Santilli telescope detects invisible entities - a different view

www.time-loops.net...

In 2016, Dr. Santilli published a report on his search for antimatter galaxies describing how his team detected invisible entities above sensitive installations.

Mainstream science and postamp consensus stays away from anything that points at invisibility, UFOs or extraterrestrials and it is no surprise that Skeptics had a field day. Although publicly governments have always denied any interest in UFOs, the Pentagon funded special projects investigating these subjects since the fifties.

there are synchronicities between the events surrounding the Santilli telescope and the Galileo telescope. It took the Roman Catholic Church over 350 years to accept the truth and issue an apology. We now all know, understand and accept that the Galileo episode was a heavy mistake from the established order. That same mistake is about to be repeated involving the Santilli telescope.

a reply to: OhGoOn

Quoting from your source:

Dr. Ruggero Santilli is a recognized Italian American scientist. He received numerous rewards for his scientific work including nominations for the Nobel Prize in both chemistry and Physics.

LMAO. Recognized for what? Writing conspiracy books and suing his critics?

Which rewards did he receive? When exactly was he a Nobel Prize nominee?

The Nomination Database certainly doesn't list him: www.nobelprize.org.../

Must be another conspiracy I guess.

a reply to: OhGoOn

Let me make something clear.

Comparing ANY modern organisation which has any bearing on this matter, to the Roman Catholic Church, is absolutely absurd. For a start, the people who routinely come to criticise people like Dr. Santilli, tend to be scientists in and of themselves, not religious representatives whose monopoly on what does and does not constitute truth, is necessary for the existence of their power over the masses.

Also, science does not have a mainstream and a fringe. It is one whole thing, not two, nor three. You either have science, which by definition relies on peer review, independently repeatable results to confirm initial tests, checks, balances, and the like, or you have pseudoscience, which is like science, but with all the checks and balances ignored, all the things that lend a theory or observation weight, utterly removed from the process, therefore is little more reliable than a chocolate teapot.

As for the telescope, he cannot prove that the item works as he claims, and if it worked the way he said, he would be able to prove it. I have no doubt that if other scientists were able to examine his claims and device in detail, they would show him to be the charlatan that he has been shown up as before.

The fact that, as moebius stated previously, none of his nominations for awards, or any of the recognition he has allegedly received, is documented in any of the places it would be, if it existed at all, is another dead giveaway... Santilli is bogus, and so is his scope.

a reply to: OhGoOn


Can you help me understand why (allegedly) antimatter "emits" light? What's the reason behind these energy emissions?

a reply to: OhGoOn



how come he has never been independently corroborated by peers?

a reply to: OhGoOn

How can light have a negative refraction?

Edit: Nevermind, i take it its to do with electromagnetic waves interacting with a hypothetical material/metamaterial.

a reply to: OhGoOn


Has anyone else ever built one of these Bino/Telescopes and made any observations?

Science is the new religion. Denial and burrying all "anomalies" that don't fit the doctrine is the same as burning witches.
Science should be open minded. If I'm unable to measure if there's someone behind the wall it doesn't mean there's nothing. It means that I'm a noob without tools.

a reply to: KiwiNite


That is what I am saying why doesn't someone build a santilli and test his claims, that is science

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: KiwiNite
That is what I am saying why doesn't someone build a santilli and test his claims, that is science

Go ahead. Why don't you?

a reply to: Blue Shift


can't find how to build one or I would, I personally think he is just seeing a different type of lens flare once he flips his lenses.

originally posted by: KiwiNite
Science is the new religion. Denial and burrying all "anomalies" that don't fit the doctrine is the same as burning witches.
Science should be open minded. If I'm unable to measure if there's someone behind the wall it doesn't mean there's nothing. It means that I'm a noob without tools.

Science differes from religion in that something is not considered a scientific theory until there is evidence that supports it.

That doesn't mean that science automatically will dismiss an idea that doesn't come with any evidence as being "impossible".

That is to say, (using your example) science does NOT say "It is impossible for someone to be behind the wall if it can't be measured"; science would only say that "there is no known evidence that anyone is there behind the wall". Those are two very different things.

Science would say that it is still possible that someone could be behind the wall, but there is simply no evidence to support it.

That differs from religion in that religion would say "I have no measurable evidence that someone is behind the wall, but I have faith that someone is in fact there". Science would never accept that statement

a reply to: KiwiNite

Science and technology are the primary reason you are able to communicate in the manner you are doing.

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about our universe.

Science is the only tool in our arsenal that stands a chance of answering some of the larger questions humanity has posed.

Without such humanity could not exist in its present condition.

Just a thought.

This thread is under review by staff

OP, you need to contact staff. Please click here,

Thread closed

Thread re-opened after review.

Happy posting.

TheRedneck
ATS Forum Moderator/Member

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

There are 3 parallel discussions needed

Repeat the observations
Peer review and confirmation of the theory
Credibility of the messenger

Any information needs to stand on its own. Santilli is just a messenger giving pointers. Others can then pick it up and do something with it.

Repeat the observations
No-one uses telescopes with the specs suggested as there was no supporting theory that there would be anything to see and you cannot use these telescopes for anything else. It may take years before a second observation.

Peer review and confirmation of the theory
Can take even longer and needs to go through the proper channels. This could speed up if there are new observations.

The credibility discussion of the messenger (Santilli)
Needs to be in parallel with the other discussions, not instead of. Putting all eyes on credibility affects any other discussions and can block any progress, which could be the aim.