This insulting rant is part of why it's hard to take some people seriously.

Perpetual motion, ghost hunters, alchemy, psychic ability and psuedo science are all areas that charlatans have been making claims about through-out the ages and have yet to provide any proof.

If you can't handle the heat of providing evidence and proof, providing insults and derision certainly isn't going to make up for it or inspire anyone to take you more seriously.

ETA: I also just scrolled through and realized there is a bit of thread necromancy here. Oops.

I personally thought that the model found in Ed Walter's attic was disputed as evidence of a hoax because:

1) he had moved out and someone else lived there (time for someone to plant it there)

2) it didn't really resemble the object that closely

3) it was made from blueprints that he was somehow able to prove were no longer in his possession (someone else was supopsed to have them or something)

This is all from memory from looking into this a few years ago. All I am saying is I don't think you can dismiss the entire thing just based on that model. My feeling was there were other reasons to dismiss that (such as some lighting and reflection issues in some photographs) though it still has always seemed to be a fascinating case to me.

American Antigravity (Hutchison) is a Scam Company, of the same Ilk of the Internet Scamers that send out fishing emails.

Even the Antigrav "Floater" was debunked by Mythbusters not that long ago. In an atmosphere it works just fine. Soon as you stick it into a vacum chamber it breaks down.

In the end the Antigrav "Floater" is nothing more then a primative form of a Ion Drive, that Ionizes the air, which is then pushed doward by the opposite charge at the base of the floater.

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

A little review: About a year ago, C4N7 asked for opinions on an interview video he mentioned in the OP, where a fellow named Boyd Bushman talks about anti-gravity to a reporter. Discussion in this thread was related to members' opinions on the interview. C4N7 wasn't happy with the opinions here, and had a bit of an attitude problem.

Please watch the video mentioned in the OP and point out the time index where Hutchison appears.

It was an inaccurate and misleading statement by the commentator in the interview. The context of this, again, is in regard to the OP video. That interview video includes a clip of a "demonstration" done by someone who is only referred to as a "scientist." I recognized the bit as something done by Hutchison, but this is not stated in the video.

Odd. I note that you have a similar shorthand posting style to that of C4N7.

Anyway, did you bother to follow the links I provided? Here's a video done by Hutchison. It supposedly demonstrates an anti-gravity experiment with a little saucer toy moving around in a jerky fashion. If you look at the upper left hand corner, you can see a wire jerking at the same time as the toy. This is obvious fakery.

Also, many of Hutchison's so-called experiments have things supposedly lifting off a plywood surface in an odd way. For example, a hand saw starts lifting off slowly, than moves "up" faster during the video. I could easily duplicate this experiment by hiding an electromagnet above a sheet of plywood. I would turn it on, and place the hand saw on the plywood ceiling where it would be held by the electromagnet. I would start filming the saw with the camera upside down, and turn off the electromagnet. When viewed, it would appear as if the saw accelerated upwards.

It's hard to describe how poor the videos are when considered as evidence. There are clips spliced together, often with poor lighting, using closeups of objects. They're not even good tricks.

You miss the point: If somebody says they have discovered new physics, it starts getting interesting only when there is independent, repeated, credible confirmation. That's how science works. For instance, take a look at the history of the "missing" neutrino issue, and the experiments eventually showing neutrino oscillation. There was a process, with many scientists, with different experiments, investigating various possibilities.

That depends on what information you have. A video, of course, gives someone more opportunities for manipulation, but a stage magician can pull off some great tricks too.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Unless they're speaking Dutch, of course.


Levitating a coil or toy above a plate (even when not faked) doesn't seem like a feat of "alien" prowess to me. Magnets or air pressure, say, could do this with little problem. If gravity is the acceleration of objects towards the Earth's center at 9.8m/sec², then anti-gravity is merely the acceleration of objects at >9.8m/sec² in the opposite direction. Rockets, springs, even human muscles do this (albeit for short bursts). So anti-gravity is plenty possible. Just not in the way pseudo-scientists like to describe it.

