Thunder Energies Corp Discovers Invisible Terrestrial Entities

It would be pretty cool if this is true. Literally a new way of looking at things. In the video, dude said it was reproduced elsewhere, but he didn't say who else was involved in the work. THis was first time I've heard of a santilli telescope so the story was pretty interesting. s&f

Well maybe the stock is a buy - closed at .20 cents on the 19th- down since the "announcement" - I guess the insiders didn't see the "entities" and decided not to buy. Buy low sell high!

originally posted by: Chickensalad
Without me having to download the pdf, can anyone give me an idea of what these "entities" are...

This seems rather vague, and given the info on the link it seems like a ploy to reel in investors...
Call me a skeptic, I guess but, I'm truly hoping for something to feed the imagination.

The theory is that anti-matter gives off anti-photons. These anti-photons would then refract in the opposite direction of regular photons. Therefore by modifying the lenses in a telescope to compensate for this and to focus the light onto the focal point of the telescope. This then allows the observer to see the anti-matter objects. Of course, these anti-photons also reduce the amount of light seen by the observer, so they appear black.

originally posted by: Danowski

originally posted by: Unity_99
a reply to: Danowski

Some of this reminds me of Dorothy Izzat's videos, and she could even borrow the documentary teams camera's and have the same thing happen.

This is for real.

Think many people should start experimenting with creating their own lenses however, because aside from full spectrum and infared, it would be nice to be able to have this on a digital camera in video mode, not just shapshot.

www.diyphotography.net...

Build our own lenses.

You seem to have knowledge about this topic, if you can provide an accurate tutorial I would be happy to build one and test it out.

Feel free to send me an instant message so we can talk about equipment, the right lens and what not

Oh, by the way, there are 3 heads hidden in the second picture I posted, wo can find them?

Count me in I'm definitely interested in trying this out. If we could track down the patent for this it would help alot with getting a similar set up too.

Black Streaks, huh? Santilli could have been checking his underwear for all we know.

Smells stinky to me.

Let me guess, his next invention will be these sunglasses with the concave lense-



Or, maybe an Optigrab attachment.

No visual discriptions or video footage? I'm sure this will be swept under the rug along with all the other compelling fringe discoveries.

a reply to: Gh0stwalker

In the link, there is a pdf with pictures and video interviews. Alot like some of Dorothy Issat's videos.

originally posted by: dennisarends
Not a completely true statement, what we would see would be the absence of light (darkness) seen against a background (the sky in this case with atmosphere between observer and object also adding colorization to the final received image, and two things are always needed for comparison and separation), like we do see in the original provided pictures...

Other than the fact you just agreed with me after saying you didn't, it's still totally true.

Being a color that a human can't see doesn't render invisible. An opaque object colored "bleem" is still opaque. An object radiating light that's colored "bleem" is still going to be opaque. If it's not radiating or reflecting light in the visible spectrum, that object's going to look black. The end. For some reason, ATS is chock full of people that think it will suddenly become invisible. For some reason, the concept that they are radiating away in near IR, which is not on the visible spectrum, and haven't become transparent themselves eludes them.

I think light and its velocity is not well understood by science anyways, if we could slow down all incoming light enough...

Um, about that. UV doesn't move faster than visible light. Maybe some of that science would help you here.

and if they filmed "something" in space, it is backlit...

Nothing in space reflects light? How DOES that Moon work. Hm. It is a mystery.

Is the OP a joke? I would like to see the explanation of how light can be different in a way that would make it only perceivable through a concave piece of glass. Does the OP realize that most camera lenses contain both concave and convex lenses? What aspect of the light makes it different?

originally posted by: stormcell
The theory is that anti-matter gives off anti-photons. These anti-photons would then refract in the opposite direction of regular photons. Therefore by modifying the lenses in a telescope to compensate for this and to focus the light onto the focal point of the telescope. This then allows the observer to see the anti-matter objects. Of course, these anti-photons also reduce the amount of light seen by the observer, so they appear black.

Yah, that's the turbo encabulator part.

If I see you, I'm doing so by reflected light. Not because you're glowing with photons. Because you're reflecting them. So, somehow he'd have to also postulate that anti-matter objects don't reflect 'real' light, or have a refractive index, because either way, they'd be visible. Emission of "anti-light" wouldn't render invisible otherwise.

And photons are their own anti-particle. So there isn't a distinct "anti photon".

