Anti Gravity Acheived And Confirmed

reply to post by 1010011010


You are entitled to your opinion, however dubious and derive satisfaction thereof.

To Hyper
To date list any reputed science journal that has published anything on AG or Ufo drives.
You onbiously have no experience in sending any material to a science journal for publication.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


Actually I do. And there aren't any because, as I said, it's crackpottery and not real science.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by 1010011010

I am going in circles? Okay. You are unable to provide the simplest answers and obviously don't know what you are talking about. I gave you the chance to explain your results and you failed miserably; you weren't even able to answer the simplest questions other users and I have posted (like what the "Savvy vector" actually is. And no, your report doesn't define it anywhere).

I did warn you

You have, yes, but I was trying to make him see the lack of evidence, common sense and understanding he was and still is showing (or not showing if we are talking about evidence).

There is no reasoning with this man. I'm out.

EDIT: In addition, the "report" is so poorly written and full of grammatical errors that no one can understand what it says. No wonder the "high profile scientist" or whatever you call them never showed up.

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

Actually I do. And there aren't any because, as I said, it's crackpottery and not real science.

So is that why Drs Ning Li and Evgeny podkletnov have since disappeared?

Originally posted by 1010011010
[ I was trying to make him see the lack of evidence, common sense and understanding he was and still is showing (or not showing if we are talking about evidence).

Yep - I could see the effort & lengths you went to & unlike him I applaud your logical conclusion!

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

Actually I do. And there aren't any because, as I said, it's crackpottery and not real science.

So is that why Drs Ning Li and Evgeny podkletnov have since disappeared?

No - they have "disappeared" because no-one wants to employ them any more, so they do not get published nor maintain any 'net presence.

they are quacks - just like you - only they were in "the establishment", which rejected their quackery.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by 1010011010
[ I was trying to make him see the lack of evidence, common sense and understanding he was and still is showing (or not showing if we are talking about evidence).

Yep - I could see the effort & lengths you went to & unlike him I applaud your logical conclusion!

Lol. Then I wonder if both of your credentials invividually or even put together would amount to much.
Ah well, nvm you get all kinds on ats

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


Whether they have credentials or not has nothing to do with how silly the concept of AG is.

It's also a wrong and fallacious way to start holding a debate.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine

Oh Yeah. Since when has a fully working technology, that will change the world as you know it, become a silly concept?

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

Oh Yeah. Since when has a fully working technology, that will change the world as you know it, become a silly concept?

You're presenting a straw man. I did not say anything about world-altering technologies, I simply said that anti-gravity machines are founded on quack science.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

Oh Yeah. Since when has a fully working technology, that will change the world as you know it, become a silly concept?

Never.

since when did you have any of it?

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by 1010011010
[ I was trying to make him see the lack of evidence, common sense and understanding he was and still is showing (or not showing if we are talking about evidence).

Yep - I could see the effort & lengths you went to & unlike him I applaud your logical conclusion!

Lol. Then I wonder if both of your credentials invividually or even put together would amount to much.

Ah - a snide little argument from authority.

I wonder what you credentials amount to then, to come here claiming to have anti-gravity and persistently refusing to provide a single piece of evidence?

What are you credentials?

Ah well, nvm you get all kinds on ats

Yep - unfortunately for you some of us can think critically - which requires no credentials at all.

Making wild claims with no evidence also requires no credentials, but is less useful.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine

I was refering to my AG science and tech.
Yes unfortunately the mainstream will dub anything that brings Einstein;s hypotheses in
questionable light, as quack science.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


That's generally because it is.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Good God people, are you all blind to the visible evidence provided,
which even corroborates electronic, optical and mechanical measurements?
The calibre of people on ats is truly pathetic, to say the least.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


In 14 pages, I am yet to see any credible evidence. Are you holding back on us? I mean, if you have actual evidence, you should share it. Though I dare say that ATS is not the place to gain insightful feedback for this sort of thing. Try your idea out on scientists by posting it in a science forum. If you have anything even half way credible, I'm sure it will stand up to their questioning.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine


He HAS posted in engineering and science forums, and was laughed out as the crackpot he is.

Thats why he came here.

Seriously people, stop feeding the troll and let this thread die a glourious death.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Good God people, are you all blind to the visible evidence provided,
which even corroborates electronic, optical and mechanical measurements?
The calibre of people on ats is truly pathetic, to say the least.

You have specifically and repeatedly said that you do NOT provide evidence at all - you have point blank said that you DELIBERATELY did not make a video and will not post photographs.

the only "evidence" you have provided is you saying this thing exists - you have never provided any link to ANY corroborating evidence of any kind, or even quoted any "electronic, optical and mechanical measurements".

So yes, the calibre here on ATS is indeed pathetic - but if you left that would improve somewhat!

Click here for more information.