A personal look at the Hutchison Radiation Remediation

[Soloma]

Not sure Rose, it reads a/b/g particles. It was the one I dug up that was being made in a town close to me. They offered the 200cpm vaseline glass beads that Nancy said was too low of a count. I recall the unit had software for computers, actually you could track your results online, I think.

Yes, mobile would be nice too since the unit is mobile. Lots to discuss...

[wags]

.... Take nothing on its looks. take everything on evidence. ...Theres no better rule...

.... The only predetermined protocol is the scientific method when considering a scientific claim ....

.... Could I be wrong? Yes but so can you

Liberally excerpted from you, Wags.

Will you - can you - explain Leedskalnin “work” ? Gariaev’s DNA “sound” resuscitation of seeds ? Lakhovsky’s “cosmic rays harnessing” ? the Chinese Space Seeds Program ? the Russian Data Elis resonance machines effects ? Ebner & Schürch’s Electrostatic Field effects ? Wheeler and Feynman’s “replenished” electrons ? my Jacaranda’s revival, btw ?

All these HAVE PROVEN EVIDENCES going for them! Not just “looks” !

And NONE have “scientific methods” to explain them.

How do you (can you ?) explain physicist after physicist (several Nobel laureates among them) saying – explicitly – that “scientific” methods are insufficient and even misleading, being short of answers and explanations, BECAUSE science has not yet come to grips with the simple FACT that there are Effects that it cannot understand … but only “REGISTER” they exist ?

All this to say
To reject something because it doesn’t conform to the “scientific methods” way of doing things – in the face of all these UNEXPLAINED BUT REGISTRED FACTS BY SCIENCE – is to accept a “predetermined” path to ongoing ignorance.

I will not accept it and am therefore willing to thread outside that mainstream methodology, with no preconceived ideas, following others – many others – footsteps before my own.

Yes, I can be wrong.
But so can you, as your Positive mind admits – has had to admit, and I'll grant you that lucidity - about yourself.

The more you push, the more you teach me – and others – to pursue in a more exigent manner an ever growing search that disproves your monolithic, insufficient and increasingly wrong knowledge.


Thank you for making me do it, for I will sail with pirates - if needed be, which has not yet been the case - to try and understand, ot at least make sense, of this stuff.

Just following my "Geometry".

Do you have one ?
Or can you "cope" with one ?

A lot to process here LuisP

On the details of the list of claims, it is not relevant to what I am discussing. Science has a method and there are no short cuts. Cannot claim it to be science if it does not conform to the method. The 13 rules are a guide to ensuring that one does conform.

I am not attached to any attached to any theory, that is dangerous as it means you stop being objective.

The rejection is that it is science not that the claim itself is. That is a subtle difference but I think one you may have missed. The Lazaryan harmonics claim is NOT science, the onus is on the claimant to prove not for others to disprove. I am technically agnostic (IE probability is exceptionally low based on the indirect evidence and 13 rules, but not directly disproved).

If it cannot be replicated etc then it is nothing but a meta physical discussion as to how the Universe works but hardly a factual. I have such ideas (for example Dark Matter = Mass that has not unfolded into 3D and Dark Energy is the force that is generated by mass unfolding.) but this is wildly speculative and not scientific.

I am however minded to consider that the Hutchisons' offer a false dawn and a waste of time. If you are interested in that area look elsewhere, to much sifting required to establish any value. After 950+ attempts Nancy singularly failed to provide even the basic level of information, the problem is not an absence of a central storage point for data etc but a lack of will to share and be prepared to engage in real scientific or engineering issues.

It is of course my opinion which is subject to change if the underlying available data changes.

[LuisP]

I beg to differ, Wags.
I do not wish to lead this conversation into extremely challenging thought processes, and that is why I will not address your ready “irrelevance” given to very evident “related” issues within present discussion.

But it stays to note your unwillingness, and having instead preferred to sidetrack your reasoning towards Semantics and Dialectics – “The rejection is that it is science, not that the claim itself is”.

Beautiful, very intelligent argument (reason why I’m begging to differ, in fact).