And he also says that anti-photons are a carrier for anti-energy. Which is also bull#. Anti-particles don't absorb energy, like some absurd Spock universe bizarro world thing. He also is pretty confused about how CCD imagers work. I'll put it this way - his putative anti-photon would have to create electrons for his supposed anti-photoelectric reaction to work.

originally posted by: ArJunaBug
Is the OP a joke? I would like to see the explanation of how light can be different in a way that would make it only perceivable through a concave piece of glass. Does the OP realize that most camera lenses contain both concave and convex lenses? What aspect of the light makes it different?

He thinks anti-matter objects emit anti-light which refracts backwards. Or at least that's what he's selling. It probably sounds great if you don't know much about physics.

UH...

Have any of you guys been to this company's website? I'm not very impressed. They sell what appear to be hobby telescopes, and some kind of pipe-bomb looking "nuclear" thing that looks like it was made from spare parts.

www.thunder-energies.com...

The guy behind "Thunder Energies" Ruggero Santilli, has a reputation as a con man with an antisemitic twist. Apparently he pays to have his "studies" published.

He has complained that papers he has submitted to peer-reviewed American Physical Society journals were rejected because they were controlled by a group of Jewish physicists led by Steven Weinberg

This dude

Not very credible. I'd chuck this out out as pseduo-science unless some heavyweights confirm his findings.

So after going back and reading this thread and more about the guy and his company...

Apparently I can just make up whatever the hell I want, as long as it sounds "science-ish" and throw together a halfway believable website and people will give me money? Is that it?

So...as long as something sounds super complicated and over their heads it has to be true because I sound smarter and therefore must be? And since I have a website, I must be the real deal?

*scratches head*

I'm in the wrong business my friends, as I have a pretty awesome imagination!

a reply to: MystikMushroom

You need to change day jobs.. for sure.

Or throw in the word "god" and "chosen one" a few thousand times,
and before long you will get small compounds of people giving you
all their money, cutting off their genitals, shaving their heads,
and drinking poisoned cook-aid.

Kev

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
So after going back and reading this thread and more about the guy and his company...

Apparently I can just make up whatever the hell I want, as long as it sounds "science-ish" and throw together a halfway believable website and people will give me money? Is that it?

So...as long as something sounds super complicated and over their heads it has to be true because I sound smarter and therefore must be? And since I have a website, I must be the real deal?

*scratches head*

I'm in the wrong business my friends, as I have a pretty awesome imagination!

I came to the same conclusion a few months back. Working on a business idea now. I get the algorithm properly predicting weather behavior at least half the time, it's retirement city.

Also...I think this guy is one of those people they dig up when they need "a scientist" to agree to crazy crap. For some reason, I'm associating him with the "nuclear weapon detonation in the middle East" folks.

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: MystikMushroom

You need to change day jobs.. for sure.

Or throw in the word "god" and "chosen one" a few thousand times,
and before long you will get small compounds of people giving you
all their money, cutting off their genitals, shaving their heads,
and drinking poisoned cook-aid.

Kev

Ah, thanks KPB!

They say you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, so just telling people a truth that enables them might be an even better option.

The trick is finding some appealing truth that they want to hear...

But I was just thinking about your plasma entities when I heard about this. I doubt his concave telescope could see something like that. It's not really anything more than some mirrors being made differently.

I've looked at this Santilli guy before and all I've got to say about this is ......

I told you so, have fun with that one, oh and by the way testing on the new gene has been in effect for some time now. Taking of people, mutilations are only tests that need to be done to enhance brain function and a NEW people. Have fun with that one.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ArJunaBug
Is the OP a joke? I would like to see the explanation of how light can be different in a way that would make it only perceivable through a concave piece of glass. Does the OP realize that most camera lenses contain both concave and convex lenses? What aspect of the light makes it different?

He thinks anti-matter objects emit anti-light which refracts backwards. Or at least that's what he's selling. It probably sounds great if you don't know much about physics.

hey bedlam.

so you're saying that anti photons aren't real!?! (crumples up piece of paper and chucks it in the trash, mutters to himself 'there goes that idea, now how am I going to take over the world?!?")


...say how much experience do you have working around EM? I'm thinking I can learn a lot from you.

Yeah Blaine, let's go buy some telescopes, Rhino Line them and re-sell them as special spectral UFO-hunting scopes!



I'm telling you, we could make a mint!