enjoyed...

Just some things to think about.

Go back and look at your own words.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Freezer then tried to argue that just because they are on video does not mean they are fake.

Actually this is what I said-

Originally posted by Freezer
I was responding to the video you posted labeled "Antigravity Hutchison effect" which was obviously meant to imply that's how Hutchison produced his video, as the title of the video says so.

I simply stated that just because you can fake a particular effect, doesn't mean that effect doesn't exist. (My opinion of the composite video you posted)

Gyros, spinning in a frictionless environment... A vacuum... At the equator where magnetic polarity changes.... Before both... Clockwise rotation in a vacuum at this latitude... Reason why it did not work anywhere else.... Funny how the pyramids are on the same latitude too.... I KNOW... So does a dead guy who lived in New Zealand... Bruce Cathie...

Enjoy ATS

Looking at these 'Hutchinson effect' videos makes my BS senses tingle. Especially his 'magic' electricity-generating mystery crystals. Zero-point energy, eh? Isn't that from 'The Incredibles'? (loved that movie btw). I say the 'mystery' minerals in those metal tubes are along the lines of Zinc, Carbon, and Potassium Hydroxide; as in alkaline batteries. Demonstrating a potential voltage on a voltmetmeter don't mean diddly. All I saw on the video was maybe 50 mW needed to make a toy motor/fan spin. A 'AA' Energizer inside that tube is all he needs to make that work.
As for the levitating stuff... that's gotten old since 'Bewitched'.
Hey, let Hutchinson set up a power company with generators run by his psychic-zero-point energy and I'll be his first customer.

Hope this hasn't been posted before but John Hutchison will be interviewed on an internet radio show called "The MovieDan Show" tonight. From what I've heard about the hosts, I don't think Hutchison will be getting much respect when he comes on. They're extremely... uh... BLUNT, when it comes to their questions and they've been known to insult guests on the air.

The show starts at 11pm EST tonight. I'll see if I can get my audio program to record it for those that might miss it. Here's the listen link: www.srnlive.com...

video.google.com...#

Or just watch this German professor on Scalar waves

reply to post by Chadwickus


Thanks Chad - Saved me the effort I've had to remind people a number of times about this video and his blatant hoaxing. Yet here we are, event #9782664 and still people are astounded at his 'experiments'...