But it is a sterile argument.

For, all things pondered, what is here at stake are FUNCTIONAL ANSWERS and not mere conformity to a labeling process within a certified tool system to achieve them.

Meaning, if reached outside of that process and without recourse to its certified tools, they are irrelevant and should be discarded for then they are nothing more than “metaphysical” discussions ?

I beg, strongly, to differ.

More,
How can you wish to seriously try and understand these things if, at its onset, you immediately assume your Agnosticism ?

It is all very nice and perhaps “educated” to say that Truth is unknowable given human inability to either prove or disprove it.

Just be aware that to bring that self amputation into this discussion - “I am technically agnostic” – you are condemning yourself to stay inside the tautology realm Heisenberg warned about : “a circle has no right angles”, “a triangle has 3 corners” and so on a so forth into ever more complicated other such very scientifically achieved discoveries using the proper tools to do it.

Nothing less, and nothing ever more.

I wish to say to you that the Agnostic approach is “a choice of comfort, pride, dominion, and utility over truth, and is opposed by the following attitudes - the keenest self-criticism, humble listening to the whole of existence, and the persistent patience and self-correction of the scientific method.”

The fact that those words were said by Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, former Pope Benedict XVI, when talking about God, are also very adequate (even more so !) to remember when one is addressing these “small mysteries of science”.

If “underlying available data changes”, it will never happen because of you, Wags.

But in spite of you.

[wags]

I think you might be being deliberately obtuse about my post. I have not discouraged the collation of data or conversation of new thought. I may not think my pal will never make a spaceship, but I still might help attempt to do it! All quality results are equally valid. It appears to me that way of doing things is absent in all the JH work. What does not work is as important as what does not.

If you want to follow conjurors and illusionists carry on, but it is not science it is entertainment.

[Mikado14]

What does not work is as important as what does not.

???? Do you mean "What does not work is as important as what does."

If that is what you mean, I concur wholeheartedly for no experiment is a failure for it teaches what either works or not and all points in between. The failure lies with the person doing it for they fail to learn from it.

Mikado

(my two coents)

[wags]

What does not work is as important as what does not.

???? Do you mean "What does not work is as important as what does."

If that is what you mean, I concur wholeheartedly for no experiment is a failure for it teaches what either works or not and all points in between. The failure lies with the person doing it for they fail to learn from it.

Mikado

(my two coents)

Yes that is correct. Thanks

[re-rose]

Will you - can you - explain Leedskalnin “work” ? Gariaev’s DNA “sound” resuscitation of seeds ? Lakhovsky’s “cosmic rays harnessing” ? the Chinese Space Seeds Program ? the Russian Data Elis resonance machines effects ? Ebner & Schürch’s Electrostatic Field effects ? Wheeler and Feynman’s “replenished” electrons ? my Jacaranda’s revival, btw ?

I can't. But then no one here is trying to be of help to any of them, either. Well, except for you and your tree, but you know what I mean.

rose

[Nancy_Hutchison]

Will you - can you - explain Leedskalnin “work” ? Gariaev’s DNA “sound” resuscitation of seeds ? Lakhovsky’s “cosmic rays harnessing” ? the Chinese Space Seeds Program ? the Russian Data Elis resonance machines effects ? Ebner & Schürch’s Electrostatic Field effects ? Wheeler and Feynman’s “replenished” electrons ? my Jacaranda’s revival, btw ?

I can't. But then no one here is trying to be of help to any of them, either. Well, except for you and your tree, but you know what I mean.

rose

The tree understands what we are doing far more than anyone of this forum.
Really cool stuff happening with the trees.
Luis has the pics. So do "scientists" that are working with the mobile unit.

Attached is a pic of the shore pine tree in our yard. Flowers. Spikey flowers. Lots of spikey flowers and hundreds of new pine cones.
About 6 to 8 inches of new growth.
Happened in less than a day.

I would tell you what we did just prior to this happening. But, you would not believe me.

Nancy

[Nancy_Hutchison]

here is a close up

[Mikado14]

Wish you had a before and after photo. However, just tell us and let the discussion flow.

Mikado