__________________
"WARNING: Being launched into space is hazardous."--Lonewulf

Triplebrick is no longer birdable. It was fun while it lasted.

"N'oubliez pas: l'ours n'est pas un nounours!"--Nounours de Salmonberry

Not, otherwise the oil companies would be shafted.

__________________
Thank God for magnetism.

I consider myself to be fairly well read when it comes to the internet, and yet I have never seen someone actually write out "Durrrr." Now this debate is a real chess match.

__________________
See? Because of me, now there's a warning. -Homer Simpson

What a funny rant on a year old thread that nobody cares about anymore!

Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

What do you mean not care about? It is funny as hell! Been a while I've seen something that entertaining. I should come to the conspiracy forum more often.

I didn't notice the thread was a year old. To me it was just C4N7 getting banned and coming back immediately under the sockpuppet name of kyleraine. Now that I see it's a year old I can't shake that vision of C4N7 curled into a ball ala Gollum ploting for vengence moaning "they will see, they will all see... my vengence! ... my precious vengence!" for an entire year, then getting banned after two posts in an interval of like 3 hours.

Fair enough...perhaps I was a bit .... hasty!

Indeed it is humourous, I just find it odd that someone reraises a dead issue from well over a year ago...perhaps "forgotten about" might have been a better phrase to use

Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

Lol, no I see what you mean.

I think it's funny, but kind of not funny at the same time. I always laugh inside when I see somebody say "show me wrong" and then blow a fuse when shown wrong; or get angry when they ask for your opinion and it's something different from "I agree".

Not funny at the same time because I had to deal with self-persecuted people before. My father, who was schizophrenic, but even then he wasn't really bad on the "persecution" side of things; he was more of the highly imaginative type and then confused his imagination with reality. But I also had a friend who had what I'd call an extreme case of avoidant personality disorder, complete with delusional fit of persecution and total fixation over the idea that every single life form hated him personally. His self-esteem must have been a negative number. He never was fighting back though, his self-persecution was of the ultra-shy avoidant type, kind of if you said "Ah, you like the color blue? I kind of prefer the color red." would almost make him feel emotionally brutalised and he'd depress.

I think maybe that's why I avoid the conspiracy forum? There is potencial for amusement, but some people here have a schizophrenic flavor in their posting, or at least paranoid/schizotypal.

Not to derail, but Energy companies (they sell a lot more than just oil) wouldn't be shafted at all. If there was a new energy source found that was more profitable to produce and sell than oil and gas are, who do you think would be selling it? Who has the worldwide infrastructure to support the consumers? Those very same Energy Companies. Those running the companies aren't stupid, they are more then prepared to move with the times, already most of them are working in the alternative fuels industry, in fact Shell has operational hydrogen equipped stations in several locations about the planet, including Washington DC. In the future, instead of pulling into a BP, Mobil, Texaco, or Shell station to fill up with petrol, you'll be pulling into those same ones to top up with hydrogen, ethanol or just to plug your car into the power supply to charge up the batteries super quick.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

To expand on that, my brother works for Ballard Power (fuel cells) in Vancouver. They obviously need to deal with energy companies and car companies. He told me that the energy companies wouldn't mind switching the infrastructure to hydorgen, but only once. They don't want to have to switch back.

Mind you, this was several years ago, the attitude may have changed

Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

There is a reason for that, it's going to be expensive to make the switch, that's one of the reasons it's being delayed. It needs to be done once and done correctly. There is no profit in getting it wrong, so they are playing a waiting game to see which technology is going to take over from petrol, and then once it's decided, there'll be a slow roll over to that technology as it is phased in and the older stuff is phased out.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

It gives everyone a chance to spout off and feel smart. Useful public service.

According to Jim's post, kyleraine was given a three day suspension because of his attitude issue, not a sock puppet banning. But I understand the confusion - after reviewing the thread, kyleraine appears to me to have a very similar posting style and attitude to C4N7.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

The biefield-brown effect is a mainstay of the "Anti-gravity" psuedo-science movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld-Brown_effect

There is a method for producing thrust by sending huge amounts of high voltage into a capacitor-type thingy. It produces an "electric wind" but this cannot account for the whole effect. I've heard that in a vacuum there are tiny amounts of trust generated by such an apparatus.

