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

One thing I've never seen asked or mentioned.

All of these objects that levitate upwards.... how come we never see them floating after it? Is it because it;s too hard to catch this on film, or is it because they merely hit the floor(roof) and bounce around like any normal object would?

Why do we only ever see the 'lift off' and never any more?

The interference caused by moving the camera would disrupt the antigravitic field.

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

Originally posted by Freezer
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

Nice logic there. So I guess if I can fake an image of the sun, that means the sun must be a hoax right?

People that make these videos to purposely discredit Hutchison are the real frauds.

Non sequitur.

If you were claiming to HAVE a sun and showed a video of a sun in your fridge, and someone created a video in order to show how you may have created yours, then you have something. You don't get to negate known things that are not in question, by use of a video re-creating the effect.

Hutchison is claiming to have AG technology. None of his videos show anything that cannot be done by trick and angle. That is something you can test and debunk by using similar tricks. Unless he can do this live and with an audience that is allowed to observe unhindered - it's bunk imo.

One of his videos (and this is the only time I've ever seen people claim it's not a hutchison video and then say it's still a possible real effect? lol) shows a blatant mistake where he shows the string - corrects the camera when he realises it, and then continues to jiggle the object. If thats AG for you, it will be good in a tumble dryer at the circus.

Why would e go to all this effort? Because thats what these people get off on.

Why isn't he working in Hollywood? Because he's not that good at it.

reply to post by Phage


Ahh I hadn't thought of that. The aperture-disruption effect.

You are right, good sir !

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

This supposed video of a string shows me nothing.

Firstly, the gentleman in the OP is not even referenced in the video.

As a matter of fact....
The video is totally silent, and the setting simply looks as if it could be his lab.

I could have made that video for all anyone knows.

Until I see some smoking gun that this guy is wrong, then all of your allusions to magic are summed up in the video that YOU have posted trying to debunk this guy.

This video shows me NOTHING that debunks the OP.

Anyone who is watching, and also possesses critical thinking skills, should see right through this very poorly "debunked" charade; however,

Charges of fakery
A "levitating" toy UFO. A line, said by critics to be string supporting the model, can be seen moving with the UFO at the top left of the screen.

One set of videos posted to an antigravity website (and later taken down) shows closeups of a toy UFO bouncing around, and then shots of the toy gyrating wildly in the air. When it was pointed out that the movement of the toy was consistent with being supported by a string, and a moving wire or string could be seen in the video, Hutchison claimed it was a power supply:[9]

The string is not string but #32-gauge double polythermalized wire on a takeup up reel with 20 to 50000 volts DC. The main apparatus was turned on, causing the toy plastic ufo to fly all about in amazing gyrations. This was a pretest to Gryphon Productions airing this fall for fox TV. I did not need the extra high voltage 2000 time period so the toy levitated without a high voltage hook up during the filming for Gryphon there was a string on the toy no high-voltage dc but interesting movements.
—John Hutchison, quoted at the American Antigravity website

Hutchison later admitted to being "creative" with the footage, citing pressure from the Discovery Channel to create material for the show and an inability to legally reproduce the original effect, according to Tim Ventura of American Antigravity.[10]
Image of ice cream "levitating" from a cup, from a documentary investigating the effect.

In 2005, Hutchison admitted that he hadn't actually reproduced his effect since approximately 1991, though he says the earlier levitation footage from the 1980s is genuine. These videos show objects suddenly flying upwards and never coming back down, and are consistent with objects falling from an upside-down stage filmed with an upside-down video camera.[11]

Link


There is no doubt that this video is one of Huthisons videos.

reply to post by Ha`la`tha


Thank you for the reply.

I am very grateful when someone can understand what I am saying and NOT take it personally, and simply give me at least something with a much higher degree of validity to it than this silent video that tells me nothing on its own.

I like a good debate, and I like it when someone proves me wrong, because I can learn from it...

But I have not once had anyone call me out for an ad hominem attack since joining, but yet I constantly am on the receiving end of these personal slights.

I will neither refute nor accept any what has been proposed, from either side of this debate, until I can repeat the experiment that I discussed in an earlier comment.

Until then, I will simply state that "I do not know" if this is possible.

