Cutting through the BS

[wags]

RE:The title of this thread.

Now that you are months into deployment do you have multiple instances where your process has demonstrably reduced background count?

FB.

Pointless asking her FB. She does not indulge in empirical proof. In any case she is not JH that makes it impossible to get any meaningful dialogue on the Science / Tech. In a very real sense it is another example of someone posting 'on behalf of...' , that means going round and round in ever decreasing circles. Nancy cannot answer the tech stuff but she is great box office for the 'esoteric'.

Wags

[LuisP]

That's a load of BS, Wags.

She has answered.
In her own way.
Not in yours.

Thing is, she has something to SAY !


Do you ?

[wags]

That's a load of BS, Wags.

She has answered.
In her own way.
Not in yours.

Thing is, she has something to SAY !
Do you ?

Thanks, I may get back to on that.

[LuisP]

Please, do so.

And when you do "get back", don't bring any BS with you.

Enough, already.

[Fruitbat]

We all have something to say Luis, the whole point of this thread (according to it's title) is to cut through the BS.

I took the opportunity implicit in the the nature of this thread to ask of NH a straightforwards and simple question.
Metaphorically speaking I stuck my hand into Nancy's Bucket my fingers cleaving though the material in that bucket.

I found nothing of value, so now I shall go and wash my hands of that interaction...

To quote Luis; "Enough, already!"

FB.

[LuisP]

FB
If you are expecting to find a bulb or an accumulator or a valve or whatever – and you did not – allright then, for you to say “I didn’t find anything” and go wash your hands.

Thing is,
Who gave you the RIGHT to say that is WHAT should be found ?

Are you “The Engineer” ?
No ?
So accept your inability, your shortcomings, your ignorance …. and do not throw stones !

To some of us – me, surely ! - there is much more involved here than mere diagrams and spare parts.

Or have YOU not understood That, yet ?

I’ve tried, God knows I’ve tried, to present a case that may merit – at the very least - YOUR “reasonable doubt” towards so many, many !, unexplainable things – but that EXIST – by simple “scientific methods” of analysis.

Instead of SEEING this, presented not by me but by all those guys that have gone places where you don’t even have the least IDEA they exist, you keep chained to your “straightforward and very simple” questions !

Why ?
What are you afraid of, or better said, what are trying to PROVE ? that you know what you know and what we are talking about here doesn’t fit inside it ?

We already KNOW that, FB !
That is why some – I, at least – are here.

Because I’m talking, and trying to figure out, what I DON’T KNOW !

With no preconceived notions.
Much less, with stones in my hands.

Is it that so difficult to accept ? and to act accordingly ?
Wash your hands, go ahead. It is a known way of evading responsibilities. And while at it, wash your mouth too !

For ashes surely fill it.
All you can taste, isn’t it ?

[FM No Static At All]

In reading many of the things that have been said by and about John Hutchinson, I find that his tinkering has led him some phenomena that is not easy to explain even by a well seasoned engineer and may be perplexing to a doctorate degree-holding physicist. To hold the gentleman's wife to an even higher standard is just plain disrespectful. The lady is doing what she can to explain things and instead of making snide remarks and innuendos, it serves the highest good to ask pertinent questions that can be answered by someone who does not possess such lofty degrees.

TTB made two important statements regarding what has come to be called the Beifeld-Brown Effect. One is that it is 'a departure from Coulomb's Law' and the other a 'heretofore unknown electrokinetic phenomenon' the latter which can be found in Patent No. 2,949,550 Electrokinetic apparatus.


http://reality101blog.blogspot.com/2010 ... chive.html

Since both he and John Hutchinson were both experimenting and observing such phenomena that cannot be explained by known physical law, it stands to reason that no one will be capable of doing so until more experimental data is collected and analyzed. Then we may have some mathematics that can be used to form a theoretical understanding that can be engineered into a practical application.

I gave references to data that is readily available to those wishing to seek knowledge. Some of the authors have been read/studied by others who have invested their money and time into creating experiments to test these hypotheses and theories with varying levels of success (or failure) and they have only published enough data to whet one's appetite for more. I do not suspect any of them will be too forth coming until they can (legally) secure their works through copyright or patent(s).

And while I am here and being critical of several critics, I'd also point the poor use of the English language, especially the misuse of the words, "to" and "too".

If you mean 'also' then the proper word is 'too' not 'to' since the latter is indicative of the direction, and in going 'to' the movies and and taking someone else 'too'!

It is difficult enough to try and understand the gibberish without first having to correct the words to give them their proper context and meaning.

So as the title says, let's cut through the BS instead bringing it here to regurgitate. If you are so concerned what others say on other forums, may I suggest you go lodge your objectives over at those places instead of here. Moving on from the BS to serious discussion is easy of you have anything serious to discuss.

Based on what I have been reading here, there are very few who are interested in discussing due diligence of a scientific claim.

[re-rose]

And while I am here and being critical of several critics,

You go, Fred!

I like to think those inventors you mention are all busy building behind the scenes....

Given the title of the thread, and at the risk of being accused of something or another, for the equine reference, I am reminded of the punchline of the old joke...there's got to be a pony in here somewhere.

But if there is, it surely hasn't revealed itself yet.

rose

[LuisP]

Very lucid and to the point, Fred.

And helpful, most of all.

Many thanks.

For yes - and if I may collect excerpts from your post - if people accepted Brown's claim about 'heretofore unknown electrokinetic phenomenon' and some even went to the extent and expense of making "experiments to test these hypotheses and theories with varying levels of success (or failure)", not to mention having spent several years discussing among themselves precisely that subject, it is indeed very hard to SEE the kind of behaviour, level of objections and quality of arguments produced when in the face of another such 'heretofore unknown" claim made by another.

Especially when this claimant said he had - "underlying" to some of his work - Brown's own experiments and work !

And even almost Stupefyingly so, when this claimant's wife came here and plainly said she "was willing to discuss" what part of Brown's work was used in present claimant's work.


Meaning,
Are people just plain Stupid, or what ?

[LuisP]

Damn !