But it's not anti-gravity. It's been called this many times but it's been tested with very accurate gravitometers and such and it's not. The best explinations is that it is a combination of ions being shed from the material and a sort of internal impulse-based momentum. if you imagine a bohr model of an atom. Think of the electrons as going into a an elyptical orbit where they shoot down one side fast and go back slower, due to the huge field they're under.

Electrons have very little mass. And ions from a metal plate would be small. That's probably why when you put huge amounts of energy into such a device you only get barely measurable thrust.


If you actually want antigravity you need negative mass. Probably not possible with any sort of matter. Possibly with "negative energy" which in theory might be possible, but only in really tiny amounts. Energy has next to no mass unless you have absolutely massive amounts of it. You'd need several h-bombs worth of negative-energy to have a few grams of negative mass.... if that's even possible in theory... which it might be... or not.

So at the moment.. it just ain't gona happen.

Right; it's just momentum thrust. Generating a force to oppose gravity is not anti-gravity. If it were, then we could attribute anti-gravity to, say, the Montgolfiers.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

True. But really, balloons are quite pro-gravity. It's the effect of gravity on the air around the balloon that makes it rise.

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

No offense but some people on here seem over critical and over assertive with their views on the subject. Instead of stating such things "as his credibility is ruined" - state "his credibility is questionable 'to me'". Someone's credibility is measured differently depending on another's knowledge of the person and the matter in question. For example if you do not know an individual personally their credibility to you would be of a lesser capacity than as to someone who does know said individual personally. Someone who is involved closely with a matter being questioned would have more knowledge on the subject and therefore a better judge of the persons credibility. Their credibility "should they state their views on the matter" then comes into question. This is neverending until it all just becomes speculation. Someones views on a subject will always be judged by the individual and every man and woman alive has preconceptions to any subject presented to them. You're view on a subject may be simultaneously completely different to my view should we be told at the same time (i say you're view meaning anybody). My point being that in order for a healthy and constructive argument to ensue it should be assumed that neither party is correct in their assertions because (it seems here on this topic anyway) that noone can put forward evidence that cannot have been tampered with and/or have personal knowlege on the subject or persons actual credibility. So i think if you wish to put forward relevant comment's and engage in an intelligent argument, you should choose you're word's more carefully and not label thing's that you have read here or there as fact. Because fact (again especially in this topic) is very debateable in itself eg. science that is and has been accepted as fact for millenia is continually debunked as former speculation and theory as the clock ticks forward. I say this not to offend anyone, nor do i say it on anyone's behalf. I say it merely because we all have an opinion and as noone can state absolute fact on this subject i think we should all just open our mind's a little, and be a little more accepting of the view's of others - whether they be highly informed or not. We are all entitled to our own opinion.

"Don't tell me it's not true, until you yourself have proven it's not true"

It doesn't work like that. Someone with extraordinary claims needs to provide proof for those claims- and that proof will be rigorously examined. If the proof fails (as all the proofs of antigravity produced in this thread so far have failed) then it must be rejected.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

Almost exactly 2 years, thread necromancy alert :-)

__________________
There we were in the park when suddenly some old lady says I stole her purse..... I chucked the professor at her but she kept coming..... So I had to hit her with this purse I found.
-- Bender

The thread that wouldn't die ... I feel a movie coming on. YouTube, of course.

__________________
Dave

Anyone seen my marbles? Anyone ... ?

Starring Angelina Jolie?

__________________
The left hand knows full well what the right hand is doing, but quietly ignores it.

I don't know about an anti-gravity device, but C4N7/kyleraine and mogues all seem to use an anti-grammar device.

They may not understand the gravity of their actions.