Calling out faulty logic is part of what is done here at ATS.
It is not personal and no arrogance is involved.
This is how the game works and it would help to have thick skin.

Thank you. SERIOUSLY, thank you for giving me something with a little more credibility than a silent video.




[edit on 3/18/2010 by Josephus23]

[edit on 3/18/2010 by Josephus23]

reply to post by Phage


Good point Phage,

And I was actually thinking about your comments as I was driving home.

I am working on a thread that will discuss things that I have seen happening here lately regarding ad hominems, and even though you and I may appear like we are on opposite sides most times, I think that we both are here to deny ignorance.

I see lots of "tin foil hat" types on these boards constantly berate you personally for pointing to their flaws or offering alternate explanations that appear much more rational than what they are offering, and the personal attacks on you are ridiculous.

I will send you a U2U when I finish the thread because I will basically discuss the ins and outs of how to validate or invalidate a hypothesis, and I will reference you as someone who, although I do not agree with all the time, receives much of the same types of personal attacks that I have received.

Cheers.

reply to post by Josephus23

Uh oh.
I was being sarcastic. I hope you didn't miss that.

I actually believe that Hutchinson is a fraud. I think he does not follow the objects with the camera because it would spoil the illusion.

FYI i dont believe anything i see coming from youtube and the likes how about a video service ATS? that way we can get at the source

reply to post by Phage


I was actually replying to the
"That's my story and I am sticking to it part"

I should have put some kind of a winking-smiley face after it, but I am trying to get away from that kind of thing.

I caught the sarcasm in that part of your comment.

I didn't really pay attention to the camera and the anti-gravitational field part.


[edit on 3/19/2010 by Josephus23]

[edit on 3/19/2010 by Josephus23]

Has anyone seen his you-tube channel?

www.youtube.com...

3189 video uploads, all of them a waste of time, and he seems to have some fascination w Paris Hilton. Strange guy...

reply to post by Josephus23


I'm possibly one of the people who, in another thread, would have been on the negative side you mention here, not because I want to come across that way intentionally, but because often people do not want to hear anything other than support for their beliefs and opinions. And that irks me, when in the face of facts that should at least give someone cause to think, some people choose to ignore it and rally on garnering support.

I didn't get that impression from you; your stance is one of objective curiosity. You didn't appear to want a congratulatory pat on the back for having said the video has not shown Huthison involvement and therefor disproves the allegation of Hoax, as itself a Hoax.

I think ATS needs more of that level minded logic. Before I joined I'd lurked here for many years. And at one time, I felt it had more of that..

I tried to provide a link that had support cited in the quotes, as I know wiki can often be considered flimsy - the citations however, provide more substantial support.

Personally, I believe Huthison a complete fraud. The Billy Meier of gravity hoaxes. I can offer only my opinions on that, and certainly would not expect people to believe my opinion is the truth.... But sometimes, the other side of the fence does just that... And I really need to learn how to ease my fervor when that happens.. Mod U2U's always worry me..

Originally posted by razor1000
FYI i dont believe anything i see coming from youtube and the likes how about a video service ATS? that way we can get at the source

Are you asking for a video service from ATS?

But....

media.abovetopsecret.com...

?? I must have misread your post.. Oo

reply to post by evil incarnate


Oh come on E.I.!

At least admit what you were alluding to.

If you have an opinion or theory, why on earth would you deny it when someone challenges you on it?

Defeats the whole point of posting the links to fraud related websites, doesn't it?

If you feel something is black or white, and type a post to that effect, why claim you said grey?

There's nothing wrong with holding a point of view mate.

reply to post by softbeard


There is nothing 'magic' about piezoelectric potential softbeard.

Crystals have been known to have the ability to generate electric potential for a long time now. Advances in this area are ongoing.

Seeing how crystals and minerals form the basis for these 'crystal' batteries, it's logical to assume some type of unknown piezoelectric effect may be in operation in J.H.'s 'Crystal batteries'.

reply to post by Pipebomb24875


Many historical figures classified as genius could be thought of as not only being a 'strange guy' (or girl), but absolutely out to lunch..nevertheless, eccentricity does not preclude genius or discovery does it?

Personally, as far as J.H. goes, i prefer to maintain an open mind, until i witness absolutes for or against his discoveries. To do anything else, is frankly unscientific.