__________________
The left hand knows full well what the right hand is doing, but quietly ignores it.

mogues,

Assuming you return, first, welcome to BAUT. Second, if you are going to advocate some conspiracy, you need to prove it, it is not up to the rest of us to disprove it.

Lastly, paragraphs are a great invention. You might want to try them out for you next long post.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

For example if you do not know an individual personally their credibility to you would be of a lesser capacity than as to someone who does know said individual personally.

No. In the case of nearly topic covered here, the credibility of any particular contributor can be judged solely on its merits, without any knowledge of the person or his background. In fact to do the latter would tend to commit the ad hominem fallacy.

The credibility of someone who claims that his gracile bridge can hold up 10,000 pounds, but who either refuses to test that or tests it and fails, is based solely on that outcome, not upon my knowledge of an individual person. What I know or may discover about him will not change the physical behavior of the universe regarding his bridge.

...every man and woman alive has preconceptions to any subject presented to them.

In the case of physics, science, and technology, those "preconceptions" are nearly always based on considerable practical history. My preconception about whether a bridge will bear some designated load is based on lessons learned from 1,000 years of bridge-building.

Topics covered in this forum do not generally lend themselves to legitimate differences of opinion. Whether abortion is morally justified, or what I should get my nephew for his birthday, are questions about which you and I may differ considerably according to any number of subjective factors. Whether a given gadget will generate anti-gravity, or whether a bridge will bear its rated load, are questions that appeal only to the established and immutable behavior of the universe. If you say the bridge will bear 10,000 pounds and I say it will not, one of us is wrong and the other is right. If the bridge collapses, none of your arguments in favor of its robustness will be true no matter how persuasively you argue them.

My point being that in order for a healthy and constructive argument to ensue it should be assumed that neither party is correct in their assertions...

Hogwash. Those whose models of the behavior of the physical world have stood the test of time are demonstrably correct in their assertions. Those who challenge that model with a new untested model have the burden of proof.

...no one can put forward evidence that cannot have been tampered with...

You allude to an affirmative rebuttal. If you develop a new method of bridge-building and assert that it is robust enough to hold up 10,000 pounds, its failure to do so may be the result of tampering, but since you would be the one affirming that cause for the witnessed effect, you would have the burden of proof. You can't accuse people of sawing through your bridge members without proof.

The status quo persists in science and technology not because of some ideological or idealistic allegiance, but because it's proven to work.

...e.g. science that is and has been accepted as fact for millenia is continually debunked as former speculation and theory as the clock ticks forward.

No. Science that is accepted for millennia is rejected for better science when better, more predictive or comprehensive, models arise and are validated. That occurs on the basis of hypothesis, empiricism, analysis, and finally practice. And in fact it is the scientists who do this for the world, not the pseudoscientists howling from the shadows and complaining about unfair rejection. The former models are not dismissed as speculation; they were correct inasfar as our ability to observe and test them. They remain valid for circumstances that fit the original presumptions.

We know that Newtonian dynamics breaks down as velocities approach significant fractions of the speed of light. There is a more complete Einsteinian model that works for more cases. But in fact most speeds we deal with do not approach the speed of light. Hence Newtonian dynamics remains the model that governs my profession because it is good enough, and simpler.

...we should all just open our mind's a little, and be a little more accepting of the view's of others

Open-mindedness does not mean accepting testable assertions of fact without the test. These aren't subjective questions. The test may not be bypassed simply because it's inconvenient or expensive to do them, or because they might fail.

We are all entitled to our own opinion.

Entitlement does not make it correct. If you offer an opinion regarding the behavior of the universe and your opinion does not match observable fact, it is simply wrong.

"Don't tell me it's not true, until you yourself have proven it's not true"

No, that simply shifts the burden of proof. One does not get to enjoy the warm glow of scientific accomplishment without having done the work. You can't simply propose the absurd with no further effort and expect to be taken seriously by people who have considerable practical experience to the contrary.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

So the legends are true - you really are 1000 years old?

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

__________________
The left hand knows full well what the right hand is doing, but quietly ignores it.