In other words, i am not convinced either way.

I do feel it is necessary that a properly funded, independently evaluated and thoroughly rigorous examination of his claims of discovery is absolutely required. Obviously, this will go a long way to settling the issues of authenticity and to clarify exactly what, if anything, is occurring.

Character assassinations an personal attacks on J.H. and others of his ilk, will never get to the bottom of a disputed issue. It does, however persuade others to join the 'pitchfork' mob and echo the assassination rhetoric.

This is never going to help prove or disprove whether or not a genuine effect is happening on a scientific basis. Unless of course obfuscation of the claimed effect is the intent, then it's a perfectly understandable psychological tactic.

Not a very nice way to carry on either.

[edit on 19/3/2010 by spikey]

Reply to post by 'Spikey'

Electric potential and power are two seperate things. Sure you can have a mix of crystals generate electric potential, but that won't spin a motor indefinitely. That potential you see on the voltmeter will drop to zero as soon as you hook up your crystals to the motor. That's because your crystals can't provide any significant current at that potential voltage.
Something that can is called a battery. And ithat's got consumables inside.
Anyhow, 'piezoelectric' refers to crystals that generate electric potential voltage when they are mechanically stressed. Like quartz. That's how piezoelectric lighters work. Bang the crystal and you get a spark.

I don't think most of the criticisms of J.H. here are character assasinations. They are mostly reactions to poor, or obviously bogus attempts at providing evidence of supposedly extraordinary events and effects.

[edit on 19-3-2010 by softbeard]

reply to post by softbeard


Here you go softbeard, a link for you.

It's a Wiki on piezoelectricity, i'd type it up for you, but i'm tired and frankly the amount of pedanticism regarding terminology in these areas bores me to tears.

To be honest, i know about the piezoelectric effect, being a smoker and having owned piezoelectric lighters more than once in my lifetime. And having been sent experimental flat plate strips to play around with previously, but thanks for sharing your knowledge all the same.

I hope you don't mind the link and a quick and dirty cut 'n' paste job.

en.wikipedia.org...

Piezoelectricity is the ability of some materials (notably crystals and certain ceramics, including bone) to generate an electric field or electric potential[1] in response to applied mechanical stress. The effect is closely related to a change of polarization density within the material's volume. If the material is not short-circuited, the applied stress induces a voltage across the material. The word is derived from the Greek piezo or piezein, which means to squeeze or press. The piezoelectric effect is reversible in that materials exhibiting the direct piezoelectric effect (the production of an electric potential when stress is applied) also exhibit the reverse piezoelectric effect (the production of stress and/or strain when an electric field is applied). For example, lead zirconate titanate crystals will exhibit a maximum shape change of about 0.1% of the original dimension.

So, pretty much what i said. Piezoelectric crystals and other materials exhibiting the same or similar piezoelectric effect, which as stated above means they produce an electric potential under certain conditions.

Although J.H.'s crystal batteries are not apparently being flexed or stressed in the classic sense, the may be generating or producing an electric potential closely related to the piezoelectric effect, which is obviously widely known.

Do i know this for sure? Or even if J.H.'s batteries even work? Nope, that's why i said 'may'. If i knew these things worked and could produce more than 0.5ma or whatever, i'd make a few hundred to power my home.

Having said that, my personal view is that speculation is something to be encouraged, not the reverse.

Calling someone, anyone - not just J.H. an out and out fraud without hard evidence, criticising his manner, or his demeanour, even his funky hairstyle, repeatedly as has been evidenced in this thread by certain posters, is i'm afraid, a character assassination.

Saying "J.H. is a fraud and a trickster" is not a judgement, it is a statement. Without proof of an intention to defraud, this is not only character assassination, but may even be illegal in some areas, as it is slander. (although civil rather than criminal, i believe) If however it was said that " I think J.H. may be a fraud" Or "In my opinion, i feel J.H. is a fraud", then that would be a judgement, and not slanderous or a character assassination.



[edit on 19/3/2010 by spikey]

[edit on 19/3/2010 by spikey]

Hey I know John Hutchison!I was wondering when they were going to make a thread about him!

reply to post by Gentill Abdulla


Really?

Interesting. How well do you know him - if you don't mind me asking.